Establishing guilt for intentional murder requires more than just the tragic result of a death; it demands a meticulous judicial investigation into the weapon, the force used, and the surrounding circumstances. When a stone is used in a fatal attack, specific conditions must be met to classify the act as a capital offense. The primary requirement is that the stone must be taken and held in the hand [שד״ל, נתינה לגר, הכתב והקבלה]. Practically, this means the stone cannot be too small; it must fill the palm or be akin to a working tool [רש״י, רלב״ג, ביאור שטיינזלץ]. The emphasis on a hand-held object helps establish malicious intent. If an attacker pushes a massive, stationary boulder onto a victim, proving intent requires a different legal evaluation, whereas a portable, hand-held stone clearly demonstrates a deliberate action to strike [שד״ל]. On a deeper level, the focus on the hand also hints at the hands of the witnesses, who will eventually strike the guilty murderer as part of the execution [שפתי כהן].
Beyond being held, the court must carefully evaluate the stone to ensure it possesses enough weight and size to actually kill a person [רש״י, צפנת פענח]. This judicial estimation is unique to weapons made of stone or wood. In contrast, iron implements are considered inherently lethal regardless of their size, to the point where even a tiny needle is classified as a deadly weapon [שפתי כהן, נתינה לגר]. However, if the attacker uses an exceptionally large stone, the formal assessment of its size is bypassed, as its capacity to kill is self-evident [קיצור בעל הטורים].
The dual requirement—that the stone must be held in the hand and also be capable of causing death—leads the primary approach among commentators to conclude that the court must conduct a comprehensive set of evaluations, rather than merely measuring the weapon. First, the judges examine the specific body part that was struck, recognizing that a blow to the heart is vastly different from a blow to the thigh [רלב״ג, משכיל לדוד, מלבי״ם]. Second, the stone's lethality must be absolute. The death cannot be the result of a coincidental factor, such as extreme weather conditions or the victim's underlying health issues [גור אריה].
The court must also measure the physical dynamics of the attack, assessing the force of the hand and the intensity of the throw. Distance plays a critical role, as a stone thrown from two cubits impacts with significantly more force than one thrown from ten or a hundred cubits. Furthermore, the physical strength of the attacker is weighed against the physical vulnerability of the victim [תורה תמימה, מזרחי, הכתב והקבלה, מלבי״ם, דברי דוד]. Another perspective suggests the strict criteria simply ensure the stone is large enough to be fatal whether used in close combat or thrown from a distance [שפתי חכמים]. Ultimately, if all these stringent conditions are met, the attacker is condemned to death. This final ruling applies broadly; even if the attacker did not strike the victim directly with a hand-held stone, but instead caused death through indirect means like rolling rocks or toppling pillars onto them, the act remains intentional murder [תורה תמימה, מלבי״ם].