What do we learn from the ruling on damage caused by a Chanukah Menorah?
The Mishna in Bava Kama (6:6, 62b in the Gemara) states that if a storekeeper places a lamp in the public way, causing a driver’s cargo to catch fire and get damaged, the storekeeper is liable; the driver may fairly assume that the road is free of hazards. Rabbi Yehuda then adds that if the flame is a Chanukah lamp, the storekeeper is exempt. The Gemara makes clear that the reason is that the Chanukah lamp is a mitzvah. But we don’t rule like Rabbi Yehuda; it is certainly proper to place the Chanukah lamps outside, but notwithstanding the mitzvah, the storekeeper must take care to avoid any damage.
These rulings exemplify an important principle: just because something is permissible, or even a mitzvah, this does not absolve us from responsibility for its consequences. A common example from the workplace would be an employee davening when the employer expects him to be working. There is extensive literature on when it might be permissible or even desirable to give preference to a pressing mitzvah, such as davening Mincha, over a seemingly arbitrary workplace regulation. However, there is no question that if the employer discovers such an infraction, he is completely within his rights to discipline the employee.
Indeed, the permission and the accountability can sometimes be interdependent. Several prominent authorities permit presenting a misleading appearance (but never an outright untruth) when the actual appearance is itself misleading as regards the substance. For example, if a prospective employer improperly infers from a prospect’s white hair that he will do a poor job, many authorities permit the applicant to dye his hair. Ultimately, the subterfuge gives the employer a better impression of the worker’s capabilities (see, for instance, Levush Mordechai 24; Iggros Moshe, Yoreh De’ah II:6).
But even if we accept this basic leniency, how can we trust the applicant himself to make this self-serving judgment? Surely weighing the applicant’s qualities is the hirer’s prerogative! Rabbi Aaron Levine (Case Studies in Jewish Business Ethics pg. 53) proposes that in all cases where Poskim permit conduct of this nature, we find that there is accountability towards the party who is potentially deceived. In this case, if the worker is not doing a good job the employer will find that out pretty soon. That accountability does not justify misleading the employer on something fundamental, but Rabbi Levine posits that it does allow the worker some latitude in his self-evaluation.
The Shelah (Torah Ohr on our Parasha) finds an allusion in this Mishna to an insight into the nature of the Chanukah festival. He suggests that the choice of the Chanukah lamp as the source of the damage was carefully chosen. He points out that this mitzvah is known to be particularly risky, citing a tale from a well-known Midrash (Eicha Rabba 1:45) about a tragedy that befell the Emperor’s family during Chanukah. The Jews decided to light Chanukah lights notwithstanding, but this was viewed as a sign of disrespect resulting in a great tragedy. We can add that the Gemara (Shabbos 21b) and Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 671:5) already warn that in times of adverse decrees the Chanukah lights should be lit inside, due to fear of danger.
We are extremely fortunate to be living in a period during which mitzvah observance is tolerated and indeed specially protected almost everywhere that Jews live. Our generation has little excuse to stint on mitzvah observance, but the Mishna reminds us that mitzvos need to be performed with a sense of public responsibility and accountability.
