The Torah in Parashat Mishpatim addresses several different situations where a person accepts the responsibility to watch something belonging to his fellow. In such cases, the watchman’s level of liability depends on the kind of arrangement the two parties had made. One case (Shemot 22:6) is that of a Shomer Hinam – an unpaid watchman. Since he receives no payment for watching the item, and he is not entitled to use it, his liability is limited. The Sefer Ha’hinuch lists as the 57 th Biblical command the obligation on Bet Din to preside over cases involving items entrusted to a Shomer Hinam that were lost and ruined, and to rule based upon the Torah’s principles. This Misva applies even today, as nowadays, too, Bateh Din are authorized to preside over civil disputes such as these. One of the laws that apply in the case of a Shomer Hinam relates to a “Shole’ah Yad Be’fikadon” – a watchman who takes hold of the item entrusted to him with the intention of keeping it for himself. If he does this, then he now assumes full liability, and must compensate the owner even if the item is lost or damaged due to circumstances beyond his control (“Oness”). A Shomer Hinam, as mentioned, normally bears limited liability, but once he picks up the object with the intention of keeping it for himself, he is considered a thief and bears full responsibility to return it or its value, regardless of the circumstances. The later scholars raised the question of why it was necessary for the Torah to introduce a separate law of “Shole’ah Yad Be’fikadon.” At first glance, a Shomer Hinam who takes the item for himself is no different than any other thief. Once the Torah already outlines the laws regarding theft, establishing that a thief bears full responsibility to return the item or pay the owner its value, why was it necessary to introduce a distinct Halacha for a “Shole’ah Yad Be’fikadon”? The Aharonim identify several differences between the situation of a “Shole’ah Yad Be’fikadon” and ordinary theft. First, if a thief lifts someone’s barrel of wine intending to steal only a portion of its contents, his liability extends only to the wine which he intended to steal. However, in the case of a Shomer Hinam entrusted with a barrel, even if he lifts the barrel with the intention to steal only some of the wine, he bears full responsibility for all the wine in the barrel. Another difference is that a “Shole’ah Yad Be’fikadon” becomes a thief and assumes full liability even though he did not, technically speaking, bring the item out of the owner’s property. A person who steals his fellow’s object attains the Halachic status of a thief only once he brings the object outside the owner’s property. In the case of a watchman, since he was appointed by the owner to guard the item, his hand is considered, in a sense, like the owner’s hand. Therefore, when he lifts the item to steal it, he cannot be said to have actually taken the item out of the owner’s property. And thus the Torah needed to introduce a separate Halacha of “Shole’ah Yad Be’fikadon,” to establish that the watchman is considered a thief even though his act would not qualify as “theft” in other contexts. Another difference involves the case of one who seizes the item to keep it for himself, but with the intention to pay the owner its value. Ordinarily, the thief does not assume full liability when he takes the item with this intention, since he is not, technically speaking, a “thief,” as he plans on paying the owner. In the case of “Shole’ah Yad Be’fikadon,” however, since the watchman betrays the owner’s trust, he assumes full liability like a thief even if he takes the item with the intention of paying the owner its value.