Yerushalmi Makkot 2:1 ירושלמי מכות ב׳:א׳

MISHNAH: The following are exiled: the unintentional homicide¹The rules of exile of the unintentional homicide are detailed in Num. 35, Deut. 19:1–10.. If he was rolling with the roller²The roller is used to smoothe the surface of a roof after waterproofing. when it fell on somebody and killed him, or lowering an amphora when it fell on somebody and killed him, or was descending on a ladder when he fell on somebody and killed him, he is exiled. But if he was drawing the roller when it fell on somebody and killed him, or lifting an amphora when it fell on somebody and killed him, or was climbing a ladder when he fell on somebody and killed him, he is not exiled. This is the principle, by anything lowered, he is exiled, if it is not lowered, he is not exiled³The rules of Num. 35 essentially absolve the homicide from exile if there was a freak accident, where nobody could have expected a deadly outcome. Then when the theme is taken up again in Deut., v. 19:5 gives as example that two people go to cut down a tree, one swings his axe to cut the tree when the blade comes off the handle (or jumps off the tree to be cut) while the axe is lowered and kills the other person. The verse ends with an emphatic statement, this one has to flee to a city of asylum to stay alive. This is read to mean that exile is appropriate only if the impetus given to the deadly object is reinforced by gravity, not if it is attenuated by it..

HALAKHAH: ⁴This note is found only in the editio princeps; it is missing in the ms.: “The following are exiled,” etc. Rebbi Jehudah declares him not liable unless the entire rope falls from his hand⁵This refers to the case of a person lowering a load by means of a rope when the load comes crashing down and kills somebody. If he loosens his grip, the homicide is due to his negligence and he is exiled. If the rope breaks (assuming he was not negligent in using a rope not suitable for its task by common engineering standards), it is an act of God and he is not liable.. Rebbi Simeon declares him not liable unless he let go the trowel completely⁶Both Rashi (French truelle) and the ˋArukh (Italian cazzuola) define this as builder’s trowel (Babli 9b). If the builder is standing on a roof and lets go of the trowel which falls down and kills, he is negligent. But if the tool breaks (assuming it was well maintained), it is an act of God and he is not liable.. What Rebbi Simeon said refers to breaking of the rope. What Rebbi Jehudah said, was about letting the trowel go⁷Meaning that the argument of R. Jehudah applied to R. Simeon’s case would have resulted in R. Simeon’s statement and vice-versa..

Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Abbahu: If one was using a roller going forward when another person stuck out his head and the roller hit him. He told him, there is no difference between upward and downward movement⁸This is a personal injury case, not one of homicide. The particular distinction derived from Deut. 19:5 is not applicable.. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Abbahu: If one was using a roller going forward when a child stuck out his hand and it was smothered. He told him, you are bothering me about this; there is no difference between upward and downward movement⁹If there is no negligence on the part of the operator, he is not liable and the distinction becomes meaningless..