In the previous essay in Hebrew I bring together a few ideas. Mainly the idea is that the Tosphot was asking a question in Rabbainu Chananel that seems to apply to Rashi just as well. But for some odd reason Tosphot does not seem to want to ask it on Rashi. Then the Maharsha gives and answer why Tosphot asked on Rabbainu Chananele specifically. In my original essay I simply pointed out that the idea of the Mahrasha does not seem to help anything.. He uses the idea that a quantum jump two steps is too much. I asked, "You have the same two steps to Rashi?" But frankly it bothered me. There simply is no way on God's dear Earth that this could a have escaped the attention of the Tosphot and the Maharsha. Therefore I spent something thinking about this as I was out shopping and God granted to me to figure out the answer. That in fact there is a third case. That is this each one -Rashi and Rabbainu Chananel deal with a case someone [we do not know who] said the pledge is for the amount of the loan. The difference of opinion is who said it. The idea I am trying to present is that to each one there is a third case. That is to Rashi we have the two cases when the lender spoke and when the lender did not speak. The third case is when the borrower spoke. And we can see easily that this will be different from the first two cases to Rabbi Eliezer.
But to Rabbainu Chananel we have two cases that the borrower spoke and he did not speak. But what happens in his opinion if the lender spoke. Then it would be the same as when the borrower did not speak. Thus the skipping the middle step applies to him and thus Rashi comes out better.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_________________________________________________________________________________
Conclusion
Mainly the idea is that the תוספות was asking a question in רבינו חננאל that seems to apply to רש''י just as well. But for some odd reason תוספות does not seem to want to ask it on רש''י. Then the מהרש''א gives and answer why תוספות asked on רבינו חננאל specifically. I asked that the idea of the מהרש''א does not seem to help anything. He uses the idea that a jump two steps is too much. I asked, but you have the same two steps to רש''י?
The answer. There in fact there is a third case. That is this each one רש''י and רבינו חננאל deal with a case someone, we do not know who, said the משכון is for the amount of the הלוואה. The difference of opinion is who said it. The idea I am trying to present is that to each one there is a third case. That is to רש''י we have the two cases when the מלווה spoke and when the מלווה did not speak. The third case is when the borrower spoke. And we can see easily that this will be different from the first two cases to רבי אליעזר .
But to רבינו חננאל we have two cases that the לווה spoke and he did not speak. But what happens in his opinion if the מלווה spoke. Then it would be the same as when the לווה did not speak. Thus the skipping the middle step applies to him and thus רש''י comes out better.
But to Rabbainu Chananel we have two cases that the borrower spoke and he did not speak. But what happens in his opinion if the lender spoke. Then it would be the same as when the borrower did not speak. Thus the skipping the middle step applies to him and thus Rashi comes out better.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_________________________________________________________________________________
Conclusion
Mainly the idea is that the תוספות was asking a question in רבינו חננאל that seems to apply to רש''י just as well. But for some odd reason תוספות does not seem to want to ask it on רש''י. Then the מהרש''א gives and answer why תוספות asked on רבינו חננאל specifically. I asked that the idea of the מהרש''א does not seem to help anything. He uses the idea that a jump two steps is too much. I asked, but you have the same two steps to רש''י?
The answer. There in fact there is a third case. That is this each one רש''י and רבינו חננאל deal with a case someone, we do not know who, said the משכון is for the amount of the הלוואה. The difference of opinion is who said it. The idea I am trying to present is that to each one there is a third case. That is to רש''י we have the two cases when the מלווה spoke and when the מלווה did not speak. The third case is when the borrower spoke. And we can see easily that this will be different from the first two cases to רבי אליעזר .
But to רבינו חננאל we have two cases that the לווה spoke and he did not speak. But what happens in his opinion if the מלווה spoke. Then it would be the same as when the לווה did not speak. Thus the skipping the middle step applies to him and thus רש''י comes out better.
