Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Numbers 35:16
And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he [is] a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.
16 23. Specimen cases of murder and accidental homicide respectively; cf. Exo 21:13 f.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The sense is: Inasmuch as to take another mans life by any means whatsoever is murder, and exposes the murderer to the penalty of retaliation; so, if the deed is done in hostility, it is in truth actual murder, and the murderer shall be slain; but if it be not done in hostility, then the congregation shall interpose to stop the avengers hand.
Num 35:19
When he meeteth him – Provided, of course, it were without a city of refuge.
Num 35:24
The case of the innocent slayer is here contemplated. In a doubtful case there would necessarily have to be a judicial decision as to the guilt or innocence of the person who claimed the right of asylum.
Num 35:25
The homicide was safe only within the walls of his city of refuge. He became a virtual exile from his home. The provisions here made serve to mark the gravity of the act of manslaughter, even when not premeditated; and the inconveniences attending on them fell, as is right and fair, upon him who committed the deed.
Unto the death of the high priest – The atoning death of the Saviour cast its shadow before on the statute-book of the Law and on the annals of Jewish history. The high priest, as the head and representative of the whole chosen family of sacerdotal mediators, as exclusively entrusted with some of the chief priestly functions, as alone privileged to make yearly atonement within the holy of holies, and to gain, from the mysterious Urim and Thummim, special revelations of the will of God, was, preeminently, a type of Christ. And thus the death of each successive high priest presignified that death of Christ by which the captives were to be freed, and the remembrance of transgressions made to cease.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
If he smite him, wittingly and wilfully, though not with premeditated malice or design, as appears by comparing this with Num 35:20-23.
So that he die, to wit, suddenly, not so if he walked abroad afterward, Exo 21:19,20.
Shall surely be put to death; yea, though he were fled into the city of refuge.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
16-21. If he smite him with aninstrument of iron, so that he die, c.Various cases are hereenumerated in which the Goel or avenger was at liberty to take thelife of the murderer and every one of them proves a premeditatedpurpose.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die,…. As with an hatchet, hammer, sword, knife, c.
he is a murderer the instrument used by him, and with which he smote, shows that he had a bad design, and intended to kill, or he would never have smitten a man with such an instrument:
the murderer shall surely be put to death; be condemned to death, and be executed, by the order of the civil magistrate, according to the law in Ge 9:6 and not be allowed the benefit of a city of refuge.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Special instructions are given in Num 35:16-28, with reference to the judicial procedure. First of all (Num 35:16-21), with regard to qualified slaying or murder. If any person has struck another with an iron instrument (an axe, hatchet, hammer, etc.), or “ with a stone of the hand, from which one dies,” i.e., with a stone which filled the hand, – a large stone, therefore, with which it was possible to kill, – or “ with a wooden instrument of the hand, from which one dies,” i.e., with a thick club, or a large, strong wooden instrument, and he then died (so that he died in consequence), he was a murderer, who was to be put to death. “For the suspicion would rest upon any one who had used an instrument, that endangered life and therefore was not generally used in striking, that he had intended to take life away” ( Knobel).
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
16. And if he smite him with an instrument of iron. God appears to contradict Himself, when, a little further on, He absolves involuntary murderers, although they may have inflicted the wound with iron or with a stone; whilst here He absolutely declares that whosoever shall smite another with wood, or iron, or a stone, shall be guilty of death; but this is easily explained if we consider his meaning; for, after having pardoned the unintentional act ( errori,) lest (53) any should misconstrue this as affording impunity for crime, He at once anticipates them, and again inculcates what has been said before. By the express mention of iron, wood, and stone, He more dearly explains that no voluntary murders are to be pardoned; else, as laws are wont to be evaded by various subtleties, they would have endeavored, perhaps, to limit what had been said respecting the punishment of murderers to one single species of murder, viz., when a person had been slain with a sword. It is not, then, without cause that God condemns to death every kind of murderer, whether he have committed the crime with a weapon (of iron,) or by throwing a stone, or with a dub; since it is sufficient for his condemnation that he had conceived the intention to do the evil act. It is well known that (54) by the Lex Cornelia, whosoever had carried a weapon with the intention of killing a man was guilty; and Martianus cites the reply of Adrian, — He who has killed a man, if he did it not with the intention of killing him, may be absolved; and he who has not killed a man, but has wounded him with intention to kill him, is to be condemned as a murderer; as Paulus also teaches, that in the said Lex Cornelia, the evil intention ( dolus) is taken for the deed. Another reply of Adrian is very true, That in crimes, the will and not the result must be regarded. Whence that saying of Ulpian, That there is no difference between the man who kills, and him who causes the death of another. Here, therefore, God had no other object than to cut off from murderers all handles for subterfuge, if they should be convicted of a wicked intention, especially when it resulted in an actual attempt; since there was no difference whether they had made use of a sword, or a mallet, or a stone.
(53) “De peur que cela ne tirast trop longue queue, et que les criminels en fissent couverture d’impunite, il exprime notamment les facons de tuer plus communes, quand on y va de guet-a-pens. Ainsi en nommant les instrumens, qui sont destinez, ou qu’on applique a mal faire,” etc.; for fear this should be carried too far, and that criminals should make it a ground for impunity, he expressly mentions the more ordinary kinds of deliberate murder. Thus, by naming the instruments, which are intended, or used for inflicting injuries, etc. — Fr.
(54) Vide Digest. 48, tit. 8. In legem Corneliam de Sicariis, et Veneficiis, 1 Section 3. “Divus Hadrianus rescripsit, eum, qui hominem occidit, si non occidendi animo hoc admisit, absolvi posse: et qui hominem non occidit, sed vulneravit ut occidat, pro homicida damnandum: et ex re constituendum hoc.” — Ibid. , 11 “Ulpianus, lib. 8, ad legem Juliam, et Papiam. Nihil interest, occidat quis, an causam mortis praebeat.” Vide item, Julii Pauli Recept. Sentent., lib. 5, tit. 23, Section 2. “Qui hominem occiderit, aliquando absolvitur. Et qui non occidit, in homicida damnatur. Consilium enim uniuscujusque, non factum puniendum est. Ideoque qui cum velit occidere, id casu aliquo perpetrare non potuerit, ut homicida punietur. Et is, qui casu jactu teli hominem imprudenter occiderit, absolvitur.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
F. LAWS OF HOMICIDE vv. 1634
TEXT
Num. 35:16. And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death. 17. And if he smite him with throwing a stone, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death. 18. Or if he smite him with a hand weapon of wood, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death. 19. The revenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer: when he meeteth him, he shall slay him. 20. But if he thrust him of hatred, or hurl at him by laying of wait, then he die; 21. Or in enmity smite him with his hand, that he die: he that smote him shall surely be put to death; for he is a murderer: the revenger of blood shall slay the murderer, when he meeteth him. 22. But if he thrust him suddenly without enmity, or have cast upon him any thing without laying of wait, 23. Or with any stone, wherewith a man may die, seeing him not, and cast it upon him, that he die, and was not his enemy, neither sought his harm: 24. Then the congregation shall judge between the slayer and the revenger of blood according to these judgments: 25. And the congregation shall deliver the slayer out of the hand of the revenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to the city of his refuge, whither he was fled: and he shall abide in it unto the death of the high priest, which was anointed with the holy oil. 26. But if the slayer shall at any time come without the border of the city of his refuge, whither he was fled; 27. And the revenger of blood find him without the borders of the city of his refuge, and the revenger of blood kill the slayer; he shall not be guilty of blood: 28. Because he should have remained in the city of his refuge until the death of the high priest: but after the death of the high priest the slayer shall return into the land of his possession. 29. So these things shall be for a statute of judgment unto you throughout your generations in all your dwellings. 30. Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die. 31. Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall surely be put to death. 32. And ye shall take no satisfaction for him that is fled to the city of his refuge, that he should come again to dwell in the land, until the death of the priest. 33. So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it. 34. Defile not therefore the land which ye shall inhabit, wherein I dwell: for I the Lord dwell among the children of Israel.
PARAPHRASE
Num. 35:16. But if he struck him down with an iron instrument, so that he died, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. 17. And if he struck him down with a stone in his hand, so that he might have died, and if he did die, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. 18. Or if he struck him down with a wooden instrument in his hand, so that he might have died, and he did die, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. 19. The avenger of blood himself shall put the murderer to death; he shall be put to death when he meets him. 20. Or if he shoved him in hatred, or threw something at him from ambush so that he died, 21. or if in he struck him down with his hand maliciously so that he died, the one who struck him down shall surely be put to death: he is a murderer; the blood avenger shall put the murderer to death when he meets him. 22. But if he shoved him suddenly and without malice, or threw something at him, not being in ambush, 23. or hit him with a stone object capable of killing him, but without seeing him, and was not hostile toward him, and had not sought to harm him, 24. then the congregation shall judge between the killer and the blood avenger according to these regulations. 25. And the congregation shall deliver the man-killer from the hand of the avenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to the city of refuge to which he had fled; and he shall live in it until the death of the high priest who was anointed with the holy oil. 26. But if the man-killer goes at any time outside the border of the city of his refuge to which he has fled; 27. and if the avenger of blood finds him outside the border of the city of his refuge, the blood avenger may kill the man-killer and not be guilty of his blood: 28. because he should have remained inside his city of refuge until the death of the high priest. However, after the death of the high priest the man-killer shall return to the land of his possession. 29. So these things shall be for a regulatory law to you throughout your generations in all your dwellings. 30. If anyone kills another person, the murderer shall be put to death on the testimony of witnesses; but the testimony of one witness alone shall not cause him to be put to death. 31. Furthermore, you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death; he shall surely be put to death. 32. And you shall not take a ransom for one who has fled to his city of refuge to permit him to return to live in his land before the death of the high priest. 33. In this way you shall not pollute the land where you are: for blood pollutes the land, and no land can be cleansed of the blood which has been shed upon it excepting by the blood of the one who shed it. 34. And you shall not defile the land which you shall inhabit, in which I dwell: for I am the Lord, dwelling among the Children of Israel.
COMMENTARY
As in other areas of the Law, the provisions defining murder and distinguishing it from accidental homicide; the different tests for determining guilt and innocence; the various punishments determined by the seriousness of the offenseall of these are vast improvements over any other ancient statutes. In essence, there are three differences, as shown in ICC; (1) the Law insists that life is to be forfeited only in case of willful murder, in contrast to primitive measures which did not make such a distinction; (2) the Law tacitly insists that the life of the actual murderer only can become forfeit; in primitive cultures the family often might be compelled to share the punishment of the offense of one of its members; and, (3) the Law forbids the acceptance of a money equivalent for a forfeited life, (p. 471). Additionally, clear points are set forth upon which to form a fair judgment in reference to guilt because of motive. The motivation, if any, behind any homicide was subjected to three areas of inquiry: first, the weapon itself: was it lethal in nature, or not? Implements of iron, large stones, or weapons of wood which were large enough to administer a death blow must first be established as the cause of death, if murder were suspected. Then, had there been enmity between the two? Witnesses would be adduced to confirm or deny this possibility. Feelings strong enough to lead to deliberate murder would be difficult to conceal. Those knowing of such feelings would become prime sources of testimony if murder were suspected. The third factor adduced would be the circumstances of the death: had the murderer plotted the assault? Laying in wait need not necessarily mean an ambush, but rather seeking an opportune time or place for the foul deed. Thrusting in hatred suggests an explosion of temper, but it is to be inferred that the circumstances are more than a mere accident; in such a circumstance, the judgment was in the hands of the congregation. Motive, weapon, and occasion, then, were the prime factors to be reviewed in any charge of murder.
The duty of the revenger of blood was clear: to pursue the manslayer and, if he be overtaken before reaching a city of refuge, to slay him; no guilt of blood would then be upon his hands. Additionally, he was to make certain that the slayer did not leave the city of refuge at all before he had been pronounced guilty or innocent of murder. Obviously, if he were guilty of murder, the punishment was stoning to death by the congregation. If he were innocent of murder, he was yet required to remain in the city of refuge until the death of the current high priest. To go outside the city was to invite death at the hands of the revenger of blood. Even under circumstances of accidental homicide, the guilty man, and the entire nation, were to learn that taking a life was no trivial matter. Courtesy, caution, and preventive measure may be learned from the law: man should do all he possibly can to avoid placing himself in a situation where, even by the remotest accident, he might endanger the life of another.
Because a great responsibility lay with the congregation, we should recognize the concept behind the word. Ordinarily, eydah signified the entire nation assembled together. We cannot believe the trial of a murderer would have been the occasion for such an assembly, especially after they were scattered about in the new land; and the law is tailored to that situation. The force of the word may suggest that any individual of the congregation, or of the assembled ones who answered the call to assemble, might bear testimony if he had reason to do so, or that any one might participate in the decision, once having heard the testimony of all witnesses. If the accused were found innocent, he was provided safe escort back to the city of refuge from the scene of the trial. If he were guilty, all participated in his execution by stoning.
That the manslayer was forced to dwell in the city of refuge until the death of the high priest presents some interesting points. Several restrictions automatically accompany such a sentence. The man, and his family as well, would be required to uproot themselves from their previous residence and live within the city. The man himself dare not go outside the walls. Perhaps a radical change in his life style might be necessary, since he would not possibly be able to pursue either an agricultural or shepherding career within the walls of the city. Unless other members of his family visited him, he would be unable to see father, mother, brothers or sisters until the time of his release. Yet, he had escaped the sentence of death, and the inconveniences of his new life were much to be preferred over the sentence of death. The reason for specifying that the innocent manslayer was to be set free when the high priest died is not given. The proper understanding may be that presented in PC: The stress . . . which is laid upon the fact of his (the high priests) decease, cf. Num. 35:28, and the solemn notice of his having been anointed with the holy oil, seem to point unmistakably to something in his official and consecrated character which made it right that the rigor of the law should die with him. What the Jubile was to the debtor who had lost his property, that the death of the high priest was to the homicide who had lost his liberty, (p. 448).
A most significant factor in the general set of laws regarding manslaughter is the stipulation that more than one witness must be heard in testimony against the killer. It is a most reasonable safeguard, requiring none of our defense. If one were a witness of the assault and another of evidence of enmity, the testimonies might condemn the manslayer by their harmony; but no man could be condemned on the word of one other person alone.
The next provisions are equally grave and reasonable. The murderer could offer nothing whatever in place of his life if he were convicted of his crime. Having disregarded the sanctity and the right of another man to his life, the killer could not offer anything other than his own. No amount of money, no servile pledge, no measure of repentancenone were acceptable. The principle had held since the day of Noah: Whoso sheddeth mans blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man, (Gen. 9:6).
Again impressing upon the people the gravity of taking anothers life even by accident is the legal provision that the manslayer found innocent of murder may not purchase his freedom by any means. Only the death of the high priest is effectual in procuring his release from the city or refuge. An act with a most serious consequence could only be seen in its true perspective if the consequences were inviolate.
One of the continuing marks of human decadence, especially in the abuse of positions of power, is the callous attitude of indifference to shedding the blood of the innocent. To anyone with a memory of the meaning of Buchenvald, Auschewitz, Dachau, or other symbols of Hitlers blood-purge of the Jews in the time of World War II; or to those familiar with the political purges in Communist Russia or Red China, it is hardly necessary to point out the fact that men have furthered their own political or social philosophies by wholesale murder of the innocent within their lands. Surely the technique was not invented in our twentieth century, but, to our shame, our generation certainly has not eliminated the atrocious practice. The shedding of innocent blood, whether in individual or mass quantities, is a polluting, profaning crime for which an entire people may be defiled. In a most climactic way, the Lord implores Israel not to pollute their land because He Himself wants to live there! The serious child of God knows that the Divine Presence is more than a wish, more than a mythit is a glorious fact.
QUESTIONS AND RESEARCH ITEMS
646.
In what three areas can you note a significant difference between the laws of homicide among the Israelites as compared with those laws from other cultures?
647.
Why is it necessary to establish motivation behind any charge of murder?
648.
Show the importance of the size and substance of the weapon in such a change.
649.
How do the circumstances under which a homicide occurs help to determine whether or not it might be murder?
650.
To what facts might witnesses be brought to testify?
651.
Exactly what does laying in wait mean?
652.
Who was the revenger of blood, and what was his primary obligation?
653.
What was the action of the avenger of blood if the manslayer were found guilty of murder by the congregation?
654.
What were his duties if the manslayer were found innocent of murder?
655.
Define the obligations of the congregation in the accusation and prosecution, as well as execution of a murderer.
656.
Discuss some of the lessons the Israelites, as well as other people who might become familiar with their laws, should have learned from these regulations regarding homicide.
657.
What is the usual meaning of congregation as it is used of the Israelites?
658.
How can it be demonstrated that these homicidal laws were designed for implementation after Israel settled in Canaan?
659.
How long was the manslayer required to remain in the city of refuge if he were found innocent of murder?
660.
What was accomplished by requiring the innocent man to remain away from his home for this period of time?
661.
Suggest some of the inconveniences he and his family might have to undergo.
662.
What significance do you find in the death of the high priest as it related to the manslayer?
663.
Why should the witness of one man alone not be sufficient to establish the guilt of a man accused of murder?
664.
To what various facts might the witnesses bear record?
665.
What significance to you attach to the fact that the manslayer was unable to purchase his exemption from residence in the city of refuge by recompense of any kind?
666.
What lesson attaches to the firm requirement that the murderer could not escape by any method from the sentence of death for his crime?
667.
Does this provision contribute in any way to the concept of the intrinsic value of human life?
668.
For how long had the principle of life-for-life been known among men? What were the circumstances of its beginning?
669.
Have we a real basis for revoking this law of God?
670.
What does history show has happened when human life was held in low esteem?
671.
Why are the innocent most likely to suffer under these circumstances?
672.
Cite historical instances of the debauches of political and social theorists whose power enabled them to enforce their discriminatory philosophies. Cite both contemporary and ancient examples.
673.
For what supreme reason did God ask Israel to refrain from polluting her land?
674.
Might He express the same thought today?
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR DISTRIBUTING THE LAND, Num 34:16-29.
The ex officio members of this commission were Eleazar, the high priest, and Joshua, the commander of the army, as the lieutenant of Jehovah.
Jos 5:14. Of the ten princes, representing the nine and a half tribes, Caleb is the only one of whom any thing else is known. The order of the tribes here enumerated, with slight exceptions, corresponds both to their fraternal relationship and to their geographical location in Canaan, reckoning from south to north. This deviates somewhat from the order in which the lots came out for the different tribes according to Joshua 15-19.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
THE INTENTIONAL MANSLAYER, Num 35:16-21.
16-21. If any person has struck another with an instrument of iron, as an axe or hammer, or with a stone, literally, a stone of the hand, that is, large enough to fill the hand and to kill a man with, or with a hand weapon of wood, as a thick club, and death ensued, a murderous intent is inferred, and the death penalty is inflicted. An ambuscade or laying of wait, preceding the fatal blow, is a still stronger proof of malice aforethought. Gen 9:5-6; Exo 20:13, note. Capital punishment is discussed in Lev 24:21, note, and in the concluding note of the same chapter.
The revenger of blood shall slay the murderer This duty was never outlawed by any limitation of time or of place, save within the walls of the city of refuge. If the offender took refuge in a free city the elders of the city were to hand him over to the avenger, or goel, to be slain. Gen 4:15, note; Deu 19:11-12.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Three Examples of Those Who Would Find No Protection In A City of Refuge (35:16-18).
The deliberate murderer had no refuge. This would partly be determined by the nature of the instrument used. Thus an iron instrument, a large stone, or a wooden weapon would be evidence of intent. It would suggest that the slaying was intentional.
Num 35:16
“ But if he smote him with an instrument of iron, so that he died, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.”
To attack a man with an instrument of iron with sufficient force to kill clearly implied either a premeditated intention to kill or a total disregard for life. In such a case the slayer would have no valid excuse. The instrument used indicated a total disregard for a life given by Yahweh. To send a man’s lifeblood prematurely into the dust, before its time fixed by Yahweh, defiled the land and was a high-handed sin against Yahweh.
Num 35:17
“ And if he smote him with a stone in the hand, by which a man may die, and he died, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.”
To take a large stone in hand ‘by which a man may die’ would again show clear intent of murder or total disregard for God-given life. The intent to make unconscious or to injure would have been indicated by the use of a smaller stone.
Num 35:18
“ Or if he smote him with a weapon of wood in the hand (a piece of wood deliberately taken in hand, or ‘with a handle’), by which a man may die, and he died, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.”
Here the instrument is specifically described as a ‘weapon’, a man wrought instrument, a piece of wood with a handle, or deliberately taken in hand (either translation is possible). The purpose of carrying such a weapon would be in order to kill. Why else was he carrying the weapon? Thus again it revealed premeditated intent.
So in all these three cases the Avenger of blood was himself to put the slayer to death. The crime of shedding blood and open rebellion against God by slaying someone in His image was to be punished by those most directly offended against, the family. This ensured that the matter was pursued at a time when there was no police force. Whenever the avenger saw the slayer he was to put him to death.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Num 35:16-18. If he smite him with an instrument of iron, &c. It appears from these verses, that it made no difference with what kind of weapon the man was killed; if he was killed wittingly and knowingly, this was adjudged murder, and the guilty person was to die for it. For though, perhaps, he had no formed intention to kill the person; yet he ought to have moderated his passion, and could not be ignorant that such an instrument was capable of inflicting a deadly wound.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Num 35:16 And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he [is] a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.
Ver. 16. So that he die. ] Though he had no intent to kill, yet because he should have looked better to it, he is a murderer; he smote him purposely and presumptuously, and the man dies of it. King James was wont to say, that if God did leave him to kill a man (though beside his intention), he should think God did not love him.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
the Penalty for the Murderer
Num 35:16-34
For murder the penalty was death, Num 35:30-31; but for accidental homicide there was freedom within the city limits until the death of the high priest, when all these refugees might return to their homes with impunity. The institution of the blood-avenger was almost a necessity in those lands of scattered population and without communal organization. Here, without destroying the practice, it has been placed under careful limitations. We are our brethrens keepers, and instead of passing on a slander, we should stand for them against those who have wrongfully maligned them.
What an exquisite promise is contained in Num 35:34! To think that Jehovah actually dwelled in the Holy Land! He dwells also in each assembly of His saints and in our hearts. See Eze 48:35; Mat 18:20; 2Co 6:16; Rev 21:3.
For Review Questions, see the e-Sword Book Comments.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
if he smite: Num 35:22-24, Deu 19:11-13
the: Num 35:30-33, Gen 9:5, Gen 9:6, Exo 21:12-14, Lev 24:17
Reciprocal: Exo 20:13 – General Exo 21:18 – a stone Deu 17:8 – between blood Mat 5:21 – and
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
35:16 And if he {f} smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he [is] a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.
(f) Wittingly, and willingly.