Halakhah for Sanhedrin 144:19
איבעית אימא אמר לך רב הונא אנא דאמרי כתנא דמחתרת דאמר מחתרתו זו היא התראתו:
But why so? Is he not a pursuer?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in seeking to be born, he is as a pursuer. endangering his mother's life. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> — There it is different, for she is pursued by heaven.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. it is an 'act of God'. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> Shall we say that the following supports him? [Viz.,] If a man was pursuing after his fellow to slay him, he (observer) says to him, 'See, he is an Israelite, and a son of the covenant, whilst the Torah hath said, Whosoever would shed the blood of a man, [to save] that man shall his own blood be shed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen, IX, 6. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> meaning, save the blood of the pursued by the blood of the pursuer'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the pursuer did not accept the warning, as is normally necessary in a formal admonition, he may be slain, which proves that a warning is unnecessary in his case. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> — That is based on the ruling of R. Jose son of R. Judah. For it has been taught; R. Jose son of R. Judah said: A haber<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'associate', fellow student; it was also a scholar's title (Fellow), and is employed in this sense here. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> need not be warned, because a warning is necessary only to distinguish between ignorance and presumption.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence a scholar who knows what is forbidden need not be warned, even if his crime is punished by Beth din. Likewise, the above Baraitha is on the same basis. But on the opposing view that all transgressors, including scholars, must be formally warned, and the warning accepted, it may be that the same applies to a pursuer. Therefore this does not support R. Huna. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> Come and hear: If a man was pursuing his neighbour to slay him, the observer says to him 'See he is an Israelite, and a son of the Covenant, whilst the Torah hath taught, Whosoever would shed the blood of a man, to save that man, shall his blood be shed'. If he [the pursuer] replied. 'I know that it is so', he is not liable to be slain; but if he replied. 'I do it even on such a condition',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., even if I am to be slain for it. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> he is liable!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The latter formula is the acceptance of a warning. This proves that the pursuer must be formally warned, and thus refutes R. Huna. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> — This is only if they are standing on two opposite sides of the river, so that he cannot save him. Hence what is [to be done]? To bring him before <i>Beth din</i>! But [punishment] by <i>Beth din</i> must be preceded by a warning. An alternative answer if you wish is this: R. Huna can tell you: My ruling agrees with the Tanna of 'breaking in', who held that his breaking in constitutes a formal warning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 494, n. 1. Because by breaking in he is really a pursuer, needing no warning. ');"><sup>25</sup></span>