Q&A: Desecrated the Sabbath and Caused Damage — “Kim Lei Be-Rabba Minei”
Desecrated the Sabbath and Caused Damage — “Kim Lei Be-Rabba Minei”
Question
I heard a question and I don’t know the answer. Someone desecrated the Sabbath, whether intentionally or unintentionally, whether he is God-fearing or like a “captured child” or an apikores, and drove a car and got into an accident, injuring a religious person. Is he obligated to pay? Meaning, is the injured religious person allowed to sue him, or is he exempt because of “kim lei be-rabba minei”? It seems like he really would be exempt, but then are all religious people ownerless on the Sabbath? How can that be?
Answer
It is debatable whether “kim lei be-rabba minei” applies to a “captured child.” Admittedly, the school of Hezekiah holds that this applies even in a case of inadvertence, and perhaps even under duress, but a “captured child” is worse than that.
But even if we assume that it does apply, I did not understand the difficulty you are raising. Is he exempt from prison because of “kim lei be-rabba minei”? The discussion in civil court is not connected to Jewish law, and “kim lei be-rabba minei” does not apply there. That is the law of the state in criminal matters, and there is no problem at all with turning to it.
Beyond that, what about indirect damages? Those, ostensibly, are also forbidden to sue for in court, since his liability is in the hands of Heaven and not under human law. Does that mean a religious person’s property is ownerless? Why did you single out “kim lei be-rabba minei”?
Discussion on Answer
The law of the kingdom says that it is owed to him, and therefore he is allowed to sue. In my opinion, there is no need for there to be an obligation under the law of the kingdom. The king can declare property ownerless.
Thank you, Rabbi, for the answer.
Prison is something else; I’m talking about a lawsuit for payment. After all, if there is no plaintiff, they won’t obligate the damager, so why is the plaintiff allowed to sue?
Among other things, the Rabbi wrote about the law of the kingdom, but that law does not obligate someone to sue; it only allows him to collect.
As for indirect damage, I really don’t know. I asked about “kim lei be-rabba minei” because that’s what I had heard about, and I hadn’t thought about indirect damage. It really is interesting what is done with this today in a religious court. But maybe with “kim lei be-rabba minei” there is not even liability in the hands of Heaven, so then there is nowhere to begin at all.