Question
I borrowed a fan from my roommate during a hot day, and while I was using it normally, it suddenly stopped working. I even tried to fix it and managed to get it to spin a bit, but it’s clearly not functioning properly anymore.
Now my friend says she doesn’t want the damaged fan back and is asking me to pay for a brand‑new one. I feel terrible—but am I really responsible to replace it, even though it broke during regular use?
Answer
You are halachically exempt from paying for a replacement fan. However, for the sake of maintaining goodwill and shalom, it is commendable to consider offering partial reimbursement if you are able.
Explanation:
In order to properly understand this case, we must begin with a general principle in Halacha regarding responsibility for another person’s property. Whenever someone takes possession of someone else’s item, there are varying levels of liability depending on the nature of that arrangement. There are four primary categories:
- A Shomer Chinam (unpaid custodian), who is only liable for negligence
- A Shomer Sachar (paid custodian), who is also liable for theft and loss
- A Socher (renter), who has similar (though slightly nuanced) responsibilities
- And finally, a Shoel (borrower), who carries the highest level of liability
A borrower is considered the most responsible because he receives full benefit from the item without paying for it. As a result, Halacha places upon him nearly absolute liability—even if the item becomes damaged or destroyed through circumstances beyond his control (ones), he is generally still obligated to pay. However, despite this very high level of responsibility, there is one fundamental and well‑established exception:
Meisa machmas melacha—when the item breaks, dies, or ceases functioning in the midst of its normal, intended use.
If an item fails specifically during proper use, with no misuse or deviation, then the borrower is exempt, even though he would otherwise be fully liable. The rationale is that the damage is attributed not to the borrower, but to the inherent limitations, wear, or defect within the item itself.
Now, applying this to the case of the borrowed fan: Electrical appliances can suddenly stop functioning for many reasons that have nothing to do with how they are being used. For example, a fan may stop working due to:
- Motor burnout from internal wear
- Electrical failure or a short circuit
- Preexisting defects or aging components
- Overheating within normal operational limits
All of these can occur even when the item is being used exactly as intended.
In this scenario, since the fan “died” while being used normally—without any unusual handling or misuse—it is halachically classified as meisa machmas melacha. Therefore, despite the general rule that a borrower is fully liable, this case falls under the exception, and the borrower is exempt from payment.
Nevertheless, while there is no formal obligation to pay, Chazal emphasize the importance of maintaining peace and goodwill. For this reason, it may be proper, when possible, to offer some level of compensation as a gesture of fairness and to preserve the relationship.
Sources:
See Michaber C.M. 340:1 “One who borrows from his fellow an animal or movable item, and it becomes subject to an unavoidable accident while in his possession—such as it dies, breaks, or is captured—is liable. (Rama: This applies specifically when the unavoidable accident occurred due to the borrower. However, if the incident occurred due to the owner, the borrower is exempt.) It goes without saying that the borrower is liable for theft or loss. However, any damage that occurs as a result of the work for which the item was borrowed—if it weakened due to the work, the borrower is exempt. Not only that, but even if it died due to the work, he is exempt, provided that he did not change its intended use. If, however, he changed and used it for a different type of work than what it was borrowed for—even if that work is lighter—we attribute the damage to that change, and he is liable. Even within the same type of work, there can be considered a change. For example, if he borrowed it for plowing and used it to plow both day and night, which is not the normal practice, this too is considered a deviation.”; 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
See regarding the general laws of a custodian-Shomer and when he is held liable: Michaber C.M. Chapters 291-347; Mishenh Bava Metzia 93a