If a worker digs a pit, he, and not his employer, is liable for the damages - because "there is no messenger for transgression," and it is forbidden to create damaging obstacles in the public domain.If someone pushes an ox into a pit or startles the animal and it falls, the owner of the pit is liable for whatever can't be collected from the first man.
If an ox and a person together push either a person or an animal or utensils into a pit, all (the person, the ox, and the pit) are liable for damages. Still, only a human is liable for the "four payments."
Art: The Gold Diggers by John Quidor
2 comments:
In this case, what does "messenger for transgression" mean? A direct order from the employer? "Dig a pit here on the public road." An indirect order? "Get me the gold that's buried under this road." A transgressive environment "At this company, we always do things the fastest and most efficient way, even if it means digging pits on public roads."
In other words, is "messenger for transgression" a binary concept, or a spectrum of activity? And if it's a spectrum, how do you share, or at what point do you flip, liability?
Matt, “messenger for transgression” means that A is telling B to do an action that happens to be against a Torah law. I agree that “messenger for transgression” is not good English, but I like the expression, and it is a translation from “shaliach ledvar aveira.”
The rule is that if one is told to do a transgression, he should not do it, because of another principle, “the words of the Master and the words of a student – which words do we listen to?” So in the absence of other circumstances, the worker should refuse to dig. If he does dig, he is liable for damages.
Now, in practical life, the boss tells him: “this is how we always do things around here.” What the boss means is that he is accepting responsibility on himself, practically indemnifying the worker. The worker still transgresses, but he will not be obligated to pay. And according to what we figured out about corporations, the boss will not have to pay either.
Now it becomes only a moral question as to what should the worker do. If his life is threatened, then there are only three cases where he should forfeit his life: idol worship, killing, and forbidden sexual relations. These he shouldn't not even under the threat of death. In our society's view, people regard refusal to kill as a possible candidate, but less so with the other two. Even back then, only special people were able to fulfill this law. An interesting related question is, when is a person allowed to give up his life in order not to transgress the Torah if it is not one of the three mentioned above – and he is allowed to do so for any small prohibition if he has already established himself as an outstandingly pious individual from before.
Now, back to our worker question, he is usually not threatened with the loss of his life but only of his money. Again, the classical answer is that one should loose all of this money but not transgress a negative prohibition, and up to a third of his money in order to fulfill a positive one, and again today probably few individuals are up this level.
Post a Comment