I wanted to suggest that there needs to be some work to iron out the two subjects in Bava Metzia page 104a and in Shavuot 44a.
I am not saying these two Gemaras agree. But we need to find out if they do and if they don't then in what exact areas do they disagree?
This essay would be valid if we go like the Maharshal who considered Tosphot to continue in his normal vein that דורשין לשון הדיוט means we considered it written even if it is not written. But I think we have to drop this assumption.
I mean in Shavuot the Gemara says Shmuel only said his law in a case where he stated explicitly that the pledge is for the whole loan. [To the girsa (version) of Rabbainu Tam and Rabainu Chananel which Tosphot defends.] [We could switch this around but I am not sure this would help us.] In Bava Metzia the Gemara says one can't take a pledge more than the amount of the loan because דורשין לשון הדיוט that whether he says so or not the pledge is owned even if it is more than the loan. [That is a small pledge will still be taken as the equivalent of a large loan.] [That is we do not have a contradiction. All Shmuel says is a small pledge is equal to a large loan and all the Gemara says in Bava Metzia is the whole pledge is owed even if it is more than the loan.]
There are still many details to work out. But even before I can get to the details, I need to get the idea. Is what we are saying is the pledge is owned completely even if more than the loan and that even if it is small it is equal to the whole loan. If so these two concepts do seem contradictory prima facie.
Then the Gemara concludes not like Shmuel in Shavuot. In Shavuot the Gemara says the pledge is only equal to its own monetary value and that is the amount that it is considered to be against the loan. That is the conclusion of the Gemara--whether he says so explicitly or not and whether the pledge was taken at the time of the loan or not. [See the Rif.] So this Gemara in Shavuot seems not like the one in Bava Metzia.
The Gemara in BM says we consider what has been out of the document of the loan as if it was written. [That is how Tosphot explains the sugia there.] (So the Gemara there certainly makes no difference if something was written and explained openly or not. This is already entirely against the Gemara in Shavuot where the Gemara resolves the contradiction between the Mishna and Shmuel by says one is where it was said openly the pledge is against the loan and the other is where this was not stated. And the Gemara never goes against this there. It just says no one holds from Shmuel but they do not ever modify the opinion of Shmuel. Tosphot however says if fact the law is like Shmuel but this would not make any difference in our sugia because our sugia is just the opposite case of Shmuel. If Shmuel is when he explained his meaning openly then our sugia is when he did not]
What I am thinking of doing is to say the pledge is owned even more than the loan and when the loan is payed back the amount the pledge is more than the loan has to be paid for by the borrower if he wants his pledge back. And I suggest this is what the Gemara means in BM when it says "אלא לגירעון." And that I think we have to say this Gemara in BM does hold by Shmuel. Furthermore the Gemara in BM is only saying this is the opinion of R Yehoshua Ben Karcha.
It is also possible that Shmuel means the pledge is considered equal to the loan even when the monetary value of the pledge is more than the loan, [not just when it is less]. In fact this might be best because then the two Gemaras might be holding that we do not hold by Shmuel in this case and that we always look only at the monetary value of the pledge.
Appendix: That is about as far as I can think right now. The problems never seems to let up on me for me to be able to concentrate anymore. But just for the convenience of the reader I will just say over quickly the Gemara in Shavuot. The Mishna says the pledge is against the loan only according to its own monetary worth. The Gemara asks this seems not like Shmuel who says the pledge is considered equal to the whole loan. The Gemara answers Shmuel is when he said so explicitly and the mishna is when he did not. Let's say the opinion of Shmuel is the subject of an argument between two Tenaim. R Eliezer says if the lender lost the pledge he takes an oath that it was by accident and he collects the whole loan. R Akiva says: "The borrower can say 'Why did I give a pledge in the first place but to be for the loan? You lost the pledge, you lost the loan.'"
The Gemara says that neither R Eliezer nor R Akiva hold from Shmuel and rather they disagree about the law of R. Isaac. R. Isaac said the lender owns the pledge. Then the Gemara pushes that off and says R Isaac was talking about a case when the pledge was taken not at the time of the loan and in that case everyone agrees with R Isaac. Rather their argument is when the pledge was taken at the time of the loan and it is parallel to the argument between Raba and Rav Joseph. Raba said a the finder of a lost object has the category of a unpaid guard. Rav Joseph said a paid guard. The gemara says even then if the lender does not need the pledge there is no disagreement. Rather the case is when the lender needs to use the pledge.
The gemara in Bava Metzia says R. Yehoshua Ben Karcha דורש לשון הדיוט. That means that we look at the exact language of the document. So when he writes כל תשלומתא דאית לך כל קבל דיכי that means the pledge is considered to be for the whole loan even if the pledge is not worth much. The Gemara asks but what if he did not write that? Then he would not own the whole pledge? But that contradicts Rabbi Yochanan who said the lender can take the whole pledge from the orphans. So he owns it even when he did not write anything. Rather yehoshua Ben Karcha meant that if the pledge goes down in value and the loan is defaulted on then we go after other property in order that teh whole loan should be paid back.
In any case one difficulty i forgot to mention is the basic contradiction: In Shavuot the whole difference between Shmuel and Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Elizer is whether he explained openly that the pledge is considered equal to the loan or not. And in Bava Metzia this difference is completely erased by the idea we considered it written even if it has not been written. The answer might be that explaining the difference is not the same as writing a document. And in fact the Gemara says in Shavuot that there is no argument between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer when he has written a document. That means Rabbi Eliezer then agrees with Rabbi Akiva but not Shmuel. So we still seem to have a problem.
________________________________________________________________________
I wanted to suggest that there needs to be some work to iron out the two subjects in בבא מציעא page ק''ד ע''א and in שבועות מ''ד ע''א
I am not saying these two גמרות agree. But we need to find out if they do and if they don't then in what exact areas do they disagree?
I mean in שבועות the גמרא says שמואל only said his law in a case where he stated explicitly that the משכון is for the whole הלוואה. To the גרסה of רבינו תם and רבינו חננאל which תוספות defends. We could switch this around but I am not sure this would help us. In בבא מציעא the גמרא says one can't take a משכון more than the amount of the הלוואה because דורשין לשון הדיוט that whether he says so or not the משכון is owned even if it is more than the הלוואה. That is a small משכון will still be taken as the equivalent of a large הלוואה. That is, we do not have a contradiction. All שמואל says is a small משכון is equal to a large הלוואה and all the גמרא says in בבא מציעא is the whole משכון is owned even if it is more than the הלוואה.
There are still many details to work out. But even before I can get to the details, I need to get the idea. Is what we are saying is the משכון is owned completely even if more than the הלוואה and that even if it is small it is equal to the whole הלוואה. If so these two concepts do seem contradictory prima facie.
Then the גמרא concludes not like שמואל in שבועות. However תוספות says the law is like שמואל. In שבועות the גמרא says the משכון is only equal to its own monetary value and that is the amount that it is considered to be against the הלוואה. That is the conclusion of the גמרא, whether he says so explicitly or not, and whether the משכון was taken at the time of the הלוואה or not. See the רי''ף. So this גמרא in שבועות seems not like the one in בבא מציעא.
The גמרא in בבא מציעא says we consider what has been out of the document of the הלוואה as if it was written. That is how תוספות explains the סוגיא there. So the גמרא there certainly makes no difference if something was written and explained openly or not. This is already entirely against the גמרא in Shavuot where the גמרא resolves the contradiction between the משנה and שמואל by says one is where it was said openly the משכון is against the loan and the other is where this was not stated. And the גמרא never goes against this there. It just says no one holds from שמואל but they do not ever modify the opinion of שמואל. In fact, תוספות however says in fact the law is like שמואל but this would not make any difference in our סוגיא because our סוגיא is just the opposite case of שמואל. If שמואל is when he explained his meaning openly then our סוגיא is when he did not.
The מהרש''א answers this question because he explains this סוגיא in בבא מציעא to mean that it in fact has to be written.
It is also possible that שמואל means the משכון is considered equal to the loan even when the monetary value of the משכון is more than the הלוואה, not just when it is less. In fact this might be best because then the two גמרות might be holding that we do not hold by שמואל in this case and that we always look only at the monetary value of the משכון.
Another answer might be that that law is like שמואל and that שמואל said his law only when פרושי מפרש. Then these two גמרות in שבועות and בבא מציעא would come out equal. that is like תוספות in fact says in שבועות and this would be if we go like the גרסה of רבינו חננאל and we understand the גמרא in בבא מציעא like the מהרש''א.
Appendix: The גמרא in שבועות. The משנה says the משכון is against the הלוואה only according to its own monetary worth. The גמרא asks this seems not like שמואל who says the pledge is considered equal to the whole הלוואה. The גמרא answers שמואל is when he said so explicitly and the משנה is when he did not. Let's say the opinion of שמואל is the subject of an argument between two תנאים. The ברייתא says רבי אליעזר says if the lender lost the pledge he takes an oath that it was by accident and he collects the whole הלוואה. Then רבי עקיבא says: "The borrower can say 'Why did I give a משכון in the first place but to be for the הלוואה? You lost the משכון, you lost the הלוואה.'"
The גמרא says that neither רבי אליעזר nor רבי עקיבא hold from שמואל and rather they disagree about the law of רבי יצחק. The גמרא says רבי יצחק said the מלווה owns the משכון. Then the גמרא pushes that off and says רבי יצחק was talking about a case when the משכון was taken not at the time of the הלוואה and in that case everyone agrees with רבי יצחק. Rather their argument is when the משכון was taken at the time of the הלוואה and it is parallel to the argument between רבה and רב יוסף. The argument is this. רבה said a the finder of a אבידה has the category of a שומר חינם. Then רב יוסף said a שומר שכר. The גמרא says even then if the מלווה does not need the משכון there is no disagreement. Rather the case is when the מלווה needs to use the משכון.
The גמרא in בבא מציעא says רבי יהושע בן קרחה holds דורשין לשון הדיוט. That means that we look at the exact language of the document. So when he writes כל תשלומתא דאית לך כל קבל דיכי that means the משכון is considered to be for the whole הלוואה even if the משכון is not worth much. The גמרא asks but what if he did not write that? Then he would not own the whole משכון? But that contradicts רבי יוחנן who said the מלווה can take the whole משכון from the orphans. So he owns it even when he did not write anything. Rather רבי יהושע בן קרחה meant that if the משכון goes down in value and the loan is defaulted on, then we go after other property in order that the whole הלוואה should be paid back.
In any case one difficulty I forgot to mention is the basic contradiction: In שבועות the whole difference between שמואל and רבי עקיבא and רבי אליעזר is whether he explained openly that the pledge is considered equal to the loan or not. And in בבא מציעא this difference is completely erased by the idea we considered it written even if it has not been written. The answer might be that explaining the difference is not the same as writing a document. And in fact the Gemara says in Shavuot that there is no argument between רבי עקיבא and Rabbi Eliezer when he has written a document. That means רבי אליעזר then agrees with רבי עקיבא but not שמואל. So we still seem to have a problem. This question in fact answered by the Maharsha who says that for our סוגיא in בבא מציעא תוספות is understanding דורש לשון הדיוט differently than he did before hand. In the סוגיא of רבי יהושע בן קרחה he explains it to mean we are exacting in saying the words mean exactly what their simple explanation is an if it is not written then we say it is not written.
I am not saying these two Gemaras agree. But we need to find out if they do and if they don't then in what exact areas do they disagree?
This essay would be valid if we go like the Maharshal who considered Tosphot to continue in his normal vein that דורשין לשון הדיוט means we considered it written even if it is not written. But I think we have to drop this assumption.
I mean in Shavuot the Gemara says Shmuel only said his law in a case where he stated explicitly that the pledge is for the whole loan. [To the girsa (version) of Rabbainu Tam and Rabainu Chananel which Tosphot defends.] [We could switch this around but I am not sure this would help us.] In Bava Metzia the Gemara says one can't take a pledge more than the amount of the loan because דורשין לשון הדיוט that whether he says so or not the pledge is owned even if it is more than the loan. [That is a small pledge will still be taken as the equivalent of a large loan.] [That is we do not have a contradiction. All Shmuel says is a small pledge is equal to a large loan and all the Gemara says in Bava Metzia is the whole pledge is owed even if it is more than the loan.]
There are still many details to work out. But even before I can get to the details, I need to get the idea. Is what we are saying is the pledge is owned completely even if more than the loan and that even if it is small it is equal to the whole loan. If so these two concepts do seem contradictory prima facie.
Then the Gemara concludes not like Shmuel in Shavuot. In Shavuot the Gemara says the pledge is only equal to its own monetary value and that is the amount that it is considered to be against the loan. That is the conclusion of the Gemara--whether he says so explicitly or not and whether the pledge was taken at the time of the loan or not. [See the Rif.] So this Gemara in Shavuot seems not like the one in Bava Metzia.
The Gemara in BM says we consider what has been out of the document of the loan as if it was written. [That is how Tosphot explains the sugia there.] (So the Gemara there certainly makes no difference if something was written and explained openly or not. This is already entirely against the Gemara in Shavuot where the Gemara resolves the contradiction between the Mishna and Shmuel by says one is where it was said openly the pledge is against the loan and the other is where this was not stated. And the Gemara never goes against this there. It just says no one holds from Shmuel but they do not ever modify the opinion of Shmuel. Tosphot however says if fact the law is like Shmuel but this would not make any difference in our sugia because our sugia is just the opposite case of Shmuel. If Shmuel is when he explained his meaning openly then our sugia is when he did not]
What I am thinking of doing is to say the pledge is owned even more than the loan and when the loan is payed back the amount the pledge is more than the loan has to be paid for by the borrower if he wants his pledge back. And I suggest this is what the Gemara means in BM when it says "אלא לגירעון." And that I think we have to say this Gemara in BM does hold by Shmuel. Furthermore the Gemara in BM is only saying this is the opinion of R Yehoshua Ben Karcha.
It is also possible that Shmuel means the pledge is considered equal to the loan even when the monetary value of the pledge is more than the loan, [not just when it is less]. In fact this might be best because then the two Gemaras might be holding that we do not hold by Shmuel in this case and that we always look only at the monetary value of the pledge.
Appendix: That is about as far as I can think right now. The problems never seems to let up on me for me to be able to concentrate anymore. But just for the convenience of the reader I will just say over quickly the Gemara in Shavuot. The Mishna says the pledge is against the loan only according to its own monetary worth. The Gemara asks this seems not like Shmuel who says the pledge is considered equal to the whole loan. The Gemara answers Shmuel is when he said so explicitly and the mishna is when he did not. Let's say the opinion of Shmuel is the subject of an argument between two Tenaim. R Eliezer says if the lender lost the pledge he takes an oath that it was by accident and he collects the whole loan. R Akiva says: "The borrower can say 'Why did I give a pledge in the first place but to be for the loan? You lost the pledge, you lost the loan.'"
The Gemara says that neither R Eliezer nor R Akiva hold from Shmuel and rather they disagree about the law of R. Isaac. R. Isaac said the lender owns the pledge. Then the Gemara pushes that off and says R Isaac was talking about a case when the pledge was taken not at the time of the loan and in that case everyone agrees with R Isaac. Rather their argument is when the pledge was taken at the time of the loan and it is parallel to the argument between Raba and Rav Joseph. Raba said a the finder of a lost object has the category of a unpaid guard. Rav Joseph said a paid guard. The gemara says even then if the lender does not need the pledge there is no disagreement. Rather the case is when the lender needs to use the pledge.
The gemara in Bava Metzia says R. Yehoshua Ben Karcha דורש לשון הדיוט. That means that we look at the exact language of the document. So when he writes כל תשלומתא דאית לך כל קבל דיכי that means the pledge is considered to be for the whole loan even if the pledge is not worth much. The Gemara asks but what if he did not write that? Then he would not own the whole pledge? But that contradicts Rabbi Yochanan who said the lender can take the whole pledge from the orphans. So he owns it even when he did not write anything. Rather yehoshua Ben Karcha meant that if the pledge goes down in value and the loan is defaulted on then we go after other property in order that teh whole loan should be paid back.
In any case one difficulty i forgot to mention is the basic contradiction: In Shavuot the whole difference between Shmuel and Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Elizer is whether he explained openly that the pledge is considered equal to the loan or not. And in Bava Metzia this difference is completely erased by the idea we considered it written even if it has not been written. The answer might be that explaining the difference is not the same as writing a document. And in fact the Gemara says in Shavuot that there is no argument between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer when he has written a document. That means Rabbi Eliezer then agrees with Rabbi Akiva but not Shmuel. So we still seem to have a problem.
________________________________________________________________________
I wanted to suggest that there needs to be some work to iron out the two subjects in בבא מציעא page ק''ד ע''א and in שבועות מ''ד ע''א
I am not saying these two גמרות agree. But we need to find out if they do and if they don't then in what exact areas do they disagree?
I mean in שבועות the גמרא says שמואל only said his law in a case where he stated explicitly that the משכון is for the whole הלוואה. To the גרסה of רבינו תם and רבינו חננאל which תוספות defends. We could switch this around but I am not sure this would help us. In בבא מציעא the גמרא says one can't take a משכון more than the amount of the הלוואה because דורשין לשון הדיוט that whether he says so or not the משכון is owned even if it is more than the הלוואה. That is a small משכון will still be taken as the equivalent of a large הלוואה. That is, we do not have a contradiction. All שמואל says is a small משכון is equal to a large הלוואה and all the גמרא says in בבא מציעא is the whole משכון is owned even if it is more than the הלוואה.
There are still many details to work out. But even before I can get to the details, I need to get the idea. Is what we are saying is the משכון is owned completely even if more than the הלוואה and that even if it is small it is equal to the whole הלוואה. If so these two concepts do seem contradictory prima facie.
Then the גמרא concludes not like שמואל in שבועות. However תוספות says the law is like שמואל. In שבועות the גמרא says the משכון is only equal to its own monetary value and that is the amount that it is considered to be against the הלוואה. That is the conclusion of the גמרא, whether he says so explicitly or not, and whether the משכון was taken at the time of the הלוואה or not. See the רי''ף. So this גמרא in שבועות seems not like the one in בבא מציעא.
The גמרא in בבא מציעא says we consider what has been out of the document of the הלוואה as if it was written. That is how תוספות explains the סוגיא there. So the גמרא there certainly makes no difference if something was written and explained openly or not. This is already entirely against the גמרא in Shavuot where the גמרא resolves the contradiction between the משנה and שמואל by says one is where it was said openly the משכון is against the loan and the other is where this was not stated. And the גמרא never goes against this there. It just says no one holds from שמואל but they do not ever modify the opinion of שמואל. In fact, תוספות however says in fact the law is like שמואל but this would not make any difference in our סוגיא because our סוגיא is just the opposite case of שמואל. If שמואל is when he explained his meaning openly then our סוגיא is when he did not.
The מהרש''א answers this question because he explains this סוגיא in בבא מציעא to mean that it in fact has to be written.
It is also possible that שמואל means the משכון is considered equal to the loan even when the monetary value of the משכון is more than the הלוואה, not just when it is less. In fact this might be best because then the two גמרות might be holding that we do not hold by שמואל in this case and that we always look only at the monetary value of the משכון.
Another answer might be that that law is like שמואל and that שמואל said his law only when פרושי מפרש. Then these two גמרות in שבועות and בבא מציעא would come out equal. that is like תוספות in fact says in שבועות and this would be if we go like the גרסה of רבינו חננאל and we understand the גמרא in בבא מציעא like the מהרש''א.
Appendix: The גמרא in שבועות. The משנה says the משכון is against the הלוואה only according to its own monetary worth. The גמרא asks this seems not like שמואל who says the pledge is considered equal to the whole הלוואה. The גמרא answers שמואל is when he said so explicitly and the משנה is when he did not. Let's say the opinion of שמואל is the subject of an argument between two תנאים. The ברייתא says רבי אליעזר says if the lender lost the pledge he takes an oath that it was by accident and he collects the whole הלוואה. Then רבי עקיבא says: "The borrower can say 'Why did I give a משכון in the first place but to be for the הלוואה? You lost the משכון, you lost the הלוואה.'"
The גמרא says that neither רבי אליעזר nor רבי עקיבא hold from שמואל and rather they disagree about the law of רבי יצחק. The גמרא says רבי יצחק said the מלווה owns the משכון. Then the גמרא pushes that off and says רבי יצחק was talking about a case when the משכון was taken not at the time of the הלוואה and in that case everyone agrees with רבי יצחק. Rather their argument is when the משכון was taken at the time of the הלוואה and it is parallel to the argument between רבה and רב יוסף. The argument is this. רבה said a the finder of a אבידה has the category of a שומר חינם. Then רב יוסף said a שומר שכר. The גמרא says even then if the מלווה does not need the משכון there is no disagreement. Rather the case is when the מלווה needs to use the משכון.
The גמרא in בבא מציעא says רבי יהושע בן קרחה holds דורשין לשון הדיוט. That means that we look at the exact language of the document. So when he writes כל תשלומתא דאית לך כל קבל דיכי that means the משכון is considered to be for the whole הלוואה even if the משכון is not worth much. The גמרא asks but what if he did not write that? Then he would not own the whole משכון? But that contradicts רבי יוחנן who said the מלווה can take the whole משכון from the orphans. So he owns it even when he did not write anything. Rather רבי יהושע בן קרחה meant that if the משכון goes down in value and the loan is defaulted on, then we go after other property in order that the whole הלוואה should be paid back.
In any case one difficulty I forgot to mention is the basic contradiction: In שבועות the whole difference between שמואל and רבי עקיבא and רבי אליעזר is whether he explained openly that the pledge is considered equal to the loan or not. And in בבא מציעא this difference is completely erased by the idea we considered it written even if it has not been written. The answer might be that explaining the difference is not the same as writing a document. And in fact the Gemara says in Shavuot that there is no argument between רבי עקיבא and Rabbi Eliezer when he has written a document. That means רבי אליעזר then agrees with רבי עקיבא but not שמואל. So we still seem to have a problem. This question in fact answered by the Maharsha who says that for our סוגיא in בבא מציעא תוספות is understanding דורש לשון הדיוט differently than he did before hand. In the סוגיא of רבי יהושע בן קרחה he explains it to mean we are exacting in saying the words mean exactly what their simple explanation is an if it is not written then we say it is not written.
