with regard to damage, where the Torah rendered the legal status of one who causes damage unwittingly like that of one who causes damage intentionally, and the status of one who causes damage due to circumstances beyond his control like that of one who causes damage with intent, as one is always responsible for damage that he caused (see Bava Kamma 26a), is it not logical that the Torah rendered one who confines an animal in a place where it cannot survive liable to pay restitution even though he did not perform an action?

The Gemara explains the conflicting opinion. Rav Aḥa bar Rav, exempts the one who confined the animal in the sun from recompensing the owner. Rav Mesharshiyya said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rav Aḥa, the father of my father, who exempts him from payment? The reason is that the verse states: “Or in enmity he struck him with his hand and he died, the assailant shall be put to death; he is a murderer” (Numbers 35:21). The phrase “he is a murderer” restricts the liability of one who confines another. It is in the case of a murderer that the Torah renders for us one who confines another liable to be executed. But in the case of damage the Torah does not render for us one who confines the animal of another liable to recompense the owner, as it was not his action that caused the damage.

§ Rava says: If one bound another and he died of starvation, he is exempt from the liability to receive a court-imposed death penalty, as it was not his action that caused the death of the victim. Even if the victim was hungry when he was bound, the starvation that caused his death ensued at a later stage. The one who bound him is liable to be punished by the heavenly court. And Rava says: If one bound another in the sun and he died of the heat, or in a cold place and he died of exposure, he is liable to be executed, as from the moment that he bound him, the victim began dying. But if one bound another in a place that at the time was not exposed to the sun or the cold, even though ultimately the sun would arrive at that place, or ultimately the cold would reach that place, he is exempt from execution, as when he bound the victim, the future cause of death was not present.

And Rava says: If one bound another before a lion, he is exempt from execution. Since perhaps the lion will choose not to prey on the victim it was not his action that caused the damage. If he bound another before mosquitoes he is liable to be executed, as inevitably, the mosquitoes will bite him until he dies. Rav Ashi says: Even if he bound an individual before mosquitoes he is exempt from execution, as the mosquitoes who were there when he bound the individual are not the ones who killed him. Rather, those mosquitoes went and these other mosquitoes came. Therefore, this case is comparable to the case where one bound another in a place where the sun or the cold would ultimately arrive.

It was stated that there is an amoraic dispute with regard to one who overturned a vat upon another and he died of suffocation, or breached plaster covering the roof and the lack of a ceiling caused another to die of exposure. Rava and Rabbi Zeira disagree. One says that he is liable to be executed, and one says that he is exempt from execution.

The Gemara suggests: Conclude that Rava is the one who says that the perpetrator is exempt from execution, as Rava says: If one bound another and he died of starvation, he is exempt from execution, as it was not his action that caused the death of the victim.

The Gemara rejects that suggestion: On the contrary, conclude that it is Rabbi Zeira who says that the perpetrator is exempt, as Rabbi Zeira says: With regard to this individual who took another into a hermetically sealed house of marble and he kindled a lamp [sheraga] for him, and he died of the fumes, the perpetrator is liable to be executed. One may infer that the reason he is liable is because he kindled a lamp for him, but if he did not kindle a lamp for him, no, he is not liable, although the victim would have ultimately died even without the lamp. Apparently, Rabbi Zeira also maintains that the perpetrator is liable only if the perpetrator’s action caused the death, or at least caused the process of dying to begin. This case is identical to the case of the overturned vat.

The Sages say: In the case there, where one confines another in a house of marble, without a kindled lamp, the atmosphere does not begin to cause suffocation