ציטירנדיקער פּירוש אויף שמות 22:11

נושא שכר אינו משלם – theft and loss which is written in it, to be liable, as it is written (Exodus 22:11): “But if [the animal] was stolen from him, he shall make restitution to its owner.” But slaves, and real estate and documents, he does not pay, as it is written regarding the paid bailee (Exodus 22:9): “When a man gives to another” – a generalization; “an ass, an ox, a sheep or any other animal” – a specification; “to guard” – he returns and makes a generalization, etc., as we have stated above. The [term] רעהו/to another – is written with regard to an unpaid bailee and a paid bailee, that implies, “another person” and not dedicated [to the Temple], but the borrower and the renter (i.e., the other two bailees) are not mentioned here, to exlude from them slaves and real estate and documents and dedication [to the Temple], for a borrower does not belong with real estate and not with documents for the most part, and all the more so, renters do not belong with documents, and similarly, the borrower and renters do not belong with things dedicated [to the Temple] for it is forbidden to lend and to rent that which is dedicated [to the Temple].

נושא שכר וכו' – and all of these are derived from Biblical verses in the portion of “V’Eleh Mishpatim”/”And these are the ordinances”. The first portion (Exodus 22:6) “When a man gives [money or goods] to another” is stated regarding the unpaid bailee. The second (Exodus 22:9): “When a man gives to another an ass, an ox, a sheep…” is stated [with regard] to a paid bailee, for he is liable for theft and loss, as it is written (concerning it) (Exodus 22:11): “But if [the animal] was stolen from him, he shall make restitution to its owner.” I don’t have anything other than “theft,” from where to I learn “loss?” The inference teaches (Exodus 22:11): “But if [the animal] was stolen…” in any case. And further, an inference from the weaker to the stronger (i.e., a fortiori), Just as theft is close to an unavoidable accident, one is liable, loss, which is close to negligence, is it not obvious? And the renter, since not all the benefit is his, the law is like the paid bailee. And the borrower is explained in the third section (Exodus 22:13): “When a man borrows [an animal] from another and it dies or is injured, its owner not being with it, he must make restitution.”

כי יתן איש אל רעהו חמור או שור IF A MAN GIVE UNTO HIS FELLOW-MAN AN ASS OR AN OX — The first section (v. 6—9) speaks of the gratuitous bailee and therefore (since the chattels are kept for the use of the bailor only) Scripture frees him of liability for theft, as it is written, (v. 6) “[If a man shall give … to keep] and it be stolen out of the man’s house, if the thief be not found, then the owner of the house shall approach the judges” to take an oath (cf. Rashi v. 7). You may learn from this that he (the bailee) frees himself from liability by this oath. This section (v. 9—12), however, speaks of a “bailee for payment” (שומר שכר) who is therefore not free from liability if the object has been stolen, as it is written, “but if it be certainly stolen from him, he shall pay [unto the owner thereof]” (Bava Metzia 94b). However, for any loss over which he has no control — if, for instance, the animal died a natural death or has been injured by a wild beast, or forcibly seized by robbers, and אין רואה NO ONE SEEING IT that could testify in this matter