Rambam loans 13:4. Pleas 1:3. A lender lends a sela [4 dinars] and gets a pledge. He losses the pledge by negligence. He says the pledge was worth 1 half sela. The borrower says it was worth three dinars. te lender taks an oath it is not in my domain. the lender takes an oath because he admits in part and pays what he admits. The Ramban asks let the borrower tell the lender give m back the pledge and I will repay the loan. In laws of pleas 1:3 Rav Shach brings down that the Raavad held the law of a pledge is different than a deposit in terms of "Here it is".Shmuel said: If one gives a handle of an ex for a pledge for a loan and the lender losses the handle, he loses the whole loan. the Ran says he owes the extra anyway. I usually am not by the sea late at night, but to night i made an exception and on the way back I was flooded with thoughts and questions about this. (1) the question of the Ramban holds even if the law is like Shmuel that the pledge counts for the whole loan. (2) the normal case of "here it is" is the borrower repays part of the debt and swears on the remainder however to the Raavad, the pledge counts for here it isas partial payment. If we go with Shmuel then the pledge counts for full payment. (3) To Rashi the oath of the lender "it is not in my domain "is from the Torah. To the Rambam it is derabanan. This is from Rav Huna on page 34. But to Shmuel does it apply at all? after all if he has been paid back in full, then why take an oath. But on the other hand, the oath isn’t for the loan. It is only concerning the whereabout of the pledge. (4) To some opinions the law of Shmuel is the law. R. Isaac the grandson of Rashi, and some hold Shmuel is the basis of the ruling of R Yochanan that if one loses a pledge, it counts for the whole loan. [5] to the Raavad the pledge counts for "here it is" and thus the borrower would not take an oath because of admission in part. and to Shmuel the pledge counts for the whole loan and this i s more in line with the Ramban that the lender should get back the money for the loan only after the borrower gets back the pledge. i had millions of other thoughts but then this is all I can recall right now. ------------------------------------------------------------------רמב''ם loans 13:4. Pleas 1:3. A lender lends a sela [4 dinars] and gets a pledge. He losses the pledge by negligence. He says the pledge was worth 1 half sela. The borrower says it was worth three dinars. te lender taks an oath it is not in my domain. the lender takes an oath because he admits in part and pays what he admits. The Ramban asks let the borrower tell the lender give m back the pledge and I will repay the loan. In laws of pleas 1:3 Rav Shach brings down that the ראב’’ד held the law of a pledge is different than a deposit in terms of "הילך".ALSO—שמואל said: If one gives a handle of an ex for a pledge for a loan and the lender losses the handle, he loses the whole loan. the ר''ן says he owes the extra anyway. I usually am not by the sea late at night, but to night i made an exception and on the way back I was flooded with thoughts and questions about this. (1) the question of the ארמב''ן holds even if the law is likeשמואל that the pledge counts for the whole loan. (2) the normal case of "הילך" is the borrower repays part of the debt and swears on the remainder however to the ראב’’ד, the pledge counts for הילךas partial payment. If we go withשמואל then the pledge counts for full payment. (3) To רש’’י, the oath of the lender "it is not in my domain "is from the Torah. To the רמב''ם it is derabanan. This is from Rav Huna on page 34. But toשמואל does it apply at all? after all if he has been paid back in full, then why take an oath. But on the other hand, the oath isn’t for the loan. It is only concerning the whereabout of the pledge. (4) To some opinions the law of שמואל is the law. ר' יצחק the grandson of רש’’י, and some hold שמואל is the basis of the ruling of ר’ יוחנן that if one loses a pledge, it counts for the whole loan. [5] to the ראב’’ד the pledge counts for "הילך" and thus the borrower would not take an oath because of admission in part. and to שמואל the pledge counts for the whole loan and this i s more in line with the רמב''ו that the lender should get back the money for the loan only after the borrower gets back the pledge. i had millions of other thoughts but then this is all I can recall right now.