In a previous blog entry, I suggested that the reason the Rambam does not decide like r Isaac is that he says the lender owns the mashkon and the Mishna says the lender is a paid guard. There is a question on this. That is that the gemara asks this same question, and answers that R. Isaac is referring to when the lender received the mashkon not at the time of the loan. The Mishna is referring to when he received it at the time of the loan. Why not simply go with the answer of the Gemara? [I.e., if he received the pledge at the time of the loan, the lender is a paid guard. But if he received it after the time of the loan, he is a borrower.] Furthermore, if R. Isaac means the lender is a borrower as Rashi and the Shach say, then we can understand this answer. But almost all Rishonim hold R. Isaac means he is a paid guard who has an acquisition in the security pledge (guarantee), and then that is the same thing as the Mishna. {What is the question the Gemara asks from the Mishna on R. Isaac if they both hold the same way?}. Furthermore, the Rif ignores the answer of the Gemara. Why? But for this last question I might have an answer. That is, that the Gemara came onto its answer because of question: “Perhaps the Mishna is not like a certain tana?” But if not for that question, the Gemara might have held that R. Isaac meant his law to apply in all circumstances. --------------------------------In a previous blog entry, I suggested that the reason the רמ''ם does not decide like ר' יצחק is that he says the lender owns the משכון and the משנה says the lender is a paid guard שומר שכר . There is a question on this. That is that the גמרא asks this same question, and answers that ר' יצחק is referring to when the lender received the משכון not at the time of the loan. The משנה is referring to when he received it at the time of the loan. Why not simply go with the answer of the גמרא? [I.e., if he received the pledge at the time of the loan, the lender is a paid guard. But if he received it after the time of the loan, he is a borrower.] Furthermore, if ר' יצחק means the lender is a borrower as רש''י and the ש''ך say, then we can understand this answer. But almost all ראשונים hold ר' יצחק means he is a paid guard who has an acquisition in the security pledge (guarantee), and then that is the same thing as the משנה. {What is the question the גמרא asks from the משנה on ר' יצחק if they both hold the same way?}. Furthermore, the ר''ף ignores the answer of the גמרא. Why? But for this last question I might have an answer. That is, that the גמרא came onto its answer because of A question: “Perhaps the משנה is not like a certain תנא?” But if not for that question, the גמרא might have held that ר' יצחק meant his law to apply in all circumstances.