Bava Metzia 31B

אבל הני תרתי דאיתא למרה בהדה, אימא לא. צריכא.

but in the case of these two mitzvot of unloading and loading, where its owner is with it, I might say no, there is no need to assist him. Therefore, it was necessary for the Torah to write both.

״מות יומת המכה״, אין לי אלא במיתה הכתובה בו. מנין שאם אי אתה יכול להמיתו במיתה הכתובה בו שאתה רשאי להמיתו בכל מיתה שאתה יכול להמיתו? תלמוד לומר: ״מות יומת״, מכל מקום.

§ The Talmud cites additional derivations from compound verb forms. “Or in enmity struck him with his hand, that he died; he that struck him should be put to death [mot yumat]” (Numbers 35:21). I have derived only that the murderer is executed with the form of death written with regard to him, i.e., decapitation. From where is it derived that if you are unable to execute him with the form of death written with regard to him, it is permitted for you to execute him with any death with which you are able to execute him? The verse states: “Mot yumat,” to teach that you must execute him in any case.

״הכה תכה״, אין לי אלא בהכאה הכתובה בהן, מנין שאם אי אתה יכול להמיתן בהכאה הכתובה בהן שאתה רשאי להכותן בכל הכאה שאתה יכול? תלמוד לומר ״הכה תכה״, מכל מקום.

With regard to an idolatrous city, it is written: “You should strike [hakeh takeh] the inhabitants of that city by sword, destroying it utterly” (Deuteronomy 13:16). I have derived only that the residents of the idolatrous city are executed with the form of death written with regard to them, i.e., decapitation. From where is it derived that if you are unable to execute them with the form of death written with regard to them, it is permitted for you to execute them with any death with which you are able to execute them? The verse states: “Hakeh takeh,” to teach that you must execute him in any case.