Print this Article
Rabbi Yishai Natan –
I hired a car service to take me from Lakewood to JFK Airport. The car service told me that the trip should take about two hours and would cost $200. Halfway through the ride, the car developed mechanical problems. The driver pulled over because it was dangerous to continue. I had a flight to catch and could not wait around for him to fix the car, so I called another car service. I found someone who could come within a few minutes, but he also charged me $200 to take me the rest of the way.
Do I still have to pay the first driver for taking me halfway, even though I ended up paying the same $200 to reach my destination?
The Donkey That Died Halfway
The Gemara (Bava Metzia 79a) discusses a similar case. Someone rented a donkey to travel to a certain place, but the donkey died halfway through the trip. The Gemara says that the renter must pay for the portion of the trip that he already traveled.
The Gemara distinguishes between two types of rentals. If the owner rented him a donkey without specifying which particular donkey—hamor stam—the owner is responsible to provide another donkey to complete the trip. If necessary, the dead donkey can even be sold and the money used to help finish the trip.
However, if the owner specifically rented him “this donkey”—hamor zeh—the owner does not have the same responsibility to provide another one.
What About a Car That Breaks Down?
A car service would seem to be similar to hamor stam, since generally a person is hiring the service to take him somewhere, not hiring one particular car.
However, there is an important difference. When a donkey dies, it will not be used again, so its remaining value can be used toward completing the trip. If a donkey merely becomes sick, it cannot be sold, since it is meant to recover and return to its owner.
Similarly, when a car breaks down, the car is normally repaired, not sold. Therefore, regarding this halachah, it is treated more like hamor zeh, and the driver would not be responsible to provide another car to complete the trip. See Netivot HaMishpat 310:4.
Now the question is whether you must pay for the half of the trip that was completed.
Was Benefit Received?
Tosafot asks why the renter should have to pay for half of the trip if he received no benefit from it. Tosafot explains that the case is where the renter can still continue his trip, but it will cost him a little more than originally planned. Alternatively, perhaps he was transporting merchandise and could still sell it at the halfway point for a profit, although for less than he would have received at his final destination.
The Bet Yosef and the Rama (Hoshen Mishpat 310:2) bring this Tosafot. According to this, the renter only has to pay when he received some benefit from the first half of the trip.
In your case, you expected to pay $200 to get to JFK. You now have to pay another $200 just to complete the trip. Therefore, the first ride did not save you any money. According to the Rama, you would be patur from paying the first driver.
The Opinion of Maran
However, Maran in Shulhan Aruch (ibid.) simply rules that when the donkey dies halfway in a case of hamor zeh, the renter must pay for the portion of the trip that was completed. The Gra (310:9) understands that Maran follows the Rambam and disagrees with Tosafot. According to this understanding, the renter must pay for the portion of the trip that was completed even if he received no actual benefit.[1] According to the Gra’s understanding of Maran, you would therefore have to pay the first driver for the value of the first half of the trip.
What About Saving an Hour?
It is possible that even according to the Rama, you received a benefit and would need to pay. The first driver brought you halfway to JFK. If you were still in Lakewood, you would now be two hours away from the airport instead of only one hour away. When trying to catch a flight, that hour can be extremely valuable. However, there does not seem to be a clear source proving that this type of benefit is enough to require payment. Therefore, Bet Din could not extract money based on this argument alone.
Practical Halachah
The case seems to depend on a mahloket between Maran, and the Rama. According to the Rama, you could be patur because you received no financial benefit. According to Maran, you would be hayav to pay for the portion of the trip that was completed.
Normally, we do not say kim li against Maran. However, it is not completely clear that Maran actually intended to disagree with Tosafot. In Bet Yosef, Maran brings Tosafot without mentioning that the Rambam disagrees. Therefore, although the Gra understands Maran differently, it is difficult to say with certainty that Maran rules against Tosafot.
Practically, if you have not yet paid, you can say kim li like the Rama and remain patur, since it is not certain that this opinion is against Maran. However, if you already paid before the trip, the driver can say kim li like Maran according to the Gra and keep the value of the portion of the trip that he completed.[2]
[1] This is also the opinion of Rashi according to the Ritva.
[2] The value of half the trip is not necessarily exactly $100. Depending on the circumstances, the first and second halves of the trip may not have the same value.