only in a case where the finder used the money. But in a case where the finder did not use the money, everyone agrees that if the money is lost, the finder is exempt from paying restitution for its loss.

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this shall be a conclusive refutation of the statement of Rav Yosef, as it was stated that there is an amoraic dispute with regard to the legal status of a bailee charged with safeguarding a lost item. Rabba said: His legal status is like that of an unpaid bailee, who is liable to compensate the owner of the deposited item only in cases of negligence. Rav Yosef said: His legal status is like that of a paid bailee, who is liable to compensate the owner of the deposited item even in cases of theft or loss. When the mishna teaches that if the finder did not use the money everyone agrees that he is exempt from paying restitution for its loss, it apparently contradicts the statement of Rav Yosef.

The Gemara answers that Rav Yosef could have said to you: In cases of theft or loss, everyone agrees that a bailee charged with safeguarding a lost item is liable to pay restitution for it. When they disagree is in a case of damage caused by circumstances beyond his control, for which it is the obligation of a borrower to pay compensation. The Gemara elaborates: Rabbi Tarfon holds: The Sages permitted him to use the money, and he is therefore a borrower with regard to it, and is liable to compensate the owner even in the event of circumstances beyond his control. And Rabbi Akiva holds: The Sages did not permit him to use the money, and he is therefore not a borrower with regard to it.

The Gemara asks: If so, why do I need the statement that Rabbi Akiva said: He may not use the money; therefore, if it is lost, he is not liable to pay restitution for it? Granted, if you say that it is in cases of theft or loss that they disagree, I understand that is the reason that the tanna teaches in the mishna that Rabbi Akiva says: He may not use the money; therefore, if it is lost, he is not liable to pay restitution for it. The Gemara explains: Since it enters your mind to say that the legal status of the finder is like that of a paid bailee, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef, and that in cases of theft and loss the finder is liable to pay restitution, Rabbi Akiva teaches us: Therefore, if it is lost, he is not liable to pay restitution. Now that you said that he may not use the money, he is not a paid bailee and is not liable to pay restitution in cases of theft and loss.

But if you say that in cases of theft or loss, everyone agrees that a bailee charged with safeguarding a lost item is liable to pay restitution for it, and when they disagree it is in cases of damage caused by circumstances beyond his control for which it is the obligation of a borrower to pay compensation, what is the meaning of the statement of Rabbi Akiva: Therefore, if it is lost, he is not liable to pay restitution for it? Rather, this is what the mishna should have taught: Rabbi Akiva says: He may not use the money; and I would know that since he may not use the money, he is not considered a borrower, and consequently bears no financial responsibility. Why do I need the statement that Rabbi Akiva said: Therefore, if it is lost, he is not liable to pay restitution for it?

The Gemara answers: The explanation appended to the statement of Rabbi Akiva is indeed extraneous. It was added in order to create a parallel between the formulation of the statement of Rabbi Akiva and the formulation of the statement of Rabbi Tarfon. The phrase: Therefore, if the money is lost, he is not liable to pay restitution for it, was appended to the statement of Rabbi Akiva due to the explanation: Therefore, if the money is lost, he is liable to pay restitution for it, stated by Rabbi Tarfon.

The Gemara asks: And why do I need the statement that Rabbi Tarfon said: Therefore, if the money is lost, he is liable to pay restitution for it? The Gemara answers: This is what the mishna is saying: Since the Sages permitted him to use the money, his legal status is like that of one who actually used it and therefore, he is liable to pay restitution for it.

The Gemara asks: How can Rav Yosef explain that the dispute in the mishna is with regard to damage caused by circumstances beyond his control? But doesn’t the mishna teach: Therefore, if the money is lost? The disagreement between Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva is with regard to a case of damage due to loss, and not with regard to a case of damage caused by circumstances beyond one’s control.