Sanhedrin 77a — the Talmud in English

damages that he caused, [

for which he is liable]

for them

the verse makes a person who damages with his hands liable, even

whether unwittingly or intentionally, and whether under duress or willingly—

is it not an inference that he is liable for them even when he merely constrains,

despite the fact that constraining is only indirect causation, for he does not damage with his hands.

But

Rav Aha bar Rav exempts

the one who constrains from payment for the damage, since he did not

damage with his hands.

And the Gemara explains why he does not learn it by a kal va-chomer from murder:

Rav Mesharsheya said: What is the reason of the father of the father of [

Rav],

who exempts?—

The verse says [Numbers 35,] following the verse “or in enmity,” from which we learned the law of one who constrains:

“The one who struck him shall surely be put to death; he is a murderer.”

“He,”

is a limitation, and it comes to teach that only

in the case of a murderer is one who constrains liable to us.

But

in damages—

one who constrains is not liable to us.

And now the Gemara brings three laws concerning one who constrains, which Rava said:

a.

Rava said: If he bound

a person

and he died of hunger—

he is exempt,

since the hunger, which is the thing that kills him, is not present now, at the time that he bound him, but will come afterward, and this is not comparable to constraining his head in water, where the water that kills him is already present now.

b.

And Rava said: If he bound him in the sun, and he died,

from the heat of the sun, or if he bound him

in the cold, and he died—

he is liable.

For at the time that he bound him, the thing that kills was present [the sun or the cold] in the place of the binding.

But if he bound him not in the sun, but bound him in a place where

the sun will ultimately come

when the sun rises, or bound him in a place where

the cold will ultimately come—

he is exempt.

Since the thing that kills was not present in the place where he bound him at the time that he bound him.

c.

And Rava said:

Someone who was standing before a lion and was unable to escape from it, and another person came and

bound him before a lion—

he is exempt,

because he would have been unable to escape from the lion even if he had not bound him.

But if he bound him

before mosquitoes,

from which he could have escaped had he not bound him,

, and they stung him

the mosquitoes, and he died—

he is liable.

Rav Ashi said: Even if

he bound him

before mosquitoes, he is also exempt.

For

these

few mosquitoes that were in the place at the time that he bound him

went away,

they went on their way; that is, the few mosquitoes that were there at the time of the binding did not kill him with their stings,

and these,

the numerous mosquitoes that killed him,

came,

they came afterward, one after another, and stung him, and because of their stings he died. It follows that the thing that kills was not present in the place at the time that he bound him, and therefore he is exempt.

It was stated: If he overturned a tub over him,

and he was suffocated beneath it because of the foul breath of the air.

And

likewise, if a person was sleeping in a house, at a time when there was cold outside, and another person came and

uncovered the roofing over him,

opening the roof of the house, so that cold entered through it, and this sleeper died because of the cold that entered the house—

They disagreed about his law,

Rava and Rabbi Zeira.

One said: He is liable, and one said: He is exempt,

since the foul breath of the air, or the cold, which is the thing that kills, came only afterward.

And the Gemara proves:

It may be concluded that it is Rava who said he is exempt.

For Rava said: If he bound him and he died of hunger—

he is exempt,

since the strong hunger that kills came only afterward, and the same is the law when he overturned a tub over him and when he uncovered the roofing.

But the Gemara argues:

On the contrary, it may be concluded that it is Rabbi Zeira who said he is exempt.

For Rabbi Zeira said: With regard to one who brought his fellow into a marble house,

one who forcibly brought his fellow into a house made of marble, which, when it is closed, is completely sealed and has no flow of fresh air from outside,

and lit a lamp for him,

and lit a lamp for him, which burns the air and creates foul breath in it that kills the person who is in the house,

and he died—

he is liable.

And the Gemara infers:

The reason

that he is liable is because

he lit a lamp for him,

for he lit the lamp and burned the air in the house, thereby making the thing that kills immediately available.

Had he not lit a lamp for him—

no!

And it proves that for the very act of bringing him into the house and closing him in it, he is exempt, since the foul breath that kills was not in the house at the time that he brought him in. And this is also the law when he overturned a tub over him and uncovered the roofing.

They said,

they said in the beit-midrash by way of distinction, that the case of bringing him into a marble house is not comparable to the case of overturning a tub over him.

For there,

in a house of marble, since it is large and contains much air, therefore

without

lighting

a lamp—

foul breath does not begin ![](pamud.bmp "

exact location of the column") the thing that kills

immediately,

at the time that he brought him into the house.

And therefore, without lighting the lamp, which creates the foul breath immediately, the foul breath that kills was not present in the house at the time that he brought him into it.