The sound view, then, is that he is liable; but in this case, the compensation he pays is to be placed in the public treasury, while the owner is deprived of it and given nothing. For the animal perished as a result of something its owner said, and he accepted its perishing at his own loss. Yet we hold liable the one who went along with him in committing the sin, and place what he pays in the public treasury. This is the view that must be adopted. The statement of those of the jurists who say that he is liable and that it is placed in the public treasury—as a recompense for its owner and a punishment for him—should be understood in this light.

His statement: “If he specifies his pocket, but he leaves it in his sleeve or hand,” and it is lost.

His statement: “He is liable,” meaning the depositary is liable. For example, the depositor says, “Put it in your pocket”—that is, in the inner pouch within the garment—but he puts it in his sleeve.

If it is asked: How could he put it in his sleeve, when a sleeve is only the length of the forearm?

The answer is that this was well known among people in earlier times: men had long, wide sleeves in which they would place their belongings.

Thus, if he specifies the pocket, but the depositary ties it in his sleeve and it is stolen, he is liable, because the pocket is more secure. Hardly anyone would dare approach it, since it is in front of a person, upon his chest. The sleeve, by contrast, may be overlooked: someone can loosen it and take what is inside. Moreover, some thieves possess exceptional skill. Therefore, a person should be alert to them and take precautions. Nothing can deter the evil of such thieves except the judgment of the Wisest of judges—namely, cutting off the hand. If thieves’ hands were cut off, no one would dare commit theft, for no one would be willing to risk his hand for any amount of wealth.

And his statement: “or in his hand”: if it is lost, he is liable.

If someone asks: Is not keeping it in his hand safer than keeping it in his pocket?