מכה איש ומת. לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְאִישׁ כִּי יַכֶּה כָּל נֶפֶשׁ אָדָם (ויקרא כ"ד), שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי הַכָּאָה בְלֹא מִיתָה, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר מַכֵּה אִישׁ וָמֵת – אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא בְּהַכָּאָה שֶׁל מִיתָה; וְאִם נֶאֱמַר מַכֵּה אִישׁ וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר וְאִישׁ כִּי יַכֶּה, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיַּכֶּה אִישׁ, הִכָּה אֶת הָאִשָּׁה וְאֶת הַקָּטָן מִנַּיִן? תַּ"לֹ כִּי יַכֶּה כָּל נֶפֶשׁ אָדָם – אֲפִלּוּ קָטָן וַאֲפִלּוּ אִשָּׁה; וְעוֹד, אִלּוּ נֶאֱמַר מַכֵּה אִישׁ, שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי אֲפִלּוּ קָטָן שֶׁהִכָּה וְהָרַג יְהֵא חַיָּב, תַּ"לֹ וְאִישׁ כִּי יַכֶּה, וְלֹא קָטָן שֶׁהִכָּה; וְעוֹד כִּי יַכֶּה כָּל נֶפֶשׁ אָדָם אֲפִלּוּ נְפָלִים בְּמַשְׁמָע, תַּ"לֹ מַכֵּה אִישׁ, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיַּכֶּה בֶן קַיָּמָא הָרָאוּי לִהְיוֹת אִישׁ (מכילתא):
(2) מכה איש ומת WHOSOEVER SMITETH A MAN SO THAT HE DIE — Why is this said (how does the particular form of words used here tell us some point of law which is not contained in another text bearing upon the same subject)? ...On the other hand if it had stated here, “Whosoever smiteth a man…” and it had not said there “If a man smiteth [any person]”, I might have inferred that the murderer is not guilty except if he killed “a man”; whence, however, could I know that he is subject to the death penalty if he killed a woman or a minor? Therefore Scripture states “And if [a man] smiteth any person”, thus including even a minor and a woman. ...Then on the other hand, so far as concerns the statement “And if [a man] smiteth the soul of any man” it might be held that even premature births at a term of eight months are included in the term כל נפש אדם “soul of any man”, Scripture therefore states “Whosoever smiteth a man” to intimate that one is not subject to the death penalty unless he kills a viable child — one which is fitted to become a man (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 21:12:2).
(א) הַנּוֹגֵף אֶת הָאִשָּׁה וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְכַּוֵּן חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵי וְלָדוֹת לַבַּעַל וְנֵזֶק וְצַעַר לָאִשָּׁה:
(1) One who strikes a woman and causes her to miscarry, even though this wasn't his intent, he must pay the value of the fetus to the [woman's] husband, and damage and pain to the woman.
BUT IF ANY HARM FOLLOW. To the woman. We find a difference of opinion. Some say that the one who caused the women’s death is put to death because he intended to kill a fellow Israelite. They offer as proof the fact that Scripture states, he shall surely be fined (v. 22) with regard to the children, but it states with regard to the woman, then thou shalt give life for life. Now if the reference is to a fine, then in what way is the woman’s death worse than that of the children? On the other hand, if we say that one is to be punished with death for killing the children, why did Scripture alter its style and read, life for life? The opposing opinion maintains that one who intends to kill one individual and kills another is not put to death, and the reason the Torah altered its language and stated life for life is that the fine for killing a person is much greater than that for killing an embryo. They offer as proof the fact that the Torah afterwards reads, eye for eye, tooth for tooth (v. 24). The latter is not to be taken literally. On the contrary, it refers to ransom. This portion was written because of the clause eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Scripture afterwards codifies the law dealing with the eye and tooth of a bondman.
(7) God יהוה formed the Human from the soil’s humus, blowing into his nostrils the breath of life: the Human became a living being.
וְאִי מִיעַבְּרָא — עַד אַרְבָּעִים מַיָּא בְּעָלְמָא הִיא.
And if she is pregnant, until forty days from conception the fetus is merely water. It is not yet considered a living being, and therefore it does not disqualify its mother from partaking of teruma.
גיטין כ׳׳ג ב
מאי טעמא דרבי בהא קסבר עובר ירך אמו הוא
Gittin 23b
What is the reason for Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s position [in the above conversation]? He holds that a fetus is considered as its mother’s thigh [that is, as part of its mother’s body].