Why isn't Kofin Al Midos Sedom counterbalanced by:
1. HAkoras HAtov. (In these weeks parashiyos we see that even inanimate objects; such as sand and water; deserve compensation). Wouldn't the same apply more so to a human being?!
Now in regarding the compenstaion given to dogs, we see that saying "Nice doggy" and giving them a pat on the head is not enough. And if we throw treif meat to dogs in recognition of their mere silence in Mitzrayim; shouldn't we toss some coins to the (silent)owner of the house we live in?
2. Soneh Matonos Yichyeh.
If this man is not a freeloader, because we're talking about a person who usually pays rent; then let this maxim obligate him to pay rent now as well. Forget about what the other person's obligation is; look at his side of things.
Thank you for the time that you take to consider all my musings.
alex lebovits, Toronto, canada
Sholom u'Verachah.
1. Of course Hakaras ha'Tov applies to a human being! Only neither can its performance be enforced by Beis Din, nor is the manner of its application fixed.
Consequently, although Midas Sdom is basically mandatory, Hakaras ha'Tov is not (i.e. it is a 'Davar ha'Masur l'Libo Shel Adam' [a private matter between himself and Hash-m]). And whether the recipient decides to show his appreciation by sending the owner a box of chocolates, by some other act of Chesed or even by displaying it verbally, is his business. Should he therefore fail to display Hakaras ha'Tov for the favor, he is answerable to Hash-m only, and not to Beis Din.
Incidentally, saying 'Nice doggy' or patting a dog on its head would not suffice in the case that you cite, seeing as they are not the same dogs that were silent in Egypt. So the only way Hash-m could teach us the lesson of Hakaras ha'Tov (even to non-humans) was by fixing something that would apply to all dogs at all times.
2. Similar to what I wrote in the previous answer, 'Sonei Matanos Yichyeh' is not mandatory, and no Beis Din can enforce it. It is a Midah, which reaps great benefits for those who adhere to it, but is not enforceable by Beis Din.
In any event, I don't think that this falls into the category of 'Matanah', seeing as nobody actually gave the tenant anything. It rather falls under the heading of 'Heter Hishtamshus' (the right to use the object in question), to which 'Sonei Matamonos Yichyeh' probably does not apply.
Be'Virchas Kol Tuv
Eliezer Chrysler