The way that the Bar Ilan Responsa project explains this in its Talmudic concepts section is: “The mouse is not to blame for the theft, but rather the hole through which the mouse entered the place of theft, as a breach invites the thief. This expression means: an open, unguarded place without supervision encourages the thief to come and steal. Metaphorically, neglect and carelessness open the door to problems and damages, as lack of supervision and diligence lead to fraud and corruption.
A classic example of the principle
Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein issued a Halachic ruling in Aruch Hashulchan, chapter 348 section 15:
Also, if the thief hid the stolen goods and had to leave the city, unable to smuggle the goods out of the city himself, and then sent someone to retrieve the goods for him, the messenger is obligated to pay, as he (the messenger) is considered the main thief, since he knew it was stolen. This is the opinion of Rabbi Moshe Isserles (Rama), and from this, we learn, also from what is written in section 12, that those who regularly accept stolen goods from the thief are considered thieves themselves, and the owners can collect from them. Their punishment is severe (literally, “too great to bear”), and they are the cause of the thefts. For it is not the mouse that stole, but rather the hole that stole. And see what is written at the beginning of chapter 358. And there is no difference between the theft from a Jew and the theft from a non-Jew. Even if the thief had a claim against the owner, it is forbidden to accept the stolen goods from him, and it is as though he stole it himself. [NH”M]”
A modern example “by analogy”
Translated quote from the website of Moshe Feiglin https://israeltomorrow.co.il/%d7%9c%d7%9e%d7%99-%d7%90%d7%aa%d7%9d-%d7%9e%d7%90%d7%9e%d7%99%d7%a0%d7%99%d7%9d-%d7%9c%d7%a9%d7%a8-%d7%90%d7%95-%d7%9c%d7%a7%d7%95%d7%9e%d7%99%d7%a1%d7%a8/
Whom do you trust?
The Minister or the Commissar?
He who controls security controls the state.
The appointment of the head of the Israeli Prison Service, loyal to the elected sovereign, and similar appointments in the police, are seen by the ‘Deep State’ as the first steps in the fall of its ruling power. After the appointment of the head of the IPS, further appointments were “likely” to follow. Namely, the Army Chief of Staff, the head of Shabak (the equivalent of the F.B.I. or K.G.B.), the head of the Mossad, who like the new head of the Israeli Prison service would understand who is the real enemy and would be (from the perspective of the Deep State, heaven forbid) loyal to the public and its elected officials.
The problem with this “insolent” head of the Israeli Prison Service was that he ‘actually’ dared to implement the minister’s policy instead of the commissar’s policy (Israel’s Attorney General who was appointed when the left-wing opposition parties were in charge).
It seems that the cries of anguish from the Nukba terrorists behind bars were not to Ronen Bar’s liking (current head of the Shabak) – who managed not to notice the preparations for the October 7 massacre.
The arrest of the head of the IPS was intended to signal to all senior security officials – remember who holds the power!
The problem is not the commissar and the criminals who allowed the October 7th attack.
The problem is that the nationalistic majority sticks with a leader who doesn’t fire them.
