Sanhedrin

Our Rabbis taught: If ten men smote a man with ten staves, whether simultaneously or successively, and he died, they are exempt. R. Judah b. Bathyra said: If successively, the last is liable, because he struck the actual death blow.  R. Johanan said: Both derive [their rulings] from the same verse, And he that killeth kol nefesh  [lit., 'all life'] of man shall surely be put to death.  The Rabbis maintain that kol nefesh implies the whole life;6   but R. Judah b. Bathyra holds that kol nefesh implies whatever there is of life. Raba said: Both agree that if he killed a terefah,8   he is exempt; if he slew one who was dying through an act of God,  he is liable; their dispute refers only to one who was dying through man's act:  the one likens him to a terefah,  the other to a person dying naturally. Now, he who likens him to a terefah, why does he not liken him to a person dying naturally? — Because no injury has been done to the latter; but an injury has been done to this one. Whilst he who likens him to a person dying naturally, why does he not liken him to a terefah? — A terefah has his vital organs affected,  but this one has not. Raba said: If one kills a terefah, he is exempt; whilst if a terefah committed murder: if in the presence of a Beth din, he is liable; otherwise he is exempt. Why is he liable if in the presence of a Beth din? — Because it is written, so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee.  But if not, he is exempt, because the law of confuted testimony is inapplicable, and testimony which cannot be so confuted is inadmissible.16 Raba also said: He who commits pederasty with a terefah is liable to punishment; but if a terefah committed it, if in the presence of a Beth din, he is liable; otherwise he is not. 'If in the presence of a Beth din, he is liable', because it is written, So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee. 'Otherwise he is not', because the law of confuted testimony is inapplicable. Why state this second [law]; is it not identical with the first? — It is necessary to teach concerning one who commits pederasty with a terefah: for I might think that he is as one who abuses a dead person, and hence exempt. Therefore he teaches that [punishment is generally imposed] because of the [forbidden] pleasure derived, and in this case too pleasure is derived.17 Raba also said: if witnesses testified [to murder] against a terefah and were then confuted,  they are not executed.  But if witnesses, themselves terefah, were confuted, they are executed. R. Ashi said: Even these are not slain, because those who disprove their evidence are not liable if their own is subsequently confuted. Raba also said: If an ox, a terefah, killed [a man], it is liable [to be stoned]; but if an ox belonging to a terefah [person] killed, it is exempt. Why so? — Because the Writ saith, The ox shall be stoned, and his owner shall also be put to death;  wherever it is possible to read, 'and his owner shall also be put to death,' we also read, 'the ox shall be stoned;' but where we cannot apply, 'and his owner shall also be put to death,'  we do not read, 'the ox shall be stoned.' R. Ashi said: Even an ox, a terefah is exempt. Why so? — Since the owner in a similar condition would be exempt, the ox too is exempt. IF HE SET ON A DOG OR A SNAKE AGAINST HIM, etc. R. Aha b. Jacob said: If you will investigate [the grounds of the dispute, you will learn that] in R. Judah's opinion the snake's poison is lodged in its fangs, therefore, one who causes it to bite [by placing its fangs against the victim's flesh] is decapitated, whilst the snake itself is exempt. But in the view of the Sages the snake emits the poison of its own accord; therefore the snake is stoned, whilst he who caused it to bite is exempt. MISHNAH. IF A MAN SMOTE HIS FELLOW, WHETHER WITH A STONE OR WITH HIS FIST, AND THEY [THE EXPERTS] DECLARED THAT DEATH WOULD ENSUE; BUT THEN ITS EFFECT LESSENED [SO THAT IT WAS THOUGHT THAT HE WOULD LIVE], ONLY TO INCREASE SUBSEQUENTLY, SO THAT HE DIED. — HE IS LIABLE. R. NEHEMIAH SAID THAT HE IS EXEMPT, SINCE THERE IS EVIDENCE  [THAT HE DID NOT DIE AS A RESULT OF HIS INJURIES, AS HE HAD ALREADY BEEN ON THE MEND.] GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: R. Nehemiah gave the following exposition: If he rise again, and walk abroad