Source: http://halakhah.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_78.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 06:35:46+00:00

Document:
IF HE SET ON A DOG OR A SNAKE AGAINST HIM, etc.
Not in a slanting direction.
I.e., most of the force with which he threw it was already expended, but sufficient was left to impel it in the direction in which it fell.
Lit., 'brought his death near'; v. B.K. 26b.
Hence, if ten men assailed him successively, he was already nearly dead when the last smote him: therefore the last too is exempt.
I.e., however little life the man has, even if he is nearly dead, the man who actually kills him is liable.
V. Glos. When used of a person, it means that he was suffering from some fatal organic disease, recovery from which is impossible.
l.e., naturally, through age or weakness, but without an organic disease or wound.
As here: nine men had smitten him, and though not actually a trefah, he was already at the point of death.
Hence his slayer is exempt.
Although suffering very much from the successive blows, and on the point of death, no vital organ, e.g., the heart or lungs, is injured, as in the case of a trefah.
That the last of the ten is liable for hastening his death, though the cumulative effect of the preceding nine would have caused his death in any case, if not so soon.
Ibid. XIX, 16-19. Since the murder was not committed in the presence of a Beth din, witnesses must testify thereto. But should they subsequently be proved false (Zomemim, v. Glos.) they could not be executed in accordance with Deut. XIX, 16-19, because they had sought the execution of one who is already regarded as dead, a terefah being thus considered, and testimony to which this law is inapplicable is not valid. But if the murder was committed in the presence of a Beth din, so that no testimony at all is required, the ordinary law of a murderer applies.
Whereas there is no sexual gratification in abusing the dead.
It being proved they they were absent from the scene of the alleged murder.
V. p. 523, n. 3.
If A and B's testimony is disproved by C and D, who testify that they were with them elsewhere than at the scene of the alleged crime, and then the latter themselves are similarly refuted, the law of Deut. XIX, 16-19 is applicable to C and D, since they had sought to impose punishment upon the first two. But if A and B were terefah, this law would not apply to C and D; consequently, the entire law does not apply, and hence they are not executed.
As here, since the owner, being a terefah, is regarded as already dead.
For this verse puts the two on an equal basis. It should be observed that in practice the owner was never killed, but ransomed, in accordance with Ex. XXI, 30 (v. supra 2a).
On R. Judah's view, the fangs themselves are poisonous. Consequently, the snake does nothing, the murder being committed by the person. But the Sages maintain that even when its fangs are embedded in the flesh, they are not poisonous, unless it voluntarily emits poison. Consequently the murder is committed by the snake, not the man. The law of Ex. XXI, 30 applies to all animals and reptiles.
Lit., 'there are feet', 'there is a basis, a reason for it'.
[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;8 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.9 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;10 implying that Moses did not know whether he was at all liable to death or not.
The representatives of the anonymous opinion in the Mishnah.
V. Num. XV, 32-36. Pending a decision, 'they put him in ward'.
Hence it is obvious that he had to be incarcerated. On this view, Moses knew that he had to be executed. This is discussed below.
I.e., this case could not be deduced from the other.
Lit., 'a decision for the moment'. For, death not having been previously prescribed for blasphemy, there was no reason for his incarceration, but that it seemed expedient. But a special ad hoc decision cannot be taken as precedent for normal procedure.
Lev. XXIV, 12. This implies that the entire law was unknown, whilst 'what should be done to him' indicates that only the details, i.e. mode of death, were unknown.
V. Ex. XXI, 18f: And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed: If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed. Two phrases are superfluous, viz., 'and he die not', and 'If he rise again and walk abroad upon his staff', for it is self-evident that the assailant cannot be executed under such circumstances: hence they must refer to a judicial calculation that he would not die, which was, however, subsequently falsified.
A favourable verdict cannot be reversed (v. supra 33b). Therefore in the latter case it is obvious that 'he is quit'.
I.e., the probable period that he would be incapacitated and the cost of medical assistance, for both of which he is liable.
I.e., he is liable for the financial damage, as it was computed, but not to death.
I.e., since on the first computation the injuries were declared fatal, when he subsequently grew better, and financial damages were awarded, we do not regard him as having left Beth din a free man (in respect of the capital penalty), but judge him according to the ultimate issue, and hence he is executed.
If he grew better, and the assailant is thus freed from death.
If he grew worse and died, the culprit is not executed.
In assessing the victim's worth, his value before being smitten is taken. But we do not say, since his injuries were first declared fatal, and then not fatal, subsequent to which he died, his value should be assessed on the basis of his health at the time of the second computation.
That financial compensation must be made, but there is no liability to death.

References: v. 

V. 
 v. 

V. 

V. 

V.