Skip to main content

Thought for the Day: Opportunity Costs in Desperate Situations

We are having so much fun with opportunity costs, so let's try another one. Recall (TftD: Opportunity Costs) we had a case where Sam can save something of Ned's, but Sam will have to sacrifice something of his own that is less valuable than Ned's. (Sam is ready to save something of Ned's, that is nebbich, at risk. Pretty clever choice of names, no?) Recall that as long as Sam announces his intentions and Ned accepts the cost, then Sam can recoup his costs/losses to save Ned's stuff.

The gemara (Bava Kamma 116a/b) continues the discussion by asking: But what if Sam flubs the job (my free translation), can Sam still recoup his costs? The gemara absolutely adores this question. After all, Sam did make an investment in his efforts to save Ned's stuff. And Ned did accept. Is it Sam's fault that he failed? The gemara, after praising the question, answers: Sam failed to deliver the goods, so he gets only his labor costs (time spent trying to save Ned's stuff), but not his losses. Poor Sam.

The gemara, though, is taken aback: Really? But we have another case where someone failed to deliver, and yet received full payment! Namely, Harry is sent to get some medicinal herbs (again, not the clever choice of names), for the quite ill Igor. When Harry returns, though, he finds that Igor has either expired or had a miraculous recovery. In any case, the medicinal herbs are no longer needed. Yet, in this case Harry receives full payment for his services. The gemara answers that the cases are not comparable: Sam did not accomplish that task he accepted, while Harry did.

Yeah... so... that answer is so obvious that I was wondering why the gemara even thought to bring it up. ArtScroll did not offer any insight (sometimes they do, sometimes not, in cases like this). In desperation, I glanced at Tosafos. Ah!

Recall (or review), there are times when one is desperate, then he can offer an outlandish fee for a service that could save his life, but when it comes time to pay up -- once he is safe -- he can say, "I was joking. You had no right to expect/demand such a high fee; I'll pay your regular fee and that is it." Tosafos says that was the intention of the gemara here. I could have thought that since I needed the herbs for someone deathly ill, that I could say, "I was joking; I'll just pay your regular fee." This gemara comes to say; Nope, not in this case.

So why is this case different from the ferrier, who gets only his regular fee? Tosafos says that Harry had other things he could have been doing with his time (opportunity costs strike again!), and so he must be paid in full. The implication is that the ferrier would be running this service anyway, so is not suffering any opportunity costs by ferrying Ralph -- who is running for his life -- across the river.

Opportunity costs is my new favorite expression!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Thought for the Day: Pizza, Uncrustables, and Stuff -- What Bracha?

Many years ago (in fact, more than two decades ago), I called R' Fuerst from my desk at work as I sat down to lunch.  I had a piece of (quite delicious) homemade pizza for lunch.  I nearly always eat at my desk as I am working (or writing TftD...), so my lunch at work cannot in any way be considered as sitting down to a formal meal; aka קביעת סעודה.  That being the case, I wasn't sure whether to wash, say ha'motzi, and bentch; or was the pizza downgraded to a m'zonos.  He told if it was a snack, then it's m'zonos; if a meal the ha'motzi.  Which what I have always done since then.  I recently found out how/why that works. The Shulchan Aruch, 168:17 discusses פשטיד''א, which is describes as a baked dough with meat or fish or cheese.  In other words: pizza.  Note: while the dough doesn't not need to be baked together with the meat/fish/cheese, it is  required that they dough was baked with the intention of making this concoction. ...

Thought for the Day: What Category of Muktzeh are Our Candles?

As discussed in a recent TftD , a p'sak halacha quite surprising to many, that one may -- even לכתחילה -- decorate a birthday cake with (unlit, obviously) birthday candles on Shabbos. That p'sak is predicated on another p'sak halacha; namely, that our candles are muktzeh because they are a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור and not  מוקצה מחמת גופו/intrinsically set aside from any use on Shabbos. They point there was that using the candle as a decoration qualifies as a need that allows one to utilize a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור. Today we will discuss the issue of concluding that our candles are , in fact, a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור and not מוקצה מחמת גופו. Along the way we'll also (again) how important it is to have personal relationship with your rav/posek, the importance of precision in vocabulary, and how to interpret the Mishna Brura.  Buckle up. After reviewing siman 308 and the Mishna Brura there, I concluded that it should be permissible to use birthday candles to decorate a cake on Sha...

Thought for the Day: Why Halacha Has "b'di'avad"

There was this Jew who knew every "b'di'avad" (aka, "Biddy Eved", the old spinster librarian) in the book.  When ever he was called on something, his reply was invariably, "biddy eved, it's fine".  When he finally left this world and was welcomed to Olam Haba, he was shown to a little, damp closet with a bare 40W bulb hanging from the ceiling.  He couldn't believe his eyes and said in astonishment, "This is Olam Haba!?!"  "Yes, Reb Biddy Eved,  for you this is Olam Haba." b'di'avad gets used like that; f you don't feel like doing something the best way, do it the next (or less) best way.  But Chazal tell us that "kol ha'omer HaShem vatran, m'vater al chayav" -- anyone who thinks HaShem gives partial credit is fooling himself to death (free translation.  Ok, really, really free translation; but its still true).  HaShem created us and this entire reality for one and only one purpose: for use...