Being that this week’s parsha is Parshas Pinchas, I would like to discuss an interesting shailah, related to an act of kanaus.
The Story
There was a ba’al teshuva couple, and the wife from personal experience knew all too well about the dangers of the internet and was very careful to keep away from it. One day while cleaning up the house, she found an unfiltered smartphone in her husband’s office. She asked him to install a filter; however, he refused, arguing that he needs open internet access for his work. The wife then picked up the smartphone and smashed it on the floor. The husband, unwilling to forgo his device, wanted to know if he may take money from funds his wife inherited in order to purchase a replacement smartphone for his work.
The Ruling
Halachah lema’aseh the husband isn’t allowed to take money from his wife for this purpose.
However, to understand what is behind this shailah two questions must be addressed:
- Is a wife who breaks her husband’s property exempt from payment due to shalom bayis?
- If in such cases a wife is exempt, does it apply in a case when she breaks something due to kanaus — a zealous act aimed at preventing sin?
If One Damages Property to Prevent Sin, Is He Obligated to Pay?
Before discussing a wife’s liability when she damages her husband’s property, we must first determine if one is obligated to pay for any damage he/she does if the damage is done to prevent another person from sinning?
The Gemara in Berachos (20a) relates: רב אדא בר אהבה חזייה לההיא כותית דהות לבישא כרבלתא בשוקא, סבר דבת ישראל היתה קם קרע מינה, איגלאי מילתא דכותית היא, שיימוה בארבע מאות זוז - ”Rav Ada bar Ahavah saw a woman in the marketplace wearing a karbalta (a garment associated with immodesty). Thinking she was Jewish, he tore it from her. It turned out she was a gentile — and it was evaluated and determined that he had to pay her four hundred zuz.”
It is clear from the Gemara that the reason Rav Ada bar Ahavah had to pay was because this woman was a gentile, if, however, she would have been Jewish, then he would have been exempt.
A Distinction from the Pischei Choshen
The Pischei Choshen (siman 1) discusses two different scenarios of one who damages to prevent aveiros and makes an important distinction between the two cases: If a person is actively using his property to cause you to sin, you may damage his property to protect yourself, without any payment obligation. Like we find in Choshen Mishpat (383:2) that if one is coming to damage you, you may damage him in order to stop him. But if the goal is merely to prevent someone from sinning on his own, you may damage his property — yet it is possible that you remain obligated to pay. The Pischei Choshen adds that such an action should not be taken without the guidance of a rav.
In our case, the husband wasn’t damaging his wife with the smartphone, he was simply using it for his work and not for anything forbidden, therefore, we can’t compare it to the case of the Gemara in Berachos, and there is no clear proof to either obligate or to exempt the wife from payment in this case.
A Number of Teshuvos from R’ Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld zt”l About Kanaus Driven Damage
R’ Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld zt”l has a number of Teshuvos in which he discusses cases of people causing damage out of kanaus and whether they are obligated to pay. He discusses if and when we can bring proof from the aforementioned case of the Gemara in Berachos.
In one Teshuvah (Choshen Mishpat, siman 48) he discusses a case where someone found a secular book tucked inside a Gemara which was found in a beis hamedrash — left there, apparently, by a young boy. The finder burnt it out of kanaus and subsequently wanted to know if he was obligated to pay for it. R’ Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld writes: “From the story of four hundred zuz we could prove that one doesn’t need to pay, however, it is still fitting to pay.”
In another Teshuvah (siman 50) he discusses a case where there was a gathering of young men and women who were engaging themselves in inappropriate behavior. There was someone there who was trying to disperse them, however, he wasn’t having any success. With no other option, he broke the lamp which was lighting up the scene and then the group dispersed. R’ Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld writes that this can’t be compared to the Gemara in Berachos. In the case of the Gemara the karbalta itself was the aveirah, however, in our case the lamp itself was not the sin. Therefore, “Although he performed a mitzvah by dispersing them — it is obvious that he must pay.”
We see from these Teshuvos, that even when there is a heter to damage someone else’s property for the sake of preventing others from sin, sometimes one is still liable for the damage he caused, and it depends on the case. Additionally, we can’t be lenient to allow one to cause damage, unless the only way to stop the sin is by doing so.
The Special Exemption for a Wife Who Breaks Household Items
So far, we have discussed whether one is obligated to pay for damage that one does to prevent one from committing an aveirah. Now we will discuss if a woman is obligated to pay for damage she causes when carrying out household chores. The Mishnah in Kesubos (86b) teaches: המושיב את אשתו חנוונית, או שמינה אפוטרופיא — הרי זה משביעה כל זמן שירצה. רבי אליעזר אומר: אפילו על פילכה ועל עיסתה. “If one establishes his wife as a storekeeper in his store, or if appoints her as trustee – he can obligate her to make an oath whenever he wishes. Rabbi Eliezer says: He can make her swear even regarding the products of her spindle and her dough (which are matters related to the household, and not her function as a storekeeper).”
The Gemara asks: When Rabbi Eliezer grants permission for the husband to make his wife make an oath, does he mean whenever he wants, or is it only through the mechanism of gilgul shevuah? The Gemara cites proof: רבי אליעזר אומר: אף על פי שלא הושיבה חנוונית, ולא מינה אפוטרופיא — הרי זה משביעה כל זמן שירצה, שאין לך אשה שלא נעשית אפוטרופיא שעה אחת בחיי בעלה על פילכה ועל עיסתה. אמרו לו: אין אדם דר עם נחש בכפיפה. “Rabbi Eliezer says: Although he did not establish her as his storekeeper or appoint her as a trustee, he can administer an oath to her whenever he wants... The Rabbonon said to him: A person does not reside in a basket with a snake. One can conclude from this that according to Rabbi Eliezer a husband can administer an oath to his wife with regard to her conduct, even without coming on to gilgul shevuah.”
We see from this Gemara, that according to the Chachomim, one can only obligate her to make an oath on matters related to their partnership (i.e. the job), however, on household matters he can’t. The reason being: אין אדם דר עם נחש בכפיפה – “A person does not reside in a basket with a snake”. Meaning: a husband can’t obligate his wife to make an oath every time he wants as doing so will ruin their shalom bayis.
The Yerushalmi
The Yerushalmi (Kesubos 9:4) speaks out the above more explicitly: יאות אמר רבי ליעזר. מה טעמון דרבנין. אם אומר את כן אין שלום בתוך ביתו לעולם. שיברה את הכלים מה את עבד לה. כשומרת חנם או כשומרת שכר. מסתברה מיעבדינה כשומרת שכר. אמרין. אפילו כשומרת חנם אינה. אם אומר את כן אין שלום בתוך ביתו לעולם. “Rabbi Eliezer’s argument is good, why do the Rabbonon argue? If you obligate the wife, then there will never be peace in the house. If a wife breaks vessels, how do you treat her – as an unpaid guardian or as a paid guardian? It would seem logical to say like a paid guardian, however, they said, that we don’t even treat her like an unpaid guardian. If we would say otherwise, there will never be peace in the home.”
We see from the Yerushalmi, that not only do the Chachomim exempt a wife from making an oath any time her husband wants her to due to shalom bayis, but they even exempt her from paying for damage she causes.
Unintentionally
The Korban Eidah writes: שברה. האשה כלים שלא בפשיעה בשעה ששמשה בהן – “She broke. The woman broke vessels without negligence whilst using them.” We see that if the vessels get broken without the wife being negligent, she isn’t obligated to pay.
What if the Wife Breaks Vessels on Purpose, But Her Intention Is to Save Her Husband from Issur?
Seemingly we can bring proof from Rashi on the Gemara in Kesubos. The Gemara refutes a proof and says: דאמרה ליה: כיון דקדייקת בתראי כולי האי לא מצינא דאדור בהדך – She says to him: “Since you are so exacting with me, I cannot live with you.” Rashi explains: מאי נפקא לה מינה — הרי נתחייבת לו שבועה, ומה יקשה לה גלגול זה אם לא עיכבה כלום. הואיל וקא דייקת בתראי, אינך אוהב ומאמין אותי ולא מצינא דאידור בחדך. “What difference does it make to her? She is already obligated in an oath — why should making a gilgul shevuah bother her if she hasn’t done anything wrong. [She will answer:] ‘The fact that you are so suspicious of me shows you neither love nor trust me — and I cannot live with you.’”
We see from Rashi that forcing an oath upon a wife signals distrust and corrodes the bond of love. By the same logic, if this wife who acted out of genuine concern for her husband’s spiritual welfare is fined for the broken smartphone, it will inevitably damage her trust and love for him. Therefore, seemingly based on the above she would be exempt from paying.
The Opinion of the Rambam
The Rambam (Hilchos Ishus 21:9) rules: האשה ששברה כלים בעת שעושה מלאכותיה בתוך ביתה פטורה, ואין זה מן הדין אלא תקנה, שאם אין אתה אומר כן אין שלום בתוך הבית לעולם, אלא נמצאת נזהרת ונמנעת מרוב המלאכות ונמצאת קטטה ביניהם. “A wife who breaks vessels whilst performing her household tasks is exempt — not as a matter of strict law, but by rabbinic enactment. For if we did not rule this way, there would never be peace in the home; she will grow overly cautious and avoid many tasks, and strife will result.”
The Chelkas Mechokek (s.k. 29) and Beis Shmuel (s.k. 23) discuss whether this exemption is only during household work or always. From the Yerushalmi it seems the exemption is always.
Explanation of the Chazon Ish
The Chazon Ish (Kesubos 135) explains that when the Rambam says בעת שעושה מלאכותיה, he means that she broke vessels while attending to his needs. In such a case she is exempt as we don’t want her to refrain from carrying out his needs. In our case, the reason she broke the smartphone was to save her husband from the dangers of the internet, therefore, it isn’t considered something that is being done for herself.
The Real Issue: Shalom Bayis
When Rav Shlomah Yedidya Zafrani shlita was asked this question, he said that although the financial question is real, it is a secondary concern. The deeper problem revealed by this episode is the state of shalom bayis. The couple must address their relationship itself before any monetary ruling can be meaningfully applied.
Summary of What Comes Out
- If someone is using his property to harm you, you may protect yourself by damaging that property — and you are exempt from payment.
- Similarly, one may damage another’s property to prevent him from sinning — but only if he is actively using that property to transgress.
- Chazal enacted that there is a special exemption for a wife who causes damage in the course of household life.
- Some poskim hold that this exemption only applies if the damage happened whilst she was carrying out household chores, others hold it applies even outside of this.
- According to the Rambam the heter is due to shalom bayis.
- All of the above applies to unintentional breakage. Whether the exemption extends to a wife who intentionally destroys her husband’s property to prevent him from sinning is uncertain.
- Since there is no clear proof, seemingly the rule of המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה applies, and the wife is exempt until the husband brings proof that she is liable.
(This above is based on Shu”t Takonas HaShovim Vol. 3, siman 76)
