Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/293

Paragraph 1- One who deposits cannot claim the deposit except in the location where he deposited. If he deposited in Tiberius, he cannot claim the deposit in Tzipori. In any place where the watchman wants to return the deposit to the owner, however, the owner must accept it. Even if the watchman gave it to the owner against his will, it is considered a return and he would be exempt. This is only where he gave it to the owner. If the owner said to bring to him and he then left, however, the watchman would be liable. If the item was deposited for a specific time, the watchman cannot force the owner to accept it back during that time.

Paragraph 2- When is this true? In an area of civilization. If the owner deposited in an area of civilization and the watchman brings it back in the desert, however, the owner does not have to accept it from him. Rather, he can tell the watchman the deposit is your responsibility until you return it to me in an area of civilization just as I deposited it with you in a such a location. If when the owner deposits it he told the watchman that he wants to travel to the desert, and the watchman said he too plans on doing to the desert, it is as if the watchman said the deposit is conditional that he returns it in the desert, and he can return it in the desert.

Paragraph 3- If one deposits with another, and the owner went overseas and the watchman wants to go out to sea or to go on a caravan, and he comes and brings the deposit to court, he would be absolved from responsibility because we do not confine the watchman to this location because of this deposit where the owner left and it is impossible for the watchman to bring it with him, lest an unavoidable accident occur and he will be held responsible. The court would deposit the item with a person who is trustworthy to them as a form of returning a lost item to its owner. If the watchman could not leave it in a place of civilization and needed to bring it with him in the desert because of danger or because it was a case where one watchman gave to another, and an unavoidable accident occurred, there are those who say the watchman would be exempt.

Paragraph 4- If a watchman sent a deposit with another, the agent is liable until it reaches the owner, regardless of whether the watchman said to bring it to the owner or to give it to him, because the owner did not appoint him as an agent to bring it to him. Thus, if the watchman wants to take it back from the agent he is permitted to do so. When is this true? Where the watchman has not been established as a liar. If he has been established as a liar, however, the agent would immediately acquire the deposit on behalf of the owner and the watchman cannot take it back from him. He would still be responsible for the item until it reaches the owner. See earlier 291:21 with respect returning an item to the owner’s wife. There are those who say the same is true even if the watchman has not been established as a liar, but the owner often deposits with this latter watchman. Similarly, the same would be true if the owner sent him a message that this agent is trustworthy. Although the owner did not exempt him, the watchman cannot retract and he would be responsible.