Citations sur Les Nombres 35:21

Or with a wooden implement, why is it stated? Because it says, "And if a man strikes his slave or his female slave with a rod," I understand that whether he struck him with a matter that can cause death or with a matter that cannot cause death, it is stated, "Or with a wooden implement," to indicate that he is not liable unless he struck him with a matter that can cause death. And from where do we derive that in a place that can cause death? It is derived from the phrase, "And if a man is quarrelsome, etc.," which indicates that he is not liable unless he struck him with a matter that can cause death. And concerning a place that can cause death, I have only that if he struck him with a wooden implement, he is liable. From where do we derive that throwing boards and wooden beams upon him are also included? It is stated, "He is a murderer; he shall surely be put to death." From where do we derive that if he struck him with a stone, you would say that he struck him with a clump of salt or with a dried fig cake, or he dropped a basket filled with dirt or a basket filled with pebbles upon him? It is derived from the phrase, "And if he struck him with a stone in his hand," or with a wooden implement. From where do we derive that if he struck him on the head of a beam or on the helm of a ship, you would say he is liable? It is stated, "Or with a wooden implement in his hand." From where do we derive that if one pushes his fellow into water or into fire, or incites a snake against him, you would say it is only if he is able to cause his death? It is stated, "In his hand," to include even if he cannot cause his death. As it is said, "The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him," and if he fled to Babylon, they could go there to execute him. You would say that the redeemer of blood should kill him, etc. From where do we derive that even if he said, "I am unable to accept him," it is stated, "When he strikes him," to include even in a case where he cannot accept him. The redeemer of blood should kill the murderer; it is a mitzvah for the redeemer of blood to do so. And from where do we derive that if he does not have a redeemer of blood, the court appoints a redeemer of blood? It is stated, "When he strikes him." Why is it stated "redeemer of blood"? Because it says, "And if he struck him with an iron implement, or with a stone in his hand," [or with a wooden implement in his hand]. I have only that if he killed him with these, he is liable, but with what did he kill him?

Another interpretation: From where do we derive that you evaluate the construction of a father based on all three cases? Neither the sight of a stone is like the sight of wood, nor is the sight of wood like the sight of a stone. And neither the sight of this nor the sight of that is like the sight of iron, and the sight of iron is not like the sight of the other two. The equal side in all three cases is that they are capable of causing death, and causing death is a mitzvah for the redeemer of blood. Therefore, even if he pushed him into water or into fire, or incited a dog against him, or struck him with a snake, you evaluate the construction of a father based on all three cases. Neither the sight of a stone is like the sight of wood, nor is the sight of wood like the sight of a stone. And neither the sight of this nor the sight of that is like the sight of iron, and the sight of iron is not like the sight of the other two. The equal side in all three cases is that they are caused by things that cause death, and causing death incurs liability. Thus, one who pushed him into fire or into water, or incited a dog against him, or incited a snake against him, their judgment is left to Heaven. Or if one threw him with his hunting implements intending to harm him, from where do we derive that even if he says, "I cannot accept him," it is stated, "When he strikes him," indicating that he should be killed upon contact. And if he pushed him due to enmity, and is not enmity itself enmity? What is the purpose of stating "enmity" and "hatred"? Rather, just as hatred leads to striking him, enmity also leads to striking him. In the case of striking him with his implements, it is stated that "he shall die." What is the meaning of "his implements" mentioned here? The term "his implements" mentioned below indicates that the act of throwing and striking caused his death. Since it is stated "he shall surely die," one might think that anyone who strikes will die. However, the text provides clarifications: a minor who struck, a mentally incompetent person who struck, a teacher who struck, and a toddler who struck. Additionally, the striking in the context of rebellion and striking out of love are also included. But intentional striking is distinguished from unintentional striking. An adult is distinguished from a minor, a resident is distinguished from a stranger, and the intention to kill him is specified. In the case of a planned ambush, a distinction is made for a mentally incompetent person. However, if he survives for a day or two, a distinction is made, except for a master who struck his servant. This is because the Babylonian Talmud specifies that the exemption for acting unknowingly applies only to a strike without intent, a teacher who struck, and striking in the context of rebellion and out of love. Since it is stated "and you shall do to him as he intended," one might think that even the one who sends the strike is liable. But it is stated "he shall surely die" regarding the striker, not the sender. This implies that I am lenient with the sender in cases where the strike is not intended to be lethal, but the striker still strikes with lethal intent. It is stated "he shall surely die," not the sender. I am lenient with these individuals, but I am not lenient with striking other people's slaves. Therefore, it is stated "he shall surely die" regarding the striker. I am lenient with other people's slaves, but I am not lenient with the slave himself. Hence, it is stated "he shall surely die" regarding the striker. I am strict when it comes to one's father who is a president, but I am not strict when it comes to one's father who is a judge. Therefore, it is stated "he shall surely die" (he shall surely die). I am strict when it comes to one's father who is a judge in the Supreme Court (not the Great Court). Therefore, it is stated "he shall surely die" regarding the striker. It is possible to say all these cases apply to one's father when he committed a transgression, indicating liability. Since it is stated, "And all Israel shall hear and fear," it was established that they should execute by way of stoning. One might think that if a pregnant woman is a transgressor, they should delay her execution until she gives birth. Therefore, it is stated "he shall surely die" regarding the striker. One might think that if she is in her third month of pregnancy, they should not delay her execution until she gives birth, but if she is in her ninth month of pregnancy, they should delay her execution until she gives birth. Therefore, it is stated "he shall surely die" or "he shall surely die" referring to the death penalty decreed by the court. How do we know that they should strike him with stones, arrows, and clubs? It is stated "he shall surely die" from every side. This is applicable only when the Sanhedrin is in its rightful place. When the Sanhedrin is not in its rightful place, a person is liable to be killed by the falling of his house or being dragged by a wild animal, etc. Since it is stated "Honor your father and your mother," it means that when one kills his son, the son is exempt from punishment. Therefore, it is stated "the avenger of blood shall put him to death," etc.