Q&A: Seller-Buyer Relations Regarding the Four Species
Seller-Buyer Relations Regarding the Four Species
Question
Hello Rabbi,
If a person invalidates an etrog in a store while examining it—for example, it fell on the floor or its pitam broke off—does he have to pay? And does he have to pay the price of a kosher etrog, or the price of the etrog that he invalidated?
If a person, while checking an etrog, did not invalidate it but lowered it from premium to merely kosher status, is that considered causing damage, and does he have to pay—and how much?
Is there any difference between a seller and buyer, and two friends in the synagogue where one accidentally invalidated the other’s?
Even if the Rabbi doesn’t have answers, I would at least be happy if you could direct me to a place where I can look into the topic, or somewhere that discusses it.
Thank you very much.
Answer
Simply speaking, he is obligated to pay. If this were only a halakhic invalidation (like rendering something impure), that would be non-evident damage, and that would require discussion. But here it is a physical change in the etrog itself that lowers its value. For that one must pay. Why should there be a difference between the cases?
Discussion on Answer
I do not see any fundamental difference. One must always be careful, and a person who causes damage is always deemed forewarned.
Maybe when a person comes to a store to inspect etrogim, he has to be more careful than when his friend is just letting him take a look. And here, since he has to be more careful, he’d also be obligated to pay in a case where between two friends he wouldn’t.
(If this is just something I made up, then obviously it has no halakhic force—but maybe it appears somewhere and I just don’t know.)
From what I’ve seen, in the general discussions about invalidating an enhancement, it seems there is a dispute about this, and in the end whoever currently has the money continues to hold it ("I can rely on X" / kim li as X). Does the Rabbi agree with that, or is there no distinction and here too he would have to pay?
(I also saw some who distinguish between a very expensive etrog—where it is considered merchandise lying on the nose, so he would be exempt—and an etrog that normal people would buy, in which case he would be liable.)