Page 92 - Gospel of John_teachers lesson_cp 1-10_Neat

There were four forms of capital punishment: stoning, burning, beheading, and strangulation. Qualifying sins
were assigned a specific form of punishment. The emphasis of stoning is upon the inappropriate sexual
actions of a man both in Torah and the Talmud. The general sin of adultery attributed to inappropriate
relationship with another mans wife or married person actually requires death by strangulation not stoning.
It was almost impossible to inflict the death penalty because the standards of proof were so high. As a result,
convictions for capital offense were rare in Judaism. [15][16] The standards of evidence in capital cases include:

• It requires two witnesses who observed the crime. The accused would have been given a chance, and if s/he repeated the
same crime, or any other, it would lead to a death sentence. If witnesses had been caught lying about the crime, they
would be executed.
• Two witnesses were required. Acceptability was limited to:
o Adult Jewish men who were known to keep the commandments, knew the written and oral law, and had legitimate
professions;
o The witnesses had to see each other at the time of the sin;
o The witnesses had to be able to speak clearly, without any speech impediment or hearing deficit (to ensure that the
warning and the response were done);
o The witnesses could not be related to each other, or to the accused.

• The witnesses had to see each other, and both of them had to give a warning (hatra'ah) to the person that the sin they
were about to commit was a capital offense;
• This warning had to be delivered within seconds of the performance of the sin (in the time it took to say, "Peace unto you,
my Rabbi and my Master");
• In the same amount of time, the person about to sin had to both respond that s/he was familiar with the punishment, but
they were going to sin anyway; and begin to commit the sin/crime;
• The Beth Din had to examine each witness separately; and if even one point of their evidence was contradictory - even if a
very minor point, such as eye color - the evidence was considered contradictory, and the evidence was not heeded;
Ketubah vs. Dowry
It is not a mutual agreement; the wife agrees only to accept the husband's proposal of marriage. It is assuredly not a bill of sale;
the man does not purchase the bride. In fact, the ketubah represents the witnesses rather than husband or wife. Through this
instrument they attest to the groom's actions, promises, and statements, and to the bride's willing acceptance of the marriage
proposal. The ketubah is a unilateral agreement drawn by witnesses in accordance with Jewish civil law, in which they testify
that the husband guarantees to his wife that he will meet certain minimum human and financial conditions of marriage, "as
Jewish husbands are wont to do."
It is a charter of woman's rights in marriage and of man's duties. The ketubah is designed for woman's protection, and every
legal nuance in this matter was developed so that her husband shall not regard it as easy to divorce her. In a male-oriented
society, the woman always needed more defense against the violation of personal rights than the man. The ketubah required
money to be paid by the husband in case of divorce. This made it difficult for the husband to divorce his wife without
appropriate reflection and consideration.

Dowry (Mohar): Engagement or betrothal, usually referred to as shiduchin, was a distinct, separate part of the marriage
process. Brides were purchased like chattel. The groom's family paid a mohar (dowry) to the bride's family; the woman then
effectively became the groom's property. However, she remained in her father's house until the marriage ceremony. The
betrothal or engagement ceremony became a highly festive occasion marked by feasting and celebration in the home of the
bride's father. The groom declared in the presence of two witnesses, "Be thou consecrated to me, be thou betrothed to me, be
thou my wife." The betrothal ceremony, which resembles our present-day wedding vows, could only be annulled by formal
divorce.
In some areas of ancient Israel, such as the Galilee, the betrothed bride and groom were kept strictly apart until
marriage, whereas in nearby Judea, they were allowed to meet at the home of the bride's father. During the Middle
Ages, the concept of marriage as a form of purchase agreement had dwindled, and the concept of betrothal as a
separate event died out. By the 12th century, the betrothal and wedding ceremony took place on the same day.
And by the 15th century, the betrothal and marriage were performed simultaneously as a single event, which has
evolved into our present-day marriage ceremony.

91