QUESTION: The Gemara says that if a Yisrael rents a cow from a Kohen, or a
Kohen rents a cow from a Yisrael, the cow is considered to be the possession
of the real owner with regard to Terumah. Hence, if the owner is a Kohen,
the cow may eat Terumah, and if the owner is a Yisrael, it may not eat
Terumah. The reason the rented item is considered to be the possession of
the real owner is because the owner has the responsibility to shoulder the
loss in value of the animal if its value decreases or if it is harmed.
However, the Gemara says that if the person renting the cow appraises the
value of the cow in order to take full responsibility for it and to return
to its owner the exact value after a certain amount of time, then it is
considered to be in the possession of the one who rents it, since he bears
the entire monetary responsibility. If the person renting it is a Kohen, he
may feed it Terumah.
RASHI explains that this second case is also discussing a rental. It differs
from a normal case of a rental because at the time of the rental, the person
renting the cow stipulated that he will return the exact value that the cow
presently represents (compensating for any difference in tenderable
currency).
This explanation, is problematic. If the person has accepted upon himself to
return the exact value that he received, then in essence he is treating the
entire transaction like a loan. But if -- besides the responsibility he
accepted to return the exact value of the cow -- he is also paying rent,
then it should be Asur because of Ribis, because he is returning more than
he borrowed!
In a normal case of a rental, the Gemara (Bava Metzia 69b) explains that the
money paid as the rental fee for the item is not considered Ribis, even
though the item itself is going to be returned to the owner in addition to
the rental fee that is paid. The reason it is not Ribis is because the
person renting it does not take responsibility for market fluctuations in
the value of the item, nor does he take responsibility for uncontrollable
circumstances. Therefore, the owner is taking a risk of losing his item by
letting someone else use it, and thus he takes a rental fee in return for
the risk, and that is why it is not Ribis. Another reason why taking a
rental fee is not Ribis applies only when the type of object that is rented
is one that depreciates in value when used. Even if the person renting it
accepts to compensate for the market fluctuation in its value and for
uncontrollable circumstances, the rental fee is not considered Ribis, since
it simply compensates for returning an object that is worth less than it was
originally worth!
However, in the case of our Gemara, the person renting the cow is taking
full responsibility for the value of the cow. In addition, the cow is
normally worth the same amount after plowing as before plowing. Why, then,
is the rental fee not Ribis? (TOSFOS DH Aval. Tosfos rejects Rashi's
explanation and says instead that in the second of the Beraisa, the person
who is borrowing the cow is not paying any rental fee for it.)
ANSWER: RASHI might rule that this is not considered Ribis for the following
reason. A person who rents an item is not liable if the animal depreciates
or dies as a result of normal usage ("Mesah Machmas Melachah"). The person
in our case only accepted to repay the fluctuations in value that were not
work-related. (See also ARUCH LA'NER.)
TOSFOS, though, does not accept this possibility. Perhaps Tosfos holds that
if the person renting the cow is not responsible to replace the value of the
animal *under all circumstances*, then the animal is not considered to be
his property with regard to feeding it Terumah. If he does not have to
replace it if it is "Meisah Machmas Melachah," then it is not considered to
be his.
Rashi, though, holds that as long as he accepted responsibility for
secondary liability, other than the actual depreciation due to working it,
he is considered the owner. Even though he is not the owner when it comes to
depreciation as a result of normal wear and tear, he may feed it Terumah. It
is that depreciation for which he pays a rental fee, and that is why the
rental fee is not Ribis. (In the case of a normal rental, in which the
person renting did not accept full responsibility, the renter is not
considered the owner his rent does not cover the *outside*, secondary
factors that could cause it to depreciate.)