Q&A: Non-Observable Damage
Non-Observable Damage
Question
Hello Rabbi, in the Talmudic topic of non-observable damage, some later authorities (Acharonim) explained that the deficiency is not in the result, but in the “damaging act” (Kovetz Shiurim in the view of Tosafot and Nachmanides, Kuntresei Shiurim in the view of Nachmanides). I wasn’t able to understand how one can say this, since the Talmud in Gittin 53b explicitly challenges Hezekiah, who holds that non-observable damage is considered damage, from the fact that in the case of a robber he can say, “Here, what is yours is before you.” But seemingly, in the case of a robber there should be no dispute at all, since the laws of “Here, what is yours is before you” seemingly do not depend on the manner in which the damage was done, but on the condition of the object as a result. I would be glad if the Rabbi has an explanation for their words.
Answer
What do you mean by “the deficiency”? Do you mean the definition of the transgression, or the grounds for payment? Or perhaps the deficiency because of which such damage is not considered damage? Please clarify the question.
It seems that he means the possibility that the deficiency is in the grounds for payment.
The possibility that because of the deficiency such damage is not considered damage is ruled out, since he said, “the deficiency is not in the result.”
The possibility that the deficiency is only in the definition of the transgression may already be a possible answer.