Ask the Rav: 1) Borrowed fan stopped working; 2) Broke window of car during lift

1. Question: [Monday 24^th Tishreiy, 5781]

I borrowed a fan from a friend and it suddenly died while I was using it. I tried to fix it unsuccessfully although did manage to get it to partially turn and blow air? My friend is now asking me that I pay her for a new fan, as she does not want a broken fan returned to her. What is the Din?

Answer:

You are exempt from paying her for a new fan. However, for the sake of peace you may choose to reimburse her partially or fully, if you so choose.

The reason: As the fan died during its intended borrowed use, and no change of use was done with it, and therefore it is exempt under the clause of Meisa Machmas Melacha which exempts even a Shoel.

Sources: See Michaber C.M. 340:1; Tur 340; Rava Bava Metzia 96b; Bava Metzia 93a; Shavuos 49a; Maharash Halevi C.M. 55; Birkeiy Yosef 586:10; Halachos Ketanos 1:79; Shulchan Gavoa 586:8; Kaf Hachaim 586:25; Vedarashta Vechakarta C.M. 3:25; Asher Chanan 1:273

2. Question: [Tuesdy 24^th Tishreiy, 5781]

I was offered a lift by someone I know and as I got out of the van and closed the sliding door, the windowpane of the door shattered to tiny pieces. Am I obligated to pay for it or reimburse him for some of the expenses?

Answer:

You are exempt from paying for the window so long as you used average and acceptable force in closing the door. If you slammed it shut with extra force, then this would be considered negligence and a direct Mazik for which you would be liable. If you are unsure as to whether the amount of force used amounts to “extra force” then you and the owner should compromise on a sum that each will pay to replace the window with a window of similar quality and price. You can decide to split it 50/50 or 60/40, in accordance to the agreement of both of you. The above is the general law. If, however, your friend has any counter claim that was not listed in your description of events, then the two of you should go to a Dayan for arbitration.

The reason: As the window broke during its intended borrowed use, and no change of use was done with it, and therefore it is exempt under the clause of Meisa Machmas Melacha which exempts even a Shoel, and certainly here when its considered like a Sheila Bebalim. However, if he slammed it with extra force he would be liable, as he has the status of a Mazik.

Sources: See Michaber C.M. 340:1; Tur 340; Rava Bava Metzia 96b; Bava Metzia 93a; Shavuos 49a; Maharash Halevi C.M. 55; Birkeiy Yosef 586:10; Halachos Ketanos 1:79; Shulchan Gavoa 586:8; Kaf Hachaim 586:25; Vedarashta Vechakarta C.M. 3:25; Asher Chanan 1:273