משנה: נִתְכַּווֵן לַהֲרוֹג אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וְהָרַג אֶת הָאָדָם לַנָּכְרִי וְהָרַג אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל לַנְּפָלִים וְהָרַג בֶּן קַייָמָא פָּטוּר. נִתְכַּווֵן לְהַכּוֹתוֹ עַל מָתְנָיו וְלֹא הָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית עַל מָתְנָיו וְהָֽלְכָה לָהּ עַל לִבּוֹ וְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית עַל לִבּוֹ וָמֵת פָּטור. נִתְכַּווֵן לְהַכּוֹתוֹ עַל לִבּוֹ וְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית עַל לִבּוֹ וְהָֽלְכָה לָהּ עַל מָתְנָיו וְלֹא הָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית עַל מָתְנָיו וָמֵת פָּטוּר. נִתְכַּווֵן לְהַכּוֹת אֶת הַגָּדוֹל וְלֹא הָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית אֶת הַגָּדוֹל וְהָֽלְכָה לָהּ עַל הַקָּטָן וְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית אֶת הַקָּטָן וָמֵת פָּטוּר. נִתְכַּווֵן לְהַכּוֹת אֶת הַקָּטָן וְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית אֶת הַקָּטָן וְהָֽלְכָה לָהּ עַל הַגָּדוֹל וְלֹא הָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית אֶת הַגָּדוֹל וָמֵת פָּטוּר. נִתְכַּווֵן לְהַכּוֹתוֹ עַל מָתְנָיו וְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית עַל מָתְנָיו וְהָֽלְכָה לָהּ עַל לִבּוֹ וָמֵת חַייָב. נִתְכַּווֵן לְהַכּוֹת אֶת הַגָּדוֹל וְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית אֶת הַגָּדוֹל וְהָֽלְכָה לָהּ עַל הַקָּטָן וָמֵת חַייָב. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר אֲפִלּוּ נִתְכַּווֵן לַהֲרוֹג אֶת זֶה וְהָרַג אֶת זֶה פָּטוּר׃ MISHNAH: If one intended to kill an animal but he killed a human, a Non-Jew but he killed a Jew, a stillborn32A newborn who is not expected to live for 30 days is considered stillborn. but he killed a viable baby, he is not criminally liable33Biblical law provides sanctions for murder and unintentional homicide, but not for intentional homicide that fails to qualify as murder. Similarly, biblical law is not applicable to Gentiles (Tanḥuma Mišpatim 3, based on Exodus.21.1">Ex. 21:1). These cases cannot be tried in rabbinic court; they are cases for the king’s police powers or extrajudicial powers of the communal court (Sanhedrin 9:6:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sanhedrin.9.6.1">Mishnah 10)..
If one intended to hit someone on his hips where it would not have been enough to kill but it went on his heart where it was enough to kill and he died, he cannot be prosecuted. If one intended to hit someone on his heart where it would have been enough to kill but it went on his hips where it was not enough to kill but he died, he cannot be prosecuted. If one intended to hit someone big whom it would not have been enough to kill but it went on somebody small whom it was enough to kill and he died, he cannot be prosecuted. If one intended to hit someone small whom it would have been enough to kill but it went on somebody big whom it was not enough to kill but he died, he cannot be prosecuted.
If one intended to hit someone on his hips where it was enough to kill but it went on his heart and he died; [or] if one intended to hit someone big and it was enough to kill but it went on somebody small and he died; he is [criminally] liable37These cases all fit the definition of premeditated murder.. Rebbi Simeon says, even if he intended to kill one person but killed another, he is not criminally liable38Cf. Mishnah 4 and Note 33. In his opinion, not only is it homicide if a human is killed instead of an animal, but even if a different human is killed than the intended victim. In Sanhedrin 12:2" href="/Tosefta_Sanhedrin.12.2">Tosephta 12:4 he is opposed by R. Jehudah..
הלכה: נִתְכַּווֵן לְהַכּוֹתוֹ עַל מָתְנָיו כול׳. חִזְקִיָּה שָׁאַל. זָרַק אֶת הָאֶבֶן וְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית. הֵמִית אֶת זֶה וְשִׁיבֵּר אֶת כֵּלָיו שֶׁלָּזֶה. בָּזֶה חִידֵּשׁ הַכָּתוּב וּבָזֶה לֹא חִידֵּשׁ. חִזְקִיָּה שְׁאִיל. זָרַק אֶת הָאֶבֶן וְלֹא הָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית. הֵמִית אֶת זֶה וְשִׁיבֵּר אֶת כֵּלָיו שֶׁלָּזֶה. בָּזֶה חִידֵּשׁ הַכָּתוּב וּבָזֶה לֹא חִידֵּשׁ. HALAKHAH: “If one intended to hit someone on his hips,” etc. Ḥizqiah asked: If one threw a deadly stone which killed one person and broke another’s vessels, did the verse give the law for one but not for the other39In Exodus.21.22-23">Ex. 21:22–23 it is spelled out that in case of injuries, payment is due only if there is no criminal case. But this refers only to one person. If the stone had killed one person and broke the same person’s vessels, no payment for the vessels would be due. But this says nothing about the obligations of the thrower towards a third person, not involved in the personal injury case.? Ḥizqiah asked: If one threw a stone which was not deadly but which killed one person40Assuming that in the previous case the law was that the thrower could not be sued by the owner of the vessels, the question remains open whether he can be sued if the thrower cannot be sued for murder (Numbers.35.17">Num. 35:17) but only sued for money by the heirs of the slain person. In the Sanhedrin.79b">Babli 79b both questions are answered in the negative. and broke another’s vessels, did the verse give the law for one but not for the other?
אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. אִילֵּין דְּבֵית רִבִּי תְּנַייָן. אֲפִלּוּ נִתְכַּווֵן לַהֲרוֹג אֶת זֶה וְהָרַג אֶת זֶה פָּטוּר. וְאַתְייָא דְּבֵי רִבִּי כְּרִבִּי נָתָן. דְּתַנֵּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי נָתָן. הָיָה עוֹמֵד בְּצַד סִיעָה שֶׁלִּבְנֵי אָדָם. אָמַר. לְאֶחָד מִכֶּם אֲנִי מִתְכַּוֵּין לַהֲרוֹג. אֲפִלּוּ נִתְכַּווֵן לַהֲרוֹג אֶת זֶה וְהָרַג אֶת זֶה פָּטוּר. Rebbi Simeon41This R. Simeon must be the Amora R. Simeon ben Laqish; he cannot be the Tanna R. Simeon ben Iohai mentioned in the Mishnah, who lived a full generation before Rebbi. says, those of the House of Rebbi state: even if he intended to kill one person but killed another, he is not criminally liable42He cannot be prosecuted for premeditated murder unless he stated before witnesses the name of the person whom he intended to kill. All other cases are cases of willful homicide, not covered by biblical law (Sanhedrin 9:4:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sanhedrin.9.4.1">Note 33).. The House of Rebbi follows Rebbi Nathan, as it was stated in the name of Rebbi Nathan: If one was standing next to a group of people and said, I am intending to kill one of you43But he did not specify whom he intended to kill.. Even if he intended to kill one person but killed another, he is not criminally liable.