Q&A: Causing Damage on Purim
Causing Damage on Purim
Question
I’m currently learning the laws of Purim. (This week I’m finishing Orach Chayim.)
There is discussion among the halakhic decisors about someone who caused damage on Purim—whether he has to pay or not.
At first glance, maybe even a priori, I haven’t managed to understand why such a person would be exempt at all. Bottom line, the person caused damage—why should it matter whether he was under the influence of alcohol, drugs, witchcraft, a poisoned apple, or a curse from Tinker Bell? Especially since here it’s something he brought upon himself (maybe unlike the witchcraft example, which I wrote jokingly).
I saw that the reason given is that people waive damages done to them on Purim. I don’t know. I don’t really waive damages in any season of the year, and neither do most people I know. Maybe in the time of the Talmud Purim was a circus where everyone broke things and slaughtered people (Rabbi Zeira), and that’s why they said this, but clearly today that makes no sense. What is the Rabbi’s view on the obligation to pay in such a case nowadays?
Answer
The accepted understanding is that anyone who causes damage out of festivity is exempt, as is written in the Shulchan Arukh regarding young men who cause damage during the rejoicing of a bridegroom and bride. It is not unique to Purim. Even so, the feeling is that this is not waiver in the simple sense; rather, the Sages established that it is considered waived, at least in the context of rejoicing connected to a commandment. It is somewhat like the principle that one who betroths does so subject to the will of the Rabbis; there too, in my opinion, it is not about a condition that the man making the betrothal himself stipulates—that it should take effect according to the Rabbis’ view. It is a condition that the Torah stipulates: that the betrothal is contingent on the Rabbis’ consent. There is much evidence to elaborate on for this, but this is not the place.
According to this, of course, it does not matter whether you waive it or not.
But I once wrote that I have a feeling that on Purim there is some deeper halakhic trend: to allow us to transgress prohibitions. In the spirit of the statement that in the future all the books will be nullified and only the Scroll of Esther will not be; all the holidays will be nullified and only Purim will not be. There is something about Purim that is above Jewish law, and there is a tendency among the halakhic decisors to permit things on Purim against the law. That is why the decisors wrote quite a few leniencies (wearing women’s clothing, rabbinically prohibited mixed fabrics, and more. I believe an early source is the responsa of Mahari Mintz). My claim is that the Sages had an agenda to instill in us the idea that even Jewish law is not the end of the road, but comes to serve something higher, and therefore one day a year we act against it (though carefully; that is why they permitted only rabbinically prohibited mixed fabrics). According to this suggestion too, it makes no difference whether you waive it or not.
But according to your assumption—which indeed is accepted among the decisors—that this is about waiver, then obviously if today people do not waive such damages, this rule is completely void, like the dust of the earth. That is a factual claim; it has no sanctity and no authority. Everything depends on the actual facts.