[Avodah] Halachic who is right from "The Lost Scotch"

[Chana Luntz]

RMK writes:

> This is exactly comparable to the case in the Gemara - I 
> hired poalim to irrigate my field, and then it rained or the 
> river irrigated the fields for me.  The poalim certainly 
> could have, if they were bored, carried water to my field 
> from the well, but it would have served no benefit. 

Actually, the si'if in the Shulchan Aruch cited by RMSS as being given
by the book (CM siman 334 si'if 1) is a case where the river stopped (ie
the worker was unable to water the field because there was suddenly no
water in the river to do it).  Interestingly, the case that you bring
here, ie where the river watered the field by itself is to be found in
si'if 2, and in that case indeed the baal habayis does have to pay
(although if the rain came and watered the field by itself, in general
he does not).  What is the difference?  The Sefer Merit Enayim explains
there that in the case of the river stopping flowing, this is something
that the people of that town are likely to know about just as much as
the baal habayis, as it will affect the whole town.  The same with rain.
However, in the case of the river breaking its banks and watering the
field, that requires a detailed knowledge of the location of the field,
something you would expect the baal habayis to have over and above the
poel. (Note that there are potential wrinkles with regard to this if the
workers inspected the field before agreeing to take on the work).  So
the key is, the extent to which the baal habayis and the workers are
genuinely on the same level of knowledge.  If the baal habayis has a
slight knowledge advantage, even if only slight (he did not know the
river would break its banks either) then it would seem he does indeed
have to pay.

Regards

Chana