We reply: No. A person works with his hand: he takes things, grasps and hands things over, and shakes hands. He may therefore forget and set it down somewhere, whereupon it is lost. So, if he specifies his pocket but the depositary keeps it in his hand and it is lost, he is liable.

His statement, “And the reverse is likewise,” means that if he specifies the sleeve, but the depositary puts it in the pocket—for example, he says, “Take this and put it in your sleeve,” but he puts it in his pocket—then there is no liability. This is based on the preceding principle: if its owner specifies a place of safekeeping, but it is kept somewhere more secure, there is no liability. Likewise, if he specifies his hand but the depositary puts it in his pocket, he is not liable, because the pocket is safer than the hand.

If someone asks: What if the deposited item is a ring, and he says, “Put it on your finger,” but the depositary puts it in his pocket? The hand is undoubtedly safer, because if it is in the pocket, the ring may fall out when he prostrates, for example, or bends over. But when it is on the finger, it cannot fall off unless he tries to remove it or the finger is cut off along with the ring.

Thus, if he specifies the pocket but the depositary keeps it in his hand, he is liable—except where keeping it in the hand is safer, such as when he specifies the pocket and the deposited item is a ring, but the depositary puts it on his finger. This is undoubtedly safer.

His statement, “And if he hands it over”: the subject is the depositary.

His statement, “to someone who safeguards his property,” means that if the depositary has servants, attendants, or children who safeguard his property, and he hands it over to them, then he is not liable, because this is customary practice. A prominent and honorable adult cannot personally undertake the safeguarding of deposits; rather, he must have servants, children, slaves, or wives to safeguard them.