Rejection #2: In the Mishnah, Reuven lent Peros; in the Beraisa, he lent money.

Question (Seifa - R. Yehudah): If he lent to him money, he is a Shomer Chinam, If he lent to him Peros, he is a Shomer Sachar.

Inference: The first Tana does not distinguish between lending Peros and money!

Answer: The entire Mishnah is R. Yehudah. It is abbreviated, and it means as follows:

If Reuven lent to Shimon Al ha'Mashkon, he is a Shomer Sachar;

This is if he lent Peros. If he lent to him money, he is a Shomer Chinam, for R. Yehudah says that if he lent to him money, he is a Shomer Chinam, and if he lent to him Peros, he is a Shomer Sachar.

Objection: If so, the Mishnah is unlike R. Akiva!

Answer: Indeed, we must say that the Mishnah is unlike R. Eliezer. (We assume that an anonymous Mishnah is R. Meir, and is like his Rebbi, R. Akiva.)

Suggestion: R. Eliezer and R. Akiva argue about Shmuel's law, when the security is worth less than the loan.

(Shmuel): If Reuven lent 1000 Zuz and took an axe handle for a security, if he loses the handle, he loses the whole loan. (R. Akiva holds like Shmuel. R. Eliezer argues, for the security was taken only for a reminder of the loan.)

Rejection: All disagree with Shmuel's law. If the security is worth less than the loan, all agree that he can still collect (according to R. Akiva, he deducts the value of the security);

Rather, they argue about R. Yitzchak's law, when the security is worth the amount of the loan.

(R. Yitzchak): A lender acquires a security. We learn from "u'Lecha Tihyeh Tzedakah";

If he did not acquire it, returning it would not be called Tzedakah (since it belongs to the borrower. Some explain, the only reason "u'Veracheka" (the borrower may bless the lender, this is not Ribis of words) is because the lender acquires the security and lends it to the borrower. One may receive rental for loans of objects.)

Rejection: R. Yitzchak said so only about a security taken after the loan (which the verse discusses), but not about a security taken at the time of the loan!

Rather, R. Eliezer and R. Akiva agree to R. Yitzchak's law. They argue about a security taken at the time of the loan, like the argument about a Shomer Aveidah (one who found a lost object, and guards it in order to return it).

(Rabah): A Shomer Aveidah is a Shomer Chinam;

(Rav Yosef): He is a Shomer Sachar (because guarding the Aveidah is a Mitzvah).

(Rashi - Rabah must hold like R. Eliezer. He cannot explain R. Akiva's opinion. Tosfos - Rabah can say that R. Eliezer and R. Akiva both hold like him, and argue about Shmuel's law.)

Suggestion: Rav Yosef must admit that R. Eliezer and R. Akiva argue about his law (R. Akiva agrees to it, R. Eliezer argues with it).

Rejection: No, all can agree to his law;

They argue when the lender needs the security (Rashi - to use it; Tosfos - he would not lend without a security):

R. Akiva says that even so the loan to be a Mitzvah, therefore he is a Shomer Sachar;

R. Eliezer does not consider it to be a Mitzvah, so he is a Shomer Chinam.

(Mishnah - Aba Sha'ul): A lender may rent out an Ani's security and deduct the money from the loan.

(Rav Chanan bar Ami): The Halachah follows Aba Sha'ul.

Aba Sha'ul permits renting out only a security like a hoe or axe, which yields a sizeable rental fee and yet does not depreciate significantly due to usage.

(Mishnah): If Reuven was transporting a barrel, and broke it, whether he was a Shomer Chinam or a Shomer Sachar, he swears (that he was not negligent, and he is exempt);

R. Elazar: I heard that in either case he is exempt. It is a wonder!

(Gemara - Beraisa - R. Meir): If Reuven was transporting a barrel, and broke it, whether he was a Shomer Chinam or a Shomer Sachar, he swears;

R. Yehudah says, a Shomer Chinam swears. A Shomer Sachar must pay.

(Mishnah - R. Elazar): I heard that both are exempt. It is a wonder!

Question: Does R. Meir really hold that tripping is not considered negligence?!

Contradiction (Beraisa - R. Meir): If Shimon's jug broke or his camel fell and he did not clear them from the Reshus ha'Rabim, he is liable for damage that results;

Chachamim say, Beis Din does not make him pay, but he is liable b'Yedei Shamayim.

We hold that they argue about whether or not tripping is considered negligence!

Answer #1 (R. Elazar (the Amora)): Tana'im argue about R. Meir's opinion;

R. Yehudah holds that tripping is not considered negligence. Therefore, a Shomer Chinam is exempt. A Shomer Sachar pays even if he was not negligent.

R. Elazar (the Tana) heard that the Halachah follows R. Meir, but he did not understand why.

Granted, tripping is not considered negligence, so a Shomer Chinam can swear. However, a Shomer Sachar pays even if he was not negligent!

Even regarding a Shomer Chinam, if he fell on an incline, this is Ones, but if he fell on level ground, this is negligence!