When the Paid Keeper Answers for Theft, Loss, and a Torn Beast

"The owner thereof shall accept it, and he shall not make restitution" (Exodus 22:10). From here the Sages said: the owner of the carcass must deal with his own carcass. Regarding the verse above, "If it be stolen" (Exodus 22:11), this speaks of the paid keeper, and the earlier verse speaks of the unpaid keeper. Or perhaps this is the unpaid keeper and the earlier verse is the paid keeper? You may reason it out: since the hired worker is liable and the keeper is liable, just as the hired worker is one who derives benefit, so too the keeper of whom Scripture speaks here is one who derives benefit; this excludes the unpaid keeper, who derives no benefit. "If it be stolen" (Exodus 22:11) tells me only of theft; from where do I learn loss? You may reason it out: since theft is a failure of guarding and loss is a failure of guarding, if you have learned about theft that he must make restitution, so too for loss he must make restitution. "If it be stolen" - Rabbi Yose the Galilean says this comes to include the lost item. "From him" (Exodus 22:11) excludes the herdsman's helper; "from him" comes to include the chief herdsman. "If it be torn in pieces" (Exodus 22:12) - this refers to a beast mauled while still alive [eduro], the words of Rabbi Yoshiyah. And although there is no proof for the matter, there is a reminder of it: "Thus said the LORD: As the shepherd rescues from the mouth of the lion" and so on (Amos 3:12). Rav Acha bar Yoshiyah says: "If it be torn in pieces" - let him bring witnesses that it was torn and he shall be exempt. Rabbi Yonatan says: "let him bring it as a witness, the torn beast" (Exodus 22:12) - let him bring the owner to the torn carcass, and he shall be exempt from paying. Or perhaps even so he should be liable? And reason would support it: since loss is a failure of guarding and a tearing is a failure of guarding, if you have learned about loss that he must make restitution, so too for a tearing he must make restitution. No. You may say: from the implication of what is stated, "the torn beast he shall not make restitution" (Exodus 22:12), there is a tearing for which he does pay and a tearing for which he does not pay. And which is the tearing for which he is liable to pay? Such as a tearing by a cat, a fox, or a marten. And since the Torah said "if it be torn," just as the specified tearing is one from which he could have rescued it and he is liable to pay, so too for anything he could have rescued he is liable to pay. And which is the tearing for which he is exempt from paying? Such as a tearing by a wolf, a lion, a bear, a leopard, a snake, or a hyena. And since the Torah said "and it die," just as the specified death is one from which it was impossible for him to rescue it and he is exempt, so too for anything from which it is impossible to rescue it he is exempt from paying.