Sanhedrin 77b (עז:) — the Talmud in English

However,

here,

when he placed a tub over him, in which there was little air,

even without a lamp, the foul air begins

to take effect

at once,

immediately upon placing the tub over him, and it gradually becomes stronger until it kills him.

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

A mnemonic

for Rava’s following statements:

ladder; shield; medicines; 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,

so that the person could climb on it and leave the pit,

and another person came and removed it

before the victim fell,

and even if he—

the one who pushed him himself—

went first and removed it,

the one who pushed him is

exempt.

And the reason is:

for at the time that he cast him down, [at the time he pushed him]

[that is, when he pushed him]

he could climb out.

Shield:

And

he further

said Rava:

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,

protecting 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 the arrow, 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 indeed killed that person, the one who shot it is

exempt.

And the reason is:

for at the time that he shot it at him, the force of his arrows had already ceased [at the time of the shooting, the force of his arrows had ceased].

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

Medicines:

And

he further

said Rava:

If he shot at him—

a person at another person—

an arrow, and

at the time of the shooting

there were medicines

to cure 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 be cured by them,

and even if he—

the one who shot the arrow himself—

went first and scattered them,

the one who shot the arrow is

exempt.

And the reason is:

for at the time that he shot the arrow at him, he was able to be cured, [at the time of the shooting, the victim could have been cured].

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

Rav Ashi said:

Therefore,

since you say that if there were medicines in the dead man’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 medicines were available

in the marketplace

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

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

He said

to him,

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, asked Rav Ashi:

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

medicines became available

for the victim after the injury, although he did not purchase them and did not cure himself,

what is

the law concerning the liability of the one who shot the arrow?

He said to him,

Rav Ashi said to Rav Aḥa, son of Rava:

“He has already emerged from the court acquitted,”

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

And

he further

said Rava:

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

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

the stone

backward and killed

a person, he is

liable

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

And the tanna teaches likewise:

For example, children who play with a ball,

As it is taught in a beraita:

For example, those who play with a ball,

as children do, throwing the ball forcefully at a wall so that it rebounds a great distance,

and killed

a person when the ball rebounded from the wall: If they did so

intentionally,

with the intention of killing, they

are executed;

but if they did so

unintentionally, they

are exiled

to the cities of refuge.

And we challenge this: “

If unintentionally, they are exiled,”

obvious!?

but surely

that is obvious!?

And we answer: “

Intentionally, they are executed”

was necessary for him to state [this is the principal novel point of the beraita], because

since

it might enter your mind to say

that he should be exempt because

it is a conditional warning,

as

who can say that it will rebound [who can say that the ball will rebound]—

This teaches us.

it teaches us otherwise.

Rav Taḥlifa of the West taught before Rabbi Abbahu:

a. It is written in Yad Rama: this teaches us that surely it returns; or else "a warning of doubt" is a warning, and like Rabbi Yochanan who said that a warning of doubt is a warning. The Maharshal objected a [and similarly Rabbi Akiva Eger also raised this objection, and he did not mention the Maharshal]: behold later in the sugya the Gemara challenges this law: "to say that in such a manner his force is the cause," and the Gemara raises a weighing here, and therefore one could say that the novelty is that his force is the cause and he is liable for it!? [And one may remark in the Maharshal's language that why did he not say plainly that one must have taught "intentionally they are executed" — since in such a case his force is the cause; intentionally they are executed" — and he would have a stronger objection: behold one could say that the entire baraita — both unintentional and intentional — is novelty that his force is the cause. ;

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

;

If the victim was standing

within four cubits

of the wall, the one who threw the ball is

exempt

from exile.

But if the victim was standing

beyond four cubits

from the wall, the one who threw the ball is

liable

for exile.

Ravina said

in astonishment

to 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

[a small amount],

also

he should be liable for exile, since he killed the person; why should he be exempt!?

But

if he was not pleased

that it should rebound, then

even

if it rebounded

a great deal

[it rebounded far],

he should not

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:

Does this imply that in such a case—

where the stone or ball rebounded backward by virtue of the force of his throw—

it is considered his force

and he is liable for it?

And he juxtaposes

a teaching from a Mishna in tractate Parah:

The ashes of the red heifer—which are used to purify those rendered impure by the dead—are placed upon living water, and this placement is called “sanctification.” This sanctification must be performed through a person’s force. Afterwards, the “water of purification” is sprinkled upon the impure person or upon utensils that became impure through contact with the dead.

If one sanctified the water, and the sanctification fell

[the ashes of the heifer]

upon his hand or upon the side

of the vessel, and from there it splashed with force,

and afterward fell into the trough

containing living water, it is

invalid;

we learn that this is not considered “his force,” and therefore it is invalid.

And we answer:

With what are we dealing here? With water that drips.

That is, the ashes did not splash from the force of the initial fall onto his hand or the side of the vessel; rather, they subsequently dripped on their own. Therefore, this is not considered his force, and it is invalid.

Come and hear

from another Mishna in tractate Parah, which discusses the sprinkling of the water of purification upon utensils:

A needle

that is impure,

which

[is]

placed on earthenware, and he sprinkled upon it,

meaning that the water of purification reached the needle; however,

it is uncertain whether the sprinkling reached the needle,

meaning that the water came directly upon the needle,

or whether it reached the earthenware and he extracted it upon the needle,

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,

“it found”

[from the language of finding]

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:

This is explained according to Rashi; and similarly further on we find (78b) regarding "they estimated him alive and he died" — that he is exempt because he left the court acquitted; but in Yad Rama he wrote: and he explained: "nitsah alav" is stated, nitsah in that book in the sense of extraction, and thus he says: it is not known whether it first fell on the needle or on the pottery and the pottery was drained upon the needle, and thus it is not his force; ;

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],

[he pressed his fellow and diverted the course of the waters so that they would flow onto him]

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

[his arrows] that is: it is his force,

and he is liable

for execution.

And

these words apply only with the first force

, namely: as soon as the water was directed toward the bound man, it struck him, as he was lying close to it—

but with the second force

, namely, when he had been tied far from the water and the water did not fall upon him immediately upon leaving its place,

it is merely indirect causation

, and he is exempt.

And he said

further,

Rav Pappa:

If one threw

a stone upward,

and it traveled sideways

on its way down, so that it did not fall directly opposite him, but as it returned it moved away to the side,

and it killed

the person, the one who threw it is

liable.

He said

in astonishment,

Mar bar Rav Ashi to Rav Pappa:

For what reason

do you hold him liable?

Because it is his force—but

if

it were his force

itself,

it should go upward [the stone should go upward]

and not sideways, since he threw it upward and not sideways—