Page 310 - EFI-RAV ZILBERSTIN_VOL 8.EFI-RAV ZILBERSTIN_VOL 8.1A

Pg: 310 - 10-Back 21-10-31

the man’s property. See also the Lechem Mishneh (on Hilchos Chovel
U’mazik 5:9). However, since she disappeared without paying, this is
considered tantamount to causing him physical distress, in a similar
manner to a robber, see there.

All this is in regard to claiming damages from the perpetrator,
however in regard to claiming from the insurance company, it all
depends on the terms of the agreement. If the storekeeper paid the
insurance company to receive compensation for this type of damage
they are obliged to pay him.

It is also clear that the woman must pay for the bowl which fell
from her hands and broke, because a person is always considered
forewarned for any damage he does and he thus bears financial re-
sponsibility for his actions (Bava Kama 26a), particularly in this case
where she has the status of a borrower of the bowl, because she was
examining the bowl for her own benefit (see Shulchan Aruch, Chosh-
en Mishpat 200:11), therefore she is obligated to pay.

ɳ Summary and conclusion

The woman did not injure the storeowner directly so she cannot be
made to pay for the disability he suffered. However, she is obligated
to pay for the broken bowl.



A Man Took another Man’s Wife and Rendered

her Forbidden to her Husband, who Died from the
Aggravation

Question: If a man defiled his colleague’s wife, rendering her for-
bidden to her husband, and the husband then died of aggravation,
how do we judge the sinner? Is this evildoer also considered to have
caused his colleague’s death, or do we presume the husband could

294 1 Medical-Halachic Responsa of Rav Zilberstein