Q&A: If There Is No One Obligated to Pay, Should They Not Be Executed?
If There Is No One Obligated to Pay, Should They Not Be Executed?
Question
The Talmud can’t seem to obligate anyone regarding the horse that runs and stops him, and the cloths that are waved.
If the person being executed isn’t obligated,
and the judges aren’t obligated,
and you can’t impose an obligation on the public when it isn’t clear that they are obligated,
then there is no one from whom to take the funding for this.
But it is forbidden to carry out the execution without this.
If so, then it is impossible to carry out an execution.
And only a religious court that executes once in seventy years didn’t come up with this trick?
Does that make sense?
Answer
I didn’t understand the question. The discussion is about who is supposed to fund the horse, etc. Who told you that if no funder is found, the sentence is not carried out? If no one is found, then it comes from public funds, or people are compelled to pay. There is no such thing as saying the judges are not obligated. We are talking about the public treasury, and if there is no one else, they take it from there.
The plain sense of the Talmud seems to be that if it is impossible to fulfill “and the congregation shall save,” then there is no execution.
Still, whom would he compel to pay?
The person being executed would argue that the Talmud did not obligate him, so by what authority can the judge obligate him?
The public? Fine—let them pay, and even the entertainment for the one who is obligated.
But if the Talmud did not say that they are obligated, even though it could have said so, on what basis would you obligate the public?
And if no one pays,
then there is no such provision, and there is no execution.