We're diving into a fascinating passage from the Yalkut Shimoni on Torah, specifically section 787, which grapples with the nuances of homicide and the concept of the "redeemer of blood."
The passage begins with a seemingly simple question: Why does the Torah specify "a wooden implement" when discussing assault? After all, the verse states, "And if a man strikes his slave or his female slave with a rod…" (Exodus 21:20). Wouldn’t any weapon suffice?
The Yalkut Shimoni delves deeper, explaining that the inclusion of "wooden implement" clarifies a crucial point: the perpetrator is only liable if the instrument used is capable of causing death. It’s not enough to simply strike someone; the blow must be potentially lethal. But where do we learn that the instrument has to be able to cause death in the first place?
The text answers that this concept is derived from the phrase, "And if a man is quarrelsome…" (Deuteronomy 19:11), which implies that the accused isn’t held liable unless he struck the victim with something that could kill.
Now, imagine someone throws boards or wooden beams at another person. Are they liable? The text answers yes, citing the phrase, "He is a murderer; he shall surely be put to death" (Numbers 35:21), to show that even throwing large wooden objects constitutes a potentially lethal act.
But what about less obvious weapons? What if someone strikes another with a stone, a clump of salt, a dried fig cake, or even drops a basket filled with dirt or pebbles? The Yalkut Shimoni refers back to the phrase, "And if he struck him with a stone in his hand, or with a wooden implement" (Numbers 35:17), to include these scenarios. It's about the intent and the potential for harm.
What about hitting someone with the head of a beam or the helm of a ship? Again, the phrase "Or with a wooden implement in his hand" comes into play, suggesting liability. The key here is "in his hand," implying a deliberate act with a potentially deadly object.
The passage then considers more indirect methods of causing death. What if someone pushes another into water or fire, or incites a snake against them? You might think that liability only applies if these actions are certain to cause death. However, the text uses the phrase "In his hand" to include situations where death isn't a sure thing. This emphasizes the perpetrator's responsibility even if the fatal outcome isn’t guaranteed.
Then the text brings up the concept of the "redeemer of blood" (goel ha'dam). The redeemer of blood was a relative of the deceased who had the right (and some say obligation) to avenge the death by killing the murderer. The text states, "The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him," implying that even if the murderer fled to Babylon, the witnesses could pursue him there. And even if the redeemer of blood is unwilling to fulfill this role, the verse "When he strikes him" still applies, emphasizing the obligation to avenge the death.
The Yalkut Shimoni continues, stating that the redeemer of blood should kill the murderer; it's a mitzvah, a commandment. But what if there is no redeemer of blood? The text states that the court appoints one. Again, the phrase "When he strikes him" is invoked to support this claim.
Finally, the passage circles back to the initial verses, "And if he struck him with an iron implement, or with a stone in his hand, or with a wooden implement in his hand" (Numbers 35:16-17). This highlights that liability is established if the killing was done with these specific implements. But what if other means were used? The text leaves us with this question, prompting further exploration of the complexities of justice and culpability in ancient Jewish law.
This passage from the Yalkut Shimoni isn't just a dry legal discussion. It's a window into a world where justice was personal, immediate, and deeply intertwined with family obligations. It makes you think about the weight of our actions and the enduring human quest to define fairness and responsibility in the face of tragedy.