Parshas Tetzaveh (Zachor) 5785
- Torah Tavlin
- Mar 7
- 3 min read
סנהדרין עח:
"נתכון להרוג את זה והרג את זה"
The Mishnah states: If one intended to kill an animal, but accidentally killed a man, he is פטור. Rashi explains: If a man is intending to kill an animal and someone warns him and says don’t try to kill this animal because there is a man standing next to it and you might miss and kill the man. Even if the shooter says I understand what you are saying and shoots at the animal anyway, if he misses and kills the man, he is פטור. The reason is because this warning is considered a התראת ספק. The Mishnah continues, if a man had כונה to hit someone on his hip (על מתניו) and it was not strong enough to kill him had it landed on his hip, but the blow accidentally landed on the person’s heart, where it is strong enough to kill him and it actually killed him, he is פטור. Similarly, if one was aiming for the heart with a strong blow that if landed there would kill him, but he missed and hit him on the hip, which shouldn’t have killed him, but it did, he is also פטור. Rashi explains, the rule is that 2 things are needed to make one חייב. 1) One must have כונה to kill and deliver a deathblow. 2) It must land as a deathblow. ר' שמעון argues with the רבנן and says not only is one פטור if he meant to kill an animal but killed a human, but even if one had כונה to kill ראובן and accidentally killed שמעון he is פטור. He learns this from "וארב לו וקם עליו". The extra word "וארב" (ambush) teaches us, for a רוצח to be חייב he must have intentions to kill פלוני and he must actually kill פלוני, his intended victim. Otherwise, he is פטור. The רבנן argue and say in this case the רוצח would be חייב. Rashi [ד"ה הא] explains this is not a problem of התראת ספק. Because when the עדים warn him not to shoot because ראובן and שמעון, 2 yidden are both standing there and you will ultimately hit one of them, this is called התראת ודאי, because ultimately the warning was regarding killing a Yid, and whichever one he kills he’s חייב מיתה. רבא brings a תנא דבי חזקיה that holds like ר' שמעון in this detail that נתכון להרוג את זה, והרג את זה is פטור.
The Mishnah [ב"ק מד.] states: If a שור intended to kill another שור, but accidentally killed a man, he is פטור. i.e. the שור doesn’t get סקילה. The Gemara is מדייק, that only in this case is the שור פטור. However, if the שור was trying to kill one man but accidentally killed another person he would be חייב סקילה, the Gemara says we see this is not like שיטת ר' שמעון that holds the שור is פטור. The Gemara explains the סברא of ר' שמעוןthat the שור doesn’t get סקילה is becauseof the limud: "כמיתת בעלים כך מיתת השור". So, just like in this case if the owner was the רוצח he would beפטור, so too, when his שור is the רוצח,the animal is also פטור. The [נזקי ממון פ"י, ט'] רמב"ם paskens like this משנה that if the שור is נתכון להרוג את זה והרג את זה., he is חייב סקילה and not like ר' שמעון. The לחם משנה points out: the רמב"ם here doesn’t hold like ר' שמעון, yet in our Gemara in סנהדרין he paskens like ר' שמעון that you are פטור? He answers [נזיקין פ"א יד'] that in essence, the Mishnah in בבא קמא does hold of שיטת ר' שמעון that by an אדם, "נתכון להרוג את זה והרג את זה פטור", but doesn’t hold that we apply the היקש of כמיתת הבעל כך מיתת השור, and that’s why in this case, the שור is חייב סקילה.