This indicates that if the skilled laborer said only: I completed the work with it, he is considered a paid bailee, i.e., even after he completes the work the item remains within his responsibility. The Gemara rejects this line of reasoning: No, this is not what should be deduced from the mishna. Rather, the correct deduction is that one who says: Give money first and then take what is yours, is a paid bailee.

The Gemara asks: But if that is the case, when one says only: I completed the work with it, what is the halakha? Is he considered an unpaid bailee? If so, rather than teaching a new halakha in the mishna: And all those who say: Take what is yours and bring money, each of them is considered an unpaid bailee, let it teach us instead the halakha of one who says: I completed the work with it, and it can be deduced that all the more so is this the halakha if he says to him: Take what is yours.

The Gemara rejects this line of reasoning: The case of take what is yours must be taught explicitly. Otherwise, it might enter your mind to say that once he issues this statement, he is not considered even an unpaid bailee and retains no responsibility whatsoever for the item. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that even in this case he is still considered an unpaid bailee and continues to bear certain responsibilities.

There are those who say that there is a different version of this discussion. Rather than challenging that Rav Ḥisda’s opinion is opposed by the ruling of the mishna, Rav Naḥman bar Pappa said: We, too, learn a proof for Rav Ḥisda’s statement from the mishna: And all those who say: Take what is yours and bring money, each of them is considered an unpaid bailee. What, is it not correct to say that the same is true when he says: I have completed the work with it? The Gemara rejects this claim. No, the case of one who says take what is yours is different, as stated above, as one might think that this statement frees the laborer of all responsibility.

The Gemara cites a third version of this discussion. Huna Mar bar Mareimar raised a contradiction between the mishnayot before Ravina and resolved it himself. We learned in the mishna: And all those who say: Take what is yours and bring money, each of them is considered an unpaid bailee. And apparently the same is true for one who said: I completed the work with it. And Huna Mar bar Mareimar raises a contradiction from the aforementioned mishna: If the borrower said to the lender: Send the animal to me, and he sent it to him and it died on the way, the borrower is liable, and similarly when he returns it. And he resolves this contradiction in accordance with that which Rafram bar Pappa said that Rav Ḥisda said: They taught this halakha only when he returned it during the period of its loan. But if he returned it after the period of its loan, he is exempt.

§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: When Rav Ḥisda said that a borrower who returned the item after the period of the loan is exempt, is he exempt only from the strict obligations of a borrower, but he remains liable as a paid bailee, or perhaps he is also not liable as a paid bailee? Ameimar said: It stands to reason that he is exempt as a borrower but is still liable as a paid bailee. Ameimar’s reasoning is that since he previously had benefit, he must provide benefit in return, by safeguarding the item as a paid bailee until the item reaches the owner’s possession.

It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Bava Batra 6:5) in accordance with the opinion of Ameimar: With regard to one who takes vessels from an artisan’s house to send them as a gift to his father-in-law’s house, and he said to the artisan: If they accept them from me as a gift I will give you the money for them, and if not, i.e., if they return the gift, I will give you money in accordance with the financial advantage I received from them, i.e., I will pay you the benefit that I accrued through their knowledge that I tried to send them a gift; and an accident happened to the vessels and they were broken, if this incident occurred on their way to the recipient the customer is liable.

If they broke on the way back he is exempt, because he is like a paid bailee, who is not liable for accidents. If this individual, who pays for the financial advantage he received, is considered a paid bailee, all the more so should this apply to a borrower who returned the item after the period of the loan, in accordance with the opinion of Ameimar, as he did not offer to pay anything.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who sold a donkey to another. The buyer said to him: I will bring it to such and such a place; if it is sold, well and good; and if not, I will return it to you. He went and it was not sold, and on his way back the donkey was injured in an accident. The case came before Rav Naḥman, who deemed the buyer liable to pay.

Rabba raised an objection to Rav Naḥman from the baraita: If an accident happened to the vessels on their way to the recipient, the customer is liable; if they broke on the way back he is exempt, because he is like a paid bailee. If so, why did you deem this buyer liable, when the accident occurred on his return?

Rav Naḥman said to Rabba that there is a difference between the cases, as the way back of this one is considered like the way to the recipient. What is the reason for this? It is based on logical reasoning: Even on his way back, if he found an opportunity to sell the donkey, wouldn’t he have sold it? Therefore, as he was in possession of the animal the entire time, the halakha treats his going and returning equally, and he retains the responsibility of a borrower until he actually returns the animal to its owner.

§ The mishna teaches: With regard to one who says to another: Safeguard my property for me and I will safeguard your property for you, each of them is a paid bailee. The Gemara asks: But why is this the halakha? It is a case of safeguarding with the owners. There is a principle that a bailee is exempt from paying for the damage if the owner of the item is present with the bailee or in his employ when he is safeguarding the item. Rav Pappa said: The mishna means that he said to him: Safeguard my property for me today and I will safeguard your property for you tomorrow. At the time of his safeguarding, the owner was not in the bailee’s employ.

The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 7:10): If one said: Safeguard my property for me and I will safeguard your property for you, or: Lend money to me and I will lend money to you, or: Safeguard my property for me and I will lend money to you, or: Lend money to me and I will safeguard your property for you, they all become paid bailees for each other. The Gemara asks: Why are they liable as paid bailees? Is this not a situation of safeguarding with the owners? Rav Pappa again said: This is referring to a case where he said to him: Safeguard my property for me today and I will safeguard your property for you tomorrow.

The Gemara relates: There were certain ice plant dealers [ahaluyei], and every day one of them would have a turn to bake for the group. One day the others said to one of them: Go and bake for us. He said to them: Safeguard my cloak for me. Before he came back they were negligent with it and it was stolen. They came for judgment before Rav Pappa, and he deemed them liable to pay for the cloak.

The Rabbis said to Rav Pappa: Why did you deem them liable to pay? This is akin to a case of negligence by a bailee while he is with the owners, as the owner of the cloak was baking for them at the time the cloak was stolen due to their negligence. Rav Pappa was embarrassed over his apparent mistake. Ultimately, it was discovered that at that time, when the cloak was stolen, the cloak owner was drinking beer and not baking. Since he was not doing work for them, this was not a case of safeguarding with the owner, and therefore Rav Pappa’s ruling was vindicated.

The Gemara comments: This works out well according to the one who says that in a case of negligence by a bailee while he is with the owners he is exempt; due to that reason Rav Pappa was embarrassed. But according to the one who says that in a case of negligence he is liable even while he is with the owners, why was Rav Pappa embarrassed? Rather, this is what actually happened: That day was not his turn to bake, and they said to him: You go and bake for us, and he said to them: As payment for baking for you when it is not my turn, safeguard my cloak. In other words, they were paid bailees.