Ketubot

the judgment of the four forms of capital punishment has not ceased.  He who would have been sentenced to stoning,  either falls down from the roof or a wild beast treads him down.  He who would have been sentenced to burning, either falls into a fire  or a serpent bites him.  He who would have been sentenced to decapitation.  is either delivered to the government  or robbers come upon him.  He who would have been sentenced to strangulation, is either drowned in the river or dies from suffocation.  But reverse it: Lions and thieves are 'by the hand of heaven', and cold and heat are 'by the hand of man'. Raba said: The reason [for the view] of R. Nehunia b. hakaneh, is [derived] from here:  [It is written:] And if the people of the land do not all hide their eyes from that man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, [and put him not to death]; then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off.  [With these words] the Torah says:  My kareth is like your death [-penalty]; as [in the case of] your death[-penalty] one is free from payment, so [in the case of] my kareth one is free from payment. What is the difference between Raba and Abaye? — The difference is [with regard to] a stranger  who ate terumah.  According to Abaye he is free [from payment],  and according to Raba he is bound [to pay].  But is he free [from payment] according to Abaye? Did not R. Hisda say: R. Nehunia b. ha-Kaneh admits that he who stole [forbidden] fat  belonging to his neighbour, and ate it, is bound [to pay],  because he was guilty of stealing before he came to [the transgression of] the prohibition with regard to [forbidden] fat?  Hence [you say that] as soon as  he lifted it  up he acquired it,  but he did not become guilty of the transgression  punishable with death until he had eaten it. Here  also, when he lifted it  up he acquired it, but he did not become guilty of the transgression  punishable with death until he had eaten it!  — Here we treat of a case where his friend stuck it  into his mouth.  [But] even then,  as soon as he chewed it, he acquired it, but he is not guilty of the transgression punishable with death until he has swallowed it!  — When [his friend] stuck it into his oesophagus.  How shall we imagine this case? If he can give it back,  let him give it back.  And if he cannot give it back, why should he be guilty?  — It speaks of a case when he can give it back only with an effort.  R. Papa said, When his friend put liquids of terumah into his mouth.  R. Ashi said: [it speaks of a case] when a stranger ate his own terumah.