Soncino English Talmud
Sanhedrin
Daf 77b
(Mnemonic: Ladder, shield, balsam, in a wall.) Raba said: If one thrust his neighbour into a pit, in which there was a ladder [so that he could have climbed out], and then another came and removed it, or even if himself hastened to remove it, he is not liable [for the victim's death], because when he threw him in he could have climbed out. Raba also said: If one shot an arrow at his neighbour, who was holding a shield, but another came and snatched it away, or even if he himself [the thrower] hastened to do so, he is not liable, because when he shot the arrow its force was spent. Raba also said: If one shot an arrow at his neighbour. who had balsam in his hand [wherewith he could have healed the wound], but another dashed it out of his hand, or even if he himself [the thrower] did so, he is not liable, because when he did it he could have been healed. R. Ashi said: Therefore this holds good even if there was balsam in the market.3 R. Aha the son of Raba asked R. Ashi: What if he came across the balsam by chance? — He replied: Behold, he has left Beth din a free man. Raba also said: If one threw a stone at a wall, which rebounded and killed his neighbour, he is liable. And a Tanna teaches [in support of this]: If murder is committed by a man playing, for example. with a ball, if intentional, the thrower is executed; if unintentional, he is sentenced to the refuge cities. 'If unintentional, he is sentenced to the refuge cities:' but is that not obvious? — It is necessary to teach that if intentional, he is executed, [the second half being added to complete it]; for I might say, this is a case of 'a doubtful warning', for who knows that it will rebound? We are therefore taught otherwise. R. Tahlifa of the West recited before R. Abbahu [the following]: If [unintentional] murder is committed by a man playing, for example, with a ball, if [the victim] was within four cubits [of the wall]. the thrower is exempt; if beyond four cubits, he is liable [to exile]. Rabina objected to R. Ashi: How is this? If he desired it [to rebound], he should be liable even for a short distance; whilst if not, he should be liable even for a greater distance? — He replied: The greater the rebound, the more is the average player pleased. Are we to say that [a murder] so committed is regarded as by his direct action? But the following contradicts it: If one was sanctifying [the water], and the ashes fell upon his hand or upon Come and hear! If an [unclean] needle was lying upon a shard, and the [purifying] water was sprinkled thereon, but it is doubtful whether upon the needle or upon the shard, and then it spurted [miza] upon the needle, the sprinkling is invalid. — R. Hinena b. R. Judah said in Rab's name: We have learnt, It was found [maza]. R. Papa said: If one bound his neighbour and then caused a column of water to inundate him, it is as his arrows, and he is liable [for his death]. But that is only if [he was drowned] by his direct agency; but if through his indirect agency,19 he is merely regarded as a subsidiary cause.20 R. Papa also said: If one threw a stone upwards, and it returned
Sefaria
Mesoret HaShas