Sanhedrin

[The preceding discussion agrees with what] has been taught: Moses knew that the 'gatherer' was to be executed, for it is written, Every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death;  but he did not know by which death, as it is written, [And they put him in ward,] because it was not declared what should be done to him.  But in the case of the blasphemer, it is only said, [And they put him in ward,] that the mind of the Lord might be shewed them;  implying that Moses did not know whether he was at all liable to death or not. Now, on R. Nehemiah's view, it is right that two phrases bearing on judicial assessment are written;  one teaching that if his injury was declared to be fatal, but yet he survived; the other, that if it was judged that he would die, and then the effect of the blow was lightened, [yet he subsequently died — that in both cases he is quit]. But according to the Rabbis [who maintain that in the latter case he is executed], why are two such clauses necessary? — One teaches that if his injuries were declared fatal, yet he survived, and the other, that if they were declared non-fatal, yet he died, — [that in both cases the assailant is free]. But R. Nehemiah maintains that no verse is necessary for the latter case, since he left Beth din a free man. Our Rabbis taught: If a man smite his neighbour and the blow was assessed to be fatal, yet he survived, he is dismissed.  If the injury was declared fatal, but subsequently lightened, a second assessment of the financial damage is made.  If thereafter he grew Another [Baraitha] taught: If his injuries were declared fatal, they may subsequently be declared non-fatal.  But once his injuries are declared non-fatal, they cannot subsequently be declared fatal.  If the blow was assessed to be fatal, but then he became better, a second assessment of the financial damage is made, and if he subsequently died, he must make compensation for the damage, pain [etc.]  to the heirs. From when must compensation be made? — From when he smote him.  And thus this anonymous [Baraitha] agrees with R. Nehemiah. MISHNAH. IF HE INTENDED KILLING AN ANIMAL BUT SLEW A MAN, OR A HEATHEN AND HE KILLED AN ISRAELITE, OR A PREMATURELY BORN AND HE KILLED A VIABLE CHILD, HE IS NOT LIABLE.  IF HE INTENDED TO STRIKE HIM ON HIS LOINS, WHERE THE BLOW WAS INSUFFICIENT TO KILL, BUT SMOTE THE HEART INSTEAD, WHERE IT WAS SUFFICIENT TO KILL, AND HE DIED; OR IF HE INTENDED SMITING HIM ON THE HEART,