Imrata bat Talei was a priest’s daughter who committed adultery. Rav Ḥama bar Toviyya surrounded her with bundles of branches and burned her.Rav Yosef says: [Rav Ḥama bar Toviyya] erred with regard to two [halakhot]. He erred with regard to [the ruling] of Rav Mattana, and he erred with regard to that which is taught in a baraita: [It is derived from the verse:] “And you shall come to the priests, the Levites, and to the judge that will be in those days” (Deuteronomy 17:9), that at a time when there is a priest (i.e., when the Temple is built), there is judgment [of capital cases]. [And] at a time when there is no priest, there is no judgment [of capital cases].

And it is taught in a baraita: Forty years before the destruction of the [Second] Temple, the Sanhedrin was exiled [from the Chamber of Hewn Stone] and sat in the store [near the Temple Mount]. And Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Avudimi says: This is to say that they no longer judged laws of fines. [The Gemara asks: Does it] enter your mind [to say that they no longer judged] laws of fines? Rather, [he must have said] that [the Sanhedrin] no longer judged cases of capital law.

Rather cases of capital law - for there is no [judgement] of capital laws anywhere except when the Sanhedrin is active in the chamber of hewn stone, as it is written, "then you shall arise and go up to the place", which teaches that the place causes [judgement to proceed]...

Rabbi Ḥiyya taught a baraita: From the day that the Temple was destroyed, although the Sanhedrin was abolished the four death [penalties] were not abolished? Were they not abolished? They were abolished! Rather, the punishment of the four death [penalties] was not abolished. [How so?] One who was liable stoning either falls from the roof or a beast tramples him. And one who was liable burning either falls into a conflagration or a snake bites him. And one who was liable decapitation is either handed over to the monarchy, or bandits attack him. And one who was liable strangulation either drowns in a river, or dies of diphtheria [serunki].

MISHNA: With regard to one who kills a person not in the presence of witnesses, [the court] places him into a vaulted chamber and feeds him sparing bread and scant water (see Isaiah 30:20). GEMARA: [If there are no witnesses,] from where do we know [that he killed a person]? Rav says: [The mishna is speaking about a case of] disjointed testimony, [where the witnesses were not together]. And Shmuel says: [The mishna is speaking about a case where the witnesses testified but there was] no forewarning. And Rav Ḥisda says that Avimi says: [The mishna is speaking of a case where the witnesses] contradicted each other in the examinations (that involve matters peripheral to the murder) but did not contradict each other in the interrogations, (which are integral to the murder, i.e., time and place). As we learned in a mishna (40a): There was an incident and ben Zakkai examined [the witnesses] with regard to the stems of figs [on the fig tree beneath which the murder took place]. And feeds him sparing bread and scant water. What is different in the mishna here that the tanna teaches [that the court] gives him sparing bread and scant water, and what is different [in the previous mishna] there that the tanna teaches [that the court] feeds him barley bread until his belly ruptures; (are these two different punishments)? Rav Sheshet says: Both this and that [are one punishment; first, the court] gives him sparing bread and scant water until his intestines contract, and then [the court] feeds him barley [bread that expands in his innards] until his belly ruptures.

The following laws apply when a person kills people, but the witnesses did not observe his act together - instead one saw him after the other did: a person killed in the presence of witnesses, but a warning was not given; or the witnesses to a murder contradicted each other with regard to the fine points of the testimony, but not with regard to the fundamental questions.
All those murderers should be forced to enter a kipah. There they are fed parched bread and small amounts of water until their digestive tract contracts. Then they are fed barley until their bellies burst because of the extent of the sickness and they die.

It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: I heard that the court may administer lashes and [capital] punishment, [even] when not [required] by Torah law. And not to violate the words of the Torah, rather to erect a fence around the Torah. And an incident occurred involving one who rode a horse on Shabbat during the days of the Greeks, and they brought him to court and stoned him, not because he deserved that but because the hour required it. Another incident occurred involving a man who engaged in intercourse with his wife under a fig tree, and they brought him to court and flogged him, not because that was deserved but because the hour required it.

It was stated. “Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, I heard that one punishes not according to halacha and punishes not according to Torah.” How far? Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said, up to a murmur. Rebbi Yose said, by witnesses, but without warning. It happened that one went on the road riding in his horse on the Sabbath. They brought him to court and stoned him. But was it not a rabbinic violation? But at the time it was needed. Also it happened that one went on the road together with his wife. He turned to behind a wall and satisfied his needs with her. They brought him to court and whipped him. But was it not his wife? But he behaved in a degrading way.

[The corpse of] a man is hanged facing the people, but [the corpse of] a woman [is hanged] facing the tree; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Rabbis say: [the corpse of] a man is hanged, but [the corpse of] a woman is not hanged. Rabbi Eliezer said: Did Shimon ben Shataḥ not hang in Ashkelon women [who were found guilty of witchcraft]? They said to him: He hanged eighty women [on that day], and [a court] may not judge [even] two [people charged with capital transgressions] on the same day.

A court has the authority to administer lashes to a person who is not required to receive lashes and to execute a person who is not liable to be executed. This license was not granted to overstep the words of the Torah, but rather to create a fence around the words of the Torah. When the court sees that the people have broken the accepted norms with regard to a matter, they may establish safeguards to strengthen the matter according to what appears necessary to them. All the above applies with regard to establishing directives for the immediate time, and not with regard to the establishment of halachah for all time...

Every Court of Law, even [one whose members] are not duly ordained in the Land of Israel, — if they see that the people are unrestrained in [committing] sins, and [provided] that the exigencies of the hour demand it, may pass judgment both [with respect to] death and monetary [penalties] as well as [to administer] all laws of punishment, even if in the case [in question] there is no valid evidence [available]. And if he is a stern individual, they may flog him by means of heathen authorities. And they have authority to expropriate his property and to forfeit it according to whatever they see fit in order to fence in the lawlessness of the generation. All their acts, however, should be [done] for the sake of Heaven. And [this should be executed] only [by] a great personage of the generation or [by] the representatives of the town whom they [i.e., the people] have recognized as the Court of Law over them. Gloss: And thus is the accepted practice everywhere, [viz.,] that the representatives of the town are regarded in their [own] town [as authoritative] as the [former] Great Sanhedrin. They may administer flogging and impose penalties and their expropriation [of one's property] is considered valid according to the adopted custom, although there are some who differ and are of the opinion that the representatives of the town have no power in these [matters] save that they [have the authority] to compel the community in [observing] whatever was an adopted practice heretofore, or they accepted upon themselves [a new measure] with the consent of all [the townspeople], but they may change naught in any matter that would involve a gain for one person and a loss for another or to declare a debt cancelled without the consent of all [the townspeople]. Nevertheless, [in these matters] we follow the adopted custom of the town, especially if the [townspeople] accepted them [to render decisions] in every matter. Thus seems to me [to be the correct view]. The later authorities state in their Responsa that one who has been sentenced to flogging may give forty gold coins instead of the flogging. This is, however, not stated as a law, only that they decided thus because [of the needs of the] hour, but [in reality] the Court of Law has the authority to flog him or to confiscate [his] property as they see fit according to the matter [in hand] in order to safeguard a cause.

There was a certain man who desired to show another [individual’s] straw [to the gentile authorities, who would seize it]. He came before Rav, who said to him: Do not show it and do not show it. [The man] said to him: I will show it and I will show it. Rav Kahana was sitting before Rav, he dislodged the man’s neck from him. Rav read about him: “Your sons have fainted, they lie at the head of all the streets, as an antelope in a net” (Isaiah 51:20). Just as with regard to this antelope, once it falls into the net, [the hunter] does not have mercy upon it, so too with regard to the money of a Jew, once it falls into the hand of gentiles, they do not have mercy upon him. Rav then said: Kahana, until now there were Persian [rulers] who were not particular about bloodshed. But now there are Greeks who are particular about bloodshed, and they will say: Murder [meradin], murder, [and they will press charges against you. Therefore,] get up [and] ascend to Eretz Yisrael, and accept upon yourself that you will not raise any difficulties to [the statements of] Rabbi Yoḥanan for seven years.

One is prohibited from handing over a Jew to an idolater, whether it’s the Jew’s physical person or his money, even if he was wicked and a sinner and even if he caused him pain and suffering. Whomever informs on a Jew to an idolater, whether it is his person or his money, receives no share in the next world. One is permitted to kill an informer in all places, even today. One is permitted to kill him before he informs. As soon as he says he is going to inform on so and so’s person or money, even if it is a small amount of money, he has given himself up to be killed. We would warn him and say do not inform. If he is brazen and says he still plans on informing, there is a mitzvah to kill him. Whomever kills him first would receive the merit.

MISHNA: And these are the ones who are saved [from transgressing even] at [the cost of] their lives. (i.e. These people may be killed so that they do not perform a transgression): One who pursues another to kill him, or a male or a betrothed young woman. But with regard to one who pursues an animal, or one who seeks to desecrate Shabbat, or one who is going to engage in idol worship, they are not saved at [the cost of] their lives.

(1)Rema: Regarding those guilty of the death penalty in our days, we have no power to give them lashes, exile them, kill them, or beat them. Instead we censure them and distance them from the community (Tur 68 from Natronai Gaon). Thus far regarding [strictly Torah] law. However, if the beit din sees a necessity for a preventative measure, it has the authority to institue whatever punishment they see fit (ibid., from the Responsa of the Natronai Gaon), as explained above in Siman 2. This regards those instances involving capital punishment which necessitates a beit din. Cases in which the death penalty can be implemented even without a beit din, are still judged in our days, as will be explained (ibid.). One who pursuses his fellow in order to kill him, and was warned, and continued in his pursuit: Even if the pursuer was a minor, every Jew is commanded to save the pursed, even at the cost of one maiming one of the pursuer's limbs. If it is impossible to save the pursued without killing the pursuer outright, then the pursuer should indeed be killed, even though he has not yet performed the act. Rema: (Tur 67) One who "tunnels [into a house] in order steal" has this rule of pursuer applied to him, however if it is understood that his only intent is monetary gain, and that he would not kill the owner in a confrontation, then it is forbidden to kill him. See further in the Tur in this paragraph regarding one who endangers the public, such as a Jew who engages in forgery in a land where the authorities take a strict approach to such action, such a person constitutes a "pursuer" and it is permitted to turn him over to the authorities (Nimukei Maharam MiRizburg), as explained above in 388:12.

Question: But still one could say that forty years before the destruction of the Temple, as it says in Perek Hayu Bodkin (below Sanhedrin 41a), the Sanhedrin was exiled and sat in the store, and it says that they did not judge capital cases?

Answer: Nevertheless, when they saw the needs of the hour, they would return to the chamber of hewn stone, as in that case and the like.

[Question:] And why does the Gemara ask in Perek Hayu Bodkin 'And was Raban Yochanan ben Zakai] on the Sanhedrin?'

[Answer:] Because there where he examined [witnesses] regarding the figs' stalks, it was a case of murder, and [the sanhedrin] was exiled because of the increase in murderers, and they did not return for murder cases (but did return for other kinds).

R' Sherira Gaon [10th C] wrote: "One who kills a person in our day and age, we do not have the means to do anything to him. We cannot kill him, injure him or exile him. Rather, we withdraw from him so as not to mix with him, and it is prohibited to pray with him or look at him, for it is prohibited to look at an evil person (Megillah 28a), and he is disqualified from [giving] all testimony in the world."

If the informer has executed what he planned, and reported, it seems to me that it is forbidden to kill him, unless he is a confirmed informer, in which case he should be killed lest he continue to inform against others. There are frequent cases in the cities of Northern Africa where informers, who are known to report Jewish funds to oppressors, are killed or handed over to the non-Jewish authorities to be executed, beaten, or imprisoned, in accordance with their wickedness. One may inform on individuals who pressure or cause pain to the community to an idolater who may beat, incarcerate or fine them. However, one may not inform to protect a single individual from pain. It is forbidden to destroy the property of an informer, even though it is permissible to destroy him physically, since his property belongs to his heirs.

While the four forms of execution by the beit din have been cancelled from the day the Sanhedrin was exiled, that specifically means we do not judge a person to make them liable for death from one of the sins where they would be liable for death [by Torah law] since the Sanhedrin is not in its place, no man [has the right] to oversee to judge his friend for death. But regarding those where it is calculated in Sanhedrin in perek sorer umoreh (73) that they save them at the cost of their lives, where they are not killed for the past but for the future, to save the one being pursued from death or harm, those were not cancelled. (In a place where this permit is given to the beit din by the ruler as explained above.) For this death is not dependent on the congregation or witnesses, but rather on everyone seeing him, as it says, ‘Do not stand on the blood of your fellow’…and although R’C wrote that we do not kill him with our hands, rather we lower him into a pit such that he cannot get out from there and he dies by himself, when they say to a gentile to kill him, that is like lowering him into a pit in that one is not doing the deed…

Our teacher, may you live long, knows that a terrible event happened here in Cordoba. The ears of anyone who hears of it will ring. That is, that a scoundrel of all scoundrels was imprisoned due to a claim that gentiles brought against him. He reached a compromise with them using his own money, and several of his acquaintances went to comfort him. He came out to the entrance of his yard, and they spoke to his heart about these matters. One of them said: “Blessed is He Who releases the bound”; but with all of this, the man cursed and blasphemed against his king and his God, turning heavenward. Upon hearing of this, the judges and prominent members of the community gathered together and agreed to visit judgment upon him. They sent forth to arrest him, but he was not to be found. They attempted to collect testimony without him present—for he had fled—but they only found a single witness. The others disappeared or suppressed their testimony. Now, here in this city is the honorable and exalted R. Yehuda b. Yitzhak ibn-Wakar, and he was seized by a great zeal for God, and he made efforts regarding this matter until that nasty man was delivered into his hand. He arrested him by the power of the monarch, and they incarcerated him in jail. His (=ibn-Wakar’s) hand also prevailed upon the delinquent witnesses, and he forced them, made them swear, and properly collected their testimony about this blasphemy. Although the blasphemy was in Arabic, since this scoundrel is illiterate and does not know the holy language (=Hebrew), the opinion of this notable was in agreement with that of the judges and prominent community members that it should be considered blasphemy by this loathsome individual, since the Arabic noun constitutes blasphemy just as much as the noun in the holy tongue would for those familiar with it, and also in order to create a safeguard on this matter that will not be breached by wicked simpletons casting insults toward the One above. This man has long been a tough evildoer. There is no one in the city who speaks positively of him, and he has violent horsemen propping him up. About ten of the prominent community members, men of action, together with the honorable R. Yehuda, as well as local scholars and city elders, agreed to punish him. When the aforementioned met to reach an agreement, relatives of the wicked man went and paid cash bribes, it seems, and petitioned the great nobleman, Don Juan Manuel, who we have accepted in this locale as the proxy of his majesty the king, to stay his sentence. Thus, he sent word to us with one of his horsemen that the verdict has not been sealed until we ask his opinion. The honorable R. Yehuda lobbied as best he could, and obtained the nobleman’s concession that he would not remove our way of meting out justice in favor of the gentiles’. This prince agreed that this wicked man should remain incarcerated until we receive your response, instructing us what to do. Now, praised be God, we place our hope in you, our teacher, to be zealous for God. Send word back quickly, before the prince changes his mind, leaving us to lay in our shame and be enveloped by our humiliation. Send us his verdict with explanations and proofs, instructing us what and how to carry it out. Additionally, kindly praise and support the work of the honorable R. Yehuda, for all of his efforts in this matter and his future efforts. May the Almighty be at your aid, my master, and give you a good, long, and pleasant life. This is the transcription of the testimonies that were taken in Arabic, before a rabbinical court of three, from those who took the testimony in other rabbinical courts...

Answer: May you bear much peace, you sweet and innocent, you charming and honorable people! You have astonished me by asking me about capital punishment, for in all lands of which I have heard, except here in Spain, we do not judge capital cases. When I arrived here, I was quite amazed that the courts judge capital cases without a Sanhedrin. I was informed that it is with royal license. Moreover, the assembly [of judges] issues verdicts to save lives, for how much more blood would be spilled if these were judged by the Arabs? I left them to their customary practice, but I never agreed with them about the taking of lives. Yet I see that you all consent to eliminating this evil from your midst. He has certainly desecrated God’s name publicly, and it has been heard by the Ishmaelites, who are very harsh against those who speak against their religion and their faith. This desecration will be exacerbated if we do not take lawful action/vengeance against him, as a safeguard. It is also proper to sanctify God’s name by punishing this wicked man. We find that to sanctify God’s name, they struck at princes for the sake of tagalong proselytes, even hanging their corpses (see 2 Samuel 21:1-9). Similarly, to create a safeguard, they stoned [to death] someone who rode a horse on Shabbat. So too, it is proper to sanctify God’s name by eliminating this wicked man. Do to him as you see fit. Had I been present at your meeting, I would have been inclined to the view that his tongue should be pulled from his mouth and most of it, the part necessary for speech, cut off. His lips would thus be muted. In this way, the punishment meted out would fit his deed. This is the well-known sort of justice that we see with our own eyes each day. Yet do with him as you fit per this matter. I know that your intention is for God’s name to be sanctified. May God’s will succeed by your hand. Asher b. R. Yehiel of blessed memory

...were free of heresy, except for a few towns near Christian kingdoms, where one suspects that some heretics live in secret. Our predecessors have lashed a part of those who deserved to be lashed, and they have died from lashing...

Answer:...And I have been told that you stand in rebellion and mislead the masses in the desecration of Shabbat, therefore I decree on you, after you are given this letter with witnesses, to fix the mevo'othamefulashin for the public domain of the non-Jews with a tzurat petach within a fortnight after you have seen this letter. And if you do not fix the mevo'ot as I have written, I excommunicate you. And if it were in the days of the sanhedrin, they would kill you because you come to uproot the talmud as arranged by R' Ashi and to disagree with all the gedolim who existed until today...

In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in a baraita: There has never been a stubborn and rebellious son and there will never be one in the future. And why, then, was it written [in the Torah]? So that you may expound and receive reward.