The מחלוקת between רש''י and רבינו חננאל. The גמרא original question was this: is there an מחלוקת between שמואל and רבי עקיבה and רבי אליעזר? The גמרא answers no. One is when the מלווה explained and the other case is when he did not. רש''י says the case of שמואל is when he did not.
To me it makes sense to say רבינו חננאל must have meant that the גמרא did not use the word "מלווה" because it would make no sense for the מלווה to explain the משכון is for the whole loan if that would weaken his position.
Now I wonder if going back to the original position of the גמרא as I mentioned in the above essay is related to this? For I have been suggesting that the גמרא did go back to its original position according to תוספות and the הרי''ף. So now understanding this original position makes sense.
And the fact of the matter is according to this idea of mine that רבינו חננאל is when the לווה spoke and רש''י is when the מלווה spoke we come out with the outstanding and amazing conclusion that there is no argument.
If the לווה spoke he increased his power and so if the מלווה lost the משכון it goes for the whole loan. If the מלווה spoke then it was he who increased his power and the משכון is only according to it monetary value.
Furthermore according to what I wrote before that the cases in בבא מציעא ק''ד and שבועות מ''ד are different this also might make a difference. That is: I wrote שבועות is when the משכון was lost and the גמרא in בבא מציעא is when the loan was not paid back and so the מלווה can go after the whole משכון. Going after the whole משכון might be when it was the מלווה who spoke. The case in שבועות is when the לווה spoke. And so these two are not disagreeing at all.
And this idea that the different גמרא in different places do not disagree is certainly a starting axiom of תוספות.
This might help us in terms of ראש חודש also.
I wrote in my little booklet עיוני בבא מציעא that the two גמרות in ראש השנה and סנהדרין seem to disagree. The גמרא in סנהדרין the day of ראש חודש does not depend on the סנהדרין and to one opinion in תוספות that means the מולד even though you can never see the actual מולד
The גמרא in ראש השנה makes clear everything depends on the ability to see the מולד. To resolve this it is possible to say the difference is when there is a sitting סנהדרין or not.
To me it makes sense to say רבינו חננאל must have meant that the גמרא did not use the word "מלווה" because it would make no sense for the מלווה to explain the משכון is for the whole loan if that would weaken his position.
Now I wonder if going back to the original position of the גמרא as I mentioned in the above essay is related to this? For I have been suggesting that the גמרא did go back to its original position according to תוספות and the הרי''ף. So now understanding this original position makes sense.
And the fact of the matter is according to this idea of mine that רבינו חננאל is when the לווה spoke and רש''י is when the מלווה spoke we come out with the outstanding and amazing conclusion that there is no argument.
If the לווה spoke he increased his power and so if the מלווה lost the משכון it goes for the whole loan. If the מלווה spoke then it was he who increased his power and the משכון is only according to it monetary value.
Furthermore according to what I wrote before that the cases in בבא מציעא ק''ד and שבועות מ''ד are different this also might make a difference. That is: I wrote שבועות is when the משכון was lost and the גמרא in בבא מציעא is when the loan was not paid back and so the מלווה can go after the whole משכון. Going after the whole משכון might be when it was the מלווה who spoke. The case in שבועות is when the לווה spoke. And so these two are not disagreeing at all.
And this idea that the different גמרא in different places do not disagree is certainly a starting axiom of תוספות.
This might help us in terms of ראש חודש also.
I wrote in my little booklet עיוני בבא מציעא that the two גמרות in ראש השנה and סנהדרין seem to disagree. The גמרא in סנהדרין the day of ראש חודש does not depend on the סנהדרין and to one opinion in תוספות that means the מולד even though you can never see the actual מולד
The גמרא in ראש השנה makes clear everything depends on the ability to see the מולד. To resolve this it is possible to say the difference is when there is a sitting סנהדרין or not.
