Halakhah sobre II Samuel 3:27

One nineteenth-century rabbinic authority does state explicitly that the king may pass judgment on the basis of umdana or circumstantial evidence alone.²⁶Teshuvot Ḥatam Sofer, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, no. 208, states cryptically: “But that which is not mentioned in the Torah … the king and Sanhedrin may see in accordance with the place and in accordance with the time and similarly, a fortiori, they may remove the many destructive [persons], the murderers, without witnesses or the like. …” R. Zevi Hirsch Chajes, Torat Nevi'im, chap. 7,²⁷Published in Kol Sifrei Maharaẓ Ḥayes, I, 49. states that Rambam's source for his ruling that the king may execute a person who commits an act of homicide even in the absence of prior warning, even though biblical law requires prior warning, is a discussion found in Sanhedrin 49a. The discussion seeks to elucidate King Solomon's justificaton for the execution of Joab (I Kings 2:29-34). The Gemara states that Joab was culpable for the murder of Amasa despite the fact that there was no prior warning. R. Chajes argues that the same talmudic discussion serves to establish that the king may administer punishment on the basis of circumstantial evidence. R. Chajes endeavors to show that proof of Joab's culpability was entirely circumstantial. Amasa died because he was struck by Joab "on the fifth rib" (II Samuel 20:10). Similarly, Abner, was killed by Joab with a blow "on the fifth rib" (II Samuel 3:27). The blow "on the fifth rib" was fatal, declares R. Joḥanan, because that is "where the bile and the liver are attached." Joab's premeditation to kill, argues R. Chajes, could have been known only circumstantially, i.e., by the unlikelihood that the vulnerable spot near the fifth rib could have been struck other than by direct aim.

From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Sanhedrin 72b and see Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 1:6-7) that even if the pursuer is small and the pursued is bigger than him in every regard, everyone is obligated to save [the pursued], and even [at the expense of] the life of the pursuer. And to what do these words apply - that we save with the life of the pursuer? When it is impossible for us to save [the pursued] with one of the limbs of [the pursuer]; but if it is possible to save him with one of the limbs and he saved him with his life - this is spilling of blood (murder). And so did our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, say (Sanhedrin 49a) about the death of Avner when Yoav killed him: As it is written there (II Samuel 3:27), "and he died for shedding the blood of Asahel, his brother." And the tradition came about this that Yoav had a claim against Avner for the blood of Asahel, and judged him in a case of the Sanhedrin (High Court) - which means to say that he killed him for a claim for which it would have been fitting to [receive] death according to the Sanhedrin: He said to him, "Why did you kill Asahel?" Avner said [back] to him, "He was a pursuer." Yoav said to him, "You should have saved yourself with one of his limbs." Avner said to him, "I did not know how to aim at him [in that way]." Yoav said to him, "You aimed onto his fifth rib! And you did not know how to aim at him?" And about this is it stated, "he died for shedding the blood of Asahel, his brother."