Sanhedrin 153

נזקין שעשה בהן שוגג כמזיד ואונס כרצון אינו דין שחייב בהן את המצמצם

&nbsp; then with respect to damages, wherein unwitting damage is treated as deliberate, and an accident as intention,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It being a general principle that a man is liable for any damage he does, no matter how, B.K. 26b. ');">¹</span>

רב אחא בר רב פוטר אמר רב משרשיא מ"ט דאבוה דאבא דפוטר אמר קרא (במדבר לה, כא) מות יומת המכה רוצח הוא ברוצח הוא דחייב לן מצמצם בנזקין לא חייב לן מצמצם

surely he is liable for confining [the animal].

אמר רבא כפתו ומת ברעב פטור ואמר רבא כפתו בחמה ומת בצינה ומת חייב סוף חמה לבא סוף צינה לבא פטור

'R. Aha b. Rab ruled that he is not liable.' Said R. Mesharshia: Why does my grandfather<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Aba b. Rab was a Babylonian amora of the fourth century, and the grandfather of R. Mesharshia. ');">²</span>

ואמר רבא כפתו לפני ארי פטור לפני יתושין חייב רב אשי אמר אפילו לפני יתושין נמי פטור הני אזלי והני אתו

rule him not liable? — Because of the verse, [Or in enmity he smite him with his hand, that he die:] He that smote him shall surely be put to death: for he is a murderer:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. The first half of the verse extends the law to confining one's neighbour in a place of death, (p. 519). ');">³</span>

איתמר כפה עליו גיגית ופרע עליו מעזיבה רבא ורבי זירא חד אמר חייב וחד אמר פטור

only a murderer has the law made liable for confining, but not one who causes damage thereby.

תסתיים דרבא הוא דאמר פטור דאמר רבא כפתו ומת ברעב פטור

Raba said: If one <font>bound his neighbour and he died of starvation, he is not liable to execution</font>. Raba also said: If he <font>bound him in the sun</font>, and he died, or in a place of <font>intense cold</font> and he died, he is liable; <font>but if the sun was yet to appear, or the cold to make itself felt, he is not</font>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">⁴</span>

אדרבה תסתיים דרבי זירא הוא דאמר פטור דא"ר זירא האי מאן דעייליה לחבריה בביתא דשישא ואדליק ליה שרגא ומת חייב טעמא דאדליק ליה שרגא הא לא אדליק ליה שרגא לא

Raba also said: <font>If he bound him before a lion, he is not liable:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.] ');">⁵</span></font>

אמרי התם בלא שרגא לא מתחיל הבלא

before mosquitoes, [who stung him to death] he is. R. Ashi said: <font>Even before mosquitoes, he is not liable, because these go and others come</font>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">⁶</span> It has been stated: If one <font>overturned a vat upon a man</font> [who <font>then died of suffocation</font>], or <font>broke open a ceiling above him</font>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the cold entering therein, killed him. ');">⁷</span> — Raba and R. Zera [differ]: One ruled that he is liable, the other that he is not. It can be proved that it was Raba who ruled that he is not liable, for he said: If one bound his neighbour and he <font>dies of starvation, he is not liable</font>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is similar: he did not kill him but indirectly caused his death. ');">⁸</span> On the contrary. it can be &nbsp; &nbsp; shewn that R. Zera ruled that he is not liable. For R. Zera said: <font>If one led his neighbour in to an alabaster chamber</font><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was then hermetically sealed, so that no fumes could escape. ');">⁹</span> and lit a <font>candle therein, so that he died</font> [of the fumes]. he is liable. Now, the reason is <font>only that he lit a candle</font> that he is liable;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This being considered active murder under the circumstances. ');">¹⁰</span> but <font>had he not lit a candle [and the prisoner died of the natural heat and lack of air], he would be exempt</font>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus R. Zera maintains that no penalty is incurred for indirectly causing one's death. ');">¹¹</span> — I will tell you: In that case, without a candle, the heat would not have commenced [its effects]