Intent or Impact? What Bloodletters and Birds Can Teach Us About Taking Responsibility For Our Actions.

Rav Sheshet said: I say that Rav stated this halakha while dozing and lying down, and it is not entirely precise, as it is taught in a baraita: One who places poison before another’s animal is exempt according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven. From the above statement, it may be inferred that it is specifically where he put poison before the animal that he is exempt, since it is not suitable for eating. But if he put produce before it, which is suitable for eating, and the animal dies from eating it, he is also liable according to human laws. The Gemara analyzes this ruling: But why is he liable? Here also Rav’s logic can be invoked, that the animal should not have eaten it. Therefore, this baraita poses a difficulty for Rav. In order to explain Rav’s statement, the Sages said: The same is true, that even if the animal was injured by eating the produce, he would also be exempt according to human laws, and this baraita teaches us this, that even in the case of poison, which is not suitable for eating, the one who placed the poison before the animal is liable according to the laws of Heaven.

. Rav Tovi bar Mattana said: That is to say that it is prohibited to cause even indirect damage. The Gemara relates: Rav Yosef had certain small palm trees [talei], and bloodletters would come and sit beneath them and perform their work there, and crows would come, eat the blood, and fly up to the palm trees and damage the dates. Rav Yosef said to the bloodletters: Remove these crowing birds from here, i.e., leave in order to avoid further damage. Abaye said to him: But it is an indirect action, as the bloodletters themselves are not damaging the dates. Rav Yosef said to him that Rav Tovi bar Mattana said as follows: That is to say that it is prohibited to cause even indirect damage. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: But they have established an acquired privilege to use that particular spot for their work. Rav Yosef replied: Doesn’t Rav Naḥman say that Rabba bar Avuh says: There is no acquired privilege of use in cases of damage, i.e., an established situation may not be allowed to continue in the event that damage results. Abaye inquired further: But wasn’t it stated with regard to that statement of Rav Naḥman that Rav Mari said it is referring specifically to smoke, and Rav Zevid said it is referring to a bathroom? In other words, this principle was stated specifically in the context of damage caused by these substances. Rav Yosef said to him: For me, as I am sensitive, these are like smoke and a bathroom to me, which is why I have the right to demand that the bloodletters leave.

So too, one who throws his own vessel off the roof and there were pillows and blankets beneath them, in a manner that if [the vessel] fell onto them they wouldn't break, and another person removed [the pillows] before [the vessels landed] and the vessels hit the ground and broke. The one who removed [the pillows] must pay [the damages]. So too for all similar cases. Gloss: Some consider this causal damage and is exempt [in court but responsible by heaven]...Therefore, even if one threw [another's] vessel from the roof while there were pillows beneath them and he himself removed the pillows, yet he is exempt [in court]. He is not liable for the throw because it wouldn't break through this action. The removal [of the pillows] is but a causal damage...However, [the damager] is excommunicated until he removes the damage, as in all cases of causal damage...