Über Everywhere
Case:
DP and Noam split the cost of an Uber to the annual KYHS Purim chagigah. After a beautiful ceremony that involved a perfect reading of Megilat Esther, along with some hardcore dancing with Rabbi Grajower, DP decided that he was pooped and needed to stay in Boca at Etan Winograd's house. Upon hearing this, Noam realized that he now had no one to split the Uber with, because he had an agreement with DP to divide the money both ways. Noam realized that he now needed a new ride home, so he asked Tus. Yosef agreed, but he said he would only do it if he paid more than what he would have spent if the Uber was split with DP. Noam was upset because Yosef usually doesn't charge for rides, and now he was being taken advantage of. Does Noam have to pay, and if so, should DP chip in to help?
Analysis:
It is a Machloket on whether Noam has to pay for the ride. The argument can be made that since Noam was going to pay for an Uber, Yosef can charge him. Or the argument can be made that since a friend is different than a taxi service, Yosef does not have a right to charge Noam because Noam usually would not pay Yosef for a ride home. This situation has to be dealt with in 2 categories: between Yosef and Noam, and between Noam and DP. Between Yosef and Noam, Yosef is not losing, since he is driving home anyways and Noam is not benefitting since although he is getting a ride home, he is being charged more than an Uber. Between DP and Noam, Noam is losing since he now has to pay more for a ride home than he would've if DP had split the Uber with him, while DP is benefiting since he no longer has to pay for his half of the Uber. If you think that a friend is different from a taxi service, then Noam wouldn't usually pay a friend for a ride, so he is not obligated to pay Yosef. However, if you think that a ride with a friend is the same as a taxi, then Noam would usually pay for a ride and the conclusion is unclear. Rami Bar Chama says that you have to pay for Ze Nehene ViZe Lo Chaser, because you must always pay for what you benefit. The Gemarah says that this concept doesn't apply since there was loss in the case that Rami Bar Chama brought his proof from. While this is true, Rami Bar Chama believes that an object left in the middle of the street is ownerless, and therefore there is no loss. That’s why, in his mind, that case is good proof for Ze Nehene ViZe Lo Chaser. Similarly, if Yosef regularly made people pay for rides home, there is no clear answer either. Tosfot says that Noam wouldn't have to pay because he would be indirectly benefitting (Grama) from the ride home (not financially benefiting) and therefore aren't obligated to pay. Even if Noam were to purposely get a ride home knowing that Yosef usually charges, he still wouldn't have to pay according to Tosfot, because it is still indirect benefit since Noam wouldn't usually pay a friend for a ride home. In this case, however, the Rif says that you must always pay for loss and, since Yosef would usually charge, Noam would have to pay him to make sure Yosef didn't lose.