Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

I.e., far removed from him, but in a place and at a distance where the rider can see the person with the flags clearly.

All these particulars are mentioned so that if a person was present at that place, at that time, and did not see the crime take place or was with the witnesses in another place at that time, he could come to court and nullify the testimony that served as the basis for the conviction.

I.e., even if the people who accompany him feel that his words are not substantial, they bring him back to the court. Since he is brought back to the court regardless, scholars who can evaluate the substance of his words are not sent with him the first two times (Sanhedrin 43a).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 7:3), the Rambam explains that the execution is placed in the hands of the witnesses, because they are the only ones who have firsthand knowledge of the transgression. Since everyone else knows only because of them, they are given the responsibility to carry out the execution.

One of the four types of death: stoning, burning, decapitation, or strangling.

As Deuteronomy 17:7 states: “And the hand of the witnesses shall be the first against him.”

With regard to others condemned to death, by contrast, it is the witnesses who must execute them. See Halachah 7, and Chapter 14, Halachah 8.

We fear that if he is asked to confess at the place of execution itself, he will be overcome by fear and will not be able to confess properly [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 6:2)].

For certainly he has other sins, for which he is liable.
Sanhedrin 43a suggests that, in such a situation, a person should say: “May my death be atonement for all my sins except this one,” It, however, rejects that option lest all the executed adopt that version to create the impression that they were framed.
Significantly, in Sefer HaMitzvot (positive mitzvah 73), the Rambam writes that if a person knows that he is being framed, he should not confess. Mayim Chayim explains that in Sefer HaMitzvot, the Rambam is speaking according to Scriptural Law, while here he is speaking according to Rabbinic decree.

But not before, so that he will be of sound mind when he confesses (Torat Chayim).

I.e., he is not required to face his death with a clear mind. Sanhedrin 43a draws support from Proverbs 31:6: “Give strong drink to one who is lost and wine to the bitter of soul.”

See Chapter 15, Halachah 1.

Ibid.:4.

Ibid.:5.

Ibid.:7.

See Halachah 1.

Sanhedrin 43a states that “the precious women of Jerusalem would donate the wine and the frankincense.”

This might create the impression that the court desired to see him executed (Sanhedrin 43a).

See Chapter 18, Halachah 3, and notes which explain that this interdiction includes within it several prohibitions involving different subjects.

The meal brought to the mourners after the burial. See Hilchot Evel 14:9.

Sanhedrin 63a states that this act diminishes the honor of the executed person and thus helps bring him atonement.

As stated in Chapter 18, loc. cit., this prohibition is considered as being “inclusive in nature.” Although all of the forbidden acts included within it are forbidden by Scriptural Law, nevertheless, because of the general nature of the prohibition, their violation is not punishable by lashes. See Sefer HaMitzvot, General Principle 9.

Since Chol HaMoed are festive days, it is improper for the judges to be forbidden to eat. Hence the judgment is prolonged. Since the sentence was not delivered, this is not considered as prolonging the condemned person's suffering.
The implication is that the judges are permitted also to drink wine. Although they have not delivered their ruling and a person who is intoxicated is forbidden to deliver a ruling, no restriction is given. Some suggest that since they have already made their decisions and the hesitation in delivering the ruling is merely a technical factor, there is no necessity for a restriction. Kin'at Eliyahu suggests that the awe of dealing with a case involving capital punishment will prevent them from losing self-control.

As mentioned above, this failure to show them respect conveys atonement upon them (Sanhedrin 46b). In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 6:8), the Rambam writes that the atonement for these individuals is not granted until their corpses begin to decompose. Hence at the time of the funeral, it is not fit to mourn for them. See also Hilchot Evel 1:9 where this law is repeated.

Aninut refers to the severe feelings of mourning - and appropriate practices - experienced on the day a close relative dies. There is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis whether aninut applies only up until the burial or afterwards as well. From Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 2:9, it would appear that the Rambam maintains that the classification of aninut applies after the burial as well.
There are two contexts in which aninut is mentioned in the Torah: the prohibition against partaking of sacrificial offerings (Leviticus 10:19) and the prohibition against partaking of the second tithe (Deuteronomy 26:14). Other mourning practices associated with aninut are mentioned in Hilchot Evel 4:6.

These feelings do not detract from the atonement to be granted the person executed.

See also the following halachah.

For if he is not executed by the witnesses, the entire Jewish people are obligated to execute him (Sanhedrin 45b).

As Deuteronomy 17:7 states: “And the hand of the witnesses shall be the first against him.” See Halachah 1 and Chapter 14, Halachah 8.

For only such a court may deal with cases involving capital punishment.

This refers to a court of judges who received semichah in Eretz Yisrael, but who were found in the diaspora either temporarily or permanently (Chapter 14, Halachah 14).

Maybe the merit of Eretz Yisrael will make it possible that a rationale to acquit him will be found (Makkot 7a).

For once they judged him and sentenced him to death, there is little likelihood of them changing their minds.

Stoning is mentioned in Leviticus 20:27 et al and burning in ibid.:14 et al.

I.e., this was part of the received tradition of the Oral Law.

This is also part of the Oral Tradition as stated in Hilchot Rotzeach 1:1.

I.e., a city where the majority of the inhabitants worship idols.

Deuteronomy 13:16 states that the inhabitants of such a city should be “struck... by the blade of the sword.”

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandments 326-329) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvot 555, 261, 50, 47) include these mitzvot in their reckoning of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah

See Hilchot Melachim 3:2,8 which explains that a king has the right to decapitate people who rebel against him.

I.e., the appropriate positive commandment mentioned in the previous halachah.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 310) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 62) count this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

As proof of this, Sanhedrin 49b cites the fact that this is the manner in which a person who blasphemes God’s name or one who worships idols is executed. Since these are the most severe transgressions, it follows that the punishment for them is also more severe.

Sanhedrin 50a concludes that this is a more severe form of execution, because it is the manner in which a priest’s daughter is executed. Her transgression is considered more severe for it disgraces the honor of the priesthood.

From the fact that this is the manner in which the inhabitants of an idolatrous city are executed - and their property is also destroyed - we conclude that this is more severe than strangulation (ibid.).

I.e., he violated two transgressions, each punishable by execution.

E. g., a person engaged in relations with his mother-in-law while she was married. He is liable to be executed by burning for having relations with his mother-in-law, and to be executed by strangulation for having relations with a married woman. He is punished by the more severe of the two transgressions.

We do not say that since he has been sentenced to death, it is as if he was already executed and hence, he is not liable for his transgressions (Sanhedrin 81a).

As the Rambam states in Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 13:5: “There is no difference between men and women with regard to punishment, except with regard to a pledged maid-servant.”

And the court is unable to differentiate the person who was sentenced to be executed in a less severe manner from one liable to be executed in a more severe manner.

It is improper to give the person a more severe punishment than that for which he is liable. Hence, since there is the possibility that each person is liable only for the lesser punishment, that is the punishment which is given to him (Rashi, Sanhedrin 79b).

For the latter instance. The rationale for the first instance is obvious. Since the other people did not commit a sin punishable by death, there is no reason why they should be executed. Hence even the convicted person is released (Kessef Mishneh).

Since the person cannot be identified, it is as if he is not present (Rashi, Sanhedrin 79b).
If a murderer who has not been sentenced becomes mixed together with other murderers, none are executed. They are not released, however. Instead, they are imprisoned for life (Hilchot Rotzeach 4:7).

Any person sentenced to death, not only a murderer.

As Deuteronomy 17:7 states: “The hand of the witness shall be raised against him first..., and the hand of the entire nation afterwards.” Until the hand of the witnesses are raised against the convicted person, the people at large may not execute him (Sanhedrin 45b).

After they testified.

For the charge to execute the convicted cannot be fulfilled as prescribed by the Torah.

Since the witnesses did not have hands before they testified, the execution is performed by others. For no where did the Torah disqualify people without hands from testifying (Rashi, Sanhedrin, loc. cit.).
The Kessef Mishneh questions why the Rambam mentions the laws in this clause in connection with the convicted person fighting for his life. Seemingly, they apply in all situations, whether or not he fights for his life.

That a person should be executed by the witnesses and not by others.

Sanhedrin, loc. cit., derives this concept through the techniques of Biblical exegesis. The Radbaz emphasizes that the exegesis is supported by logic: a murderer is a threat to society, for he may kill others. See Hilchot Rotzeach 1:4.

As a rationale, Sanhedrin 47a states: It is improper to bury a wicked person next to a righteous man.

The sins of those in first category are considered far more severe than the sins of those in the second category, to the extent that it would be inappropriate to bury the one next to the other (ibid.).

I.e., the Oral Tradition teaches that there are two plots and not four - one for each category (ibid.).

The decomposition of the flesh is a sign that the soul has received atonement for its sins.

From the Rambam’s words, it appears that, at the outset, it is forbidden for the relatives to bury the corpse of the executed person in shrouds and a coffin (Radbaz).

For they are obligated to carry out their mission as charged by the Torah. Sanhedrin 45b relates that Shimon ben Shetach executed 80 witches in one day. Although that was obviously an exception to the rule as indicated by its lack of conformity to the laws that follow, it nevertheless shows that a court need not restrict itself when the need for execution arises.

For it will be difficult to give each one proper thought and consideration in an attempt to find rationales to acquit the defendant (see Rashi, Sanhedrin 46a).

Rashi (ibid.) states that this applies even if two people violated the Sabbath laws. It is questionable whether the Rambam would accept that view (Or Sameach).

For the rationale used with regard to one will also apply with regard to the other (ibid.).

Similarly, when one person violated the Sabbath laws and another person served idols, they are not judged together. Although the sins are punished by the same form of execution, they are different and each requires its own process of analysis.

Sanhedrin 37b emphasizes that even when the court’s license to execute no longer applies, God will punish wrongdoers. He has many ways to kill those who are liable.
It must be emphasized that when the court feels it necessary, even in the present age, it may have a person killed without the full judicial process. See Chapter 24, Halachah 4, and Hilchot Chovel UMazik 8:10.

Curiously, the Rambam quotes a different portion of the verse cited as a proof-text than his source, Sanhedrin 52b. The portion cited by the Rambam is, however, more closely related to the concept of execution (Radbaz).

I.e., from the laws involving a rebellious elder, our Sages (ibid.) establish an association with all other individuals to be executed by capital punishment.

For when speaking about the Sanhedrin, Deuteronomy 17:8, speaks of “ris[ing] up and ascend[ing] to the place which God your Lord will choose” (Kessef Mishneh).

From the drawings that accompany the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (the conclusion of Middot) and the Rambam’s statements there, it appears that he maintains that the entire Chamber of Hewn Stone was situated inside the Temple Courtyard. Nevertheless, since it had an entrance leading outside the Temple Courtyard, that portion was not consecrated, as stated in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:7. This is also indicated by his statements in Chapter 1, Halachah 3, above, that the Supreme Sanhedrin would hold sessions in the · Temple. See also Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:17. There are other commentaries who explain that the major portion of this chamber protruded outside the walls of the Temple Courtyard. Diagram

Voluntarily. There was a proliferation of murderers among the Jewish people and the Sages were not able to bring them to judgment. They decided that they would move the High Court from the Chamber of Hewn Stone. In this manner, the responsibility would no longer rest upon them, for it would not be possible to carry out executions (Avodah Zarah 8a).

Rosh HaShanah 31a derives this from Isaiah 52:2: “Shake yourself off from the dust; arise,” i.e., arise from the very dust in which you fell.”
The Radbaz (here and in his commentary to Chapter 4, Halachah 11) writes that our Sages prophesied that Mashiach will be revealed in the Galilee. He will then be hidden for a time and then appear in Jerusalem. Perhaps, he continues, before he will become hidden, the prophet Elijah who will accompany him will grant semichah to 70 elders and they will reconvene the Sanhedrin in Tiberias.
The later Rabbis have noted that the Rambam is buried in Tiberias (and that came about by unique providence). Referring to the Midrash that states that the righteous will be resurrected at the very beginning of the Messianic Redemption, they make an association. The Rambam will be among the first to be resurrected and he will take his place in the Sanhedrin to be convened in Tiberias.

Chapter 4, Halachah 12. The Kessef Mishneh states that this halachah was included only to teach that during the 40 years that the Sanhedrin was exiled, the courts in the diaspora could not employ capital punishment despite the fact that the Temple was standing.

As Sanhedrin 44b relates, this is a kindness for the person being stoned. In this way, his clothes will not cushion his fall and/or the impact of the stone against him. Thus he will die quickly and not suffer over an extended period of time.

For the embarrassment of being executed while naked will be more aggravating than the physical pain he might suffer. We consider the feelings of the person being executed, as Sanhedrin 45a explains, the command (Leviticus 19:19): “Love your fellow-man as yourself,” applies even to a person being executed. We must choose for him the best possible manner of execution.

Women are more sensitive to being seen unclothed than men, and she would be shamed and embarrassed greatly.

Our Sages calculated that a fall from such a height would kill a person quickly, but would not cause his corpse to rupture. Thus within the context of the punishment decreed for him, it is the best manner of execution possible.

Lest he attack the witnesses.

For as stated in Chapter 13, Halachah 7, and Chapter 14, Halachah 8, it is the witnesses whose responsibility it is to execute him.

For lying on his back is more embarrassing (Rashi, Sanhedrin 45a).

Even though he was not stoned at all, the witnesses fulfill their obligation.

Because it will be impossible for either person to cast the stone with his full strength if the other is holding on (Rashi, Sanhedrin 45b).

Therefore he must be turned over on his back so that the stone will fall on his heart (Kessef Mishneh).

Lest the fact that the Jews execute a person at the gate to their city arouse their ire. As stated in Chapter 12, Halachah 3, the intent is not the gateway of the court itself, but a place somewhat removed from it.

Even if he was judged in another city, he is returned to the city where he performed the transgression to be executed.

I.e., he is not burnt at the stake. Sanhedrin 52a derives this concept by the Torah’s description (Leviticus 10:6) of Aaron’s sons as being burnt although the fire entered their body and did not harm their flesh at all.

To prevent him from squirming when the lead is being poured down his throat. This is undesirable, because perhaps the lead will spill and burn his body, causing him unnecessary pain.

A soft cloth would not strangle the person effectively and a firm cloth would harm his neck. Hence the firm cloth is put inside the soft cloth so that the execution will be performed with the least pain possible.

While gasping for breath.

Shoshanim LiDavid states that one of the witnesses pours the molten metal down his throat. That is, however, slightly difficult, because the witnesses are holding on to the cloth that strangles the convicted. Perhaps after his throat is opened another person takes the witness’ place and he pours the molten liquid.

When executing those who rebel against them (see Hilchot Melachim 2:8).

With regard to this entire halachah, see the notes to Halachah 3.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 230) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 535) count this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

I.e., their corpses are hung as sign of degradation.

And therefore he is worthy of the same punishment given a blasphemer.

Even if she violates the above commandments.

I.e., a man and not a woman (Sanhedrin 46a).

By his hands, and not by his neck as the gentile kings do (Radbaz).

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 66) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 536) count this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. The Torah explains the rationale for this prohibition with verse cited above: “A person who is hung is cursing God.” For since every man is created in God’s image, leaving a corpse hanging is a disgrace not only to the corpse itself, but to the One in whose image the corpse was made.
See, however, Hilchot Melachim 3:10 which states that a king may hang the persons he executes for a longer period.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 231) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 537) count this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

I.e., the negative commandment cited in the previous halachah. Sanhedrin 46b derives this concept from the repetition of the Hebrew verb in the prooftext cited above. There is a debate among the commentaries if the delay in the burial of persons other than executed criminals is included in the scope of the Biblical command or not (i.e., all agree, that delay is forbidden; the question is whether the prohibition is Scriptural or Rabbinic in origin). Significantly, in Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit., when discussing this negative commandment, the Rambam mentions only the mitzvah of burying an executed person. When discussing the positive commandment, by contrast, he also mentions other deceased individuals. See also Hilchot Evel 12:1.

These contribute to the honor of the deceased. Hence it is preferable to wait until these are prepared before burying him. Similar concepts apply with regard to other factors which will add dignity to his funeral (Sanhedrin 46a). See Hilchot Evel 4:7-8 for a discussion of this issue.

The intent is not in the actual grave of the executed, but in proximity to it (Sanhedrin 45b).

I.e., within four cubits of the corpse (Rashi, Sanhedrin, loc. cit.).

The Tosafot Yom Tov (Sanhedrin 7:4) notes that the Rambam does not mention the prohibitions in the same order as the Mishnah which is his source.

Even if she was never married to his father, i.e., he was born out of wedlock.

Even if she is not his mother.

But not married. I.e., Jewish marriage is a two stage process including consecration, where a woman is designated as a man’s wife and forbidden to other men, and marriage, when the couple begins living together. This punishment is given to a man who has relations with a woman after she was consecrated, but before she was married.

All the above prohibitions are detailed in Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah.

All the above prohibitions are detailed in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim.

By performing a forbidden labor.

The latter two prohibitions are described in Hilchot Mamrim.

In contrast to others who commit adultery, she receives this punishment, because she “desecrates her father” (Leviticus 21:9). Even the man with whom she commits adultery does not receive this punishment.

Even if she was born out of wedlock.

Even if she is not his daughter.

All of these prohibitions are detailed in Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah.

Premature death at the hand of heaven alone. There are many authorities who maintain that such relations are not even punishable by kerait. See the commentaries to Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 2:7.

These prohibitions are described in Hilchot Rotzeach and Hilchot Avodat Kochavim, ch. 4, respectively.

See Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah, ch. 1.

See Hilchot Mamrim, ch. 5.

See Hilchot Genevah, ch. 9.

See Hilchot Mamrim, ch. 3.