לזכות עמיחי ישראל בן לאה
יאשיהו בנימין שילה בן ריסה רות
Says the Gemara [Makkos 5b]:
תניא אמר רבי יהודה בן טבאי אראה בנחמה אם לא הרגתי עד זומם להוציא מלבן של צדוקים שהיו אומרים אין העדים זוממין נהרגין עד שיהרג הנדון
It is taught in a braisa: Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai says in the form of an oath: I will not see the future consolation of the Jewish people if I did not as a member of the court kill a single conspiring witness, in order to eradicate this reasoning from the hearts of the Sadducees, who would say: The conspiring witnesses are executed only if they are rendered conspiring witnesses after the accused will be killed. Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai killed the conspiring witness while the accused remained alive.
אמר לו שמעון בן שטח אראה בנחמה אם לא שפכת דם נקי שהרי אמרו חכמים אין העדים זוממין נהרגין עד שיזומו שניהם ואין לוקין עד שיזומו שניהם
Shimon ben Shetach said to him: I will not see the consolation of the Jewish people if you did not shed thereby innocent blood, as the Sages said: Conspiring witnesses are not executed unless both of them are rendered conspiring witnesses, and they are not flogged unless both of them are rendered conspiring witnesses. In this case, only one was rendered a conspiring witness.
מיד קבל עליו ר' יהודה בן טבאי שאינו מורה הוראה אלא לפני שמעון בן שטח וכל ימיו של ר' יהודה בן טבאי היה משתטח על קברו של אותו העד והיה קולו נשמע וכסבורין העם לומר קולו של הרוג אמר קולי שלי הוא תדעו למחר הוא מת אין קולו נשמע
Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai immediately accepted a commitment upon himself that he would issue a halakhic ruling only when he was before Shimon ben Shetach, to avoid mistakes in the future. And throughout all of Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai’s days he would tearfully prostrate himself on the grave of that witness whom he executed, to request forgiveness for having done so, and his voice was heard from a distance. And the people thought to say that it was the voice of the executed witness that was heard. Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai said to them: It is my voice. Know that this is so, as tomorrow, i.e., sometime in the future, he, referring to himself, will die, and his voice will no longer be heard.
The Rogochover explains that murder is not a one time sin but a continuous sin. As he writes:
"והגדר בדיני נפשות החיוב משום המתפעל והוה דבר נמשך ועיין בספרי סוף פ' שופטים דשופך דם נקרא חוטא ר"ל לא שכבר חטא אלא שחוטא ונמשך וכו' וזה ר"ל קולו של הרוג דבו גם כן הוה דבר הנמשך והחיוב במתפעל וכו'".
Since the victim remains dead it is as if every second he is being killed!! So the voice of the victim is still heard long after the murder.
What was the logic of Rav Yehuda ben Tabbai? Writes Rabbeinu:
ורבי יהודה בן טבאי אמר דרק בפועל ולא במתפעל ולא הוה נמשך וגרם גם בזה מותר.
What does this mean?
The sin was on R' Yehuda but the victim remained guilty and no undue harm was caused to him so it was just like a גרם - indirect cause of his death, but not actual murder. So the sin was בפועל - the one who did it [for killing a lone עד זומם] but not במתפעל - the one who was killed because he had this coming to him for [as the Ritva explains] he had committed another sin and was deserving of the death penalty [and possibly the testimony of the witnesses in the other case had been heard just that there had not yet been a final decision - Aruch La-ner]. Thus - this is not a חטא נמשך - continuous sin which only applies when it is במתפעל and not just בפועל. In the words of Rav Menachem Kasher ztz"l [and see מפענח צפונות עמ' ט"ו-ט"ז for more!!]:
ור"י בן טבאי השיב שכאן לא היה במתפעל רק בפועל והטעם הוא כמ"ש הריטב"א שכאן מיירי שהעד היה מחויב מיתה בעבירה אחרת רק שלא דנוהו עליה. והערוך לנר מוסיף שאפשר שגם נתקבלה עדות בעבירה אחרת רק שלא נגמר דינו בזה ע"ש דמישב בזה לשון הגמרא ולכן העבירה רק בפועל ולא במתפעל.
When it comes to monetary damages - one pays and he is done with it. But murder lingers.... The precedent - Kayin. קול דמי אחיך צועקים- the bloods of your brother are crying out. Bloods - plural. His and seed forever. The words of Rabbeinu:
שלא בדיני ממונות דיני נפשות דיני ממונות אדם נותן ממון ומתכפר לו דיני נפשות דמו ודם זרעותיו תלויין בו עד סוף העולם. שכן מצינו בקין שהרג את אחיו שנאמר דמי אחיך צועקים אינו אומר דם אחיך אלא דמי אחיך דמו ודם זרעותיו".
That, says Rabbeinu, explains another Gemara [Sanhedrin 76b-77a]:
ההוא גברא דמצמצמא לחיותה דחבריה בשימשא ומתה רבינא מחייב רב אחא בר רב פטר
There was a certain man who confined the animal of another in a place in the sun and it died from exposure to the sun. Ravina deemed the man liable to recompense the owner as though his action caused the death of the animal. Rav Acha bar Rav deemed him exempt from recompensing the owner, as it was not his action that caused the death of the animal.
רבינא מחייב קל וחומר ומה רוצח שלא עשה בו שוגג כמזיד ואונס כרצון חייב בו את המצמצם
The Gemara elaborates: Ravina deemed him liable to recompense the owner, and he derived it by means of an a fortiori inference: Just as with regard to a murderer, where the Torah did not render the legal status of one who kills unwittingly, who is exiled, like that of one who kills intentionally, who is executed, and did not render the status of one who kills due to circumstances beyond his control, who is exempt from punishment, like that of one who kills with intent, who is liable, nevertheless the Torah rendered one who confines another in a place where he cannot survive liable to be executed, even though he did not perform an action;
נזקין שעשה בהן שוגג כמזיד ואונס כרצון אינו דין שחייב בהן את המצמצם
with regard to damage, where the Torah rendered the legal status of one who causes damage unwittingly like that of one who causes damage intentionally, and the status of one who causes damage due to circumstances beyond his control like that of one who causes damage with intent, as one is always responsible for damage that he caused (see Bava Kamma 26a), is it not logical that the Torah rendered one who confines an animal in a place where it cannot survive liable to pay restitution even though he did not perform an action?
רב אחא בר רב פוטר אמר רב משרשיא מ"ט דאבוה דאבא דפוטר אמר קרא (במדבר לה, כא) מות יומת המכה רוצח הוא ברוצח הוא דחייב לן מצמצם בנזקין לא חייב לן מצמצם
The Gemara explains the conflicting opinion. Rav Acha bar Rav, exempts the one who confined the animal in the sun from recompensing the owner. Rav Mesharshiyya said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rav Acha, the father of my father, who exempts him from payment? The reason is that the verse states: “Or in enmity he struck him with his hand and he died, the assailant shall be put to death; he is a murderer” (Numbers 35:21). The phrase “he is a murderer” restricts the liability of one who confines another. It is in the case of a murderer that the Torah renders for us one who confines another liable to be executed. But in the case of damage the Torah does not render for us one who confines the animal of another liable to recompense the owner, as it was not his action that caused the damage.
Since with respect to murder the sin is במתפעל - with the victim and thus more severe and continuous, one is liable for מצמצם - confining. Mere damages which is just a sin בפועל - of the sinner, מצמצם is not enough to make him liable.
