I lent a dress to my friend to wear to a wedding, and there was a stain on it when she returned it. I’m not sure if she realized that it was stained, but before I speak to her, I would like to verify what the halacha is in this situation.

Q: Is my friend obligated to pay for the dress to be cleaned?

A: Generally, a borrower (sho’el) is responsible even for damage that results from circumstances beyond one’s control (oness).

If, however, the damage occurs in the course of use (maisa machmas melacha), the borrower is exempt from any liability (C.M. 340:1) for two suggested reasons:

Either it is assumed that an owner forgoes damage resulting from normal usage, and therefore the borrower is not responsible, even if the borrowed object was not defective (C.M. 340:3), or, alternatively, it was the owner’s negligence in lending an object incapable of performing its normal function, even if the owner was ignorant of its defect (Ramban cited in Shach 340:5).

A practical difference between these two explanations can be seen when one who borrows a car runs over a nail, causing the tire to go flat. According to the first approach, the car owner knows that the borrower may drive over a nail and it was understood that the borrower would not be liable for the damage. According to the second approach, since the damage did not result from faultiness of the object, it was not the owner’s negligence that caused the damage and the borrower is responsible.

Seemingly, since it is common for a dress to become dirty at a wedding, the borrower cannot be forced to pay for the cleaning, since at least by one definition, it is maisa machmas melacha (Pischei Choshen, Pikadon 9:[16]).

However, some question this conclusion, because the Gemara (Niddah 58a) rules that a woman who borrows a garment and left it stained is obligated to pay for it to be laundered (Kabo D’Kushaysa 39).

A possible distinction is that it is understood that one who lends a garment intends for it to be returned in the same condition in which it was lent. Therefore, the assumption that the owner is willing to forgo damage that results from normal usage does not apply; the borrower is liable (see Nesivos 340:3 and Chazon Ish, B.K. 13:2 regarding why staining someone’s garment would not be considered indirect damage).

Furthermore, if the lender stipulated that the dress should be cleaned after it was worn, the borrower must honor that stipulation — and since the widespread custom is to have it cleaned, it is comparable to a stipulated condition.