Responsa for Bava Metzia 163:10

לימא דרב יוסף תנאי היא לא בשומר אבידה דכולי עלמא אית להו דרב יוסף והכא

Hence it follows that the creditor acquires a title to the pledge.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eliezer disagrees. R. Akiba agrees with this. ');">¹⁰</span> But is this reasonable? Verily, R. Isaac's dictum refers to a pledge, not taken when the loan was made;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 113a, where the verse is interpreted as relating to such a case; the pledge then is obviously a surety for the money. ');">¹¹</span> but did he say it with reference to a pledge taken at the time of the loan? — Hence where the pledge was not taken when the loan was made, all agree with R. Isaac. But here the reference is to a pledge taken at the time of the loan, and they differ as to the guardian of lost property. For it has been stated: He who is in charge of lost property — Rabbah said: He ranks as an unpaid bailee; R. Joseph maintained: As a paid bailee.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 29a. R. Akiba, reasoning on the same lines as R. Joseph, regards the creditor as a paid bailee, since it is a positive duty to assist a fellow-man with a loan (cf. Lev. XXV, 35), whilst R. Eliezer regards him as an unpaid bailee. ');">¹²</span> Shall we say that R. Joseph's view is disputed by Tannaim? — No. With respect to one who guards lost property, all agree with R. Joseph. But here

Teshuvot Maharam