Sanhedrin 77a (עז.) — the Talmud in English

damages that he caused for which he is liable]

for which ]

for them

the verse holds a person who directly causes damage liable, even

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

is it not all the more so that he should be held liable for one who confines him,

even though confinement is merely an indirect cause, and he does not cause the damage directly?

Whereas

Rav Aḥa bar Rav exempts

one who confines him from paying for the damage, since he did not

cause the damage directly.

The Gemara explains why he does not derive this by means of a kal va-chomer from murder:

Rav Mesharsheya said: What is the reason of the father of my father Rav],

Rav ],

who exempts him?

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

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

“He” is an exclusion, and it teaches that only

in the case of a murderer does the Torah make one who confines him liable.

But

with regard to

damages—

the Torah does not make one who confines him liable.

The Gemara now cites three laws concerning one who confines a person, as stated by Rava:

a.

Rava said: If one tied up

a person

and he died of hunger—

he is exempt,

since the hunger that causes his death was not present at the time he tied him up; rather, it would come only afterward, and this is not comparable to confining his head in water, where the water that kills him is already present.

b.

And Rava said: If one tied him up in the sun, and he died,

because of the heat of the sun, or if one tied him up

in the cold, and he died—

he is liable.

For at the time he tied him up, the lethal factor—the sun or the cold—was present at the place where he tied him up.

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

the sun would eventually come

when it rose, or tied him up in a place where

the cold would eventually come—

he is exempt.

Since the lethal factor was not present at the place where he tied him up at the time he tied him up.

c.

And Rava said:

If someone was standing before a lion and was unable to escape from it, and another person came and

tied him up before the lion—

he is exempt,

since he would have been unable to escape from the lion even if the other person had not tied him up.

But if he tied him up

before mosquitoes,

from which he could have escaped had he not been tied up,

and they stung him

and he died—

he is liable.

Rav Ashi said: Even

if he tied him up

before mosquitoes, he is also exempt.

Because

these

few mosquitoes that were present at the place when he tied him up

went away,

meaning that the few mosquitoes present at the time of the tying did not kill him with their stings,

and these,

the numerous mosquitoes that killed him,

came

afterward, one after another, and stung him, and he died as a result of their stings. It follows that the lethal factor was not present at the place when he tied him up, and therefore he is exempt.

It was stated: If one overturned a large vessel over him,

and he was suffocated beneath it by the foul air.

And

similarly, if a person was sleeping in a house while it was cold outside, and another person came and

removed the roofing over him,

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

the legal status of the case was disputed by

Rava and Rabbi Zeira.

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

since the foul air or the cold, which is the lethal factor, came only later.

The Gemara seeks to prove which sage said which opinion:

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

As Rava said: If one tied him up and he died of hunger—

he is exempt,

since the intense hunger that kills him comes only later, and the same applies when one overturns a large vessel over him or removes the roofing over him.

But the Gemara objects:

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

As Rabbi Zeira said: In the case of one who forcibly brought another into a marble house,

a person who forced his fellow into a house made of marble, which, when sealed, closes completely and has no flow of fresh air from outside,

and lit a lamp for him,

lighting a lamp that consumes the air and creates foul air in it, which kills the person inside the house,

and he died—

he is liable.

The Gemara infers:

The reason

that he is liable is

because he lit a lamp for him,

thereby lighting the lamp and consuming the air in the house, and thus immediately creating the lethal factor.

Had he not lit a lamp for him—

no!

This proves that for bringing him into the house and sealing him inside it, he is exempt, since the lethal foul air was not in the house at the time he brought him in. And this is likewise the law when one overturns a large vessel over him or removes the roofing.

They said

in the beit-midrash to distinguish between the case of bringing him into a marble house and the case of overturning a large vessel over him.

For there,

in the marble house, since it is large and contains a great deal of air, therefore,

without

lighting the

lamp—

the foul air does not begin !(pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

at that moment,

when he brings him into the house.

Therefore, without lighting the lamp, which creates the foul air immediately, the lethal foul air was not present in the house at the time he brought him into it.