Bearing in mind the Pasuk in Emor "ve'Ish ki Yakeh Kol Nefesh Adam Mos Yumas" (24:17), why does the Torah insert this Pasuk?
Rashi: To teach us a. that he is only Chayav Misah 1 if a. the stroke kills the victim, 2 and b. that one is only Chayav for killing a potential man - someone who is not a Nefel -a stillborn). 3
Da'as Zekenim: Our verse obligates a woman, Tumtum or Androginus who murdered. Rashi explained so about kidnapping (refer to 21:16:1:1).
Mechilta: To teach us that one is only Chayav Misah if the stroke actually kills the victim, bu not if for example, Reuven slaps Shimon, and Shimon dies later as a result of the stroke.
Why does the Torah need to write both this Pasuk and the Pasuk in Vayikra 24:17 "ve'Ish ki Yakeh Kol Nefesh Adam..."?
A Mishnah (Sanhedrin 9:1) and Targum Yonasan says that a murderer is killed through the sword. Bearing in mind that 'S'tam Misah' is Chenek, from where do we know this?
Sanhedrin 52b: We learn from "Nakom Yinakem" - Pasuk 20. Refer to 21:20:5:1*.
Moshav Zekenim: Murderers are equated to Eglah Arufah, which is killed through its neck.
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes that one might have thought that he is Chayav Misah even if the victim did not die. If so, why did the Torah need to obligate Misah for striking a parent?
Moshav Zekenim #1: I might have thought that he is Chayav Misah for any blow with a Kli that can kill, and for striking a parent, even if the Kli cannot kill.
Moshav Zekenim #2: Rashi means, even if he did not die due to him alone, e.g. 10 people hit him and he died. This is like Rabanan, who exempt even the last to hit him (Sanhedrin 78a).
Hadar Zekenim #1, Riva: According to the opinion that choking is more severe than the sword, it is to obligate choking for a parent.
Hadar Zekenim #2, Riva citing Ri: I might have thought that he is Chayav Misah for striking others only for a wound (blood), and for a parent, even without a wound.
Rashi writes that one might have thought that he is Chayav Misah even if the victim did not die. One who destroyed a limb only pays - "Im Yakum... v'Nikah ha'Makeh Rak Shivto Yiten v'Rapo Yerapei" (verse 19)!
Moshav Zekenim: I might have thought that he is Chayav Misah once we estimate that the victim will die, even before he dies. (He pays when we initially estimate that he will live.) We find that one pays based on the initial estimation, even if he became healthy afterwards (Bava Kama 91a)!
Hadar Zekenim: One might have thought that he is killed if he victim fell l'Mishkav [and died] due to rolling around. The verse obligates only if the blow caused the death.
Riva: I might have thought that he is Chayav Misah for a blow with a Kli that can kill, and pays for a blow if the Kli cannot kill.
Riva: Some say that [Rashi] refers to one who made the victim a T'reifah. This is a poor answer.
Rashi writes that "v'Ish Ki Yakeh..." (Vayikra 24:17) exempts a minor who killed. Sanhedrin 68b says that we do not need a verse to exempt a minor! His actions have no consequence!
Moshav Zekenim: I might have thought that because the sin (death) came through him, he is killed, like we find that an animal (used for bestiality) is killed (Vayikra 20:15).
Riva citing ha'Kadosh of Duraish: We say so (no verse is needed to exempt a minor) only about Ben Sorer u'Moreh, who is judged based on his future.
Rashi writes that we need "v'Ish Ki Yakeh" to obligate a man who killed a woman or minor, and our verse to obligate for a woman who killed a man. What is the source for a woman who killed a woman or child?
Riva: It says "Mos Yumas ha'Makeh Rotze'ach Hu", and "Mos Yumas ha'Rotze'ach." [One] Rotze'ach is for the simple meaning, and the other includes every Rotze'ach.
Riva: Some say that the Torah equated a man to a woman for all punishments. 1
Riva: This is wrong. That is only when the Torah wrote in the masculine, but when it says "Ish", this excludes women!
