Sanhedrin 45 ~ Stoning and the Height of a Lethal Fall

In today's page of Talmud we continue with the rather gruesome details of judicial execution. Here the Mishnah details the procedure for execution by stoning:

סנהדרין מה, א

 בית הסקילה היה גובה שתי קומות אחד מן העדים דוחפו על מתניו נהפך על לבו הופכו על מתניו ואם מת בה יצא ואם לאו השני נוטל את האבן ונותנו על לבו אם מת בה יצא ואם לאו רגימתו בכל ישראל 

The elevation of the stoning grounds was twice the height of a man. One of the witnesses to the crime pushes him by his hips [so that he falls on his side]. If he falls onto his chest he is turned onto his hips. If he dies [from the fall] the court has fulfilled its obligation. If he is still alive the second witness takes a stone and places it on his chest. If the condemned man dies, the court has fulfilled its obligation.  If he is not dead, he is stoned by all of Israel...

The Talmud states that condemned is standing when he is pushed.  But why push him from twice the height of a person?  According to the Mishnah in Bava Kamma (50b), a fall into a pit that is only ten handbreadths deep is lethal. If this is case, why not push the condemned from that smaller height? Rav Nahman in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha explained that pushing from the greater height insures a quicker and less painful death, thereby fulfilling the biblical requirement of loving your neighbor by choosing a more swift execution. Still, it seems rather improbable that the condemned would be killed merely by falling from a twelve foot platform.  

ואהבת לרעך כמוך ברור לו מיתה יפה
Love your fellow as yourself, by choosing for him a better way to die
— Sanhedrin 45a

Let's take another look at what science says about the height of lethal falls, starting with that Mishnah cited from Bava Kamma:

החופר בור ברה"ר ונפל לתוכו שור או חמור חייב אחד החופר בור שיח ומערה חריצין ונעיצין חייב א"כ למה נאמר בור מה בור שיש בו כדי להמית עשרה טפחים אף כל שיש בו כדי להמית עשרה טפחים היו פחותין מעשרה טפחים ונפל לתוכו שור או חמור ומת פטור ואם הוזק בו חייב

If a man digs a pit on public ground and a bull or a donkey falls into it, he is liable for damages. Whether he dug a pit, or a ditch, or a cave, trenches, or wedge-like ditches, he is liable for damages that his digging caused. If so why is pit mentioned in the Torah? It is to teach the following: just as a standard pit can cause death because it is ten tefachim [handbreadths] deep, so too for any other excavation to have sufficient depth to cause death, it must be ten tefachim deep. Where, however, they were less than ten tefachim deep, and a bull or a donkey fell into them and died, the digger would be exempt.  But if then animal was only injured by falling into them, the digger would be liable. (Mishnah, Bava Kamma 50b.)

THE HIGHEST FALL SURVIVED (WITHOUT A PARACHUTE)

According to The Guinness Book of Records, Vesna Vulovic  holds the world record for the highest fall survived without parachute. And how high was that? Really, really high:

Vesna Vulovic (Yugoslavia) was 23 working as a Jugoslavenski Aerotransport hostess when she survived a fall from 10,160 m (33,333 ft) over Srbsk, Kamenice, Czechoslovakia (now Czech Republic), on 26 January 1972 after the DC-9 she was working aboard, blew up. She fell inside a section of tail unit. She was in hospital for 16 months after emerging from a 27 day coma and having many bones broken...She never suffered any psychological trauma as a result of the incident, and never experienced any fear of flying. She is still alive today, and flies with some regularity. However, Vulovic does not consider herself lucky. Thirty years after the crash, in an interview she said:  ''I'm not lucky. Everybody thinks I am lucky, but they are mistaken. If I were lucky I would never have had this accident and my mother and father would be alive. The accident ruined their lives too."

In my years as an emergency physician I saw countless patients with injuries from falls. Most injuries were relatively minor, but several of my patients died. Is there really a minimum height below which a fall would result in a trivial, or at least a non-fatal injury? Based on my experience, the answer is an unequivocal no.  A fall from any height, however low, can result in a serious or fatal injury, and that includes a fall from standing. But that's just my experience. What does the medical literature say? Does it agree with the assertion of the Mishnah that a fall below 10 tefachim (about 76 cm or 30 inches) cannot result in a fatal injury? Let's take a look...

“At autopsy, classic findings in falls from height include aortic lacerations and vertebral compression fractures, as well as ring fractures of the skull base...Severe head injuries most frequently occurred in falls from heights below 10m and above 25m, whereas in the group that fell from 10 to 25m, few head injuries were seen and they rarely were the cause of death.
— Turk, EM. Tsokos, M. American Journal of Forensic Medical Pathology 2004;25: 194–199

THE EPIDEMIOLOGY OF FALLS

Falls are very common. In the US they make up about a third of the injuries that lead to an ED visit in the each year - that's close to eight million visits.  In keeping with my experience, national data shows that only about 1% of all fall injuries that come to the ED are serious.  And here's another interesting finding that is in keeping with my own clinical experience: it's close to impossible to predict what kind of injury a person will have based on the height of the from which the victim falls. In a paper that examined over six-hundred fatal falls that occurred in Singapore, the authors noted that  

...there was much variability in the injury severity scores, in relation to the height of fall... Thus, a subject who had fallen through a height of 10 m, with primary feet impact, could have sustained complete traumatic transection of the thoracic aorta, with haemorrhage into the pleural cavities but little else by way of serious injury; while another, similar, subject could have fallen through 20 m and had sustained multiple head, thoracic and abdominal injuries...

In fact these authors had a very hard time coming up with a model that describes the height of fall and indicators of injury severity other than to give this rather useless nugget: "Our findings suggested that the height of the fall was significantly associated with ... the extent of injury." Well thanks. But it's one thing to fall 10m or more (that's over 30 feet for those if you not on the metric system). What about falls from less lofty heights?

FALLS DOWN THE STAIRS, AND FALLS FROM STANDING

Let's start with falls down the stairs. German forensic pathologists published a paper in Forensic Science International that addressed this aspect of falls in 116 fatal cases.  The most frequent victim was a man between 50 and 60 years old, and brain and skull injuries were the most common cause of death. About 8% broke their spines as they fell and (shocker) many were intoxicated. So stairs can kill.  

What about falls from standing? Well back to the German forensic pathologists, who this time published a retrospective analysis of 291 fatal falls. Of these, 122 -that's 42% - were falls from standing. About 80% of these ground-level falls were not immediately fatal, and the victim survived anywhere from three hours to almost a year post injury. Almost 60% of the men and 11% of the women who sustained a fatal ground-level fall were (shocker again) intoxicated.  So there we have it. The medical literature demonstrates that falls from standing can certainly be lethal.  Especially after kiddush.

From Thierauf A. et al. Retrospective analysis of fatal falls. Forensic Science International 2010. 198. 92–96. Forgive the English. It wasn't their first language

From Thierauf A. et al. Retrospective analysis of fatal falls. Forensic Science International 2010. 198. 92–96. Forgive the English. It wasn't their first language

The US federal government has also weighed in on the matter. OSHA, the Occupational, Safety and Health Administration has a ruled that a duty to erect fall barriers to protect employees only applies when the fall will be more than 6 feet (1.8m).  

Each employee who is constructing a leading edge 6 feet (1.8 m) or more above lower levels shall be protected from falling by guardrail systems, safety net systems, or personal fall arrest systems.
— 29 CFR 1926.501

Back to Stoning

How likely then, is it that executing a person by pushing him from a height of about 12 feet will result in his instant death? Not likely at all. We know (and the those German pathologists have shown) that a fall from standing can be lethal, but it doesn't happen very often, and is certainly not likely to be immediate. Remember, the pathologists found that of all lethal falls, about 42% were from a standing position. Which is not the same as saying that 42% of falls from a standing position are lethal.

There is another interesting data source that may help us, and it comes from a 1995 paper titled Fatal Work Related Falls from Roofs, published in the Journal of Safety Research.  It examined 288 falls from roofs and showed that falls from as low as 6-15 feet may be fatal. Again, this is an analysis of fatal falls, not of all falls. 

From Suruda A. Fosbroke D. Braddee R. Fatal work related falls from roofs. Journal of Safety Research 1995;26: 1-8

From Suruda A. Fosbroke D. Braddee R. Fatal work related falls from roofs. Journal of Safety Research 1995;26: 1-8

The LD50 for falls

The LD50 is used to describe toxins or medications, and is the dose which would kill 50% of those who ingested it.  The LD50 can also be used to describe falls, and is the height from which at least 50% of those who fell would die.  According to this medical text, the median lethal distance (LD50) for falls is four stories, which is about 48 feet, or 15 meters. Mortality increases to 90% when the fall is greater than seven stories.  

The Role of Alcohol

In considering the first step of the judicial process of stoning, there is one more factor to consider: the role of alcohol. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) relates that when the convict was taken out to be executed, he would be given a drink of wine and frankincense, כדי שתטרף דעתו – in order to dull his senses. Perhaps this would make the twelve foot fall more likely to be lethal? It turns out not to be so.

Industrial-Construction-Signs-43876BBHPLYALU-lg.jpg

While you may be more at risk from a fall if you are drunk, drunk people who fall are not more likely to sustain a lethal injury when compared with those who are sober. Pushing a drunk person off a platform is not more likely to result in their death compared to pushing a sober person, though neither is recommended.

In conclusion, the first part of the penalty of stoning - that push of a twelve foot platform - would only very rarely result in the instant death of the criminal.  This meant that the execution would proceed to the second step - in which a heavy stone was placed on the chest to cause suffocation. The details are horrific, and thankfully have not been practiced in our legal system for nearly two thousand years.   

Print Friendly and PDF

We Did It!! World’s Highest Terrestrial Daf Yomi Shiur!

As you can see from the commemorative T-shirt in the photo below, Talmudology gave a (brief) Daf Yomi Shiur yesterday, Tuesday Jan 28th at Uhuru Peak at the top of Mt. Kilimanjaro, elevation 19,381 feet (5,895m)

An official request has been made to the Guinness Book of Word Records to record this achievement.

My thanks to several participants at the peak. I will edit this post to include their names in the future.

I hope Rabbi Meir Shapira would approve.

Print Friendly and PDF

Summit Day Special! ~ How High is Jerusalem?

Today, if all has gone according to plan, I summit Kilimanjaro as part of a group of 30 hikers raising money for Shalva. For those who were kind enough to sponsor me, many thanks. And of course there is still time to give. While at the summit we learned today’s daf, Sanhedrin 42, in what I believe is the world’s highest (terrestrial) Daf Yomi Shiur.

So in honor of climbing the tallest mountain in Africa with a group of simply amazing guides and wonderful fellow climbers, here is a post, a little early, all about mountains.

Picture of a mountain.jpeg

סנהדרין פז, א 

ועלית מלמד שבית המקדש גבוה מא"י וא"י גבוה מכל הארצות אל המקום בשלמא בית המקדש גבוה מא"י דכתיב ועלית אלא א"י גבוה מכל הארצות מנא ליה דכתיב לכן הנה ימים באים נאם ה' (לא יאמר) חי ה' אשר העלה את בני ישראל מארץ מצרים כי אם חי ה' אשר העלה ואשר הביא את זרע בית ישראל מארץ צפונה ומכל הארצות אשר הדחתים שם וישבו על אדמתם

"And you shall go up" [Deut 17:8] This teaches that the Holy Temple is higher than all other places in Israel...And from where do we now that Israel is higher than all other lands? From the verses [Jeremiah 23: 7-8] "Therefore, behold the days come, saith the Lord, that they shall no more say, The Lord liveth, which brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt,' But the Lord liveth, which brought up and which led the seed of the house of Israel out of the north country, and from all the countries whither I have driven them; and they shall dwell in their own land."

This passage is unequivocal in its meaning: Jerusalem - that is, the Temple Mount -  is the highest place in Israel, and Israel itself is the highest place on earth. Now you don't need me to tell you that this is not a true statement. But I will anyway. It's not true. When I lived in Efrat it would often snow there while in Jerusalem, a mere twenty minutes away, there would be no snow. Why? Because Efrat is at a higher elevation than is Jerusalem. And if you have looked out from the Bet Midrash of the Hebrew University's Mount Scopus campus you will look down on the Temple Mount some three hundred feet below.

Google To the Rescue

Here are some other places, randomly chosen that are physically higher than Jerusalem.

Location Elevation (feet)
Jerusalem 2,424
Mount of Olives 2,710
Hebron 3,051
Efrat 3,150
Ben Nevis (UK) 4,413
Denver, Colorado 5,280
Johannesburg, South Africa 5,751
Mount Everest 29,029

Maharsha to the Rescue?

The Maharsha, R. Shmuel Eidels (1555 – 1631) in his commentary to Kiddushin 69a  suggests that since the Earth is a sphere, Israel and Jerusalem can be seen as if they were its "center."

מהרש"א חידושי אגדות מסכת קידושין דף סט עמוד א

 שהעולם הוא כתפוח ומקום בהמ"ק הוא מרכז עולם וכן א"י ולכך אמרו בא"י כיון דהוא מקום הממוצע אוירו מזוג ומחכים ויותר מקום המקדש שע"כ היו שם בלשכת הגזית חכמי סנהדרין וק"ל

Perhaps the Maharsha means that the spherical earth spins on its axis and that is the highest point, just like you might see a model of the earth on a bookshelf that spins on an axis with the North Pole at the top. But that cannot be, because the axis of the rotation of the Earth does not pass through Israel. It passes through the North Pole.  

No No. It is all metaphorical

Because the Talmud's claim is measurably incorrect, several commentators suggest a metaphorical explanation: Jerusalem is, spiritually speaking, the highest point on Earth. Perhaps. And if it isn’t, then let us make it so.  

Print Friendly and PDF

Sanhedrin 15b ~ Where the Wild Things Are

The opening Mishnah of Sanhedrin, way back on page 2a, lists the number of judges required for various kinds of legal cases, one of which is an animal that killed a person.

סנהדרין ב, א

הַזְּאֵב וְהָאֲרִי, הַדּוֹב וְהַנָּמֵר וְהַבַּרְדְּלָס וְהַנָּחָשׁ – מִיתָתָן בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: כל הַקּוֹדֵם לְהוֹרְגָן זָכָה. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: מִיתָתָן בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה

A wolf or a lion, a bear or a leopard, or a cheetah, or a snake that killed a person: Their death is decreed by twenty-three judges. Rabbi Eliezer says these dangerous animals do not need to be brought to court; rather, anyone who kills them first merits the performance of a mitzva. Rabbi Akiva says: Their death is decreed by twenty-three judges.

This Mishnah is further analyzed in today’s daf, in a dispute between Resh Lakish and his brother-in-law Rabbi Yochanan:

סנהדרין טו, ב

הָאֲרִי וְהַזְּאֵב כּוּ׳. אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: וְהוּא שֶׁהֵמִיתוּ, אֲבָל לֹא הֵמִיתוּ – לָא. אַלְמָא קָסָבַר: יֵשׁ לָהֶן תַּרְבּוּת וְיֵשׁ לָהֶן בְּעָלִים. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הֵמִיתוּ. אַלְמָא קָסָבַר: אֵין לָהֶם תַּרְבּוּת וְאֵין לָהֶם בְּעָלִים.

The Mishnah had recorded a dispute with regard to the judgment of a lion and or a wolf: Does this judgment require twenty-three judges? Reish Lakish says: And that dispute concerns a lion or wolf that has killed a person. But if they have not killed, then no, they may not be executed. [Apparently, Reish Lakish holds that they have the capability of being tamed and domesticated, and consequently they might have owners, so it is not permitted to kill them without due cause.] And Rabbi Yochanan says: The dispute applies even if they have not killed. [Apparently, Rabbi Yochanan holds that they do not have the capability of being tamed, and therefore they do not have owners.]

According to Resh Lakish, a wild animal can be tamed, and therefore it is forbidden to kill them under normal circumstances (hunters and trappers, please note). But Rabbi Yochanan was more concerned about the dangers a wild animal could, one day, perhaps pose. He therefore allowed them to be killed wherever they are encountered (hunters and trappers, please note).

In that Mishnah on 2a, Rabbi Eliezer ruled that a wild animal that killed a person need not be judged by a court - anyone can (or perhaps should) kill it as soon as possible: “רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: כל הַקּוֹדֵם לְהוֹרְגָן זָכָה.”

But Rabbi Eliezer was not trigger happy when it came to wild animals. He believed that they could be tamed and therefore be safe (ish) to be around. Here is a Mishnah in Bava Kamma, where Rabbi Eliezer expanded on his thoughts about whether wild animals can ever be tamed (as Resh Lakish also believed).

 בבא קמא טו,ב

הזאב והארי והדוב והנמר והברדלס והנחש הרי אלו מועדין רבי אלעזר אומר בזמן שהן בני תרבות אינן מועדין והנחש מועד לעולם

The the wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the bardalis and the snake are considered to be forewarned [so that if they cause damage their owner must pay in full].  R. Eleazar says: if they have been tamed, they are not forewarned; the snake, however, is always forewarned.

So today, let’s talk about….

Wild Animals gone...Wild

In July 2012, while touring a hospital in Johannesburg, I was given a brutal reminder of the dangers posed by the wild animals we were about to see on safari. In the Intensive Care unit and fighting for his life was a young American named Andrew Oberle, who had come to South Africa to study the chimps. Oberle, a twenty-six year old student, had left the group he was guiding and entered a 'no-go' zone. Two chimps interpreted this as an act of aggression, grabbed the young American, and dragged him into their enclosure. By the time he was finally rescued, Oberline had suffered these injuries

The chimps tore away his scalp down to the skull. His ears and nose are gone, and he can’t close his right eye. He has wounds on his trunk and all four limbs. He’s lost most of his fingers, and his right forearm has been eaten, the tendons gone. He’s lost parts of his feet, and his right ankle is destroyed.

(Oberle survived his attack, and in December 2017 he talked about it on a podcast which you can listen to here.)

Then there was bear enthusiast Timothy Treadwell (who later became the subject of an excellent 2005 documentary by Werner Herzog).  Treadwell was a self-described bear conservationist, although he lacked any formal training in the field and was frequently at odds with the Park Service. In October 2003, Treadwell and his girlfriend were mauled and eaten by a Grizzly bear in Alaska's Katmai National Park. Thus far, two examples of wild animals acting, well, wild.  

What about training these wild animals to perform tricks?  Well, there's a cautionary tale in that, too. Do you recall the great illusionists Siegfried Fischbacher and Roy Horn, the pair of magicians who became world famous for their performances with white lions? For over thirteen years Siegfried and Roy performed at the Mirage Hotel in Las Vegas, until um, they stopped. On October 3, 2003 Roy was bitten in the neck by a seven year old tiger named Manticore, who dragged him off the stage "like a ragdoll." He almost bled to death, and remains partially paralyzed as a result of the attack.  So how could Rabbi Eleazar possibly claim that animals as wild as a lion or a bear ever be considered tame or domesticated? Well, read on...

Domestication

The Encyclopaedia Britannica defines domestication as

the process of hereditary reorganization of wild animals and plants into domestic and cultivated forms according to the interests of people. In its strictest sense, it refers to the initial stage of human mastery of wild animals and plants. The fundamental distinction of domesticated animals and plants from their wild ancestors is that they are created by human labour to meet specific requirements or whims and are adapted to the conditions of continuous care and solicitude people maintain for them.

Thus we speak of domesticated horses and wild horses, domesticated bees and wild bees, and domesticated plants -(think tobacco, and corn)- and wild plants. What turns a species from a wild to a domesticated form is human patience and careful breeding. But the late professor of anthropology Charles Reed (d. 2000) wrote that many animals are naturally tame - or at least not afraid of human contact:

Among these are manatees, who may not even move aside as one swim among them; sea-otters, from whom one can take the young without any defense by the mother; various basking seals, elephant-seals and sea-lions, among whom (other than the males in breeding season) one can walk unconcerned, and whose young, if they've lost their mothers, will follow any human hoping to be fed; various of the porpoises and dolphins, who seem to have no fear of man, and even the great whales.

Can Wolves be Tamed?

The Mishnah we cited from Bava Kamma 15b stated that six species of animal can never be relied upon to have been domesticated. One of these is the wolf, which seems kind of reasonable, even allowing for the fact that our dogs are descended from them.  But wolves have also been successfully raised as family pets, (though you should probably check with your spouse before bringing home a wolf cub for the family). "Actually" wrote Charles Reed, "wolf pups reared as a group in Alaskan isolation or a single pup brought up with children and dogs in an urban family are wonderfully affectionate, social, dynamic, interesting, and of course intelligent fellow citizens." Which sounds rather like the opinion of Rabbi Eleazar, who believed that wolves, (and bears, lions and leopards) may be tamed so successfully that they end up about as aggressive as domestic goats.

Wild animals ain’t so wild, as shown again by a wild-caught penned wolverine in Alaska, which, within a few days of capture, was taking food from the hand...when the hand was empty, the wolverine gently, with its incisor teeth, held the lady’s fingertips without braking the skin.
— Charles A. Reed. Wild Animals Ain't So Wild, Domesticating Them Not So Difficult. Expedition 1986. 28 (2) 8-15.

A Pet Grizzly Bear called ben franklin

In the Mishnah in Bava Kamma Rabbi Eleazar spoke not only of a tame wolf - but of a tame bear.  While our modern sensibilities would be outraged at the notion of raising a wild bear as a pet, these sensibilities are, to be sure, modern indeed. In a charming article published in the American Naturalist in 1886, John Caton described the domestication of the grizzly bear. Just to remind you- a small grizzly bear weights 400 pounds and stands about six and a half feet tall. Now read on:

Among others he [a certain James Adams] fairly domesticated quite a number of the grizzly bear (Ursus ferox Lewis and Clark) with complete success. This is the largest and fiercest known of all the species, and it might be expected the most intractable or unsubmissive to human control, yet such appears not to have been the case.

The first specimens experimented with were two cubs, over a year old when caught, taken in Washington Territory, between Lewis and Clark's fork of the Columbia. They were brother and sister; the latter was retained by Adams, and his experiments were principally conducted on her, which he called " Lady Washington." She seems to have been the more tractable and submissive. The male he parted with to a friend, after he had received but the rudiments of his education. At first they were chained to trees near the camp-fire, and resisted all attempts at familiarity and kindness; then severity was adopted, until they finally submitted.

Soon after the male was parted with, and we have no account of his subsequent career. The female was always after treated with the utmost kindness, and in a few months became as tractable as a dog. She followed her master in his hunting excursions, fought for him with other grizzlies, and saved him from the greatest perils.

She slept at his feet around the camp-fire, and took the place of a most vigilant watch-dog. He taught her to carry burdens with the docility of a mule, and as she grew up her great strength enabled her to render him great assistance in this way.

Another bear of the same species he captured in the Sierras in California before its eyes were open, and raised it on a greyhound bitch in company with her own pup. This he called Ben Franklin, and proved more docile even than the first. He never found it necessary to confine in any way this specimen, but he was allowed to roam and hunt with his foster brother, the grayhound [sic]. They were inseparable companions, and seemed to have as much affection for each other as if they had been of the same species, Before he was full-grown, when his master was attacked by a wounded grizzly, he joined in the fight with such ferocity as to save his master's life, and though he was severely wounded in this contest, with careful nursing he survived, and ever after showed as much courage in attacking his own species as if he had not met with this severe punishment.

I know what you are thinking: grizzly bears are found only in North America, but bears in Israel were a species of the brown bear called Ursus arctos syriacus, or the Syrian Brown Bear. Well that's true, but it's not only grizzly bears that make cuddly pets; the same owner of Ben Franklin, the pet grizzly, also kept black bears (and who knows, perhaps brown ones too):

He found the black bear, when raised in camp, as readily domesticated as the grizzly, and as fond of his society, following him about the camp and through the woods with fidelity and attachment.

So there we have it. Evidence to support Rabbi Eleazar's opinion that many wild animals may become as domesticated as a dog or cat. But in today’s daf, Rabbi Eliezer clarifies that once these animals become a danger, domesticated or not, they are not given a second chance. So best to stick with dogs and cats as pets.  They take up far less space than the enormous, though very cute, grizzly bear.

Print Friendly and PDF