Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within Their Jurisdiction 17

Sugya Map

• Issue: The intricate halachic framework governing the administration of מלקות (lashes) as a judicial punishment, focusing on the precise mechanics, estimation processes, and underlying theological-legal principles. The central tension lies between the biblical mandate for punishment and rabbinic safeguards ensuring human dignity and life.
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • The specific number of lashes administered (39 vs. 40) and its מקור (source) and nature (דאורייתא or דרבנן).
  • The methodology of אומדנא (estimation) for the condemned's physical capacity, including the השתלש rule (divisibility by three) and its application.
  • Conditions for cessation of מלקות, particularly physical degradation (והיה אחיך נקלה לעיניך) or uncontrollable bodily functions.
  • The handling of multiple חיובי מלקות (obligations for lashes) and the interplay of אומדנא in such scenarios.
  • The concept of כיפר (atonement) achieved through מלקות, particularly its effect on חיוב כרת.
  • The differing post-punishment status of a כהן גדול versus a ראש ישיבה due to the principle of מעלין בקודש ואין מורידין.
• Primary Sources:
  • Devarim 25:2-3: "ארבעים יכנו לא יוסיף... והיה אחיך נקלה לעיניך" – The biblical foundation for מלקות, specifying the maximum number and the principle of dignity.
  • Makkot 22a-23a: The Gemara's extensive discussion deriving the number 39, the השתלש rule, אומדנא, and cessation conditions.
  • Sifrei Devarim 286: A key Tannaitic source for some of the derivations.
  • Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Sanhedrin Chapter 17.

Text Snapshot

The Rambam meticulously details the procedure for administering מלקות:

"כיצד מלקין את המתחייב מלקות, לפי כוחו, שנאמר: 'כדי רשעתו במספר' (דברים כה, ב). והמספר ארבעים האמור בפסוק השני לא בא אלא ללמד שלא יוסיף על ארבעים לעולם, אפילו אם יהיה בריא וגבור כשמשון. אבל אם היה חלש, פוחתין לו. שאם ילקו את החלש הרבה, הרי הוא מת בוודאי. לפיכך אמרו חכמים: שאפילו הבריא ביותר, מכין אותו ל"ט. שאם יוסיף לו אחת, נמצאת שלא הכהו אלא ארבעים הראויות לו."

"When and how are lashes administered to a person liable to receive them? According to his strength, as indicated by Deuteronomy 25:2: 'According to his wickedness by number.' The number 40 stated in the following verse is mentioned to teach that more than 40 lashes are never administered even if the person is as healthy and as strong as Samson. When, by contrast, a person is weak, the amount of lashes is reduced. For if a weak person is given many lashes, he will certainly die. Therefore our Sages said: that even a very healthy person is given only 39 lashes. For if accidentally an extra blow is administered, he will still not have been given more than the 40 which he was required to receive."

--- Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Sanhedrin 17:1

Dikduk/Leshon Nuance

• "לפי כוחו": This phrase immediately grounds the entire process in the individual's physical capacity, directly linking to Devarim 25:2, כדי רשעתו במספר (according to his wickedness by number). Steinsaltz notes that this estimation is made by experts in the field (Steinsaltz, Hilchot Sanhedrin 17:1:1, citing Peirush HaMishnayot Makkot 3:10). The מספר is not fixed, but tailored.
• "והמספר ארבעים... לא בא אלא ללמד שלא יוסיף על ארבעים לעולם": The Rambam interprets the ארבעים not as an exact number to be administered, but as a ceiling—a בל תוסיף (do not add) principle. This is a crucial chiddush that forms the basis for the subsequent תקנת חכמים.
• "לפיכך אמרו חכמים... מכין אותו ל"ט": This is the crux. The Rambam explicitly attributes the reduction to 39 lashes to חכמים (the Sages), making it a תקנת חכמים (rabbinic enactment). The rationale provided — שאם יוסיף לו אחת, נמצאת שלא הכהו אלא ארבעים הראויות לו (if one extra blow is accidentally administered, he will still not have been given more than the 40 which he was required to receive) — emphasizes safeguarding against transgression of בל תוסיף. This rabbinic foresight prevents a potential biblical violation.
• "הראויות להשתלש": In section 2, the Rambam states that אומדנא must result in a number divisible by three. This rule is derived in Makkot 22a and ensures a balanced distribution of blows (one-third on the chest, two-thirds on the back) and prevents uneven punishment. Steinsaltz simply defines it as "a number of blows that can be divided by three" (Steinsaltz, Hilchot Sanhedrin 17:2:1).
• "והיה אחיך נקלה לעיניך": In section 8, this verse from Devarim 25:3 is cited as the source for ceasing lashes upon physical degradation (defecation or urination). It also forms the basis for the powerful idea that כיפר returns the individual to אחווה (brotherhood) and full communal standing.

Readings

1. Tziunei Maharan: Reconciling the Source of 39 Lashes

The Rambam's assertion that the 39 lashes are a תקנת חכמים to prevent exceeding 40 due to בל תוסיף presents a significant קושיה for many אחרונים. The Gemara in Makkot 22a derives the 39 from the verse במספר ארבעים (Devarim 25:2) – specifically, the term במספר implies that the number is part of the count, but not the entirety of ארבעים, thus meaning "a number within forty," which is often interpreted as a הלכה למשה מסיני or a דרשה דאורייתא. The Kessef Mishneh and Lechem Mishneh indeed express גמגום (hesitation/difficulty) with the Rambam's explanation, questioning his source for this being a תקנת חכמים and for the specific reason of לא יוסיף.

Tziunei Maharan's Chiddush: Tziunei Maharan resolves this קושיה by pointing to Midrash Rabbah, Bamidbar Parsha 18. The Midrash states: ארבעים יכנו לא יוסיף כנגד ארבעים קללות שנתקללו נחש וחוה ואדם ואדמה, ופחתו חכמים אחת משום לא יוסיף ע"כ. This Midrash perfectly aligns with the Rambam's formulation. It clearly posits that the biblical mandate is 40 lashes, reflecting 40 curses. However, חכמים (the Sages) actively reduced it by one, משום לא יוסיף (because of 'do not add'), to prevent any accidental transgression of the biblical ceiling. This chiddush is profound because it establishes the Rambam's view as rooted in a specific Midrashic tradition, directly countering the קושיה that the reduction to 39 is a דרשה דאורייתא from במספר. For the Rambam, the דאורייתא is 40, and the 39 is a דרבנן safeguard. This distinction is critical for understanding the nature of מלקות and the role of חכמים in mitigating biblical punishments. It underscores the active role of rabbinic authority in shaping the practical application of דין תורה out of concern for כבוד הבריות and preventing עבירה.

2. Ohr Sameach: The Interplay of אומדנא, השתלש, and בל תוסיף in Multiple Transgressions

The Rambam discusses a scenario where one is liable for two sets of lashes. If the court makes a single estimation (אומדנא) that he can bear 45 lashes for both transgressions, he receives them and is absolved. If, however, they estimated for only one transgression, gave him lashes, he recuperates, and then they estimate for the second transgression, he receives more lashes. The Kessef Mishneh again expresses גמגום on the Rambam's ruling regarding the 45 lashes, especially given the השתלש rule and the general understanding that one should not exceed 39 lashes per חיוב.

Ohr Sameach's Chiddush: The Ohr Sameach defends the Rambam, leveraging the same underlying principle elucidated by Tziunei Maharan. He argues that the Rambam's שיטה (approach) is that מן התורה (biblically) מלקות are 40, and the reduction to 39 is solely a תקנת חכמים to prevent בל תוסיף if an extra blow is given. This תקנה דרבנן applies primarily when dealing with one חיוב מלקות where the maximum possible is 40. However, when an individual is liable for two מלקיות, meaning 80 lashes biblically, and the court estimates he can bear 45 in one session, the context changes. The Ohr Sameach explains that these 45 lashes are not viewed as exceeding 40 for a single transgression. Rather, the first 40 (or 39, if we consider the דרבנן reduction for the first חיוב) are attributed to the first transgression, and the remaining 5 (or 6, depending on how one calculates the דרבנן reduction, but the Rambam's 45 simplifies it) are for the second transgression. Crucially, the Ohr Sameach argues that the תקנת חכמים to reduce to 39 is not absolute when חיובי מלקות are combined such that the total exceeds the 40-lash ceiling for a single offense. When the court estimates 45 for two transgressions, it's as if they are administering (at least conceptually) two separate sets of lashes, one following the other. The לא יוסיף concern for a single חיוב is about exceeding 40 for that single offense. Here, the 45 are for two offenses, and the court's אומדנא for 45 is deemed valid. Furthermore, the Ohr Sameach clarifies the השתלש rule. He posits that the השתלש rule (divisibility by three) applies only when the אומדנא is for a single חיוב מלקות and the number is less than 40. In the case of 45 lashes for two transgressions, it is not a single אומדנא for a single biblical punishment. He implies that the השתלש rule, being דרבנן in nature, would not apply to the total estimation for two transgressions in the same way it applies to a single one. This allows the Rambam's ruling of 45 lashes to stand without conflicting with the השתלש principle that would normally require, for example, 42 or 48. The chiddush here is a nuanced understanding of when and how תקנות חכמים (like 39 lashes and השתלש) are applied, distinguishing between single and multiple חיובי מלקות.

3. Steinsaltz: Nuances of אומדנא Over Time

The Rambam details specific rules regarding the validity of an אומדנא over time. If an estimation is made today for lashes to be given today, but the lashing is delayed until tomorrow, and the condemned's strength has increased, the original, lower estimate still stands (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Sanhedrin 17:3). Conversely, if an אומדנא is made for lashes to be given tomorrow, but the lashing is delayed until the third day, and the condemned's strength has increased, he is given the higher number of lashes (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Sanhedrin 17:3).

Steinsaltz's Chiddush (by presenting a machloket): Steinsaltz's commentary highlights a machloket in interpreting the Rambam's subtle distinction in these אומדנא scenarios (Steinsaltz, Hilchot Sanhedrin 17:3:2).

• First Approach (Aruch HaShulchan, Yad Plural): This view interprets the Rambam's rule as follows: An אומדנא made for a specific day (e.g., "today") is binding for that day and immediately the following day. If the lashing is delayed beyond the next day (i.e., to the third day), the original אומדנא is nullified, and a new, higher אומדנא can be applied. This reading emphasizes the temporal specificity of the original אומדנא. The אומדנא for "today" holds for "tomorrow," but not "the day after tomorrow."
• Second Approach (Kessef Mishneh, Shalal David): This view takes a broader stance. It argues that whenever the אומדנא was not made for the present day (i.e., it was made for a future day, even if just the next day), it is inherently more flexible. Therefore, if the lashing is delayed further (e.g., from tomorrow to the third day), and the condemned's strength increases, the court can apply a new, higher אומדנא. This interpretation leans towards the idea that if the אומדנא wasn't for immediate execution, it's less rigidly bound by the initial estimate, allowing for adjustments based on changed circumstances. The chiddush here is not a direct chiddush from Steinsaltz himself, but his presentation of these differing interpretations illuminates the subtle דקדוק (precision) required in understanding the Rambam's rules of אומדנא. It shows that even seemingly minor temporal distinctions in the Rambam's לשון (language) can lead to significant נפקא מינות (practical differences) regarding the severity of punishment. This reflects the careful balance between judicial certainty and adapting to the dynamic physical state of the condemned.

Friction

The Strongest Kushya: The Nature of the 39 Lashes – דאורייתא or דרבנן?

The most significant קושיה arising from the Rambam's text, as identified by the Kessef Mishneh and Lechem Mishneh, concerns the source and nature of the 39 lashes. The Rambam states: לפיכך אמרו חכמים: שאפילו הבריא ביותר, מכין אותו ל"ט. שאם יוסיף לו אחת, נמצאת שלא הכהו אלא ארבעים הראויות לו. (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Sanhedrin 17:1). Here, the Rambam explicitly attributes the reduction to 39 lashes to חכמים (the Sages) and provides the rationale of preventing an accidental transgression of בל תוסיף (Devarim 25:2) – "do not add" beyond 40. This clearly implies that for the Rambam, the original biblical mandate is 40 lashes, and the reduction is a תקנת חכמים (rabbinic enactment).

However, the Gemara in Makkot 22a presents a different derivation. The verse states: ארבעים יכנו לא יוסיף (Devarim 25:2). The Gemara focuses on the phrase במספר ארבעים (by number forty). R' Yehudah in the Gemara states: במספר – שלא יפחות ושלא יוסיף. במספר ארבעים – הא למה זה דומה? לקרקפתא דגולגלתא, דבר מנוי הוא. אלא, ארבעים חסר אחת. The Gemara ultimately concludes that the derivation of 39 lashes comes from the דרשה (exegetical interpretation) of במספר ארבעים, which implies מספר בתוך ארבעים (a number within forty) and specifically ארבעים חסר אחת (forty minus one). This derivation in the Gemara seems to make the 39 lashes a הלכה למשה מסיני (a law given to Moses at Sinai) or at least a direct דרשה דאורייתא (biblically derived interpretation), not a תקנת חכמים.

The קושיה is stark: How can the Rambam attribute the reduction to 39 to חכמים and the concern for בל תוסיף, when the Gemara explicitly derives it from a biblical דרשה? If it's a דרשה דאורייתא, then the concern for בל תוסיף for exceeding 40 is redundant, as the Torah itself already specified 39. This discrepancy represents a fundamental disagreement on the nature of the punishment: is the specific number 39 a direct biblical command, or a rabbinic safeguard against violating a biblical limit?

The Best Terutz (or two): Midrashic Root and Broader Application

Terutz 1: The Midrash Rabbah Resolution

The most direct and satisfying terutz is provided by the Tziunei Maharan, citing Midrash Rabbah, Bamidbar Parsha 18: ארבעים יכנו לא יוסיף כנגד ארבעים קללות שנתקללו נחש וחוה ואדם ואדמה, ופחתו חכמים אחת משום לא יוסיף ע"כ. This Midrash directly supports the Rambam's position. It explicitly states that the Torah's intent was indeed 40 lashes, symbolically corresponding to 40 curses. However, חכמים (the Sages) reduced this number by one, specifically משום לא יוסיף.

This terutz effectively reconciles the Rambam with the traditional sources by showing that his position is not an independent invention but is rooted in a specific Midrashic tradition. For the Rambam, the דאורייתא is the ceiling of 40, and the דרבנן is the practical implementation of 39 to avoid the risk of exceeding that ceiling. The Gemara's דרשה of במספר ארבעים as ארבעים חסר אחת can then be understood not as establishing 39 as the original biblical number, but as a אסמכתא (a biblical allusion or support) for the תקנת חכמים, or as a different school of thought. The Rambam, following the Midrash Rabbah, chooses the interpretation where the חכמים actively legislate the reduction. This approach places a strong emphasis on the חכמים' proactive role in protecting against potential עבירה (transgression), even when administering דין תורה.

Terutz 2: Distinguishing the Scope of לא יוסיף and השתלש

A secondary terutz, building on the first, comes from the Ohr Sameach, in his defense of the Rambam's ruling regarding 45 lashes for two transgressions. The Ohr Sameach's argument implicitly refines the understanding of בל תוסיף and the השתלש rule. If we accept that the reduction to 39 is a תקנת חכמים to prevent בל תוסיף on a single חיוב of 40 lashes, then its application becomes context-dependent. When a person is liable for שני חיובי מלקות (two obligations for lashes), the biblical maximum is conceptually 80 (40 for each). If the court estimates the individual can bear 45 lashes in total for these two transgressions, this is not seen as violating בל תוסיף from the perspective of a single חיוב. The first 40 (or 39) are attributed to the first חיוב, and the remaining 5 (or 6) are attributed to the second. The תקנת חכמים of 39 lashes is meant to avoid accidental excess for one חיוב that has a strict ceiling of 40. When there are multiple חיובי מלקות, the total can exceed 40 without violating the spirit of בל תוסיף for each individual transgression.

Similarly, the השתלש rule (divisibility by three) is also generally understood to be דרבנן (Makkot 22b, Rashi s.v. "השתלש"). The Ohr Sameach's point implies that the strict application of השתלש may primarily apply to the אומדנא for a single חיוב. When the court makes a broader אומדנא for multiple חיובי מלקות combined into one session, the total number (like 45) might not rigidly adhere to the השתלש rule because it's an overarching estimation for multiple biblical obligations, not a refined calculation for a single דרבנן reduction. This shows how the Rambam's שיטה maintains consistency: the דאורייתא limit is 40 per transgression, and חכמים introduce safeguards (39 lashes, השתלש) that are applied with discernment, based on the specific circumstances of חיוב and אומדנא. This provides a robust framework for the Rambam's detailed הלכות regarding מלקות.

Intertext

1. Devarim 25:2-3 and the Principle of Dignity

The entire sugya of מלקות is fundamentally rooted in Devarim 25:2-3:

"והיה אם בן הכות הרשע והפילו השופט והכהו לפניו כדי רשעתו במספר. ארבעים יכנו לא יוסיף פן יוסיף להכתו מכות רבות ונפלה אחיך לעיניך." "And it shall be, if the wicked man deserves to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down and be beaten before him, according to his wickedness by number. Forty lashes he may give him, he shall not exceed, lest he exceed these with many stripes, and your brother be degraded before your eyes."

This passage is not merely about the mechanics of punishment; it is laden with profound ethical considerations.

• "כדי רשעתו במספר": This phrase, as the Rambam emphasizes, mandates that the punishment be לפי כוחו (according to his strength). It is not a fixed, arbitrary number but one tailored to the individual's capacity to endure without dying, highlighting a concern for life even for the convicted.
• "ארבעים יכנו לא יוסיף": This sets the absolute ceiling, establishing the בל תוסיף principle. The Rambam (Hilchot Sanhedrin 17:1) interprets this as the source for the rabbinic reduction to 39 lashes, as discussed above. This demonstrates a deep-seated caution against excessive punishment.
• "פן יוסיף להכתו מכות רבות ונפלה אחיך לעיניך": This is perhaps the most poignant part of the verse. It provides the rationale for the בל תוסיף rule: to prevent the degradation of the punished individual. The phrase ונפלה אחיך לעיניך (and your brother be degraded before your eyes) serves as a terminus ad quem for the punishment. Once the person is נקלה (degraded), particularly through involuntary bodily functions (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Sanhedrin 17:8), the lashes must cease. This verse also underpins the powerful idea that once punished, the individual returns to full standing as אחיך (your brother), restored to the community and to their dignity. This is echoed in the Rambam's final line of the chapter: כיון שלקה, הרי הוא כאחיך. This elevates the penal system beyond mere retribution to a process of rehabilitation and reintegration.

2. Makkot 22a-23a: The Gemara's Foundational Discussion

The Gemara in Makkot is the primary sugya that the Rambam is codifying and interpreting. Many of the Rambam's rules find their direct source or elaboration there:

• Derivation of 39 Lashes: Makkot 22a discusses the דרשה from במספר ארבעים that leads to 39 lashes. While the Rambam's explanation (Midrash Rabbah) differs in attributing it to דרבנן, the Gemara's focus on this פסוק is paramount.
• The השתלש Rule: Makkot 22a-b explicitly states the requirement for מלקות to be divisible by three: תניא: מנין שאין מלקין אלא שליש? שנאמר: והפילו השופט והכהו לפניו – דייק ותו לא. (Makkot 22a). This ensures that the blows are distributed evenly (one-third on the chest, two-thirds on the back), as detailed in Makkot 22b. The Rambam codifies this meticulously (Hilchot Sanhedrin 17:2).
• אומדנא and Cessation: The Gemara in Makkot 23a discusses cases where the אומדנא changes or when lashes cease due to degradation: תניא: אמדוהו עשרים – אין אומרים לו יהא עשרים ואחת, אלא שמונה עשרה. This directly mirrors the Rambam's example in Hilchot Sanhedrin 17:2. The Gemara also discusses the cessation upon נפלה אחיך (defecation or urination), which the Rambam also incorporates (Hilchot Sanhedrin 17:8).

These intertexts reveal that the Rambam's chapter is a masterful synthesis and interpretation of centuries of legal and ethical discourse. He distills complex sugyot into clear פסקים, often choosing one שיטה over another (e.g., regarding the דרבנן nature of 39 lashes) and always grounding the legal provisions in the foundational principles of דין תורה and human dignity.

Psak/Practice

The laws of מלקות, as detailed by the Rambam, represent the ideal functioning of the סנהדרין (Jewish high court) during periods of full judicial authority. In post-Temple eras, the administration of מלקות (מלקות דאורייתא and מלקות דרבנן) largely ceased due to the decline of סמיכה (ordination) and the full authority of בתי דין (Jewish courts) to impose capital punishment or מלקות. Thus, the Rambam's intricate rulings, while halachically binding in theory, are not practiced in contemporary Jewish legal systems.

However, the meta-psak heuristics and underlying principles remain profoundly relevant:

1. Prioritization of Life and Dignity: The meticulousness of the אומדנא (לפי כוחו), the השתלש rule, and the immediate cessation upon נקלה (והיה אחיך נקלה לעיניך) underscore the paramount value of human life and dignity in Jewish law. Even when inflicting punishment, the system is designed to prevent death and undue degradation. This principle כבוד הבריות (human dignity) is a fundamental axiom that transcends the specific practice of מלקות and informs many other areas of הלכה.
2. Rabbinic Safeguards (תקנת חכמים): The Rambam's emphasis on the 39 lashes as a תקנת חכמים against בל תוסיף highlights the role of rabbinic authority in creating safeguards to prevent even accidental transgressions of biblical law. This demonstrates a meta-halachic approach where חכמים actively shape practice out of יראת שמיים (fear of Heaven) and concern for the sanctity of דין תורה. This heuristic is applied widely, where דרבנן enactments or גזירות (decrees) protect דאורייתא prohibitions.
3. Atonement and Reintegration (כיפר): The statement כיון שלקה, הרי הוא כאחיך and the concept of כיפר for כרת through מלקות offer a profound theological insight. Punishment in Judaism is not solely punitive but also redemptive. It serves as a means of atonement, restoring the individual to a state of אחווה (brotherhood) and full communal standing. This shapes the Jewish understanding of justice, emphasizing repentance, rehabilitation, and forgiveness over mere retribution.
4. Hierarchical Authority (מעלין בקודש): The rule regarding the כהן גדול returning to his position versus the ראש ישיבה not returning after מלקות (מעלין בקודש ואין מורידין) provides a heuristic for leadership and קדושה (holiness). It teaches that in matters of קדושה (which the כהן גדול embodies by virtue of his office), restoration is possible. However, in matters of שררה (authority, like a ראש ישיבה), a significant moral failing leading to מלקות can disqualify one from returning to that specific position of authority within the סנהדרין, reflecting a higher standard for judicial leadership. This principle is still applied in various contexts concerning communal leadership and roles.

Takeaway

The Rambam's intricate laws of מלקות exemplify the profound tension and ultimate harmony in Jewish law between divine justice and human compassion, showcasing how rabbinic safeguards meticulously protect individual dignity and life even within the framework of severe biblical punishment. The punishment serves not merely as retribution, but as a path to atonement and reintegration into the community, underscoring the redemptive aspect of דין תורה.

---

Footnotes:

1. Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within Their Jurisdiction 17:1.
2. Devarim 25:2.
3. Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within Their Jurisdiction 17:1:1.
4. Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within Their Jurisdiction 17:1:3.
5. Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within Their Jurisdiction 17:2.
6. Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within Their Jurisdiction 17:2:1.
7. Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within Their Jurisdiction 17:8.
8. Devarim 25:3.
9. Tziunei Maharan on Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within Their Jurisdiction 17:1:1.
10. Makkot 22a.
11. Kessef Mishneh on Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within Their Jurisdiction 17:1.
12. Lechem Mishneh on Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within Their Jurisdiction 17:1.
13. Midrash Rabbah, Bamidbar 18:18.
14. Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within Their Jurisdiction 17:4.
15. Kessef Mishneh on Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within Their Jurisdiction 17:4.
16. Ohr Sameach on Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within Their Jurisdiction 17:4:1.
17. Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within Their Jurisdiction 17:3.
18. Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within Their Jurisdiction 17:3:2.
19. Aruch HaShulchan, Choshen Mishpat 56:9, cited in Yad Plural.
20. Kessef Mishneh on Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within Their Jurisdiction 17:3, and Shalal David.
21. Devarim 25:2.
22. Makkot 22a.
23. Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within Their Jurisdiction 17:1.
24. Makkot 22b, Rashi s.v. "השתלש".
25. Makkot 22a.
26. Makkot 22b.
27. Makkot 23a.
28. Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within Their Jurisdiction 17:2.
29. Mishneh Torah, The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within Their Jurisdiction 17:8.