Q&A: This One Comes with His Barrel
This One Comes with His Barrel
Question
Hello Rabbi Michi,
"This one comes with his barrel of wine and that one comes with his jug of honey. The honey barrel cracked, and this one poured out his wine and saved the honey into it; he is entitled only to his wages."
Why does he have to pay him wages? After all, he is not obligated to pay him the value of the wine {since he did not demand that from him; I assume that is the reasoning}. If so, why shouldn’t we exempt him from paying his wages as well?
Answer
I haven’t checked it right now, and I’ll suggest a reasoning off the top of my head.
His labor was invested in property that remained in the other person’s possession. That is considered as though the rescuer has money in the possession of the one who was saved, by the rule of "this one benefits financially". These are benefit-based payments (like someone who goes down to work another person’s field without permission). But the wine that he poured out is only an indirect loss, and it cannot be viewed as though that wine of his is sitting with me.