Explanation #1 (Rashi): However, when it is worth [the entire loan], all agree that he is a Shomer Sachar.

Support: In Shevuos (43b), some texts say "what is the case? If it is worth the money [of the loan], what is R. Eliezer's reason? Rather, it is not worth, and they argue about Shmuel's teaching;

This connotes like Rashi, that when it is worth, all agree.

Question: If so, why do we say that our Mishnah is unlike R. Eliezer? We should establish the case to be that it is worth, and it is like everyone!

Suggestion: We say that our Mishnah is unlike R. Eliezer, i.e. according to the conclusion, that they argue about when it is worth the amount, and [they argue] about Rav Yosef's teaching.

Rejection: The Halachah follows Rabah, and he holds that in the conclusion, they argue about Shmuel's teaching, like I explained above (29a)!

Answer: We can say that we cannot establish our Mishnah when it is worth [the loan], and like everyone, for it is unreasonable that R. Yehudah would argue with R. Eliezer and R. Akiva;

Rather, surely our Mishnah discusses when it is not worth [the loan].

Question: Since when it is worth the coins, all agree that he lost his money, if so when it is not worth, all should agree that he lost [the part of his loan] corresponding to the security!

If so, according to R. Eliezer, why does he swear that he lost the security without negligence? What does he gain through that Shevu'ah?

The coins corresponding to the security he loses even without negligence, and what exceeds the value of the security he receives even if he was negligent with the security, since he does not hold like Shmuel!!

Suggestion: Rashi explained that when [the security] is not worth the coins [of the loan], he does not lose even corresponding to the security, according to R. Eliezer, since he took it for a mere reminder.

Rejection #1: This is unreasonable. If when it is worth [the loan], he lost his money, even though he does not hold like Shmuel, if so you are forced to says he loses only due to Rav Yosef's reason, that due to the Mitzvah, he is a Shomer Sachar;

For this same reason, he should lose what corresponds to the security when it is not worth, for all the more so he did a Mitzvah, to lend to him on a small security!

Rejection #2: According to the text of Seforim, this connotes like Rav Yosef, and we hold like Rabah, like I explained above (29a)!

Answer: We can say that when it is worth, all agree that he is a Shomer Sachar, not due to Rav Yosef's reason, rather, due to Shmuel. It is as if he explicitly specified that if the security is lost, his coins are lost;

When it is not worth the coins, at the time of the loan since he took it for a mere reminder. Even corresponding to the security, it is not as if he specified, according to R. Eliezer.

Objection: In a case, this is a poor answer.

Explanation #2: "We should say that it is not worth, and they argue about Shmuel's law", i.e. even when it is not worth. They argue about Shmuel's law, and not about R. Yitzchak's law and Rav Yosef's;

According to their (R. Yitzchak's and Rav Yosef's) reasons, they can argue only when it is worth.

Also, the truth is that they do not argue about R. Yitzchak's law, like we conclude (that they argue only about a security taken at the time of the loan), and not about Rav Yosef's law, for we hold like Rabah;

They argue about Shmuel's law, whether or not it is worth. R. Eliezer does not hold like Shmuel. Therefore, he did not lose even what corresponds to the security;

Why should he lose, since he does not hold like Shmuel? (He is a Shomer Chinam!)

R. Akiva holds like Shmuel. He loses his coins, even what exceeds the security.

Implied question: Why does the Mishnah say that he is a Shomer Sachar?

Answer #1: This is not precise. This (being a Shomer Sachar) does not apply to the coins above the value of the security!

Rather, he has the law of a Shomer Sachar. He loses everything through theft or loss, but not through Ones.

Answer #2: Our Mishnah discusses when it is worth [the loan]. A Stam security is worth the entire debt. Therefore, he is called a Shomer Sachar.

Reference: In Shevuos (43b), the Gemara challenges Shmuel from the Mishnah that says "I lent to you a Sela (four Dinarim) on [the security, and I lost it], and it was worth a Shekel (two Dinarim)", and [the borrower] says "no, it was worth three Dinarim." [The borrower] is obligated [to swear, for the lender claims from him two Dinarim, and he admits that he owes one];

Why [is he liable? According to Shmuel, the lender] accepted [that if he loses the security, he lost the entire loan]!

The text in Seforim says, and so Rashi explains, that our Mishnah is when he specified (that if he loses the security, he does not lose the entire loan). Shmuel discusses when he does not specify.

Support: According to this text, it is fine that here we could not say that all hold like Shmuel, for if R. Eliezer holds like Shmuel, why does [the lender] swear and receive?]!

Granted, he does not hold like R. Yitzchak. However, due to Shmuel's reason he should lose everything, even if he did not specify and it is not worth [the entire loan], and all the more so when it is worth!

Suggestion: The case is, he stipulated that he will not lose.

Rejection: If so, R. Akiva would not argue!

Alternative text: Rather, R. Chananel's text [there] is correct. Our Mishnah is when he did not specify. Shmuel discusses when he specified that [if he loses the security,] he will lose all his coins.

Support (R. Tam): This is primary. It is unreasonable that he lose all his coins if he did not specify.

It means as follows. According to the opinion that establishes their argument to be about Shmuel's law, R. Eliezer does not hold like Shmuel. Even if he stipulated, it does not help, for it is Asmachta;

Since he does not lose the coins above the value of the security, also what corresponds to the security he did not lose, like it says above (66b) "did he say `acquire for collection'?!"

R. Akiva holds that Asmachta is only when he says something to make his friend rely on his words, e.g. "if I will leave [the field] fallow and not work, I will pay 1000 Zuz";

However, here the lender pardoned his entire debt if he will lose the security.

Question: According to this text, why don't we say here that all hold like Shmuel when he stipulated? Here, the security is worth [the entire loan], and he did not stipulate, and they argue about R. Yitzchak's law?

[It would be proper to say so, for] the Halachah follows Shmuel, for Rav Nachman and Neharde'ei hold like him there!

Answer: The Gemara holds that if he stipulate to lose the entire debt, also when he did not stipulate he loses corresponding to the security, for what corresponds to the security, it is as if he stipulated;

Therefore, we cannot say that all hold like Shmuel, for if so, according to R. Eliezer, why does [the lender] swear and receive all his money? He should lose what corresponds to the security, since he holds like Shmuel!

In any case, the Halachah follows Shmuel when he stipulated.

Pesak: R. Chananel explained that the Halachah does not follow Shmuel, because it says here that all hold unlike Shmuel.

Rejection #1: This is not a proof. The Gemara is wont to reject that all do not hold [like Ploni], even if the Halachah follows him, since it cannot say that all hold like him.

Rejection #2: According to the truth, that we hold like Rabah, they argue about Shmuel's law, and R. Akiva and our Mishnah are like Shmuel. If so, we hold like Shmuel.

Implied question: Rav argues with him, for above (48b) we compare the argument of Rav [and R. Yochanan] of Eravon (whether or not partial payment acquires the entire Mekach) to the argument of R. Shimon ben Gamliel and Rebbi about [Shemitah of a loan when the security is] worth only half, and in Shevuos (44b) it compares the argument of R. Shimon ben Gamliel and Rebbi to Shmuel;

If so, the argument of Shmuel and Rav was said regarding Mi she'Para, which is Isur, and the Halachah follows Rav [against Shmuel] in Isurim!

Answer: Shmuel's law was said regarding Dinim (monetary laws) and the Halachah follows Shmuel [against Rav] in Dinim. (Therefore, it is equally reasonable to say that we rule like Shmuel in this argument.)

Strengthening of answer: R. Yochanan argues with Rav about Eravon, and holds like Shmuel, and we hold that when Rav and R. Yochanan argue, the Halachah follows R. Yochanan. (Surely we rule like R. Yochanan and Shmuel!)

And we hold like Rav Nachman in Dinim against everyone, and he holds like Shmuel.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Surely, Tana'im argue about Rabah's law.

Explanation #2: Above (29a), I explained that surely, [Rabah holds that] Tana'im do not argue about his law. He establishes their argument regarding Shmuel's law, and all hold like Rabah;

However, according to Rav Yosef, even if they argue about Shmuel's law, R. Eliezer does not hold like [Rav Yosef].

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He needs to use the security.

Question: Above (81b), it says that our Mishnah is unlike R. Eliezer. We should establish our Mishnah when he does not need the security!

Answer #1: The Sugya above is like Rabah (81b), for we hold like him.

Answer #2: If the Mishnah discusses when he does not need [the security], R. Yehudah would not argue.

Explanation #2 (R. Chananel): "He needs the security" means that he does not want to lend to him without a security.

Support: This explains why he could not establish our Mishnah when he does not need.

Rebuttal #1: This explanation is difficult. "He needs the security" does not connote like this.

Rebuttal #2: Even though he wants to lend to him only with a security, he does a Mitzvah;

He need not lend without a security, since he fears to lose, and it is possible with a security.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Not at the time of the loan he acquires it to be liable even for Ones.

Consequence: According to this, what it says in Pesachim (5b) that one must eradicate deposits [of Chametz] of Nochrim when the Yisrael accepted Achrayus, this is when he accepted Achrayus for Ones;

Source: One who lends on a security of Chametz at the time of the loan, even though he has Achrayus for the security regarding theft or loss, from Shmuel's law, and even if he did not stipulate, like I explained above, that what corresponds to the security, it is as if he stipulated...

Even so, he need not eradicate it, if not because he totally acquires it not at the time of the loan, like R. Yitzchak taught.

Objection: Not at the time of the loan, he does not acquire to be liable for Ones!

Rather, he is a Shomer Sachar, for we compare our Mishnah, which teaches [that he is] a Shomer Sachar, to R. Yitzchak's law.

Support: Bahag, which I brought above (81b Sof DH Divrei), explained like this, and so did Sha'arim of Rav Hai Gaon, in Sha'ar 42.

Question: Why is he a Shomer Sachar?

If it is considered a full Kinyan, he should be liable even for Ones!

If it is not considered a full Kinyan, he should not be even a Shomer Sachar!

Answer: Through the Hana'ah that he can be Mekadesh a woman [with the security], like we say in Kidushin (8b) that if one was Mekadesh a woman with another's security, she is Mekudeshes...

Also, he can acquire [through the security] slaves and land. Through these Hana'os, he is a Shomer Sachar.

Consequence: It says that if he was Mekadesh with a security, she is Mekudeshes. This is only with a security taken not at the time of the loan.

Question: Why is he considered a Shomer Sachar due to this? He could have been Mekadesh with his coins (had he not given the loan)!

Answer: Since now that he takes the security, he does not have his coins, he is considered a Shomer Sachar, since he can make Kidushin or a Kinyan with [the security];

Also, he can do Chalipin with the security. He could not have done so with his coins, for coins do not make Chalipin.

Question: In Pesachim (31b), Rabanan argue with R. Meir, who says that if a Yisrael lent to a Nochri, relying on the Nochri's Chametz, he transgresses for it;

[The Gemara] explains there that they argue about R. Yitzchak's law. Rabanan do not hold like R. Yitzchak.

Alternatively, all hold like R. Yitzchak. Rabanan say that he does not transgress, for they hold that a Yisrael does not acquire [a security] from a Nochri.

Question: If so, according to Rabanan, why doesn't he transgress? We hold like Shmuel, that he is a Shomer Sachar, even if he did not stipulate, like I explained;

Due to R. Yitzchak's law, he is only a Shomer Sachar, and even so, it is called his (the lender's)!

Answer: Due to the obligation of a Shomer Sachar it would not be called his Chametz, if not that the verse said that he acquired it, and it is his, like R. Yitzchak taught.

Explanation: R. Yehudah does not contradict himself.

Implied question: The Chachamim who exempt when his jug broke, and he did not clear it away, they are R. Yehudah, like is proven in Bava Kama (28b)!

Answer: R. Yehudah holds that one who trips is not considered negligent. Since he is not negligent, even though it is not total Ones, he is exempt when his jug broke, and he did not clear it away;

Something [stationary that is prone to damage] is considered a Bor only if it was made through negligence. However, when it was made through Ones like theft or loss, e.g. an uncommon wind, he is exempt, like the Seifa of the Beraisa teaches that his jug broke.

Explanation: R. Meir admits to Chachamim regarding one who brings his flasks up to the roof to dry them, and they fell in an uncommon wind and damaged, that he is exempt.

Question: Even if R. Meir holds that one who trips is not considered negligent, rather, it is Ones, why is he is exempt? ;

Adam ha'Mazik (a man who damages), we include from (Petza Tachas Patza) to obligate for Ones like Ratzon (what he did willingly)!

Answer: Adam ha'Mazik is not liable for every Ones, rather, only for an Ones like theft or loss, like an uncommon wind;

We say in Bava Kama (27a) that if one fell from the roof in an uncommon wind, he is liable for damage;

An uncommon wind is like losing [a deposit], like it says in Bava Kama (45a) that all of them [Shomerim] must return the value of the ox to the owner, except for a Shomer Chinam;

We establish there that he guarded it poorly. He did not guard it well. A Shomer Chinam fulfilled his [obligatory] Shemirah...

A poor Shemirah is a door that can stand in a common wind, but cannot stand in an uncommon wind, like it connotes in Bava Kama (55b):

This is like theft or loss, for which a Shomer Chinam is exempt, and a Shomer Sachar is liable.

Distinction: However, for total Ones, Adam ha'Mazik is exempt, like the Yerushalmi connotes. If he was sleeping, and his friend came and slept by him, and they damaged each other, the first is exempt and the latter is liable.

Support #1: In Bava Kama (112a, if one borrowed a cow and died, and his children thought it was their father's, and) they slaughtered and ate it, they pay a discounted price for the meat;

Since they were not responsible to know that it was borrowed, they do not pay what they damaged, only what they benefited.

Support #2: In Bava Kama (27b, if one left his jug in Reshus ha'Rabim, and another came and tripped on it, and it broke, he is exempt), because normally people do not look where they walk;

[Also the] other answers there exempt him because he was not obligated to know [that there is a jug there].

Support #3: Also our Mishnah there (32a) says that if the owner of the barrel was [walking] in front... if he stopped [and the man carrying a beam in back of him collided and broke the barrel], the owner of the beam is exempt. There are many cases similar to these.

Question: R. Yehudah, who says that tripping is not Ones, and a Shomer Sachar must pay [for it], why is one who transported a barrel for free exempt [if he tripped and it broke]? He is Adam ha'Mazik!

Answer: R. Yehudah holds that tripping is like theft. It is close to Ones, therefore Adam ha'Mazik is exempt for it;

He obligates Adam ha'Mazik only for something like Aveidah, which is close to negligence;

This is like it says below (94b) that Aveidah is close to negligence, and theft is close to Ones;

An uncommon wind is considered like Aveidah, therefore Adam ha'Mazik is liable for it.

Support: In Bava Kama (99b), the Gemara challenges the one who exempts a professional Shochet who ruined [the Shechitah] when he slaughtered for free...

[We ask] from a Beraisa that says "[if he was given] an animal to slaughter and he made it a Neveilah (through invalid Shechitah), he is liable, for he is like a Shomer Sachar;

Question: How did the Makshan understand "for he is like a Shomer Sachar", even though he does for free?

If he thought that he is considered negligent, why do we attribute [liability] to being like a Shomer Sachar? It should say "because he was negligent"!

If he thought that it is like theft or loss, and even so he is liable, like the law of Adam ha'Mazik, why do we answer "because he is paid"?

If it is like theft or loss, even for free he should be liable, like the law of Adam ha'Mazik!

If the Makshan compares it to total Ones, if so also a Shomer Sachar should be exempt!

Answer: Rather, surely Adam ha'Mazik is liable for [Ones] like Aveidah, and exempt for what is like theft;

The Makshan compared invalid Shechitah of a professional to [Ones like] Aveidah;

[The Gemara] answered "say that it is because he is paid", but if he slaughtered for free, he is exempt, for it is like theft.

Explanation: Initially it was fine. He swears that he did not deviate from the custom;

However, now that you answered that even if he did not deviate, he is negligent, and even so he is exempt due to Chachamim's enactment, if so, even if he deviated from the custom he should be exempt due to that enactment!

Why should we distinguish a great negligence from a small negligence?

We answer that he swears that he did not break it intentionally.