Sanhedrin 79a

וְהָיָה בָּהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית עַל לִבּוֹ, וְהָלְכָה לָהּ עַל מׇתְנָיו, וְלֹא הָיָה בָּהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית עַל מׇתְנָיו, וָמֵת – פָּטוּר.

and the blow was powerful enough to kill him were it to land on his chest over his heart, and instead the blow landed on his loins, and it was not powerful enough to kill him when it landed on his loins, and nevertheless the victim died, the assailant is exempt. Although the assailant intended to kill the victim, the blow was not powerful enough to kill. Ostensibly, his death was not a result of the blow.

נִתְכַּוֵּון לְהַכּוֹת אֶת הַגָּדוֹל, וְלֹא הָיָה בָּהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית הַגָּדוֹל, וְהָלְכָה לָהּ עַל הַקָּטָן, וְהָיָה בָּהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית אֶת הַקָּטָן, וָמֵת – פָּטוּר. נִתְכַּוֵּן לְהַכּוֹת אֶת הַקָּטָן, וְהָיָה בָּהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית אֶת הַקָּטָן, וְהָלְכָה לָהּ עַל הַגָּדוֹל, וְלֹא הָיָה בָּהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית אֶת הַגָּדוֹל, וָמֵת – פָּטוּר.

If one intended to kill an adult and the blow was not powerful enough to kill the adult, and instead the blow landed on a minor, and the blow was powerful enough to kill the minor and the minor died, the assailant is exempt. If one intended to kill a minor and the blow was powerful enough to kill a minor, and the blow landed on an adult and the blow was not powerful enough to kill the adult, and nevertheless, the adult died, the assailant is exempt.

אֲבָל נִתְכַּוֵּון לְהַכּוֹת עַל מׇתְנָיו, וְהָיָה בָּהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית עַל מׇתְנָיו, וְהָלְכָה לָהּ עַל לִבּוֹ, וָמֵת – חַיָּיב. נִתְכַּוֵּון לְהַכּוֹת אֶת הַגָּדוֹל, וְהָיָה בָּהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית אֶת הַגָּדוֹל, וְהָלְכָה לָהּ עַל הַקָּטָן, וָמֵת – חַיָּיב. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ נִתְכַּוֵּון לַהֲרוֹג אֶת זֶה וְהָרַג אֶת זֶה – פָּטוּר.

But if one intended to strike another on his loins, and the blow was powerful enough to kill him were it to land on his loins, and instead the blow landed on his chest over his heart, and he died, the assailant is liable, since in any event, his intent was to kill the victim and the blow was powerful enough to kill him wherever it struck him. If one intended to strike an adult and the blow was powerful enough to kill the adult, and the blow landed on a minor and he died, the assailant is liable. Rabbi Shimon says: Even if one intended to kill this one and he killed that one, although he would be liable for killing either, he is exempt, because one is executed only if his action completely corresponded with his intent.

גְּמָ׳ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אַהֵיָיא? אִילֵּימָא אַסֵּיפָא, ״רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: With regard to which clause of the mishna does Rabbi Shimon disagree? If we say that he disagrees with the latter clause of the mishna, concerning one who intended to kill an adult and killed a minor, the mishna should have employed the formulation: Rabbi Shimon exempts him, not the extended statement of: Even if one intended to kill this one and he killed that one, he is exempt.

אֶלָּא אַרֵישָׁא: נִתְכַּוֵּון לַהֲרוֹג אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וְהָרַג אֶת הָאָדָם, לַנׇּכְרִי וְהָרַג אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, לַנְּפָלִים וְהָרַג אֶת בֶּן קַיָּימָא – פָּטוּר. הָא נִתְכַּוֵּון לַהֲרוֹג אֶת זֶה וְהָרַג אֶת זֶה – חַיָּיב. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ נִתְכַּוֵּין לַהֲרוֹג אֶת זֶה וְהָרַג אֶת זֶה – פָּטוּר.

Rather, he disagrees with the first clause of the mishna, which states: If one intended to kill an animal, and he killed a person, or he intended to kill a gentile and he killed a Jew, or he intended to kill non-viable newborns and he killed a viable person, the assailant is exempt from execution; and from which it may be inferred: But if one intended to kill this one and he killed that one, the assailant is liable. Rabbi Shimon disagrees and says: Even if one intended to kill this one and he killed that one, he is exempt.

פְּשִׁיטָא! קָאֵי רְאוּבֵן וְשִׁמְעוֹן, וְאָמַר: ״אֲנָא לִרְאוּבֵן קָא מִיכַּוַּונָא, לְשִׁמְעוֹן לָא קָא מִיכַּוַּונָא״ – הַיְינוּ פְּלוּגְתַּיְיהוּ. אָמַר: ״לְחַד מִינַּיְיהוּ״ – מַאי? אִי נָמֵי, כְּסָבוּר רְאוּבֵן וְנִמְצָא שִׁמְעוֹן – מַאי? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר ״לִפְלוֹנִי אֲנִי מִתְכַּוֵּון״.

The Gemara comments: If Reuven and Shimon were standing, and before throwing the stone or shooting the arrow, the assailant said: I intend to kill Reuven, and I do not intend to kill Shimon, it is obvious that this is the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon. If the assailant said: I intend to kill one of them, and he did not specify whether it is Reuven or Shimon, what is the halakha ? Alternatively, in a case where he intended to kill one whom he thought was Reuven and he killed him and he was found to be Shimon, what is the ruling? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution of this matter, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: He is not liable until he says: I intend to kill so-and-so, and he then kills him.

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאָרַב לוֹ וְקָם עָלָיו״, עַד שֶׁיִּתְכַּוֵּון לוֹ. וְרַבָּנַן, אָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: פְּרָט לְזוֹרֵק אֶבֶן לְגוֹ.

The Gemara seeks to clarify the rationale underlying the opinions of the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon, and asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? The verse states: “But if there will be a man who hates his neighbor, and he lies in wait for him and rises up against him, and strikes him mortally and he dies” (Deuteronomy 19:11). Based on the repeated use of pronouns in the phrase: “And lies in wait for him and rises up against him,” Rabbi Shimon derives: One is not liable to be executed until he intends to kill specifically him, the actual victim. The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, what do they derive from the repetitive pronouns in that phrase? The Gemara answers: The Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai say that one derives: This is to the exclusion of one who casts a stone into the midst of a group of people and one of them is killed. Since he did not intend to kill any specific individual, he is not executed.

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּאִיכָּא תִּשְׁעָה גּוֹיִם וְאֶחָד יִשְׂרָאֵל בֵּינֵיהֶן, תִּיפּוֹק לֵיהּ דְּרוּבָּא גּוֹיִם נִינְהוּ. אִי נָמֵי פַּלְגָא וּפַלְגָא, סְפֵק נְפָשׁוֹת לְהָקֵל.

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If we say that it is a case where there are nine gentiles and one Jew among them, there is no need for a derivation; derive that he is exempt from the fact that they are a majority of gentiles, and based on that majority, the probability is that the stone will strike a gentile. Alternatively, if the group of people comprises half gentiles and half Jews, the principle is that the ruling in a case of uncertainty with regard to cases of capital law is to be lenient, and therefore the one who threw the stone will be exempt from punishment.

לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאִיכָּא תִּשְׁעָה יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹי אֶחָד בֵּינֵיהֶן, דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ גּוֹי קָבוּעַ, וְכׇל קָבוּעַ כְּמֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה דָּמֵי.

The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary to have this derivation only in a case where there are nine Jews and one gentile among them, as this is a case where the gentile is a fixed presence in the group, and the principle is: The legal status of any item fixed in its place is like that of an uncertainty that is equally balanced, and one does not follow the majority. This is what the Rabbis derive from the phrase: “And he lies in wait for him” (Deuteronomy 19:11).

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבָּנַן דְּאָמְרִי: נִתְכַּוֵּון לַהֲרוֹג אֶת זֶה וְהָרַג אֶת זֶה – חַיָּיב, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְכִי יִנָּצוּ אֲנָשִׁים וְנָגְפוּ אִשָּׁה הָרָה״. וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: בְּמַצּוּת שֶׁבְּמִיתָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, דִּכְתִיב: ״אִם אָסוֹן יִהְיֶה וְנָתַתָּה נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ״.

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the Rabbis, who say that if one intended to kill this individual and he killed that individual he is liable, there is support for their opinion from that which is written: “If men struggle and they hurt a pregnant woman so that her child departs from her, and there is no tragedy, he shall be punished, as the husband of the woman shall impose upon him, and he shall give as the judges determine” (Exodus 21:22). It can be inferred form the verse that if there is a tragedy, i.e., if the woman dies, there is no payment of restitution. And Rabbi Elazar says: It is with regard to a quarrel that involves the intent of each to cause the death of the other that the verse is speaking, as it is written: “But if there shall be a tragedy then you shall give a life for a life” (Exodus 21:23). This is proof that in a case where one intended to kill one individual and he killed a pregnant woman instead, he is liable to be executed, which is why he does not pay restitution.

אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, הַאי ״וְנָתַתָּה נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? מָמוֹן. וְכִדְרַבִּי, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, ״וְנָתַתָּה נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ״ – מָמוֹן. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר מָמוֹן, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא נֶפֶשׁ מַמָּשׁ? נֶאֶמְרָה נְתִינָה לְמַטָּה, וְנֶאֶמְרָה

But according to Rabbi Shimon, this verse: “Then you shall give a life for a life,” what does he do with it? According to his opinion, the party to the quarrel is exempt from the punishment of execution in this case. The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Shimon, “a life for a life” is not referring to execution; rather, the reference is to monetary restitution. And this understanding is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita : Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the phrase “then you shall give a life for a life” does not mean execution, but rather monetary restitution for the life that he took. Do you say that it means monetary restitution, or does it mean only the taking of an actual life? Based on the language employed in the verse, it can be determined that the reference is to monetary payment. In these verses, a term of giving is stated below: “And you shall give a life for a life” (Exodus 21:23). And additionally, a term is stated of