לזכות הכלה חוה בת ר' יוסף צבי לברכה והצלחה
Says the pasuk [Shmos 21/12]:
מַכֵּ֥ה אִ֛ישׁ וָמֵ֖ת מ֥וֹת יוּמָֽת:
One who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death.
מכה איש ומת: למה נאמר, לפי שנאמר (ויקרא כד יז) ואיש כי יכה כל נפש אדם מות יומת, שומע אני בהכאה בלא מיתה, תלמוד לומר מכה איש ומת, אינו חייב אלא בהכאה של מיתה. ואם נאמר מכה איש, ולא נאמר ואיש כי יכה, הייתי אומר אינו חייב עד שיכה איש, היכה את האשה ואת הקטן מנין, תלמוד לומר כי יכה כל נפש אדם, אפילו קטן ואפילו אשה. ועוד אלו נאמר מכה איש, שומע אני, אפילו קטן שהכה והרג יהא חייב, תלמוד לומר ואיש כי יכה, ולא קטן שהכה. ועוד, כי יכה כל נפש אדם, אפילו נפלים במשמע, תלמוד לומר מכה איש, אינו חייב עד שיכה בן קיימא ראוי להיות איש:
One who strikes a man so that he dies: Why was this said? Because it says: “And if a man strikes down any human being, he shall surely be put to death” (Vayikra 24:17), I understand [that even if he deals him] a blow without death. Therefore, the Torah says: “He who strikes a man and he dies,” meaning that he is liable only for a blow causing death. If it said: “He who strikes a man,” and it did not say, “And if a man strikes down any human being,” I would say that one is liable only if one strikes a man. If one strikes a woman or a minor, how do we know [that one is liable]? Therefore, the Torah says: “if [a man] strikes down any human being,” referring even to a minor or even a woman. Also, if it said: “He who strikes a man,” I would understand that even a minor who struck and killed [someone] would be liable. Therefore, the Torah [specifically] says: “if a man strikes down,” but not a minor who strikes [someone] down. Also, “if… strikes down any human being” implies even a nonviable infant. Therefore, the Torah [here] says: “He who strikes a man,” implying one is liable only if one strikes a viable infant, one [who is] capable of becoming a man [i.e., an adult]. -[From Mechilta]
Why do we need two psukim, one to teach that one who kills a kotton is חייב and another that if a kotton kills he is פטור. The pasuk teaching that a kotton who killed is פטור should suffice because that compels us to say that one who kills a kotton is חייב. If one who killed a kotton was פטור, then we wouldn't need a pasuk to teach that a kotton who killed is פטור. We would know this on our own because that would mean that any עדות about a kotton killing would be עדות שאי אתה יכול להזימה [because we wouldn't be able to kill the עדים for trying to have the kotton killed - just as one is פטור for killing a kotton, one is also פטור for trying to have him killed with testimony] and AUTOMATICALLY any time a kotton killed he would be פטור for lack of עדות. From the fact that we need a special pasuk to teach that a kotton who killed is פטור, it must be that testimony about a kotton killing is עדות שאתה יכול להזימה and thus valid, enabling us to kill the עדים for trying to kill the kotton. So we already know that one is חייב for killing a kotton from the necessity of the pasuk teaching that a kotton who killed is פטור!!?? So asked the Ponim Yafos, Rav Chaim Halevi, the Kli Chemdah and many others.
[Also, what is the hava amina that a kotton would be חייב? Since when is a kotton חייב for anything?]
Rav Chaim extracts from here a yesod gadol! In the question we assumed that trying to kill a kotton with testimony is the same as actually killing him with a gun. But we see from here that this is not true. It could be that one would be פטור for killing a kotton with a gun but still חייב for killing him by means of testimony. The מחשבה of trying to kill him is worse than the actual מעשה of killing him!! So we could say that indeed for actually killing a kotton one would be פטור, but if one testified about a kotton killing, the עדות would be valid and עדות שאתה יכול להזימה and he would be חייב מיתה if found to be an עד זומם. So we still need a pasuk to teach that one is חייב for actually killing a kotton with a gun.
From here we see the power of a מחשבה!! It could be worse than a מעשה. The PREMEDITATION of murder, even if the murder is not actually carried out, mandates a more severe punishment that actually murdering.
If premeditation is so bad on the side of evil - imagine how good it is to PREMEDITATE מעשים טובים!! Don't just do good - think about it first!!!
