כתוב בשולחן ערוך האר"י ז"ל:
"דע שכל מי שבליל שבועות לא ישן כלל ועקר והיה עוסק בתורה, מבטח לו שישלים שנתו ולא יארע לו שום נזק"
(משנה ברורה סי' תצ"ד, ס"ק א)
Going the Extra Mile…
Yaakov stepped onto the bus, elated but exhausted. He sank into his seat, and thought back to the wonderful chag of Shavuot that had just ended. He had stayed up the whole night before, learning Torah with his friends. He smiled at the thought of the animated discussions and the feelings of excitement that had permeated the beit midrash. Now that Shavuot was over, he was heading back to his parents’ house in Netanya. He leaned his head back against the seat, and closed his eyes, letting the happy memories replay themselves in his mind.
Yaakov woke up with a start. The bus had reached his stop! Yaakov quickly grabbed his bag, and ran off the bus. As he started to walk, he looked around. Something didn’t look right. He had a funny feeling that he had overslept, and missed his stop. Yes, now he recognized the area. He wasn’t in Netanya. He was in Ra’anana! Just then, a bus pulled up to the stop where he was standing. It was going to Netanya. Amazing! Yaakov flagged down the bus, payed the driver, and headed to his seat. This time, he made sure to keep his eyes open until the bus pulled up to his stop in Netanya.
Yaakov walked to his house, and told his father about his bus misadventure, with its happy ending. His father looked at him thoughtfully. “You know, Yaakov,” he said. “I know you meant to get off in Netanya, but you actually took a more expensive ride. I think you might have to pay the bus company for taking you all the way to Ra’anana.” Is Yaakov’s father right? Does Yaakov have to pay for the longer ride, even though he meant to get off earlier?
Answer:
Rav Dov Lior, Shlita, states that there is no reason for Yaakov to pay the difference for the extra ride. It is true that there is a concept of “neheneh,” meaning that one who receives benefit from another’s property is obligated to pay. An example of this would be if Reuven’s ox eats from Shimon’s grain in the public domain, Reuven is obligated to pay Shimon. However, the concept does not apply here, because Yaakov did not benefit from the extra ride. In fact, the extra ride caused him difficulty! In addition, he caused no loss to the bus company. If Yaakov knew that his sitting on the bus prevented an additional passenger from getting on the bus, there is reason to suggest that he might have to pay. However, if there were adequate seats, there is no reason that Yaakov would have to pay. Even if Yaakov was unsure as to whether or not he prevented someone from getting on the bus, he would still not have to pay, because we are not obligated to pay money in a case of doubt (המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה).
However, Rav Chaim Kanievsky, Shlita, is of the opinion that Yaakov is obligated to pay. Rav Kanievsky relates that he had a similar experience, many years ago. He took a bus from yeshiva in Petach Tikva, to his home in Bnei Brak. He fell asleep on the bus, and awoke to find himself in Tel Aviv! He asked his venerated uncle, the Chazon Ish, zt”l, whether or not he had to pay the difference in fare. The Chazon Ish responded “eib du bist a shlemazel, darf der nahag leiden?” (If you’re a shlemazel, does the driver have to suffer?!)
*****
"ונוהגין בכמה מקומות לאכל מאכלי חלב בשבועות"
(רמ"א סי' תצה', סע' ג)
Let Him Eat Cake?
Binyamin opened the door to the hotel lobby, and felt the cool breeze of the air conditioning. It had been a hot walk from his yeshiva, but he was happy to be able to see his aunt and uncle, who had come to Israel for Shavuot.
“Binyamin, I haven’t seen you in so long! And you walked all the way from your yeshiva to come see us. You must be so hungry. Here, have some cake,” urged his Aunt Rachel.
“Oh, that’s alright. I’m not so hungry,” responded Binyamin.
“But Binyamin, it’s Shavuot! In honor of the chag, you should have some cheesecake,” insisted his uncle. “You’ve never tasted anything like the cakes from this hotel”
Binyamin saw that his aunt and uncle weren’t taking ‘no’ for an answer. He had no choice but to explain himself. “Uh, I’m just not sure if I’m allowed to eat the food here. You pay to stay here, but I’m just visiting you, and I’m not paying the hotel, so I’m not sure if I’m allowed to take their cake,” Binyamin answered, apologetically.
“Nonsense!” countered Aunt Rachel. “Do you really think they care who takes their cakes? They leave out more cake than anyone can actually eat. Whatever isn’t eaten will just get thrown out. Is it better that the cake go to waste?”
Binyamin thought about his aunt’s argument. If the food would be thrown out anyway, then he wasn’t causing any harm to the hotel. He took a plate of cheesecake for himself. Later that day, Binyamin had second thoughts. Was he allowed to take the cake? Did it matter that it would be thrown out anyway? Maybe it was still considered stealing.Answer:
Rav Yitzchak Zilberstein, shlita, states that it is clear that Binyamin must pay for the cheesecake. This is because, as long as the hotel staff had not actually discarded the cake, it was still under the ownership of the hotel. Therefore, anyone who ate from the cake committed theft, and is obligated to reimburse the hotel.
He points out that this in indicated in Parshat Noach. The pasuk states (Bereishit 6:21) “And for you, take for yourself of every food which is eaten, and gather it to yourself, so it will be for you and for them for food.” The Keli Yakar points out that the word “lach” (for you), indicates that Hashem is emphasizing to Noach that the food must come from his own possessions, and not be taken from others. (This is similar to the word “lachem” (for yourself) which is used regarding the arba minim used on Sukkot. The Gemara in masechet sukka explains that the pasuk uses the word “lachem” to indicate that the arba minim should be “mishelachem,” meaning “from yours,” i.e. from your possession and not stolen.)
Why, asks the Kli Yakar, did Hashem have to emphasize that Noach must take from his own food? He answers that, perhaps Noach might think that, because all the other inhabitants of the world, together with all their belongings, are about to be washed away in the flood, those possessions have the status of being ownerless. Therefore, Hashem warned Noach that, even moments before the flood, it was forbidden to take something that belonged to someone else.
The same, concludes Rav Zilberstein, is true in the case of Binyamin and the cheesecake.
However, Rav Dov Lior, shlita, reasons that Binyamin is not obligated to pay for the cheesecake. He would be permitted to take cake lechatchila (meaning it is permitted outright, not just as a concession to the fact that it already happened). This is because, as far as the hotel is concerned, they no longer retained ownership of the cake, from the time that the staff put it out on the tables. (This is different from the case of the mabul, because those that died in the flood did not resign themselves to death, and, by extension, loss of ownership of their property. In fact, they threatened Noach that they would destroy the teiva (ark), indicating that they had not come to terms with the fact that they would be dying, imminently.)
Rav Avigdor Nebenzal, shlita, also feels that Binyamin was allowed to take the cake. He states, though, that Binyamin should make sure that his relatives don’t become accustomed to such practices.
Shabbat shalom and chag sameach!
