The Case of the Mesader Kiddushin Who Spilled Wine on the Kallah’s Dress — Who is Required to Pay?
Question: At a wedding, as the mesader kiddushin passed the full cup of red wine from the father of the chosson to the mother of the kallah, some of the wine was mistakenly spilled on the kallah’s white wedding dress. The family hired an expert to remove the stains before the kallah reentered the hall and billed the mesader kiddushin for the cleaning costs.
This sparked a discussion among the talmidei chachamim in attendance: Some believed that the mesader kiddushin should be exempt from paying, while others thought he should be obligated. Who is correct?
Answer: Before addressing the question, let us state at the outset that if someone had pushed the mesader kiddushin, thus rendering the spill a complete accident, he would be exempt from paying for the damage, since it would not be considered his action. Additionally, R’ Shlomah Zalman Auerbach would advise mesadrei kiddushin not to fill the cup to the top and to use white wine instead of red to avoid such issues. He would say that we only find an insistence on red wine when it comes to the four cups on Pesach; and even for kiddush on Shabbos, only when it tastes better than white wine. Therefore, under the chuppah, it is preferable to use white wine.
There are two main reasons why the mesader kiddushin might be exempt from paying for the damages in this case:
Indirect Damage (Grama):
The mesader kiddushin may be viewed as one who merely caused the damage indirectly (grama), and not a direct damager (mazik). This is either because it was spilled from the overflowing cup, as opposed to him directly; or because the kallah’s wide wedding gown was a factor in it getting stained. Even if he is viewed as a mazik, he could argue that he would have sent the dress to a regular cleaner at a lower cost (though this would only exempt him from paying the difference) — though this is difficult to say considering the dress required immediate cleaning. If this is indeed considered a grama, he would be exempt from paying.
The Ketzos HaChoshen and Nesivos HaMishpat Argue About a Similar Case
The Ketzos HaChoshen (Choshen Mishpat 363:4) states that someone who dirties another’s wall while staying in their home is exempt from paying the cleaning bill. The reason for this is because since if he were to hire someone to clean it, it would be white again, it therefore has the status of a grama. He compares this to the Gemara (Bava Kama 20b), which says that if someone throws a coin into the sea, and it can be retrieved by hiring a diver, the person who threw the coin is exempt from paying for the damage. This is because the act is considered grama, for which one is exempt from paying.
The Nesivos HaMishpat (Choshen Mishpat 340:3) writes that if someone borrows a dress and stains it, they must pay for the damage. He argues that this is different to the case of the thrown coin, where the person merely forced the owner to hire a diver to retrieve the coin, whereas in the case of the stained dress, the borrower directly damaged it.
Conclusion: Most poskim rule that the mesader kiddushin is considered to have caused direct damage and as such, must pay the full cleaning cost. The Chazon Ish (Bava Kama 13:2) supports this view.
In the end, the cleaner did not charge for the service, seeing it as a mitzvah since the kallah was unwilling to leave the yichud room until the dress was fully cleaned. Mi Ke’amcha Yisrael!
(The above was adapted from a Teshuvah written by R’ Yaakov Skoczylas shlita)
