Mga Sipi sa Mga Bilang 35:16: Yalkut Shimoni

"And if he struck him with an iron tool." Samuel said, "Why is it not stated 'with a hand in iron'? Because iron kills with any stroke, therefore the Torah did not give it a measure of the amount [required for liability]. And it is as we say, 'He was cut into pieces with iron.' If one dipped it into water or into fire, and he cannot rise from there and dies, he is liable. How do we know this? Samuel said, according to the principle of 'or with enmity,' to include one who minimizes [his act of killing]. There was a man who minimized his act of killing his companion by exposure to sunlight, and she died. Ravina ruled that Rav Acha bar Yaakov should be liable, but Ravina ruled in accordance with the principle of 'or with enmity' [that he is exempt]. If a murderer who did not intend to commit a transgression [but did so] is liable for minimizing [his act], then for damages caused intentionally but through coercion, it is not a proper judgment to impose liability for minimizing [the act]. Rav Acha bar Yaakov exempts him, according to the principle of 'he shall surely be put to death,' for the one who struck is a murderer. It is specifically for a murderer that I have obligated you for minimizing [the act], but for damages caused [by coercion], one is not liable for minimizing [the act]. And if he struck him with an iron tool and he died, why is it stated? Because it says, 'Or with a stone in his hand,' etc. I might have thought that I only have liability if he killed with these [specific objects], with stones and with wood. How do I know that with iron as well [he is liable]? Therefore, it says, 'And if he struck him with an iron tool.' This teaches that until it says, 'I have liability' if when he killed with a stone and with wood, I am liable. "But if you say so, you punished him beyond the requirements of the law." Therefore, it is stated, "And if he struck him with an iron tool." [Just as it says, 'or with a stone in his hand,' so too with iron] in his hand. You might think it was openly before the One who said and the world came into being, that iron kills with anything. Therefore, it is not stated 'in his hand,' but rather even with a needle or even with a reed. I might have only known that if he killed with an iron tool, he would be liable for casting ashes and incense upon him. From where do I know this? Therefore, it says, 'he shall surely be put to death,' regarding the murderer."

"מות יומת" (written in a remez 322). "מות יומת," the murderer shall be put to death, meaning you shall kill him, and if you do not kill him, for the killing of his ox, it is written in a hint. "אתיא רוצח רוצח" (written in a hint, i.e., indirectly). A murderer should be treated as a murderer. "רוצח וגואל הדם" (written in two separate verses) that come together, but they do not teach us anything new (written in the book of Judges).

Or if he struck him with enmity, why is it stated "by his hand"? Because it states "or if he struck him with an iron tool" etc., "or with a stone" etc., "or with a wooden tool" etc. I only know that if he killed him with those, he is liable. How do I know that if he choked him, strangled him, or kicked him, he is also liable? It is stated "by his hand" from any manner of killing.