Parshas Chukas 5784 – Intriguing Questions & Answers

The Mesader Kiddushin Who Spilled Wine on the Kallah’s Dress — Who is Required to Pay?

Q: At a wedding, as the mesader kiddushin passed the full cup of red wine from the father of the chassan to the mother of the kallah, some of the wine was mistakenly spilled on the kallah’s white wedding dress. The family hired an expert to remove the stains before the kallah re-entered the hall and billed the mesader kiddushin for the cleaning costs. This sparked a discussion among the talmidei chachamim in attendance: Some believed that the mesader kiddushin should be exempt from paying, while others thought he should be obligated. Who is correct?

A: Before addressing the question, let us state at the outset that if someone had pushed the mesader kiddushin, thus rendering the spill a complete accident, he would be exempt from paying for the damage, since then it would not be considered his action. Additionally, R’ Shlomo Zalman Auerbach would advise mesadrei kiddushin not to fill the cup to the top and to use white wine instead to avoid such issues—saying that we only find an insistence on red wine when it comes to the four cups on Pesach; and even for Kiddush on Shabbos, only when it tastes better than white wine. Therefore, under the chuppah, it is preferable to use white wine.

There are two main reasons why the mesader kiddushin might be exempt from paying for the damages:

Indirect Damage (Grama)

The mesader kiddushin may be viewed as one who merely caused the damage indirectly (grama), and not a direct damager (mazik). This is either because it was spilled from the overflowing cup, as opposed to him directly; or because the kallah’s wide wedding gown was a factor in it getting stained. Even if he is viewed as a mazik, he could argue that he would have sent the dress to a regular cleaner at a lower cost (though this would only exempt him from paying the difference)—though this is difficult to say considering the dress required immediate cleaning. If this is indeed considered a grama, he would be exempt from paying.

Damage at a Simcha

Another argument is whether the damage can be considered as having occurred during a Simcha. We have previously discussed the idea that minor damages caused during a Simcha, such as breaking someone’s glasses while dancing, might exempt the person from paying. However, this leniency cannot be applied here due to: a) the high cost involved, and b) the previous leniencies discussed damages that occurred specifically during dancing (see Rema, Choshen Mishpat 378:9).

The Ketzos Hachoshen and Nesivos Hamishpat debate similar issues:

• Ketzos Hachoshen (Choshen Mishpat 363:4) states that someone who dirties another’s wall while staying in their home is exempt from paying the cleaning bill. The reason for this is because since if he were to hire someone to clean it, it would be white again, it therefore has the status of a grama. He compares this to the Gemara (Bava Kama 20b), which says that if someone throws a coin into the sea, and it can be retrieved by hiring a diver, the person who threw the coin is exempt from paying for the damage. This is because the act is considered grama, for which one is exempt from paying.
• Nesivos Hamishpat (Choshen Mishpat 340:3) writes that if someone borrows a dress and stains it, they must pay for the damage. He argues that this is different from the case of the thrown coin, where the person merely forced the owner to hire a diver to retrieve the coin, whereas in the case of the stained dress, the borrower directly damaged it.

Conclusion

Most Poskim rule that the mesader kiddushin is considered to have caused direct damage and as such, must pay the full cleaning cost. The Chazon Ish (Bava Kama 13:2) supports this view. In the end, the cleaner did not charge for the service, seeing it as a mitzvah since the kallah was unwilling to leave the yichud room until the dress was fully cleaned. Mi Ke’amcha Yisroel!

A Father Who Sent an Illegal Package with His Unknowing Son to Israel — May the Son Disclose this Information to Avoid Prison?

Q: A serious question arose regarding a son whose father asked him to take a package to Israel. Unaware of the contents, the son took the package without inspecting it. Upon arrival in Israel, he was arrested by the police, who found prohibited items in the package. The son, who is Torah-observant and God-fearing, now faces the possibility of imprisonment. He is considering whether to disclose to the authorities that the package came from his father, thereby revealing that his father is involved in illegal activities. Is it permissible for the son to disclose this information, even if it means humiliating his father, to avoid imprisonment?

On the one hand, one might say that since the father did such an evil act of endangering his son, the son is not required to show respect to the father. On the other hand, we can also say that since the son did not do his due diligence and inspect the package before taking it, he forfeits his right to do so.

A: It should be noted that if the father were to have sent the package without knowing that it was illegal to bring such items to Israel, it would seem that the son would be required to accept responsibility for not inspecting the package, and not humiliate his father. However, in a case where the father intentionally attempted to smuggle prohibited items into Israel, we must consider whether it would be permitted to disclose his father’s actions, even if it results in his humiliation.

Now at first glance, it would seem that since taking one’s father to court and testifying that he committed illegal actions would be a great embarrassment to the father, this would violate the Torah prohibition of, “Cursed is the one who degrades his father and mother” (Devarim 27:16). This is the opinion of R’ Y.S. Elyashiv.

Nevertheless, in this case, there are several reasons to permit telling the authorities of his father’s crimes.

According to halachah, a son is allowed to take his father to court. This we know from Rema in Yoreh Deah (240:8), who implies that it is permissible for a son to take his father to court. See also Taz (ibid. 241:2), citing the responsa of the Geonim, who also imply that a lawsuit typically reveals unfavorable details about the father—and is nevertheless permitted:

Q: Can a son take his father to court? A: We have not found any proof to invalidate a son’s claim so as not to force his father to swear. However, the Beis Din customarily tells the son to transfer his claim to another person so as not to come to curse his father. Once it is transferred to another person, the son will not come to this matter.

It is thus evident that there is no prohibition for a son to take his father to Beis Din, despite the fact that the defendant is often disgraced as the claims are sorted out. Only in cases where there is a risk of imposing an oath and a cheirem, ex-communication, on the father did the Geonim forbid it based on the verse, “Cursed is the one who degrades his father and mother,” and instead required that the son transfer his claim to another.

The reason for this is that since honoring one’s father is funded by the father, the son is not required to lose anything of his own for his father’s honor, and certainly, he does not need to suffer bodily and mental torment and sit in prison with criminals to save his father from the disgrace he deserves.

Incidentally, in my Sefer, “Ohel Yaakov – Kibbud Av V’Eim,” I cited the view of Birkei Yosef, who was stringent and ruled that it is forbidden to summon one’s father in court. R’ Moshe Feinstein, ztz”l, is similarly quoted in the Sefer “Reshumei Aharon” that it is forbidden. However, some later authorities agreed with the plain reading of the Rema that it is indeed permitted—and thus the matter remains subject to dispute.

Nevertheless, regarding our question, there is certainly room to permit it, since according to the lenient opinions, we do not find any limitation on what type of lawsuit can be brought against him. Therefore, there is a strong argument that the son should not have to suffer in prison for his father’s wrongdoing, and is permitted to reveal the truth. However, this issue is complex and nuanced, and each case must be individually assessed by a qualified rabbinic authority to determine the appropriate course of action.

Take a part in spreading the light!

Email info@kollellihoraah.org for sponsorship opportunities.

To receive this weekly publication via email, Click here or email info@kollellihoraah.org.

www.kollellihoraah.org

Virtual Bais Horaah * Weekly Q&A * Seforim publications * Yisachar Zevulun opportunities * More