I don't have a  Gemara to look this up, but it occurred to me an important question about Bava Metzia and Shavuot 44. [The same Gemara is in Bava Metzia perek האומנים]That is what does Rabbi Akiva hold? The Gemara concludes in Shavuot that the argument of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva depends on the argument of Raba and Rav Joseph. So what we do know so far is RA holds the lender is a paid guard and RE hold he is an unpaid guard.
Now I admit that if one had the Gemara in front of him this might seem like a silly question. But my question is this. What does Rabbi Akiva hold? Does he mean he is a paid guard and thus patur in the case of armed robbery completely? And this get his entire loan? And in the case of loss or not armed robbery [theft] then he is obligated meaning he lose the entire loan? But this can not be right because the the Gemara would have a way of making Rabbi Akiva and Shmuel coincide! And the Gemara pushed that off right at the beginning! [Unless you would want to say the Gemara is changing its mind here and is thinking it is OK for Shmuel and Rabbi Akiva to agree. Now normally this would be impossible but in our case it might be try because we know Tosphot does Poskin like Shmuel. So you might say Tosphot is in fact thinking the Gemara changed its mind without saying so!]
So Fine maybe this is how Tosphot learns the sugia. I just do not know and have no way to look it up.

But what about the Rif and Rambam? I mean lets look at the other side of things. Maybe the Gemara means Rabbi Akiva hold he is a paid guard and thus patur in a case of armed robbery but still loses the amount of the משכון? Fine. Then what about the case of theft or loss? Then he is obligated  and loses the whole loan. This is definite like Shmuel. and that is not good at all because the Rif and Rambam do not poskin like Shmuel.

One way I think makes sense here is this: Rabbi Akiva holds he is a paid guard and so he loses nothing in the case of armed robbery. And in a case of not armed robbery but rather theft or loss he loses just the amount of the pledge משכון. This would be great if this were true. Because then there would not be any case in which Rabbi Akiva and Shmuel are agreeing. And we certainly need this according to the beginning of the Gemera and also the fact is the Rambam and Rif do not poskin like Shmuel.

In summery: What we might have here is two different ways of learning this Gemara. One like Tosphot and the other like the Rif and Rambam.

________________________________________________________________________________
I don't have a  גמרא to look this up, but it occurred to me an important question about בבא מציעא and שבועות מ''ד. The same גמרא is in בבא מציעא פרק האומנים.That is what does רבי עקיבה hold? The גמרא concludes in שבועות that the argument of רבי אליעזר and רבי עקיבה depends on the argument of רבה and רב יוסף. So what we do know so far is רבי עקיבה holds the מלווה is a שומר שכר and רבי אליעזר hold he is an unpaid guard.
Now I admit that if one had the גמרא in front of him this might seem like a silly question. But my question is this. What does רבי עקיבה hold? Does he mean he is a שומר שכר and thus פטור in the case of armed robbery completely? And this get his entire loan? And in the case of אבידה or גניבה then he is obligated meaning he loses the entire loan? Or just the amount of the משכון? But this can not be right because the the גמרא would have a way of making רבי עקיבה and שמואל coincide! And the גמרא pushed that off right at the beginning! Unless you would want to say the גמרא is changing its mind here and is thinking it is OK for שמואל and רבי עקיבה to agree. Now normally this would be impossible but in our case it might be try because we know תוספות does decide like שמואל. So you might say תוספות is in fact thinking the גמרא changed its mind without saying so!
So Fine maybe this is how תוספות learns the סוגיא. I just do not know and have no way to look it up.

But what about the רי''ף and רמב''ם? I mean lets look at the other side of things. Maybe the גמרא means רבי עקיבה hold he is a paid guard and thus פטור in a case of armed robbery but still loses the amount of the משכון? Fine. Then what about the case of theft or loss? Then he is obligated  and loses the whole loan. This is definitely like שמואל. and that is not good at all because the רי''ף and רמב''ם do not decide like שמואל.

One way I think makes sense here is this: רבי עקיבה holds he is a paid guard and so he loses nothing in the case of armed robbery. And in a case of not armed robbery but rather theft or loss he loses just the amount of the pledge משכון. This would be great if this were true. Because then there would not be any case in which רבי עקיבה and שמואל are agreeing. And we certainly need this according to the beginning of the גמרא and also the fact is the רמב''ם and רי''ף do not decide like שמואל.

In summery. What we might have here is two different ways of learning this גמרא. One like תוספות and the other like the רי''ף and רמב''ם.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Something to consider in light of the above. Does any of this help us when it comes to the argument between Rashi and Rabbainu Chananel? I mean: the Gemara's original question was is there an argument between Shmuel and Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer? The Gemara answers no. One is when the lender explained and the other case is when he did not. Rashi says the case of Shmuel is when he did not.
Tome it makes sense to say Rabbainu Hananal must have meant that the Gemara did not use the word "lender," because it would make no sense for the lender to explain the pledge is for the whole loan if that would weaken his position! 
Now I wonder if going back to the original position of the Gemara as I mentioned in the above essay is related to this?  For I have been suggesting that the Gemara did go back to its original position according to Tosphot and the Rif. So now understanding this original position makes sense.

And the fact of the matter is according to this idea of mine that Rabbainu chanel is when the borrowers spoke and Rashi is when the lender spoke we come out with the outstanding and amazing conclusion that there is no argument.
If the borrower spoke he increased his power and so if the lender lost the pledge it goes for the whole loan. If the lender spoke then it was he who increased his power and the pledge is only according to it monetary value.

Furthermore according to what I wrote before that the cases in Bava Metzia 104 and Shavuot 44 are different this also might make  a difference. That is: I wrote Shavuot is when the pledge was lost and the Gemara in Bava Metzia is when the loan was not paid back and so the lender can go after the whole pledge. Going after the whole pledge might be when it was the lender who spoke. The case in Shavuot is when the borrower spoke. And so these two are not disagreeing at all!
And this idea that the different gemaras in different places do not disagree is certainly a starting prima facie assumption of Tosphot.
This might help u in terms of Rosh Hodesh also.
 I wrote in my little booklet Iyunai Bava Metzia that the two gemaras in rosh hashana and Sanhedrin seem to disagree. The Gemara in Sanhedrin the day of rosh hodesh does not depend on the Sanhedrin and to one opinion in Tosphot that means the molad even though you can never see the actual molad
The gemara in Rosh Hashana makes clear everything depends on the ability to see the new moon. To resolve this it is possible to say the difference is when there is a sitting Sanhedrin or not.

Shavuot

In the Talmud in Shavuot [page 44a]

 The question is that the Gemara concludes like Rav  Joseph and that is how the Rambam decides. The question is what does the Rambam do with the Gemara in Bava Metzia in which Rav Nachman says about a משכון [collateral for  a loan] that even though one can use it he is not liable in אונסים [armed robbers].

I also wanted to point out why the Rif in our Gemara in Shavuot says the law straightforwards that the lender that loses the pledge is like a שומר שכר paid guard, and in a case of armed robbers, he loses only the amount of the collateral not the whole loan. The reason is quite elegant. It comes out of the steady progression of the Gemara itself to reach that point.
The Mishna says in an argument about a case when the pledge was lost  that the lender loses only the amount the pledge was worth. Shmuel said he loses the whole loan. [he was talking about when the borrower said so openly.] R Eliezer says the lender does not lose anything and R Akiva says he loses the loan. If the pledge is worth the entire amount then why would R Eliezer disagree? So everyone disagrees with Shmuel. Their argument is about R. Isaac that the lender owns the pledge. But if it was taken not at the time of the loan everyone agrees with R Isaac. So it is at the time of the loan and the disagreement is if a guard of a lost object is considered to be paid or not. But that is only if he needs to pledge. If you follow the logic of the Gemara here you can see why the Rif (Isaac Alfasi) says that nothing matters the lender that loses the pledge loses only the amount it was worth. I can't go into it this minute but by following the logic of the Talmud you can see how he was led to this conclusion step by step.

The key is to remember that if we don't hold by Shmuel then it does not matter if the borrower said it is against the  loan or not. And if it is at the time of the loan of not also makes no difference since we go by R Akiva against R Eliezer. And even if the lender needs the pledge we still consider he is doing a mitzvah and so gets the coin of Rav Joseph and so is  a שומר שכר

There is one question I have even though I have not even gotten to learn Tosphot properly yet. The Rif does as I say take all the divisions and throws them out, and most of this you can see in the Gemara itself. The last division though I find difficult. If they all hold by R. Isaac that the pledge is owned when it was taken not at the time of the loan, and their argument is at the time of the loan and it goes by the debate between Raba and Rav Joseph, then there is a difference! A pledge taken not at the time of the loan  is owned, and for a pledge taken at the time of the loan, the lender is only a שומר שכר [paid guard]. So why does the Rif say for a pledge taken even not at the time of the loan he is a שומר שכר. He should say if taken not at time of loan he owns it and if taken at time of loan he is a paid guard.

From what I can tell Rashi answers this question in Bava Metzia. [That is he explains the Gemara there in a way that can help us understand the Rif in Shavuot--that is we can say perhaps the Rif was learning like Rashi.] He says on pg 84 that the pledge is owned completely only until the loan is paid. He says openly that what Rabbi Isaac means is that the lender is not a paid nor unpaid guard. He is an owner. But the ownership only exists until the second the borrower comes to pay back the loan. So this is not what I wrote in my ideas in Bava Metzia and I am sad to say I have to go back and correct my mistake. I was thinking around page that the lender owns the object completely.

Does this help us? Maybe. But still it looks like we still end up that for the pledge taken not at the time of the loan he is more than a paid guard--he owns it and thus is liable even in a case it was stolen by force. That is  a case the paid guard would not have to  pay for. So we still are in a mess concerning the Rif.

 That is to him when the pledge was taken not at the time of the loan the lender is a paid guard. This seems not like Rabbi Isaac. The only thing I can think might help is the Gemara in Bava Metzia 104 about דורשין לשון הדיוט that is he would own it but the language of the document brings him down one notch.  Because in Shavuot 43b the whole argument of R Akiva and R Eliezer does not apply to when there is a document. That is because everyone agrees then he is a paid guard.
_________________________________________________________________________________
 שבועות מ''ד ע''א
 The question is that the גמרא concludes like רב יוסף and that is how the רמב''ם decides. The question is what does the רמב''ם do with the גמרא in בבא מציעא in which רב נחמן says about a משכון  that even though one can use it he is not liable in אונסים.

I also wanted to point out why the רי''ף in our גמרא in שבועות says the law that the lender that loses the משכון is like a שומר שכר paid guard, and in a case of armed robbers, he loses only the amount of the משכון, not the whole loan. The reason is quite elegant. It comes out of the steady progression of the גמרא itself to reach that point.

The משנה says in an argument about a case when the משכון was lost  that the מלווה loses only the amount the משכון was worth. שמואל said he loses the whole loan. He was talking about when the לווה said so openly. רבי אליעזר says the מלווה does not lose anything and רבי עקיבא says he loses the loan. If the משכון is worth the entire amount, then why would רבי אליעזר disagree? So everyone disagrees with שמואל. Their argument is about רבי יצחק that the מלווה owns the משכון. But if it was taken not at the time of the loan everyone agrees with רבי יצחק. So it is at the time of the loan and the disagreement is if a שומר of a lost object is considered to be paid or not. But that is only if he needs to משכון. If you follow the logic of the גמרא here you can see why the רי''ף  says that nothing matters the מלווה that loses the משכון loses only the amount it was worth.
The key is to remember that if we don't hold by שמואל then it does not matter if the borrower פירש  it is against the  הלוואה or not. And if it is at the time of the הלוואה or not also makes no difference since we go by רבי עקיבא against רבי אליעזר. And even if the מלווה needs the pledge we still consider he is doing a מצווה and so gets the פרוטה of רב יוסף and so is  a שומר שכר


 The רי''ף does as I say take all the divisions and throws them out, and most of this you can see in the גמרא itself. The last division though I find difficult. If they all hold by רבי יצחק that the משכון is owned when it was taken not at the time of the הלוואה, and their argument is at the time of the loan and it goes by the debate between רבה and רב יוסף, then there is a difference! A משכון taken not at the time of the loan  is owned, and for a משכון taken at the time of the הלוואה, the מלווה is only a שומר שכר . So why does the רי''ף say for a משכון taken even not at the time of the loan he is a שומר שכר. He should say if taken not at time of הלוואה he owns it, and if taken at time of loan he is a שומר שכר.

Maybe רש''י answers this question in בבא מציעא. That is he explains the גמרא there in a way that can help us understand the רי''ף in שבועות. That is we can say perhaps the רי''ף was learning like רש''י. He says on דף 84 that the משכון is owned completely only until the הלוואה is paid. He says openly that what רבי יצחק means is that the מלווה is not a שומר שכר nor שומר חינם. He is an owner. But the ownership only exists until the second the לווה comes to pay back the הלוואה.


Does this help us? Maybe. But still it looks like we still end up that for the משכון taken not at the time of the loan he is more than a שומר שכר. He owns it and thus is liable even in a case it was stolen by force. That is  a case the שומר שכר would not have to  pay for. So we still are in a mess concerning the רי''ף.



 That is to him when the משכון was taken not at the time of the loan the lender is a paid guard. This seems not like רבי יצחק. The only thing I can think might help is the גמרא in בבא מציעא  ק''ד about דורשין לשון הדיוט that is he would own it but the language of the document brings him down one notch.  Because in שבועות מג ע''ב the whole argument of רבי עקיבא and רבי אליעזר does not apply to when there is a document. That is because everyone agrees then he is a paid guard.
_________________________________________

שבועות מ''ד ע''א השאלה היא שהגמרא מסכמת כמו רב יוסף וכך הרמב''ם מחליט. השאלה היא מה עושה הרמב''ם עם הגמרא בבא מציעא שרב נחמן אומר על משכון כי למרות שניתן להשתמש בו הוא אינו אחראי באונסים. אני גם רוצה לציין מדוע הרי''ף   על הגמרא בשבועות אומר החוק כי המלווה שמאבד משכון הוא כמו שומר שכר, ובמקרה של שודדים חמושים, הוא מאבד רק את הסכום של המשכון, לא כל ההלוואה. הסיבה לכך היא די אלגנטית. הוא יוצא מההתקדמות יציבה של הגמרא עצמה.  המשנה אומרת בויכוח על מקרה שבו המשכון אבד והמלווה מאבד רק את הסכום שהמשכון היה שווה. שמואל אמר שהוא מאבד את כל ההלוואה. הוא מדבר  כשהלווה אמר זאת בגלוי. רבי אליעזר אומר מלווה לא מאבד שום דבר. ורבי עקיבא אומר שהוא מאבד את ההלוואה. אם המשכון שווה את כל הסכום, אז למה רבי אליעזר אינו מסכים? אז כולם מסכים עם שמואל. הטענות שלהם הן  בדיון של רבי יצחק שלמלווה יש בעלות מלאה במשכון. אבל אם המשכון לא נלקח בזמן ההלוואה כולם מסכים עם רבי יצחק. אז זה בזמן ההלוואה והמחלוקת היא אם שומר על אבידה שאיבד אותה נחשב שומר חנם או שומר שכר. אבל זה רק אם הוא צריך את המשכון.  כאן אתה יכול לראות למה הרי''ף אומר  שמלווה שמאבד את המשכון מאבד רק את הסכום שזה היה שווה. המפתח הוא לזכור שאם אנחנו לא מחזיקים עם שמואל, אז זה לא משנה אם הלווה פרש שזה נגד ההלוואה או לא. ואם זה בעת ההלוואה או לא גם לא משנה מאחר שאנחנו הולכים על לפי רבי עקיבא נגד רבי אליעזר. וגם אם מלווה צריך המשכון אנחנו עדיין רואים שהוא עושה מצווה וכך מקבל פרוטה של רב יוסף וכך הוא שומר שכר.  רי''ף עושה מה שאני אומר לקחת את כל חילוקים וזורק אותם, וזה אתה יכול לראות בגמרא עצמה. אבל את החלוקה האחרונה אני מוצא קשה. אם כל מה שהם מחזיקים ברבי יצחק שהמשכון נמצא בבעלות כאשר הוא נלקח לא בזמן ההלוואה, והטענה שלהם היא שמצב שהמשכון נלקח בעת ההלוואה וזה תלוי בוויכוח בין רבה ורב יוסף, אז יש הֶבדֵל! משכון שנלקח לא בזמן של ההלוואה הינו בבעלות המלווה, ומשכון שנלקח בזמן של ההלוואה, המלווה הוא רק שומר שכר. אז למה הרי''ף אומר משכון שנלקח אפילו לא בזמן של ההלוואה הוא שומר שכר. הוא צריך לומר אם נלקח לא בזמן של ההלוואה הוא בבעלותו של המלווה, ואם נלקח בזמן של הלוואה הוא שומר שכר. אולי רש''י עוזר על שאלה זו בבא מציעא.  הוא מסביר גמרא שם באופן שיכול לעזור לנו להבין את רי''ף בשבועות.  אולי הרי''ף למד כמו רש''י. לדבריו, בדף פ''ד המשכון נמצא בבעלות המלווה לחלוטין רק עד ההלוואה משולמת. הוא אומר בגלוי כי מה שרבי יצחק פירש שהמלווה אינו שומר שכר ולא שומר חינם, הוא בעל. אבל הבעלות קיימת רק עד השניה שהלווה מגיע כדי להחזיר את ההלוואה. האם זה יעזור לנו? אולי. אבל עדיין זה נראה קשה  שעדיין בסופו של דבר המשכון נלקח לא בזמן של ההלוואה והמלווה יותר משומר שכר. הוא מחזיק אותה ובכך עלול גם במקרה שזה נגנב בכוח. זה מקרה ששומר שכר לא יצטרך לשלם עבור זה. אז אנחנו עדיין נמצאים צריך עיון בנוגע לרי''ף.


 כלומר להרי''ף כאשר המשכון נלקח לא בזמן של ההלוואה המלווה הוא שומר שכר. זה נראה לא כמו רבי יצחק. הדבר היחיד שאני יכול לחשוב עשוי לעזור הוא הגמרא בבא מציעא ק''ד על דורשין לשון ההדיוט שהוא היה בבעלותו, אבל השפה של המסמך מורידה אותו החריץ אחד. כי בשבועות מ''ג ע''ב כל הטיעון של הרבי עקיבא ורבי אליעזר אינו חל על כאשר יש מסמך. זאת משום שכולם מסכים שאז הוא שומר שכר.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
English




What I wanted to add is this. In Bava Metzia page 104 we have this idea of דורשין לשון הדיוט. What does that mean there? The Gemara there understands this to mean we can't take a pledge that has a larger value than the loan itself. Why not? It seems to me the reason is we take the pledge out of the category of being a pledge to being bought. But that does not seem to fit the Gemara in Shavuot in which the pledge if taken not at the time of loan is automatically bought and owned. It is rather the pledge taken at the time of the loan that Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva disagree about and we go by Rabbi Akiva that he is considered a paid guard. And the Rif says in all cases he is a paid guard. So דורשין לשון הדיוט  seems to be ambiguous. You could say it means we take even the loan taken at the time of the loan and consider it owned and not just as a pledge. I mean that even Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer would agree that because of דורשין that it too would be considered bought and owned until the lender pays back the loan. The other way to understand this is to say that דורשין לשון הדיוט tells us to take what was a normal pledge which is already  considered bought and owned and make it into a pledge that the lender is just a paid guard for. This last way  fits the Rif in Shavuot. But it does not fit the Gemara in Bava Metzia

English and Hebrew

......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
What I wanted to add is this. In בבא מציעא דף ק''ד we have this idea of דורשין לשון הדיוט. What does that mean there? The גמרא there understands this to mean we can't take a  משכון that has a larger value than the הלוואה itself. Why not? It seems to me the reason is we take the משכון out of the category of being a משכון to being bought. But that does not seem to fit the גמרא in שבועות in which the משכון if taken not at the time of הלוואה is automatically bought and owned. It is rather the משכון taken at the time of the הלוואה that רבי אליעזר and רבי עקיבא disagree about and we go by רבי עקיבא that he is considered a שומר שכר. And the רי''ף says in all cases he is a שומר שכר. So דורשין לשון הדיוט  seems to be ambiguous. You could say it means we take even the הלוואה taken at the time of the הלוואה and consider it owned and not just as a משכון. I mean that even רבי עקיבא and רבי אליעזר would agree that because of דורשין that it too would be considered bought and owned until the לווה pays back the חוב. The other way to understand this is to say that דורשין לשון הדיוט tells us to take what was a normal משכון which is already  considered bought and owned and make it into a משכון that the מלווה is just a שומר שכר for. This last way  fits the רי''ף in שבועות. But it does not fit the גמרא in בבא מציעא

Talmud Bava Metzia Shavuot

In the Talmud in Shavuot [page 44a]

 The question is that the Gemara concludes like Rav  Joseph and that is how the Rambam decides. The question is what does the Rambam do with the Gemara in Bava Metzia in which Rav Nachman says about a משכון [collateral for  a loan] that even though one can use it he is not liable in אונסים [armed robbers].

I also wanted to point out why the Rif in our Gemara in Shavuot says the law straightforwards that the lender that loses the pledge is like a שומר שכר paid guard, and in a case of armed robbers, he loses only the amount of the collateral not the whole loan. The reason is quite elegant. It comes out of the steady progression of the Gemara itself to reach that point.
The Mishna says in an argument about a case when the pledge was lost  that the lender loses only the amount the pledge was worth. Shmuel said he loses the whole loan. [he was talking about when the borrower said so openly.] R Eliezer says the lender does not lose anything and R Akiva says he loses the loan. If the pledge is worth the entire amount then why would R Eliezer disagree? So everyone disagrees with Shmuel. Their argument is about R. Isaac that the lender owns the pledge. But if it was taken not at the time of the loan everyone agrees with R Isaac. So it is at the time of the loan and the disagreement is if a guard of a lost object is considered to be paid or not. But that is only if he needs to pledge. If you follow the logic of the Gemara here you can see why the Rif (Isaac Alfasi) says that nothing matters the lender that loses the pledge loses only the amount it was worth. I can't go into it this minute but by following the logic of the Talmud you can see how he was led to this conslution step by step.

The key is to remember that if we don't hold by Shmuel then it does not matter if the borrower said it is against the  loan or not. And if it is at the time of the loan of not also makes no difference since we go by R Akiva against R Eliezer. And even if the lender needs the pledge we still consider he is doing a mitzvah and so gets the coin of Rav Joseph and so is  a שומר שכר

There is one question I have even though I have not even gotten to learn Tosphot properly yet. The Rif does as I say take all the divisions and throws them out, and most of this you can see in the Gemara itself. The last division though I find difficult. If they all hold by R. Isaac that the pledge is owned when it was taken not at the time of the loan, and their argument is at the time of the loan and it goes by the debate between Raba and Rav Joseph, then there is a difference! A pledge taken not at the time of the loan  is owned, and for a pledge taken at the time of the loan, the lender is only a שומר שכר [paid guard]. So why does the Rif say for a pledge taken even not at the time of the loan he is a שומר שכר. He should say if taken not at time of loan he owns it and if taken at time of loan he is a paid guard.

From what I can tell Rashi answers this question in Bava Metzia. [That is he explains the Gemara there in a way that can help us understand the Rif in Shavuot--that is we can say perhaps the Rif was learning like Rashi.] He says on pg 84 that the pledge is owned completely only until the loan is paid. He says openly that what Rabbi Isaac means is that the lender is not a paid nor unpaid guard. He is an owner. But the ownership only exists until the second the borrower comes to pay back the loan. So this is not what I wrote in my ideas in Bava Metzia and I am sad to say I have to go back and correct my mistake. I was thinking around page that the lender owns the object completely.

Does this help us? Maybe. But still it looks like we still end up that for the pledge taken not at the time of the loan he is more than a paid guard--he owns it and thus is liable even in a case it was stolen by force. That is  a case the paid guard would not have to  pay for. So we still are in a mess concerning the Rif.  And we still have to figure out how all this applies to the case of  pledge in chapter 9 of Bava Metzia.