Rabbah says: if someone burns his friend’s document, thus preventing his friend from being able to collect a debt, he is Patur (not obligated to pay). [The Talmud then goes on to quote the opinion of Ravah who disagrees, saying that he would be obligated to pay.]
If I were called upon to advocate on behalf of Rabbah position, I would put forth three points.
I. Although the defendant is Patur, he is still obligated to pay by the “heavenly court”, the court can therefore use indirect means to try to force him to pay. Such as to deny him the right to take an oath in any court until he pays up his moral obligation. Since the defendant damage was indirect, it follows that the court can only obligate him indirectly.
II. All agree that even if someone gives false information to his fellow thus causing monitory lose, the court can not obligate him to pay. Thus we have a precedent for being Patur if the damage was indirect.
III. The strongest point: the defendant did not damage the plaintiff. The guilty party is the borrower who lied, refused to acknowledge that he owes the money to the plaintiff. The defendant would have caused no damage without the borrower’s primary and leading role.
Baba Kama 98
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The first one is not advocating for Rabbah, it's defending him against popular opinion and actually minimizing his ruling by advocating forcing the guy to pay albeit indirectly.
Yossi, according to some Rishonim that is Rabbah position. When he says Patur, He means Patur from direct obligation to pay.
Post a Comment