Question: We should learn from [a deposit] that was captured!

Answer: It is not so possible to toil and bring back what was captured.

Reference: I explained this in Bava Kama (57b) and above (41b).

Question: In Bava Kama (25a), it is proven that when [Dayo] does not uproot the Kal v'Chomer, all agree that we say Dayo. Here, it does not uproot it!

Answer: There, we initially thought that they argue even when [Dayo] does not uproot. Therefore, we say that this is fine...

Support: We find like this above (15b) and below (110b) it says "this is fine for the opinion that the buyer can dispel the creditor [who seeks to collect the field he bought, through paying the loan]. However, according to the opinion that he cannot dispel, how can we answer?"

This refers to Rami bar Chama, who initially held in Kesuvos (91b) that he cannot dispel, but he concluded unlike this. Even so, it says "however, according to the opinion..."

Explanation: Now, we do not need the Kal v'Chomer from a Shomer Sachar to obligate a borrower for theft or loss.

Pesak: R. Chananel ruled that he is exempt, because whenever Rav Acha and Ravina argue, the Halachah follows the lenient opinion.

Implied question: This is a stringency regarding the depositor!

Answer: Even so, it is considered a leniency to exempt the Muchzak, like we say "we are lenient about Safek Mamon."

Support: In Chulin (118b), Rav and R. Yochanan argue. R. Yochanan holds that the verse is expounded to teach about what precedes it, and what precedes what precedes it, and we hold like R. Yochanan.

Rejection #1: According to how we establish there that they argue about reasoning, there is no proof.

Rejection #2: It is possible that according to the opinion that [the verse] is expounded to teach about what precedes it, or it is not expounded [so], we do not say so everywhere.

Implied question: It says above (81b) and what below (97a) "however, according to the opinion that Peshi'ah b'Ba'alim is liable, why was he embarrassed?" (This connotes that the Halachah follows this opinion!)

Answer: We did not ask because the Halachah follows this opinion. Rather, we ask that it should not be difficult for him from earlier Amora'im [who argue with him].

Question: Why does he struggle to establish it like R. Yehudah? The Halachah does not follow him, for we hold that a renter is like a Shomer Sachar!

It connotes so above (34a) and below (97a) regarding Mereimar, who rented a donkey to people of Bei Chuzai, and in several places!

Explanation: If he softens the ground and goes [in front of the animal], this is truly on it!

Question: Why must we infer from the Seifa? Even without the Seifa, the Reisha is difficult. If he softens the ground and goes [in front], this is truly on it. Why does it say "even"?

Suggestion: We could not ask from the Reisha, for we could say that it comes to teach this itself, that softening and going is like on it;

However, it is a proper question from the Seifa. Why does it say "even on it", i.e. even if he does not soften and go? We learn this from the Reisha!

Rejection: If so, also when you establish the Reisha to discuss another task, it is difficult why must the Seifa teach "even on it"? We learn from the Reisha that another task is like on it!

Answer: If the Reisha teaches another task, this is fine that the Seifa taught that even if the owner is on it, for an added Chidush (even so, he is liable);

Even though we hear this from the Reisha, since on it is far from another task [it is fine that the Seifa taught this];

However, if the Reisha teaches the same task, e.g. he softens and goes, since the Reisha taught that this is like on it, there was no need for the Seifa to teach "even if the owner plows on it"!