000			03082cam a22003133u 4500
001			77702
003			UtSlPG
005			20260610134812.0
006			m
007			cr n
008			260607r20261916utu|||||o|||||||||||||| d
040			_aUtSlPG
041		7	_aen _2iso639-1
050		4	_aDS _aHV
100	1		_aPool, David de Sola, _d1885-1970
245	1	0	_aCapital punishment among the Jews
264		1	_aSalt Lake City, UT : _bProject Gutenberg, _c2026
300			_a1 online resource : _bmultiple file formats
336			_atext _btxt _2rdacontent
337			_acomputer _bc _2rdamedia
338			_aonline resource _bcr _2rdacarrier
500			_aRelease date is 2026-01-16
508			_adeaurider, PrimeNumber and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)
520			_aCapital punishment among the Jews by David de Sola Pool is a scholarly historical-legal study written in the early 20th century. It examines how Jewish law defined, applied, modified, and ultimately curtailed capital punishment across the Biblical, Second Temple, rabbinic, and medieval periods, with special attention to legal procedures and moral reasoning. The book first reviews the four rabbinically recognized executions—stoning, burning, beheading, and strangulation—showing how the Rabbis humanized them (e.g., stoning recast as precipitation; burning reduced to strangulation with a token cautery; beheading done by sword at the throat; strangulation preferred for least disfigurement). It then outlines the Bible’s purposes for the death penalty—retribution, deterrence, and expiation—while noting rabbinic efforts to preserve life and dignity. Most of the study traces the dense legal safeguards that made execution virtually unattainable: two unimpeachable witnesses who issued a precise prior warning, rejection of circumstantial evidence, exacting cross-examination, numerous disqualifications, and stringent court rules (a 23-judge panel, delays, supermajorities, broad avenues for appeal, and a general tilt toward acquittal). Offenses marked for “kareth” were left to divine judgment, further narrowing human jurisdiction. Under Roman rule, Jewish courts lost capital power after the Temple’s destruction; thereafter discussions became largely theoretical, with only rare, exceptional acts tolerated by authorities. In the medieval diaspora, Jewish courts seldom held capital authority, though in parts of Spain and North Africa they sometimes condemned dangerous informers, typically handing them to state executioners. Overall, the work shows a tradition that upheld the death penalty in principle but, through legal refinement, rendered it practically inoperative. (This is an automatically generated summary.)
534			_pOriginally published: _cNew York: Bloch Publishing Company, 1916
653			_aCapital punishment (Jewish law)
856	4		_uhttps://archive.org/details/capitalpunishmen00pooliala
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/77702
999			_c118422 _d118422