תּלמוד אויף במדבר 35:17

HALAKHAH: “A murderer who attacked someone,” etc. It is written²⁰Num. 35:17.: If he hit him with a lethal stone in his hand so that he died, (the hitter shall die, he is a murderer,)²¹Num. 35:21; the quote is not appropriatethe murderer shall be put to death. Or he hit him with a lethal wooden implement in his hand so that he died, the murderer shall be put to death²²Num. 35:18.. When He comes to iron²³Num. 35:16. Babli 76b., He does not speak of lethal or not lethal, but even a small hook when applied to the esophagus could kill him; but a stone must be lethal, wood must be lethal²⁴Prosecution of murder with a stone or wood is possible only if the stone or wood can be classified as lethal; otherwise the murderer can claim that the slain person was the victim of an accident.. If he put him in front of a horse²⁵In the following cases, it is presumed that the murderer somehow immobilized his victim. In these cases, the murderer is guilty if the horse already was galloping, or the arrow or spear already flying, etc. Then the action of the murderer is murder. But according to the Mishnah, tying a person as a target for other people’s future shots is indirect causation. Babli 77a., in front of an arrow, in front of a spear, put him out in the cold, gave him bad water to drink, removed the ceiling over him and the rains came down and killed him, or he opened a water canal whose waters swept over him²⁶It is murder if the first wave of water is lethal..

HALAKHAH: “If one intended to hit someone on his hips,” etc. Ḥizqiah asked: If one threw a deadly stone which killed one person and broke another’s vessels, did the verse give the law for one but not for the other³⁹In Ex. 21:22–23 it is spelled out that in case of injuries, payment is due only if there is no criminal case. But this refers only to one person. If the stone had killed one person and broke the same person’s vessels, no payment for the vessels would be due. But this says nothing about the obligations of the thrower towards a third person, not involved in the personal injury case.? Ḥizqiah asked: If one threw a stone which was not deadly but which killed one person⁴⁰Assuming that in the previous case the law was that the thrower could not be sued by the owner of the vessels, the question remains open whether he can be sued if the thrower cannot be sued for murder (Num. 35:17) but only sued for money by the heirs of the slain person. In the Babli 79b both questions are answered in the negative. and broke another’s vessels, did the verse give the law for one but not for the other?