Sholom!On PEY ALEPH AMUD BEYS at the bottom in the SUGYA OF hilvehu al hamashkon the gemoro brings a terutz to FAR ENFER RAV ELIEZER to fit in the Braaisa with the Mishnah that the Mishnah according to Rashi is talking about SHELO BESHAAS HALVAASO.AYIN SHOM!!! but I find it difficult when RASHI talks about that BEYS DIN takes the MASHKON after he has not paid .The whole GEDER of that surely now is PIROAN ie the Loveh has not paid the Malveh wants to be paid Beys Din go on his behalf and claim payment for his debt NOT TAKE A MASHKON.BEKITZUR i find the LOSHON of MASHKON SHELO BEHALVOAH a concept difficult to grasp as i would call it PIROAN (i hope you understand the point i am trying to make) KOL TUV BORUCH KAHAN
boruch kahan, London, England
Rashi DH Kan does actually write that when the Beis Din gave him the Mashkon after he had claimed his money back unsuccessfully, that this "certainly was taking for the collection of the debt", which is what you are asking - what is the difference between this and between actually collecting the debt back?
What you have to say is that the Malveh is still giving the Loveh time to get the money together and return it. So the Malveh took the gold watch of the Loveh, but he did not yet go to the pawnbroker to sell the watch and pocket the money. But if the Loveh waits too long that is what the Malveh will do eventually.
This is stated by the Ritva - "since the Loveh did not pay up on time and the Malveh was forced to demand a Mashkon, the Malveh now relies only on that Mashkon", i.e. the Malveh has not yet collected from the Mashkon but it is available to be collected from if the Loveh does not pay up.
The difference between (1) a "Mashkon b'Sha'as Halva'ah" and (2)a "Mashkon she'Lo b'Sha'as Halva'ah" is that (1) is taken only "to be sure of his money so that the Loveh cannot deny that there ever was a debt" as Rashi DH Aval writes. The next Rashi says that if there was a Shtar, the Mashkon was not taken for "Zichron Devarim" - i.e. as a reminder that there was a loan - which implies that if there was no Shtar then (1) was taken for Zichron Devarim.
In contrast, (2) is taken with the potential that later on the debt can actually be collected from it.
The Meiri here, 82a, sensed your question and wrote, "Even if the Mashkon was taken she'Lo b'Sha'as Halva'ah - when we should have said that this is like Pira'on and is considered as belonging already to the Malveh so that if an Ones happened to the Mashkon the Malveh would lose the debt and the Loveh would have to pay the remainder [incidentally one sees from the Meiri that the Mashkon might be worth less than the loan, which could be another answer to your question - that it is not a full Pira'on because it is worth less than the full sum owed - DB] - nevertheless one does not say this, and if an Ones occured the Malveh does not lose".
The Meiri does not say explicitly why it is not in fact a Pira'on, but one has to say that this is because the Malveh has not in practice collected his debt back from the Mashkon.
See also Nimukei Yosef (51a in Rif pages) in the name of the Raavad who writes that the Malveh is called a "Shomer Sachar" because he is doing a mitzvah every minute by waiting to receive the loan back from the Loveh and not selling the Mashkon to cash in his payment - i.e. the Mashkon is only potential, not yet actual Pira'on.
Zai Gezunt und Shtark
Dovid Bloom