1)

(a)We just suggested that Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Akiva argue in a case where the security is worth less than the loan, and the basis of their Machlokes is over Shmuel's Din. Alternatively, they argue even in a case where the security is equivalent to the loan, and they argue over Rebbi Yitzchak's, who says - 'Ba'al-Chov Koneh Mashkon' ('A creditor acquires the security').

(b)And he extrapolates this from the Pasuk (in connection with the Din of returning a Mashkon [daily or nightly]) "u'Lecha Tih'yeh Tzedakah" - because if the creditor did not acquire the security, why would returning it be considered Tzedakah?

(c)And as for the Machlokes Tana'im, Rebbi ...

1. ... Akiva holds like the opinion of Shmuel, whereas Rebbi ...

2. ... Eliezer does not (which explains why the creditor does not lose his right to claim when he loses the security).

2)

(a)The problem with this, based on the fact that Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Akiva are talking about a 'Mashkon be'Sha'as Halva'ah' is - that Rebbi Yitzchak speaks about a 'Mashkon she'Lo be'Sha'as Halva'ah' exclusively.

(b)The S'vara behind this distinction is - the fact that whereas a Mashkon she'Lo be'Sha'as Halva'ah is enacted by the Beis-Din, who claim the Mashkon from the debtor when he fails to pay, a Mashkon be'Sha'as Halva'ah is a private enterprise.

(c)In fact we conclude, everyone holds like Rebbi Yitzchak, and they argue in the case of a Mashkon be'Sha'as Halva'ah the status of a Shomer Aveidah, whether he is a Shomer Chinam (Rebbi Eliezer), or a Shomer Sachar (Rebbi Akiva).

3)

(a)Similarly, Rabah and Rav Yosef argue over a Shomer Aveidah - Rabah holds that he is a Shomer Chinam, Rav Yosef, a Shomer Sachar.

(b)What makes a Shomer Aveidah a Shomer Sachar, according to Rav Yosef is - the fact that he gains a P'rutah whenever a poor man comes for Tzedakah and he is looking after the Aveidah (see Tosfos).

(c)We ask whether Rav Yosef's opinion is a Machlokes Tana'im. Rabah's opinion certainly is - because if even where there is no Mitzvah involved (and he is not Patur from giving a poor man Tzedakah), Rebbi Akiva holds that he is a Shomer Sachar, how much more so where there is!

(d)We conclude that everybody holds like Rav Yosef, and that they are arguing over whether 'Malveh al Mashkon' is a Mitzvah or not. Rebbi ...

1. ... Akiva holds that it is - because it is a Mitzvah to lend a fellow-Jew money, as the Pasuk says in Mishpatim "Im Kesef Talveh es Ami".

2. ... Eliezer hold that it is not - because the Mashkon is meant for his personal benefit, to use it and to deduct what he benefits from the amount owing (and to augment the Mitzvah) ...

(e)... unlike a Shomer Aveidah - who is not permitted to use the article.

4)

(a)) We then try to connect Shmuel's Din ('Avad Kata de'Magla, Avad Alfa Zuzi') with the Machlokes Tana'im in the Beraisa 'ha'Malveh es Chavero al ha'Mashkon ve'Nichn'sah Sh'mitah, af-al-Pi she'Eino Shaveh Ela Palga, Eino Meshamet, Divrei Raban Shimon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi Omer - Im Hayah Mashkono Keneged Chovo, Eino Meshamet ... '.

(b)On principle, Sh'mitah does not cancel a debt on which there is a Mashkon - because the Din of Hashmatas Kesafim is based on the Pasuk in Re'ei "Lo Yigos" (the prohibition of claiming a debt in the Sh'mitah), and a creditor who has a Mashkon does not need to claim.

(c)Initially, we establish Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's ruling on the half of the loan that is in excess of the Mashkon - because why would Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi argue on the half that it does cover? What would then be the purpose of the Mashkon?

(d)In that case - Raban Shimon ben Gamliel follows the opinion of Shmuel, and Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi does not.

5)

(a)We conclude however, that they are arguing over the half that the Mashkon covers. The Tana Kama holds that at least the half that is covered by the Mashkon is not cancelled by the Sh'mitah. Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi however holds - even that half is cancelled too, because, in his opinion, a Mashkon serves as no more than a reminder (and has no other legal ramifications).

(b)Neither Tana, in fact, will then conform with Shmuel's opinion.

6)

(a)'Sachir', 'Nigzal' and 'Nechbal' all belong to the list of cases that swear and take (as opposed to swearing and not having to pay).

(b)Our Mishnah adds two more cases to the list. One of them is 'she'Kenegdo Chashud al ha'Shevu'ah' - the other, 'Chenvani al Pinkaso' (both of which will be defined shortly).

(c)The case of ...

1. ... 'Sachir' is - where Reuven claims his wages from Shimon, who argues that he has already paid.

2. ... 'Nigzal' is - where witnesses testify that Reuven entered Shimon's house to take a security without Beis-Din's permission, and he subsequently denies Shimon's claim that he actually took some objects.

3. ... 'Nechbal' is - where witnesses testify that when Shimon, followed by Reuven, entered a house, he was unblemished, but when he left, he was wounded.

4. ... 'she'Kenegdo Chashud al ha'Shevu'ah' concerns - a case of a Shevu'as ha'Eidus, a Shevu'as ha'Pikadon and a Shevu'as Shav.

(d)The Tana say 'va'Afilu Shevu'as Shav'- because we would have precluded it seeing as it does not involve financial fraud, in which case we would have thought he is not suspected of swearing falsely.

7)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah restricts the above oaths (of 'Nishba'in ve'Notlin') to there where there is already a Shevu'ah of 'Modeh be'Miktzas'.

(b)The reason for this is - because, in his opinion, Chazal did not institute a new Shevu'ah (like the Tana Kama holds), but merely switched the existing one from the defendant to the claimant)

(c)He does not argue - in the first case (that of Sachir), because the reason for the Shevu'ah, which we will discuss later, does not call for a distinction between 'Modeh be'Miktzas' and 'Kofer ba'Kol'.