A free laborer who was negligent in crime
Someone was asked by a VTS message to turn off an electric sheet in a shared apartment and replied, “Okay.” He forgot to turn it off, the sheet was burned and destroyed. According to the law, does he have to pay? I thought that if here he was guarding the sheet for free, or if he was like a paid worker, then he would have to. But here he is a free worker who was negligent in committing a crime.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Maybe the rabbi has evidence for this? Or is there no source in the Gemara for obligation and therefore not obligated? What is the logic that a free keeper who also wanted to do a favor and messed up is obligated and this man is not? Why did this man "mess up" and not "crime" like a free keeper who forgot to feed the cow?
Because with a free guard there is a contract and here there is not. If someone just guards something for you for a moment as a favor, it is not a contract and he will also be exempt. At least in a crime like forgetfulness, even if not in active damage.
Why did you add "a moment" ("I will spare you a moment")? If the request was to turn off the electric sheet every evening and he agreed and on day number 84 he forgot, then would he have to? And what if he remembered but got lazy and said to himself that today I don't have the strength and let the sheet burn, then would he have to?
Maybe so. In that case, there is a contract between them.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
