On my way back from the sea I was thinking about the difference the Raavad makes between a pledge and a deposit. in terms of the law of, “Here it is.” One possible answer occurred to me is that we can not make a distinction between them by who owes the object. {The reason is that in all possible cases, the question of where the object must be to be considered to have been returned is not dependent of if it is a pledge or a deposit.} The difference I think must lay in the question is the lender a paid guard or an unpaid guard and similarly that same question applies to the deposit. If he is a paid guard, he cannot out the object in a lake or swamp and say here it is because he is paid to guard it, not put it in a place where it can be easily damaged. A different answer is that it is possible that the Raavad does not hold with the law of r Isaac. Perhaps the pledge is not owned by the lender? Maybe it is just his to keep until the debt is paid and then he has to give it back. And in such a case if he is a paid guard also, he cannot put it in a swamp. Some people hold a lender is an unpaid guard, thus there are less stringent conditions of where to return the object. Not a swamp but maybe some semi guarded place near one?=-----------------------------------------On my way back from the sea I was thinking about the difference the ראב’’ד makes between a משכון and a deposit. in terms of the law of, “Here it is.” One possible answer occurred to me is that we can not make a distinction between them by who owes the object. {The reason is that in all possible cases, the question of where the object must be to be considered to have been returned is not dependent of if it is a משכון or a deposit.} The difference I think must lay in the question is the lender a שומר שכר or an unשומר שכר and similarly that same question applies to the deposit. If he is a שומר שכר, he cannot out the object in a lake or swamp and say here it is because he is paid to guard it, not put it in a place where it can be easily damaged. A different answer is that it is possible that the ראב’’ד does not hold with the law of ר' יצחק. Perhaps the משכון is not owned by the lender? Maybe it is just his to keep until the debt is paid and then he has to give it back. And in such a case if he is a שומר שכר also, he cannot put it in a swamp. Some people hold a lender is an שומר חימם, thus there are less stringent conditions of where to return the object. Not a swamp but maybe some semi guarded place near one?