I asked my neighbor if I could borrow his car for a couple of weeks while he would be out of town. He gladly agreed but stipulated that I pick him up from the airport when he returns and that I make sure to park on the correct side of the street when alternate side parking is in force. A tree fell on the car the day before his return and I was not able to pick him up from the airport.

Q: Am I categorized as a shoel (borrower) who is liable for the damage to the car even though an oness (circumstance beyond one’s control) occurred, or am I categorized as a socher (lessee) who is exempt from an oness? Additionally, am I obligated to reimburse him for the cost of the ride back home from the airport since I agreed to drive him home and was unable to do so?

A: The definition of a shoel is kol hahanaah shelo, meaning that the borrower has all of the benefit from the relationship and the owner receives nothing. When the owner receives any form of benefit from this relationship, he is categorized as a socher rather than a shoel and is exempt from liability when an oness occurs.

Accordingly it would seem that when the borrower is responsible to park on the correct side of the street to avoid getting a ticket, the owner thereby benefits from the relationship and the borrower is categorized as a socher. This, however, is not true since the Gemara (B.M. 94b) writes that a borrower who feeds and guards the borrowed animal remains a shoel. The critical factor is whether the benefit provided is payment for using the object. A borrower uses the object free of charge. Feeding and guarding the borrowed animal is maintenance of the animal rather than compensation for its use (Machaneh Ephraim, she’eilah 3).

Alternatively, the reason feeding the animal is not considered a payment is that while the borrower has possession of the animal he is considered its owner (see Rashi, Sanhedrin 72a, d.h. “aval”). For that duration of time it is as if he is feeding and guarding his own animal rather than the owner’s animal, and thus remains a shoel who is liable for oness (Ohr Same’ach, she’eilah 1:1).

There is no doubt that the owner’s other stipulation that you pick him up from the airport is considered an additional benefit, and once he is set to receive that additional benefit, your position changes from a shoel to a socher who is exempt from oness.

Moreover, it is logical that you are not obligated to reimburse the owner the cost of the ride home from the airport since the simple understanding of that commitment is that you would drive his car to the airport to pick him up. It was not a commitment to assure the owner that he would have a ride home. Therefore, once the oness occurred that prevented you from picking him up, you have no halachic obligation to make arrangements or pay for another means of transportation from the airport to his home.