As I was coming back from the sea, it suddenly occurred to me why the Rambam would not hold with the law of R. Isaac. [R. Isaac said the lender who holds a guarantee is considered to own the mashkon.] The reason is in the Shach in Choshen Mishpat, chapter 72, law 2. There the Shach shows that to have possession of the mashkon means the lender is considered to a a borrower who is obligated to pay if the mashokn is lost, even if it was lost in extreme circumstances. This he shows is the approach of Rashi. However, we know the Rambam does not hold that way. I assume the reason is the Mishna itself brings the opinion of R. Akiva that the lender with the mashkon is a paid guard. So, the Rambam does not hold like Rashi. And as the Shach shows, the only way to understand R. Isaac is that the lender is considered a borrower. So the Rambam does not hold with R. Isaac. (The question I am dealing with here is that the Gemara looks to be holding with R. Isaac. )----------------------------------------------As I was coming back from the sea, it suddenly occurred to me why the רמב''ם would not hold with the law of ר' יצחק. [ר' יצחק said the lender who holds a guarantee is considered to own the משכון.] The reason is in the ש''ך in חושן משפט פרק ע''ב הלכה ב'. There the ש''ך shows that to have possession of the משכון means the lender is considered to a שואל who is obligated to pay if the משכון is lost, even if it was lost in extreme circumstances (אונסים גדולים כגון טבעה ספינתו) . This he shows is the approach of רש''י. However, we know the רמב''ם does not hold that way. I assume the reason is the משנה itself brings the opinion of ר' עקיבא that the lender with the משכון is a paid guard. So, the רמב''ם does not hold like רש''י. And as the ש''ך shows, the only way to understand ר' יצחק is that the lender is considered a שואל. So, the רמב''ם does not hold with ר' יצחק.[The question I am dealing with here is that the גמרא looks to be holding with ר' יצחק.]-------------------------The question I am dealing with here is that the גמרא looks to be holding with ר' יצחק.] here I want too add a few thoughts. one is that the way I am seeing things, the Rambam did not decided like R. Isaac because the Mishna in Bava Metzia 82 says the lender with the mashkon is a paid guard according to R. Akiva, or an unpaid guard according to R. Eliezer, and he did not decide like Shmuel because of the Mishna in Shavuot pg 43. This seems unusual, for the Rambam I think usually goes like the way the Gemara seems to tilt---[stama degemara.] And stama degemara is in fact the way the law is supposed to go-as per the sugia of a judge who made a mistake in law.------The question I am dealing with here is that the גמרא looks to be holding with ר' יצחק.] here I want too add a few thoughts. one is that the way I am seeing things, the רמב''ם did not decided like ר' יצחק because the משנה inב בבא מציעא דף פ'' says the lender with the משכון is a שומר שכר according to ר' עקיבא, or an שומר חינם according to ר' אליעזר, and he did not decide like שמואל because of the משנה in שבועות דף מ''ג. This seems unusual, for the רב''ם I think usually goes like the way the גמרא seems to tilt---[סתמא דגמרא.] And סתמא דגמרא is in fact the way the law is supposed to go, as per the סוגיא of a דיין שטעה.