Q&A: Non-Manifest Benefit
Non-Manifest Benefit
Question
Hello Rabbi,
According to Wikipedia, imperceptible damage is a category of damages in Jewish law in which the signs of the damage are not visible on the damaged object itself, and the damage exists only on the halakhic level. In practice, Jewish law is ruled in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan, who holds that imperceptible damage is not considered damage, and the damager is exempt from payment. It seems reasonable to compare imperceptible damage to non-manifest benefit. For example:
Babylonian Talmud, tractate Bava Kamma 56b
It was stated: One who guards a lost item—Rabbah said: he is like an unpaid guardian; Rav Yosef said: he is like a paid guardian. Rabbah said he is like an unpaid guardian: what benefit reaches him? Rav Yosef said he is like a paid guardian: through that benefit that he does not need to give bread to a poor person, he is considered like a paid guardian.
In the Talmudic passage above, the benefit Rav Yosef refers to is a non-manifest benefit, since the benefit exists only on the halakhic level—that is, a person who does not observe Torah and commandments would not benefit from this benefit. If so, would it be correct to say that the dispute between Rabbah and Rav Yosef depends on the dispute between Rabbi Yohanan and Hezekiah regarding imperceptible damage—whether it is considered damage or not considered damage?
In addition, would it be correct to say that since Jewish law is ruled in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan in the dispute regarding imperceptible damage, then the law should be ruled in accordance with Rabbah—that one who guards a lost item is like an unpaid guardian? (Like Tosafot and unlike Maimonides).
Answer
In the case of one who guards a lost item, the benefit is completely tangible: he saves money. True, the savings come because halakhically he is not obligated to give charity. In the case of imperceptible damage, there is nothing tangible at all in the object. True, its value drops dramatically, but with respect to that I am only an indirect cause. Still, it is possible that even in the case of one who guards a lost item, the commandment is only an indirect cause of the gain. There is also room to distinguish between indirect causation of gain and indirect causation of damage/loss.
In any case, it does not seem to me that the two Talmudic passages are dependent on one another. The question whether there is gain here, such that the guarding becomes paid guardianship, is a question in the laws of guardianship (whether the gain comes because of the commandment, even if only indirectly), whereas the question whether this counts as damage for liability to pay damages is a question in the laws of torts (where indirect causation is exempt). In torts, the question is whether the damager has a connection to the result, whereas in guardianship the main question is whether he received something or not (after all, he can receive his payment even under the law of a Canaanite slave or a guarantor. See Kiddushin 7a).