the opinion of the raavad in laws of pleas chapter 4, law 6.

The Raavad holds that a deposit needs to be there and then in the court in order for the guard to be able to say ""here it is" and thus not have to take an oath of admission in part. but for a pledge, ''here it is'' can be applied even if the object is in his home or by a lake. The difference I think is that the case of a deposit is that of a paid guard. But it might b that the Raavad holds that a lender with pledge is an unpaid guard. however, the question on this is that there can be a case o a deposit that is also of an unpaid guard. another possible question is that I do not remember what the Raaavad says about the category of a lender with a pledge. If he holds like the opinions that he is a paid guard, then the answer here falls away.-----------------The ראב''ד holds that a deposit needs to be there and then in the court in order for the guard to be able to say ""here it is" and thus not have to take an oath of admission in part. but for a pledge or a loan, here it is can be applied even if the object is in his home or by a lake. The difference I think is that the case of a deposit is that of a paid guard. But it might b that the ראב''ד holds that a lender with pledge is an unpaid guard. however, the question on this is that there can be a case o a deposit that is also of an unpaid guard. another possible question is that I do not remember what the ראב''ד says about the category of a lender with a pledge. If he holds like the opinions that he is a paid guard, then the answer here falls away.