The Talmud frequently asks questions about what happens when items, animals or people with different statuses are mixed up with one another and we do not know which is which. Today’s daf discusses an unlikely mix-up: A group of people sentenced to different death penalties and we do not know which is which. The mishnah states:
All those liable to be executed with different court-imposed death penalties who became intermingled are sentenced to the most lenient form of execution.
The rabbis hold that there is a hierarchy of punishments, even among different kinds of death penalties. For example, execution by burning is considered worse than strangulation, so it’s used for more grievous crimes. It’s difficult to imagine this scenario, in which soon-to-be-executed criminals are confused with one another — especially in light of the rarity of execution and the speed with which it is performed (on the same day as the verdict). But for the Gemara, this mishnah has value beyond its (lack of) practical applicability: The Gemara uses this mishnah to learn something much more practical about prosecuting death penalty cases:
Conclude from the mishnah that an individual who is forewarned for a severe matter is forewarned for a lesser matter.
The mishnah stated that if convicted criminals are mixed up with one another, all are punished according to the lesser punishment — so no one receives a punishment that exceeds the crime committed. But now there is the concern, from the Gemara’s perspective, that at least one of these people will be executed in a manner that they have not been warned about. (Recall that, as a general rule in rabbinic law, a person can be executed for a crime only if they were warned about the specific consequences of the offense before committing it.) The rabbis conclude that if a person has been warned about a serious capital wrong and its associated sentence, they’ve effectively been warned about lesser ways of being punished as well. This is helpful to know generally for capital cases.
This being the Talmud, the conclusion doesn’t go unchallenged:
Rabbi Yirmeya rejects that proof and says: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where the witnesses forewarned the individual that if he violates the prohibition he is liable to be executed, without specification of the mode of execution.
Rabbi Yirmeya argues that the mixed-up criminals are executed according to the lesser means of execution only if the warning they received did not include the method of execution. But his colleague disagrees:
Rabbi Yehuda says: The defendant is not executed unless the witnesses informed the defendant by which form of death penalty he is to be executed.
In Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion, the warning must specify what manner of execution will be used, even though he refrains from suggesting the impact on how a mixed group may be punished.
The Gemara turns to the Torah to adjudicate these positions. In Numbers 15, a man is gathering wood on Shabbat, a capital offense. Because he was apparently the first to commit the crime, Moses puts him in detention until God delivers the judgment. After God pronounces what should happen, the man is executed by stoning. Because it wasn’t immediately clear even to Moses how a violator of this law would be executed, it’s impossible that this man was warned about the specific method of execution for his crime. This suggests that Rabbi Yirmeya is right — a general warning that the crime is a capital offense (without specifying the method of execution) is sufficient. Rabbi Yehuda’s response?
Rabbi Yehuda says: The execution of the wood gatherer was a provisional edict based on the word of God.
In other words, the incident in Numbers was exceptional because God got personally involved. We can’t learn anything general from it.
As convincing as both arguments may be, later texts (see the Kesef Mishneh, a commentary on the Mishneh Torah) agree with Rabbi Yirmeya — a general warning that one is about to commit a capital crime, without mention of the specific method of execution, is sufficient. In the end, the Gemara has used an impractical mishnah (about mixed up criminals) as a tool to learn something practical about what is required in warning someone about to commit a capital crime.
Read all of Sanhedrin 80 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on March 7, 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.
