The Torah states that a kidnapper "shall be put to death" (Exodus 21:16), but does not specify the method of execution. The Mekhilta identifies the method as strangulation. But how did the rabbis arrive at this conclusion?
Rabbi Yoshiyah articulated a general principle: any unqualified death penalty mentioned in the Torah — one that does not specify how the execution is to be carried out — is understood to mean the least severe method. You are not permitted to assume a harsher form of execution when the Torah leaves the question open. Since strangulation was considered the most lenient of the four judicial death penalties, an unspecified death sentence defaults to strangulation.
Rabbi Yonathan agreed with the conclusion but offered a different rationale. He argued that the default is strangulation not because it is the least severe but because every unspecified "death" in the Torah simply is strangulation. It is not a question of leniency but of definition. When the Torah says "death" without qualification, it means a specific thing — and that thing is strangulation.
The practical difference between these two views is subtle but real. Rabbi Yoshiyah's approach is a mercy principle — when in doubt, choose leniency. Rabbi Yonathan's approach is a definitional principle — "death" unqualified has a fixed meaning. Both arrive at the same ruling, but their reasoning reveals different philosophies about how to read unspecified penalties in sacred law.