Talmud su Esodo 21:19

“If one intended to kill an animal,” etc. Rebbi Isaac asked: If they estimated that he would survive but he died; is it not common for the living to die? Since it is written³⁴Ex. 21:19. but he has to pay for his disability and the medical costs, he is liable to pay for disability and medical costs³⁵This still belongs to Halakhah 3. Since we have a principle that nobody subject to criminal punishment pays damages, why was it stated earlier that if medical opinion was that the victim would survive, the attacker has to pay the victim’s expenses and loss of earnings even though in the end he faces prosecution for murder? His monetary obligation starts immediately with the act of agression; he faces trial only after the victim’s death.. Rebbi Isaac asked: If they estimated that he would die but he survived; is it not common for the dying to live. Since it is written but he has to pay for his disability and the medical costs, he is liable to pay for disability and medical costs³⁶The moment it becomes clear that the agressor does not face criminal charges, the monetary obligations are activated..

“And they spread out the cloth.⁸⁸Deut. 22:17. It was proven that this sentence cannot mean what it says.” That is all simile. Rebbi Ismael stated: That is one of three verses in the Torah which have been written as simile⁸⁹Sifry Deut. 237; in Finkelstein’s opinion not of the original Sifry text. A slightly enlarged version is in Sanhedrin 8:8, 26c 1. 6.. “If he gets up and walks outside on his support, the one who hit him is not prosecuted.⁹⁰Ex. 21:19, speaking of a person who deliberatly injures another. Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpaṭim 6; Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai p. 174.” Could anybody think that one walks in the market and the other is executed because of him? But what is “on his support”, in his health⁹¹If the injured person regains his health but then has a relapse and dies, the person who injured him cannot be prosecuted for murder.. “If the sun shone on him, he has blood.⁹²Ex. 22:2, speaking of a thief digging a tunnel under a house, who can be killed with impunity if found out since in the tunnel “he has no blood”.” Does the sun shine only on him? But just as the sun is particular that it brings peace to the entire world, so also this one, if one knows that [the other] is at peace with him and he kills him, he is guilty⁹³In the opinion of the Babli, Sanhedrin 72a/b, this can only be asserted of a father coming to steal from his son. In the opinion of the Yerushalmi (Note 89) it cannot be asserted of anybody. Cf. Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpaṭim 13; differently in Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai p. 192..

HALAKHAH: ¹⁶³The origin of this and the following paragraphs is in Sanhedrin 9:3 (fol. 27a). The first part of our text is almost identical with the text there; the second part is badly garbled and can be understood only from the Sanhedrin text. (ג denotes a Genizah reading.) So¹⁶⁴Reading כיני as in Sanhedrin, in place of מני “who is the author”? is the Mishnah: Rebbi Neḥemia declares him not prosecutable but the Sages declare him guilty since it is not unsubstantiated¹⁶⁵The expression רגלים לדבר “the thing has feet” formulates prima facie evidence of guilt, not an argument which prohibits prosecution.. The Sages say, two estimations have precedence over one estimation¹⁶⁶Any “estimation” here is a judicial act. If the physician in charge as an officer of the court considered the victim as critically ill both at the beginning and at the end of treatment, this overrides the fact that for some time the victim was taken off the critical list. The attacker can be jailed only if the victim is in danger of his life and there is the possibility that the case may become one of capital crime (Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Mišpaṭim 6; Babli Sanhedrin 78b, Ketubot 33b).; Rebbi Neḥemiah says, the intermediate estimation has precedence over the two¹⁶⁷Once the victim was taken off the critical list, it is impossible to convict the attacker of premeditated murder.. What is Rebbi Neḥemiah’s reason? “ ‘If he gets up and walks outside on his cane, the attacker is exonerated¹⁶⁸Ex. 21:19. Both Targum Onqelos and Mekhilta dR. Ismael explain משענת not as “cane” but as “health”. This meaning seems to be understood here..’ Could you think that this one walks in the market and the other is executed because of him¹⁶⁹The verse seems to be superfluous (but its continuation, spelling out the financial obligations of the attacker, is not.)? But even if he died according to the first estimation he cannot be prosecuted¹⁷⁰The term “exonerated” is read as “permanently exonerated.”.”¹⁷¹Babli Sanhedrin 78a/b, Ketubot 33b; Tosephta Baba qama 9:7; Mekhilta dR. Simeon bar Ioḥai pp. 174–175. What is the rabbi’s reason? “If he does not die but is bedridden¹⁷²Ex. 21:18..” Would we not know that even if he does not die that he will be bedridden¹⁷³Otherwise there could not be any monetary claim derived from this paragraph. (There could be a claim under rabbinic rules for insult, etc.)? But if they estimated¹⁷⁴In Sanhedrin: “estimated” and “did not estimate” are exchanged everywhere. This seems to be the correct version; in v. 18 the imperfect לא יָמוּת is read as “not expected to die”, since it does not say לֹא מֵת. But then v. 19 could simply mean that [the attacker] has to pay for disability and medical costs; the long introductory clause therefore refers to another case. For the Sages, the medical prognosis is irrelevant. that he would die. If they estimated¹⁷⁴In Sanhedrin: “estimated” and “did not estimate” are exchanged everywhere. This seems to be the correct version; in v. 18 the imperfect לא יָמוּת is read as “not expected to die”, since it does not say לֹא מֵת. But then v. 19 could simply mean that [the attacker] has to pay for disability and medical costs; the long introductory clause therefore refers to another case. For the Sages, the medical prognosis is irrelevant. that he would die, that is what is written: “If he gets up and walks outside on his cane.” Therefore, if he does not get up, [the attacker] is guilty. But if they did not estimate¹⁷⁴In Sanhedrin: “estimated” and “did not estimate” are exchanged everywhere. This seems to be the correct version; in v. 18 the imperfect לא יָמוּת is read as “not expected to die”, since it does not say לֹא מֵת. But then v. 19 could simply mean that [the attacker] has to pay for disability and medical costs; the long introductory clause therefore refers to another case. For the Sages, the medical prognosis is irrelevant. that he would die? If they did not estimate¹⁷⁴In Sanhedrin: “estimated” and “did not estimate” are exchanged everywhere. This seems to be the correct version; in v. 18 the imperfect לא יָמוּת is read as “not expected to die”, since it does not say לֹא מֵת. But then v. 19 could simply mean that [the attacker] has to pay for disability and medical costs; the long introductory clause therefore refers to another case. For the Sages, the medical prognosis is irrelevant. that he would die, that is what is written: “But he has to pay for his disability.” Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: It is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay¹⁷⁵As a matter of principle, a person convicted of a crime cannot be made to pay since that would constitute multiple punishment (cf. Terumot 7:1, Notes 3–73; Ketubot 3:1). Therefore, a verse is needed to force the potential murderer to pay if his victim survives.. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: It was an erroneous estimation¹⁷⁶If the victim survives, it is proof that the first estimation was wrong; there is no criminal case and the civil case can proceed unhindered.. ¹⁷⁷From here on, the sentences have to be re-ordered as indicated by the text in Sanhedrin (different text in Sanhedrin is in parentheses and italicized):
What is the difference between them? If his state improved. For him who says, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he pay, if he paid, he paid. If he did not pay, the verse makes him pay¹⁷⁸Even if the victim later dies. (does he have to pay?).
For him who says, it was an erroneous estimation, if he did not pay one does not order him to pay¹⁷⁸Even if the victim later dies.. If he paid, can he take it back?
A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: If they estimated that he would die, when does he have to pay him? From the moment he improves¹⁷⁹But for R. Simeon ben Laqish he has to pay for disability from the moment of the injury.. (It proves that the estimate was wrong.)
This (A baraita) supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If they estimated that he would live but he died (die but he lived). From when does he have to pay him (count for him)? From the moment he turns worse¹⁸⁰That means, even if he turns worse, since he had to pay from the start by court order. For R. Yose ben Hanina, he never pays once the case has turned into a criminal matter.. Rebbi Yose said, it does not say here, “from the moment he turns worse” but “from the moment he turns better.¹⁸¹Then the baraita is no support for R. Simeon ben Laqish since R. Yose ben Hanina will agree that the agressor has to pay the victim who is getting better.” (but from the start. That means, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he pay. But if you say, it was an erroneous estimation, he has to pay until [the victim] dies.) What is the difference between them? If his state improved. For him who says, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay; if he paid, he paid. If he did not pay, the verse makes him pay. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: If they estimated that he would die, when does he have to pay him? From the moment he improves. For him who says, it was an erroneous estimation; if he did not pay one does not order him to pay. If he paid, can he take it back? This supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If they estimated that he would live but he died. From when does one have to pay him? From the moment he turns worse. Rebbi Yose said, it does not say here, “from the moment he turns worse” but “from the moment he turns better.”

HALAKHAH: “The intruder by stealth,” etc. ⁷⁹Parallel texts are in the Babli 72a, Mekhilta dR.. Ismael Mišpaṭim 13, dR. Simeon ben Iohai p. 192, Sifry Deut. 217; partially Yerushalmi Ketubot 4:4 (Notes 88–93). Rebbi Ismael stated: This is one of three verses⁸⁰To the verses Ex. 21:19 and 22:2 mentioned here one has to add Deut. 22:17. which in the Torah have been formulated as a simile: If he gets up and walks outside on his support⁸¹Ex. 21:19.. If the thief is found in the digging, if the sun shone on him, he has blood⁷⁷Ex. 22:2.. Does the sun shine only on him? Does the sun not shine on all beings in the world? But just as sunshine is special in that it brings peace to the entire world, so in any case in which you know that you are at peace with him, whether it be day or night his killer will be killed⁸²The Babli, 79b, states that if a father intrudes in the son’s home, the son does not have the right to kill him. The Yerushalmi does not have this good opinion of family relationships, cf. the next paragraph.. If sometimes he comes to steal, sometimes he comes to kill, you say that if certainly he comes to steal, his killer will be killed⁸³In Tosephta 11:9, this is a declarative sentence; the next sentence is missing there.? Since sometimes he comes to kill, he may be killed. From here you argue about danger to life, to say that just as (foreign worship)⁸⁴Obviously, foreign worship has to be deleted since Mishnah 9 states clearly that a person intent on idolatry cannot be killed before he acts. One must read שְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים “bloodshed” which defiles the Land (Num. 35:33; Babli Šabbat 33a, Yoma 85a); by Mishnah 9 a person intent on committing murder may be killed by any bystander before he commits the murder. If a person with a drawn sword runs after another, it is only a surmise but one which allows the bystander to kill the attacker; maybe the pursuer would not kill his victim. This is the “action in doubt“ referred to in this sentence. is special in that it defiles the Land, desecrates the Name, removes the Divine Presence, and doubts are disregarded, so much more that doubts have to be disregarded in cases of danger to life⁸⁵The Sabbath must be desecrated for the possibility of saving a life. For example, if there was a landslide on the Sabbath and it is only surmised that somebody was buried in it, one starts digging without delay..