The Pursuer Who Could Have Been Stopped by a Lesser Blow

Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 335:5

It was taught: Rabbi Yonatan says, a pursuer who was chasing after his fellow to kill him, and the rescuer could have saved the victim by maiming one of the pursuer's limbs yet did not, but killed him, is himself liable for the pursuer's death, as it is written, "And if men strive together" (Exodus 21:22). And Rabbi Elazar said the verse speaks of a quarrel involving danger to life, and it is written, "And if harm follows, you shall give a life for a life." Yet even so the Merciful One said, "And if no harm follows... he shall surely be fined." Granted, if you say that when one could save the victim by maiming a limb he is not permitted to save him by killing the pursuer, then you find a case where he is fined, namely where he could have saved by maiming a limb. But if you say that even when he could save by maiming a limb he may also save by killing, why should he be fined? Granted, according to the Rabbis who say that one who intended to kill this man and killed that man is liable, this fits what is written, "And if men strive together," which Rabbi Elazar said speaks of a quarrel involving danger to life, as it is written, "And if harm follows, you shall give a life for a life." But according to Rabbi Shimon, what does he do with it? He needs it for monetary payment, in accordance with Rabbi, "you shall give a life for a life" meaning money. Rav Acha said: the teaching of the school of Chizkiyah departs from both Rabbi and the Rabbis, for the school of Chizkiyah taught "one who strikes a man" and "one who strikes a beast" (compare Leviticus 24:21): just as with one who strikes a beast you drew no distinction, and so on. What is meant by "who does not intend"? If we say one who does not intend at all, that is simply an accident. Rather, one who does not intend to strike this one but another; and it teaches, not to make him liable for money but to exempt him from money, for if he were subject to death, why would he need to be exempted from money? Rather, learn from this that he is neither subject to death nor subject to monetary payment.

Themes