No;

<<if

<<you said

<<of a guardian

<<who is unpaid,

<<for he

<<pays

<<the double payment,

<<will you say

<<of a guardian

<<who is paid,

<<who does not

<<pay

<<the double payment?

And if

<<it enters your mind

<<a bandit

<<who is armed

<<a thief

<<is,

<<it turns out

<<for a guardian

<<who is paid

<<he pays

<<the double payment

<<where he claims

<<the claim of

<<a bandit

<<who is armed!

He said to him:

<<thus

<<it says:

<<no;

<<if

<<you said

<<of a guardian

<<who is unpaid,

<<for he

<<pays

<<the double payment

<<with all

<<his claims,

<<will you say

<<of a guardian

<<who is paid,

<<who does not

<<pay

<<the double payment

<<except

<<where he claims

<<the claim of

<<a bandit

<<who is armed?

He raised an objection to him:

<<“And it broke

<<or

<<died” —

<<I have only

<<broken

<<and dead;

<<theft

<<and loss

<<from where?

<<You said:

<<an a fortiori:

<<if

<<a guardian

<<who is paid,

<<whom it exempted

<<for broken

<<and dead,

<<is liable

<<for theft

<<and loss;

<<a borrower,

<<who is liable

<<for broken

<<and dead,

<<is it not right

<<that he is liable

<<for theft

<<and loss?

<<And this is

<<an a fortiori

<<that has no

<<against it

<<refutation.

And if

<<it enters your mind

<<a bandit

<<who is armed

<<a thief

<<is,

<<why

<<is there no

<<against it

<<refutation?

<<There is

<<to refute:

<<what

<<of a guardian

<<who is paid,

<<for he

<<pays

<<the double payment

<<where he claims

<<the claim of

<<a bandit

<<who is armed!

He said to him:

<<holds

<<this

<<Tanna:

<<the principal

<<without

<<an oath

<<is preferable

<<to the double payment

<<with an oath.

Shall we say

<<it supports

<<him:

<<one who rents

<<a cow

<<from his fellow,

<<and it was stolen,

<<and said

<<that one:

<<“I hereby

<<pay

<<and I do not

<<swear”,

<<and afterward

<<was found

<<the thief —

<<he pays

<<the double payment

<<to the renter.

They held it

<<like Rabbi

<<Yehuda,

<<who said:

<<a renter

<<like one who takes

<<pay

<<he is;

<<and since it teaches:

<<and said

<<“I hereby

<<pay

<<and I do not

<<swear”,

<<by inference

<<if

<<he wished,

<<he could exempt

<<(him)

<<himself

<<with an oath.

What is the case?

<<Such as

<<where he

<<claims

<<the claim of

<<a bandit

<<who is armed;

<<and it teaches:

<<and afterward

<<was found

<<the thief —

<<he pays

<<the double payment

<<to the renter;

<<learn from it:

<<a bandit

<<who is armed

<<a thief

<<is!

They say:

<<do

<<you hold

<<like Rabbi

<<Yehuda,

<<who said:

<<a renter

<<like one who takes

<<pay

<<he is?

<<Perhaps

<<like Rabbi

<<Meir

<<he holds,

<<who said:

<<a renter

<<like a guardian

<<who is unpaid

<<he is.

If you wish, say:

<<as reverses it

<<Rabbah bar Avuha

<<and teaches:

<<a renter —

<<how

<<does he pay?

<<Rabbi Meir

<<says:

<<like a guardian

<<who is paid;

<<Rabbi Yehuda

<<says:

<<like a guardian

<<who is unpaid.

Rabbi Zeira

<<said:

<<here

<<with what

<<are we dealing?

<<Where he claims

<<the claim of

<<a bandit

<<who is armed,

<<and it was found

<<a bandit

<<who is not

<<armed.

If it fell

<<into a garden

<<and benefited,

<<it pays

<<what

<<it benefited.

<<Rav said:

<<where it was cushioned;

but

<<if it ate,

<<even

<<what

<<it benefited

<<it does not

<<pay.

<<Shall we say

<<Rav

<<follows his reasoning,

<<for Rav said:

<<it was

<<for it

<<not

<<to eat?

They say:

<<is this

<<comparable?!

<<Say

<<that Rav said

<<there

<<“it was

<<for it

<<not

<<to eat” —

<<where

<<it was harmed

<<itself,

<<that can

<<say

<<to him

<<the owner

<<of the produce:

<<“I do not

<<pay —

<<it was

<<for it

<<not

<<to eat”;

<<to damage

<<it

<<others,

<<that it is exempt

<<from paying,

<<did

<<he say?!

Rather,