Masechet Sanhedrin, Perek Tet, Mishnah Bet. We mentioned in the last Mishnah that if somebody is a Rotzeach, if they’re a murderer, then the Bet Din (court) puts them to death by beheading. We’ll elaborate on what murder is in this Mishnah.
If somebody intends to kill an animal but by mistake kills a person, or intends to kill an idol worshiper but kills a Jew instead, he is not allowed to kill an idol worshiper, and Hashem will punish him for that. But we don’t put somebody who kills an idol worshiper to death. If he intended to kill a baby that had no potential to live—if the baby was born very sick, with major defects in one of its major organs, and there was no way it was going to live—and instead of that, he killed a Ben Kayama, a person that was living, that had no problems, and was going to live, then in all of these cases, patur, he is exempt, we don’t execute the murderer in this case.
He did not intend to commit the act of murder that would have carried the death penalty. He either wanted to kill an animal, an idol worshiper, or a baby that had no potential for life. So, since his kavanah (intention) wasn’t there and by mistake he ended up killing somebody whose killing would have made him liable for the death penalty, we say: if his intention was not... If his intention was not there, he’s patur; we do not execute him.
In the next case, we’ll talk about a person who intended to hurt somebody but had no intention to kill them, and by mistake, when he tried to hurt them, he did kill them. If somebody intended to hurt another person by hitting him on the hips, the impact of that blow wasn’t strong enough to kill him if it landed on the hips. The problem was that when he hit him, he accidentally hit him on the chest, on the heart, instead. The force was strong enough that if he hit him in the chest, it would kill him. And then the person died.
So do we say that the murderer is chayav (guilty)? We say patur; the murderer is not liable for the death penalty because he had no intention to kill. Even though he was trying to hurt this person, and even though he eventually did hurt them and even caused death, we say that since he had no intention to kill him, he does not get the death penalty.
If he intended to hit him in the chest, and the blow he gave him had enough force to kill him if it hit him in the chest, but accidentally the blow landed on his hips, he didn’t want to hurt him, and the force of the impact on the hips usually wouldn’t have killed him, then, even though he intended to kill and even though the blow would have killed him if it landed in the right spot, here it landed on the hips and didn’t have the proper impact. But the man died anyway. We say patur; the murderer is not liable for the death penalty. Even though he wanted to kill this person and eventually did kill this person, it’s kavanah and everything. Since he intended to hit him in another spot, and the blow he gave him on the spot he hit by mistake wasn’t strong enough to kill him, what we have to presume and say is that there’s an option: he died from some other cause.
Similar cases to the last one: He intended to hit an adult, and the blow, the impact, was not strong enough to kill an adult. Instead, he accidentally hit a child. The impact was strong enough to kill a child, who needs less of an impact to be hurt. So he intended to hit an adult, but ended up hitting the child, and it was strong enough to kill him. Then the child vomited, and then the child died. Patur: the murderer is not liable for the death penalty because he had no kavanah to kill. He intended to hit the child, and the blow he gave him would have been enough to kill the child. But accidentally, the blow landed—the hit landed—on the adult. The hit he gave him wasn’t strong enough to kill the adult. But the adult vomited, and the adult died anyway. We say patur. The murderer is not liable for the death penalty because the blow he struck the adult with wasn’t strong enough to kill him. Even though the person died anyway, we say that maybe the victim died from another cause.
There are two other cases where the killer is liable and does get the death penalty. If he intended to hit somebody on their hips, and the impact was strong enough to kill him if it hit him on the lips, but he accidentally hit him in the chest instead, and then the person died, the killer would get the death penalty. He intended to kill a person. The blow he gave was strong enough to kill the person, and the person eventually died.
So he says: If he tried to hit an adult, and the impact would have been strong enough to kill the adult, then obviously it would be strong enough if it hit a child, who is much more sensitive and could die from a much lower impact. If he accidentally hit the child instead and the child died, he would be liable for the death penalty here as well. He intended to kill, the blow he gave was strong enough to kill, and eventually that person died.
That’s it. He intended to kill, even though it was a different person here that he did kill. And everything went according to plan. In terms of... The force was enough, and he eventually killed somebody. So therefore we say he is chayav. He is guilty.
So according to this previous Tanna (sage), if a murderer intended to kill somebody and killed somebody else instead, he would get the death penalty, even though he killed someone else, not the person he had kavanah to kill. Since the kavanah to kill was there, it doesn’t really matter who the person he eventually kills is. He gets the death penalty. But Rabbi Shimon is going to disagree. Rabbi Shimon is going to disagree. Rabbi Shimon is going to say that even if he intended to kill one person but accidentally killed a different person, he would not get the death penalty because he had no intention to kill the actual person who died.