Q&A: Confining
Originally published:
This is an English translation (via GPT-5.4). Read the original Hebrew version.
Confining
Question
The Ra’ah in Bava Kamma 56 writes that confining someone is an act of indirect causation with respect to murder, and the Torah introduced a novelty that one is nevertheless liable for it. I found this difficult, because the deficiency in an act of indirect causation is essential: it was not I who murdered. If so, how can it make sense to impose liability for the murder?
Answer
What’s the problem? Can’t the Torah introduce a novelty that someone who causes a murder is considered a murderer? After all, the blame clearly rests entirely on him; it’s only that the act was not carried out entirely by him. Instead of asking how one can impose liability for confining, ask why indirect causation is exempt.