When I was eleven, I damaged property belonging to the summer camp I was in. At that point, no one knew about it, but I’m now bar mitzvah, and I would like to know: Am I liable for damage I caused when I was a minor?
A. The Gemara (Bava Kamma 98b) deliberates whether someone who burned another person’s loan contract is required to pay the amount of the loan. On one hand, since he only caused the lender to lose proof of the loan, but not the loan itself, perhaps he should not be required to pay. Ultimately, however, he must pay the value of the loan document, because when it turned out that he prevented the lender from collecting the loan, it is classified as garmi (direct causation of damage).
The Gemara then relates that Rav Ashi once burned someone’s contract, and Rafram ruled that he must pay. Rashi (s.v. v’achfayeih) explains that Rav Ashi must have done this as a child, because we certainly would not accuse someone of Rav Ashi’s stature of doing such a thing.
Some poskim (Hagahos Ashiri, Bava Kamma 8:9) point to this Rashi as proof that if someone damages something as a minor, he must pay for it when he becomes an adult (i.e., bar mitzvah). He explains that although the Mishnah (Bava Kamma 87a) states explicitly that a financial encounter with a minor is invalid, because if an adult damages the minor he is obligated to pay, but in the reverse, the minor is not obligated to pay, that is only true as long as he is a minor. When he grows into adulthood, he must pay.
Others argue, however, that an adult is not obligated to pay for damage he caused as a minor, and Rafram’s ruling that Rav Ashi should pay was only lifnim mishuras hadin (going beyond the letter of the law) (Taz, Orach Chaim 343:2 & Choshen Mishpat 349:3; Mishnah Berurah 343:9).
The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 424:8) rules that an adult is not obligated to pay for damage he caused as a minor (see Bi’ur HaGra ibid. 15).
Shvus Yaakov writes (1:177; cited in Pis’chei Teshuvah 349:2; see also Ohr Same’ach, Gezeilah 5:4) that the ruling of the lenient poskim is limited to cases in which the person who caused the damage did not derive any benefit from the damage. But if he ate something that wasn’t his — thereby benefiting from the damage — he must pay for it when he becomes an adult. He points to the case of a child who borrowed money to buy food, who must then repay that loan (Shulchan Aruch 235:15), as proof that when a minor derives benefit from something, he must pay for it once he is an adult.
Many poskim disagree with the Shvus Yaakov’s limitation and rule that even if a child does derive benefit from the damage he causes, he is not obligated to pay as an adult. They reject his proof, explaining that the reason Chazal required the child to repay the loan was for the sake of his own livelihood (kedei chayav), because if he would not have to repay the loan, no one would be willing to lend him money (Rosh, Kesubos 13:7). But if a minor damaged something, even if he ate it and derived benefit from it, since there is no need to protect him kedei chayav, he is not obligated to pay (Shu”t Maharam Schick, Yoreh Dei’ah 375; Erech Shai 349; see Shu’t R’ Akiva Eiger 147).
The Shvus Yaakov adds, however, that even if the minor did not derive any benefit from the damage, latzeis yedei Shamayim (to avert Heavenly judgment), he should pay for it once he reaches adulthood, but he is not obligated to pay the full value of the item he damaged; he must give the victim whatever it takes to make amends with him. Nevertheless, he notes, middas chassidus (virtuous conduct) would be for the person to pay the full value of the damage. (If the damage was caused by a very young child who doesn’t recall what he did, then he is not obligated to pay even lifnim mishuras hadin [Sefer Chassidim 692].)
Returning to your case, according to the letter of the law, you are not obligated to pay, but latzeis yedei Shamayim, you should contact the camp administrator and make amends.
Realize that even if you are not liable for the damage you caused as a minor, you will benefit by taking responsibility for it. The Bach (Orach Chaim 433) writes: “We can apply to him (i.e., a minor who sins) the passuk, ‘Even without knowledge, it is not good for the soul” (Mishlei 19:2),’ for although a child who sins is doing so without knowledge, it is not good for his soul, because he drew upon it impurity, from the realm of evil. It is therefore good for him to do teshuvah when he becomes an adult for everything he did in the past, whether those misdeeds were bein adam laMakom (between man and Hashem) or bein adam lachaveiro (between man and his fellow).”
[We remind readers that parents are not liable for damages caused by their children, as discussed at length in issue 516.]
