Zevulun came to shul one day wearing tzitzis that included a string of techeiles in each corner.
He proudly showed them to Naphtali. “Check out this p’sil techeiles,” Zevulun said, holding up a corner. “Hand-dyed, certified. Cost me altogether $100!”
Naphtali looked, intrigued. “What is the dye made from?” he asked.
“The halachic consensus nowadays – of almost all poskim who approve techeiles – is that the dye is extracted from a snail called murex trunculus,” explained Zevulun.
Naphtali looked at the strings. “I see that the knots are somewhat different than usual,” he said, touching the techeiles string.
“Yes, there are many different opinions how to wrap and tie the strings when using techeiles,” replied Zevulun. “According to the Rambam, all the wrappings (except for the first and last) are with the techeiles strand, but according to most Rishonim, the wrappings alternate with groups (chul’yos) of white and techeiles wraps.”
“I see that the final knot got a little loose,” Naphtali said. “I’ll tighten it.” He gave a sharp tug to tighten the knot, but the techeiles string caught on the edge of the table. Snap.
“Oh no!” exclaimed Zevulun, lifting the string. “You tore a techeiles strand!”
“But the tzitzis are still kosher, right?” Naphtali asked quickly.
“In principle…” Zevulun answered, inspecting it. “The halacha is that as long as the other side of the string remains intact, the tzitzis are still kosher. But you tore one of the expensive techeiles strands – these aren’t easy to replace.”
“But you don’t need to replace the string; the tzitzis are kosher as is,” Naphtali replied. “Furthermore, I didn’t mean to damage it. I had good intentions and was trying to help by tightening the knot!”
“Still, you handled it without asking,” replied Zevulun. “You should have been careful.”
The two came before Rabbi Dayan and asked, “Is Naphtali liable for the torn techeiles string?”
“HaGaon HaRav Yitzchok Zilberstein, shlita, addresses a similar question in his work, Chashukei Chemed (Yevamos 5b),” replied Rabbi Dayan. “He concludes that Naphtali is liable for the string that he tore, even though he had good intent.”
“The Gemara (B.K. 56a) teaches that if a person covered his friend’s grain before an oncoming fire, but it was consumed anyway – and now that the grain was covered (tamun) it is excluded from halachic liability of aish, so that the owner is not entitled to damage compensation for the grain – the person who covered it is liable b’dinei shamayim for having caused incidental loss (grama) (C.M. 418:13,16).
“Tosafos (ad loc.) explains that even if the person had good intent to delay the fire and protect the grain, he should have considered the negative outcome of his action. Because he caused financial loss, he remains liable b’dinei shamayim.
“However, Ra’ah and Meiri (cited in Shitah M’kubetzes ad loc.) seemingly learn that when the person intended for good, he is exempt, at least from liability b’dinei shamayim.
“Similarly, Nesivos (291:14) writes that if someone hid another person’s items to protect them from theft but forgot where he hid them, he is liable as one who damages, because in practice he caused loss.
“HaRav Zilberstein notes that Responsa Mekor Chaim (Sanalovitz) #29 rules otherwise, because the person intended for the owner’s benefit, but even he acknowledges that Tosafos is against him. Furthermore, the rule that adam mu’ad l’olam – a person is always forewarned – seemingly includes even when he intends for good (C.M. 421:3).
“Regarding the fact that the tzitzis are still kosher, HaRav Zilberstein refers to the discussion in the poskim whether a person who steals an expensive, mehudar esrog must pay its full cost or can suffice with the cost of a regular esrog, because the owner can thereby still fulfill the mitzvah through it. Most authorities maintain that he must pay its full value. Similarly, here, the person is not exempt from liability just because the tzitzis are still wearable (see Pischei Teshuva C.M. 348:6).
“HaRav Zilberstein concludes that the person has to pay the value of a single string,” concluded Rabbi Dayan. “This is even if a single new string might look odd in a group of old strings so that the owner will want to replace all four strings.”
Verdict: A person who inadvertently damaged something with good intent is still liable for the damage. Even if the item is still usable for its mitzvah purpose, he is liable for its monetary loss.
