Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

October 2, 2017 | 讬状讘 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Sanhedrin 78

If a group of people gang up on one person and each hit him/her and he/she dies, do all or any of them receive the death penalty?聽 What are the laws regarding a person who is a treifa – one who is assessed to die within 12 months – what if a person like that is killed or kills or testifies against another?聽 If one hits another and is assessed to die but then recovers somewhat and then subsequently dies, can the one who hit be killed as punishment for the death or not?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讜讗讬 诇讗讜 讻讞讜 讛讜讗 转讬讝讬诇 诇转讞转 讗诇讗 讻讞 讻讞讜砖 讛讜讗

Rav Pappa answered: And were it not for the force of his action, the stone would go down and not to the side. Rather, although it is a weak force, the force of his action is a partial cause of the damage caused by the stone going to the side; therefore, he is liable.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讻讜讛讜 注砖专讛 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讘注砖专讛 诪拽诇讜转 讜诪转 讘讬谉 讘讘转 讗讞转 讘讬谉 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 驻讟讜专讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讛讗讞专讜谉 讞讬讬讘 诪驻谞讬 砖拽讬专讘 讗转 诪讬转转讜

The Sages taught: If ten people struck an individual with ten sticks and as a result of the beating he died, whether they beat him simultaneously, or whether they beat him one after the other, they are exempt from liability for killing him, as two people are not liable for an action that they performed together. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: If they struck him one after the other, the one who struck him last is liable, because he hastened his death.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜砖谞讬讛诐 诪拽专讗 讗讞讚 讚专砖讜 讜讗讬砖 讻讬 讬讻讛 讻诇 谞驻砖 讗讚诐 专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讻诇 谞驻砖 注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 讻诇 谞驻砖 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 住讘专 讻诇 谞驻砖 讻诇 讚讛讜讗 谞驻砖

Rabbi Yo岣nan says: And both Rabbis, i.e., the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, interpreted the same verse in drawing their halakhic conclusion. The verse states: 鈥淎nd a man who strikes any soul mortally, he shall be put to death鈥 (Leviticus 24:17). The Rabbis hold that 鈥渁ny soul鈥 means that one is liable for murder only when there is an entire soul, i.e., when the murderer alone is responsible for taking the entire life of the victim. And Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira holds that 鈥渁ny soul鈥 means that one is liable for murder for taking any soul, even if the victim had already been beaten and was close to death.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘讛讜专讙 讗转 讛讟专讬驻讛 砖讛讜讗 驻讟讜专 讘讙讜住住 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 讘讙讜住住 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 诪专 诪讚诪讬 诇讬讛 诇讟专讬驻讛 讜诪专 诪讚诪讬 诇讬讛 诇讙讜住住 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐

Rava says: All concede that in the case of one who kills one who has a wound that will cause him to die within twelve months [tereifa] he is exempt from liability, as in a certain sense the legal status of the victim is that of a dead person. All concede in a case where one kills an individual dying from an illness caused at the hand of Heaven that he is liable, as no other individual took action contributing to his death, and the murderer alone took his remaining soul. They disagree only in a case where one kills an individual dying from injury caused at the hand of a person. One Sage, the Rabbis, likens this case to the case of a tereifa, and therefore rules that the one who kills him is exempt. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, likens this case to the case of an individual dying from an illness caused at the hand of Heaven, and therefore rules that the one who kills him is liable.

诪讗谉 讚诪讚诪讬 诇讬讛 诇讟专讬驻讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 诪讚诪讬 诇讬讛 诇讙讜住住 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 讙讜住住 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 诇讗 讗讬转注讘讬讚 讘讬讛 诪注砖讛 讛讗讬 讗讬转注讘讬讚 讘讬讛 诪注砖讛

The Gemara asks: As for the one who likens this case to the case of a tereifa, what is the reason that he does not liken it to the case of an individual dying from an illness caused at the hand of Heaven? The Gemara answers: In the case of an individual dying from an illness caused at the hand of Heaven, no action was performed by a person to kill him, whereas in this case of an individual dying from injury caused at the hand of a person, an action was performed by an individual to kill him. Therefore, it is a case of two people who performed an action together, and they are not liable.

讜诪讗谉 讚诪讚诪讬 诇讬讛 诇讙讜住住 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 诪讚诪讬 诇讬讛 诇讟专讬驻讛 讟专讬驻讛 诪讞转讻讬 住讬诪谞讬诐 讛讗 诇讗 诪讞转讻讬 住讬诪谞讬诐

The Gemara asks: And as for the one who likens this case to the case of an individual dying from an illness caused at the hand of Heaven, what is the reason that he does not liken it to a tereifa? The Gemara answers: In the case of a tereifa, his status is like that of one whose organs, the trachea and the esophagus, are cut, who is considered to be slaughtered. The status of this individual dying from injury caused at the hand of a person is not like that of one whose organs, the trachea and the esophagus, are cut, as there is no particular defect; rather, he is like one suffering from general frailty, like any frail or elderly individual.

转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 砖砖转 讜讗讬砖 讻讬 讬讻讛 讻诇 谞驻砖 讗讚诐 诇讛讘讬讗 讛诪讻讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻讚讬 诇讛诪讬转 讜讘讗 讗讞专 讜讛诪讬转讜 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘

A tanna taught a baraita before Rav Sheshet: The verse that states: 鈥淎nd a man who strikes any soul mortally, he shall be put to death鈥 (Leviticus 24:17), serves to include the case of one who strikes another and it is a blow in which there is not sufficient force to kill, and then another individual comes and kills him; the verse teaches that the second individual is liable.

讗讬谉 讘讜 讻讚讬 诇讛诪讬转 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诇讗 讬砖 讘讜 讻讚讬 诇讛诪讬转 讜讘讗 讗讞专 讜讛诪讬转讜 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讜住转诪讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗

The Gemara challenges: If the first individual struck him with a blow in which there is not sufficient force to kill, this halakha is obvious, as the first did not perform an act of killing at all, and it is only the second who killed him. Rather, emend the baraita to teach: The verse serves to include the case of one who strikes another and it is a blow in which there is sufficient force to kill, and then another individual comes and kills him; the verse teaches that the second individual is liable. And this unattributed baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, who holds that one who completes the killing of an individual is liable to be executed as a murderer.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讛讜专讙 讗转 讛讟专讬驻讛 驻讟讜专 讜讟专讬驻讛 砖讛专讙 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讞讬讬讘 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 驻讟讜专

Rava says: One who kills a tereifa is exempt as it is as though he killed a dead person. And as for a tereifa who kills another individual, if he killed him before the judges in court, he is liable to be executed. If the killing was not before the judges in court, he is exempt.

讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讞讬讬讘 讚讻转讬讘 讜讘注专转 讛专注 诪拽专讘讱 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 驻讟讜专 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讛 注讚讜转 砖讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讝讬诪讛 讜讻诇 注讚讜转 砖讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讝讬诪讛 诇讗 砖诪讛 注讚讜转

The Gemara explains: In the case of a tereifa who killed before the court, what is the reason that he is liable? He is liable, as it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall eradicate the evil from your midst鈥 (Deuteronomy 13:6), from which it is derived that there is a mitzva for the court to eradicate evil that it witnesses firsthand. In the case where the killing was not before the judges in court, he is exempt, as any testimony against the tereifa is testimony that you cannot render conspiratory testimony. Even if the witnesses testifying that the tereifa committed murder are found to be conspiring witnesses, they cannot be executed, as they conspired to kill a tereifa. And any testimony that you cannot render conspiratory testimony is not characterized as testimony, and is not accepted in court.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讛专讜讘注 讗转 讛讟专讬驻讛 讞讬讬讘 讟专讬驻讛 砖专讘注 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讞讬讬讘 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 驻讟讜专 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讞讬讬讘 讚讻转讬讘 讜讘注专转 讛专注 诪拽专讘讱 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 驻讟讜专 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讛 注讚讜转 砖讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讝讬诪讛

And Rava says: One who sodomizes a male who is a tereifa is liable to be executed for committing an act of sodomy. And as for a tereifa who sodomizes a male, if he does so before the judges in court, he is liable to be executed. If the act of sodomy was not before a court, he is exempt. The Gemara explains: If he committed an act of sodomy before the court, he is liable, as it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall eradicate the evil from your midst.鈥 If the act of sodomy was not before a court, he is exempt, as any testimony against a tereifa is testimony that you cannot render conspiratory testimony.

讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讱 讛专讜讘注 讗转 讛讟专讬驻讛 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬讛讜讬 讻诪讗谉 讚诪砖诪砖 诪转 讜诇讬驻讟专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诪砖讜诐 讛谞讗讛 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讛谞讗讛

The Gemara asks: Why do I also need this ruling? This case of sodomy is identical to that case of murder; why then does Rava cite two cases with regard to capital transgressions involving a tereifa? The Gemara answers: It was necessary for him to mention the case of one who sodomizes a tereifa, as there is a novel element introduced in that halakha. Lest you say: Let the status of one who sodomizes a male who is a tereifa be like one who engages in necrophilia, and let him be exempt from execution. To counter this, Rava teaches us that his liability is due to the pleasure that he experiences, and this man who sodomizes a tereifa has pleasure, as, although the legal status of a tereifa is that of a dead person in certain senses, he is, in fact, alive.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 注讚讬诐 砖讛注讬讚讜 讘讟专讬驻讛 讜讛讜讝诪讜 讗讬谉 谞讛专讙讬谉 注讚讬 讟专讬驻讛 砖讛讜讝诪讜 谞讛专讙讬谉 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 注讚讬 讟专讬驻讛 砖讛讜讝诪讜 讗讬谉 谞讛专讙讬谉 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞谉 讘讝讜诪诪讬 讝讜诪诪讬谉

And Rava says: Witnesses who testified with regard to a tereifa that he committed a capital transgression, and then they were rendered conspiring witnesses are not executed, as they conspired to kill one whose status is that of a dead person. Witnesses who are themselves tereifa who were rendered conspiring witnesses are executed. Rav Ashi says: Even witnesses who are themselves tereifa who were rendered conspiring witnesses are not executed, due to the fact that they are not susceptible to a situation where witnesses who rendered them conspiring witnesses can themselves be rendered conspiring witnesses. Witnesses who render the witnesses who are themselves tereifa conspiring witnesses who then are rendered conspiring witnesses are not executed, because they sought to kill a tereifa, whose status is that of a dead person. Therefore, their testimony is testimony that you cannot render conspiratory testimony and is disregarded.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 砖讜专 讟专讬驻讛 砖讛专讙 讞讬讬讘 讜砖讜专 砖诇 讗讚诐 讟专讬驻讛 砖讛专讙 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讛砖讜专 讬住拽诇 讜讙诐 讘注诇讬讜 讬讜诪转 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚拽专讬谞讗 讘讬讛 讜讙诐 讘注诇讬讜 讬讜诪转 拽专讬谞谉 讘讬讛 讛砖讜专 讬住拽诇 讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 拽专讬谞谉 讘讬讛 讜讙诐 讘注诇讬讜 讬讜诪转 诇讗 拽专讬谞谉 讘讬讛 讛砖讜专 讬住拽诇

And Rava says: An ox that is a tereifa that killed an individual is liable to be executed, like any animal that kills a person. And an ox belonging to a person who is a tereifa that killed an individual is exempt. What is the reason for this halakha? It is as the verse states: 鈥淭he ox shall be stoned and its owner shall also be put to death鈥 (Exodus 21:29). Based on the juxtaposition between the owner and his ox it is derived: Anywhere that we can read concerning the situation: 鈥淎nd its owner shall also be put to death,鈥 we read, i.e., apply, concerning it: 鈥淭he ox shall be stoned.鈥 And anywhere that we cannot read concerning it: 鈥淎nd its owner shall also be put to death,鈥 we do not read concerning it: 鈥淭he ox shall be stoned.鈥 Since the owner of the ox cannot be executed, as he is a tereifa, his ox is also not liable to be stoned.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜专 讟专讬驻讛 谞诪讬 砖讛专讙 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 讘注诇讬诐 讛讜讜 驻讟讬专讬 砖讜专 谞诪讬 驻讟讜专

Rav Ashi says: Even an ox that is a tereifa that killed an individual is exempt. What is the reason for this halakha? Based on the juxtaposition between the ox and the owner, since if the owner were a tereifa he would be exempt, an ox that is a tereifa that killed an individual is also exempt.

砖讬住讛 讘讜 讗转 讛讻诇讘 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讻砖转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗专住 谞讞砖 讘讬谉 砖讬谞讬讜 讛讜讗 注讜诪讚 诇驻讬讻讱 诪讻讬砖 讘住讬讬祝 讜谞讞砖 驻讟讜专

搂 The mishna teaches: If one set a dog against an individual and the dog killed him, or if one set a snake against an individual and the snake killed him, the one who set the dog or the snake is exempt from punishment. If he imbedded the snake鈥檚 fangs into another person and caused the snake to bite him and kill him, Rabbi Yehuda deems him liable to be executed, and the Rabbis exempt him. Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov says: When you analyze the matter you will find that according to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, venom of a snake stands within its fangs, and in this case the entire action is performed by the individual who imbeds the fang in the other person鈥檚 skin. The snake is passive. Therefore, the one who causes the snake to bite is liable to be executed by beheading with a sword as a murderer, and the snake is exempt.

诇讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讗专住 谞讞砖 诪注爪诪讜 讛讜讗 诪拽讬讗 诇驻讬讻讱 谞讞砖 讘住拽讬诇讛 讜讛诪讻讬砖 驻讟讜专

According to the statement of the Rabbis, venom of a snake is discharged by the snake itself. The snake directly causes the death, while the individual who imbeds the fang is merely an indirect cause. Consequently, the snake is executed by stoning, and the one who caused the snake to bite is exempt from execution.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讻讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讘讬谉 讘讗讘谉 讘讬谉 讘讗讙专讜祝 讜讗诪讚讜讛讜 诇诪讬转讛 讜讛讬拽诇 诪诪讛 砖讛讬讛 讜诇讗讞专 诪讻讗谉 讛讻讘讬讚 讜诪转 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 驻讟讜专 砖专讙诇讬诐 诇讚讘专

MISHNA: In the case of one who strikes another, whether he does so with a stone or with his fist, and the doctors assessed his condition, estimating that it would lead to death, and then his condition eased from what it was, and the doctors revised their prognosis and predicted that he would live, and thereafter his condition worsened and he died, the assailant is liable to be executed as a murderer. Rabbi Ne岣mya says: He is exempt, as there is a basis for the matter of assuming that he is not liable. Since the victim鈥檚 condition eased in the interim, a cause other than the blow struck by the assailant ultimately caused his death.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗转 讝讜 讚专砖 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 壮讗诐 讬拽讜诐 讜讛转讛诇讱 讘讞讜抓

GEMARA: The Sages taught: Rabbi Ne岣mya interpreted this verse in arriving at his ruling. It is written: 鈥淚f he rises and walks outside

注诇 诪砖注谞转讜 讜谞拽讛 讛诪讻讛壮 讜讻讬 转注诇讛 注诇 讚注转讱 砖讝讛 诪讛诇讱 讘砖讜拽 讜讝讛 谞讛专讙 讗诇讗 讝讛 砖讗诪讚讜讛讜 诇诪讬转讛 讜讛拽诇 诪诪讛 砖讛讬讛 讜诇讗讞专 讻讱 讛讻讘讬讚 讜诪转 砖讛讜讗 驻讟讜专

upon his staff, then he that struck him is absolved; only for his loss of livelihood shall he give and he shall heal him鈥 (Exodus 21:19). The phrase: 鈥淭hen he that struck him is absolved,鈥 is superfluous; would it enter your mind to say that this individual whom he struck is walking in the marketplace, and that individual who struck him will be executed as a murderer? Rather, this is referring to a case where the doctors assessed his condition, saying that it would lead to death, and his condition eased somewhat from what it was and he walked in the marketplace, and thereafter his condition worsened and he died, and the verse is teaching that he is exempt.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 讜谞拽讛 讛诪讻讛 诪讗讬 讚专砖讬 讘讬讛 诪诇诪讚 砖讞讜讘砖讬谉 讗讜转讜

The Gemara asks: And as for the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Ne岣mya and hold that he is liable in that case, what do they interpret from that phrase: 鈥淭hen he that struck him is absolved鈥? The Gemara explains that according to the Rabbis, the verse teaches that they incarcerate him until the fate of the victim can be determined, and the phrase: 鈥淭hen he that struck him is absolved,鈥 means that he is freed from incarceration.

讜专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讞讘讬砖讛 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讬诇讬祝 诪诪拽讜砖砖

The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Ne岣mya, from where does he derive the halakha of incarceration? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the incident of the wood gatherer in the wilderness with regard to whom it is written: 鈥淎nd they placed him under guard鈥 (Numbers 15:34).

讜专讘谞谉 谞诪讬 诇讬诇驻讬 诪诪拽讜砖砖 诪拽讜砖砖 讘专 拽讟诇讗 讛讜讗 讜诪砖讛 诇讗 讛讜讛 讬讚注 拽讟诇讬讛 讘诪讗讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讛讗讬 讚诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讗讬 讘专 拽讟诇讗 讛讜讗 讗讬 诇讗讜 讘专 拽讟诇讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara challenges: And the Rabbis too, let them derive the halakha of incarceration from the incident of the wood gatherer. The Gemara explains: With regard to the wood gatherer, he was incarcerated because it was known from the outset that he was liable to be killed, and Moses did not know with what form of capital punishment his death would be implemented. This is to the exclusion of this individual who struck another, with regard to whom we do not know if he is liable to be killed or if he is not liable to be killed. Therefore, one cannot derive the halakha in this case from the case of the wood gatherer.

讜专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讬诇讬祝 诪诪讙讚祝 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 讬讚注 讗讬 讘专 拽讟诇讗 讛讜讗 讜讞讘砖讜讛讜

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Ne岣mya, from where does he derive the halakha? He too should not be able to derive the halakha from the case of the wood gatherer. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ne岣mya derives the halakha with regard to one who strikes another from the incident of the blasphemer (see Leviticus 24:12), where Moses did not know if he was liable to be killed, and he nevertheless imprisoned the blasphemer.

讜专讘谞谉 诪讙讚祝 讛讜专讗转 砖注讛 讛讬转讛

The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, why don鈥檛 they derive the halakha from the incident of the blasphemer? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis hold that the case of the blasphemer was a provisional edict.

讻讚转谞讬讗 讬讜讚注 讛讬讛 诪砖讛 专讘讬谞讜 砖讛诪拽讜砖砖 讘诪讬转讛 砖谞讗诪专 壮诪讞诇诇讬讛 诪讜转 讬讜诪转壮 讗诇讗 诇讗 讛讬讛 讬讜讚注 讘讗讬讝讜 诪讬转讛 谞讛专讙 砖谞讗诪专 壮讻讬 诇讗 驻专砖壮 讜讙讜壮 讗讘诇 诪讙讚祝 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讘讜 讗诇讗 壮诇驻专砖 诇讛诐 注诇 驻讬 讛 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 诪砖讛 讬讜讚注 讗诐 讛讜讗 讘谉 诪讬转讛 讻诇 注讬拽专 讗诐 诇讗讜

The difference between the uncertainty in the case of the wood gatherer and the uncertainty in the case of the blasphemer is as it is taught in a baraita: Moses our teacher knew that the wood gatherer was liable to be sentenced to death, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall observe the Shabbat as it is sacred to you; one who desecrates it shall be put to death鈥 (Exodus 31:14). But he did not know with which death penalty he was to be killed, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd they placed him under guard, as it had not been declared what should be done to him鈥 (Numbers 15:34). But concerning the blasphemer it is stated only: 鈥淎nd they placed him under guard that it might be declared to them according to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 24:12), as Moses did not know if the blasphemer was liable to be killed at all, or not.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘讬 转专讬 讗讜诪讚谞讬 讞讚 讗诪讚讜讛讜 诇诪讬转讛 讜讞讬讛 讜讞讚 讗诪讚讜讛讜 诇诪讬转讛 讜讛拽诇 诪诪讛 砖讛讬讛 讗诇讗 诇专讘谞谉 转专讬 讗讜诪讚谞讬 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Rabbi Ne岣mya, that is the reason that two assessments are written. It is written in one verse: 鈥淎nd if men quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he did not die but is bedridden鈥 (Exodus 21:18), indicating that after the initial blow the victim is assessed to determine whether or not he is expected to die. In the following verse it is written: 鈥淚f he rises and walks outside upon his staff, then he that struck him is absolved鈥 (Exodus 21:19), indicating that there is an additional assessment to determine whether or not he fully recovers. One verse is where they assessed his condition, saying that it would lead to death, and he recovered fully; and one verse is where they assessed his condition, saying that it would lead to death, and his condition eased from what it was and he died thereafter. But according to the Rabbis, why do I need two assessments?

讞讚 讗诪讚讜讛讜 诇诪讬转讛 讜讞讬讛 讜讞讚 讗诪讚讜讛讜 诇讞讬讬诐 讜诪转

The Gemara answers: According to the Rabbis, one assessment is where they assessed his condition, saying that it would lead to death and he recovered fully, in which case the assailant is certainly not executed but pays compensation. And one assessment is where they assessed his condition, saying that it would lead to life and he died, in which case the assailant is also not executed but pays compensation.

讜专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗诪讚讜讛讜 诇讞讬讬诐 讜诪转 诇讗 爪专讬讱 拽专讗 砖讛专讬 讬爪讗 诪讘讬转 讚讬谉 讝讻讗讬

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Ne岣mya, from where does he derive these two halakhot? The Gemara answers: He holds that in the case where they assessed his condition, saying that it would lead to life, and he died, one does not need an explicit verse to exempt the assailant from execution, as he emerged from the court after the first hearing innocent when they predicted that the victim would live, and the court does not rescind its initial ruling and convict him.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪讻讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪讚讜讛讜 诇诪讬转讛 讜讞讬讛 驻讜讟专讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗诪讚讜讛讜 诇诪讬转讛 讜讛拽诇 诪诪讛 砖讛讬讛 讗讜诪讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗讜诪讚 砖谞讬 诇诪诪讜谉 讜讗诐 诇讗讞专 讻谉 讛讻讘讬讚 讜诪转 讛诇讱 讗讞专 讗讜诪讚 讛讗诪爪注讬 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讗讜诪讚 讗讞专 讗讜诪讚

The Sages taught: In the case of one who strikes another and they assessed his condition, saying that it would lead to death, and he recovered fully, the court exempts the assailant. If they assessed his condition saying that it would lead to death and his condition eased from what it was, they assess the victim with a second assessment to determine the monetary restitution for damages. And if thereafter his medical condition worsened and he died, the halakha is: Follow the assessment that was assessed at the intermediate stage, which determined that the victim would live, and the assailant is not executed; this is the statement of Rabbi Ne岣mya. And the Rabbis say: There is no assessment after assessment. The death of the victim proves that the assessment at the intermediate stage was erroneous, and the assailant is executed.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讗诪讚讜讛讜 诇诪讬转讛 讗讜诪讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讞讬讬诐 诇讞讬讬诐 讗讬谉 讗讜诪讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇诪讬转讛 讗诪讚讜讛讜 诇诪讬转讛 讜讛拽诇 诪诪讛 砖讛讬讛 讗讜诪讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗讜诪讚 砖谞讬 诇诪诪讜谉 讜讗诐 诇讗讞专 讻谉 讛讻讘讬讚 讜诪转 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 讜爪注专 诇讬讜专砖讬诐

It is taught in another baraita: If they assessed his condition, saying that it would lead to death, and his condition improved, they assess his condition to determine whether it would lead to life. If they assessed his condition, saying that it would lead to life, and his condition deteriorated, they do not then assess his condition to determine whether it would lead to death, but the assailant is exempted based on the initial determination. If they assessed his condition, saying that it would lead to death, and his condition eased from what it was, they assess the victim with a second assessment to determine the monetary restitution for damages, as the assailant is certainly liable to pay restitution for the injury that he caused. And if thereafter his medical condition worsened and he died, the assailant pays restitution to the heirs for injury and suffering that he caused.

诪讗讬诪转讬 诪砖诇诐 诪砖注讛 砖讛讻讛讜 讜住转诪讗 讻专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛

The Gemara asks: From when is the initial assessment of the value of the victim performed to determine the sum of the damages that the assailant pays? It is the assessment of his value from the moment that the assailant struck him. The Gemara notes: And this unattributed baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya, as according to the opinion of the Rabbis, he is liable to be executed even if there was a temporary improvement in his condition before he died.

诪转谞讬壮 谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讛专讜讙 讗转 讛讘讛诪讛 讜讛专讙 讗转 讛讗讚诐 诇谞讻专讬 讜讛专讙 讗转 讬砖专讗诇 诇谞驻诇讬诐 讜讛专讙 讗转 讘谉 拽讬讬诪讗 驻讟讜专

MISHNA: If one intended to kill an animal, and he killed a person standing adjacent to it, or if he intended to kill a gentile, for whose murder he is not liable to be executed in court, and he killed a Jew, or if he intended to kill non-viable newborns, for whose murder one is not liable, and he killed a viable person, the assailant is exempt from execution, since his intent was to kill one for whose murder he is not liable.

谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讛讻讜转讜 注诇 诪转谞讬讜 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 讘讛 讻讚讬 诇讛诪讬转讜 注诇 诪转谞讬讜 讜讛诇讻讛 诇讛 注诇 诇讘讜 讜讛讬讛 讘讛 讻讚讬 诇讛诪讬转讜 注诇 诇讘讜 讜诪转 驻讟讜专 谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讛讻讜转讜 注诇 诇讘讜

If one intended to strike another on his loins, and the blow was not powerful enough to kill him if it were to land on his loins, but instead the blow landed on his chest over the victim鈥檚 heart, and it was powerful enough to kill him when it landed on his chest over his heart, and the victim died as a result of the blow, the assailant is exempt from execution, as he did not intend to strike the victim a blow that would cause his death. If he intended to strike him on his chest over his heart

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Sanhedrin 78

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sanhedrin 78

讜讗讬 诇讗讜 讻讞讜 讛讜讗 转讬讝讬诇 诇转讞转 讗诇讗 讻讞 讻讞讜砖 讛讜讗

Rav Pappa answered: And were it not for the force of his action, the stone would go down and not to the side. Rather, although it is a weak force, the force of his action is a partial cause of the damage caused by the stone going to the side; therefore, he is liable.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讻讜讛讜 注砖专讛 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讘注砖专讛 诪拽诇讜转 讜诪转 讘讬谉 讘讘转 讗讞转 讘讬谉 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 驻讟讜专讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讛讗讞专讜谉 讞讬讬讘 诪驻谞讬 砖拽讬专讘 讗转 诪讬转转讜

The Sages taught: If ten people struck an individual with ten sticks and as a result of the beating he died, whether they beat him simultaneously, or whether they beat him one after the other, they are exempt from liability for killing him, as two people are not liable for an action that they performed together. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: If they struck him one after the other, the one who struck him last is liable, because he hastened his death.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜砖谞讬讛诐 诪拽专讗 讗讞讚 讚专砖讜 讜讗讬砖 讻讬 讬讻讛 讻诇 谞驻砖 讗讚诐 专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讻诇 谞驻砖 注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 讻诇 谞驻砖 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 住讘专 讻诇 谞驻砖 讻诇 讚讛讜讗 谞驻砖

Rabbi Yo岣nan says: And both Rabbis, i.e., the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, interpreted the same verse in drawing their halakhic conclusion. The verse states: 鈥淎nd a man who strikes any soul mortally, he shall be put to death鈥 (Leviticus 24:17). The Rabbis hold that 鈥渁ny soul鈥 means that one is liable for murder only when there is an entire soul, i.e., when the murderer alone is responsible for taking the entire life of the victim. And Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira holds that 鈥渁ny soul鈥 means that one is liable for murder for taking any soul, even if the victim had already been beaten and was close to death.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘讛讜专讙 讗转 讛讟专讬驻讛 砖讛讜讗 驻讟讜专 讘讙讜住住 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 讘讙讜住住 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 诪专 诪讚诪讬 诇讬讛 诇讟专讬驻讛 讜诪专 诪讚诪讬 诇讬讛 诇讙讜住住 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐

Rava says: All concede that in the case of one who kills one who has a wound that will cause him to die within twelve months [tereifa] he is exempt from liability, as in a certain sense the legal status of the victim is that of a dead person. All concede in a case where one kills an individual dying from an illness caused at the hand of Heaven that he is liable, as no other individual took action contributing to his death, and the murderer alone took his remaining soul. They disagree only in a case where one kills an individual dying from injury caused at the hand of a person. One Sage, the Rabbis, likens this case to the case of a tereifa, and therefore rules that the one who kills him is exempt. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, likens this case to the case of an individual dying from an illness caused at the hand of Heaven, and therefore rules that the one who kills him is liable.

诪讗谉 讚诪讚诪讬 诇讬讛 诇讟专讬驻讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 诪讚诪讬 诇讬讛 诇讙讜住住 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 讙讜住住 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 诇讗 讗讬转注讘讬讚 讘讬讛 诪注砖讛 讛讗讬 讗讬转注讘讬讚 讘讬讛 诪注砖讛

The Gemara asks: As for the one who likens this case to the case of a tereifa, what is the reason that he does not liken it to the case of an individual dying from an illness caused at the hand of Heaven? The Gemara answers: In the case of an individual dying from an illness caused at the hand of Heaven, no action was performed by a person to kill him, whereas in this case of an individual dying from injury caused at the hand of a person, an action was performed by an individual to kill him. Therefore, it is a case of two people who performed an action together, and they are not liable.

讜诪讗谉 讚诪讚诪讬 诇讬讛 诇讙讜住住 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 诪讚诪讬 诇讬讛 诇讟专讬驻讛 讟专讬驻讛 诪讞转讻讬 住讬诪谞讬诐 讛讗 诇讗 诪讞转讻讬 住讬诪谞讬诐

The Gemara asks: And as for the one who likens this case to the case of an individual dying from an illness caused at the hand of Heaven, what is the reason that he does not liken it to a tereifa? The Gemara answers: In the case of a tereifa, his status is like that of one whose organs, the trachea and the esophagus, are cut, who is considered to be slaughtered. The status of this individual dying from injury caused at the hand of a person is not like that of one whose organs, the trachea and the esophagus, are cut, as there is no particular defect; rather, he is like one suffering from general frailty, like any frail or elderly individual.

转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 砖砖转 讜讗讬砖 讻讬 讬讻讛 讻诇 谞驻砖 讗讚诐 诇讛讘讬讗 讛诪讻讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻讚讬 诇讛诪讬转 讜讘讗 讗讞专 讜讛诪讬转讜 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘

A tanna taught a baraita before Rav Sheshet: The verse that states: 鈥淎nd a man who strikes any soul mortally, he shall be put to death鈥 (Leviticus 24:17), serves to include the case of one who strikes another and it is a blow in which there is not sufficient force to kill, and then another individual comes and kills him; the verse teaches that the second individual is liable.

讗讬谉 讘讜 讻讚讬 诇讛诪讬转 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诇讗 讬砖 讘讜 讻讚讬 诇讛诪讬转 讜讘讗 讗讞专 讜讛诪讬转讜 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讜住转诪讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗

The Gemara challenges: If the first individual struck him with a blow in which there is not sufficient force to kill, this halakha is obvious, as the first did not perform an act of killing at all, and it is only the second who killed him. Rather, emend the baraita to teach: The verse serves to include the case of one who strikes another and it is a blow in which there is sufficient force to kill, and then another individual comes and kills him; the verse teaches that the second individual is liable. And this unattributed baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, who holds that one who completes the killing of an individual is liable to be executed as a murderer.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讛讜专讙 讗转 讛讟专讬驻讛 驻讟讜专 讜讟专讬驻讛 砖讛专讙 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讞讬讬讘 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 驻讟讜专

Rava says: One who kills a tereifa is exempt as it is as though he killed a dead person. And as for a tereifa who kills another individual, if he killed him before the judges in court, he is liable to be executed. If the killing was not before the judges in court, he is exempt.

讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讞讬讬讘 讚讻转讬讘 讜讘注专转 讛专注 诪拽专讘讱 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 驻讟讜专 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讛 注讚讜转 砖讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讝讬诪讛 讜讻诇 注讚讜转 砖讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讝讬诪讛 诇讗 砖诪讛 注讚讜转

The Gemara explains: In the case of a tereifa who killed before the court, what is the reason that he is liable? He is liable, as it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall eradicate the evil from your midst鈥 (Deuteronomy 13:6), from which it is derived that there is a mitzva for the court to eradicate evil that it witnesses firsthand. In the case where the killing was not before the judges in court, he is exempt, as any testimony against the tereifa is testimony that you cannot render conspiratory testimony. Even if the witnesses testifying that the tereifa committed murder are found to be conspiring witnesses, they cannot be executed, as they conspired to kill a tereifa. And any testimony that you cannot render conspiratory testimony is not characterized as testimony, and is not accepted in court.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讛专讜讘注 讗转 讛讟专讬驻讛 讞讬讬讘 讟专讬驻讛 砖专讘注 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讞讬讬讘 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 驻讟讜专 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讞讬讬讘 讚讻转讬讘 讜讘注专转 讛专注 诪拽专讘讱 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 驻讟讜专 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讛 注讚讜转 砖讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讝讬诪讛

And Rava says: One who sodomizes a male who is a tereifa is liable to be executed for committing an act of sodomy. And as for a tereifa who sodomizes a male, if he does so before the judges in court, he is liable to be executed. If the act of sodomy was not before a court, he is exempt. The Gemara explains: If he committed an act of sodomy before the court, he is liable, as it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall eradicate the evil from your midst.鈥 If the act of sodomy was not before a court, he is exempt, as any testimony against a tereifa is testimony that you cannot render conspiratory testimony.

讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讱 讛专讜讘注 讗转 讛讟专讬驻讛 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬讛讜讬 讻诪讗谉 讚诪砖诪砖 诪转 讜诇讬驻讟专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诪砖讜诐 讛谞讗讛 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讛谞讗讛

The Gemara asks: Why do I also need this ruling? This case of sodomy is identical to that case of murder; why then does Rava cite two cases with regard to capital transgressions involving a tereifa? The Gemara answers: It was necessary for him to mention the case of one who sodomizes a tereifa, as there is a novel element introduced in that halakha. Lest you say: Let the status of one who sodomizes a male who is a tereifa be like one who engages in necrophilia, and let him be exempt from execution. To counter this, Rava teaches us that his liability is due to the pleasure that he experiences, and this man who sodomizes a tereifa has pleasure, as, although the legal status of a tereifa is that of a dead person in certain senses, he is, in fact, alive.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 注讚讬诐 砖讛注讬讚讜 讘讟专讬驻讛 讜讛讜讝诪讜 讗讬谉 谞讛专讙讬谉 注讚讬 讟专讬驻讛 砖讛讜讝诪讜 谞讛专讙讬谉 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 注讚讬 讟专讬驻讛 砖讛讜讝诪讜 讗讬谉 谞讛专讙讬谉 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞谉 讘讝讜诪诪讬 讝讜诪诪讬谉

And Rava says: Witnesses who testified with regard to a tereifa that he committed a capital transgression, and then they were rendered conspiring witnesses are not executed, as they conspired to kill one whose status is that of a dead person. Witnesses who are themselves tereifa who were rendered conspiring witnesses are executed. Rav Ashi says: Even witnesses who are themselves tereifa who were rendered conspiring witnesses are not executed, due to the fact that they are not susceptible to a situation where witnesses who rendered them conspiring witnesses can themselves be rendered conspiring witnesses. Witnesses who render the witnesses who are themselves tereifa conspiring witnesses who then are rendered conspiring witnesses are not executed, because they sought to kill a tereifa, whose status is that of a dead person. Therefore, their testimony is testimony that you cannot render conspiratory testimony and is disregarded.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 砖讜专 讟专讬驻讛 砖讛专讙 讞讬讬讘 讜砖讜专 砖诇 讗讚诐 讟专讬驻讛 砖讛专讙 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讛砖讜专 讬住拽诇 讜讙诐 讘注诇讬讜 讬讜诪转 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚拽专讬谞讗 讘讬讛 讜讙诐 讘注诇讬讜 讬讜诪转 拽专讬谞谉 讘讬讛 讛砖讜专 讬住拽诇 讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 拽专讬谞谉 讘讬讛 讜讙诐 讘注诇讬讜 讬讜诪转 诇讗 拽专讬谞谉 讘讬讛 讛砖讜专 讬住拽诇

And Rava says: An ox that is a tereifa that killed an individual is liable to be executed, like any animal that kills a person. And an ox belonging to a person who is a tereifa that killed an individual is exempt. What is the reason for this halakha? It is as the verse states: 鈥淭he ox shall be stoned and its owner shall also be put to death鈥 (Exodus 21:29). Based on the juxtaposition between the owner and his ox it is derived: Anywhere that we can read concerning the situation: 鈥淎nd its owner shall also be put to death,鈥 we read, i.e., apply, concerning it: 鈥淭he ox shall be stoned.鈥 And anywhere that we cannot read concerning it: 鈥淎nd its owner shall also be put to death,鈥 we do not read concerning it: 鈥淭he ox shall be stoned.鈥 Since the owner of the ox cannot be executed, as he is a tereifa, his ox is also not liable to be stoned.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜专 讟专讬驻讛 谞诪讬 砖讛专讙 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 讘注诇讬诐 讛讜讜 驻讟讬专讬 砖讜专 谞诪讬 驻讟讜专

Rav Ashi says: Even an ox that is a tereifa that killed an individual is exempt. What is the reason for this halakha? Based on the juxtaposition between the ox and the owner, since if the owner were a tereifa he would be exempt, an ox that is a tereifa that killed an individual is also exempt.

砖讬住讛 讘讜 讗转 讛讻诇讘 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讻砖转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗专住 谞讞砖 讘讬谉 砖讬谞讬讜 讛讜讗 注讜诪讚 诇驻讬讻讱 诪讻讬砖 讘住讬讬祝 讜谞讞砖 驻讟讜专

搂 The mishna teaches: If one set a dog against an individual and the dog killed him, or if one set a snake against an individual and the snake killed him, the one who set the dog or the snake is exempt from punishment. If he imbedded the snake鈥檚 fangs into another person and caused the snake to bite him and kill him, Rabbi Yehuda deems him liable to be executed, and the Rabbis exempt him. Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov says: When you analyze the matter you will find that according to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, venom of a snake stands within its fangs, and in this case the entire action is performed by the individual who imbeds the fang in the other person鈥檚 skin. The snake is passive. Therefore, the one who causes the snake to bite is liable to be executed by beheading with a sword as a murderer, and the snake is exempt.

诇讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讗专住 谞讞砖 诪注爪诪讜 讛讜讗 诪拽讬讗 诇驻讬讻讱 谞讞砖 讘住拽讬诇讛 讜讛诪讻讬砖 驻讟讜专

According to the statement of the Rabbis, venom of a snake is discharged by the snake itself. The snake directly causes the death, while the individual who imbeds the fang is merely an indirect cause. Consequently, the snake is executed by stoning, and the one who caused the snake to bite is exempt from execution.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讻讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讘讬谉 讘讗讘谉 讘讬谉 讘讗讙专讜祝 讜讗诪讚讜讛讜 诇诪讬转讛 讜讛讬拽诇 诪诪讛 砖讛讬讛 讜诇讗讞专 诪讻讗谉 讛讻讘讬讚 讜诪转 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 驻讟讜专 砖专讙诇讬诐 诇讚讘专

MISHNA: In the case of one who strikes another, whether he does so with a stone or with his fist, and the doctors assessed his condition, estimating that it would lead to death, and then his condition eased from what it was, and the doctors revised their prognosis and predicted that he would live, and thereafter his condition worsened and he died, the assailant is liable to be executed as a murderer. Rabbi Ne岣mya says: He is exempt, as there is a basis for the matter of assuming that he is not liable. Since the victim鈥檚 condition eased in the interim, a cause other than the blow struck by the assailant ultimately caused his death.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗转 讝讜 讚专砖 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 壮讗诐 讬拽讜诐 讜讛转讛诇讱 讘讞讜抓

GEMARA: The Sages taught: Rabbi Ne岣mya interpreted this verse in arriving at his ruling. It is written: 鈥淚f he rises and walks outside

注诇 诪砖注谞转讜 讜谞拽讛 讛诪讻讛壮 讜讻讬 转注诇讛 注诇 讚注转讱 砖讝讛 诪讛诇讱 讘砖讜拽 讜讝讛 谞讛专讙 讗诇讗 讝讛 砖讗诪讚讜讛讜 诇诪讬转讛 讜讛拽诇 诪诪讛 砖讛讬讛 讜诇讗讞专 讻讱 讛讻讘讬讚 讜诪转 砖讛讜讗 驻讟讜专

upon his staff, then he that struck him is absolved; only for his loss of livelihood shall he give and he shall heal him鈥 (Exodus 21:19). The phrase: 鈥淭hen he that struck him is absolved,鈥 is superfluous; would it enter your mind to say that this individual whom he struck is walking in the marketplace, and that individual who struck him will be executed as a murderer? Rather, this is referring to a case where the doctors assessed his condition, saying that it would lead to death, and his condition eased somewhat from what it was and he walked in the marketplace, and thereafter his condition worsened and he died, and the verse is teaching that he is exempt.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 讜谞拽讛 讛诪讻讛 诪讗讬 讚专砖讬 讘讬讛 诪诇诪讚 砖讞讜讘砖讬谉 讗讜转讜

The Gemara asks: And as for the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Ne岣mya and hold that he is liable in that case, what do they interpret from that phrase: 鈥淭hen he that struck him is absolved鈥? The Gemara explains that according to the Rabbis, the verse teaches that they incarcerate him until the fate of the victim can be determined, and the phrase: 鈥淭hen he that struck him is absolved,鈥 means that he is freed from incarceration.

讜专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讞讘讬砖讛 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讬诇讬祝 诪诪拽讜砖砖

The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Ne岣mya, from where does he derive the halakha of incarceration? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the incident of the wood gatherer in the wilderness with regard to whom it is written: 鈥淎nd they placed him under guard鈥 (Numbers 15:34).

讜专讘谞谉 谞诪讬 诇讬诇驻讬 诪诪拽讜砖砖 诪拽讜砖砖 讘专 拽讟诇讗 讛讜讗 讜诪砖讛 诇讗 讛讜讛 讬讚注 拽讟诇讬讛 讘诪讗讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讛讗讬 讚诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讗讬 讘专 拽讟诇讗 讛讜讗 讗讬 诇讗讜 讘专 拽讟诇讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara challenges: And the Rabbis too, let them derive the halakha of incarceration from the incident of the wood gatherer. The Gemara explains: With regard to the wood gatherer, he was incarcerated because it was known from the outset that he was liable to be killed, and Moses did not know with what form of capital punishment his death would be implemented. This is to the exclusion of this individual who struck another, with regard to whom we do not know if he is liable to be killed or if he is not liable to be killed. Therefore, one cannot derive the halakha in this case from the case of the wood gatherer.

讜专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讬诇讬祝 诪诪讙讚祝 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 讬讚注 讗讬 讘专 拽讟诇讗 讛讜讗 讜讞讘砖讜讛讜

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Ne岣mya, from where does he derive the halakha? He too should not be able to derive the halakha from the case of the wood gatherer. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ne岣mya derives the halakha with regard to one who strikes another from the incident of the blasphemer (see Leviticus 24:12), where Moses did not know if he was liable to be killed, and he nevertheless imprisoned the blasphemer.

讜专讘谞谉 诪讙讚祝 讛讜专讗转 砖注讛 讛讬转讛

The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, why don鈥檛 they derive the halakha from the incident of the blasphemer? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis hold that the case of the blasphemer was a provisional edict.

讻讚转谞讬讗 讬讜讚注 讛讬讛 诪砖讛 专讘讬谞讜 砖讛诪拽讜砖砖 讘诪讬转讛 砖谞讗诪专 壮诪讞诇诇讬讛 诪讜转 讬讜诪转壮 讗诇讗 诇讗 讛讬讛 讬讜讚注 讘讗讬讝讜 诪讬转讛 谞讛专讙 砖谞讗诪专 壮讻讬 诇讗 驻专砖壮 讜讙讜壮 讗讘诇 诪讙讚祝 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讘讜 讗诇讗 壮诇驻专砖 诇讛诐 注诇 驻讬 讛 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 诪砖讛 讬讜讚注 讗诐 讛讜讗 讘谉 诪讬转讛 讻诇 注讬拽专 讗诐 诇讗讜

The difference between the uncertainty in the case of the wood gatherer and the uncertainty in the case of the blasphemer is as it is taught in a baraita: Moses our teacher knew that the wood gatherer was liable to be sentenced to death, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall observe the Shabbat as it is sacred to you; one who desecrates it shall be put to death鈥 (Exodus 31:14). But he did not know with which death penalty he was to be killed, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd they placed him under guard, as it had not been declared what should be done to him鈥 (Numbers 15:34). But concerning the blasphemer it is stated only: 鈥淎nd they placed him under guard that it might be declared to them according to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 24:12), as Moses did not know if the blasphemer was liable to be killed at all, or not.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘讬 转专讬 讗讜诪讚谞讬 讞讚 讗诪讚讜讛讜 诇诪讬转讛 讜讞讬讛 讜讞讚 讗诪讚讜讛讜 诇诪讬转讛 讜讛拽诇 诪诪讛 砖讛讬讛 讗诇讗 诇专讘谞谉 转专讬 讗讜诪讚谞讬 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Rabbi Ne岣mya, that is the reason that two assessments are written. It is written in one verse: 鈥淎nd if men quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he did not die but is bedridden鈥 (Exodus 21:18), indicating that after the initial blow the victim is assessed to determine whether or not he is expected to die. In the following verse it is written: 鈥淚f he rises and walks outside upon his staff, then he that struck him is absolved鈥 (Exodus 21:19), indicating that there is an additional assessment to determine whether or not he fully recovers. One verse is where they assessed his condition, saying that it would lead to death, and he recovered fully; and one verse is where they assessed his condition, saying that it would lead to death, and his condition eased from what it was and he died thereafter. But according to the Rabbis, why do I need two assessments?

讞讚 讗诪讚讜讛讜 诇诪讬转讛 讜讞讬讛 讜讞讚 讗诪讚讜讛讜 诇讞讬讬诐 讜诪转

The Gemara answers: According to the Rabbis, one assessment is where they assessed his condition, saying that it would lead to death and he recovered fully, in which case the assailant is certainly not executed but pays compensation. And one assessment is where they assessed his condition, saying that it would lead to life and he died, in which case the assailant is also not executed but pays compensation.

讜专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗诪讚讜讛讜 诇讞讬讬诐 讜诪转 诇讗 爪专讬讱 拽专讗 砖讛专讬 讬爪讗 诪讘讬转 讚讬谉 讝讻讗讬

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Ne岣mya, from where does he derive these two halakhot? The Gemara answers: He holds that in the case where they assessed his condition, saying that it would lead to life, and he died, one does not need an explicit verse to exempt the assailant from execution, as he emerged from the court after the first hearing innocent when they predicted that the victim would live, and the court does not rescind its initial ruling and convict him.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪讻讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪讚讜讛讜 诇诪讬转讛 讜讞讬讛 驻讜讟专讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗诪讚讜讛讜 诇诪讬转讛 讜讛拽诇 诪诪讛 砖讛讬讛 讗讜诪讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗讜诪讚 砖谞讬 诇诪诪讜谉 讜讗诐 诇讗讞专 讻谉 讛讻讘讬讚 讜诪转 讛诇讱 讗讞专 讗讜诪讚 讛讗诪爪注讬 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讗讜诪讚 讗讞专 讗讜诪讚

The Sages taught: In the case of one who strikes another and they assessed his condition, saying that it would lead to death, and he recovered fully, the court exempts the assailant. If they assessed his condition saying that it would lead to death and his condition eased from what it was, they assess the victim with a second assessment to determine the monetary restitution for damages. And if thereafter his medical condition worsened and he died, the halakha is: Follow the assessment that was assessed at the intermediate stage, which determined that the victim would live, and the assailant is not executed; this is the statement of Rabbi Ne岣mya. And the Rabbis say: There is no assessment after assessment. The death of the victim proves that the assessment at the intermediate stage was erroneous, and the assailant is executed.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讗诪讚讜讛讜 诇诪讬转讛 讗讜诪讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讞讬讬诐 诇讞讬讬诐 讗讬谉 讗讜诪讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇诪讬转讛 讗诪讚讜讛讜 诇诪讬转讛 讜讛拽诇 诪诪讛 砖讛讬讛 讗讜诪讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗讜诪讚 砖谞讬 诇诪诪讜谉 讜讗诐 诇讗讞专 讻谉 讛讻讘讬讚 讜诪转 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 讜爪注专 诇讬讜专砖讬诐

It is taught in another baraita: If they assessed his condition, saying that it would lead to death, and his condition improved, they assess his condition to determine whether it would lead to life. If they assessed his condition, saying that it would lead to life, and his condition deteriorated, they do not then assess his condition to determine whether it would lead to death, but the assailant is exempted based on the initial determination. If they assessed his condition, saying that it would lead to death, and his condition eased from what it was, they assess the victim with a second assessment to determine the monetary restitution for damages, as the assailant is certainly liable to pay restitution for the injury that he caused. And if thereafter his medical condition worsened and he died, the assailant pays restitution to the heirs for injury and suffering that he caused.

诪讗讬诪转讬 诪砖诇诐 诪砖注讛 砖讛讻讛讜 讜住转诪讗 讻专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛

The Gemara asks: From when is the initial assessment of the value of the victim performed to determine the sum of the damages that the assailant pays? It is the assessment of his value from the moment that the assailant struck him. The Gemara notes: And this unattributed baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya, as according to the opinion of the Rabbis, he is liable to be executed even if there was a temporary improvement in his condition before he died.

诪转谞讬壮 谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讛专讜讙 讗转 讛讘讛诪讛 讜讛专讙 讗转 讛讗讚诐 诇谞讻专讬 讜讛专讙 讗转 讬砖专讗诇 诇谞驻诇讬诐 讜讛专讙 讗转 讘谉 拽讬讬诪讗 驻讟讜专

MISHNA: If one intended to kill an animal, and he killed a person standing adjacent to it, or if he intended to kill a gentile, for whose murder he is not liable to be executed in court, and he killed a Jew, or if he intended to kill non-viable newborns, for whose murder one is not liable, and he killed a viable person, the assailant is exempt from execution, since his intent was to kill one for whose murder he is not liable.

谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讛讻讜转讜 注诇 诪转谞讬讜 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 讘讛 讻讚讬 诇讛诪讬转讜 注诇 诪转谞讬讜 讜讛诇讻讛 诇讛 注诇 诇讘讜 讜讛讬讛 讘讛 讻讚讬 诇讛诪讬转讜 注诇 诇讘讜 讜诪转 驻讟讜专 谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讛讻讜转讜 注诇 诇讘讜

If one intended to strike another on his loins, and the blow was not powerful enough to kill him if it were to land on his loins, but instead the blow landed on his chest over the victim鈥檚 heart, and it was powerful enough to kill him when it landed on his chest over his heart, and the victim died as a result of the blow, the assailant is exempt from execution, as he did not intend to strike the victim a blow that would cause his death. If he intended to strike him on his chest over his heart

Scroll To Top