Reference for Bava Metzia 189:21
אבל בבעלים לפטור אף בשומר שכר ובשואל לא מ"ט כי כתיב אם בעליו עמו לא ישלם אשואל ואשומר שכר אהנך חיובי דכתיב בהו בהדיא הוא דמיכתב
on the other hand, negligence [as a cause of liability] is not stated in connection with a paid bailee and a borrower. Therefore, liability [for negligence] in the case of the paid bailee and borrower too follows a <i>minori</i> from a gratuitous bailee. But that there should be no liability for it, when the owner is in their service, that cannot be maintained even in respect of a paid bailee and a borrower.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Notwithstanding that in cases of mishaps this fact does free them from liability. ');"><sup>21</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