Introduction
This article will examine the different transgressions that lead to capital punishment of stoning from the following perspectives:
- Scriptural analysis.
- Details of transgression.
Scriptural Analysis
The Talmud (e.g. Sanhedrin 49a) states that for any transgression which leads to capital punishment, the Torah must provide a verse for the mention of the transgression and a verse for the capital punishment with method of execution. The Talmud labels these verses as the warning and punishment respectively. These verses may be explicit or derived through exegesis as explained in this article.
Details of Transgression
This article will also discuss the details of these transgressions and background information for context. Transgressions directly related to the 10 Commandments are covered in a companion article on this website “Capital Punishment – 10 Commandments” and therefore will be discussed briefly in this article. Another companion article on this web site “Capital Punishment – Theme” discusses the different methods of execution, related transgressions, and underlying theme of transgressions.
Format of Article
Due to the scope of this topic this article only addresses transgressions punishable by stoning. A companion article on this web site, “Capital Punishment – Details – Others” addresses transgressions punishable by the other forms of execution (i.e. burning, beheading, and strangulation). Due to the length of this article, the author placed the 6 appendices cited in the following section of transgressions in a separate article on this web site, “Capital Punishment – Appendices”.
Transgressions
This section will discuss each of these transgressions through scriptural analysis and background information to obtain an understanding of the Torah’s view on this topic.
The following table lists the method of execution, number of transgressions involved, and theme for these transgressions. As seen from the table below, there are 36 transgressions that lead to execution (i.e. 18+10+2+6 =36).
| Method | Number | Theme |
| Stoning | 18 | Fundamentals of Faith |
| Burning | 10 | Forbidden Relations |
| Beheading | 2 | Fundamentals of Faith |
| Strangulation | 6 | Varied |
As seen from the above table, there are more transgressions that lead to stoning than any other form of execution. In fact ½ of the transgressions lead to stoning. The transgressions that lead to stoning encompass most of the 10 Commandments as shown in the following table which lists the commandment number, theme of transgression, number of transgressions related to this theme, and examples of these transgressions.
| Commandment | Theme | Transgressions | Examples |
| 2 | Idolatry | 7 | Moloch |
| 3 | Vain use of name of Hashem | 1 | Blasphemy |
| 4 | Sabbath | 1 | Violation of Sabbath |
| 5 | Honour Parents | 2 | Curse Parents |
| 7 | Forbidden Relations | 7 | Adultery of Betrothed |
Idolatry and Occult Practices
As seen from the table, there are 7 transgressions that involve idolatry or occult practices that are punishable by stoning (i.e. idolatry, Moloch, Ov, Yidoni, enticer of individual to idolatry, enticers of city to idolatry, and sorcerer).
The following table lists the transgressions and verses for prohibition and capital punishment.
| Transgression | Prohibition | Capital Punishment |
| Idolatry | Exodus 20:3 and 5 | Deuteronomy 17:3 and 5 |
| Moloch | Leviticus 18:20 | Leviticus 20:2 |
| Ov | Leviticus 19:31 | Leviticus 20:27 |
| Yidoni | Leviticus 19:31 | Leviticus 20:27 |
| Enticer – Individual | Deuteronomy 13:12 | Deuteronomy 13:11 |
| Enticer – Two or more | Exodus 23:13 | Deuteronomy 13:14 |
| Sorcerer | Deuteronomy 18:10 | Exodus 22:17 |
Idolatry
Verses – Prohibition
Exodus 20:3 – “You shall not recognize the gods of others.”
Exodus 20:5 – “You shall not bow down to them or worship them.”
Verses – Stoning
Deuteronomy 17:3 – “Any person who will go and worship other gods and prostrate himself before them … (will be stoned).”
Deuteronomy 17:5 – “You shall bring out that man or that woman who has committed this evil thing (idolatry) … and pelt them with stones.”
Details
The Torah prohibits idolatry in the 2nd of the 10 Commandments. Since the details of this transgression are covered in the companion article on this website “Capital Punishment – 10 Commandments” they will not be discussed here.
Moloch
Verses – Prohibition
The Torah prohibits the practice of Moloch in the following verses:
Leviticus 18:20 – “You shall not give any of your offspring to pass through for Moloch.”
Deuteronomy 18:10 – “There shall not be found among you anyone who passes his son or daughter through fire.”
Verse – Stoning
Leviticus 20:2 – “Any man of the children of Israel …, who shall give of his offspring to Moloch, shall surely be put to death. The people of the land shall pelt him with stones.”
Details
The Talmud (Sanhedrin 64b) interprets these verses to identify the following factors of Moloch service:
- Giving to a Moloch priest.
- Passing through.
The Talmud (ibid.) also concludes that if any of these conditions are missing the perpetrator is not liable to capital punishment even though he has sinned.
Giving to a Priest
Since the verses in Leviticus mention giving, the Talmud (ibid.) understands that the perpetrator transfers the offspring to another person, implying a priest of Moloch.
Passing Through
The next stage involves passing through as indicated in the verses of prohibition quoted above. Since the Torah does not specify if the father or priest does the passing the commentators of the Talmud dispute this point with Rashi (ibid.) holding that the priest passes the child while Maimonides (Laws of Idolatry 6:3) specifies the father.
Offspring
Since the verse in Deuteronomy only lists son or daughter the Talmud (ibid.) understands that Leviticus 20:3 which mentions offspring includes grandson or granddaughter, but not father, mother, brother, or sister. The Talmud (ibid.) interprets the mention of offspring in Leviticus 20:4 to include offspring from forbidden or incestuous relations.
The Talmud (ibid.) understands that the term “of his offspring” in Leviticus 20:2 means some but not all of his offspring. Therefore if a father offers all of his offspring to Moloch he is exempt from capital punishment which appears strange. If a father is liable for offering one of his offspring to Moloch then certainly he should be liable for offering all of them. The Maharsha, quoting the Semag (13th century compilation on the 613 commandments) explains that his sin is so great that even capital punishment will not atone for his action. Rather Hashem will deal with the sinner, in this world and the world to come. The Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah #208) explains that followers of Moloch believed that by offering one of their offspring the others would be blessed. Consequently a father would not offer all of his offspring. Since offering all of his offspring is not the normal method of service to this icon the father is exempt from capital punishment.
Tosafot (Sanhedrin 64b) raises a question about this exemption. “If a father is liable for offering one of his offspring then how does he become exempt by offering all of them?” Tosafot answers this riddle by explaining that he offered all of his offspring at one time or the father had only one descendant. The Minchat Chinuch, a 19th century commentary of the Sefer HaChinuch, explains on Mitzvah #208 that the expression “at one time” used by Tosafot may mean over a few hours and for the same Moloch but not more than one day or a different Moloch icon.
Fire
The verse (Deuteronomy 18:10) clearly mentions that the father passes his son or daughter through fire, meaning that fire is an essential component of this service. However the Torah is not specific about this fire leading to different interpretations. According to one view in the Talmud (ibid.) the child is taken along a latticework of bricks with fire on each side of the bricks arranged in the form of a tower (Rashi). According to another view the fire was in a pit and the father with the child jumped over the pit (Rashi) or at ground level (Yad Ramah 13th century commentary on the Talmud).
Maimonides (Laws of Idolatry 6:3) explains the procedure with fire as follows, “The father passes the child through fire from one side to the other while carrying him. The father walks on his feet in the midst of the flames. The father does not cremate his son to Moloch as sons and daughters are cremated in the worship of other deities. Rather, he passes the child through fire. ”
Burnt to Death?
Nachmanides (on Leviticus 18:22) opines that Moloch was served by burning the child to death. The Torah alludes to this practice in verse Deuteronomy 12:31, “You (Israelites) shall not do so for Hashem … For every abomination which Hashem hates, they (idolaters) did to their gods. Even their sons and daughters they burn in fire to their gods.” Although scripture records several verses (e.g. Jeremiah 7:31 and 19:5, Ezekiel 23:37, and 2 Chronicles 28:3) in which both Israelites and idolaters burned their children to idols, these verses do not specifically mention Moloch. In the opinion of the author, scripture does not explicitly mention Moloch to avoid misleading the Israelites to think that only killing the child leads to capital punishment. Rather an Israelite who serves Moloch without harming the child is also culpable as stated above.
In fact if the father killed his son through Moloch service he would be liable for capital punishment for murder. Hence if the witnesses did not warn the father for Moloch service but did for murder he would be executed for murder.
Appendix 1 provides additional information about the cult of Moloch.
Ov and Yidoni
Verse – Prohibition
The Torah prohibits the practice of Ov (אוב) and Yidoni (ידעני) in the following verse:
Leviticus 19:31 – “You shall not turn to (the sorcery of) Ov or Yidoni. Do not seek them and thereby be defiled through them.”
Verse – Stoning
Leviticus 20:27 – “Any man or woman who practices Ov or Yidoni shall surely be put to death. They (the witnesses to the transgression after sentencing by the court) shall pelt them with stones, their blood is upon themselves.”
Those who consult with these necromancers are punished by lashes (Maimonides Laws of Idolatry 11:14 based upon Talmud Sanhedrin 65a).
Details – Ov
Although the actual practice is not described in the Pentateuch, the Talmud (Sanhedrin 65a and b) states that Ov is a form of necromancy where the sorcerer attempts to communicate with the dead by raising the spirit:
- On to the body of the necromancer.
- Or using a skull.
The Talmud (ibid. 65b) differentiates between these modes as follows:
| Method | Image | On Sabbath |
| On Body | Feet first | X |
| Skull | Head first | √ |
When the spirit comes to the practitioner of Ov it rises feet first and will not appear on the Sabbath. When using a skull to communicate with the dead the spirit rises head first and may appear on the Sabbath.
The Talmud (Keritot 2a) states that an Israelite is required to bring a sin offering after an inadvertent transgression of a prohibition involving excision if performed intentionally. The Talmud (ibid.) also states that this transgression must involve a physical act of significance based upon the verse in Numbers 15:29, “One law shall apply to anyone who sins (literally who does) inadvertently.” By writing “who does (לעשה)” rather than “who sins” the Torah emphasizes that liability for a sin offering is conditional upon a significant physical act.
Hence the practices of Ov and Yidoni must involve significant physical acts since inadvertent transgression of these acts requires a sin offering for atonement. Therefore the Talmud (Sanhedrin 65a) states that the practitioner of Ov either claps his hands or offers incense to a demon as a medium to communicate with the dead.
By contrast if an Israelite inadvertently commits blasphemy, which only involves movement of the lips, he is not required to bring a sin offering even though this transgression involves excision when performed intentionally. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 65a-b) clarifies this statement and explains that movement of the lips may be considered a significant action just as bowing down to an idol is considered significant and can lead to a sin offering when performed inadvertently. However blasphemy is different because intent is the main aspect of the transgression with movement of the lips being secondary.
The Talmud then questions, “Offering incense to a demon is tantamount to idolatry and not the practice of Ov?” The Talmud answers, “He offers incense to summon the demon and not to worship him.” Similarly Maimonides (Laws of Inadvertent Sin Offerings 1:4) includes both the inadvertent practices of Ov and Yidoni as liable to the sin offering. However he makes a distinction between them as follows, “One who divines through Ov and one who performs a deed while divining through Yidoni.” The commentators on Maimonides explain that practice of Ov typically involves a significant action. By contrast the practice of Yidoni may or may not involve a significant action therefore Maimonides specifically mentions performing a deed while divining through Yidoni. Rashi (Sanhedrin 65a) explains that at a minimum the practitioner of Yidoni ms may place a bone in his mouth and then the spirit speaks from the bone without any further action from the person. Hence the placing of the bone is only a preliminary act and therefore not considered significant with respect to the sin offering. Therefore Maimonides (Laws of Idolatry 6:2) mentions the offering of incense or other deeds in the practice of Yidoni.
Maimonides (Laws of Idolatry 6:1) describes the practice of Ov as follows:
“A person stands up, offers incense, holds a wand of myrtle in his hand, and waves it while whispering an incantation in a hushed tone. The person making the inquiry hears a voice, as if another person is speaking to him and replying to his questions. It appears as if the words are coming from below the earth in a very low tone, to the extent that it cannot be perceived by the ear, only by thought.”
Details – Yidoni
Maimonides (ibid. 6:2) explains Yidoni as follows:
A person places a bone from a bird whose name is yidua in his mouth, offers incense, and performs other deeds until he falls into a trance like an epileptic. He then relates events which will occur in the future.”
By contrast Rashi (Sanhedrin 65b) explains that the bone comes from an animal named yidua and according to the Talmud the bone begins to speak. Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura of the 15th century in his commentary on Mishna (Sanhedrin 7:7) explains that the yiodni is a creature that resembles a person and is attached to the ground through a cord that connects to the navel.
Appendix 2 discusses the efficacy of these practices through the eyes of different commentators.
Enticement
The Torah regards idolatry as a pernicious, spiritual malaise and therefore applies capital punishment to a person who entices others to worship idols, either as an individual (מסית) or a group (מדיח). The following table lists the characteristics of each type and the associated source in Maimonides Laws of Idolatry.
| Characteristic | מסית | Source | מדיח | Source |
| Number of people | 1 | 5:1 | 2 or more | 4:2 |
| Warning | X | 5:3 | √ | 5:3 |
| Entrapment | √ | 5:3 | X | 5:3 |
| Enticed worshipped idols | X | 5:1 | √ | 4:1 |
| Enticer(s) worshipped idols | X | 5:1 | X | 4:1 |
| Death by stoning | √ | 5:1 | √ | 4:1 |
This is the only case in the Torah where enticement results in capital punishment. Even a person who hires someone to kill is not liable for murder by a court. However Hashem will deal with the moral crime of hiring a killer (Maimonides Laws of Murder 1:2). .
Lone enticer (מסית)
Verse – Prohibition
Deuteronomy 13:12 – “All Israel shall hear (the execution of the lone enticer) and have reverence for Hashem in order that they shall no longer do such an evil act (as enticement) in your midst.”
It is interesting to note that the Torah frames the prohibition of lone enticer in terms of the affect on the Israelites rather than a direct prohibition on the enticer.
Verse – Stoning
Deuteronomy 13:11 – “You shall stone him (lone enticer) … because he sought to lead you astray from Hashem … Who brought you out of the land of Egypt.”
Details
Number of people
In the case of the lone enticer, the Torah (Deuteronomy 13:7) initially expresses enticement in terms of family (e.g. brother, son, daughter, or wife) because this is the most likely scenario. However, Maimonides (Laws of Idolatry 5:1) states that law of enticement applies to any adult in Israel (i.e. enticer or enticed).
Warning
The law of the enticer is unique in the Torah because the perpetrator does not require a warning before conviction. Normally this warning includes the mention of the prohibition and form of capital punishment. Rashi (Sanhedrin 67a) explains that this enticer does not merit a warning because the Torah states (Deuteronomy 13:9), “You shall not have mercy upon him (the enticer), nor shield him.”
For all other perpetrators of a capital offence, the transgressor must be warned by 2 witnesses at the time of the offence. The offender must accept their warning and admit that he will transgress the Torah fully aware of the consequences.
Entrapment
The enticer may be entrapped by hiding 2 or more witnesses behind a partition so that the enticer is not aware that his actions are watched leading to conviction.
Enticed Worshipped Idols
The lone enticer is liable to capital punishment even if the enticed did not worship idols. The sin of enticement to idolatry is so heinous that enticement alone is the crime. In addition the Torah when describing the sin of enticement does not mention that the enticed followed his instructions.
Enticer Worshipped Idols
Similarly the lone enticer is liable to capital punishment even if he did not worship idols because the Torah did not mention that the enticer followed his own instructions. As above, the sin of enticement to idolatry is so heinous that enticement alone is the crime. If the enticer actually worshipped idols then he would be liable for the transgression of idolatry.
Death by Stoning
The Torah (Deuteronomy 13:11) specifies death by stoning for the enticer, which is the same punishment for idol worship. Similar to other cases in the Torah the enticer is entitled to a trial where at least 2 witnesses testify to his offence.
Enticer – Two or more (מדיח)
Verse – Prohibition
Exodus 23:13 – “You shall not mention the name of foreign gods. It shall not be heard through your mouth.”
The Talmud (Sanhedrin 63b) derives the prohibition of the group enticer from this verse which emphasizes that the name of idolatry should neither be spread through enticement nor by oaths.
Verse – Stoning
Deuteronomy 13:14 – “Lawless men have emerged from your midst and have led the inhabitants of their city astray (וידיחו), saying: Let us go and worship other gods.”
Although this verse does not explicitly mention stoning, the Talmud (Sanhedrin 89b) derives the punishment of stoning by linking this verse to Deuteronomy 13:11, which mentions death by stoning for the lone enticer, as explained below in the paragraph, “Death by Stoning”. Hence the Torah compares the two types of enticement in terms of punishment even though the offences are different.
Details
In contrast to the lone enticer, the Torah (Deuteronomy 13:13-19) describes the transgression of 2 or more enticers (i.e. group enticement) in the context of misleading a city in Israel to worship idols. Maimonides (Laws of Idolatry 4:2) based upon the Talmud (Sanhedrin 111b) lists these conditions as follows:
- The group enticers must be 2 or more males and live in the misled city.
- The group enticers must be of the same tribe as the residents of the misled city.
- The majority of the inhabitants of this city worship idols based upon this enticement.
Hence if the conditions of group enticement are not fulfilled these enticers are exempt from capital punishment even though these sins of enticement are similar to the lone enticer. However Hashem will deal with these group enticers as required.
Number of people
In contrast to the lone enticer, the group enticers must be 2 or more males and live in the city. Presumably the Torah insists on these conditions because these enticers must have status and recognition in the city.
Warning and Entrapment
The group enticers must be warned before conviction because the Torah (Deuteronomy 13:9) only made an exception in the case of a loner enticer, “You shall not have mercy upon him (the lone enticer), nor shield him.” Seemingly group enticers require warning because their actions involve a public defiance of the Torah to lead a city astray. Hence warning by witnesses is also in public. Similarly group enticement must be witnessed in public without entrapment.
Enticed Worshipped Idols
Group enticers are not liable to capital punishment unless the enticed actually worship idols because the Torah (Deuteronomy 13:16) mentions this enticement in relation to punishments of the enticed city (i.e. death by the sword and destruction of property).
Enticers Worshipped Idols
The group enticers are liable to capital punishment even if they do not follow their own enticement. In the opinion of the author, the Torah is teaching an important lesson about philosophies against Judaism. People may be misled even if the leaders do not take themselves seriously.
Death by Stoning
Although the Torah does not clearly specify the punishment for group enticers, the Talmud (Sanhedrin 89b) states that the punishment is death by stoning which is the same punishment as the lone enticer. The Talmud derives this law by comparing verses with similar words for the 2 types of enticers. In the case of the lone enticer the Torah (Deuteronomy 13:11) uses the expression “lead astray (להדיחך)”, “You shall stone him (the lone enticer) because he sought to lead you astray from Hashem.” For the group enticers the Torah (ibid. 13:14) uses a similar expression, “Lawless men have emerged from your midst and have led the inhabitants of their city astray (וידיחו), saying: Let us go and worship other gods.”
This linkage is based upon the 2nd of the 13 principles of expounding the oral law as taught by Rabbi Yishmael (i.e. גזרה שוה – similar words in different contexts). This rule only applies when supported by tradition from Sinai and cannot be used without specific authorization from the sages of the oral law. Where sanctioned, this rule applies even in the Hebrew words are similar but not identical. Hence this linkage specifies stoning for the group enticers which is the same punishment for idolatry to emphasize the seriousness of enticement to idolatry.
Sorcerer
Verse – Prohibition
The Torah states the prohibition against sorcery as follows:
Deuteronomy 18:10 – “There shall not be found among you anyone who … is a sorcerer.”
Verse – Stoning
Exodus 22:17 – “You shall not permit a sorceress to live.”
The Talmud (Sanhedrin 67a) deduces that the prohibition of sorcery applies to both men and women. Rashi (ibid.) explains that the prohibitions of Ov and Yidoni apply to both genders based upon the verse in Leviticus 20:27, “Any man or woman who practices Ov or Yidoni shall surely be put to death.” Since these practices are similar to sorcery then it follows that the prohibition of sorcery applies to both genders. The Talmud (ibid.) asks, “Why did the Torah mention the sorceress first?” The Talmud (ibid.) answers that women are more inclined to practice sorcery than men.
Method of Capital Punishment
Although the latter verse states that a sorceress shall not live, the Torah does not specify the method of capital punishment leading to a debate in the Talmud which concludes that the penalty is death by stoning (Sanhedrin 67a-b). Appendix 3 provides the details behinds these reasons and a discussion of the conflicting opinions to show the depth of Talmudic analysis.
It is interesting to note that the gematria of both sorcerer (מכשף – 440) and sorceress (מכשפה – 445) imply death through the Hebrew words in male (מת – 440) and female (מתה – 445) form respectively.
Details
With scant detail provided by the Torah about sorcery this article will elaborate on the following points:
- Divine decree.
- Type of Sorcery.
Divine Decree
The reader may ask, “To what extant does the power of sorcery affect the laws of nature and divine decrees?” The Talmud (Sanhedrin 67b) answers this question by treating the word for sorcery (כשפים) as an acronym and explains that sorcery “interferes with the heavenly entourage” or in Hebrew מכחישין פמליא של מעלה. Specifically the Talmud takes individual letters from these words to spell כשפים (viz. the letters ש and כ from the 1st word, י and פ from the 2nd word and מ from the last word). The root word of מכחישין is the Hebrew word כחש which means to contradict or weaken and the word פמליא originates from Latin meaning family or entourage.
The Talmud means that Hashem invested powers in these negative forces and may interfere with the laws of nature. However these forces are not invincible and may be stopped with the merit of Torah study and observance of mitzvoth. Certainly nothing can happen without the consent of Hashem. In fact the Talmud (ibid.) relates that a sorceress tried to put a spell on Rabbi Chanina to which he said, Go ahead (because I am not worried)“. He then quoted Deuteronomy 4:35, “There is none else besides Him (Hashem)”, meaning that nothing can happen without Hashem’s consent.
In the opinion of the author, the expression “heavenly entourage” refers to the angels that are enabled from the mitzvoth of a person (Avot 4:11 in printed Mishna and 4:13 in prayer book) which then protect that person from adversary. By corollary when a person commits a sin he enables a prosecuting angel that will not protect him from sorcery or may even assist the sorcerer. With this approach an apparent contradiction between two statements of Rashi may be explained.
In Sanhedrin 67b Rashi explains that sorcery has the power to bring death upon a person for which in a normal situation Hashem has granted life. However when commenting on Hullin 7b, Rashi states that sorcery cannot overturn a divine decree, for nothing can occur without divine assent. Hence if a person has merit (i.e. many defending angels) then sorcery cannot overturn a divine decree. Without sufficient merit (i.e. prosecuting angels) sorcery may interfere with normal life albeit with tacit divine consent. By analogy one can compare sorcery to a virus which can harm a person. However with a strong immune system a person can fight off the virus. By analogy the merit of studying Torah and observing the mitzvoth protects a person against sorcery.
Based upon this explanation of sorcery, it is understandable that the Torah states that a sorceress shall not live. Maimonides (Laws of Sanhedrin 14:3) explains, “Whenever a person is obligated to be executed and the court did not execute him, the judges failed to observe a positive commandment, but did not transgress a prohibition. However if the court does not execute a sorcerer they violate a negative commandment, as Exodus 22:17 states: Do not allow a sorceress to live.”
Sorcery is different from other prohibitions of the occult (e.g. Ov and Yidoni) that lead to stoning in that the former actually harms others and does not lead to excision. The other forms (i.e. Ov, Yidoni, and Moloch) are punishable by excision when a person transgresses without witnesses or warning and therefore cannot be punished by a court. Consequently Hashem will punish the transgressor with excision (כרת) either in this world with a shortened life or divine retribution after death. All transgressions that lead to excision (Maimonides Laws of Inadvertent Transgressions 1:4) involve sins primarily between man and Hashem (e.g. idolatry, incest, improper treatment of sacrificial items). By contrast sins that relate to man and his fellow man even when punishable by death (e.g. murder and kidnapping) cannot lead to excision. Hence sorcery cannot lead to excision because the Torah considers this transgression as primarily between man and his fellow man due to the harm inflicted upon others.
According to the view that sorcery is real, the harm may be physical through casting a spell. According to the alternate view that sorcery is not real the harm is psychological and may undermine people’s faith in Hashem. Appendix 2 discusses these views in detail with respect to the practice of Ov.
Type of Sorcery
Although the Torah prohibits sorcery it does not provide a legal definition of this transgression. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 67b) distinguishes between different supernatural acts as show in the following table which lists the act, its status (i.e. prohibited or permitted), and associated punishment where applicable):
| Act | Status | Punishment |
| Sorcery | Prohibited | Stoning |
| Deception | Prohibited | Lashes |
| Creation | Permissible | Yoreh Deah 179:15 |
Sorcery
An act of sorcery is liable to capital punishment while an illusion of sorcery is not. For example the Mishna (Sanhedrin 67a) states that one who gathers cucumbers through sorcery is liable to stoning.
Deception
By contrast if one gives the impression of gathering cucumbers but does not actually move them (i.e. optical illusion or magic trick) in the language of the Talmud “seizing of the eyes” he is exempt from capital punishment.
The commentators on Maimonides point out an apparent contradiction in his Laws of Idolatry. On one hand Maimonides (Laws of Idolatry 11:9) writes that one who performs magic through a deception, is liable to lashes at a biblical level for the transgression of fortune telling as the verse states (Leviticus 19:26), “Do not tell fortunes”. On the other hand, Maimonides writes (Laws of Idolatry 11:15) that one who performs this deception is liable for lashes at a rabbinic level as a fraudulent sorcerer. Even though the actions appear to be similar (i.e. nothing supernatural has actually occurred) the punishments are different because the intention of the magician is different.
In the former case the magician is a fortune teller who performs magic according to his training but without resort to black magic of sorcery. In the latter case the magician attempts to connect to the powerful forces of sorcery but is either unable or unwilling to perform supernatural acts and hence is not liable to capital punishment. In addition he is not liable to lashes at a biblical level because a transgression that can lead to capital punishment is not punishable by lashes at a biblical level (Makkot 13b). Rather he receives lashes by rabbinic decree.
Creation
By contrast it is permissible to perform supernatural acts through the mystic association of Hebrew letters. In fact the Talmud (ibid. 67b) mentions that some rabbis would create a tasty calf every Friday and eat it for the Sabbath meal. Rashi (ibid.) explains that these rabbis combined Hebrew letters containing the different names of G-d through which Hashem created the world. Rashi (ibid.) further explains that these acts are not considered as sorcery because they are performed through His holy names.
In practical terms the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 179:15) rules that one may perform supernatural act through the holy names of Hashem. Rabbi Shabbetai Kohen, a 17th century commentator on the Shulchan Aruch, writes (ibid. 179:18) that Hashem invested in His holy names the ability to perform miracles through exceedingly pious individuals who will use this gift to demonstrate the greatness and power of Hashem. He further writes that one should only perform these miracles for a great need and in a spirit of holiness. Rabbi Kohen also writes that in his time there was no one worthy to perform these types of miracles. In addition the Rema on Yoreh Deah 246:21 advises against attempting to perform miracles through the name of Hashem for personal benefit.
The Talmud (Sanhedrin 68a) records that Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva, his student, were walking together. The latter asked the former to teach him about planting cucumbers through sorcery. Rabbi Eliezer made one statement of sorcery and the entire field was then filled with cucumbers. Rabbi Akiva then asked his teacher to uproot the cucumbers, in effect to undo the sorcery. His teacher complied and they were all gathered to one place. We see from this incident that sorcery could perform supernatural feats and the sages were familiar with its usage.
The Talmud (ibid.) asks, “How could Rabbi Eliezer engage in sorcery which is prohibited by the Torah?” The Talmud answers that for the purpose of teaching, sorcery is permitted because members of the Sanhedrin must be able to distinguish between performing sorcery which is liable to capital punishment and magic tricks which are not (Maimonides Laws of Sanhedrin 1:1).
Magic
Based upon the above analysis of supernatural events (i.e. sorcery, deception, and creation), the reader may ask, “What is the Halacha concerning magic in our time?” Present day magicians whether professional or amateur, perform their tricks without resort to the holy name of Hashem or to the other extreme sorcery. However can present day magic be considered as deception (or sleight of hand)? In fact there are different opinions concerning magic in Halacha as follows:
Prohibited
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 179:15) prohibits magic under the category of deception and does not distinguish between the performer and the audience. In addition the Shulchan Aruch does not mention any of the leniencies cited below. Hence according to this approach all forms of magic are prohibited.
Restricted
Since magic under the category of deception is not included in the 7 laws of Noah, a gentile may perform magic tricks, even for an audience of Jews (Yalkut Yosef 695:70). Although the Shulchan Aruch and associated commentaries did not mention this leniency the widespread use of non-black magic leaves room for this latitude.
Permitted
This view permits even a Jewish magician to perform tricks because everyone in the audience realizes that the magician has neither a connection with sorcery nor divination. In this manner the magician avoids the Torah prohibition of magic. Others rule that the magician must declare that all of his tricks are based upon sleight of hand with no connection to the occult. Some suggest that the magician explain the method of the trick to avoid any connection with the occult. According to the lenient view these declarations are not necessary because everyone realizes that this magic has no connection with the occult. Many have accepted the lenient view allowing magic at weddings and Purim parties.
The author found the following article useful for discussing magic in Halacha:
Appendix 4 analyzes the Salem Witch Trial and proves that this type of trial is not acceptable by Torah standard for many reasons, especially since the judges and accused were not familiar with sorcery as defined by the Talmud.
Blasphemy
Verse – Prohibition
Exodus 22:27 – “You shall not curse G-d.”
Verse – Stoning
Leviticus 24:16 – “One who blasphemously pronounces the Name of Hashem shall be put to death by stoning.”
Details
Maimonides, based upon the Talmud Sanhedrin 60a, provides the details as follows (Laws of Idolatry 2:7):
“A blasphemer is not liable for stoning unless he uses one of Hashem’s holy names either א-ד-נ-י (master of the world) or י-ה-ו-ה (Tetragrammaton) in a curse. Others hold that the blasphemer is only liable for cursing with the latter name. If one uses other names of G-d he transgresses a prohibition but is not liable to capital punishment.”
The Talmud (ibid.) specifies the actual curse as, “Let Hashem be cursed by Hashem”.
The Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah #70) provides a rationale for the severe punishment of blasphemy as follows. Man is separated from the animal kingdom through his intelligence which is expressed through speech. Therefore man should use his gift of speech to praise Hashem. By misusing this gift man sinks below the level of animals and in effect forfeits his claim to life.
Sabbath – Prohibition of Work
Verse – Prohibition
Exodus 20:10 – “The seventh day is a Sabbath to Hashem, your G-d. You shall not perform any labour (מלאכה), meaning you, your son, daughter, manservant, maidservant, beast, and convert within your gates.”
Verse – Stoning
Numbers 15:35 – “Hashem said to Moses: The man (i.e. gatherer of wood on the Sabbath as mentioned in verse 32) shall be put to death. The entire congregation shall pelt him with stones.”
Details
Although the Torah does not explicitly define the nature of this work there are several verses in the Torah that mention prohibited labours on Sabbath (e.g. baking and cooking – Exodus 16:23, plowing and harvesting – ibid. 34:21, kindling fire – ibid. 35:3, and gathering wood – Numbers 15:32j.
The Talmud Shabbat 49b explains that the Hebrew word for work in the Ten Commandments is מלאכה which means creative work and establishes that those activities in the preparation and construction of the Tabernacle are defined as work. The Talmud (Shabbat 73a) lists 39 forbidden labours of Shabbat as described in the article on this web site “Ten Commandments – Halacha”.
Dishonour Parents
Dishonour of parents involves the following prohibitions which are punishable by stoning:
- Cursing parent.
- Disobeying parents – rebellious son.
Cursing Parent
If a son or daughter curses a parent they are liable to capital punishment by stoning.
Verse – Prohibition
Leviticus 19:14 – “You shall not curse even a deaf person (who cannot hear the curse).”
It is interesting to note that the Torah does not cite a specific verse against cursing parents. Maimonides (Laws of Rebellion 5:4) explains, “Since a person is warned not to curse any Israelite, his father is also included.”
Verse – Stoning
Leviticus 20:9 – “For any man who curses his father or his mother shall be put to death … his blood is upon him.”
Although the Torah does not clearly specify the method of execution, the Talmud (Sanhedrin 66a) explains that the expression “his blood is upon him” means death by stoning. Since the Torah (Leviticus 20:27) uses a similar expression in reference to the prohibition of Ov and Yidoni, “Their blood is upon themselves” the Talmud equates the methods of execution. In the case of Ov and Yidoni the verse (ibid.) clearly mentions stoning as explained above in section of Ov and Yidoni.
Details
The Talmud (ibid. 66a) states that a son or daughter is not liable unless they curse their parents with one of the 7 holy names of G-d that may not be erased. Hence they are not liable to execution if they cursed their parents with a term which indirectly refers to Hashem (i.e. merciful one or compassionate one). However they are liable for lashes for cursing their parents as they would be liable for cursing any Israelite (Maimonides ibid. 5:2). By contrast, one is not liable to capital punishment for blasphemy unless one curses Hashem with one of the 2 special divine names. The following table summarizes the laws of cursing with respect to the object of the curse, name of Hashem, and punishment.
| Object | Names of Hashem | Punishment |
| Hashem | 2 | Stoning |
| Parent | 7 | Stoning |
| Parent or Israelite | Indirect | Lashes |
Maimonides (ibid. 5:1) adds, “This act must be observed by witnesses and with warning as is required for individuals executed by the court.”
Disobey Parent – Rebellious Son
The Torah (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) commands execution by stoning for a son who steals from his parents, buys meat and wine, and consumes them as a glutton and drunkard respectively. Since there are many conditions of this case it was rarely or never carried out, as discussed in Appendix 5 – “Rationale for the Execution of the Rebellious Son”.
Verse – Prohibition
Leviticus 19:26 – “You shall not eat over blood.”
The Talmud (Sanhedrin 63a) interprets this verse as “Do not eat (in a gluttonous way) that will lead to the death (literally blood) of the transgressor (i.e. rebellious son).
Verse – Stoning
Deuteronomy 21:20 – “All the men of his city shall stone him.”
Details
The many details follow:
- The son steals from his father (Maimonides Laws of Rebellion 7:2).
- The son buys meat and wine at a low price (ibid.).
- The son consumes this food outside the father’s domain in a group of likeminded criminals (ibid.).
- The son eats the meat when partially cooked like a thief on the run (ibid.).
- The son drinks ½ log (about 200 ml or 7 fl oz) of partially thinned wine in one gulp like a drunkard (ibid.).
- After this theft and irresponsible behaviour, both the father and mother bring the wayward son to a court of 3 judges for due legal procedure (ibid. 7:7).
- Two witnesses testify that their son stole from his father, bought meat and wine, and consumed them as described above after being warned (ibid. 7:7).
- Following the testimony, the court administers lashes to the son (ibid. 7:7) which completes the first phase of his trial.
- Should he steal from his father a second time and partake of such a meal, his father and mother bring him to a court of 23 judges for execution (ibid. 7:7).
- The parents must bring two witnesses who testify that their son stole and partook of this meal after being warned which constitutes the second testimony (ibid. 7:7). It is acceptable that the first two witnesses also deliver the latter testimony.
- If found guilty, the court sentences the son to death by stoning. The son is not liable unless he has reached the minimum age of 13 years. He is no longer liable if pubic hear surrounds the male organ or 3 months have passed, whichever comes first (ibid.7:7).
- If either parent does not wish to convict their son he is not liable (ibid. 7:10). Moreover if either parent forgave him before he was sentenced, he is not liable (ibid.7:8).
- If either parent suffers from a physical disability (e.g. amputated arm, lame, mute, blind, or deaf) the son is not liable (ibid. 7:10).
The Talmud (Sanhedrin 68b-72a) discusses the many details of this unusual case. For the sake of brevity the author will focus on the main points of these laws, especially where they relate to the son disregarding the instruction of his parents. For ease of reference, the author will refer to these laws by the numbering system used above.
Points 1-5
The Talmud (ibid.) explains that these points influence the son’s behaviour to lead to a life of crime through the following factors:
- Ease of access.
- Addictive tendency.
Point 1 – Stealing from the father, provides ease of access to obtain money to purchase meat and wine (Sanhedrin 71a).
Point 2 – Buying meat and wine at a low price will allow the son to purchase large quantities of these foods (ibid. 70a) thereby inflaming his desire for more of these foods.
Point 3 – Consuming this food outside the father’s domain in a group of likeminded criminals provide a social context for continuing on this path of gluttony and drunkenness (ibid. 71a). As a young man this son may be hesitant to act this way in the presence of his father. However in the company of likeminded criminals he is likely to continue his wayward behaviour.
Point 4 – Eating meat when partially cooked like a thief on the run (ibid. 70a) will lead to associating with criminals and a life of crime.
Point 5 – Drinking wine like a drunkard
Similarly this type of behaviour (i.e. large quantity of potent wine) will lead to alcoholism. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 70a) notes that the Torah (Deuteronomy 21:20) calls this son a glutton (זולל) and drunkard (סבא) but does not specify the food items. Therefore the Talmud quotes the verse (Proverbs 23:20) which uses similar words in connection with meat and wine, “Do not be among wine drunkards (סבאי) and gluttonous eaters (זללי) of meat”. In this and the next verse King Solomon advises moderation to avoid addiction which will lead to poverty by overspending and neglect of work. In the following verse King Solomon advises that a person respect his parents and heed their moral instruction which provides another link to the law of the wayward son.
Points 6-7 – Due Legal Procedure
Despite his theft and irresponsible behaviour the son is entitled to due legal procedure involving warning, witnesses, and a trial.
Point 8 – Lashes
The Torah (Deuteronomy 21:18) states, “If a man has a wayward and rebellious son, who does not obey his father or mother, they shall discipline him.” Although the written Torah does not specify the form of discipline, the Talmud (Sanhedrin 71b) explains that discipline, in this case, means lashes administered by the court after due legal process as mentioned above (Points 6 and 7). The Talmud derives this law from the second rule of Torah interpretation of Rabbi Yishmael (שוה גזרה), meaning similar words in different contexts can clarify a law. This rule may only be applied from a tradition originating from Sinai and not by personal study. In this case the Torah (Deuteronomy 25:2) when describing the law of lashes states,” If the guilty one is liable (בן) to lashes … (the one appointed by the court) shall flog him … commensurate with his crime.” The Torah uses the word (בן) for liable which is the same spelling as the word son (בן) as in Deuteronomy 21:18 indicating that a wayward sin is liable to lashes.
According to Maimonides (Laws of Rebellion 7:7), two witnesses warn the son immediately before his theft, the parents bring him to court, two witnesses testify to the theft, and the court administers the ashes. By contrast Rashi (Sanhedrin 71a) opines that the parents warn the son some time before the theft, then the parents bring him to court, two witnesses testify to the theft, and the court administers the ashes. The following table summarizes the difference in opinion between Maimonides and Rashi about this warning.
| Feature | Maimonides | Rashi |
| Warning | Conventional | Special |
| People who Warn | Two Witnesses | Parents |
| Time before Theft | Immediately | Some Time |
Point 9 – Second Trial
Should he steal from his father a second time and consume meat and wine, his father and mother bring him to a court of 23 judges for execution as the verses state (Deuteronomy 21:19-20), “His father and his mother … shall bring him out to the elders of his city (for the second trial). They (the parents) shall say to the elders of his city: This son of ours is wayward and rebellious … and is a glutton (meat) and a drunkard (wine).”
Point 10 – Witnesses
Although not mentioned in the verse the parents must bring two witnesses who testify that their son stole and partook of this food after a warning. All capital cases require witnesses and warning beforehand except for the lone enticer who does not require warning.
Point 11 –Age of Son
The son is not liable unless he has reached the minimum age of 13 years. He is no longer liable if pubic hair surrounds the male organ or 3 months have passed, whichever comes first. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 68b-69a) derives these laws from Deuteronomy 21:18, “If a man has a wayward and rebellious son”. The Talmud (ibid. 68b) explains that even though the verse says “son” the Torah does not apply punishment, through a court, on a minor (i.e. less than 13 years old). The Talmud (ibid.) further derives from the word “son” and not a fully developed man thereby excluding a son whose pubic hair surrounds his male organ. In addition the Talmud (ibid. 69a) explains that a son means a young man and not a visible father. After 3 months a woman’s pregnancy is visible.
Point 12 – Both Parents
Both parents must go to court to convict their son as the verse (Deuteronomy 21:19) states, “His father and his mother shall grasp him”. Based upon this verse if either parent forgave him before he was sentenced, he is not liable.
Point 13 – Physical Disability
If either parent suffers from a physical disability (e.g. amputated arm, lame, mute, blind, or deaf) the son is not liable. This law is derived from the apparent additional wording of the verses in Deuteronomy 21:18-21. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 71a-71b) explains that the Torah could simply have stated that the parents bring their son for justice. Rather the Torah mentioned the following clauses (Deuteronomy Chapter 21):
Verse 19 – “His father and his mother shall grasp him” – with full arms and not amputated ones.
Verse 19 – “Bring him out to the elders of his city” – with functional legs and not lame.
Verse 20 – “They shall say to the elders of his city: This son of ours is wayward and rebellious” – with their voices and not by motioning if they were mute.
Verse 20 – “This son of ours” – which means that they see him with their own eyes and are not blind.
Verse 20 – “He does not hearken to our voice” – which means that they hear his refusal and are not deaf.
Presumably the Torah removes liability of capital punishment from the son due to the physical disability of either parent because this disability may impair the upbringing of the son. However the son is liable to pay for theft and any other damages he may have committed.
Appendix 5 provides a rationale for the execution of the rebellious son.
Forbidden Relations
As seen from the table, there are 7 transgressions of forbidden relations that are punishable by stoning, grouped as follows:
- Incest (3) – mother, father’s wife, and daughter in law.
- Adultery (1) – betrothed girl.
- Non-heterosexual relations (3) – homosexual, bestiality with a man, bestiality with a woman.
The following table lists the forbidden relations and verses for the prohibition and capital punishment. For the first 6 offences in the table the forbidden relation is between a man and a forbidden partner. The last entry in the table refers to bestiality with a woman.
| Relation with | Prohibition | Capital Punishment |
| Mother | Leviticus 18:7 | Leviticus 20:11 (Exegesis) |
| Father’s Wife | Leviticus 18:8 | Leviticus 20:11 |
| Daughter in Law | Leviticus 18:15 | Leviticus 20:12 |
| Betrothed Girl | Exodus 20:13 | Deuteronomy 22:23-24 |
| Man | Leviticus 18:22 | Leviticus 20:13 |
| Animal | Leviticus 18:23 | Leviticus 20:15 |
| Woman with Animal | Leviticus 18:23 | Leviticus 20:16 |
The 2nd and 3rd entries in this table show the reciprocity of incest punishable by stoning. Just as a son is forbidden to cohabit with his father’s wife, so is the father forbidden to cohabit with the son’s wife. In addition both of these types of incest apply even if the wife is divorced or widowed from the spouse (i.e. father or son).
Although all of these verses for capital punishment, except for the betrothed virgin, do not explicitly mention stoning the Talmud (Sanhedrin 54a) explains that the expression “Their blood is upon themselves” means death by stoning. Since the Torah (Leviticus 20:27) uses a similar expression in reference to the prohibition of Ov and Yidoni, “Their blood is upon themselves” the Talmud equates the method of execution. In the case of Ov and Yidoni the verse (ibid.) clearly mentions stoning, “They (the witnesses to the transgression after sentencing by the court) shall pelt them with stones and their blood is upon themselves.”
In fact the expression, “Their blood is upon themselves” or in Hebrew (דמיהם בם) occurs 5 times in scripture and all of them in the book of Leviticus (20:11, 12, 13, 16, and 27) referring to the punishment of stoning (i.e. 4 in connection with forbidden relations and 1 involving Ov and Yidoni.) It is interesting to note that the gematria of דמיהם בם is the same as למינהו (after its kind) as in Genesis 1:12, 21, and 25 which implies that man must attach to a proper mate in procreation and neither incest nor non-heterosexual relations. Therefore the Torah did not use this expression when prohibiting the betrothed virgin because this woman is considered as its kind because if her husband would divorce her or die another man could marry her. The Torah uses this expression with regard to Ov and Yidoni to teach that the Israelites should attach to its kind (viz. Hashem) and not the forces of the occult.
Incest
Verses – Prohibition
Leviticus 18:7 – “You shall not uncover the nakedness … of your mother.”
Leviticus 18:8 – “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife.”
Leviticus 18:15 – “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter in law.”
Verses – Stoning
Mother – The Torah does not provide a specific verse for capital punishment for incest with a mother. Rather the Talmud (Sanhedrin 54a) derives this punishment through scriptural exegesis as discussed in Appendix 6.
Leviticus 20:11 – “A man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness. Both of them shall surely be put to death, their blood is upon themselves.”
Leviticus 20:12 – “A man who lies with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death. Their blood is upon themselves.”
Details
Maimonides (Laws of Forbidden Chapter 2), based upon Talmud (Sanhedrin 54a), writes that incest is liable to death by stoning with a:
- Mother – even if the son was born out of wedlock with (e.g. seduction) or without the consent of the mother (i.e. rape) (ibid. 2:2).
- Father’s wife – even if the wife is later divorced or widowed from the husband (ibid. 2:1).
- Daughter in Law – even if the daughter in law is later divorced or widowed from the son (ibid. 2:1).
Appendix 6 provides the scriptural basis for the prohibition of the father’s wife and daughter in law even if they are later divorced or widowed.
Adultery – Betrothed Girl
Verse – Prohibition
Exodus 20:13 – “You shall not commit adultery.”
Verses – Stoning
Deuteronomy 22:23 – “If a man in the city finds a virgin girl who is betrothed to another man and lies with her (both are executed as cited in the next verse).”
Deuteronomy 22:24 – “You (Israelite) shall take both of them to the gate of that city to stone them.”
Details
The Torah clearly states (Deuteronomy 22:21 and 23-24) that a girl is liable to death by stoning if she commits adultery as a betrothed virgin between the ages of 12 and 12½ years. If any of these conditions are not met, meaning she is married instead of betrothed, not a virgin, or older than 12 and ½ years then the woman is executed by strangulation if she commits adultery.
The Torah also states (Leviticus 21:9) that if the daughter of a priest (kohen) commits adultery she shall be executed by burning. However in this case the Torah did not specify her age or whether or not she was a virgin. By logic the Talmud (Sanhedrin 50a) accepts that the punishment for the daughter of a priest must be more severe than that of a non-priest due to the exalted status of her family. Since the Talmud accepts that stoning is the most severe method of execution the verse in Leviticus must refer to a fully married woman. By contrast if the fully married daughter of a non-priest commits adultery she is liable to execution by strangulation. (Certainly a betrothed or fully married woman who is raped is not liable to any punishment based upon Deuteronomy 22:26-27).
Non-heterosexual relations
Verses – Prohibition
Leviticus 18:22 – “You shall not lie down with a male as with a woman, it is an abomination.”
Leviticus 18:23 – “You (man) shall not cohabit with any animal to become defiled by it.”
Leviticus 18:23 – “A woman shall not before an animal to cohabit with it.”
Verses – Stoning
Leviticus 20:13 – “(When) a man who lies with a male, as with a woman, both have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death, their blood is upon themselves”.
Leviticus 20:15 – “A man who lies with an animal shall surely be put to death. (In addition) you shall kill the animal.”
Leviticus 20:16 – “If a woman … mates with an animal, you shall kill the woman and the animal … Their blood is upon themselves.”
Details
Homosexuality
It is interesting to note that of all of the forbidden relations the Torah only labels this transgression, both in warning and punishment (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 respectively), as an abomination (תועבה). The Talmud (Nedarim 51a) interprets the Hebrew word תועבה as an acronym to obtain the clause as תועה אתה בה which means, “You (אתה) are mistaken (תועה) about that בה.” This implies that the Torah considers this type of relationship as mistaken because it will not lead to offspring thereby violating the Torah’s command (Genesis 1:28), “To be fruitful and multiply”. In addition a person may reason that this type of relationship may be justified because it is based upon mutual love. To this the Torah answers that this person is mistaken because this type of intimacy must be directed to a woman as the verse states (Genesis 2:24), “A man shall leave his father and mother, cleave to his wife, and become (like) one flesh.”
The Torah specifies that both males (i.e. originator and receiver of this relation) are liable to capital punishment as the verse states (Leviticus 20:13), “Both have committed an abomination.” Similarly Maimonides (Laws of Forbidden Relations 1:14) writes, “When a man enters into relations with a male or has a male enter into relations with him … they should both be stoned if they are adults.”
The Torah in both the warning and punishment for this transgression (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 respectively) uses the expression for copulation, “As with a woman” or in Hebrew (משכבי אשה). The Talmud (Sanhedrin 54a) explains that a man is liable to capital punishment for this transgression only if there is penetration of the other male. Maimonides (Laws of Forbidden Relations 1:14) specifies the act as, “Once the corona is inserted into the anus”.
Bestiality by a Male
The Torah (Leviticus 20:15) states that bestiality with a male leads to execution but does not specify the method. Presumably the method should be stoning similar to bestiality with a female. The Maharsha (on Sanhedrin 54b) explains that the Talmud seeks a direct link to a verse. The Talmud uses a linking of words (i.e. גזרה שוה – similar words in different contexts) from verses Leviticus 20:15 and Deuteronomy 13:10 as follows:
Leviticus 20:15 – “A man who lies with an animal shall surely be put to death (מות יומת), and you shall kill the animal (תהרגו).”
Deuteronomy 13:10 – “You shall surely kill him (i.e. enticer to idolatry) (תהרגנו)”.
The Torah (ibid. 13:11) clearly states the punishment of stoning for the enticer. Although the words in Hebrew (i.e. תהרגנו תהרגו) are not identical they are similar enough to establish the link between these verses. Hence the Talmud concludes just as the animal is stoned so is the man who engages in bestiality. The Talmud (ibid. 54a), asks, “If the man is killed (who is responsible for his actions), why is the animal also killed (which is not responsible for its actions)?” The Talmud (ibid) answers that the animal is killed because it led a man to sin and to prevent others from sinning with it. In addition the animal is stoned to uphold the honour of the executed, meaning that people should not say, “This animal led to the execution of this man.”
It is interesting to note that the death penalty of stoning is derived from the execution of the animal and not a person. Perhaps the Torah wants to emphasize that a man who does not control his lusts and engages in bestiality is compared to an animal.
General Laws
Based upon the expression (Leviticus 18:22), “As with a woman” the Talmud (Sanhedrin 54a and 55a) derives that a transgressor of any of the forbidden relations that can lead to capital punishment is liable whether the penetration is from the front or the rear (termed in the Talmud ibid. 55a as natural or unnatural respectively.) Similarly Maimonides (ibid. 1:10) writes, “Whether a person engages in front or rear intercourse or whether they were lying or standing they are both liable to the punishment set by the Torah.”
In addition Maimonides (ibid. 1:11) writes that the Torah deems a forbidden relation only when the insertion occurs with an erection, “There is never any liability when a man engages in forbidden relations without an erection. … Even though he inserts his organ with his hand, he is not liable for punishment (viz. execution, excision, or biblical lashes). Nevertheless, such an act is punishable as a rabbinic infraction.”
We see from the detailed description of these acts, by the Talmud and Maimonides, that all details of human life are discussed and analyzed, albeit with dignified language. In addition the Torah defines the severity of the prohibition by the type of punishment. Hence there are no taboo subjects in Torah.
Conclusion
This article analyzed the range of transgressions punishable by stoning (e.g. idolatry and occult practices, disrespect of parents, or forbidden relations). For each transgression the article cited a verse for prohibition and execution. In most cases the verses are explicit but in some cases the verses for the prohibition or execution are derived through exegesis. In this manner the transgressor is duly warned from scripture in both a legal and moral sense.
As mentioned several times on this web site capital punishment was rarely applied in Israel. The Talmud states (Makkot 7a), “A Sanhedrin that executes a person once in 7 years is considered as murderous. Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah says once in 70 years.” Hence the Torah specifies capital punishment with the intent to describe the seriousness of the offense in the eyes of Hashem and how far the transgressor has misused the potential of being created in the image of G-d.