The Torah includes a borrower as a kind of guardian. That is, the borrower accepts a certain level of responsibility to protect the object, including damage or loss that was beyond his control to prevent. There is, however, one gaping loophole in that responsibility: if it broke/died in normal use. In that case the borrower is off the hook completely. After all, he borrowed it to use and the lender lent him the object for normal use. I stress the phrase "normal use", because there are subtleties hidden there.
The rishonim give two different explanations of why the borrower should be exempt from paying in the case of damage not due to negligence that occurred during normal use. The one that rings a bit more straightforward to my 20th century, mechanistic world ears is simply that physical stuff wears out with use. That's just the way the world works. Therefore, when the lender lent the object for normal use, he was implicitly accepting that is might break. It is certainly going to break sometime, so the time during which the borrower is using it might be the time when the object break. Que será, será.
The other explanation is more "spiritual", if you will. Throughout the gemara's discussion of who is responsible for damage that is not due to negligence, a recurring theme is who's mazal the damage is due to. True, que será, será; but mazal is considered a very real component of that será. A discussion of that concept was the subject of a recent TftD. According to this explanation, the lender is a partner with the borrower. Both of their mazal plays into root cause of the damage. In a case of borrowing, the borrower is completely off the hook when the lender is partnered with him in the activity.
Nice, but what difference does it make? There are two situations where it makes a difference. One, when the borrower uses the object differently -- though still normal use -- than was agreed with the lender. Second, when the damage is from an external source.
Consider the following two scenarios that both begin the same way and have a similar unfortunate ending. Reuvein, who lives in Queens, wants to go to a chasuna in Toronto. Shimon is not using his car and happily lends his car to drive to and back from the chasuna. Scenario I is that while Reuvein is driving through the mountains, a huge boulder breaks off and lands on the hood of Shimon's car. Baruch HaShem, Reuvein is unscathed (physically, anyway, though he is still shaking with PTSD). Shimon's car, though, is a total loss. Scenario II is that Reuvein decides to instead go to a chasuna in Williamsburg (Brooklyn, that is; not Virginia). On the way there, Shimon's car overheats badly and the engine is ruined. There was nothing Reuvein could have or should have done differently, the warning light malfunctioned, so the overheating and subsequent damage was beyond his control.
So, according to the mechanistic explanation, the first scenario never entered the mind of the lender. He accepted that his car might break down, not that it get crushed by a boulder. Therefore, Reuvein would be on the hook to pay for that damage. In the second scenario, though: if the car overheated in the sub-hour trip to Williamsburg, it surely would have overheated on the nine hour trip to Toronto. Shimon will have to deal with his insurance company.
According to the mazal explanation, though, in the first scenario Reuvein is using the car according to their agreement. The event that caused the damage may be totally unexpected, but that's the halacha -- when borrower and lender are partners in the use, the borrow is exempt from payment for any damage not due to negligence. In the second scenario, though, Reuvein did something other than their agreement; effectively dissolving the partnership. Reuvein will have to pay.
The rishonim give two different explanations of why the borrower should be exempt from paying in the case of damage not due to negligence that occurred during normal use. The one that rings a bit more straightforward to my 20th century, mechanistic world ears is simply that physical stuff wears out with use. That's just the way the world works. Therefore, when the lender lent the object for normal use, he was implicitly accepting that is might break. It is certainly going to break sometime, so the time during which the borrower is using it might be the time when the object break. Que será, será.
The other explanation is more "spiritual", if you will. Throughout the gemara's discussion of who is responsible for damage that is not due to negligence, a recurring theme is who's mazal the damage is due to. True, que será, será; but mazal is considered a very real component of that será. A discussion of that concept was the subject of a recent TftD. According to this explanation, the lender is a partner with the borrower. Both of their mazal plays into root cause of the damage. In a case of borrowing, the borrower is completely off the hook when the lender is partnered with him in the activity.
Nice, but what difference does it make? There are two situations where it makes a difference. One, when the borrower uses the object differently -- though still normal use -- than was agreed with the lender. Second, when the damage is from an external source.
Consider the following two scenarios that both begin the same way and have a similar unfortunate ending. Reuvein, who lives in Queens, wants to go to a chasuna in Toronto. Shimon is not using his car and happily lends his car to drive to and back from the chasuna. Scenario I is that while Reuvein is driving through the mountains, a huge boulder breaks off and lands on the hood of Shimon's car. Baruch HaShem, Reuvein is unscathed (physically, anyway, though he is still shaking with PTSD). Shimon's car, though, is a total loss. Scenario II is that Reuvein decides to instead go to a chasuna in Williamsburg (Brooklyn, that is; not Virginia). On the way there, Shimon's car overheats badly and the engine is ruined. There was nothing Reuvein could have or should have done differently, the warning light malfunctioned, so the overheating and subsequent damage was beyond his control.
So, according to the mechanistic explanation, the first scenario never entered the mind of the lender. He accepted that his car might break down, not that it get crushed by a boulder. Therefore, Reuvein would be on the hook to pay for that damage. In the second scenario, though: if the car overheated in the sub-hour trip to Williamsburg, it surely would have overheated on the nine hour trip to Toronto. Shimon will have to deal with his insurance company.
According to the mazal explanation, though, in the first scenario Reuvein is using the car according to their agreement. The event that caused the damage may be totally unexpected, but that's the halacha -- when borrower and lender are partners in the use, the borrow is exempt from payment for any damage not due to negligence. In the second scenario, though, Reuvein did something other than their agreement; effectively dissolving the partnership. Reuvein will have to pay.
Comments