Reference for Bava Metzia 189:19
מ"ד חייב קסבר מקרא נדרש לפניו ולא לפני פניו
It has been stated: When there is culpable negligence [on the part of an unpaid bailee], and the owner is in [his service] — R. Aha and Rabina dispute therein: One maintains that he is liable; the other that he is exempt. He who rules that he is liable maintains that a Scriptural verse may be interpreted [as applying] to the immediately preceding subject, but not to the one anterior thereto: consequently, But if the owner thereof be with it, etc.,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mentioned in the case of borrower. ');"><sup>19</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