Reference for Bava Metzia 189:16
הניחא למאן דאית ליה דיו אלא למאן דלית ליה דיו מאי איכא למימר
But even so, [the law of] a borrower cannot be deduced from [that of] a paid bailee, since it [the similarity] may be refuted. As for a paid bailee, that [sc. his non-liability for theft when the owner is in his service] is because he is exempt in the case of injury and death: will you say the same of a borrower, who is liable for these? — But [reason this]: Whence do we know that a borrower is liable for theft and loss [at all]? [Is it not] because we deduce it from a paid bailee?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As stated supra. ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
Jastrow
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Rashi on Bava Metzia
But why [should be be obligated]? it is [a case of] watching with the owner: The owner of this object that was stolen was in the employ of the watchman, for also he [the guard] has a guard to him. And it is written: "If the owner is with him he shall not pay" (Shemos 22:14). And we expound later on "with him" [as] "in his employ". And even though this is written by a borrower, later we expound this also on every type of guard in Chapter "The Borrower" (Later, 95a)
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy