On the second side of yesterday’s daf, we encountered this mishnah:
When the trial has ended (and the defendent found guilty of a capital offense), he is taken out to be stoned. The place of stoning was outside the court and a little beyond it, as it is stated with regard to a blasphemer: “Take out him who has cursed to outside the camp …” (Leviticus 24:14). One man stands at the entrance to the court, with cloths in his hand, and another man sits on a horse at a distance from him but where he can still see him. If one of the judges says: “I can teach a reason to acquit him,” the other, i.e., the man with the cloths, waves the cloths as a signal to the man on the horse, and the horse races off (after the court agents who are leading the condemned man to his execution), and he stops them. And even if he (the condemned man himself) says: “I can teach a reason to acquit myself,” he is returned to the courthouse, even four or five times, provided that there is substance to his words.
Because death is irreversible, and because it not only ends the life of a person but potentially prevents future generations of offspring from being born — effectively ending an entire world — the rabbis instituted these last-minute measures that might potentially save a person from wrongful execution. But these mechanisms must be funded. On today’s daf, Rav Huna clarifies who’s responsible for paying:
Rav Huna says: It is obvious to me that the stone with which the condemned man is stoned and the tree on which his corpse is hung after his execution, or the sword with which he is killed, or the scarf with which he is strangled, all of these come from the property of the community. What is the reason for this? We do not tell the condemned man to go and bring these items from his own property and effectively kill himself.
The community is responsible for providing the various implements needed to execute a condemned person; even as they’ve been condemned to die, we don’t layer on the cruelty of making them finance their own execution. Having stated this confidently, Rav Huna now considers another expense:
Rav Huna raised a dilemma: The cloth that is waved and the horse that races off to stop the agents from carrying out the execution, from whose property do they come? Since they are needed to save the man, perhaps these items should be taken from his property. Or perhaps, since the court is obligated to take all possible measures to save him from death, they should be taken from them, i.e., the community.
With regard to this mechanism of last-minute intercession mentioned in our mishnah, Rav Huna is less clear on who must pay. On the one hand, the previous logic doesn’t apply — the scarf and horse are intended to save the defendant, not execute him, so in asking her to pay for them we wouldn’t be asking her to finance her own execution. On the other hand, even if requiring her to provide these supplies wouldn’t be cruel in the same way as requiring her to provide her own execution materials, it still might fall to the court rather than the defendant.
Another financial question is raised along similar lines:
And furthermore, Rav Hiyya bar Ashi says that Rav Hisda says: The court gives one who is being led out to be killed a grain of frankincense in a cup of wine in order to confuse his mind, as it is stated: “Give strong drink to him that is ready to perish, and wine to the bitter in soul.” (Proverbs 31:6) And it is taught in a beraita: The prominent women of Jerusalem would donate this drink and bring it to those being led out to be killed. The question is: If these prominent women did not donate this drink, from whom should it come?
Rav Hisda relays that the court would drug a condemned person before leading them out to be executed, so as to minimize their anxiety and pain. This is for the condemned person’s benefit, but that doesn’t mean we necessarily place the financial burden on them. The beraita tells us that some prominent women from the community would take it upon themselves to provide this drug. But it seems clear this is a kindness and not legally their responsibility. Indeed:
With regard to this question, it is certainly reasonable that this drink should be taken from the community, as it is written: “Give strong drink” in the plural, indicating that it should come from them, i.e., the community.
The anti-anxiety potion is clearly a communal expense, but the Gemara never returns to answer Rav Huna’s earlier question about who pays for the scarf and the horse used to stop an execution in progress. Rambam, in the Mishneh Torah, ultimately declares that all of these too are provided from communal funds, leading us to conclude that individuals condemned to execution have no financial burden from that process: they do not pay for the implements of their destruction, nor the implements of their salvation, nor the drugs used to calm their nerves. Everything is provided by the community.
Read all of Sanhedrin 43 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on January 29, 2025. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
Help us keep Jewish knowledge accessible to millions of people around the world.
Your donation to My Jewish Learning fuels endless journeys of Jewish discovery. With your help, My Jewish Learning can continue to provide nonstop opportunities for learning, connection and growth.
