Q&A: Indirect Causation in Damages
Indirect Causation in Damages
Question
Happy Independence Day / holiday. (That’s actually already my first question, and simply put, the content of the question is whether you see this day as having religious content or only national content.)
I saw a thread by the Rabbi here from six years ago (I have to note that it seems the Rabbi once had more patience to answer people; maybe it’s the decline of the generations of questioners, and maybe it’s despair of them, and this requires further consideration), where the Rabbi said that the exemption for indirect causation in monetary law is a religious value. According to this, do we have to say that it is learned from a verse such as “One who strikes an animal shall make restitution,” and say specifically “strikes,” which implies directly and not one who merely causes it indirectly (see Sanhedrin 76b–77a)? Or can one still say that it is derived from reasoning, and the reasoning is that since we find in religious values such as the Sabbath, etc., an exemption from the verse “It is actual doing that is forbidden, but indirect causation is permitted,” they understood a principle that whenever there is a break between the doer and the act through indirect causation, it is no longer possible to impose liability. I would be glad for a principled answer, and also what the Rabbi holds the basis of the exemption to be.
Also, I didn’t fully understand what was meant there by a “religious value” in monetary law. Wouldn’t it be more correct and precise to say a “legal value”? Meaning, as you have pointed out several times, there are ideals and so on, and there is true and substantive ownership, and therefore the Sages understood that when there is despair, there is a break from that substantive ownership, etc. If so, this is not exactly a “religious value,” if I understand correctly, and by extension something similar would apply to liability for damages. I’d appreciate some clarification.
Have a good holiday / happy holiday.
P.S.
Does the Rabbi have an article about reciting Hallel with a blessing, and whether one should at all?
Answer
It has religious content, just like relieving yourself in the bathroom does. Even for successfully relieving yourself, you thank the Holy One, blessed be He, in the blessing “Who formed man wisely.” The same is true of breakfast and of establishing a state.
There are forms of reasoning that deal with legal matters and not only with logic or morality. I discussed this at length in the pamphlet at the end of my booklet on migo (it’s here on the site).
When I speak in this context about a religious value, I mean that it is aimed at achieving religious goals. From the standpoint of social order, there is no need for this, and therefore a regular legal system would not address it. Even if you understand ownership as a kind of reality, without the religious consideration there is no reason to act in accordance with it.