and he would likewise be liable if there were a snake in the well which, upon sensing a person, would hiss at him. If this man descended and it hissed at him, causing him to panic and fall, then he is liable, because he was negligent in failing to warn the man of the causes of death present in the well.

Likewise, if the well were old and he did not inform him, so that when he descended it collapsed upon him, then he is liable. Thus, the author’s statement requires a qualification: this applies when he was not negligent in informing him of anything that might cause his death. If he was negligent in that respect, then he is liable.

Issue: If one man challenges another to do something that causes his death, is he liable?

For example, a man says, “Whoever eats this entire sheep shall receive such-and-such an amount of money.” If a man were to eat it until his stomach swelled and he died, the challenger bears no liability, because no one compelled the man to eat the sheep.

Likewise, if he instructs him to climb, for example, a palm tree, and the man is an adult of sound mind, so he climbs it and then falls and dies, the one giving the instruction bears no liability, because the person instructed is an adult of sound mind.

It is understood from the author’s words, “Whoever instructs,” that if he compelled him to do so, he is liable, because he caused his death without the deceased’s choice; he therefore becomes a transgressor, and a transgressor is liable.

It is also understood from the author’s words, “Whoever instructs a legally accountable person,” that if he instructs someone who is not legally accountable, he is liable in all cases. This is the well-known position of the madhhab. However, some scholars held that if the person instructed is discerning—that is: