If one sets fire to a large house, he pays for everything inside it. The house owner must take an oath about the value and be reasonably expected to have such items.One is liable for direct or immediate damages, not indirect or delayed ones.
Suppose a camel laden with flax passed through the street, and its flax protruded into a shop and was ignited by the shopkeeper's lamp and set fire to a large tower; the owner of the camel is liable. If the shopkeeper puts his lamp outside, the shopkeeper is liable. Rabbi Yehuda says that the shopkeeper is not liable for a Hanukkah light.
Art: Arabs and Camels in a Courtyard by Marie Nivoulies
3 comments:
Rabbi Yehuda's point being that there is a social good in encouraging the lighting of Hanukkah lights that should be promoted by reducing associated liability. Is that a common approach? Does the Talmud use civil law decisions to promote doing mitzvahs? Or is acting on the best possible judgment regardless of social outcome a greater honor to the Torah and therefore a greater mitzvah?
Matt, what you say is exactly the argument between Rabbi Yehudah and his opponent who started the discussion, called the first authority. According to Rabbi Yehudah, since it is a mitzvah to place the Hanukkah light outside, where it can be seen by passersby, so as to publicize the miracle of Hahukkah, the shopkeeper had the right to put his lamp in the public domain and is not liable for any damage it might cause.
However, the first authority disagrees, ruling that even in the case of the Hanukkah light , the shopkeeper is liable, because he should have stayed with the light to make sure it did no harm. The accepted ruling follows this view.
In general, it is very rare to have a civil law used to encourage the performance of the a mitzvah. On the contrary, day workers have a special blessing after the meal, shortened in order to go back to work faster, and craftsmen are not required to interrupt their work to greet sages. There are indeed a few laws penalizing transgressors monetarily – but not such that they would unfairly tilt an outcome of a court case between two litigants.
Post a Comment