Commentary for Bava Metzia 3:9
הַמַּפְקִיד חָבִית אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ, וְלֹא יִחֲדוּ לָהּ הַבְּעָלִים מָקוֹם, וְטִלְטְלָהּ וְנִשְׁבְּרָה, אִם מִתּוֹךְ יָדוֹ נִשְׁבְּרָה, לְצָרְכּוֹ, חַיָּב, לְצָרְכָּהּ, פָּטוּר. אִם מִשֶּׁהִנִּיחָהּ נִשְׁבְּרָה, בֵּין לְצָרְכּוֹ בֵּין לְצָרְכָּהּ, פָּטוּר. יִחֲדוּ לָהּ הַבְּעָלִים מָקוֹם, וְטִלְטְלָהּ וְנִשְׁבְּרָה, בֵּין מִתּוֹךְ יָדוֹ וּבֵין מִשֶּׁהִנִּיחָהּ, לְצָרְכּוֹ, חַיָּב, לְצָרְכָּהּ, פָּטוּר:
If one deposited a jug with his neighbor and the owner did not designate a place for it [in the house of the watcher, saying: "Lend me this corner"], and he (the watcher) moved it and it were broken — If it were broken (by falling) from his hand: If (he moved it) for his need, [i.e., to use it], he is liable; for its need, [it being in a place where it was likely to be broken], he is not liable. If it were broken after he put it down, whether for his need or for its need, he is not liable. [If after using it he put it in a guarded place, whether he had moved it in the beginning for his need or for its need, he is not liable. For we say that when he returns it (to its place), it is in the domain of the owner as before, and his status is that of an unpaid watcher, who is not liable for accidents, even though he did not apprise the owner, saying: "I took it and returned it." The first part of the Mishnah is in accordance with R. Yishmael, who says that if one steals a lamb from the flock and returns it to its place, he is not liable, it not being necessary to apprise the owner. As to "and the owner does not designate a place for it," this is a "Not only" construction, i.e.: Not only when the owner designates a place for it, and he returns it to its designated place after using it for his need is he not liable even if he did not apprise the owner, having returned it to its designated place — but even when the owner does not designate a place for it, there being no special place for it, if he returns it he is not liable, having returned it to a guarded place, it not being necessary to apprise the owner.] If the owner designated a place for it, and he moved it and it were broken, whether from his hand or after having put it down — If for his need, he is liable; if for its need, he is not liable. [This latter part (of the Mishnah) is in accordance with R. Akiva, who says that if one steals a lamb from the flock and returns it to its place and it met with mishap, he is always liable unless he had apprised the owner that he had stolen and returned it. The same applies after he had used it for his need and become a thief in respect to it — Even if he puts it down in a guarded place, he is liable. As to its being stated in this latter part: "If the owner designates a place for it," this is a "Not only" construction, i.e.: Not only when he does not designate a place is he liable when he puts it down after using it for his need, not having put it down in a place designated for it; but even when he designates a place and he puts it down again in that place, he is liable, it being necessary to apprise the owner. The first part (of the Mishnah) is in accordance with R. Yishmael, and the second part, with R. Akiva. Thus is it construed in the Gemara.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Metzia
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Metzia
If the owner had assigned it a special place, and the guardian moved it and it broke: Whether or not it broke while he was handling it or after he had put it in its place; ( If for his own sake he is liable, ( if for the sake of the jar, he is not liable.
Mishnayoth nine and ten deal with a guardian’s permission to use an object which he is watching and the subsequent liability for the object should it be damaged after he used it.
If a man left a jar with his fellow for safekeeping but did not specify the place for the jar to be kept, his fellow is allowed to move it, but only for the sake of the jar. For instance if his fellow did not tell him where to leave the jar, and he put it in the garage and then decided that the jar would be safer in the cellar he is allowed to move the jar to the cellar. In this case if the jar should break either while moving it or after having moved it and put it in a new place he will not be liable. However, if he moved the jar since he needed the space in the garage he takes a risk by moving it to the cellar. In this case if the jar breaks while moving it, he will be liable. However, since the owner did not specify where he wants the jar, once the jar is in its new place in the cellar, the guardian is no longer liable if the jar breaks.
If the owners did specify a place for the jar then he is not allowed to move it except for the sake of the jar. If he moved it for his own sake he will be liable, even after he put it down.
The following chart may help understand this mishnah.
Moved for sake of jar
Moved for sake of guardian
Owners specified place
Not obligated
Obligated
Owners did not specify place
Not obligated
Obligated if broken while handling
Not obligated if broken after being put down