Q&A: One Benefits and the Other Does Not Lose
One Benefits and the Other Does Not Lose
Question
Hello and blessings,
It is explained in the Talmud, Bava Kamma 20a, that there is a doubt regarding someone who benefits from his fellow’s house without his knowledge: in a case of “one benefits and the other does not lose,” is he obligated to pay? The Talmud does not bring any verse or source that a person who benefited from another’s property is obligated, and nevertheless it remains in doubt. Seemingly, what is the doubt? There is no theft or damage here, since it is speaking about a courtyard not meant to be rented. Therefore I was wondering whether this doubt is, according to the Rabbi’s explanation in “spast nisht,” that one should question whether it makes sense that in a world like ours, where people charge rent for renting out a house, the law would exempt him since he did not violate any clause in the Torah.
Thank you
Answer
In Hebrew this is called a sevara—logical reasoning. Payment for benefit is not under the laws of damages or theft, but simply something like: my money is in your possession, and you must pay me for it. In the law of “it has accrued to him” this is seen even more sharply.
The need for an actual loss (according to the view that in “one benefits and the other does not lose” he is exempt) is only a side condition. You are not paying for the loss.
True, one can connect this to the dispute between Tosafot and the Rif in the case of “this one did not benefit and that one did lose,” but further analysis will show you that there too there is a kind of “my money is in your possession.”
Discussion on Answer
What is in his possession is not the courtyard itself but the use of it—the produce of the courtyard. In a case of “it has accrued to him,” this is even clearer: his assets increased because he did not have to spend money on housing or food.
Where does the Rabbi get that this is talking about his having eaten at the courtyard owner’s expense? The Talmud explicitly says it is dealing with “one who lives in his fellow’s courtyard,” and no more. Later the Talmud discusses whether he causes the owner a loss of rent, but here it is speaking about one that is not meant to be rented.
I didn’t mean “produce” in the sense of “who creates the fruit of the tree.” 🙂 The produce of the courtyard means its uses. The property itself versus its yield.
In the legal world this is connected to the issue of unjust enrichment.
But still, even if he profited, the owner lost nothing, and there is no law that says it is forbidden to profit. Doesn’t the Rabbi think this is connected to the above principle?
Of course there is no prohibition against profiting, but if the profit came from my property, then it is mine.
This is not profit taken directly from the field by growing something there; rather, by getting the place for free I profited. I did not take anything from the field, since we are talking about a field not meant for rent.
Correct. That is the claim of those who hold that in “one benefits and the other does not lose” he is exempt. But according to those who hold he is obligated, the very fact that the profit was made from my courtyard means that the profit is mine.
That is exactly the claim: since there is really no basis in the law to obligate here, the whole dispute is just “spast nisht.”
It is entirely a matter of law: “my money is in your possession.”
As explained above,
this is not profit taken directly from the field by growing something there; rather, by getting the place for free I profited. I did not take anything from the field, since we are talking about a field not meant for rent.
I know the dispute, but by what law is he obligated to pay? What difference does it make that “my money is in your possession”? After he uses it, he gives it back, so what exactly is he paying for?