Question: What was the question? Here is different, for he is still holding it for his wages, therefore he is a Shomer Sachar, even though he finished his work!

However, according to the reason above, that we equate a craftsman to a renter, and we do not say that a renter is different because he holds it for his wages, here he asks properly.

Answer: Holding it for his wages helps only when he profits through his craft. We require two attributes - he profits, and he holds it for his wages.

Implied question: If he said "I finished it", he is only a Shomer Chinam, because his work is finished!

Answer: In any case, here that he explicitly explains that he will not receive [the item] until he bring coins, he is a Shomer Sachar.

Question: Since he cannot sell it, this connotes that it is not a Zevina Charifa (an item in great demand);

If so, why did [Rav Nachman] obligate him? Both of them profit (if the borrower will succeed to sell it), and we say in Nedarim (31a) that we obligate the [potential] buyer only regarding a Zevina Charifa, for then all the benefit is his!

Answer: It was a Zevina Charifa. Had he wanted to sell for the price for which the seller sold to him, he could have found many [buyers];

However he wanted to sell for a high price. He did not sell it for what he could have, because even at the porch of the [seller's] house, when he returns it, he will get the same amount of money or more.

Explanation: The episode of Rav Papa is difficult for the one who says [that Peshi'ah b'Ba'alim is] liable;

Rav Acha and Ravina argue about this below. They were after Rav Papa.

Explanation: This is why R. Eliezer agrees, because [he took the security] not at the time of the loan, so he acquired the security;

It is not precise that it mentions a document. Rather, [it mentions a document] only to teach that it is not at the time of the loan;

Since he made a document, presumably, he did not take a security at the time of the loan, only later.

Distinction: However, they argue in the Reisha, i.e. [a security taken] at the time of the loan.

According to how we establish (82a) that they argue about R. Yitzchak's law, [the Gemara] held that R. Yitzchak discusses even at the time of the loan, and R. Eliezer argues with him about this;

However, in the Seifa, which discusses not at the time of the loan, he admits that he acquires, for "u'Lecha Tihyeh Tzedakah" discusses primarily not at the time of the loan.

Explanation #1: Rashi explained in Shevuos (44a) that due to the document, R. Eliezer admits in the Seifa;

Since he has a document, he took the security for the sake of a security, and not merely for a reminder, like in the Reisha;

Question #1: If in the Reisha he took it merely for a reminder, because there is no document, why isn't the law that it is Meshamet (canceled in Shemitah), even if the security is worth as much as the loan?

It connotes like this above (49a), that when he took it merely for a reminder, it is Meshamet;

There it connotes that if the security is worth as much as the loan, all agree that it is not Meshamet (for it is for collection)!

Question #2: Why does it say that clearly, our Mishnah is unlike R. Eliezer? We should establish it to discuss a document, about which R. Eliezer agrees!

Explanation #2: Rather, this shows that even R. Eliezer agrees only not at the time of the loan.

Disclaimer: We could answer (Question #2) that "he lent to him on a security" connotes without a document;

Also, if our Mishnah discusses a document, R. Yehudah would not disagree, for he said that if he lent coins, he is a Shomer Chinam [on the security]. He would not argue with R. Eliezer and R. Akiva!

Note: It is not difficult if R. Yehudah argues with his Rebbi (R. Akiva). However, R. Eliezer was R. Akiva's Rebbi. It is difficult to be Mechadesh a new opinion unlike both opinions of the previous two generations!

Support: Also Bahag of R. Yehudai Gaon connotes that the Seifa, of one who lent with a document, discusses [a security taken] not at the time of the loan;

Note: Rashi (Sukah 38b), Tosafists and others say that Rav Yehudai authored Hilchos Gedolos. Others, including Talmidei ha'Rif, attribute it to Rav Shimon Kaira. The Rashba (Teshuvah 1:504) says that both of them compiled Halachos.

Source: He establishes R. Yitzchak's teaching that a creditor acquires [a security taken] specifically not at the time of the loan, but at the time of the loan, he does not acquire - this [distinction] is only with a document. Since there is a document, he does not rely on the security, rather, on the document.

However, without a document, even at the time of the loan, he acquires, and he is a Shomer Sachar.

And [if he took the security] not at the time of the loan he is a Shomer Sachar, even if there is a document, for surely he relies on the security;

Consequence: If so, the Seifa, of one who lent with a document, discusses [a security taken] not at the time of the loan, for at the time of the loan, he did not lose his money, for he relied on his document. (The security is not for collection.)

[Bahag] wants to say that when there is no document, he acquires even at the time of the loan. This is not due to R. Yitzchak's reason, for the verse discusses only not at the time of the loan;

Rather, he acquires due to Shmuel (if the lender took even a small security for a big loan, and loses the security, he loses the whole loan). He holds that the Halachah follows Shmuel, and the Halachah does not follow Rav Yosef (that a Shomer Aveidah is a Shomer Sachar).

Inference: "One who lends on a security" connotes at the time of the loan.

Question: In Gitin (37a), a Mishnah says that one who lends to his friend on a security, and one who hands over his documents to Beis Din, the loan is not Meshmaet;

The Gemara explains that one who lends on a security, it is not Meshmaet because he acquires [the security], due to R. Yitzchak's teaching.

R. Yitzchak taught only about not at the time of the loan, and "on a security" connotes that even at the time of the loan, it is not Meshmaet!

Answer: Since not at the time of the loan he totally acquires [the security], due to R. Yitzchak's teaching, also at the time of the loan, when the Kinyan is only a lien, his lien is strong enough to be considered "of your brother in your hand."

Implied question: In Pesachim (31b), regarding a Yisrael who lent to a Nochri, relying on the Nochri's Chametz for security, [the Yisrael] transgresses [for owning it during Pesach], due to R. Yitzchak's teaching, like we say there!

Answer: Also there, since not at the time of the loan he totally acquires, also at the time of the loan, his lien is strong enough to consider [the Chametz] to be a Yisrael's;

Consequence: Similarly, if a Nochri lent to a Yisrael, relying on the Yisrael's Chametz, if not that a Nochri does not acquire [a security] from a Yisrael, [the Chametz] would not become forbidden, even [for a security taken] at the time of the loan, which he does not acquire;

Since [if a Nochri could acquire a security from a Yisrael,] not at the time of the loan he would acquire, also at the time of the loan his lien would be strong enough to avoid the need for Bi'ur.

Implied question: It is the Yisrael's, and it is called "Shelcha"!

Answer: Even so, since the verse says "Lo Yimatzei", he is obligated only when it is totally available to him. Since the Nochri has a strong lien, it is not considered available [to the Yisrael].

Support: We say so in Pesachim (6a) that if (a Nochri deposited Chametz with a Yisrael [with Acharayos], and he fixed a house (place) for it, [the Yisrael] need not destroy it, even though it is considered totally of the Yisrael, since he accepted Achrayus;

Even so, since he fixed a place for it, it is not available [to the Yisrael].