8

I was eating in a restaurant with my friend, who ordered an "all-you-can-eat" menu item (so he could take as much food as he wants) and gave me some of the food to taste. I ate about a plateful. Normally, the "all-you-can-eat" option is only for the person who actually pays. Did I steal, and do I have to go back and pay the value of what I ate?

MTL
  • 19,073
  • 4
  • 51
  • 161
haim
  • 81
  • 1
  • Did you also order something? – Clint Eastwood Jun 30 '14 at 14:23
  • 1
    Why not ask the restauranter? – Double AA Jun 30 '14 at 14:26
  • 4
    Because the restaurateur has a financial bias. We internet people do not care one way or another. – Clint Eastwood Jun 30 '14 at 14:27
  • 7
    Or, in the other direction, the restauranter might wave it off but you might still be liable per halacha. – Monica Cellio Jun 30 '14 at 15:05
  • Seems like the answer should depend on the restaurants intention with the policy, and if you can't ask the restaurant then... – Y     e     z Jun 30 '14 at 18:06
  • 1
    As always, CYLOR – MTL Jun 30 '14 at 18:33
  • 1
    Many buffet "all you can eat" restaurants have a policy of not sharing from your plate. In other words, you can take as much as you want, but only you can eat it. – Dennis Jun 30 '14 at 19:02
  • After you ate, did your friend go back and get more food? If he did not and took the food on the last plate for himself and shared it with you, he did not take anything extra from the restaurant. If however he took food for you, or because you ate, he took extra food for himself afterwards, his sharing with you caused a loss to the restaurant owner and is problematic – Yoni Jul 01 '14 at 14:35
  • Q - How are these rules any different than if I ordered an entree which has a fixed portion and I decide to share what I have with my wife? Am I giving my wife a "present" in this case? I think in the all-you-can eat buffet, it depends on the initial "kavanah". If the payer fills his plate and then decides that his friend can have the left-over b/c he took too much, I think that's fine. But, if the payer intentionally fills a plate to give to his friend, I think that's a problem. – DanF Jul 01 '14 at 14:45
  • @MonicaCellio The owner of the restaurant would have the halachic ability to forgive the liability, though he might have to forgive the liability explicitly. – Fred Jul 02 '14 at 23:12
  • @Fred halachically, does the owner of the restaurant negate the (possible) transgression, or does he say he requires no compensation for it? Those are different, even if they produce the same outcome. – Monica Cellio Jul 02 '14 at 23:43
  • @MonicaCellio I believe it is the latter, as presumptive forgiveness appears to be the basis for why there is no obligation to return a theft valued at less than a p'ruta (Sanhedrin 57a, and Rashi s.v. צערא בשעתא; Chinuch §130, or §125 in some versions). See also Shita M'kubetzes, who affirms an owner's right to absolve thieves (Bava Kama 111b, "ולמאן דמחיל מחיל למאן דלא מחיל לא מחיל"). – Fred Jul 03 '14 at 00:52
  • @MonicaCellio However, this mechanism of theft forgiveness might only work if the restaurant owner is Jewish. – Fred Jul 03 '14 at 00:55
  • Possibly related (depending on the situation): http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/31161/ and http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/36082/ – Fred Jul 03 '14 at 02:16

2 Answers2

4

The only analogue I can think of offhand (not that I know vast areas of Torah) — that is, where someone has contracted for an unlimited amount of a product within a finite amount of time — is the right of a foodworker to eat from the food he's working with: see Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 337. Paragraph 18 there says he may not give of the food to others, and the S'ma (38) clarifies that it's considered theft and that he's required to pay for the amount stolen. (He does not say the recipient is required to, which would be the analogue to your question.)

Of course, the analogy is imperfect[1], but it's pretty close, I think. As always, consult your rabbi with any practical questions.

[1] For one thing, an all-you-can-eat bar is usually literally all you can eat (or as much as is in stock), whereas a worker is not allowed to engage in achila gasa, excessive consumption. Also, you're paying for the right to eat, whereas the worker is guaranteed that right by the Torah. But I don't see why either of these distinctions should make a difference.

msh210
  • 73,729
  • 12
  • 120
  • 359
-1

For some reason, I recalled this question a few days ago. (Perhaps, because I was hungry! I rarely eat out, and at home, my wife and I constantly share our plates and palates!)

Here's the answer I got from dinonline.org:

If when your friend took the food he was intending for himself alone to eat, it is permitted for you to taste from his plate.

It would not be permitted for him to take initially with intention of giving to others.

This assumes that there are no clear in-house relating to this matter.

DanF
  • 70,416
  • 8
  • 59
  • 244
  • 2
    Does dinonline ever cite their sources? ....I recall you've cited answers from them several times, and I never get any "further reading" out of their answers :( – MTL Dec 30 '14 at 18:08
  • 1
    The question on dinonline.org specifies that the non-payer got food "to taste", which implies (to me) that he was sampling it e.g. to know whether to buy it, something many stores like potential customers to do. The question here, otoh, specifies that the non-payer "ate about a plateful": it's a different question, I think, and they may have answered it differently. −1. – msh210 Dec 30 '14 at 18:14