(Exodus 22:11) "And if it were stolen from him, he shall pay its owner": This speaks of a hired watcher, and the above (Ibid. 9-10), of a non-paid watcher. But perhaps the reverse is the case? It follows (otherwise), viz.: A watcher (here) is liable (for theft) and a hirer (of a beast) is liable (viz. Ibid. 14). Just as a hirer (is liable) because he derives benefit (from the beast), so it is a hired watcher, who derives benefit (i.e., payment)—to exclude a non-paid watcher, who does not derive benefit.