If one has made his fellow's wine ritually impure, it cannot be used for a previous purpose, and he has caused a loss. Likewise, he may cause loss by adding the Kohen's portion to his fellow's wine – so that now only Kohanim can drink it. Finally, he can pour this wine as a libation for the idols.
The three cases are all similar in that the damage is not perceptible. In this case, does the perpetrator have to pay? – The answer is that if he did it by mistake, he is free, but if he did not on purpose, then he is liable. Why such a distinction?
In truth, he did real damage and should be liable in both cases. However, the Sages decreed, for the benefit of society, that one who does it by mistake is not penalized. This will encourage him to tell of his deed to the owner, and the owner will not transgress by using this wine. However, if he did it on purpose, there is no point in encouraging him to confess – he will not tell in any case.
Others say that just the opposite, invisible damage is not real, and one is not liable in either case. Now, why is the one who does it on purpose still have to pay? – The Sages decreed so, for otherwise, everyone can damage his fellow's property by these actions that leave no visible trace.
The Talmud discusses why each case had to be mentioned specifically and how it cannot be derived from the other two.
Art: A Woman Offering a Glass of Wine to a Man by Gabriel Metsu
No comments:
Post a Comment