that the owner of the deposit is aware of banks and, out of religious scruple, does not wish to place it in a bank. It is as though he has forbidden him from giving it to the bank. Thus, his choosing to keep the money with him, while he sees the banks and knows—as everyone knows—that a bank is more secure, is tantamount to forbidding him from placing it in a bank. In this case, then, he is deemed negligent.

However, in such a situation, he can say: “I am unable to safeguard this large sum of money. If my anxiety or fear becomes severe, do you permit me to place it in the bank?” If he says yes, then he acts according to what he has permitted. If he says no, he should say: “Take your money; I will not accept the deposit,” for he is free to decline.

His statement, “If fear arises or he intends to travel,” means fear on the part of the depositary—for example, if thefts become frequent, or an enemy enters the town and he fears for it—or if the depositary wishes to travel.

His statement, “he must return it to its owner,” means that this is obligatory. He may not leave it with him when there is fear, nor leave it in his house while travelling, for in that case he is negligent. He is obliged to remove it from danger or to avoid leaving it in a house in which no one resides.

If he himself needs to travel, but his family and children remain in the house, is he liable for it in this case if it remains there? The answer is no—especially since we have previously stated that if he gives it to someone who safeguards his property, there is no liability. Thus, here we say that there is no liability. Nevertheless, if the depositary wishes to travel, particularly when the deposit is substantial, he should say to its owner: “I am going to travel. Do you permit me to leave it with my family, or should I return it?”