Commentary for Sanhedrin 154:16

ואמר רב פפא זרק צרור למעלה והלכה לצדדין והרגה חייב אמר ליה מר בר רב אשי לרב פפא מ"ט משום דכחו הוא אי כחו תיזיל לעיל

Are we to say that [a murder] so committed is regarded as by his direct action?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'force'. ');">¹³</span> But the following contradicts it: If one was sanctifying [the water], and the ashes<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the sanctifier'. ');">¹⁴</span> fell upon his hand or upon &nbsp; &nbsp; the side of the utensil, whence it fell into the trough, it is unfit?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reference is to the law of the red heifer: Num. XIX. The ashes thereof, when mixed with running water, are said to sanctify, the ashes themselves being denominated 'the sanctifier'. These had to be placed by a person into the water, not merely fall therein. Now, if one was engaged in sanctifying the water, and instead of pouring the ashes straight in, permitted them to fall upon his hand or on the side of a utensil, whence they fell into the trough containing the sanctified water, the water is unfit for its purpose, because the mixing had not been done directly by the person. This proves that a rebound is not regarded as a person's direct action, and this contradicts the law of murder. ');">¹⁵</span> — The reference here is to a dripping down.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ashes did not fall with force from the side of the utensil into the trough, but merely dripped down; therefore it is not regarded as man's direct agency. Had they fallen with force, however, the fall would be regarded as part of the man's action in dropping them on to the utensil, and the water would accordingly be fit. In the case of murder, the rebound is with force, and directly caused by the strength of the throw. ');">¹⁶</span> Come and hear! If an [unclean] needle was lying upon a shard, and the [purifying] water was sprinkled thereon, but it is doubtful whether upon the needle or upon the shard, and then it spurted [miza] upon the needle, the sprinkling is invalid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the sprinkling, as the mixing. must be done by man. Thus we see that the rebound is not regarded as direct action. ');">¹⁷</span> — R. Hinena b. R. Judah said in Rab's name: We have learnt, It was found [maza].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the text is corrupt, and instead of miza [H], maza [H] is to be read. Thus, the water was found upon the needle, but how it came there is not known, whether sprinkled direct thereon, or it had rebounded from the shard, which, on the present hypothesis would also be valid, or flowed of itself from the shard on to the needle, in which case it was not due at all to man's action. ');">¹⁸</span> R. Papa said: <font>If one bound his neighbour and then caused a column of water to inundate him</font>, it is as his arrows, and he is liable [for his death]. But that is only if [he was drowned] by his direct agency; but if through his indirect agency,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the victim was lying immediately in front of the burst, where the strength of the water's flow is still due to the man's action, the drowning is by his direct agency. But if he was lying at some distance, he is held to be an indirect or secondary cause. ');">¹⁹</span> he is merely regarded as a subsidiary cause.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not the actual murderer. ');">²⁰</span> R. Papa also said: If one threw a stone upwards, and it returned &nbsp; &nbsp; in a slanting direction and killed a man, he is liable. Mar son of R. Ashi asked R. Papa. Why so? Because it is by his agency! But if so it should go upwards;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For he had exerted himself to cause it to go up, not down. ');">²¹</span>

Explore commentary for Sanhedrin 154:16. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.