Rav Shach {laws of pleas 1:3} asks on the approach of the Raavad. The Raavad holds in a case of a deposit that if the guard says “I admit I owe it and you can take it,” that that is not considered "Here it is" unless he gives it right then and there. If he says, “It is in my home or on the range, that does not count. [Shita Mekubetzet Bava Metzia, page 98] {This is like the Rambam in Laws of Pleas Chapter 1, law 3.} But for a case of a pledge for a loan, the statement that “I admit I owe the loan, and you can take the pledge wherever it is,” counts as being a plea of "Here it is". [In such a case, he would not be required to take an oath of admission in part. The reason I think the Raavad holds this difference is that R. Isaac said a lender owns the pledge, and this is considered to be the law. Thus, when the lender says, “I admit I owe you the loan, and here is the pledge,” he is giving up what he owns. However the Rambam holds even in a case of a pledge, it has to be given right away, because, in fact, it does not belong to the borrower until it is given back.]-----------------------------רב שך {ה' טוען ונטען 1:3} asks on the approach of the ראב''ד. The ראב''ד holds in a case of a deposit, that if the guard says “I admit I owe it and you can take it,” that that is not considered "Here it is" unless he gives it right then and there. If he says, “It is in my home or on the range, that does not count. [שיטה מקובצת, page צ''ח] {This is like the רמב''ם in הלכות טוען ונטען Chapter 1, law 3.} But for a case of a pledge for a loan, the statement that “I admit I owe the loan, and you can take the pledge wherever it is,” counts as being a plea of "Here it is". [In such a case, he would not be required to take an oath of admission in part. The reason I think the ראב''ד holds this difference is that ר' יצחק said a lender owns the pledge, and this is considered to be the law. Thus, when the lender says, “I admit I owe you the loan, and here is the pledge,” he is giving up what he owns. However, the רמב''ם holds even in a case of a pledge, it has to be given right away, because, in fact, it does not belong to the borrower until it is given back.] To the Rambam, a pledge and a deposit are identical.----]]]]However, Rav Shach is asking that even giving the pledge to the lender--even at the time of the loan-does not dissolve the loan. So how could it be, "Here it is"? (even if the lender gives it back right away)? Whether the borrower gives the pledge to the lender, the loan is still owed, and all the more so if the lender gives back the pledge to the borrower, the debt is still owed.----------------------------------------I would like here to explain the approach of the Raavad. The rule is admission in part takes an oath from the law of the Torah. But if on the part he admits to he says, ''Here it is,'' that is not considered admission in part [since he no longer owes that part since he gave it back.] In a case of a deposit, admission works only if he says, “Here it is” and gives it right away, [not if he says he will bring it.] That is the case even though the deposit is owned by the owner wherever it is. But for a pledge (laws of pleas chapter 4, law 6), the Raavad holds it is considered, ''Here it is'' even if he says it is at home or in the field, and he will bring it because of the law of R. Isaac that the lender owns the pledge. But in both cases, the lender and depositor both own the object. So, what is the difference? And furthermore, Rav Shach asks that in the case of a pledge, the debt is still owed.---------------------I would like here to explain the approach of the ראב''ד. The rule is admission in part takes an oath דאורייתא. But if on the part he admits to he says, ''Here it is,'' that is not considered admission in part [since he no longer owes that part since he gave it back.] In a case of a פיקדון, admission works only if he says, “Here it is” and gives it right away, [not if he says he will bring it.] That is the case even though the פיקדון is owned by the owner wherever it is. But for a משכון (laws of טוען ונטען chapter 4, law 6), the ראב''ד holds it is considered, ''Here it is'' even if he says it is at home or in the field, and he will bring it because of the law of ר' יצחק that the lender owns the pledge. But in both cases, the lender and depositor both own the object. So, what is the difference? And furthermore, רב שך asks that in the case of a pledge, the debt is still owed.