An Auto Accident
‘All Agree That They Are Exempt’
(Kesubbos 35a)
The Academy of Hezekiah derives from Leviticus 24:21 that the rule of “Kam leih b’deraba mineih” – which dictates that a person only receives the harsher of two punishments he incurred for committing a sin – applies even when the person doesn’t actually receive the harsher punishment. For example, if someone commits the capital crime of desecrating Shabbos nowadays when beis din is no longer authorized to mete out capital punishment, he is nevertheless exempt from paying for any damage he may have caused in the course of desecrating Shabbos.
‘If He Seized It’
Rava (Bava Metzia 91a, as explained by Rashi, s.v. “Rava amar esnan asrah Torah…”) asserts that the rule of “Kam leih bi’derabbah mineih” only restricts beis din from meting out two punishments for one transgression. However, the transgressor has a moral obligation to compensate his victim (see Tosafos, Kesubos 33b s.v. “Lav mishum…).
Moreover, Rashi (Bava Metzia ibid.) cites his teacher who argues that if the damaged party seizes payment for his damages, he is permitted to keep the money since it is really owed to him.
The Shita Mekubbetzes (Bava Metzia ibid.) seems to rule that a person must pay for the damage. However, beis din cannot force him to pay.
Modern-Day Ramifications
The She’arim Metzuyanim Behalacha notes that the debate between Rava and the Academy of Hezekiah has practical ramifications with regard to a negligent driver who, Heaven forbid, kills someone in a car accident while also causing monetary damage. According to the Academy of Hezekiah, the driver need not pay for damages since they occurred during the commission of a capital crime (i.e., murder/manslaughter) – even though the killing was accidental and the driver will not incur the death penalty.
According to Rava, however, the negligent driver has a moral obligation to pay for any damage he caused. Moreover, according to Rashi, if the damaged party seizes payment, the court will not force him to return it since it is really owed to him.
‘Taking The Law Into One’s Own Hands?’
The Nesivos (28:1) asserts that it is only after the fact that the plaintiff is allowed to retain the money that he seized as compensation for his damages. However, a priori, it is forbidden for a person to take the law into his own hands and seize monies that were not awarded to him by the court.