ONE WHO DID NOT STRIKE WHAT HE AIMED FOR
(Mishnah): In the following cases, one is exempt:
He intended to kill an animal, Nochri, or Nefel (stillborn baby) (and he accidentally killed a healthy Yisrael);
He intended to hit him on his leg, and such a blow on the leg would not have killed him, but he hit him on the heart and it was enough to kill him there;
He intended to hit him on his heart, and such a blow on the heart would have killed him, but he hit him on the leg and it was not enough to kill him there (but he died anyway);
He intended to hit an adult, and such a blow would not kill an adult, but he hit a minor and it was enough to kill a minor;
He intended to hit a minor, and such a blow would kill a minor, but he hit an adult and it was not enough to kill an adult (but he died anyway).
In the following cases, one is liable:
He intended to hit him on his leg, and such a blow on the leg would kill, but he hit him on the heart and it was enough to kill him;
He intended to hit an adult, and such a blow would kill an adult, but he hit a minor and it was enough to kill a minor.
R. Shimon says, even if he intended to kill Reuven and killed Shimon, he is exempt.
(Gemara) Question: To which law does R. Shimon respond?
Answer #1: He responds to the last law.
Rejection: If so, why did R. Shimon say 'even'? Also Chachamim discuss killing a different person than intended. R. Shimon should have said only 'he is exempt.'
Answer #2: He responds to the first law, 'if he intended to kill an animal, Nochri, or Nefel, and he killed a healthy Yisrael, he is exempt';
Inference: If one intended to kill a Yisrael and killed a different Yisrael, he is liable;
R. Shimon argues and says that even in this case, he is exempt.
Obviously, if Reuven and Shimon are standing together and Levi said 'I intend to kill Reuven, and not Shimon' (and he killed Shimon), Chachamim are`Mechayev, and R. Shimon exempts.
Question #1: If he said 'I want to kill one of them (I do not care which)', what is the law?
Question #2: If Levi appeared to him like Reuven and therefore he killed him, what is the law?
Answer (Beraisa - R. Shimon): He is not liable unless he says "I intend to kill Ploni."
Question: What is R. Shimon's reason?
Answer: "V'Arav Lo v'Kam Alav" - he must intend for him.
Question: How do Chachamim expound this?
Answer (d'Vei R. Yanai): This excludes one who throws a rock into a crowd of Yisraelim and Nochrim, without knowing whom it will kill (and it killed a Yisrael).
Question: What is the case?
If the majority are Nochrim, even without this verse we would follow the majority (and`we say that he intended to kill a Yisrael)!
Even if half were Nochrim, we would not kill due to an even Safek!
Answer: There is one Nochri and many Yisraelim. The Nochri is considered 'Kavu'a' (he did not separate from the majority). Such a case is considered like an even Safek, i.e. we do not follow the majority, so we do not kill the murderer.
DOES ONE WHO KILLED PAY MONEY?
Question: We understand according to Chachamim, who say that if Levi intended to kill Reuven and killed Shimon, he is liable. They learn from "v'Chi Yinatzu Anashim Yachdav";
(R. Elazar): The verse discusses a fight to kill - "v'Im Ason Yihyeh v'Nosata Nefesh Tachas Nafesh" (Beis Din kills only one who intended to kill).
However, how does R. Shimon expound the verse?
Answer: R. Shimon says that it refers to paying money, like Rebbi.
(Beraisa - Rebbi): "V'Nosata Nefesh Tachas Nafesh" refers to money.
Suggestion: Perhaps it refers to capital punishment!
Rejection: It says 'Nesinah' here, and also regarding compensation for causing a miscarriage;
Just like the latter refers to money, also here.
(Rava): Tana d'Vei Chizkiyah argues with Rebbi and with Chachamim.
(Tana d'Vei Chizkiyah): "Makeh Adam... u'Makeh Vehemah" equates striking (killing) people and animals;
One who strikes an animal always pays, whether he was Shogeg or Mezid, with or without intention, whether he hit going downward or upward. Similarly, one who strikes a man never pays, without distinction.
Question: What does it mean 'without intention'?
If it means without intention at all, that is Shogeg!
Answer: Rather, he intended for Reuven and killed Shimon;
The Beraisa teaches that we always exempt him from paying. If he is killed, there would be no need to teach this!
Rather, it teaches that he is not killed, and he does not pay money.
A MURDERER WHO WAS MIXED WITH OTHERS
(Mishnah): If a murderer became mixed up with others (this will be explained), all are exempt;
R. Yehudah says, we put them in a Kipah (a cell, and precipitate their death).
If people sentenced to receive different Misos Beis Din became mixed together, they all receive the lightest Misah (of any of them).
R. Shimon says, if people sentenced to be stoned became mixed with people sentenced to be burned, we stone them, for this is more lenient;
Chachamim say, we burn them, for this is more lenient.
R. Shimon says, a Bas Kohen who was Mezanah is burned. This shows that burning is more severe;
Chachamim say, stoning is more severe, for it is given to blasphemers and idolaters.
R. Shimon says, if people sentenced to be beheaded became mixed with people sentenced to be choked, we behead them;
Chachamim say, we choke them.
(Gemara) Question: With whom did the murderer get mixed up?
Suggestion: He became mixed with innocent people.
Rejection #1: If so, obviously all are exempt!
Rejection #2: If so, R. Yehudah would not say that we put them in Kipah!
Answer #1 (R. Avahu): A murderer who was not yet sentenced became mixed up with sentenced murderers.
Chachamim say that he must be present (and recognizable) to pronounce the final verdict. Since we cannot do this, all are exempt.
R. Yehudah says, we do not exempt them, since all are murderers. Therefore, we put them in Kipah.
Rejection (Reish Lakish): If people became mixed up (and one was not sentenced), all agree that they are exempt;
The Mishnah discusses an ox that was not yet sentenced (for goring) that became mixed up with sentenced oxen.
Chachamim equate the death of the ox to what we would do to people. Since people (in this situation) would be exempt, the oxen are exempt;
R. Yehudah says, we put them in Kipah.