Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/305

Paragraph 1- A paid watchman has the same rules as an unpaid watchman with respect to a case where he denies or there are other claims between the parties. For example, if the owner says to the watchman that he used this item and ruined it or anything similar, the watchman would take a heses oath and would be exempt. If the watchman claims an unavoidable accident occurred in a place where witnesses are common, he must bring witnesses and he will be exempt or he will pay. If witnesses are not common, he would swear that his claim is accurate and would include in his oath that he did not lay a hand on the item and that it is not in his possession. If the watchman claims it was stolen or even if he says he was negligent and will pay, we would have him swear that the item is not in his possession.

Paragraph 2- If the item was stolen by armed thieves, and the thief was discovered, the watchman must pay the owner and he will litigate with the thief. Even if the watchman already swore and was exempted before the thief was discovered, once the thief is discovered the watchman must litigate with him and the thief will pay the owner.

Paragraph 3- If the owner was working with the watchman at the time the watchman pulled the item to watch, he would even be exempt in the case of negligence, as was discussed in the laws of Siman 308.

Paragraph 4- If a paid watchman agreed to even be liable for unavoidable accidents or made a condition that he would be exempt in the item is lost or misplaced or from an oath, we would follow whatever the condition is. If the watchman simply said he is accepting the condition that he is not responsible, he would even be exempt from negligence.

Paragraph 5- If a paid watchman gave to another watchman, the law was discussed in Siman 291.

Paragraph 6- If one tells another to guard for him and he will guard for him- there are those who say the same applies where he says lend me and I will lend you- that is considered a guarding with the owner. If the owner says to watch for him today and he will watch for him tomorrow, lend him today and he will lend him tomorrow, watch for him today and he will guard for him tomorrow or lend him today and he will watch for him tomorrow, in all these cases they would be paid watchmen on each other. There are those who say that in the case of lend me and I will lend you, watch for me and I will lend you or lend me and I will guard for you, even on one day the watchman would be a paid watchman and it would not be considered a guarding with the owners.

Paragraph 7- If one tells another to lend him his shirt which is light and take his which is heavy, and thieves comes and take one of them, the remaining shirt would belong to the first owner ''because it is like lend me and I will lend you, which is a borrowing with the owners. If, however, the items lent out were not in the borrower’s possession but in the possession of a third party, such as where Reuven left collateral in Levi’s possession for Shimon and Shimon lent something to Reuven, that is not considered borrowing with the owners becasue Shimon is not Reuven’s watchman. They would have the status of paid watchmen for each other.''