Mr. Isaacs ran a bris kit gemach, which included a pillow, two white outfits, cloth and disposable diapers, bandages, creams, etc. One evening, he received a call from Mr. Ross.
“Mazal Tov! We had a baby last week,” said Mr. Ross. “Can we borrow the bris kit for Wednesday morning?”
“With pleasure,” replied Mr. Isaacs. “Come by Tuesday evening. This way I know it’s back from the cleaners.”
“Is there a cost for usage?” asked Mr. Ross.
“We charge a token fee of $15,” answered Mr. Isaacs. “It’s mostly to cover expenses of dry cleaning and replenishing supplies.”
“That’s perfectly understandable,” said Mr. Ross.
On Tuesday, Mr. Ross picked up the bris kit. While driving home, he was stopped by armed thugs. They forced him out of the car and drove off with the bris kit inside.
Mr. Ross immediately alerted the police and reported the incident to his insurance company. Shaken, he made his way home. His wife organized the necessary items for the bris.
Just after the bris, the police notified Mr. Ross that the stolen car had been found. However, when Mr. Ross arrived, he saw that the bris kit was missing. He called Mr. Isaacs to apologize for its loss. “I feel really upset,” Mr. Ross said. “I was mugged last night and the bris kit was stolen from me. I’ll pay you for it.”
“That’s really unfortunate,” Mr. Isaacs replied, “but if you were mugged, you don’t have to pay for the bris kit. Armed robbery is considered in the category of oness, uncontrollable circumstances.” (C.M. 303:3)
“So what,” said Mr. Ross. “Since I borrowed the bris set, I’m a sho’el and responsible even for oness.” (C.M. 340:1)
“But you paid $15,” insisted Mr. Isaacs. “You are a renter, a socher, and exempt from oness.”
“But you said that the $15 was to cover expenses; that’s not called renting,” objected Mr. Ross. “I know other gemachs that charge $50 for the usage. That’s renting!”
“I’m not sure of that point,” said Mr. Isaacs. “Let’s discuss it with Rabbi Dayan.”
Mr. Isaacs called Rabbi Dayan and asked, “Does a small charge, mostly to cover expenses, make the person who uses the bris kit a socher?
“The Gemara [B.M. 94b] indicates that the reason a borrower is liable even for ones is because the benefit is entirely his and he does not pay for the usage,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “However, if the owner receives even a token payment, it is considered a rental, not a loan; the recipient is a socher, a renter, not a sho’el, a borrower. Some authorities maintain that even payment less than a perutah suffices, since it is no longer the borrower’s benefit alone, while others disagree. (See Ketzos Hachoshen 340:5; Minchas Chinuch 59[15] citing Shach.)
“What about a charge not for profit, just to cover expenses?” asked Mr. Isaacs.
“It seems that a payment that does not provide any profit, just to cover costs, is not considered a payment,” answered Rabbi Dayan. “We find that a person who borrows an animal is responsible to feed it. Yet, the Gemara teaches that this is not considered payment to render him a renter, since the animal is now serving the borrower and he feeds it like he feeds his other animals; the owner does not benefit from this. Thus, if the payment is just to cover direct expenses, the borrower would still be a sho’el and not a socher.” (See Ohr Sameach, Hil. She’eilah 1:1)
“This seems a chiddush!” remarked Mr. Isaacs. “Does anyone write so explicitly?”
“I haven’t seen so,” acknowledged Rabbi Dayan. “However, a converse halacha is ruled by the Tashbetz [3:261]. A shomer chinam, an unpaid guardian, of an animal who uses the animal to cover the expenditures of feeding it does not become a shomer sachar, a paid guardian, on account of this, since he has no net profit from guarding the animal. Similarly, a lender who receives payment only to cover his expenses should not become a renter, since he has no net gain from the loan.”