Blessed be God. I think I may have found some way to understand Tosphot and The Maharsha on Bava Metzia and Shavuot page 43.
I would like the express the basic idea and then go into detail. [God willing.] What I think is this. I think the Tosphot and the Mahrasha must have already understood what I was saying about Rabbainu Chananel that in his case it is not just which is the case of מפרש but also who is מפרש. Lets take this as a given, and axiom. This idea in itself does not help at first. But let us think what the implications are.
Let's say Rabbainu Chananel is saying that the case of Shmuel is when the borrower is מפרש. At fist this does not seem to change much. But it does change something essential. That is this. That Shmuel is when the borrower explaining the pledge is for the whole loan. The case of Rabbi Akiva is when the borrower is not explain anything. Then what happens if the lender is מפרש? It would be the same as not explaining anything. Rabbi Eliezer would say he gets the whole loan repaid. It is the same jump of two steps that Tosphot does not like.
But to Rashi things are different. The case of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer is when the lender is מפרש. Shmuel is when he was not מפרש. Then what happens in if the borrower is מפרש to Rashi? Even to Rabbi Eliezer it would not be the same as if no one said anything. Rather the law would revert to Rabbi Akiva that the amount the pledge was worth does not need to be repaid to the lender.
Therefore there is no jump of two steps that Tosphot does not like. And therefore the opinion of Rashi comes out better than Rabbainu Chananel.
________________________________________________________________________________
Blessed be God. I think I may have found some way to understand תוספות and the מהרש''א on בבא מציעא and שבועות דף מ''ג ע''ב.
I would like the express the basic idea and then go into detail בעזרת השם/ What I think is this. I think the תוספות and the מהרש''א must have already understood what I was saying about רבינו חננאל that in his case it is not just which is the case of מפרש but also who is מפרש. Lets take this as a given, and axiom. This idea in itself does not help at first. But let us think what the implications are.
Let's say רבינו חננאל is saying that the case of שמואל is when the לווה is מפרש. At first this does not seem to change much. But it does change something essential. That is this. That שמואל is when the לווה is מפרש the משכון is for the whole הלוואה The case of רבי עקיבא is when the לווה is not explain anything. Then what happens if the מלווה is מפרש? It would be the same as not explaining anything. רבי אליעזר would say he gets the whole loan repaid. It is the same jump of two steps that תוספות does not like.
But to רש''י things are different. The case of רבי עקיבא and רבי אליעזרis when the מלווה is מפרש. Then שמואל is when he was not מפרש. Then what happens in if the לווה is מפרש to רש''י? Even to רבי אליעזר it would not be the same as if no one said anything. Rather the law would revert to רבי עקיבא that the amount the pledge was worth does not need to be repaid to the מלווה.
Therefore there is no jump of two steps that תוספות does not like. And therefore the opinion of רש''י comes out better than רבינו חננאל.
I would like the express the basic idea and then go into detail. [God willing.] What I think is this. I think the Tosphot and the Mahrasha must have already understood what I was saying about Rabbainu Chananel that in his case it is not just which is the case of מפרש but also who is מפרש. Lets take this as a given, and axiom. This idea in itself does not help at first. But let us think what the implications are.
Let's say Rabbainu Chananel is saying that the case of Shmuel is when the borrower is מפרש. At fist this does not seem to change much. But it does change something essential. That is this. That Shmuel is when the borrower explaining the pledge is for the whole loan. The case of Rabbi Akiva is when the borrower is not explain anything. Then what happens if the lender is מפרש? It would be the same as not explaining anything. Rabbi Eliezer would say he gets the whole loan repaid. It is the same jump of two steps that Tosphot does not like.
But to Rashi things are different. The case of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer is when the lender is מפרש. Shmuel is when he was not מפרש. Then what happens in if the borrower is מפרש to Rashi? Even to Rabbi Eliezer it would not be the same as if no one said anything. Rather the law would revert to Rabbi Akiva that the amount the pledge was worth does not need to be repaid to the lender.
Therefore there is no jump of two steps that Tosphot does not like. And therefore the opinion of Rashi comes out better than Rabbainu Chananel.
________________________________________________________________________________
Blessed be God. I think I may have found some way to understand תוספות and the מהרש''א on בבא מציעא and שבועות דף מ''ג ע''ב.
I would like the express the basic idea and then go into detail בעזרת השם/ What I think is this. I think the תוספות and the מהרש''א must have already understood what I was saying about רבינו חננאל that in his case it is not just which is the case of מפרש but also who is מפרש. Lets take this as a given, and axiom. This idea in itself does not help at first. But let us think what the implications are.
Let's say רבינו חננאל is saying that the case of שמואל is when the לווה is מפרש. At first this does not seem to change much. But it does change something essential. That is this. That שמואל is when the לווה is מפרש the משכון is for the whole הלוואה The case of רבי עקיבא is when the לווה is not explain anything. Then what happens if the מלווה is מפרש? It would be the same as not explaining anything. רבי אליעזר would say he gets the whole loan repaid. It is the same jump of two steps that תוספות does not like.
But to רש''י things are different. The case of רבי עקיבא and רבי אליעזרis when the מלווה is מפרש. Then שמואל is when he was not מפרש. Then what happens in if the לווה is מפרש to רש''י? Even to רבי אליעזר it would not be the same as if no one said anything. Rather the law would revert to רבי עקיבא that the amount the pledge was worth does not need to be repaid to the מלווה.
Therefore there is no jump of two steps that תוספות does not like. And therefore the opinion of רש''י comes out better than רבינו חננאל.
