Q&A: The Bridge Legend
The Bridge Legend
Question
Hello Rabbi,
Yesterday I read the children the story “The Bridge Legend” from the PJ Library. It tells about two friends who got into a fight, and as a result one of them dug a water canal between them. The other saw this and hired a workman to build a fence to separate them. But when he came back, he saw that the workman had built a bridge over the canal, which reconciled his friend with him. And the story ended with the two of them making peace.
After the story, the question came up in our family whether, strictly speaking, he has to pay the workman or not, and we didn’t know how to resolve it. Could the Rabbi give some directions for thinking about this (and if possible also in simple language for the children)?
Y.D.
Answer
I enjoyed that. A thoroughly Lithuanian family indeed (like that saying about “the bird of the heavens that got burned”). 🙂
Clearly he does not have to pay for the fence, since it was never made. The fact that the fence became unnecessary because now there is peace is only indirect causation, which does not obligate payment. But perhaps he should pay for the bridge under the law of someone who improves another’s property without permission, since now he is pleased with the bridge. One would have to discuss whether this is a place suited for a bridge or not, and whether he should pay the value of the bridge or only as an idle laborer / cucumber watchman, but this is not the place to go into it.
There is also room to discuss whether the worker acted properly. After all, he was paid to build a fence and did not do so. Seemingly, no. Still, afterward the sender was pleased with what he did, and one could discuss whether that makes his act retroactively proper. If in the end the employer was not pleased, then it is obvious that the worker failed in his task and breached the contract. However, one could also discuss this under the law of a worker who backs out in the middle of the day, but this is not the place to go into it.
Discussion on Answer
Assuming one does have to pay for the bridge—do both neighbors have to pay? Or perhaps specifically the one who dug the canal, since he caused the need for the bridge? And if they now get into a fight as a result of the question of who should pay for the bridge—does the worker have to compensate them for building the bridge that caused the new dispute?
It seems worthwhile to send the story to the “Shalom La’am” bulletin, where every week they bring questions of this type to stimulate the readers’ thinking (provided they get permission to publish it from PJ Library :))
On all these matters, may our teacher instruct us, and so too the Master,
With the blessing of S.Z. Lewinger
And speaking somewhat seriously, it seems there are ostensibly two possible grounds for payment:
A. Installing the bridge, where it seems that the two neighbors who use the bridge show by their conduct that they are pleased with its construction.
B. Making peace between the neighbors. Mediation services and treatment for emotional problems caused by a prolonged conflict can involve considerable financial expense—so someone who on his own initiative brought the dispute between the neighbors to an end also brought them no small financial benefit.
Either way, “making peace between a person and his fellow” is one of those things whose principal remains for the World to Come, while a person enjoys the fruits of them in this world as well. As Maimonides explained in his commentary to the Mishnah at the beginning of Peah: since his actions brought benefit to others in this world, he deserves reward in this world too, in addition to the spiritual reward reserved for the World to Come.
With blessings, S.Z. Lewinger
Thank you