Sanhedrin 77b — the Talmud in English

But

here,

when he covers him with a tub containing only a small amount of air, even

without a lamp, the foul air begins immediately

,

at that moment,

as soon as he covers him with the tub, and it gradually becomes stronger until it kills him.

The Gemara now brings four laws stated by Rava and provides a mnemonic for them:

Mnemonic

for Rava’s following statements:

ladder; shield; remedies; wall.

Ladder:

Rava said:

If one pushed

a person into a pit,

and

at the time he pushed him there was a

ladder

lying

in the pit,

which the person could climb in order to leave the pit,

and another person came and removed it

before the victim fell into it,

and even if he—

the one who did the pushing—

went first and removed it,

then the one who pushed him is

exempt.

And the reason is:

because at the time he cast him

[that is, when he pushed him]

he could climb out.

Shield:

And

Rava

also said:

If a person shot

a

arrow

at another person,

and

at the time he shot it

the other person had a shield in his hand

that protected him from being struck by the arrow,

and another person came and took it

from the victim before the arrow arrived,

and even if he—

the one who shot the arrow himself—ran after shooting it, before the arrow reached the other person, and

went first and took it

from the other person’s hand so that the arrow would strike him—

and the arrow in fact killed that person, the one who shot it is

exempt.

And the reason is:

because at the time he shot it, the force of his arrows had already been interrupted

[that is, at the time of the shooting, the force of his arrows had ceased].

Remedies:

And

Rava

also said:

If he shot—

a person at another person—

an arrow, and

at the time of the shooting

there were remedies

for healing the injury caused by the arrow

in the hand of

the victim,

and another person came and scattered them

before the victim had managed to heal himself with them,

and even if he—

the one who shot the arrow himself—

went first and scattered them,

then the one who shot it is

exempt.

And the reason is:

because at the time he shot it at him, the victim could have been healed,

[that is, at the time of the shooting, he could have been healed].

Rav Ashi said:

Therefore,

since you say that if remedies were in the murdered person’s hand at the time of the shooting, the one who shot the arrow is exempt,

even

if they were not in his hand but

remedies were available in the marketplace

at the time of the shooting, the one who shot it is exempt.

Maimonides did not mention the law of one who shoots an arrow when remedies are in the victim’s hand at all.

He said,

asked

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, Rav Ashi:

If at the time of the shooting no remedies were available, but

remedies happened to become available

to the victim after the injury, although he did not purchase them and did not heal himself,

what

is the law regarding the one who shot the arrow becoming liable?

He said to him,

Rav Ashi said to Rav Aḥa, son of Rava:

He has already emerged from the court entitled to acquittal,

meaning: since a basis for acquitting him was found before he stood trial, we cannot make him liable. Wall:

And

Rava

also said:

If one threw a stone at a wall, and it rebounded backward

and killed

a person, he is

liable

for execution, provided that he intended to kill him.

And a tanna teaches likewise:

for execution, and this is when he intended to kill him.

Since it was taught in a beraita:

For example, children who play with a ball,

as children do, throwing the ball forcefully at a wall so that it will rebound a considerable distance

and kill

a person when the ball rebounds from the wall: if they did this

intentionally,

meaning that they intended to kill him, they are

executed;

but if they did this

unintentionally,

they

must go into exile

to cities of refuge.

And we challenge this: “

Unintentionally, they must go into exile”—is that

not

obvious!?

And we answer: “

Intentionally, they are executed”

was necessary to teach,

because one might have said that they should be exempt because

it is an uncertain warning,

since

who can say that it will rebound

[that is, who can say that the ball will rebound]—

this teaches us.

Rav Taḥlifa of the West taught before Rabbi Abbahu:

For example, children who play with a ball and kill someone: If the person who was struck was standing within four cubits of the wall, the one who threw the ball is exempt from exile. But if the person who was struck was standing beyond four cubits from the wall, the one who threw the ball is liable to exile.

it teaches us otherwise.

Rav Taḥlifa of the West taught before Rabbi Abbahu:

For example, those who play with a ball and killed:

If the victim was standing

He said,

Rabina

challenged Rav Ashi:

But

what are the circumstances?

That is, what was the thrower’s intention?

If he was pleased

that the ball should rebound,

then

even if it rebounded only a little

also

he should be liable to exile, since he killed someone. Why should he be exempt!?

But

what are the circumstances?

And if he was not pleased

that it should rebound, then

even if it rebounded

a great deal

[that is, it rebounded a long distance],

also not

should he be liable to exile.

He said

in response,

Rav Ashi to him, to Rabina: Ordinary people who play with a ball prefer it the farther it goes

[the farther backward the ball rebounds, the more pleasing it is to them]. Therefore, if the ball rebounded less than four cubits, which is not pleasing to him, he is exempt.

And we challenge this:

Does this imply that in such a case—

when the stone or ball rebounds backward as a result of his throw—

it is considered his force

and he is liable for it?

And he raises a contradiction from a Mishna in tractate Parah:

be liable for exile.

He said

in response

to him,

Rav Ashi said to Ravina:

Ordinarily, the more the ball rebounds, the more pleasing it is to those who play with it [the farther backward the ball rebounds, the more pleasing it is to him], and therefore, if the ball rebounded less than four cubits, which is not pleasing to him, he is exempt.

And we challenge this:

The ashes of the red heifer, which are used to purify those impure through contact with the dead, are placed on spring water. This placement is called “sanctification,” and the sanctification must take place through a person’s force. Afterwards, the “water of purification” is sprinkled on the impure person or on utensils that became impure through contact with the dead.

If one sanctified them, and the sanctification fell

[the ashes of the heifer]

onto his hand or onto the side

of the vessel, and from there it was propelled with force, and afterwards fell into the trough containing spring water, it is invalid; we learn that this is not considered “his force,” and therefore it is invalid.

a teaching from a Mishna in tractate Parah:

And we answer:

What are we dealing with here? With water that drips.

That is, the ashes did not move from the hand or side by the force of the initial fall; rather, they later dripped on their own. Therefore, this is not his force, and it is invalid.

Come and hear a proof

from another Mishna in tractate Parah, concerning the sprinkling of the water of purification on utensils:

A needle

that is impure which

was lying on earthenware, and he sprinkled upon it,

meaning that the water of purification reached the needle, but

it is uncertain whether the sprinkling reached the needle directly, or whether it reached the earthenware and was drawn from it onto the needle,

meaning that perhaps the water reached the earthenware and from there rebounded and splashed onto the needle, then

his sprinkling is invalid.

It is clear, then, that even if the water reached the needle through the force of his sprinkling onto the earthenware, this is not considered his force, and therefore his sprinkling is invalid!?

He said,

he answered,

Rav Ḥinnana bar Yehuda in the name of Rav:

And we answer: It was not stated “was drawn,” which would mean that the water rebounded onto the needle through the force of its fall on the earthenware. Rather, it was stated

“found”

[a term indicating finding],

was stated,

meaning that it did not rebound from the force of its fall on the earthenware. Rather, there was an incline there, and the water rolled onto the needle.

Rav Pappa said:

If someone binds another person and diverts a watercourse onto him [that is, he binds another person and clears a path for water that had been flowing in another direction, so that it will flow toward him], they are his arrows

meaning that perhaps the water reached the earthenware and from there splashed back onto the needle;

his sprinkling is invalid

[invalid].

It is evident that if the water indeed reached the needle by virtue of his sprinkling upon the earthenware, this is not considered his force, and therefore his sprinkling is invalid!?

He said

in response,

Rav Ḥinnana bar Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

And we answer: It was not stated that the water “was extracted,” implying that by virtue of falling upon the earthenware the water returned and splashed onto the needle. Rather,

«

and he is liable for death.

was stated,

meaning that it did not return by virtue of falling upon the earthenware; rather, there was an incline there, and the water rolled onto the needle.

Rav Pappa said:

In the case of one who tied up another person and diverted a watercourse toward him [one who tied up another person and cleared a path for water that had been flowing in another direction, so that it would come upon him],

[тот, кто связал своего товарища и расчистил путь воде, которая текла в другом направлении, чтобы она пришла на него]

these are his arrows [they are his arrows], meaning: this is considered his force,

[это его стрелы], то есть: это его сила,

and he is liable

for execution.

And

these words apply to the first force

, namely: immediately when the water was directed toward the bound man, it came upon him, as he was lying close to it—

but with the second force

, namely, that he bound him far from the water, and the water did not fall upon him immediately upon emerging from the place,

it is mere causation

, and he is exempt.

And he said

further:

Rav Pappa:

A person threw

a

stone upward, and it proceeded sideways

during its fall, for it did not fall directly toward him; rather, when it returned, it was moving away sideways,

and it killed

the person—then the thrower is

liable.

He said

in astonishment

to him, Mar bar Rav Ashi, to Rav Pappa:

For what reason

do you hold him liable?

Because it is his force—

but

if it is his force

it should

go upward

[the stone would go upward] and not sideways, since he threw it upward and not sideways—