Question: How does he know [that R. Yishmael exempts even if he designated a place for it]?

Answer: It is because he discussed a lamb and a coin. A Stam lamb, one does not designate a place for it, for it moves from pasture to pasture;

A Stam coin, one designates a place for it in a wallet, and also the wallet he designates a place for it in a box;

Therefore, we ask also below according to R. Akiva. Even if he did not designate a place [for it, he should be liable]!

Explanation: This is Chisaron, for he steals everything and takes it for his own need.

Explanation: [If he took it] in order to take part, even though he did not take that part, he is liable for all of it, like it says below (44a);

"He took" does not mean that he truly took it. Rather, once he lifted it to take it, even though he did not take [he is liable].

Distinction: According to the opinion that he took it in order to steal it, for [Shelichus Yad] requires Chisaron, if he lifted it to take part, he is not liable until he takes part, since it requires Chisaron.

Question: Below (44a), it says even according to the opinion that [Shelichus Yad] requires Chisaron, he agrees about a barrel that if he lifted it, even though he did not take, he is liable, for he wants to the entire [barrel] to hold that Revi'is that he wants to take]. Our Mishnah discusses a barrel!

Answer: Our Mishnah discusses even oil, in which part is not guarded through the rest. (Only wine is guarded better when the Kli is full.)

Explanation: This is when wolves are rampant. It is like R. Yehudah, who says that [at such a time, even] one wolf is Ones (below 93b).

Explanation: We ask according to R. Yishmael, who says that [one who returns theft] does not need the owner's knowledge, like Rashi explained.

Explanation: Even though [his staff and bag] are still on it, it is not in his Reshus to be liable for Ones that occurs to it, until he does Meshichah, like it says in the Mishnah below (43b);

If one tilted a barrel and took a Revi'is from it, he is liable only for the value of a Revi'is, since he did not lift the barrel (do Hagbahah).

Explanation (cont.): We answer that he placed his staff and bag on it so forcefully that it ran in front of him (a form of Meshichah).

Question: In Kidushin (22b), a Beraisa says that if he hit it with his staff and it ran in front of him, this is called Meshichah, and it does not weaken it!

Answer: There, a stranger bought it, and it does not recognize [the buyer's] voice. It is proper to teach "he hit it";

However, here we discuss a shepherd that the animal recognizes, and it goes due to his speech. It is not applicable to teach that he hit it!

Question: This is fine for a Shomer Sachar. The verse is extra to teach [that Shelichus Yad does not require Chisaron]. However, what is the source for a Shomer Chinam?

We cannot learn from a Shomer Sachar, for he is liable for theft or loss!

Answer: Since both of them are liable for Shelichus Yad, it is a Giluy Milsa (reveals a matter) to learn the law of one from the other.

Question: What is R. Yochanan's and R. Elazar's source that the first Parshah [of a Shomer, Mishpatim 22:6-8] discusses a Shomer Chinam, and the second Parshah [22:9-12] discusses a Shomer Sachar?

Below (94b), we know this only from this reasoning, that it is better [for the owner to receive] principal [than for the Shomer to be exempt for theft or loss, which can lead to the owner receiving Kefel]!

Answer #1 (Rashbam): We know it from reasoning. In the first Parshah it is written "ksf Oh Kelim." It is normal to guard them for free, since there is no toil;

In the second Parshah an animal is written. There is toil for it. It is normal to guard it for wages.

Answer #2: All hold that that principal is better than [opportunity to receive] Kefel through a Shevu'ah [when the Shomer claims that it was stolen];

Even so, R. Yochanan and R. Elazar hold that we cannot learn a Shomer Chinam from a Shomer Sachar, who is [normally] lenient...

Since [the former] has a stringency, that [sometimes] he pays Kefel, which does not apply to a Shomer Sachar [therefore we cannot learn], even though surely, a Shomer Sachar is more stringent, for he is liable for theft or loss.

The opinion that does not ask this holds that we do not make even a question from Kefel, for this that he [sometimes] pays Kefel is due to a leniency that he exempts himself for theft, like I explained (above 4a, DH Ad) regarding "he does not challenge [the Kal v'Chomer] from the law of Hazamah." (Ka'asher Zamam does not apply to one witness, due to the weakness of one witness, that he does not obligate paying.)

Support: Now it is fine [what we ask] below (95a), regarding learning that a borrower is liable for theft from a Kal v'Chomer;

A Shomer Sachar is exempt for Ones, and liable for theft or loss. A borrower [who is liable for Ones], all the more so [he is liable for theft or loss]!

We challenge this. A Shomer Sachar can pay Kefel (through a claim of armed robbers. A Shomer Sachar is exempt, for this is Ones, but if it turns out he stole it, he pays Kefel. A borrower pays principal for Ones, so he cannot pay Kefel!)

Question #1: Since [the Makshan] holds that Kefel is a stringency, what was his question? Just the contrary, since [Kefel] is more stringent, he should be exempt for theft, so he can become obligated to pay Kefel!

Question #2: The Beraisa itself is difficult. It says that a borrower is liable if [the deposit] broke or died...

Just the contrary, Hi ha'Nosenes (the very basis of your Kal v'Chomer is a reason to say oppositely)! Because [a borrower] is more stringent, he should be exempt for theft, so he can become obligated to pay Kefel! (Maharsha - this is like Question #1! Rather, Tosfos asks that after the Gemara answered there that the Tana holds that armed robbers are like a Gazlan, and a Shomer Sachar cannot pay Kefel, we should have asked this. Maharam Shif - rather than asking a tangential question from armed robbers, he should have challenged the Kal v'Chomer itself.)

Culmination of Support: According to what I explained, this is fine. (All agree that overall, principal is more stringent than Kefel, but there is a stringency of Kefel, and some consider this a challenge to the Kal v'Chomer.)

Question: According to R. Yochanan, who holds here that we challenge from Kefel, and also Rav Yosef holds in Bava Kama (57a) regarding a Shomer Aveidah, that according to R. Yochanan, armed robbers [pay Kefel] like a Ganav, if so, what is his source that a borrower pays for theft or loss?

We ask below (95a) that [you cannot learn from] a Shomer Sachar, for he pays Kefel when he claims that armed robbers took it, and we answered that armed robbers are like a Gazlan [they do not pay Kefel]. Alternatively, principal is better than Kefel [so we do not challenge from Kefel. R. Yochanan cannot give either answer, according to Rav Yosef!]

Answer: R. Yochanan learns from "v'Chi Yish'al" - the Vov teaches that the law of the previous Parshah applies.

Support: There we learn the exemption of [a borrower for theft or loss in a case of Shemirah] b'Ba'alim in this way.

Question: R. Yosi b'Ribi Nehurai is a Tana, and he holds that principal is better [than Kefel. How can R. Yochanan argue with him?]

Also, the Beraisa (95a) holds either that principal is better, or that armed robbers are like a Gazlan, and R. Yochanan argues with both of these!

Answer: R. Yochanan holds like the Tana in Bava Kama (57b) who says "you cannot learn from a Shomer Chinam, who pays Kefel, therefore he is liable for Shelichus Yad. He refers to R. Yosi b'Ribi Nehurai's teaching [and he challenges from the stringency of Kefel].

Explanation (Rashi): He can hold even like R. Elazar.

Question: [Rava] says "[the Torah did not need to write Shelichus Yad regarding a Shomer Sachar, and not regarding a Shomer Chinam. We could learn from a borrower. It wrote one of these to teach that Shelichus Yad does not require Chisaron, and] the other, lest we apply Dayo [and say that Shelichus Yad is no more stringent than a borrower, and he is exempt if it was Shemirah b'Ba'alim];

Both of these are needed to teach that Shelichus Yad does not require Chisaron according to R. Elazar, for he does not learn a Shomer Sachar from a Shomer Chinam!

Answer #1: Below, we ask "according to the opinion that Shelichus Yad requires Chisaron, why do we need two verses?"

Inference: According to him, we do not learn one (Shomer Sachar or Shomer Chinam) from the other, and even so we do not use both of them to teach Dayo!

Explanation: This is like I explained above (DH Lomar). Since Shelichus Yad is liable regarding both of them, it is a mere Giluy Milsa to apply the law of one to the other.

Answer #2: Rava comes to explain R. Elazar's words "both of them [Shelichus Yad written regarding a Shomer Chinam and a Shomer Sachar] are the same." This does not mean that both of them are needed for themselves, like [the Gemara] said;

Rather, both are extra, for we learn them from a borrower. Rava holds that principal is better, and we properly learn a Shomer Sachar from a Shomer Chinam according to everyone.

Observation: However, the Beraisa in Bava Kama (57b) holds that we do not learn one from the other, for he says "you cannot learn from a Shomer Chinam..."

Question: We should learn from a borrower! He does not need Chisaron. From the time of Meshichah he is liable for Ones, even though he did not use it yet, like it says below (99a) regarding one who borrowed an axe from his friend;

All the more so, a Shomer who does Meshichah (takes it to his Reshus) to use it without the owner's consent, is liable!

Answer: Regarding a borrower, it is proper that since he does Meshichah with the owner's consent, it is as if he used it, for he borrowed it with this intent, and not to leave it in a canopy;

However, without consent, it is not considered as if he already used it due to the Meshichah alone. Therefore, we learn from a borrower only Meshichah that has Chisaron.

Explanation: Also according to the opinion that does not require Chisaron, so he needs both verses, he properly learns the Gezeirah Shavah to teach like the Beraisa;

Since there are so many identical words in each Parshah "Im Lo Shalach Yado bi'Meleches Re'ehu" (we make the Gezeirah Shavah between them).