Biblical Hebrew Forum

["UUC" <unikom AT paco.net>]

Dear Liz,

Whether the body was called Sanhedrin or not, a court was there.
Excarnation is squarely prohibited in Judaism; cf. the critique of bamot by
the prophets. But you have a point because if it was criticizes, then it was
used. I guessed once that the bamot left by the man to the rich was a
permission for Persian (aristocratic) - style excarnation. There is,
however, suffix waw, not easily explained. Perhaps, he permitted a specific
kind of excarnation burials. Wild speculation, of course.


Best regards,

Vadim


>
>
> Dear Vadim,
> No Sanhedrin, nope, nada.
> You're retrojecting the Talmud into the Persian period.
> Still I agree that he would have been buried elsewhere away
> from the common folk.
> The Zoroastrians had/have a custom of laying the body out
> for the vultures to pick the flesh off and then placing the bones
> in an above-ground sepulcher so that the bones don't defile
> the earth or the air (air, earth, fire and water were holy).
> That might be what is going on here.
> Best,
> Liz
>
> >
> >
> > On a separate field, owned by Sanhedrin, for at least a year.
> > That's the law. Burying of an executed criminal in a normal
> > cemetery area would defile it and raise objections of the
> > other tomb owning families.
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Vadim Cherny
> >
> >
> > > Dear All,
> > > These are very interesting but bewildering.
> > > What sense is it that a rich man would have the same sort
> > of grave as
> > > a criminal?
> > > I thought criminals were buried away from everyone else.
> > > Liz Fried
> > > A2
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>