Question: Is a guest who does not show up at a wedding that he said he would attend liable to the baal simchah for the cost of his meal?

Short Answer: Yes, according to some poskim, under the law of garmei, the guest would be liable.

 

Explanation:

I. The Source of Garmei

The Gemara (Bava Kama 98b) states a machlokes regarding damages owed by a tortfeasor who burns a loan agreement of his friend. According to the opinion that “awards damages for garmei,” the tortfeasor needs to pay damages for the full amount of the loan. According to the opinion that “does not award damages for garmei,” the tortfeasor need only pay the cost of the paper (i.e., a very minimal amount) that he burned. Clearly, there is a machlokes whether a tortfeasor is liable for “garmei” damages. “Garmei” will be defined herein, but simply it refers to “indirect damages.”

Rashi (ibid) explains that the opinion who “awards damages for garmei” is Rabbi Meir, as seen from Bava Kama (100a). The Gemara (Bava Kama 100a) recounts that Reish Lakish once brought a coin to Rabbi Elazar to determine whether the coin was usable. Rabbi Elazar said the coin was fine to use, to which Reish Lakish responded that he was relying on Rabbi Elazar’s ruling. Rabbi Elazar responded that it doesn’t make a difference whether he is accurate or not; Reish Lakish has no claim against him because only Rabbi Meir holds “garmei” is liable and we presumably do not follow Rabbi Meir. Reish Lakish, however, concludes that we do in fact follow Rabbi Meir. The Gemara is clear that we pasken like Rabbi Meir, that garmei is liable, even though the other chachamim disagree.

The Gemara (Bava Kamma 100a-b) continues to discuss where Rabbi Meir ruled that garmei is liable. The Gemara discusses a case where a landowner has a vineyard, and his neighbor has a regular vegetable field close to the vineyard. The vineyard owner is responsible to rebuild the wall between them if it gets destroyed, as this wall is preventing the isur of Kil’ayim. If he does not fix it, he is liable to his neighbor (according to Rabbi Meir) for causing the vegetable field to now be forbidden. This is a case of garmei.

 

II. The Source of Grama

The Gemara (Bava Kama 55b) lists four cases where the tortfeasor is exempt from liability “biydei adam” (by a court, as opposed to being punished by Hashem). These cases, elaborated on in the Gemara, are summarized as follows: (i) tortfeasor smashes the fence of his friend, causing the friend’s animal to escape and damage; (ii) tortfeasor bends the stalk of his friend into the line of a fire, thereby destroying the stalk; (iii) hiring false witnesses; and (iv) someone who refuses to testify despite knowing testimony. Rashi explains that these four examples are all cases of “grama” and, therefore, the Gemara, seemingly according to all opinions, holds that one is not liable for grama.

Thus, while we appear to hold that a tortfeasor is liable for garmei (at least according to Rabbi Meir), he is not liable for grama.

 

III. Garmei vs. Grama

This begs the question: What are the factual differences between a case of garmei and grama? Not surprisingly, this is a huge dispute amongst the poskim. See Pischei Choshen (N’zikin 3:2, n. 3).

First, Tosafos (Bava Basra 22b) answers that garmei is where the tortfeasor himself causes damage to the object, as opposed to grama, where another item causes damage (even if put in motion by the tortfeasor). Thus, burning a loan agreement, incorrectly ruling on the validity of a coin, and not rebuilding the Kil’ayim fence are examples of garmei, while the four examples (Bava Kama 55b) are grama. See also Rashbam (Bava Basra 94a), who adds that garmei is also not “nikar.”

Second, Tosafos (ibid) gives another answer. Garmei is where the damage occurs instantaneously with the tort. The Rosh likewise gives a similar answer. See also Ramban (Dina D’Garmei) who adds that garmei is where the damage is certain to occur.

Third, Tosafos (ibid) asks on the previous two answers from the case where a person paskens that something tamei of his friend is indeed tahor. The friend then goes and mixes the tamei item with other terumah, thinking that it is in fact tahor. Why is the tortfeasor liable as garmei here? The tortfeasor himself did not cause the damage and the damage did not occur immediately upon incorrectly ruling that the item is tahor? Because of this question, Tosafos cites the Ritzva that really both grama and garmei are exempt from liability mi’d’Oraisa. However, d’Rabbanan, a garmei tortfeasor is liable because of “k’nas,” but only in common tort cases.

Fourth, the Rambam (Hilchos Choveil U’Mazik 7:7-11) appears to conflate garmei with grama, ruling that a tortfeasor is liable for both. Even though the Gemara rules that one is exempt from liability for grama, that is only according to one opinion. Rabbi Meir, however, not only holds that one is liable for garmei, but also for grama. Thus, the Rambam (ibid, 11) appears to find liability even in three grama cases, including pushing your friend’s money into the sea, cutting the ear of your friend’s cow, and rubbing off the picture of your friend’s coin. See the Maggid Mishneh (ibid) and Sm”a (Choshen Mishpat 386:1).

 

IV. Practically Speaking

The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 386:1-3) appears to rule that one is liable for both garmei and grama, like the Rambam, as he discusses the three cases mentioned in the Rambam that should be grama, but rules that one is liable for damages. The Rama (ibid) notes that these cases are grama and therefore the tortfeasor is exempt from damages. Later on, the Rama cites “some” who hold that one is liable in cases of grama where the tort is a common tort, similar to the opinion of the Ritzva.

The Pischei Choshen (ibid) concludes that one is only liable for garmei where the damage is certain and comes immediately after the tort.

On a practical level, there are many t’shuvos applying contemporary cases to this machlokes. For example, Asher Chanan (7:134) discusses whether a guest who does not attend a wedding must pay the baal simchah for the money wasted on his meal. He concludes that this is a case of garmei, as the damage was with his mouth (RSVP “will attend” but did not attend) and occurred immediately, and therefore the guest is liable.

Moreover, the Beis HaVaad Halachah Center has an article where they write that in the following scenario, the “neighbor” is liable for garmei: “Reuven’s neighbor went away for Shabbos. Before he left, he forgot to turn off the hose that was running in his backyard. Over Shabbos, the water flowed into Reuven’s property and flooded his basement.” See https://baishavaad.org/is-a-homeowner-liable-for-damages-he-caused-by-leaving-his-hose-running/ .


Rabbi Ephraim Glatt, Esq.  is the Associate Rabbi at the Young Israel of Kew Gardens Hills, and he is a Partner at McGrail & Bensinger LLP, specializing in commercial litigation. Questions? Comments? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..