Bava Metzia

but I say,  It is not different. Wherein [and why] is it different? — For [unlawful] use should not have been stated in connection with a paid bailee, and it would have been inferred from a gratuitous bailee: if an unpaid bailee, who is not responsible for theft or loss, is nevertheless liable if he puts it [the bailment] to use; then a paid bailee, who is responsible for theft or loss, is surely [liable if he puts it to use]. Why then did Scripture state them [both]? To teach you that [unlawful] use need not involve damage.  'But I Say, It is not different,' in accordance with R. Eleazar, who maintained: Both have the same purpose. How Say, 'both have the same purpose'?  — Because one can refute [that argument]. As for a gratuitous bailee, [he may be liable if he used it] because he must repay double on a [false] plea of theft.  And he who does not refute [it thus] is of the opinion that [liability to] the principal without [the option of] an oath  is a greater responsibility than [having to pay] double after a [false] oath. Raba said: [Unlawful] use need not have been mentioned in connection with either an unpaid or a paid bailee, and it could have been inferred from a borrower.  If a borrower, who in using it acts with its owner's permission, is [nevertheless] responsible [for unpreventable accidents]; surely the same applies to unpaid and paid bailees! Then why is it stated [in connection with these two]? Once, to teach you that [unlawful] use need not involve damage.  And the other: that you should not say: It is sufficient that that which is deduced a minori shall be as that from which it is deduced: just as a borrower is exempt if the owner [is in his service],  so also are unpaid and paid bailees exempt, if the owner [is in their service.] Now, on the view that [unlawful] use must involve damage, what is the purpose of these two [statements] on [unlawful] use?  — One, that you should not say, It is sufficient that that which is deduced a minori shall be as that from which it is deduced. And the other, for what was taught: [If a man shall deliver unto his neighbour money or stuff to keep, and it be stolen … If the thief be not found,] then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges  — for an oath.  You say, 'for an oath'. But perhaps it is not so, the meaning being for judgment?  [Unlawful] use is stated below;  and [unlawful] use is stated above:  just as there, [the reference is] to an oath, so here too, for an oath [is meant].