If it was taken "in the way it was going" (בדרך הליכתה), he says to him, "Behold, yours is in front of you" (הרי שלך לפניך). The Commentary Explains: (This refers to a commentary, likely the Rashi commentary on the Talmud) If the donkey was being led along the road that the renter wanted to go, the owner says, "Behold, yours is in front of you." And the renter can hire another animal until he gets there. Question: Why should he hire another animal? Shouldn't the owner provide it? (This is a question being posed in the text, highlighting the dilemma.) Answer: If the renter doesn't need the donkey for the journey, only for the return, then it's a different matter (הוי א"ש). (This suggests that there's a distinction in the law depending on the renter's need for the donkey). Rejection: But if so, shouldn't we have distinguished between needing the donkey immediately and only needing it for the return? (This is a point of contention, suggesting that the text should have addressed this distinction). It seems according to R. Chananel's Commentary: (This refers to the commentary of Rabbi Chananel) He interprets "in the way it was going" (בדרך הליכתה) to mean that the king's servants aren't searching houses but are only taking animals that they encounter on the road. The Owner Says: "Yours is in front of you." He can say that the renter's bad luck (מזלך גרם) caused this, and if the animal had been in the house (שאילו היתה בבית), it wouldn't have been taken. Even if it isn't returned: This is unlike when the donkey died, because here, the renter's bad luck (מזלא דידיה גורם) is clearly the cause. If it was taken not "in the way it was going," (שלא בדרך הליכתה) meaning they were searching in houses: Then the owner must provide a replacement donkey immediately (לאלתר) for the renter to do his work, because this wasn't the result of bad luck (לא מזלו של שוכר גורם). Even if the king's servants return the donkey: The renter shouldn't have to delay his work (אין לו לשוכר להתעכב ממלאכתו), so the owner should provide a replacement until the original donkey is back. This is unlike when the donkey was injured (הבריקה) or went mad (נשתטתה). (These are specific situations that are not directly related to the owner's responsibility).

By inference one can learn that according to the opinion of the first tanna there is no difference and Shmuel is refuted, as tanna kamma considered like a majority opinion versus the individual.