Question: It should have said "he is a Loveh" regarding [the money! She'elah refers to lending an item that will itself be returned. Halva'ah is a loan such as money or food, in which the borrower pays back the equivalent of what he borrowed].

Answer #1: If we will say that if the owner comes before [the finder] spent the money, he must return those very coins to him, and not others, he is properly called a Sho'el.

Rejection: We cannot say so, for below (43a), it says that [if Reuven (the treasurer of Hekdesh) mistakenly deposited Hekdesh coins with Shimon (a moneychanger), and Shimon spent them, Reuven transgressed Me'ilah,] if Shimon is liable for Ones (he is considered like a borrower), why must we say that he spent them? Even if he did not spend them [the coins are in Shimon's Reshus, so Reuven transgressed Me'ilah]!

If he must return the same coins when Reuven claims them, if so, Shimon did not acquire them if he did not spend them, and Reuven was not Mo'el;

This is like it says below (99a), that if [the Gizbar lent a Hekdesh axe to Levi], if Levi did not chop with it, he did not transgress Me'ilah!

Note: It does not say so explicitly there, but it follows that Rav Huna holds like this. Rav Huna taught that a Mash'il may retract before the borrower uses it. It says that this is unlike R. Ami, who says that the Gizbar is Mo'el once he is Mash'il, and Levi may use it. According to Rav Huna, Levi should return it. He will not acquire it, and not be Mo'el!

Summation of Rejection: If so, what was the question "even if he did not spend them"?

Conclusion: Rather, surely even if those coins are still intact, he need not return them themselves!

Answer #2: It mentions a Sho'el because it discusses Ones, which is written in the Torah regarding a Sho'el, and also because it mentions a Shomer Chinam and Shomer Sachar.

Pesak - Opinion #1: R. Chananel and Bahag rule like Rav Yosef.

Source #1: They learn from Nedarim (33b. The Mishnah says) "he may return his Aveidah" (this will be explained);

One opinion says that only the Madir may return to the Mudar (the one who may not benefit from the Madir), but the Mudar may not return to the Madir, because [through the Madir, the Mudar] saves the Perutah of Rav Yosef. (While the Mudar is engaged in taking care of the Aveidah, he is exempt from giving a Perutah to an Oni who requests Tzedakah.)

The other opinion [permits even the Mudar to return to the Madir, because the Perutah of Rav Yosef is not common (that an Oni will request Tzedakah at the time.)

Inference: All hold like Rav Yosef!

Rebuttal: This is not a proof. Also Rabah agrees that when [a finder] is engaged with the Aveidah, he is exempt from giving bread to Aniyim;

However, he holds that it is not common that an Oni will come when he is engaged in needs of the Aveidah. It is unreasonable that he is a Shomer Sachar due to this, since it is not common.)

While the Aveidah is in his house and he is not engaging in it, obviously even according to Rav Yosef he is not exempt from giving bread to an Oni;

A person who is wearing Tzitzis or wearing Tefilin on his head, will you say that he is exempt from all Mitzvos [Aseh]?!

Suggestion: Below (31a), Rava establishes the verse Hashev Teshivem to teach that [it suffices to return] his guarded garden. It teaches that one does not need the knowledge of the owner, like Rav Yosef establishes it in Bava Kama (57a);

Rabah establishes this when it is not guarded very well, like his house. He brings a proof from this that a Shomer Aveidah is like a Shomer Chinam. [Since Rava holds like Rav Yosef,] this shows that the Halachah follows Rav Yosef!

Rejection #1: Rabah himself retracted when Rav Yosef answered that [Hashev Teshivem] teaches that one does not need the knowledge of the owner, and [also Rabah] establishes it to discuss his guarded garden;

Source: The verse [of Hashavas Aveidah] mentions also an ox and a Seh, and Rabah agrees that one becomes a Shomer Sachar on animals, because they got used to straying;

When [Rabah] wanted to bring a proof for himself, and he did not know Rav Yosef's answer, he needed to establish it to discuss tied animals, which is difficult;

Also, it was difficult to establish the verse to discuss a garden that is not guarded, and the verse teaches that he is a Shomer Chinam. Rabah holds from reasoning that he is a Shomer Chinam, for he receives no benefit!

Rejection #2: Below (31a, Rava) means as follows. What is the case? If it is not guarded - according to [Rabah] from negligence (i.e. putting it there is considered negligence), and according to [Rav Yosef] from theft or loss, why is he is exempt?

If it is guarded - according to [Rabah] like he holds, and according to [Rav Yosef] like he holds... (I.e. even though Rava concluded that it must be guarded, this does not mean that he holds like Rav Yosef.)

Source #2: Below (81b), R. Eliezer said that he swears that [if the lender] lost the security, he swears that it was lost, and receives his money (the loan). R. Akiva says, if he lost the security, he lost his money;

We establish our Mishnah of "one who lends and takes a security is a Shomer Sachar [on the security] unlike R. Eliezer. We establish that they argue about a Shomer Aveidah, and it says "let us say that Tana'im argue about Rav Yosef's law!"

Rashi explained that surely, Tana'im argue about Rabah's law. Rabah cannot hold like R. Akiva.

Inference: If so, the Halachah does not follow Rabah, for he holds like R. Eliezer, who is Shemuti (from Beis Shamai). Also our Mishnah is not like him!

Rejection: Surely, Tana'im do not argue about Rabah's law. Even according to R. Akiva, the Mitzvah does not make him a Shomer Sachar;

The reason R. Akiva says that he lost his money is like Shmuel. Even if [the security] was not worth the amount [of the loan], he lost the entire loan, for it is as if he stipulated that if he will lose the security, he will lose his money;

R. Eliezer argues with Shmuel. Even if [the security] is worth the amount [of the loan], he did not lose his money;

However, according to Rav Yosef, also when he establishes their argument to be about Shmuel's law, R. Eliezer is not like Rav Yosef, based on the conclusion now that we compare a loan based on a security to a Shomer Aveidah;

R. Eliezer exempts the lender when [the security] was lost. This shows that he is not a Shomer Sachar!

We answer that Rav Yosef's law is even like R. Eliezer.

Support: We cannot say that Rabah cannot hold like R. Akiva, for in our Sugya, it connotes that all hold like Rabah, and also according to R. Akiva he is a Shomer Chinam.

Implied question: A Mishnah (Shevu'os 43b) says that one who lends based on a security, and the security was lost, he is liable for its loss [and pays] the excess value of the security above the loan;

Answer: According to Rabah, we must establish it when it was lost through negligence, for he is only a Shomer Chinam;

[However,] its value corresponding to the debt he loses even if it was not lost through negligence, due to Shmuel's reason.

Support: This is not a poor answer, for similarly, when the Gemara initially wanted to establish that R. Eliezer and R. Akiva argue about the law of Shmuel or of R. Yitzchak (that a creditor acquires a security), and it did not compare [one who lent based on a security] to a Shomer Aveidah...

Also then, we needed to establish the Mishnah in Shevuos that obligates paying what the security was worth above the amount of the debt, to discuss when it was lost through negligence!

The law of Shmuel or R. Yitzchak is a reason to obligate the lender for losing the security only for the amount of the debt.

Note: Tosfos in Shevu'os explains that R. Yitzchak's law does not make the lender like a buyer, to be liable even for Ones. There, Tzelach explains that he is a Shomer Sachar on the amount corresponding to the debt, for he acquires it enough to be Mekadesh a woman with it.

Pesak - Opinion #2: We can prove from below (82a) that the Halachah follows Rabah!

If the Halachah follows Rav Yosef, why does the Gemara establish "rather, clearly our Mishnah is unlike R. Eliezer?"

It should establish it when the lender does not need the security. He is a Shomer Sachar even according to R. Eliezer. They argue about when the lender needs the security!

Rather, surely it is because the Halachah follows Rabah, and the Halachah does not follow Rav Yosef, and according to [Rabah], we cannot establish our Mishnah like R. Eliezer.

Support #1: Below (43a), Rav Nachman holds [that if one deposited loose coins with a moneychanger, and they were lost, he is liable,] but not if Ones occurred;

Inference: He holds that through the Hana'ah that he may use them, he is only a Shomer Sachar. This is like Rabah. According to Rav Yosef, he is a Sho'el.

Suggestion: [This is not a proof, for] here that he is a Shomer Aveidah, and without a Heter to use [the money he sold it for] he is a Shomer Sachar, now that he may use it, he is a Sho'el...

However, there we do not discuss an Aveidah. Due to the Heter to use [the coins] alone, he is only a Shomer Sachar!

Rejection: Since due to the Heter to use [the coins] alone he is only a Shomer Sachar, like Rav Nachman, if so, also due to Perutah d'Rav Yosef, because he is a Shomer Aveidah, it is unreasonable that he gets the law of a Sho'el;

If they give extra wages to a Shomer [Sachar], does he get the law of a Sho'el?! (Perutah d'Rav Yosef is no better than extra wages.)

Support #2: We rule like Rabah [whenever he argues with Rav Yosef], except for the cases of a field (Bava Basra 12b - when an heir may demand to receive his portion near other property that he owns), the matter (if a Shechiv Mera gave a gift, he can retract as long as they are engaged in the matter), and half (if one told his wife 'my property is to you and your sons', she gets half, and her sons get half. Rabah does not argue about half, but it is a Chidush that the Halachah follows Rav Yosef - Rosh)!

Suggestion: [This is not a proof, for] this rule [that we rule like Rabah against Rav Yosef] applies only in Bava Basra.

Rejection #1: Teshuvos of Rav Tzemach Gaon refute this. He said in Gitin (74b) that we hold like Rabah, and he did not say "here", which would imply "here, but not in other cases", like it says about R. Shimon ben Gamliel.

Rejection #2: In Eruvin (52b), in the Sugya of one who began a journey, the Halachah is resolved better if we say that the Halachah follows Rabah against Rav Yosef, like Rashi explained. (The Gemara concluded like R. Yehudah according to Rabah, even though it could have said like R. Yehudah according to Rav Yosef, because we follow Rabah against Rav Yosef.)

Rejection #3: In Seder Tana'im v'Amora'im, it says that when Rabah argues with Rav Yosef, we rule like Rabah, except for a field, a matter and half;

All our Rebbeyim agree that in other matters, Stam the Halachah follows Rabah, if there is no proof like Rav Yosef.

Explanation: Granted, according to Rabah, Lefichach of R. Akiva teaches unlike Rav Yosef, so we can say that Lefichach of R. Tarfon is due to [parallel structure with] Lefichach of R. Akiva;

Alternatively, Lefichach of R. Tarfon also comes for an inference. Only because it is permitted to use [the coins], he is liable, but if it were forbidden to use [them], he would be exempt, unlike Rav Yosef.

However, according to Rav Yosef, why does [R. Tarfon] say Lefichach?

Question #1: What was the question "why does he say Lefichach"? This teaches a big Chidush!

Initially (had he not said "Lefichach"), we would say that due to Heter to use them, he is only a Shomer Sachar, but not a Sho'el, for it says "they were lost", which connotes Stam loss, without Ones. (Maharsha - even though every Shomer Aveidah is like a Shomer Sachar, above (DH v'Havi), Tosfos said that additional wages does not make him a Sho'el);

Now we want to say that due to the Heter to use them, he is a Sho'el, and "they were lost" means [Ones, e.g.] that his ship sank in the sea!

Question #2: Below (43a) we need the Mishnah to teach that due to the Heter to use them, he is a Shomer Sachar according to Rav Nachman, who say that if Ones occurred, no [he is not liable] regarding one who deposited coins with a moneychanger;

It says that if they were wrapped, he may not use them, therefore if they were lost, he is not liable;

Implied question: This is obvious that he is not liable for loss, since he is a Shomer Chinam!

Answer: We need the Seifa to teach that if they were loose, he may use them, therefore if they were lost, he is liable to replace them;

He is a Shomer Sachar according to Rav Nachman, who says "but not if Ones occurred."

Summation of question: Since we need to hear that he becomes even a Shomer Sachar due to the Heter to use them, all the more so here, to be a Sho'el, this is not obvious, and he needs to teach this!

Answer: "Why does R. Tarfon say Lefichach?" is not a challenge. Rather, it is a mere [rhetorical question preceding the] explanation.

Question: We say in Sotah (48a) that after the Churban, Zechuchis Levanah (an expensive crystal) was Batel!

Answer: It is not totally Batel, just it is not common.

Proof: We find that Rav Huna broke Zechuchis Levanah at his son's Chupah.