## Shevuot Daf 44a

###### Shevuot 44a:1
[Shevuot 44a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/44a:1)

מַאי טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר? אֶלָּא לָאו בִּדְלָא שָׁוֵי שִׁיעוּר זוּזֵי – וּבְדִשְׁמוּאֵל קָא מִיפַּלְגִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**what is the reasoning of Rabbi Eliezer,** who holds that although the collateral was lost, the debtor is still liable to pay? **Rather, is it not** a case **where** the collateral was **not worth the amount of money** that he lent him? **And** accordingly, **they disagree with regard to** the ruling of **Shmuel.** Rabbi Akiva holds in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, that if the collateral is lost the entire debt is canceled, and Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with this opinion.


###### Shevuot 44a:2
[Shevuot 44a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/44a:2)

לָא; בִּדְלָא שָׁוֵי – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לֵית לְהוּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל; וְהָכָא בִּדְשָׁוֵי שִׁיעוּר זוּזֵי, וּבִדְרַבִּי יִצְחָק קָא מִיפַּלְגִי – דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מִנַּיִן לְבַעַל חוֹב שֶׁקּוֹנֶה מַשְׁכּוֹן? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּלְךָ תִּהְיֶה צְדָקָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **No, in** a case **where** the collateral was **not worth** the value of the loan **everyone is of** the opinion that the ruling is **not** in accordance with the opinion **of Shmuel. But here** the dispute is **with regard to** a case **where** the collateral was **worth the amount of money** that he lent him, **and they disagree with regard to** the opinion **of Rabbi Yitzḥak. As Rabbi Yitzḥak says: From where** is it derived **that a creditor acquires collateral** given to him and is considered its owner as long as the item is in his possession? **As it is stated** with regard to a creditor who returns the collateral to the debtor for his personal use: **“And it shall be a righteousness for you”** (Deuteronomy 24:13).


###### Shevuot 44a:3
[Shevuot 44a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/44a:3)

אִם אֵינוֹ קוֹנֶה מַשְׁכּוֹן, צְדָקָה מִנַּיִן לוֹ? מִכָּאן לְבַעַל חוֹב שֶׁקּוֹנֶה מַשְׁכּוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yitzḥak infers: **If** the creditor **does not acquire** the **collateral,** then **from where is his righteousness?** If the collateral is not his, the creditor would not be giving up anything of his own. **From here** it is derived **that a creditor acquires** the **collateral.** Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with this opinion, maintaining that the creditor has the halakhic status of an unpaid bailee with respect to the collateral, so that he is exempt from paying restitution if it is stolen or lost. He can therefore collect the entire debt from the debtor. Rabbi Akiva agrees with the opinion of Rabbi Yitzḥak, and holds that since the creditor acquires the collateral, he bears financial responsibility to pay its value in the event of its loss. Therefore, he must deduct the value of the collateral when collecting payment of the debt.


###### Shevuot 44a:4
[Shevuot 44a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/44a:4)

לֵימָא דְּרַבִּי יִצְחָק תַּנָּאֵי הִיא? וְתִיסְבְּרָא?! אֵימוֹר דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק – שֶׁמִּשְׁכְּנוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת הַלְוָאָה; מִשְׁכְּנוֹ בִּשְׁעַת הַלְוָאָה מִי אָמַר?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If so, **shall we say** that the opinion **of Rabbi Yitzḥak is** the subject of a dispute between ***tanna’im*?** The Gemara answers: **And** how can **you understand** that? **Say that Rabbi Yitzḥak says** that a creditor acquires the collateral in a case **where he took the collateral from him not at the time of the loan,** but afterward, in order to induce him to return the loan, as described in the context of the aforementioned verse. But in a case where the creditor **took the collateral from him at the time of the loan, does** Rabbi Yitzḥak **say** that he has acquired it?


###### Shevuot 44a:5
[Shevuot 44a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/44a:5)

אֶלָּא מִשְׁכְּנוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת הַלְוָאָתוֹ – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּאִית לְהוּ דְּרַבִּי יִצְחָק. וְהָכָא – בְּמִשְׁכְּנוֹ בִּשְׁעַת הַלְוָאָתוֹ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** in a case where **he took the collateral from him not at the time of the loan, everyone agrees that** the opinion **of Rabbi Yitzḥak is accepted, and here,** the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva is **with regard to** a case where **he took the collateral from him at the time of the loan.**


###### Shevuot 44a:6
[Shevuot 44a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/44a:6)

וּבְשׁוֹמֵר אֲבֵדָה קָמִיפַּלְגִי; דְּאִיתְּמַר: שׁוֹמֵר אֲבֵדָה – רַבָּה אָמַר: כְּשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And they disagree with regard to** the halakhic status of **one who is safeguarding a lost item** that he found but has not yet returned. **As it was stated:** With regard to **one who is safeguarding a lost item, Rabba says** that his halakhic status is **like** that of **an unpaid bailee,** who is exempt from paying restitution in the event that the item is lost or stolen,