of the room, and he tells him, “Keep it at the very far end,” but he keeps it in the first one: is he liable or not? Here we may say that the last chest may be more secure, because it is less accessible for a thief to take or break open; yet it may not be more secure, because the thief may naturally assume that the farthest chest is the one containing the money. It appears that in such a case, it should be said that he kept it in a place of equal security, since each one is more secure than the other in one respect. If that is not the case, then the matter should be referred to the judge, who will rule as he considers correct.

“If he withholds fodder from the animal without its owner’s instruction, he is liable. If its owner designates his pocket, but he leaves it in his sleeve or hand, he is liable; and the converse is likewise. If he hands it over to someone who safeguards his own property or the property of its owner, he is not liable ………………

His statement, “If he withholds fodder”: the pronoun refers to the depositary.

His statement, “from the animal”: that is, the animal left in his custody.

His statement, “without its owner’s instruction, he is liable”: because he has undoubtedly been negligent.

But if the depositary says, “I withheld fodder from it because I do not want to spend my own money on it, since fodder is expensive, and I do not know when its owner will come,”

we say to him: You have undoubtedly been negligent. For if you spend on it, you will recover the expense from its owner; thus, you suffer no loss.

This issue falls into three possible cases:

The first case: he entrusts him with the animal and says, “So-and-so, spend on it.”

The second case: he entrusts it to him and says, “Do not spend on it.”

The third case: he entrusts it to him and says nothing.

Thus, he is liable in two cases, and not liable in one case,