By Yair Hoffman
It happens almost every year. Some student, by accident breaks something valuable in the school.
One particular ninth grade yeshiva student was a good boy, who learned well. For some reason, however, he kicked the door in the school building—to keep it open, in all probability. Unfortunately, the door broke.
It was a glass door, and it spontaneously shattered—completely. The young man felt badly, and informed the Rosh Yeshiva immediately. He took full responsibility.
The Rosh Yeshiva responded, “I am very sorry, but this is mammon hekdesh, money of a holy cause. I do not have the authority to let it go. You must pay for its replacement, and it is several hundred dollars.” The boy took responsibility and for the next two years, every penny that he made he brought to the yeshiva to pay back. He did not tell his parents, so as not to put additional financial pressure on them. His father is a talmid chacham who learns all day and his mother is in education. His parents found out about it two years later, by accident.
What Is The Halacha?
Of course, if this question comes up, one must ask his own rav or poseik and not rely on this article. But what is the halacha? Is the yeshiva in its full rights in demanding full payment from the student? Does the Rosh Yeshiva not have the right to forego the damage?
The general halacha found in Shulchan Aruch (Choshain Mishpat 421:3 and Siman 278) is that if someone damages another, even if it is not done on purpose (shogaig) and even if it was not his fault at all (an onais) he is obligated to pay.
The Gemara in Gittin (49a), however, darshens, “shor ray’ay’hu—velo shor shel hekdesh.” The Torah specifically states that damage must be paid when damage is done to the ox of his peer—and not when it is done to an ox that was donated to the Temple. This Gemara actually states that the one who does such damage is technically exempt. However, the Baalei Tosfos on that Gemara write that miderabanan, by rabbinic decree, there is an obligation to pay. There are other Rishonim who have different approaches, but it seems that this is the essential view—lehalacha.
Does The Rosh Yeshiva Not Have A Right To Be Mochel?
Before the second World War, Rav Elchonon Wasserman, Hy’d, was visiting America and had made the acquaintance of R’ Shraga Feivel Mendelevitch, ob’m. R’ Shraga Feivel had posed to Rav Elchonon a question regarding long hair [bluris] that the bochurim at the time sported. The Mishnah Berurah (27:15) seems to be stringent about the matter. Rav Elchonon Wasserman responded that a yeshiva must be careful not to turn off the bachurim and advised R’ Shraga Feivel not to make an issue of it. Although this incident is illustrative, it seems that just as a Rosh Yeshiva has certain leeway to give gifts from a yeshiva to donors even though it is mammon hekdesh, by the same token he should be able to have that leeway in whether to force someone to pay for something that happened inadvertently. It would seem that this is the rationale of the Steipler in the following incident.
Yeshiva Be’er Yaakov Incident
Rav Moshe Shmuel Shapiro (1917-2006) zt’l, was the Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshiva Be’er Yaakov and a talmid of Rav Elchonon Wasserman. A bachur had lit candles on a wooden table and the table caught fire. Subsequently, four rooms in the yeshiva completely burned down. When the bachur told Rav Shapiro about it, Rav Shapiro told the bachur that, in the future, when the bachur has money, he must pay back the yeshiva. The bachur approached the Steipler Gaon who responded that the Rosh HaYeshiva must be mochel. When Rav Shapiro heard the Steipler’s ruling he responded, “While I don’t necessarily agree, but since the Steipler said to, he must listen to what he says.” (See Brischa Yintzoru p. 81).
In a footnote contained within a sefer entitled, “Toras HaYeshiva,”chapter 21 (p. 282), the author Rav Meir Pinchasi is unsure as to whether or not a Rosh Yeshiva has a right to forego the damage payments that a talmid may be obligated to pay.
However, the sefer entitled, “Teshuva HaGrach” Vol. II p. 889, written by Rabbi Aharon Ben Yaakov HaLevi Grenedish, the author cites Rav Chaim Kanievsky, shlita, as ruling that a Rosh Yeshiva is permitted to forego an obligation to pay when yeshiva students broke a bookcase in the yeshiva. It seems clearly that a glass door would be no different. {It is interesting to note that his father, the Steipler, ruled in the previous case that the Rosh Yeshiva must forego the payment, whereas in the latter case. It seems it is optional}.
שבירת ארון בישיבה לעניו מחילה
תשובה תתתתתרכט שאלה: חו”מ. בחורים שברו ארון בישיבה האם יכול מנהל הישיבה למחול להם או שאין מועילה מחילה שלו על ממון הישיבה מב”א
תשובה: כן
This author believes that Rav Chaim’s position and that of his father, the Steipler, can be backed up by the Rambam’s ruling in Hilchos Tefillah 11:20 that a shul’s gabbai can sell it or even give it as a matanah. The point is that the Rambam seems to be giving more leeway to the gabbaim which would include the hanhalah of the yeshiva.
On the other hand, it could very well be that the Rosh Yeshiva is trying to impart a lesson to the student to be more careful.
The author can be reached at yairhoffman2@gmail.com.
