3

Does the concept of "Zeh Nenah V'Zeh LoChoser"זה נהנה וזה לא חסר allow a person to go into another persons property and make use of it without the owners permission? For example are you allowed to park in someone's driveway knowing that he is not home without asking him for permission?

1
  • 2
    Even if the concept does apply, is זה נהנה וזה לא חסר permitted?
    – Double AA
    Aug 3 at 15:02
3

The Gemara Bava Kama 20A-20B discusses the Halacha and it is referring to a case of private property;

היכי דמי אילימא בחצר דלא קיימא לאגרא וגברא דלא עביד למיגר זה לא נהנה וזה לא חסר אלא בחצר דקיימא לאגרא וגברא דעביד למיגר זה נהנה וזה חסר

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this question? If we say that the case concerns a courtyard that does not stand to be rented out, i.e., if the squatter would not have lived there the owner would have kept it vacant, and the man squatting there is someone who would not have rented other living quarters because he has other lodgings available to him for free, then it is a case where this one, the squatter, does not derive benefit, and that one, the owner, does not suffer a loss; in that case certainly no payment is necessary. Rather, say that the discussion concerns a case of a courtyard that stands to be rented out, and the man squatting there would have rented other living quarters. If so, then this is a case where this one derives benefit and that one suffers a loss, and in that case he certainly must make payment. The dilemma was not with regard to either of these circumstances.

לא צריכא בחצר דלא קיימא לאגרא וגברא דעביד למיגר מאי מצי אמר ליה מאי חסרתיך או דלמא מצי אמר

The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary to raise the dilemma in the case of a courtyard that does not stand to be rented out, but the man squatting there would have rented other living quarters had he not squatted in this property. What is the halakha in this case? Is the squatter legally able to say to the owner of the courtyard: What loss have I caused you, as you would not have rented it out anyway? Or perhaps the owner of the courtyard is legally able to say to the squatter:

הא איתהנית

You have derived benefit from my property, as by living there you saved the money you otherwise would have had to pay in order to rent out a different courtyard, and therefore you must pay me for the benefit you derived.

In modern day shailos, this is common with regard to using a neighbors wireless internet service. See here for a full discussion on the topic, as it relates to your question as well.

Please note that the answer only relates to whether or not one would have to pay, not if it is allowed. Even if it is a grama, it would still not be "allowed" even though you might be patur.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .