Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/346

Paragraph 1- If one borrows and the owner was with the borrowers in his work at the time the borrower pulled the borrowed item, even if the item was stolen or misplaced due to negligence, he would be exempt, because the verse states, “if its owners are with him, he shall not pay.” It makes no difference whether the owner was with him in a loan, in that he loaned himself to work with him, or if he was with him in a rental, in that he hired himself out to him, and it makes no difference whether he was with him for the work of the borrower or another item. Even if the borrower told him to pour him water and he did so, and while he was pouring him he loaned out his cow, it would qualify as a loan with the owners. If the borrower first pulled and then poured him, however, it would not be considered a borrowing with the owners.

Paragraph 2- It makes no difference whether the borrowing of the owner came together with the borrowing of the cow or if the owner was already loaned or rented to the borrower and he then loaned him his cow, and the borrower would be exempt, even if the owner was not with him at the time the item broke or died. If the owner was not with him at the time of the loan and the borrower subsequently borrowed the owners or rented him, however, that does not qualify as borrowing with the owners, even if they were with him at the time the item broke or died.

Paragraph 3- If the owner lent out and agreed to be loaned to the borrower, even if he did not yet begin to work for the borrower at the time the cow was pulled, but he was preparing himself to go, that is considered being with the borrower in work. If he merely said he will be loaned to him but did not prepare himself to work for him, however, that would not be considered loaned with the owner.

Paragraph 4- If one loaned or rented out his animal to the borrower to load, and he went with the borrower to assist him and help load, that is considered borrowing with the owners, even he loaned himself out on his own. This is not like those who disagree. If the owner only went to see that the borrower did not add to the load, that would not be considered borrowing with the owners. Similarly, if the owner grabbed the reins, that is for the benefit of his animal and is not considered borrowing with the owners.

Paragraph 5- If one told another to guard for me and I will guard for you, or guard for me today and I will guard for you tomorrow, the law is discussed in Siman 305.

Paragraph 6- If one tells his agent to go be loaned out with his cow, that is not called borrowing with the owners, as the verse states “if the owners are with him,” which means the actual owners, and not an agent. There are those who disagree and say that an agent of a person is like the actual person. If one tells his gentile slave to go and be loaned out with his cow, that would be considered a loan with the owner because the hand of the slave is like the hand of his master. If the slave loaned himself out without the master’s knowledge, that would not be called loaned with the owners.

Paragraph 7- If one partner borrowed from another, that would be considered borrowing with the owners.

Paragraph 8- If one tells another to lend him today and he will lend him tomorrow, that is not considered borrowing with the owners.

Paragraph 9- If one borrowed a cow from a woman’s usufruct properties, and her husband was loaned to the borrower, or if a woman borrowed a cow for her usufruct properties and the owner of the cow was loaned to her husband, that would not be considered borrowing with the owners, because a kinyan on fruits does not qualify as a kinyan on the actual property.

Paragraph 10- If one borrowed a cow for bestiality purposes, to be seen with the cow or to do work valued at less than a perutah, or if he borrowed two cows to perform a perutah of work, the law is uncertain and we would not remove money from the borrower.

Paragraph 11- If one borrowed from two partners and one was loaned out to him, or if partners borrowed and the owner was loaned to one of them, it is uncertain whether that qualifies as borrowing with the owners or not. Thus, if the animal died, the borrower would not pay, but if the owner seized possession, we would not remove what he has seized. If he was negligent, there are those who say he would be liable while others say he would be exempt.

Paragraph 12- If a schoolteacher, one who plants trees for the local residents, a town blood-letter and a town-scribe and anyone similar, on a day he is sitting to do work, lends or rents out to anyone whom he is working for, that would be a watching with owner, and even if the watchman was negligent he would be exempt. If he borrowed or rented from them, however, he would be liable because they are not loaned to him. There are those who say that at any time where it is an appropriate time for such a person to work, even if he is not actually currently working, because he is unable to get out of doing that work at any time when they needed him, it is a considered a loan with the owners. Even if he would need to pay the worker, he is still compelled to work for them just like the cases of partners that hired a monthly or annual-worker, and at all times it is considered a loan with the owners to each one of them.

Paragraph 13- If a Rabbi was teaching his students and they need to learn with him regardless of which tractate he wants to teach, and even if they began one tractate he can switch to another, then they are considered loaned to him because they are working with him. If the Rabbi borrows from one of them, it is considered a loan with owners. If he needs to learn with them whatever they went, then he is loaned to them, even at a time when they are not learning, sine he needs to learn with them at any time they want. If the subject learned is dependent on both of them in that whatever tractate he starts, they must finish, and the Rabbi cannot change the tractate without the students’ consent, and the students cannot change without the Rabbi’s consent, then they are not loaned to each other at all. Before the festivals where the practice is that the Rabbi speaks about the laws of the festival, the Rabbi would be loaned to them. ''The same rule applies to the chazzan with his congregation. If the congregation is unable to terminate the relationship, they are considered loaned to him. If he cannot terminate the relationship with them, he is loaned to them.''

Paragraph 14- If one borrowed with the owners and rented without them, he would be exempt, because the rental is dependent on the loan. If he rented with the owners and then borrowed without them, however, or if he borrowed with the owners, then rented without them and subsequently borrowed without them, or if he rented with the owners, then borrowed without them and then rented without them, in all these cases it is uncertain whether it is considered a watching with the owners. There are those who say that if he rented with the owners and then borrowed without them it is considered a watching with the owners.

Paragraph 15- There are those who say that if one rented with the owners and then rented without them, the second one is considered with owners, just like the first one. If the first rental was without owners and the second was with the owners, however, the first one would not affect the second one to be considered without owners.

Paragraph 16- Even if a husband was negligent with his wife’s usufruct properties and the properties were misplaced, he would be exempt because she is with him in work.

Paragraph 17- If a women borrowed and subsequently married, the husband has the status of a buyer and not as a watchman. Thus, if the borrowed item was an animal and the animal died, the husband is exempt, even if he used it the entire loan period, and even if he was negligent, because he is like a purchaser. ''He would not, however, be exempt via a loan with the owners, but the item does not belong to his wife. It is a loan to her. Thus, if a thief deposited or loaned a stolen item, even if he was working for the borrower, the borrower would be liable for unavoidable accidents, because it is only a loan with the owners where the actual owner of the item is loaned out.'' The woman would be required to pay when she has money. See later 424:10. If she informed her husband that the item was a loan, he would take her place. This only applies where he used the item after she informed him or where he agreed to be the borrower.

Paragraph 18- If one purchased an animal for 30 days he is an unpaid watchman on it.

Paragraph 19- All the specifics of borrowing with the owners apply to all of the different forms of watchmen.