it is a mystery why the Rif and Rambam ignore the distinction in the Gemara about if one gives a guarantee for a loan or sale that it makes a difference if he said the guarantee is only to be counted for it monetary value or if it is considered to be for the whole loan [in such a way that if it is lost, the whole loan is nullified.] The answer is (I think) that the Gemara holds with R Isaac that a mashkon is considered to be owned by the lender [that means the lender is considered to be borrowing the mashkon. however, for some reason the Rif and Rambam do not hold with this law of R. Isaac. Therefore, the distinction of the Gemara is ignored because the mashkon is never considered to be equal to the whole loan unless that is in fact its monetary value. [These two variables not have to be dependent one another, however it looks that that is how the Rif and Rambam considered them.][The reason is possibly that ר' יצחק holds the משכון goes for the whole value of the loan. Otherwise, why would he say the משכון is considered to be owned by the lender? but from the משנה בשבועות that holds the משכון is valued only for it monetary value alone, we can see the משנה does not hold with ר' יצחק ]-------------------------It is a mystery why the רי''ף and רמב''ם ignore the distinction in the גמרא about if one gives a guarantee for a loan or sale that it makes a difference if he said the guarantee is only to be counted for its monetary value, or if it is considered to be for the whole loan [in such a way that if it is lost, the whole loan is nullified.] The answer is (I think) that the גמרא holds with R. Isaac that a משכון is considered to be owned by the lender [that means the lender is considered to be borrowing the משכון. However, for some reason the רי''ף and רמב''ם do not hold with this law of ר' יצחק. Therefore, the distinction of the גמרא is ignored because the משכון is never considered to be equal to the whole loan unless that is in fact its monetary value. [These two variables not have to be dependent one another, however it looks that that is how the רי''ף and רמב''ם considered them. The reason is possibly that ר' יצחק holds the משכון goes for it whole value. Otherwise, why would he say the משכון is considered to be owned by the lender? but from the משנה IN שבועותthat holds the משכון is valued only for it monetary value alone we can see the משנה does not hold with ר' יצחק,