Talmud - Sanhedrin 77b סנהדרין ע״ז ב׳

at the time of the perpetrator’s action, as the room is sufficiently large to enable the individual to breathe. Here, in the case where one overturns a vat upon another, even without a kindled lamp the atmosphere begins to cause suffocation at the time of the perpetrator’s actions. Therefore, the two cases are not comparable, and it is Rava who exempts the one who overturned a vat upon another.

§ The Gemara cited a mnemonic for the halakhot that follow with regard to causing the death of another: Ladder, shield, herbs, in a wall.

Rava says: In a case where one pushed another into the pit and there was a ladder in the pit that would enable him to emerge from it, and another individual came and removed the ladder, or even if the perpetrator himself removed the ladder before the one whom he pushed could emerge, causing him to die of starvation, the perpetrator is exempt from execution. The reason is that at the time that he cast him into the pit, the victim was able to ascend and emerge from the pit. Pushing him into the pit did not cause his death, and the removal of the ladder merely prevented the victim from emerging, but was not an action that directly caused his death.

And Rava says: In the case of one who shot an arrow at another, and there was a shield [teris] in the victim’s hand, if another individual came and took the shield from him, or even if the one who shot the arrow took the shield before the arrow reached the victim, the attacker is exempt from execution. The reason is that at the time that he shot the arrow at the victim, his arrows were blocked from the one being attacked by the shield, and they could not harm him. The victim’s death was caused indirectly, by removal of the shield.

And Rava says: In the case of one who shot an arrow at another and the victim had herbs in his possession capable of healing the wound from the arrow before it became fatal, if another individual came and scattered the herbs, or even if the one who shot the arrow scattered them before the victim could heal his wound with the herbs, the attacker is exempt from execution. The reason is that at the time that he shot the arrow at him, the victim was able to be cured. The arrow caused injury, but the victim died due to the unavailability of a cure.

Rav Ashi says: It is established that one who shoots an arrow at another is exempt when herbs that could facilitate his recovery are available; therefore, even if there are herbs available in the marketplace, the attacker is exempt from execution, as in that case, too, the herbs are available. Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: If the herbs were not available in the marketplace, and herbs capable of healing the wound happened to enter into the victim’s possession, yet he neglected to use them and died, what is the halakha? Rav Ashi said to Rav Aḥa: He emerged from the court innocent. As long as there was a possibility that the victim could heal his wound with the herbs, the one who shot the arrow is not a murderer; rather, he is merely one who caused death indirectly.

§ And Rava says: In the case of one who threw a stone with the intent to kill another, and the stone caromed off the wall and rebounded back and killed a different individual, the attacker is liable. And the tanna taught a similar halakha in a baraita: In a case where those who were playing with a ball killed another by hitting him with the rebounding ball, if they did so intentionally, they are executed by beheading; if they did so unwittingly, they are exiled.

The Gemara asks: If they did so unwittingly, they are exiled; isn’t this obvious? All unwitting murderers are exiled. The Gemara answers: The novel element in this baraita is not that the unwit-ting murderer is exiled; rather, it was necessary for the tanna to teach that if they did so intentionally, they are executed. This halakha needed to be taught lest you say that they cannot be executed because the death penalty requires certain forewarning, i.e., forewarning of an action that will certainly lead to the death penalty, and in this case the forewarning is uncertain, as who is to say that the ball will rebound and cause death? Therefore, the tanna teaches us that those who play ball are trained in throwing it and the ball will certainly rebound; therefore, there is no uncertainty.

Rav Taḥlifa, from the West, Eretz Yisrael, taught this baraita before Rabbi Abbahu: In a case where those who were playing with a ball killed an individual by hitting him with the ball, if the ball struck the individual within four cubits of the one who threw the ball, he is exempt from being exiled, as it was certainly not his intent to throw the ball so short a distance; beyond four cubits, he is liable to be exiled.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi, questioning this halakha: What are the circumstances? If he was amenable to having the ball travel a short distance, then he should be liable even for a throw less than four cubits. And if he was not amenable to having the ball travel the distance that it traveled, but he wanted it to travel farther, then he should not be liable even for a throw greater than four cubits. In what case is the measure of four cubits significant? Rabbi Abbahu said to him: With regard to ordinary people who play with a ball, the farther they enter and approach the wall, the more amenable they are to the result, as the ball caroms off the wall and rebounds farther. Therefore, presumably their intent was that the ball would travel a distance greater than four cubits.

The Gemara questions the principle underlying this halakha. Is that to say that in a case like this, when an item caroms off the wall, the action is considered the result of his force? And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Para 6:1): In the case of one who sanctifies the waters of purification by placing the ashes of the red heifer into the water, in order to sprinkle on one impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, and the sacred ashes fell on his hand or on the side of the vessel and only thereafter it fell into the water in the trough, the purification waters are unfit, since there is a requirement that the ashes must be placed in the water by the force of his action. Likewise, when an item caroms off a wall, the action is not generated by the force of his action; therefore, he should not be liable.

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the ashes trickle from his hand or from the sides of the vessel into the water, a slow movement that is not generated by the force of his action. This is in contrast to the case where he throws a ball off the wall.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof that only an action that one generates directly is considered the force of his action, as it is taught in a mishna (Para 12:2): Concerning a needle that was impure with impurity imparted by a corpse and was placed on an earthenware shard, and one sprinkled water of purification; if there is uncertainty whether he actually sprinkled the purification water on the needle or whether he sprinkled it on the earthenware shard and the water inadvertently sprayed upon the needle, his sprinkling is unfit. Apparently, an action performed indirectly is not considered to have been generated by his force.

Rav Ḥinnana bar Yehuda said in the name of Rav: Emend the mishna: Sprayed [mitza] was not stated in the mishna; found [matza] was stated. That is, it was found that the needle was wet, and it is not clear whether it was wet from purification water sprinkled directly upon it or from water that dripped from the earthenware onto the needle. This case is not comparable to the case of one who throws a ball off a wall.

Rav Pappa says: With regard to this one who bound another and diverted a flow of water upon him and he died, the water is tantamount to his arrows that were effective in committing the murder, and he is liable. And this matter applies only in a case where he killed the other individual by primary force, as the individual was near to him and was directly drowned by the water. But if the individual was further away and was killed by secondary force after the water flowed on its own, it is not his action; rather, it is merely an indirect action, and he is exempt.

And Rav Pappa says: In a case where one threw a stone upward and it went to the side, and killed an individual, he is liable. Mar, son of Rav Ashi, said to Rav Pappa: What is the reason that you say he is liable? Is it due to the fact that the result is generated by the force of his action? That cannot be, as if it is generated by the force of his action, the stone should go directly upward where he threw it, and not to the side.

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Sanhedrin 77b examines Rava's rulings on liability for indirect causes of death, using cases like removed ladders, shields, and healing herbs.