Bava Metzia ch.6 and also in Shavuot pages 43 and 44.
We have a lender that got a pledge. Shmuel says if he loses the pledge, he loses the whole loan. R. Eliezer said he takes an oath that the pledge was lost by accident, and collects his loan. R. Akiva says he loses the amount the pledge is worth. The Gemara in two places asked, "This looks like they disagree?" The Gemara answered, No. One case is when he explained, and one case is when he did not. Rashi said the Gemara means Shmuel is when no one said anything, and the argument between RE and RA is when someone did explain. In Bava Metzia the Gemara tries to get the mishna there to be like both RE and RA and can not do it. The Mishna there says the lender is a paid guard concerning the pledge.
Rabbanu Chananel says the argument between RE and RA is when no one made any conditions..
I want to say this:
כל תנאי שבממון קיים. Every condition in money is valid. So when a guard makes a condition not to be obligated, that is valid. .
So it looks like one can bring a proof to Rabbainu Chananel.
Therefore when no one said anything that is a regular loan and the lender is like a paid guard and loses the amount of the loan. But when the lender made a condition then his level of obligation goes down. Thus there is a simple way to get the Mishna in Bava Metzia to be like Re and RA. Just say it is talking about when no one said anything and the lender would be like a regular paid guard. But if he said something, then the level of obligation goes down. So if Rashi would be right, then why did not Gemara not use this simple way of getting that Mishna to be like RE and RA --that is a case when no one said anything, and all would then be in agreement like Shmuel that he is a paid guard?
[With no Gemara in front of me I am just making a guess. I think this is what Tosphot meant to ask though the way it was written down came out that he was asking on Rabbanu Chananel as far as I recall. And the Maharsha asked on this question of Tosphot. So based on the little bit that I can recall, I am trying to explain what I think Tophot must have been asking.]
We have a lender that got a pledge. Shmuel says if he loses the pledge, he loses the whole loan. R. Eliezer said he takes an oath that the pledge was lost by accident, and collects his loan. R. Akiva says he loses the amount the pledge is worth. The Gemara in two places asked, "This looks like they disagree?" The Gemara answered, No. One case is when he explained, and one case is when he did not. Rashi said the Gemara means Shmuel is when no one said anything, and the argument between RE and RA is when someone did explain. In Bava Metzia the Gemara tries to get the mishna there to be like both RE and RA and can not do it. The Mishna there says the lender is a paid guard concerning the pledge.
Rabbanu Chananel says the argument between RE and RA is when no one made any conditions..
I want to say this:
כל תנאי שבממון קיים. Every condition in money is valid. So when a guard makes a condition not to be obligated, that is valid. .
So it looks like one can bring a proof to Rabbainu Chananel.
Therefore when no one said anything that is a regular loan and the lender is like a paid guard and loses the amount of the loan. But when the lender made a condition then his level of obligation goes down. Thus there is a simple way to get the Mishna in Bava Metzia to be like Re and RA. Just say it is talking about when no one said anything and the lender would be like a regular paid guard. But if he said something, then the level of obligation goes down. So if Rashi would be right, then why did not Gemara not use this simple way of getting that Mishna to be like RE and RA --that is a case when no one said anything, and all would then be in agreement like Shmuel that he is a paid guard?
[With no Gemara in front of me I am just making a guess. I think this is what Tosphot meant to ask though the way it was written down came out that he was asking on Rabbanu Chananel as far as I recall. And the Maharsha asked on this question of Tosphot. So based on the little bit that I can recall, I am trying to explain what I think Tophot must have been asking.]
