The Sefer Ha’hinuch lists as the 59th Biblical command the obligation upon Bet Din to preside over cases involving a “Shomer Sachar” (“paid watchman”) and a “Socher” (“renter”), and to rule according to the Torah’s guidelines.
Both a person who is paid to watch something, and one who pays for the right to use an item, receive benefit from the arrangement, and therefore bear a higher level of liability than somebody who watches an object voluntarily, without pay (a “Shomer Hinam”). As the Torah establishes in Parashat Mishpatim (22:9), if the object is lost or stolen, the Shomer Sachar or Socher must pay the owner the value of the item. However, if the item was lost due to an “Oness” – circumstances beyond the watchman or renter’s control, such as in the case of armed robbery, or of an animal that died of natural causes, the watchman or renter is absolved of liability. He must, however, take an oath that he was not negligent in caring for the item.
The Sefer Ha’hinuch mentions numerous different details that apply to this law. We present here a small sampling of these Halachot.
If a craftsman is given a utensil to repair, and will be receiving payment for his work, then he is considered a “Shomer Sachar” who is paid for watching the item. Therefore, if he ruins the utensil, he is responsible to compensate the owner.
If a money changer receives payment for evaluating coins, and mistakenly identifies a coin as legitimate currency, when in truth it was counterfeit, causing a merchant to accept the coin as payment and thereby lose money, the money changer must compensate the merchant.
If Reuben entrusted an object to Shimon, and Shimon then then gave it Levi to watch, then if something happens to the item, Shimon – the first guardian – bears responsibility and must compensate Reuben. Even if Levi watches on a higher standard than Shimon, nevertheless, Reuben never authorized Levi to watch the item, and placed his trust only in Shimon. Hence, Shimon was not entitled to have Levi watch the item, and so he – Shimon – bears responsibility. An exception to this rule is that a watchman may have his family members guard the item. When somebody entrusts his object to a watchman, he understands that the watchman will not home all the time, and so he implicitly accepts the watchman’s family members as watchmen.
Likewise, a person who rents somebody’s object may not sublease it to somebody else. However, the Rambam draws a distinction in this regard between moveable property and homes. When it comes to moveable objects, the owner can claim that he trusted only the first renter, whereas he was not prepared to trust the third party, that he would not take the item for himself. A home, by contrast, cannot be “taken,” and so there is no reason to trust one person any more or less than another person. Thus, according to the Rambam, one who rents a home may sublet it without the owner’s knowledge. However, the renter is allowed to sublet the property only to the same amount of people. He may not sublet the property to a larger family, because a larger family causes more wear-and-tear on the home, and the owner can claim that he was prepared to lease the home only to a certain number of residents, and not to a higher number of people.