Consequential Limitations
‘Seeds That Did Not Sprout’
(Bava Basra 92a)
The Rosh (Responsa, Kelal 104:6) and Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 333:8) rule that if a person orders a workman to make something for him and, on its completion, refuses to take it, he must pay for it if the workman stands to suffer a loss. Although no kinyan was made, the situation is no different from any other instance where damage has been caused and one is normally responsible for any damage that he has caused.
Demanding Expenses
Rabbi Akiva Eiger, zt”l (Responsa Rabbi Akiva Eiger, 1st ed., 134), in light of our Mishna, notes the following inconsistency in the Rosh’s ruling. The Mishna on our daf states that if a person bought fruit [that bear seeds], plowed and fertilized his land, and planted them with no results, he can’t demand his expenses from the seller.
Now according to the Rosh that we just cited (and the Shulchan Aruch), since the seeds were defective, the seller caused the buyer the loss of all that work, so why should the seller not have to pay for it?
On the other hand, according to the Mishna’s statement, why should the person who ordered something from a workman be required to pay?
In reply, he contends that the person who sold the seeds ended the transaction right there. Did he instruct the buyer to sow them? The buyer did all that work for his own benefit, on his own initiative. However, in the instance where one requests that an object be made for him, he causes the other to work for him and must therefore compensate the worker if he changes his mind.
Important to note is Rashi’s (sv. “hamocher peyros”) reading of the Mishna: The seller sold them [the fruit] without making any claims about whether they are [fit] for planting or eating.
Broken Engagements
The Rishonim disagree as to whether a chasan who breaks a shidduch is required to pay for the engagement party that was already paid for by the kallah’s family. According to the Rambam, he must pay, but not according to Raavad (Hilchos Zechiyah U’matanah 6:24). The difference of opinion depends on how we interpret our sugya, as canceling a shidduch resembles, in a sense, the sale of seeds; on the other hand, it is also like ordering an object. A young man who agrees to a shidduch normally assumes that there will be an engagement party, as such events are de rigueur. Nevertheless, he did not order it, just as the seller did not instruct the buyer to plant the seeds. Consequently, Raavad reasons that we can not make him pay for the party (see Magid Mishna, ibid; Erech Shai, Even Haezer 50, siman katan 9; Machaneh Efrayim on the Rambam, ibid; Chelkas Mechokek, 50:10; and Tiv Kiddushin, 50:11).
An Extravagant Banquet
In any case, even the Rambam and the poskim agree that if the kallah’s parents held a party more extravagant than customary in either the chasan’s or the kallah’s neighborhood, we cannot make him pay more than the price of an ordinary meal. Even consequences have limitations (Radbaz, I, 329; Tashbetz, II, 166; Responsa Maharash Engel, V, 153).
