New York (VINNEWS/Rabbi Yair Hoffman) Reuvain went on a business trip to Montenegro. Before he left, he left his car with Shimon and asked Shimon to pick him up at JFK Airport when he flew home. But the plane was landing at 4:45 in the morning, so Shimon asked his friend Levi whether he would go instead. Levi kindly agreed. Shimon handed him the car keys and texted him the flight information and the terminal number.  Levi drove all the way to the airport at that early hour. When he arrived, he called Reuvain and asked, “Hi! Have you landed yet?” Reuvain answered, “No, I am in Zurich.” Levi was surprised. “Weren’t you supposed to arrive at 4:45 AM?” Reuvain replied, “No — I land at 4:45 PM.”

So Levi drove to the airport in the middle of the night for nothing and burned a few gallons of gas doing it. The question is simple: who has to pay for the wasted gas? Is it Shimon, who gave the wrong time? Is it Levi, who had the flight information sitting in his phone and never checked it? Or is it Reuvain, whose car it was and who was the one being helped in the first place?

To answer this, one must first understand two very important ideas in Choshen Mishpat (the part of halacha that deals with money): grama and garmi.

What Is “Damage” in Halacha?

Normally, when a person damages someone else’s property directly, he has to pay. If a person throws a rock through a window, he pays for the window. That is called a mazik — a direct damager. Everyone agrees that a mazik must pay.

But what happens when a person does not break anything with his own hands — he only causes damage to happen in a roundabout way? That is where the two ideas of grama and garmi come in. Understanding the difference between them is the key to the whole case.

Grama — An Indirect Cause (Not Liable)

Grama means an indirect cause of damage. It is when a person’s action starts a chain of events, but the actual damage only happens later, through something else that comes in between.

The rule is: grama is patur — a person is not required to pay in beis din (a Jewish court) for grama damage. He may have a moral duty lo’tzeis yedei Shamayim (to be clean before Heaven), but the court cannot force him to pay.

A simple example: a person leans a ladder where it does not belong, and hours later the wind knocks it over and it breaks something. Too many other things (the wind, the passage of time) came in between his action and the damage. That is grama — no payment in beis din.

Garmi — A Direct-Enough Cause (Liable)

Garmi is a stronger kind of causing. Here the damage flows immediately and directly from what the person did, even though he never touched the object himself.

The rule is: garmi is chayav — a person is required to pay in beis din for garmi damage. The classic example (Bava Kamma 100a) is the mareh dinar l’shulchani — a person shows a coin to a professional money-changer and asks, “Is this coin real?” The expert says, “Yes, it is good,” and the person relies on that — but the coin turns out to be fake. The expert pays, because his wrong answer caused the loss right away and directly.

The Key Difference Between Grama and Garmi

So what exactly separates grama (no payment) from garmi (payment)? This is the heart of the whole question. One clear way to draw the line is given by the Bach and the Nesivos HaMishpat (Choshen Mishpat, siman 386), and it is applied by Rav Yitzchak Leib Telsnick in his sefer Chukas Mishpat (Cheilek 3, Siman 5):

• If the damage happens right away, the moment the person finishes speaking or acting, with nothing coming in between — that is garmi, and he pays.
• If the damage happens only later, because another action comes in between his words and the actual loss — that is grama, and he does not pay.

In the words the Chukas Mishpat citing the Bach: garmi is only when ha’hezek ba miyad — the damage comes immediately. But kol davar she’ba l’achar gemar dibburo o maasav — anything where the damage comes only after his speech is already finished, through a later separate act — lo havi ela grama, and he is exempt.

The sefer Mishpat HaMazik (Rav Dovid ben Yochanan Brizel, Siman 19) explains the same idea in a slightly sharper way, and this sharper version decides our case.

The test is whether the person who spoke is the last cause of the loss (ha’gorem ha’acharon). If the speaker’s word is the final thing that leads straight to the loss, with no independent choice of the other person in between, he is chayav. But if the loss only happened because the relying party then went and did something on his own, the speaker is only a distant gorem, and he is patur.

Is There Even Liability Here at All? A Machlokes Rishonim

The Rishonim actually argue about whether causing another to spend money on your word is ever garmi:

• The Rambam (Hilchos Zechiyah u’Matanah end of Perek 6), the Rosh, and the Rashba hold that there is a chiyuv garmi. The Rambam writes a broad rule: kol ha’gorem l’abed mammon chaveiro meshalem — whoever causes his fellow to lose money must pay.
• The Ra’avad disagrees and holds that this is nothing more than ordinary grama, which is exempt- patur.

A Case Similar to Ours

The Chukas Mishpat discusses a case that is somewhat similar to our story. A man who represented a building committee (the netzig ha’va’ad) told a moving company to clear junk off a roof. On his word (al piv), the workers accidentally threw out an apartment-owner’s five bicycle wheels, which were then lost. The owner sued the committee representative.

Rav Telsnick rules that the representative is patur. Why? Because the wheels were only thrown out after the moving company independently went and acted. A separate action came in between the representative’s words and the loss — so this is grama, not garmi. He adds a second reason that matters greatly for us: the representative was only trying to help the owner, as an unpaid favor, which makes the exemption even stronger. His final ruling: the owner has no claim that beis din can enforce; at most the representative would owe something lo’tzeis yedei Shamayim.

Why the Exemption Holds Even According to the Stricter View

One might think that the Rambam-Rosh-Rashba side (which does obligate for garmi) would make Shimon pay. But Mishpat HaMazik shows why even they would exempt a case like ours.

The proof is the Rambam’s own case of zaruni gina — a seller told a buyer, in effect, “plant this,” and the planting failed. Even the Rambam holds the seller is patur there. Why? Because the buyer did the planting for his own purposes (la’asos kein l’toras atzmo). The seller did not command the outlay for the seller’s own benefit, so the seller is not “the last cause.” The buyer’s own independent action breaks the chain.

This is exactly our situation. Shimon did not command Levi to spend money for Shimon’s benefit. The whole drive was for Reuvain’s benefit, and Levi undertook it as his own volunteered chesed. So even according to the stricter view, Shimon is patur. That is a much stronger position than resting on the Ra’avad alone.

The Strongest Argument the Other Way — and Why It Fails

The sefer also brings the sources that would obligate a speaker. Two are worth naming.

First, the Radbaz (brought in Imrei Binah, Gvias Chov): a messenger came to Shimon and said, “In the name of Reuvain — destroy such-and-such,” and it was destroyed. There is a discussion whether the one who spoke is chayav in mareh-dinar fashion.

Second, the Ein Yitzchak (Rav Yitzchak Elchanan) and the discussion around the Maharsham and Maharik: where the speaker knew or should have known the information was likely wrong — that is, he was negligent (poshei’a) — the chiyuv can be real, because a careless misstatement that directly triggers reliance can rise to garmi.

Someone could therefore argue: Shimon was negligent — he had the correct flight information and told Levi AM instead of PM — so shouldn’t he pay? The answer is no, for two independent reasons that the very same sources supply:

• Levi is still the last cause. The gas was burned only through Levi’s own choice to drive. And Levi himself had the flight information in his phone and failed to check it. His own independent act — and his own failure to look — sits between Shimon’s words and the loss, cutting Shimon off from it.
• The negligence chiyuv is about paid or self-interested actors. The poskim discuss it mainly for a paid or professional advisor (the shulchani or uman who is momcheh), or for someone directing an outlay for his own benefit — not a friend doing an unpaid, self-benefitless favor. Mishpat HaMazik repeatedly ties the exemption to the fact that the speaker acted b’toras chesed and not l’toras atzmo.

Answering Our Case

Shimon

Shimon is the one who texted the wrong time. But did the wasted gas happen immediately from his text? No. The gas was burned only later, when Levi independently decided to get in the car and drive. A separate act — Levi’s driving — came in between Shimon’s words and the loss. By the rule of the Bach, the Nesivos, the Chukas Mishpat, and the “last cause” test of Mishpat HaMazik, this is grama, not garmi — and grama is patur. On top of that, Shimon was doing an unpaid favor, purely for Reuvain’s benefit, which only strengthens the exemption. Shimon does not have to pay.

Levi

Levi actually makes the case against Shimon even weaker. Levi had the flight information sitting in his own phone and never looked at it. He was the last link in the chain, and the direct cause of his own wasted trip was his own choice to drive without checking. A person who could easily have prevented his own loss and did not has a very weak claim. Levi cannot collect.

Reuvain

Reuvain gave no wrong information and did nothing wrong at all. He did not even arrange the ride. There is no basis in law to make him pay. (In the Chukas Mishpat, even the representative who actually gave the instruction owed at most lo’tzeis yedei Shamayim — so certainly Reuvain, who did nothing, owes nothing under the law.)

The Bottom Line

Following Mishpat Shlomo, Chukas Mishpat, and especially Mishpat HaMazik: no one can be forced by beis din to pay for the wasted gas. Shimon’s wrong instructions was only grama — an indirect cause — because the loss happened only after Levi’s separate act of driving. This is true even according to the stricter Rambam-Rosh-Rashba view, because (like the zaruni gina case) the outlay was made for someone else’s benefit and through the relying party’s own act. The negligence argument does not obligate Shimon either, since that chiyuv is aimed at paid or self-interested advisors, and in any event Levi’s own failure to check the text he was sent makes Levi the true last cause.

Under the strict letter of  halacha, nobody pays. If Shimon wishes to be extra careful before Heaven, he may choose to reimburse the gas lo’tzeis yedei Shamayim, since his word set the whole thing in motion — but no Beis Din would require it. The fairest thing is simply for Reuvain, on whose behalf everyone was helping in the first place, to quietly cover the small cost of the gas — or for the three friends to split it with a smile.

The author can be reached at [email protected]