(Mishnah): If a person deposited a barrel with his friend but he did not specify a place in which it must be stored...

If it broke whilst in his hands, if he had moved it for his own needs, he is liable; if for the needs of the barrel, he is exempt.

If it broke after it had been put down, whether he had moved it for his own needs or for the needs of the barrel, he is exempt.

If the owner had specified a place and he moved it from there and it broke, whether it broke whilst in his hands or afterwards, if he moved it for his needs, he is liable; for the needs of the barrel, he is exempt.

(Gemara) - question: (On (c)) - Did R. Elazar not say that it is comparable to one who stole a barrel from a wine cellar - even though the owner does not know that it was stolen, he must know that it was returned. (If so, why is he exempt here when he returned it - when he took it for his own needs, he became a thief and his returning it should not exempt him without the owner's awareness that he returned it?!)

Answer: It is different here as he took it to use in a way that the owner allowed, so he did not become a thief at all. (The reason that he was liable in (b) is because he had temporarily become a borrower, who is liable for accidental damage.)

R. Yitzchak: There is an opinion that says that the owners are not particular about the watchman taking it and using it for a short period of time; (therefore, the Mishnah is understandable).

When does the exemption of 'its need' apply? When the owner set aside a place for it, but in another place, whether it was for his need or its need, he is exempt.

Some say that even if the owner did not designate a place, it does not prove that he is not particular. According to this, it makes no difference if it was returned to the same or to a different place; for his needs, he is liable; for its needs, he is exempt.