The second case: if the borrowed item is damaged through the very use for which it was borrowed, there is no liability. For example, a man borrows a rope from someone—the rope being that by which water is drawn from a well—and then it wears out through use. Is the borrower liable or not? We say: he is not liable, because the borrowed item was damaged through the use for which it was borrowed.

Similarly, if he borrows a car to travel to Mecca, for example, and its tires become worn, he is not liable, because it was damaged through the use for which it was borrowed.

Likewise, if he borrows a towel to use, and over time its nap wears away, he is not liable, because it was damaged through the use for which it was borrowed.

This case supports the view that a borrowed item does not entail liability when exemption from liability is stipulated. The reasoning is that, when it is damaged through the use for which it was borrowed, there is no liability, because when its owner gave it to this man to use, he knew that it would wear out or diminish through that use. The same applies when the borrower stipulates that he is not to be liable for it: there is no doubt that he bears no liability. Indeed, we have said that the sound view is that, even if he does not stipulate exemption from liability, if it is damaged without transgression or negligence, the borrower bears no liability, because he received it from its owner with his permission; thus, his possession is one of trust.

The third case: if he borrows it from someone who is not liable, such as when he borrows it from a lessee. If the lessee, who is the principal party, bears no liability, then the subsidiary party—the borrower—is even more entitled not to bear liability.

The fourth case: if he borrows something endowed for the general public, such as a man who borrows books endowed for students of knowledge—while he himself is one of the students of knowledge—