Sanhedrin 158

נתינה למעלה מה להלן ממון אף כאן ממון

above:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., If&nbsp;… no mischief follow&nbsp;… he shall pay (Heb. [H] give) as the judges determine. ');">¹</span>

אמר רבא האי דתנא דבי חזקיה מפקא מדרבי ומפקא מדרבנן דתנא דבי חזקיה (ויקרא כד, כא) מכה אדם ומכה בהמה

just as the latter refers to money, so the former too.

מה מכה בהמה לא חלקת בה בין שוגג למזיד בין מתכוין לשאינו מתכוין בין דרך ירידה לדרך עלייה לפוטרו ממון אלא לחייבו ממון אף מכה אדם לא תחלוק בו בין שוגג למזיד בין מתכוין לשאין מתכוין בין דרך ירידה לדרך עלייה לחייבו ממון אלא לפוטרו ממון

Raba said: The following Tanna of the School of Hezekiah differs from both Rabbi and the Rabbis — For a Tanna of the School of Hezekiah taught: And he that killeth a beast [shall pay for it:] and he that killeth a man, [he shall be put to death].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXIV, 21. This verse, by coupling the two, likens them to each other; It also implies that where monetary compensation was to be made for an animal, it is not so for a man, since 'shall pay for it' is only prescribed for the former. ');">²</span>

מאי שאין מתכוין אילימא שאין מתכוין כלל היינו שוגג אלא פשיטא שאין מתכוין לזה אלא לזה וקתני לחייבו ממון אלא לפוטרו ממון ואי בר קטלא הוא מאי איצטריך למיפטריה ממון

Just as in the case of one who kills an animal, you draw no distinction between an unwitting or a deliberate act, an intentional or unintentional blow, a downward blow or an upward one,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is irrelevant here, but is mentioned because in the case of homicide this distinction is drawn (v. Mak. 7a). ');">³</span>

אלא לאו שמע מינה לאו בר קטלא הוא ולאו בר ממונא הוא:

not acquitting him thereof, but imposing monetary liability; so in the case of killing a man,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where, as observed in n. 4, there is no monetary compensation. ');">⁴</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> רוצח שנתערב באחרים כולן פטורין ר' יהודה אומר כונסין אותן לכיפה

you must draw no distinction between an unwitting or a deliberate act, an intentional or unintentional blow, a downward or an upward thrust, not imposing a monetary liability. but acquitting him thereof.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The greater penalty of death attached to the offence acquits the offender of all monetary liability even in cases where the death penalty is not applied.] ');">⁵</span>

כל חייבי מיתות שנתערבו זה בזה נידונין בקלה הנסקלין בנשרפין ר' שמעון אומר נידונין בסקילה שהשריפה חמורה וחכמים אומרים נידונין בשריפה שהסקילה חמורה

Now, what is meant 'unintentional'? Shall we say, entirely unintentional? But then it is identical with 'unwitting'. Hence it obviously means not intending to slay this one, but another: and for such a case it is taught, 'not imposing monetary liability', but acquitting him thereof'. But if he is liable to death, it is surely unnecessary to teach that he is not liable to make compensation?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p, 490 n. 1. ');">⁶</span>

אמר להן ר"ש אילו לא היתה שריפה חמורה לא נתנה לבת כהן שזנתה אמרו לו אילו לא היתה סקילה חמורה לא נתנה למגדף ולעובד עבודת כוכבים

Hence it follows that he is liable neither to execution nor to make compensation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus this teacher differs from Rabbi, who holds him liable to compensation, and from the Rabbis, who rule that he is even executed. ');">⁷</span>

הנהרגין בנחנקין ר"ש אומר בסייף וחכ"א בחנק:

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MURDERER BECAME MIXED UP WITH OTHERS, THEY ARE ALL EXEMPTED [FROM THE PENALTY]. R. JUDAH SAID: THEY ARE PLACED IN A CELL.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 81b. ');">⁸</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מאן אחרים אילימא אחרים כשרים פשיטא ותו בהא לימא רבי יהודה כונסין אותן לכיפה

IF A NUMBER OF CONDEMNED PERSONS DIFFERING IN THEIR DEATH SENTENCES BECAME MIXED UP WITH ONE ANOTHER, THEY ARE EXECUTED BY THE MOST LENIENT [DEATH]. IF CRIMINALS CONDEMNED TO STONING [BECAME MIXED UP] WITH OTHERS CONDEMNED TO BURNING, — R. SIMEON SAID: THEY ARE STONED, BECAUSE BURNING IS SEVERER; BUT THE SAGES SAY THEY ARE BURNED, BECAUSE STONING IS MORE SEVERE. R. SIMEON SAID TO THEM: WERE NOT BURNING SEVERER, IT WOULD NOT BE DECREED FOR A PRIEST'S ADULTEROUS DAUGHTER. THEY REPLIED: WERE NOT STONING MORE SEVERE, IT WOULD NOT BE THE PENALTY OF A BLASPHEMER AND AN IDOLATER. IF MEN CONDEMNED TO DECAPITATION BECAME MIXED UP WITH OTHERS CONDEMNED TO STRANGLING, — R. SIMEON SAID: THEY ARE [ALL] DECAPITATED; THE SAGES SAY: THEY ARE STRANGLED.

(סימן בשר"ק)

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Who are meant by 'others'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the first clause. ');">⁹</span>

א"ר אבהו אמר שמואל הכא ברוצח שלא נגמר דינו שנתערב ברוצחים אחרים שנגמר דינן עסקינן רבנן סברי אין גומרין דינו של אדם אלא בפניו הלכך כולן פטורין ור' יהודה מיפטרינהו לגמרי נמי לא כיון דרוצחין נינהו הלכך כונסין אותן לכיפה

Shall we say, other innocent men: is it not obvious?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That they must all be freed. ');">¹⁰</span>

ריש לקיש אמר באדם דכולי עלמא לא פליגי דפטירי אבל הכא בשור שלא נגמר דינו שנתערב בשורים אחרים שנגמר דינן קמיפלגי רבנן סברי כמיתת בעלים כך מיתת השור ואין גומרין דינו של שור אלא בפניו הלכך כולן פטורין ור' יהודה סבר כונסין אותן לכיפה

Moreover, could R. Judah say in such a case that 'they are placed in a cell'? (Mnemonic Besh rak)<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], B ([H]) ABBAHU; SH ([H]) = SAMUEL; R ([H]) = RABA; K ([H]) = RESH LAKISH; the names of the Amoraim that follow. ');">¹¹</span>

אמר רבא

— R. Abbahu said in Samuel's name: The Mishnah treats of an unsentenced murderer who became mixed up with other murderers already sentenced, the Rabbis holding that no man can be condemned save<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if they are all assembled, it is still regarded as in his absence, since he is unknown. ');">¹²</span> in his presence; therefore they are all freed;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they complete not the trial of a man'. ');">¹³</span> while R. Judah maintains that they cannot all be exempted, since they are murderers: therefore they are placed in a cell. Resh Lakish said: If this happened to human beings, all agree that they are exempt. But here the reference is to an ox [that had gored] but was as yet uncondemned, which was mixed up with other oxen already condemned. The Rabbis maintain: As the death penalty of its owner, so is that of the ox; therefore an ox [too] can be sentenced only in its presence, hence they are all exempt. But R. Judah rules that they are placed in a cell.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reasoning being as before. ');">¹⁴</span> Raba demurred: