(Mishnah): If a person threw a stone into the public domain and it killed someone, the offender must go into exile.

(R. Eliezer ben Yaakov): If the victim put his head out after the stone had been thrown and it hit and killed him, the offender does not go to exile.

(Gemara - Beraisa R. Eliezer ben Yaakov): (Devarim 19:5), "and it 'found' (his friend and killed him)" - he was 'found' to him at the time when he killed him.

Question: Does a person ever have permission to throw a stone into a public domain?

Answer (R. Yosi bei R. Bun): The case of the Mishnah is when he had a leaning wall that had to be taken down and he was demolishing it to prevent damage to the public.

(Mishnah): If a person threw a stone into his courtyard and it killed someone...if the victim had permission to be there, the offender goes into exile. If not, he does not go into exile, as the pasuk states (Devarim 19:5), "that will come with his friend into a forest (to chop wood)" - in a forest, both the victim and the offender are permitted to go there; this excludes the courtyard of the offender, that there is not permission for both the victim and the offender to enter there.

(Abba Shaul): The Torah mentioned 'to chop wood' to teach that just as a person has the option to come and chop wood if he wishes, but he may choose not to come, so too in any case of exile, he maybe choose to do that act or refrain - this excludes the case of a mitzvah, since he is required to do it, for example, a father hitting a son, a Rabbi hitting a s student and a messenger of Beis Din.

(Gemara) (R. Yannai): A butcher who was chopping meat and bones with a cleaver (and the normal way to do this is to raise the cleaver up and behind his neck and then lower it forcefully) and he struck and killed a person, whether in his upward or his downward movement, he goes to exile (as even upwards is considered for the sake of going down).

This follows the ruling made by Rav Huna - if a person was chopping meat and struck someone in front of him, if he was lowering his hand to chop, he must go to exile; if he was raising his hand, he is exempt. If the victim stood behind him, if he was raising his hand, he goes to exile because he did it in order to go down; if he was lowering his hand behind him, he does not go to exile, because it was in order to go up again.

(R. Yitzchak): Each case is judged according to its own specific details - if he sits on his bed in the daytime and it is not usual for the baby to be lying there in the daytime, he goes to exile. If it is night time and the baby is normally put there at night, he does not go to exile.

If he sits on the bed in the daytime, which is a time that the baby is normally there, he does not go to exile; if he sits at night which is not a time that the baby is normally there, he goes to exile.

(R. Yosi bar Chaninah): If a person was chopping wood in his courtyard and a worker (who is permitted to enter) came in to receive his wages, and a wedge of wood flew out and damaged - if it merely damaged the worker, the owner must pay; if it killed the worker, he does not go to exile, because it is not like a forest (see above in 8-2)(a), that the victim had no right to be there),

Question (Beraisa - R. Chiyah): He is exempt!

Answer: There is no dispute - R. Yosi bar Chaninah was referring to four (damages, suffering, medical bills and unemployment; but not shame, since it was not intentional) types of damages that the courtyard owner must pay to the worker, since he saw the worker enter the courtyard; R. Chiya's Beraisa was when he did not see him (although the actual damages must be paid, even if he did not see him).

Question: Even if he did not see him, but since he had given him permission to enter, he should be liable, and R. Chiyah's Beraisa taught that he is exempt?

Answer: According to R. Chiyah, even though he permitted the worker to enter, it was on the assumption that the worker would watch himself from being damaged. However the first Tana of the Beraisa, who disagrees with R. Chiyah and says that he is liable, reasons that by allowing the worker to enter, the owner has thereby agreed to prevent the worker from being damaged.

Some explain that the first Tana reasons that since he told the worker to enter, it became like a shared courtyard.

(R. Chiyah citing R. Yochanan): Partners in a courtyard may acquire there an item from each other. They may protest each other's permanent use of the courtyard and they are liable for damages done when the other partner fell over their utensils in the courtyard.

Question: Didn't Rav say that a person is only liable for damages done by leaving his jugs in a public place if they filled the entire (width of the) public domain; but here, the partner should have been more careful to protect himself?

Answer: Since it is normal for either partner to walk throughout the courtyard, the victim was not expected to protect himself.

(Mishnah): If a father accidently killed his own son (when he was not hitting him for education or in teaching him a trade), he must go to exile. If a son killed his father, he must go to exile.

Anyone (even a Canaanite slave or Kusi) who killed a Yisrael must go into exile. And if a Yisrael killed anyone (even a slave or a Kusi), he must go into exile; except for a Ger Toshav (a gentile who accepted in front of Beis Din to keep the seven Noachide laws). But a Ger Toshav who killed a Ger Toshav goes into exile.

R. Yehuda: A blind person does not go into exile.

R. Meir: He goes.

An enemy does not go into exile.

R. Shimon bei R. Yehuda: An enemy is put to death (if he 'accidently' killed the one he hates) because it is as if he was already warned.

R. Shimon: Sometimes an enemy goes into exile and sometimes he does not...if it is possible to say that he killed intentionally, he does not go into exile; if it clear that he killed accidently, he goes into exile.

(Gemara - R. Zeira): R. Shila bar Buna taught - Since the pasuk states (Bamidbar 35:19), "the redeemer of the blood will kill the murderer (he may kill him when he meets him)" - so one who hit (and killed) his son, another son may not avenge his brother's death by killing his father. However, if one brother killed another, a third brother may avenge his dead brother's death.

Beraisa (R. Elazar ben Yaakov): Since the pasuk states "the redeemer of the blood will kill the killer (he may kill him when he meets him)." - so one who hit (and killed) his son, another son becomes a redeemer of the blood to kill his father. But if one brother killed another, another brother does not become the redeemer to kill the brother who had killed.

Question: From where do we know that even if the redeemer said that he cannot kill him now, that he may kill him later?

Answer: As the continuation of that same pasuk says, "he may kill him when he meets him".