SIGN THE PETITION
The Talmud is very complicated, not every statement is a law, sometimes it is a commentary or the opinion of a certain Rabbi, sometimes a stipulation or refutation, however the quotes below should give you a good idea about Talmudic reasoning on certain issues.
Even though one of the Noahide Laws prohibits murder, according to some interpretations of the Babylonian Talmud, Jew may murder anyone, even other Jews, just so long as the murder is committed indirectly (there is no agent causation in Jewish law), thus the Talmud provides provisions for killing others (even other Jews) via starvation, exposure, suffocation, and more.
NO PENALTY FOR CAUSING INDIRECT DEATH
“Thus R. Zera maintains that no penalty is incurred for indirectly causing one’s death” –1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 77a, Footnote 11
MURDER BY STARVATION
Raba said: If one bound his neighbour and he died of starvation, he is not liable to execution. – 1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 77a
MURDER BY EXPOSURE TO THE ELEMENTS
Raba also said: If he bound him in the sun, and he died, or in a place of intense cold and he died, he is liable; but if the sun was yet to appear, or the cold to make itself felt, he is not. - 1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 77a
FOOTNOTE 4: I.e., he is liable only if the place was already exposed to heat or cold. But if it was merely destined to become hot, the sun not yet having risen, he is not liable. In the first case, he is regarded as a direct murderer, in the second, as an indirect cause. That is the general reason for the exemptions taught in this passage.
MURDER BY EXPOSURE TO WILD ANIMALS/INSECTS
Raba also said: If he bound him before a lion, he is not liable: before mosquitoes, [who stung him to death] he is. R. Ashi said: Even before mosquitoes, he is not liable, because these go and others come. - 1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 77a
FOOTNOTE 5: Because he could not have saved himself in any case. [Raba probably refers to a prisoner thrown into an arena to be torn by lions.]
FOOTNOTE 6: I.e., the mosquitoes before which the prisoner was bound do not kill him entirely, as there is a continuous coming and going. Hence it is similar to binding one in a place where the sun will appear, but has not yet done so.
MURDER BY SUFFOCATION IN A CLOSED CONTAINER
For R. Zera said: If one led his neighbour in to an alabaster chamber and lit a candle therein, so that he died [of the fumes]. he is liable. Now, the reason is only that he lit a candle that he is liable; but had he not lit a candle [and the prisoner died of the natural heat and lack of air], he would be exempt! — I will tell you: In that case, without a candle, the heat would not have commenced [its effects] - 1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 77
FOOTNOTE 9: Which was then hermetically sealed, so that no fumes could escape.
FOOTNOTE 10: This being considered active murder under the circumstances.
FOOTNOTE 11: Thus R. Zera maintains that no penalty is incurred for indirectly causing one’s death.
MURDER BY CASTING INTO A PIT AND REMOVING THE LADDER
Raba said: If one thrust his neighbour into a pit, in which there was a ladder [so that he could have climbed out], and then another came and removed it, or even if himself hastened to remove it, he is not liable [for the victim's death], because when he threw him in he could have climbed out – 1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Yebamoth 77b
COLLECTIVE MURDER BY A GROUP - (ONLY THE ONE WHO DEALS
THE FINAL BLOW MAYBE LIABLE DEPENDING ON OPINION
Our Rabbis taught: If ten men smote a man with ten staves, whether simultaneously or successively, and he died, they are exempt. R. Judah b. Bathyra said: If successively, the last is liable, because he struck the actual death blow. R. Johanan said: Both derive [their rulings] from the same verse, And he that killeth kol nefesh [lit., 'all life'] of man shall surely be put to death. The Rabbis maintain that kol nefesh implies the whole life; but R. Judah b. Bathyra holds that kol nefesh implies whatever there is of life. - 1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 78a
FOOTNOTE 3: Lit., ‘brought his death near’; v. B.K. 26b.
Baba Kamma 26b as mention is the footnote above is inserted here for your reference
§ Babba Kama 26b – 27a: Rabbah again said: In the case of one throwing a child from the top of the roof and somebody else meanwhile appearing and catching it on the edge of his sword, there is a difference of opinion between R. Judah b. Bathyra and the Rabbis. For it was taught: In the case of ten persons beating one [to death] with ten sticks, whether simultaneously or consecutively, none of them is guilty of murder: R. Judah b. Bathyra, however says: If consecutively the last is liable, for he was the immediate cause of the death. In the case where an ox meanwhile appeared and caught the [falling] child on its horns there is a difference of opinion between R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Beroka and the Rabbis. For it was taught: Then he shall give for the redemption of his life [denotes] the value of the [life of] the killed person. R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Beroka interprets it to refer to the value of the [life of] the defendant  – 1962 Soncino Baba Kamma 26b – 27a
FOOTNOTE 33: According to R. Judah, the latter who caught it on the edge of his sword will be guilty of murder, but according to the Rabbis, no one is guilty of it.FOOTNOTE 2: According to R. Ishmael compensation for manslaughter will have to be made by the owner of the ox, but according to the Rabbis there will be no payment, as the child at the time of the fatal fall was devoid of any value.
FOOTNOTE 4: [H].FOOTNOTE 5: Lev. XXIV, 17.
FOOTNOTE 6: Hence, if ten men assailed him successively, he was already nearly dead when the last smote him: therefore the last too is exempt.
FOOTNOTE 7: I.e., however little life the man has, even if he is nearly dead, the man who actually kills him is liable.