>>The NESIVOS HA'MISHPAT (305:2) writes that Rashi disagrees because he maintains that since a Sho'el is the sole beneficiary when he borrows an object ("Kol Hana'ah Shelo"), even his obligation to guard the object is considered to be for his own benefit. According to this explanation, Rashi might consider even a Socher to be "Ba'alav Imo" to the owner of the object, because he is guarding the object for his own benefit (that is, he must keep it guarded in order to use it).<<

It should say: Rashi might consider even a Socher to be "Ein Ba'alav Imo" to the owner, etc.