Sanhedrin 155

ואי לאו כחו הוא תיזיל לתחת אלא כח כחוש הוא

&nbsp; whilst if it is not by his agency, it should fall [vertically] down?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not in a slanting direction. ');">¹</span>

ת"ר הכוהו עשרה בני אדם בעשרה מקלות ומת בין בבת אחת בין בזה אחר זה פטורין רבי יהודה בן בתירא אומר בזה אחר זה האחרון חייב מפני שקירב את מיתתו

— But it is through his agency, though weakened.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., most of the force with which he threw it was already expended, but sufficient was left to impel it in the direction in which it fell. ');">²</span>

אמר ר' יוחנן ושניהם מקרא אחד דרשו (ויקרא כד, יז) ואיש כי יכה כל נפש אדם רבנן סברי כל נפש עד דאיכא כל נפש ור' יהודה בן בתירא סבר כל נפש כל דהוא נפש

Our Rabbis taught: <font>If ten men smote a man with ten staves, whether simultaneously or successively, and he died, they are exempt</font>. R. Judah b. Bathyra said: If successively, the last is liable, because he struck the actual death blow.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'brought his death near'; v. B.K. 26b. ');">³</span>

אמר רבא הכל מודים בהורג את הטריפה שהוא פטור בגוסס בידי שמים שהוא חייב לא נחלקו אלא בגוסס בידי אדם מר מדמי ליה לטריפה ומר מדמי ליה לגוסס בידי שמים

R. Johanan said: Both derive [their rulings] from the same verse, And <font>he that killeth</font> kol nefesh<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H]. ');">⁴</span>

מאן דמדמי ליה לטריפה מאי טעמא לא מדמי ליה לגוסס בידי שמים גוסס בידי שמים לא איתעביד ביה מעשה האי איתעביד ביה מעשה

[lit., <font>'all life'</font>] of man shall surely be put to death.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXIV, 17. ');">⁵</span>

ומאן דמדמי ליה לגוסס בידי שמים מ"ט לא מדמי ליה לטריפה טריפה מחתכי סימנים הא לא מחתכי סימנים

The Rabbis maintain that kol nefesh implies <font>the whole life</font>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, if ten men assailed him successively, he was already nearly dead when the last smote him: therefore the last too is exempt. ');">⁶</span>

תני תנא קמיה דרב ששת ואיש כי יכה כל נפש אדם להביא המכה את חבירו ואין בו כדי להמית ובא אחר והמיתו שהוא חייב

but R. Judah b. Bathyra holds that kol nefesh implies whatever there is of life.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., however little life the man has, even if he is nearly dead, the man who actually kills him is liable. ');">⁷</span>

אין בו כדי להמית פשיטא אלא יש בו כדי להמית ובא אחר והמיתו שהוא חייב וסתמא כרבי יהודה בן בתירא

Raba said: Both agree that <font>if he killed a <i>terefah</i></font>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. When used of a person, it means that he was suffering from some fatal organic disease, recovery from which is impossible. ');">⁸</span>

אמר רבא ההורג את הטריפה פטור וטריפה שהרג בפני ב"ד חייב שלא בפני ב"ד פטור

he is exempt; if he slew one who was dying through an act of God,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' l.e., naturally, through age or weakness, but without an organic disease or wound. ');">⁹</span>

בפני ב"ד (מאי טעמא) חייב דכתי' (דברים יג, ו) ובערת הרע מקרבך שלא בפני ב"ד פטור דהויא לה עדות שאי אתה יכול להזימה וכל עדות שאי אתה יכול להזימה לא שמה עדות

he is liable; their dispute refers only to one who was dying through man's act:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As here: nine men had smitten him, and though not actually a trefah, he was already at the point of death. ');">¹⁰</span>

ואמר רבא הרובע את הטריפה חייב טריפה שרבע בפני ב"ד חייב שלא בפני ב"ד פטור בפני ב"ד חייב דכתיב ובערת הרע מקרבך שלא בפני ב"ד פטור דהויא לה עדות שאי אתה יכול להזימה

the one likens him to a <i>terefah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence his slayer is exempt. ');">¹¹</span>

הא תו למה לי היינו הך הרובע את הטריפה איצטריכא ליה מהו דתימא ליהוי כמאן דמשמש מת וליפטר קמ"ל דמשום הנאה הוא והא אית ליה הנאה

the other to a person dying naturally. Now, he who likens him to a <i>terefah</i>, why does he not liken him to a person dying naturally? — Because no injury has been done to the latter; but an injury has been done to this one. Whilst he who likens him to a person dying naturally, why does he not liken him to a <i>terefah</i>? — A <i>terefah</i> has his vital organs affected,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'cut'. ');">¹²</span>

ואמר רבא עדים שהעידו בטריפה והוזמו אין נהרגין עדי טריפה שהוזמו נהרגין רב אשי אמר אפילו עדי טריפה שהוזמו אין נהרגין לפי שאינן בזוממי זוממין

but this one has not.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although suffering very much from the successive blows, and on the point of death, no vital organ, e.g., the heart or lungs, is injured, as in the case of a trefah. ');">¹³</span>

ואמר רבא שור טריפה שהרג חייב ושור של אדם טריפה שהרג פטור מאי טעמא אמר קרא (שמות כא, כט) השור יסקל וגם בעליו יומת כל היכא דקרינא ביה וגם בעליו יומת קרינן ביה השור יסקל וכל היכא דלא קרינן ביה וגם בעליו יומת לא קרינן ביה השור יסקל

&nbsp; &nbsp; <br>A tanna recited before R. Shesheth: And he that killeth all life of man: this includes one who smote his fellow, but there was not in his blow enough [force] to kill, and then a second came and killed him, [teaching] the latter is executed — But if the first man's blow was insufficient to kill, is it not obvious [that the second is liable]? — But [say thus: the first smote him] with sufficient force to kill, [but before he expired] a second came and slew him; then the second is liable. This anonymous Baraitha agrees with R. Judah b. Bathyra.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the last of the ten is liable for hastening his death, though the cumulative effect of the preceding nine would have caused his death in any case, if not so soon. ');">¹⁴</span>

רב אשי אמר אפילו שור טריפה נמי שהרג פטור מאי טעמא כיון דאילו בעלים הוו פטירי שור נמי פטור:

Raba said: <font>If one kills a <i>terefah</i>, he is exempt</font>; whilst <font>if a <i>terefah</i> committed murder</font>: if in the presence of a <i>Beth din</i>, he is liable; otherwise he is <font>exempt</font>. Why is he liable if in the presence of a <i>Beth din</i>? — Because it is written, so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIII, 6. ');">¹⁵</span>

שיסה בו את הכלב וכו': אמר רב אחא בר יעקב כשתמצא לומר לדברי ר' יהודה ארס נחש בין שיניו הוא עומד לפיכך מכיש בסייף ונחש פטור

But if not, he is exempt, because the law of confuted testimony is inapplicable, and testimony which cannot be so confuted is inadmissible.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XIX, 16-19. Since the murder was not committed in the presence of a Beth din, witnesses must testify thereto. But should they subsequently be proved false (Zomemim, v. Glos.) they could not be executed in accordance with Deut. XIX, 16-19, because they had sought the execution of one who is already regarded as dead, a terefah being thus considered, and testimony to which this law is inapplicable is not valid. But if the murder was committed in the presence of a Beth din, so that no testimony at all is required, the ordinary law of a murderer applies. ');">¹⁶</span>

לדברי חכמים ארס נחש מעצמו הוא מקיא לפיכך נחש בסקילה והמכיש פטור:

Raba also said: if witnesses testified [to murder] against a <i>terefah</i> and were then confuted,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It being proved they they were absent from the scene of the alleged murder. ');">¹⁸</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המכה את חבירו בין באבן בין באגרוף ואמדוהו למיתה והיקל ממה שהיה ולאחר מכאן הכביד ומת חייב ר' נחמיה אומר פטור שרגלים לדבר:

they are not executed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 523, n. 3. ');">¹⁹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תנו רבנן את זו דרש רבי נחמיה (שמות כא, יט) אם יקום והתהלך בחוץ

But if witnesses, themselves <i>terefah</i>, were confuted, they are executed. R. Ashi said: Even these are not slain, because those who disprove their evidence are not liable if their own is subsequently confuted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If A and B's testimony is disproved by C and D, who testify that they were with them elsewhere than at the scene of the alleged crime, and then the latter themselves are similarly refuted, the law of Deut. XIX, 16-19 is applicable to C and D, since they had sought to impose punishment upon the first two. But if A and B were terefah, this law would not apply to C and D; consequently, the entire law does not apply, and hence they are not executed. ');">²⁰</span> Raba also said: If an ox, a <i>terefah</i>, killed [a man], it is liable [to be stoned]; but if an ox belonging to a <i>terefah</i> [person] killed, it is exempt. Why so? — Because the Writ saith, The ox shall be stoned, and his owner shall also be put to death;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 29. ');">²¹</span> wherever it is possible to read, 'and his owner shall also be put to death,' we also read, 'the ox shall be stoned;' but where we cannot apply, 'and his owner shall also be put to death,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As here, since the owner, being a terefah, is regarded as already dead. ');">²²</span> we do not read, 'the ox shall be stoned.' R. Ashi said: Even an ox, a <i>terefah</i> is exempt. Why so? — Since the owner in a similar condition would be exempt, the ox too is exempt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For this verse puts the two on an equal basis. It should be observed that in practice the owner was never killed, but ransomed, in accordance with Ex. XXI, 30 (v. supra 2a). ');">²³</span> IF HE SET ON A DOG OR A SNAKE AGAINST HIM, etc. R. Aha b. Jacob said: If you will investigate [the grounds of the dispute, you will learn that] in R. Judah's opinion the snake's poison is lodged in its fangs, therefore, one who causes it to bite [by placing its fangs against the victim's flesh] is decapitated, whilst the snake itself is exempt. But in the view of the Sages the snake emits the poison of its own accord; therefore the snake is stoned, whilst he who caused it to bite is exempt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On R. Judah's view, the fangs themselves are poisonous. Consequently, the snake does nothing, the murder being committed by the person. But the Sages maintain that even when its fangs are embedded in the flesh, they are not poisonous, unless it voluntarily emits poison. Consequently the murder is committed by the snake, not the man. The law of Ex. XXI, 30 applies to all animals and reptiles. ');">²⁴</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN SMOTE HIS FELLOW, WHETHER WITH A STONE OR WITH HIS FIST, AND THEY [THE EXPERTS] DECLARED THAT DEATH WOULD ENSUE; BUT THEN ITS EFFECT LESSENED [SO THAT IT WAS THOUGHT THAT HE WOULD LIVE], ONLY TO INCREASE SUBSEQUENTLY, SO THAT HE DIED. — HE IS LIABLE. R. NEHEMIAH SAID THAT HE IS EXEMPT, SINCE THERE IS EVIDENCE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there are feet', 'there is a basis, a reason for it'. ');">²⁵</span> [THAT HE DID NOT DIE AS A RESULT OF HIS INJURIES, AS HE HAD ALREADY BEEN ON THE MEND.] <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Our Rabbis taught: R. Nehemiah gave the following exposition: If he rise again, and walk abroad