Study Shevuot folio 44A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
what is the reasoning of R' Eliezer, who holds that although the collateral was lost, the debtor is still liable to pay? Rather, is it not a case where the collateral was not worth the amount of money that he lent him? And accordingly, they disagree with regard to the ruling of Shmuel. R' Akiva ho
The Talmud rejects this suggestion: No, in a case where the collateral was not worth the value of the loan everyone is of the opinion that the ruling is not in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. But here the dispute is with regard to a case where the collateral was worth the amount of money that
R' Yitzḥak infers: If the creditor does not acquire the collateral, then from where is his righteousness? If the collateral is not his, the creditor would not be giving up anything of his own. From here it is derived that a creditor acquires the collateral. R' Eliezer disagrees with this opinion,
The Talmud asks: If so, shall we say that the opinion of R' Yitzḥak is the subject of a dispute between tanna’im? The Talmud answers: And how can you understand that? Say that R' Yitzḥak says that a creditor acquires the collateral in a case where he took the collateral from him not at the time of
Rather, in a case where he took the collateral from him not at the time of the loan, everyone agrees that the opinion of R' Yitzḥak is accepted, and here, the dispute between R' Eliezer and R' Akiva is with regard to a case where he took the collateral from him at the time of the loan.