Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/340

Paragraph 1- If one borrows an animal or movable items and an unavoidable accident occurred while in his possession, such as where the item died, broke or was captured, he would be liable. This is only where the accident occurred because of the borrower. If the accident occurred because of the owner, however, the borrower would be exempt. Thus, if one has collateral with a gentile and he lent it another so that he could borrow additional money on it, and the collateral was burnt, the borrower would be exempt because it would have been burnt either way because of the owner. It goes without saying that a borrower is liable if the item was stolen or lost. With respect to something that happens because of the work the borrower borrowed it for, however, then not only would he be exempt in a case where the animal was weakened because of the work, but even if the animal died because of the work, the borrower would be exempt. This assumes the borrower did not deviate to do something with the item outside the work he borrowed it for, because if he did deviate and performed work outside the use he borrowed it for, even if it was lighter work, we would attribute its death to that work. Even with the work he borrowed it for it is possible to deviate, such as where he borrowed to plow and he plowed by day and night, which nobody does.

Paragraph 2- If the meat weakened on its own but will ultimately come back, the borrower is exempt. If the animal weakened on its own and subsequently died, which he is liable for, however, because the animal is no longer in existence, he must pay the value of what it was when he borrowed.

Paragraph 3- If one borrows an animal from another to travel on a known path and bandits or a wild animal attacked him on that path and took the animal from him, that is considered dying because of its work. There are those who disagree and hold that this is not considered dying because of its work because such an accident could have occurred without travelling on the road. If one lends a cat to chase mice, however, and the mice ate the cat, that would be considered death because of its work because the accident occurred because of its work. The same applies to anything similar. If an animal became tired because of its work and overheated and later died, or it stumbled on the road and it fell and died, it is considered death because of its work. This is only where the borrower sensed it became tired while working. If he did not sense it immediately, however, the borrower cannot swear it died because of its work, because it may have died regardless.

Paragraph 4- One who borrows an animal is required to feed it from the time he pulled it until the end of the borrowing period. There are those who say pulling is not required, and the obligation begins as soon the owner is removed. If the flesh of the animal weakened to a state where it will not get better, the borrower is required to pay the decrease in value. If it weakened because of its work, he would be exempt. He would take a guardian-oath that it weakened because of its work.

Paragraph 5- If one borrows a cow from another, and the owner sent it with his son, agent or slave, or even if he sent it with the borrower’s son, slave or agent, and the animal died before it entered the borrower’s possession, the borrower would be exempt. If the borrower said to send it with his son, slave or agent or with the owner’s son, Jewish slave or agent, or if the owner said he is sending it with the borrower’s son, slave or agent or his own son, slave or agent, and the borrower responded that he should send it, and the owner did so and the animal died on the way, the borrower would be liable.

Paragraph 6- If the owner sent the item with his gentile-slave, and the item died on the way, the borrower would be exempt, even if the borrower told the owner to send with him, because the slave’s hand is like his master’s and the item has not yet left the owner’s possession.

Paragraph 7- If the borrower told the owner to hit the animal with a stick and it will come on its own, and the owner did so, the borrower would not be liable to enter his possession.

Paragraph 8- Similarly, when the borrower returns the item to the owner, if he sent it with someone else and the animal dies before it enters the owner’s possession, the borrower would be liable because the animal is still the borrower’s responsibility. There are those who say the same is true if the item was returned to the owner’s wife and an accident occurred, and the borrower would be liable. See above 291:21. If the borrower said it with someone else with the owner’s knowledge and the animal died, he would be exempt. If the borrower sent it with his gentile-slave, even if the owner told him to send it, if the animal died he would be liable because the hand of a slave is like the hand of his master and the item has not yet left the borrower’s possession. When is this true? Where the borrower returned it during the borrowing period. If he returned after the borrowing period had concluded, however, the item would no longer be considered borrowed and the borrower has the status of a paid watchman. The same is true if the item was still in the borrower’s possession. Once the days of borrowing have passed, he leaves the status of a borrower and becomes like a paid watchman. If the owner told him to send it, but the owner died before he sent it, he should not sent it because the item now falls to the orphans and if he sends it it is unclear whether he is responsible.