The damage that is not noticeable
Shalom Rabbi, on the issue of non-apparent damage, there are some recent scholars who interpreted that the disadvantage is not in the result, but in the ‘harmful act’ (Kobash in the method of the Toss and the Ramban, Konteks Shiurim in the method of the Ramban). I was unable to understand how it is possible to say this, since the Gamma in Gittin 2:2 explicitly challenges Hezekiah, who believes that non-apparent damage is the damage caused by the fact that the Rashal can say that the thief, but that the Rashal should not be punished at all, since the Rashal’s law does not depend on the manner in which the damage was done, but on the result of the object. I would appreciate it if the Rabbi had an explanation for their words.
What does “the disadvantage” mean? Do you mean the definition of the offense or the reason for payment? Or perhaps the disadvantage due to which such damage is not damage. Please clarify the question.
It seems that he is referring to the possibility that the disadvantage is in the reason for payment.
The possibility that because of the disadvantage such damage is not damage is ruled out since he said “the disadvantage is not in the result”.
The possibility that the disadvantage is only in the definition of the offense is perhaps a possible answer.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
