Rashi, oseh emo din (4 lines before Mishnah). Why does Rashi explain that oseh emo din (which Rashi learns means with the owner, not with the ganav) is the point of argument between Rav Hunah and Rav Nachman regarding Runia when Rav Nachman forced him to pay based on same principle of oseh emo din (OED)? True, Rav Nachman obligated him while Rav Hunah gave him a choice but that's not what Rashi is explaining as their point of contention. Rash says that while in Rav Hunia's choice offering to the shomer, OED is one option and Rashi explains only that one option and in explaining its mechanics - ie paying the owner, then says that such is the point that argues with R Nachman. It would have seemed much clearer to instead explain the gemorah that they argue bc R Hunah gave the shomer a choice while R Nachman obligated, wo choice, the shomer to pay. Or to say R hunah obligated only a shomer sachar while R Nachman obligated a shomer chinam. They are not arguing in what OED would mean for a shomer chinam (unless one were to propose that they argue whether the shomer or the owner receives the kefel double payment from the ganav and that being dependent upon how much unrequired undertaking of loss the shomer chinam volunteered for, the more risk the more reward - getting the kefel payment.
Daniel Gray, Toronto Canada
1) Rashi does actually mean that the point of argument between Rav Huna and Rav Nachman is that Rav Huna gave a choice while Rav Nachman gave no choice. This is what Rashi (DH Oseh) means when he writes "v'Hainu Pligi," "this is their dispute," and then writes that Runya was a Shomer Chinam and Rav Nachman made him pay. Rashi implies that Rav Huna's dispute with Rav Nachman is that Rav Huna did not make him pay but gave him the option of making an oath and avoiding paying.
2) If he was a Shomer Sachar, everyone agrees that he must pay the owners directly. That would not be a topic of discussion.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom