>>1. How could Mar Shmuel charge for missing pieces of the Yesomim's pot, if he was also charging rent for its use?
a) Rent and depreciation are never a contradiction.
b) The rent was charged for the pot's natural depreciation, on the pieces that were not missing.
c) An Apotrupos may always charge Ribis when it will benefit Yesomim.
d) An Apotrupos may always charge Ribis D'Rabanan when it will benefit Yesomim.
e) The rent is charged for the use; the depreciation surcharge is for the Tircha of having to schlep to the store to buy a new piece.
Correct answer: (b)<<
No. The rent was charged for the metal that disappeared and no rent was charged on the weakened metal.
Yossi
Very good point, Yossi. Let's work this through together, step by step:
In general, paying for the depreciation is a sign that the item is considered entirely in the "ownership"\control of the borrower and, consequently, is similar to a loan. Therefore, where depreciation is charged, one may not pay rent, as the rent in this case is considered interest on the loan. This principle in Halachah is stated as: if depreciation then no rent; if rent then no depreciation. That was the basis of the question.
The answer is that there is another factor at work here. Whether or not the weight of the vat has changed, the entire metal of the vat is always weakened by the usage on the fire. Since the renter does not pay for this particular inevitable depreciation, it is considered that the vat has always been in the control of the owner, irrespective of any change of weight and\or payments made. Therefore, in this case the usage\rental of the vat is not considered a loan and of course there can be no interest (since there is no loan). As a result, there is no contradiction between rent and depreciation or, in other words, even though depreciation was paid for, rent may also be paid. This is the full answer.
My suggestion for answer "b" is like this:
(b) Since the renters assumed responsibility for the inevitable depreciation of quality of the vat (aside from any missing weight) this rental is not considered a loan.
If you agree with that, I will ask the Kollel to edit the answer as above; if not, please send me your suggestion for a more accurate answer.
Shimon Brodie
You wrote-
>>(b) Since the renters assumed responsibility for the inevitable depreciation of quality of the vat (aside from any missing weight) this rental is not considered a loan.<<
It's not the renter who is assuming responsibility for the depreciating of the remaining metal but rather the owner.. Since the renter is not taking responsibility for all aspects of the loss in value, it's not considered a loan.
Am I missing something here?
Sorry, my choice of words was not clear. By "renters" I meant the people who are renting it to others, i.e. the owners.
Shimon Brodie