Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/310

Paragraph 1- If one rents an animal and it got sick but is still capable of working or went insane or was taken to work for the king, even if the animal will not ultimately be returned, and it was taken while walking, the owner can tell the renter the animal is there in front of you and the renter must pay the full amount. When is this true? Where the renter rented to carry a load that can be thrown without concern. If he rented to ride on it or to carry glass vessels or something similar, however, the owner is required to provide him another animal. If he does not provide another animal, the owner would return the payment and calculate with the renter the amount owned based on how long it walked. If the animal died or broke, regardless of whether he rented to load or ride, and the owner said simply he is renting him a donkey, he is required to provide another donkey. If the owner did not replace the donkey, the renter can sell the animal and purchase another animal. If there is not enough money to purchase an animal, he would rent another animal until he arrives at the place until he arrives that the agreed-on destination.

Paragraph 2- If the owner said he is renting him this donkey to ride on or for glasses, and the animal died halfway and there is enough money to purchase another animal, he should do so. If there is not enough money to purchase, he can even use the entire amount to rent an animal until he arrives at the agreed-on destination. If there is not enough money to purchase or to rent, the renter would pay the cost for half the way and he only have complaints against the owner. If he rented for a load, because the owner said “this donkey,” and the animal died halfway, the owner is not required to replace another animal. Rather, he gives him payment for half the way and leaves the owner with the carcass. There are those who disagree and hold that even where he rented for a load, the law would be the same as if he rented for riding. This that we say that he pays him for the cost of half the way is where is able to sell his wares there or he can rent another donkey to arrive at the place he wants to go to. Otherwise, however, he would not give any of the payment because he has not helped him at all.

Paragraph 3- If Reuven rented out his animal for two days to go and come back, and on the return on the second day the river grew so he had to stay an extra day, and he had rented for days, it is obvious that he needs to pay rent for each day. If he rented to go to a certain place and return or he rented for two days and mentioned the place he was going and it was known that the travel time is two days, and the rain held him back, and it was not the practice of the river to grow, the owner of the animal would suffer the loss. If the river did typically grow and renter was familiar with the practice of the river, but the owner was not, the renter would suffer the loss. If they were both familiar, the owner of the animal would suffer the loss. The same rules apply for feeding the animal and renting.