I missed learning by the Litvaks in the morning and had to go to the sea, on the way back I was thinking about Rav Shach’s explanation of the argument between the Ramban (Nachmanides) and R Nisim (the Ran) in Shavuot page 43. [This argument is brought in the Rif.] What I think now is this. I think R Nisim (the Ran) holds the law is like R Yochanan in terms of eiravon (guarantee of a sale) because that is on what R Yochanan said his law. But we also know that the Rambam (Maimonides) does not hold with the law of Shmuel that if one has borrowed money and given a guarantee and it is lost, the whole loan is nullified. So, R Nisim we can understand perfectly well. An eiravon is for a sale, and there the law is like R Yochanan that the guarantee (eiravon) is for the whole sale. If the eiravon is lost, the whole sale is nullified. A mashkon is for a loan, and in that case, if the guarantee (mashkon) is lost, the amount of the loan that was more than the worth of value of the mashkon is still obligated. The Ramban (Nachmanides) however holds that the law of R Yochanan applies also to a mashkon. So now we can understand the argument between the Ramban and R. Nisim (the Ran). The Ramban (Nachmanides) wrote that if one borrowed money and received a guarantee and lost the mashkon, the borrower does not have to pay back anything. R Nisim disagrees and says that the amount of the loan that was worth more than the mashkon is still owed. Rav Shach says this depends on the argument between R Yochanan and Rav. However, I think R. Nisim (the Ran) holds that (in terms of a loan), the mashkon covers only its exact worth, not the whole loan. (R Yochanan said the guarantee goes for the whole debt only in the case of a sale, not loan. The case in Bava Metzia where he is brought is talking about a sale.) I think he has a good reason for this because even the Rambam who holds like R Yochanan does not hold that the guarantee goes for the whole loan as we see that he does not decide the Shmuel. However, R Nisim (the Ran) would have to agree that the law is like R Yochanan in a case of a sale because it is a general rule that when there is a disagreement between Rav and R Yochanan, the law is like R Yochanan. Now even though the Gemara in Bava Metzia 48 holds the mashkon and eiravon are the same in terms of law, the Rambam (Maimonides) does not need to agree with that because, in any case, that Gemara is going like Shmuel who the Rambam holds is not according to the law. But I am saying all this only according to R Nisim. The Ramban (Nachmanides) however, holds the mashkon and eiravon are the same, and in terms of both, the law is like R Yochanan [which would be like Shmuel.]------------------------------------------------I missed learning by the Litvaks in the morning and had to go to the sea, on the way back I was thinking about רב שך’s explanation of the argument between the רמב’’ן and הר’’ן in שבועות page 43. [This argument is brought in the Rif.] What I think now is this. I think הר’’ן holds the law is like ר’ יוחנן in terms of עירבון (guarantee of a sale) because that is on what ר’ יוחנן said his law. But we also know that the רמב’’ם does not hold with the law of שמואל that if one has borrowed money and given a guarantee and it is lost, the whole loan is nullified. So, הר’’ן we can understand perfectly well. An עירבון is for a sale, and there the law is like ר’ יוחנן that the guarantee (עירבון) is for the whole sale. If the עירבון is lost, the whole sale is nullified. A משכון is for a loan, and in that case, if the guarantee (משכון) is lost, the amount of the loan that was more than the worth of value of the משכון is still obligated. The רמב’’ן however holds that the law of ר’ יוחנן applies also to a משכון. So now we can understand the argument between the רמב’’ן and הר’’ן (the Ran). The רמב’’ן wrote that if one borrowed money and received a guarantee and lost the משכון, the borrower does not have to pay back anything. הר’’ן disagrees and says that the amount of the loan that was worth more than the משכון is still owed. רב שך says this depends on the argument between ר’ יוחנן and רב. However, I think הר’’ן holds that (in terms of a loan), the משכון covers only its exact worth, not the whole loan. (ר’ יוחנן said the guarantee goes for the whole debt only in the case of a sale, not loan. The case in בבא מציעא where he is brought is talking about a sale.) I think he has a good reason for this because even the רמב’’ם who holds like ר’ יוחנן does not hold that the guarantee goes for the whole loan as we see that he does not decide the שמואל. However, הר’’ן would have to agree that the law is like ר’ יוחנן in a case of a sale because it is a general rule that when there is a disagreement between רב and ר’ יוחנן, the law is like ר’ יוחנן. Now even though the גמרא in בבא מציעא 48 holds the משכון and עירבון are the same in terms of law, the רמב’’ם (Maimonides) does not need to agree with that because, in any case, that גמרא is going like שמואל who the רמב’’ם holds is not according to the law. But I am saying all this only according to הר’’ן. However, the רמב’’ן however, holds the משכון and עירבון are the same, and in terms of both, the law is like ר’ יוחנן [which would be like Shmuel.]