Midrasch zu Schemot 21:18

“On my bed at nights I sought the one whom my soul loves; I sought him, but did not find him” (Song of Songs 3:1).
“On my bed at nights.” Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: What is “on my bed at nights”? During my illness, just as it says: “And he does not die but falls into bed” (Exodus 21:18). Rabbi Levi said: The congregation of Israel said before the Holy One blessed be He: Master of the universe, in the past You would illuminate for me between nights and nights; between the night of Egypt and the night of Babylon, between the night of Babylon and the night of Media, between the night of Media and the night of Greece, and between the night of Greece and the night of Edom.¹Edom refers to Rome. The meaning of Rabbi Levi’s statement is that there would be a bright period between periods of persecution. But now that I have slumbered from the Torah and the mitzvot, nights have become consecutive for me. “On my bed at nights,” Rabbi Alexandra said: When I slumbered from the Torah and the mitzvot, my nights became consecutive for me. “On my bed at nights [balelot],” the nights came [ba’u lelot].²The nights, meaning the periods of persecution, came consecutively.

(Deut. 16:18:) “[You shall appoint] judges and law officers,” “judges” are magistrates, and “law officers” are administrators that supervise the people.¹¹Cf. Sifre to Deut. 16:18 (144). R. Eleazar said, “If there is no law officer, there is no judge. How so? When someone is found by a court to have a legal obligation to his companion, if there is no law officer who will collect from him when he withdraws from the court, there is no power in the hands of the judge to do anything to him. If, however, [a law officer is present], he delivers him into the hand of the law officer, and the law officer extracts compliance from him.” R. Eleazar ben Pedat said, “If it had not been for the law-enforcing office¹²Siteno, which is being read as sitero, as suggested by Jastrow, s.v. of Joab, David could not have enforced justice.” And so it says (in I Chron. 18:14-15 // II Sam. 8:15-16), “So David administered judgment and righteousness to all his people. And Joab ben Zeruiah was over the army.” Were David and Joab judges together? It is simply that whenever someone did not heed the judge, they delivered him into the hands of Joab, and he extracted [compliance] from him against his will. And so Job said (in Job 29:16-17), “I was a father to the poor […]. I broke the jaws [of the evildoer].”

(Bamidbar 35:16) "And if with an iron implement he kill him (intentionally) and he die, he is a murderer.": What is the intent of this? From (17) "And if with a hand-stone … (18) Or if with a wooden implement, etc.", I might think that he is liable only if he killed him with one of these. Whence would I derive (the same for) iron? It is, therefore, written "And if with an iron implement he kill him, he is a murderer." — But (even) without this I can derive it a fortiori, viz.: If he is liable for killing him with stone or wood, how much more so with iron! — But if so, I would say: Just as a stone must fill the hand (thus "hand-stone"), so, iron. It is, therefore, written with an implement of iron, (of any size). It is revealed before the Holy One Blessed be He that iron of any size can kill, wherefore "hand" is not written (in that connection) — even a needle or a pin sufficing. This tells me only of his killing him with iron. Whence do I derive the same for his throwing at him metal balls or lumps? From (16) "He is a murderer; die shall die the murderer" — in any event. (17) "And if with a hand-stone, whereby he can die, he strike him and he die, he is a murderer. Die shall die the murderer.": What is the intent of this? From (Shemot 21:18) "And if men quarrel and a man strike his neighbor, etc." I might think (that this obtains) whether he strikes him with something which is or which is not lethal. It is, therefore, written "And if with a hand-stone (i.e., one which fills the hand), whereby he can die, he strike him." Scripture hereby apprises us that he is not liable unless he strikes him with something which is potentially lethal. I might think, even (if he strike him) on a (body) site (a blow to) which is not mortal. It is, therefore, written (Devarim 19:11) "And if a man hate his neighbor … and he strike him mortally" — whereby we are apprised that he is not liable unless he strikes him with something which is potentially lethal and on a (body) site, injury to which may result in his death. This ("And if with a hand-stone") tells me that he is liable only if he kills him with a stone. Whence do I derive (the same for) his rolling rocks or pillars over him? From (17) "he is a murderer — die shall die the murderer" — in any event.