Gemara in שבת דף ה עמוד ב, גמרא talks about הוצאה, הכנסה, all the מלאכות of carrying, and we all know that you have to have עקירה and הנחה. הנחה means to put it down on a resting place, עקירה means to take it up, pick it up from a resting place. So the Gemara says here that Rava said אמר רבא מים על גבי מים היינו הנחתן, put down water on top of water is הנחה, or if you take water out of water it's taking from a מקום הנחה. אגוז על גבי מים לאו היינו הנחתו. If you have a אגוז, a nut that's floating on the water and you pick it up, that's not called an עקירה because you didn't take it from a resting place. Since the nut is floating on the water, so memeila that's not called resting. So it's not an עקירה if you take it off, or if you put it down onto the water, it's not called an הנחה. Okay, fine. Comes Tosafos and Tosafos asks a kashya. Basically Tosafos asks a kashya from the Gemara in Bava Metzia. The Gemara in Bava Metzia דף ט, there it speaks about a different דין, but it's also נגיעה to something that's resting or not resting. There it says לגבי the דין of חצר. We know that

there is a kinyan called חצר, that if you have a place that belongs to you, your yard, your house, or even a box that's laying that's your box, that's called your חצר. If I want to give you something, if I want to be makneh to you something, I put it into your חצר, and then it's as if you are koneh, not as if, you are koneh as if you took it yourself, קנין חצר. But then the Gemara asks a שאלה. The Gemara says, if a person tells somebody, I'm I want to be makneh you something and he puts it on top of a בהמה, you are not koneh even though the בהמה belongs to you. So the Gemara says why? Because חצר מהלכת היא. The din of chatzer is it's only koneh if it's standing in one place. If it's a moving chatzer, it's not koneh. חצר מהלכת לא קנה. וכי תימא כשעמדה, what about if the בהמה that's yours, which is like your box, it's your chatzer, you say that it's not koneh because it's moving, what happens if it's standing? So the Gemara says it's also not koneh, because כל שאילו מהלך לא קנה, עומד וישב לא קנה. Anything that's not koneh while it's going, even while it's standing, since it could go, it's not koneh. והלכתא the halacha is בכפותה. When is it koneh? If it's tied up, then he can't even walk. Fine. אמרו ליה רב פפא ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע לרבא, so they said to Rava, אלא מעתה, now that you made a din that a חצר המהלכת, חצר that's movable, that moves is not קונה, היה מהלך בספינה, if you're in a ship, וקפצו דגים ונפלו לתוך הספינה, and fish, which are hefker in the sea, jumped, and they jumped into the ספינה, הכא נמי דחצר מהלכת היא ולא קנה, you're going to tell me that since the chatzer the ספינה is moving they're not koneh? Normally if something hefker comes into your chatzer, you're koneh. But now we said חצר המהלכת is not koneh, so לכאורה the ship shouldn't be koneh, because it's moving! So the Gemara answers אמר ליה, so he said no, ספינה מינח ניחא, we have to remember the words, the ship is standing is resting, מיא הוא דקא ממטי לה, the water makes it go. So therefore the ship that's floating on the water is not called מהלך. It's not called a חצר המהלכת. Same thing the Gemara asks further, what about a woman who's walking in רשות הרבים and some the husband throws a get into her basket that she has? הכא נמי דלא מיגרשה, she's not divorced, because her basket is moving, her basket is her chatzer, and a chatzer is koneh the get. So he says no, קלתה מינח ניחא ואיהי דקא מסגי תותה, the basket is not moving, the basket is in one place, she is the one that's moving it. Fine. This is the Gemara. So Tosafot asks a kashya. From that Gemara we see that a ship that's floating on the water is called resting, that's what the Gemara says, the ship is resting, the water is the one that's going. So how come over here by the case of עקירה and הנחה we say that the אגוז that's floating on the water לאו היינו הנחתו, it's not called resting? So

Tosafot answers that over there by chatzer is a special דין, חצר we learn out from יד, and by יד it's the same thing, and Tosafot answers there is a difference between that case and our case. And then Tosafot goes on to answer a similar kashya, which brings be'emet another kashya, which is a setirah to the Gemara in Bava Metzia. The first kashya that Tosafot asked on our Gemara is a setirah to the Gemara Bava Metzia. Our Gemara says that the eggs that's floating on the water is not called resting, by the ship in the Bava Metzia, it says it is called resting. There's another place where we find which is similar to our Gemara: a תלמיד חכם that's riding a horse. We know a תלמיד חכם, when he's walking, you have to stand up for him. When he's standing, you don't have to stand up for him. What happens if he's riding a horse? The same she'eilah: lif'ol, he's moving. On the other hand, he is not moving, the horse is moving, he is sitting there. So the Gemara says, רוכב כמהלך. Yes, if he's riding, it's like he's walking, and you've got to stand up. So it's also a setirah to the Gemara by the ship. The ship, the Gemara says that the ship is resting, the water is going. And here, and here we see, we don't say that. We say don't say the תלמיד חכם is resting, and the בהמה, the horse is going. So the same answer, that by chatzer, it's a special din, by חצר המהלכת, there's a din compared to יד. To our shiur is not nogea to the Gemara's terutz, the ikar is the kashya that Tosafot has, excuse me, Tosafot's terutz, the kashya that Tosafot has. So basically Tosafot has one kashya from two places. Actually, in Bava Metzia gufa, Tosafot has the same kashya, there it's outright a kashya from two places: how come by the case of the ספינה, we say that the ship that's floating on the water is resting, mah she'ein kein by this, not, over here we say over the water it's not resting, and by the talmid chacham also, we say that if he is sitting on a horse and riding, he's not resting, he's walking? So it's a setira, and Tosafot has to find a terutz why this is different. The

main thing I'm going to try to bring out of the shiur is that this kashya is only a kashya according to Tosafot. We're not going into the answer, Tosafot gives an answer, but the kashya is l'chatchila only according to Tosafot. When we're going to look into the Rambam and see different Rambams, we'll see that the Rambam learns different peshat in the Gemara in Bava Metzia, and therefore, according to the Rambam, it's l'chatchila no kashya from those two places. So let's start to go into the שיטת Rambam. We find a machloket between the Rambam and Tosafot. In the Gemara in Bava Kamma, see you have the mareh mekomot here, דף י\"ב עמוד א, where the Gemara says the same thing as it says in Bava Metzia, the Gemara in Bava Kamma says that if you put something on an עבד, the עבד is a חצר המהלכת, and therefore it's not koneh as chatzer. The Gemara over there says the same thing it says in Bava Metzia, that when is it, does it work? כפות! If he's tied. If you tie the עבד up, he can't walk, then he's not a חצר המהלכת. Comes Tosafot and Tosafot says, וצריך לומר נמי דמיירי בישן, that when is this עבד or the the בהמה קונה as a chatzer? Not enough if it's tied, he has to be asleep also. Why? דכפות מהני דלא הוי חצר המהלכת, כפות, tying him up, helps that he's not able to walk, so he's not a חצר המהלכת, וישן מהני דהוי משתמרת לדעתו. There's another din by chatzer: chatzer is only koneh if it's a חצר המשתמרת. That means a chatzer has to be watched, protected, guarded for your sake. Lemashel, if I have in front of my house grass, it's my property, it's my chatzer, and someone puts something in, and I'm not standing to watch it, it won't be koneh. It's a good chatzer and it should be koneh. There's another problem, it's not a חצר המשתמרת for me. If I'm standing and watching it, then it's koneh for me, but if I'm not, or let's say if it has a fence, then it's mishtameret for me, it works. So the Tosafot says there's another problem here with this עבד or this בהמה that you're going to tie up and you want him to be koneh whatever you're putting onto him as chatzer, there's another problem, it has to be a חצר המשתמרת. Since the בהמה, it has its own whatever דעת it has, or the עבד certainly has his own דעת, so whatever you're putting onto it, it's for himself. So even though you tied it up, which you need to tie it up otherwise it's a חצר המהלכת, so חצר המהלכת is no good, it also has to be asleep. When it's asleep, then you get rid of the problem of חצר המשתמרת. So now it's not being watched for himself, so ממילא now it's קונה. Huh? Because it doesn't have his own דעת then. If he's sleeping, he's not משמר לדעתו, like this it's משתמר... See, here, where it quotes a גמרא, כתב גט לאשתו ונתנו ביד עבדו (or עבדה it's supposed to be), ישן ומשמרתו הרי זה גט. If you're If he's not sleeping, even if you're standing person is standing next to it, it doesn't help because the עבד has his own brain, so whatever he gets he has his own, takes takes it for himself. In order to be קונה בתור חצר, you have to stand there, but if he's awake, it doesn't help, but if he's asleep, it helps. So Tosafot learns clearly that the only time חצר חצר המהלכת like an עבד or a בהמה is קונה if it has two conditions: has to be כפות, tied, to get rid of the problem of חצר המהלכת, has to sleep in order to get rid of חצר it should it has to be חצר המשתמרת. Ah? Yeah. Because also has a חסרון of דעת. So here in the Gemara in Bava Kama, you have הגהות הגר\"א, he says on the גמרא והלכתא בכפות, has to be tied, and Tosafot says it's צריך להיות צריך לומר נמי it's also sleeping. נכנס לצידי and the Rambam חולק, the Rambam argues. He doesn't he doesn't say the מראה מקום, so let's see the Rambam. We'll see which Rambam argues. Yes, the Rambam does argue. So here you have I see the מראה מקום, I wrote down the מראה מקום is here. הלכות מכירה, let me read the Rambam in הלכות מכירה פרק ג הלכה י\"ב. The Rambam says המקנה עבדים ומטלטלין כאחד, if someone is מקנה to somebody עבדים and objects, מטלטלין, משך המטלטלין לא קנה עבדים. You make a kinyan on the מטלטלין, you're not קונה the עבדים. החזיק בעבדים, לא קנה המטלטלין. If you made a kinyan on the עבדים, you're not קונה the מטלטלין. אלא אם כן היו המטלטלין על גבי העבד, unless you put the מטלטלין on top. So when you קונה the עבד, the עבד becomes yours, so the עבד is your חצר, and if you have מטלטלין on top of the עבד, you קונה through קנין חצר. והוא שיהיה כפות, שהרי אינו יכול להלוך. Has to be he can't walk. So the Rambam does not mention a word about ישן. The

Rambam says when are you קונה? If the עבד is כפות. One halachah. Let's look at הלכה י\"ג. המקנה בהמה וכלים שעליה כאחד, if someone is מקנה a בהמה and כלים on top, אף על פי שמשך הבהמה וקנה, even though you made a משיכה, you kinyan in the בהמה, and you קונה the בהמה, לא קנה הכלים שעליה, you're not קונה unless you pick it up. Why? שהבהמה כחצר המהלכת היא. Why do you have to make a separate kinyan on the on the כלים, right? Cool, it's on your בהמה. The בהמה became yours, so it's חצר. Because of חצר המהלכת. וכל מה שבתוכה כמונח על גבי קרקע דמי. Therefore, it's not koneh. לפיכך, אם הייתה בהמה כפותה, if the beheima was tied, see, the one before he spoke about the eved. He says if he's tied it's good. If the beheima is tied, קנה אף הכלים שעליה, you koneh the kelim. Not a word about yashen, not a word that has to be sleeping also. Then you have in הלכות גירושין פרק ה הלכה י\"ז. There it's even clearer. Here. נתן גט ביד עבדה, if he gives the get to the eved, to her עבד, והוא ניעור, and he's awake, והיא משמרתו, she's watching him, אם היה כפות הרי זה גט. If he's awake, he says clearly, the Rambam. The eved is awake and she's watching it, but if it's tied, הרי זה גט, וכאילו הגיע לחצירה שהיא עומדת בצדה, it's like a chatzer that she's standing next to your chatzer, you're koneh. So the Rambam says clearly that the eved, in order to be a chatzer to be koneh, has to be tied, because if he's not tied, he's a חצר המהלכת, even though he's awake. See, the previous halachos the re'aya is from the fact that the Rambam said he has to be tied, didn't mention a word that he also be sleeping. In this halacha it's even clearer. There he didn't say doesn't have to be sleeping, just didn't mention it, so obviously he doesn't have to. But here the Rambam makes it very clear! He says clearly: he gave it to her והוא ניעור, he's awake! אם הוא כפות הרי זה גט, וכאילו הגיע לחצירה. So we see that there is a machloket between the Rambam and Tosafot. Tosafot says that a beheima in order to be koneh and an eved in order to be קונה בתור חצר, has to be tied, tied in order to get rid of the problem of חצר המהלכת, has to be asleep in order to get rid of the problem חצר המשתמרת. The

Rambam says you don't need both. If he's tied, is good enough. But probably the Rambam learns pshat in the Gemara like that, because the Gemara doesn't mention he has to be sleeping. Tosafot adds it. So Rambam learns if the Gemara didn't say it, obviously it doesn't have to be. But the she'elah is what's the sevara behind it? There must be a reason, besides the לשון הגמרא, a reason why the Rambam holds that you You don't need to be asleep, and you're coming back, right? And Tosafot holds it has to be tied tight besides being asleep. Avadai, everyone knows it. That's why the Rambam even says that she has to stand and watch it. But Tosafot says her watching it won't help, because he's awake. So you have to have her watching and while he's asleep. And the Rambam says you have to have watch it, because it has to be a חצר המשתמרת. But the fact that he's a he's a sleep he's awake doesn't spoil it. Yeah, whatever. Ha? Both, sof kol sof it can be chatzer. In chatzer there are two dinim. It can't be a חצר המהלכת, and it has to be a חצר המשתמרת. So Tosafot says you need two things to take care of that of both problems. And the Rambam says, no, you don't have to have sleep. כפות is enough. To explain the machloket between the Rambam and Tosafot, we have to get to understand, get back to usually what works. If you want to understand a certain machloket in a certain detail, you get back to the source. I don't mean the source the בקיאות of where you take it from. I mean the source of the ענין what we're talking about. We're talking about a חצר המהלכת. חצר המהלכת is no good. What's the reason why חצר המהלכת is no good? So before we even get to the reason, what I want to say is there's to wonder, is חצר המהלכת לא חצר, או חצר המהלכת is not koneh? You could say חצר המ I'll explain in detail what I'm saying. You could say a חצר המהלכת, if it's a חצר המהלכת, it's not a chatzer. It doesn't have a דין חצר לגבי קנין. I mean it's your yard, you could plant the things you want, but לגבי קנין it's not a chatzer. Or you could say it is a chatzer, but there is some specific problem here why the kinyan cannot work. If you want to put it in our fancy words in the most abstract words, חצר המהלכת is not koneh, is it העדר or שלילה? We all know the difference between העדר and שלילה. Almost all. So if you're one person that doesn't know, you're probably the only one. Maybe everyone could think that he's the only one. Both mean not. העדר is not, העדר is missing, and שלילה is not. What's the difference? Keep in mind. Time? We'll see how long it'll take us. העדר means it's l'chatchila nothing. L'mashal, if I put something in your chatzer and I want to be makneh it to him, he's not koneh. Why is he not koneh? Because there's no chatzer! I didn't put it in his chatzer, there's no kinyan, no chatzer for him. That's called העדר. העדר means it doesn't exist. שלילה means, no, it's possible, but for some odd reason or for some good reason, it's not. The דוגמא the classic example what I always say when we talk about העדר and שלילה: If a candle is extinguished, it's שלילה of the fire. If a candle burns down and there is no more candle, there's no fire, that's called העדר. During the day you close the shades, you're שולל the light. At night, there is no light, it's העדר. העדר means there is nothing there to begin with, and שלילה means it's there, but it doesn't work, but there's something being taken it away. So when we talk about חצר המהלכת, we have the same she'eilah. Is חצר המהלכת not a chatzer? If you look into the dinim of what chatzer is for קנין, חצר המהלכת is not a chatzer, it doesn't have the the quality of a chatzer, that's העדר of chatzer. Or you could say, no, we'll see why we say it, but I'm saying, or you could say, חצר המהלכת, בעצם it's a chatzer, and it's לגבי דין קנין it's a chatzer, but there is something not allowing that kinyan to take place, that kinyan to be valid. And we find in a lot of places in halacha, now I'm going to use one example where we find certain things which is העדר or שלילה. We find it in different places. Usually it's found in a case where there are two דינים in a certain two conditions in something to happen, and if either one of the conditions is missing, it doesn't happen, but we always wonder which one is the דין, and which one is a condition. And therefore, which one if it's missing, it's העדר, since this is the דין, and if it's missing, it doesn't have the דין, and which one is just a condition that if the condition is not met, it doesn't work. I'll give you an example. That's why I put in the Likutei Sichos חלק ו׳. Because first of all, we try every shiur to have a Likutei Sichos. That's number one. That's one דרך הלימוד that we have to know that I remember the Rebbe once said, B'farbrengen, that a Chassid, when he learns nigleh, the first thing he thinks is: וואס זאגן די רביס, סיידן ס'איז נישטא קיין ענין וועגן דעם. What do the Rebbes say? And to us it's even more: What does the Rebbe say about it? So the Rebbe is not talking about this inyan, but it's a דוגמא to an inyan. Here the Rebbe talks about the famous famous chakirah in Bava Kama, which is one of the fundamental chakirot in the whole Masechet Bava Kama, is בנוגע נזקין of a בהמה. If my animal is מזיק somebody, I am chayav to pay. And there are two reasons, two things that have to be, two conditions in order to make me chayav: has to be my animal, and it has to be a case that I didn't watch it. If I watched it properly, and something out of the ordinary, it's an ones happened, I'm not chayav. So there are two things. The question is, which of the two is the reason you're chayav, and which one is only a condition? Some hold, and the Rebbe talks the Acharonim the late, late Acharonim talk about a lot, but the Rebbe writes in this letter that's printed in Likutei Sichos in the end of הוספות of חלק ו'. I could even tell you the background of this letter. There was a בחור who came to 770 to learn. His name was Nachum Zevin, Harav Zevin's an אייניקל, learned in Ponevezh'. His grandfather sent him one year to learn in 770. He, they put him into my room. I was his roommate, so to try to מקרב him, this. He went into yechidus, and the Rebbe spoke to him in nigleh. And when he went out of yechidus, he told me over what the Rebbe said to him, and he wrote something back to the Rebbe בהמשך to what they spoke about in yechidus. On that, that he he answered, the Rebbe answered him a letter. This whole letter that you see printed, was written בכתב יד קודש on his letter, full, full, full. Remember walking walking out of yechidus, I walked He walked out of the mazkirus, then holding that letter, that original letter of the Rebbe's handwriting. He couldn't make heads or tails out of it, couldn't understand it. So we sat down, I remember where I was sitting in חדר שני in 770 upstairs, we sat down, and I read it through with him. And I copied over the letter, from, because they didn't give the original ksav. And it wasn't like now, you go over the machine, you make a copy, which they wouldn't let you anyway. So, I had to copy it over, so we copied it over, I remember one word wasn't clear. One word that wasn't, so I copied it assuming it's what it is, I didn't know. But I copied it over from there and that's where the redaction, that's why it was printed in Likkutei Sichos. But in that letter, the Rebbe talks about this she'eilah, this chakirah. And he explains, the Yerushalmi, the Bavli, a very lamdanishe shtikel there. A lamdanishe shtikel Torah. Cuz they say, zog a shtikel Torah, when you say, you say a chidush, zog a shtikel Torah. It's a lamdanishe shtikel Torah, very, very lamdanish. But the nekudah

there is, like I said, there are two reasons that to make you chayav if your animal is mazik. One way you could say, you know why you're chayav? Because it's your animal. Whatever your animal does, you're responsible. That's the reason why you're chayav. Al derech you can say, if a someone's baby if a little boy broke someone's window, threw a ball and broke his window, they're going to come to the father, say, \"Pay for it.\" What do you mean, \"Why I I didn't break the window.\" Ah, your boy your son broke the window. In halachah, it doesn't work. In halachah, it's If a katan breaks, you're patur. I'm saying, but in the welt, look. Same thing here. The Torah says if your behemah is mazik, you're responsible for the uh for the things of your behemah. There is a condition. If you happen to watch it and it was against, no, it was an ones, you're patur. But the reason why you're chayav is because it's your behemah. You could say the opposite. The reason you're chayav is because you didn't watch it. Ela mai? If it's not your behemah, you're patur. You're only chayav if it's your behemah, or you were given the responsibility, you took yourself a responsibility, you became a shomer. In other words, like this: according to the first way that you're chayav because it's your behemah, so what happens if a person did not watch it? Is it he'eder or shelilah? Nu, let's hear. The reason why you're chayav is because it's your behemah. It's a condition that the only time you're chayav if if you didn't watch it. What happens if you didn't watch it, and then you're patur? Why are you patur? A shelilah. The reason why you're chayav is there. It's your behemah, that's the reason you're chayav. There's something that's not allowing it, it's a condition. If you hold farkert, that the reason you're chayav is because you didn't watch it, so what happens if you didn't watch it, it's yours. It's not shelilah, it's he'eder. The whole reason why you're chayav is because you didn't watch the behemah, in this case you watched it. So this it's he'eder. So we see here there is two gedarim. There's some things that happen, when it's missing, makes it that it's bichlal not that, it never was. In this case, if the reason you're chayav is because it's your behemah, and if it's because you didn't watch it, and you did watch it, there is a reason to be chayav. If it's a reason because it's not your behemah, and it's If the reason is because it's your behemah, and then you didn't watch it, it's only a tenai, so it could be shelilah, it could be a he'eder. So we

go back to חצר המהלכת. There's a din that chatzer is konah. There's a דין חצר המהלכת is not konah. My she'eilah is, is the chatzer that is on חצר המהלכת, is it not a chatzer? Or you say, \"No.\" And that's he'eder. If it's not a chatzer, then there's no דין חצר קונה, obviously. Or you say it is a chatzer, the only problem is, there is some reason why it doesn't allow the kinyan to be chal, that sholel the validity of the kinyan. If you want to put it in other words, you could put it in different words, also. Is this din of חצר המהלכת a a din in the חצר, or a din in the kinyan? Is it a problem in the דין חצר? There are so many requirements what makes something into a חצר, so this is a din there's something in the דין חצר that makes it אויס קנין? Or no, it's not a din in the חצר, it's a din in the kinyan. חצר is קונה, it's a din in the kinyan. This is just I didn't dervayl, in the meantime I didn't explain anything. I'm just saying words, זאגן ווערטער. It's like this: what's the base of, what can we say, why would it be a sevara to be העדר, that it's not a חצר at all, or what's the sevara it should be a חצר, but it's just not קונה? Well, to get to that, we have to analyze why is a חצר מהלכת not קונה? Then we'll see. In order to analyze why a חצר מהלכת is not קונה, we have to go back: why is a חצר יא קונה? That's the only normal way procedure. If you want to think, and we're talking we're supposed now to start to think about writing a sefer with פילפולים and ביאורים, you gotta use your seichel to start thinking. When it comes to something like this, you gotta just go back. To know why, whether it's העדר or a שלילה, you gotta know why it's not קונה חצר מהלכת. To know why a חצר is not קונה, you gotta think back why a חצר is קונה, and then we'll see what the problem is חצר מהלכת. So let's go back: why is a חצר קונה? For that already, we spoke last week. Nothing to do with this din, we spoke last week legabei something else, but I gave an example of חצר, but that's noge'a to now. So what did I explain? How is חצר קונה? The Gemara says חצר מטעם יד or מטעם שליחות. Is it because it's like your יד, Tosafos, יד or shlichus? And the question we asked then, how could חצר be a shaliach, when there's a din that only a Yid could be a shaliach? There's a din that only a gadol, not a katan could be a shaliach, has no daas. So how is it possible for a חצר to be a shaliach? And what did I explain? That the reason why a katan can't be a shaliach is because he has too much daas. He has daas, but not enough. The fact that he has daas, he cannot be batel. A shaliach has to be batel to the meshaleach. חצר, I mean a katan is a metzius. He's a separate metzius, a separate entity, but not big enough to be able to mevatel himself. A gadol is even a bigger entity, a bigger metzius than a katan, but on the other hand, he has daas to mevatel himself. So a gadol is could be a shaliach, he could mevatel himself. A katan cannot mevatel himself. A חצר is the best shaliach. Why? It's לכתחילה בטל. האט קיין שכל נישט. If you have a little bit of seichel, you got a problem. But if you have no seichel, you're no metziut, so and you're mine, you're automatically batel to me. So that's how chatzer works. Okay. This is what makes the chatzer into a a גדר חצר. How does the kinyan work? So בהמשך to what I just explained what a chatzer is, the גדר of a chatzer, that it's batel to the person who it belongs to, let's go vayter. How does the kinyan take place? And here

there are two ways to explain how the kinyan takes place. Two ways to explain how the kinyan takes place when you put something in my chatzer. One way you could say why it works: since the chatzer is batel to me, so the chatzer is like my hand, like my shaliach. So when I someone puts something into my chatzer, that chatzer takes it and is קונה for me, just like my shaliach would take it. So when he takes it and since he's batel to me, that he makes a kinyan and becomes mine. So the same thing could be here: the chatzer we said is batel to the person. When you give something into the chatzer, the chatzer is קונה it for the person. Why is the חצר קונה for the person? Because the chatzer is batel. You could say a different vort: not because the chatzer is קונה. When you put something down in the chatzer, like I kept on saying בנוגע עקירה and הנחה, when you put something down, it's almost as if it gets rooted in. When you pick something up, you're uprooting. So when you put something down in my chatzer, since the chatzer is batel to me, mine, when you put something down in my chatzer, it becomes part of of the chatzer. If it becomes part of the chatzer, the chatzer is mine, so that becomes mine too. It's a vort. Not because the חצר has to be קונה for me, and the חצר has the ability to because it represents me. See, the first way is, a חצר is an extension of me, so it represents me, so the חצר is קונה for me. I'm saying no, the חצר is not קונה for me. The חצר is batel to me, that's the yesod. When you put something down in the חצר, you're משריש it. Mimeila it becomes connected to the חצר. So the חצר is mine, so that's mine too. It's a different way of looking at it. I'm repeating it again: is the pshat is because a חצר makes the kinyan for me, because the חצר is batel to me, so just like my shaliach makes, so there is a kinyan that is taking place with the חצר, or the pshat is not like that, the pshat is that it becomes connected to the חצר, and something that's connected to my thing and becomes part of my thing, that's the din of קנין חצר, automatically becomes mine. One second, we'll get to it. שומרת is definitely understood, because it's not batel, it's not batel. Okay, we'll we'll see. So these are the two ways. What's the nafka mina between these two ways? What the the nafka mina between these two ways how you קונה through a חצר will be, what's the chisaron of חצר המהלכת? According to the first way, that the חצר is קונה for me, why? Because the חצר is batel to me, umimeila the חצר could be קונה. You know what the problem of a חצר המהלכת is? If it's מהלכת, it's not battel to me. Because when we say מהלכת, it's not the problem of walking. Walking is not a problem According to the walking is not a problem. The problem of חצר המהלכת is, it's מהלכת לדעתיה. For something to walk, it has to have brains. So it has its own דעת. What did we say, what's the problem with a קטן, why can't a קטן be a shaliach? Because he has brains! Very little brains, that's why he can't be מבטל himself, but he has brains. So a חצר המהלכת, which is a בהמה or an עבד, the problem is, the whole reason why he's koneh, because he's battel, the חצר is battel to me, u'meimeila he could be koneh for me, but a חצר המהלכת is not battel to me. Not battel, so it can't be koneh for me, because it has its own brains, it has something of its own, so it's a a separate entity. According to the second way, חצר is not koneh. The reason that How is a חצר קונה? Because when you put something down, it becomes part of it. חצר המהלכת, according to this, is not the problem that it's not battel to me. No, for some reason we don't care. You know what the problem is? In order to consider when you put something down, to consider it that it became מושרש and part of the thing, it has to be a מקום מסוים, has to be a specific place. Something that's not specific and keeps on moving, we cannot consider that you put it down. You put it down, but you can't be considered it's מושרש, because if it's not stable, you can't be משריש it. In in היגיון, we're talking abstract thinking. So again, if the reason why a חצר is koneh because he's battel to me, u'meimeila he could be koneh for me, חצר המהלכת, the reason would be because he can he's not battel. Because again it's according to the fact that he's not battel means, why is he not battel? Because you walk, you're not battel? Because in order to walk, you got it's that you're a בעל שכל. So it's the מהלך לדעת עצמו, that's the ווארט, מהלך לדעת עצמו. And therefore that's the חסרון. According to the second way, the reason it's koneh because you're משריש it, so what's the חסרון of חצר המהלכת? You can't be משריש it to something that's not stable, that's not מושרש. Therefore, let's go back now. Is it a העדר or is it a שלילה? Well, depends according to which way.

According to the first way, that the whole גדר of חצר is because it's בטל to me. חצר המהלכת, why is it not קונה? Because it's not בטל to me. So it's missing the whole יסוד of how a חצר works. It doesn't it's not a חצר! I mean, it's a physical yard, but it's not a חצר. A חצר to be קונה, we said the whole יסוד of how a חצר is קונה is because the חצר is בטל. And according to the first way, a חצר המהלכת is not קונה, why? Because it's not בטל. So it's not a חסרון in the form of קנין, it's מלכתחילה that it's not a חצר. A חצר is בטל, this is not בטל, so it's not it lack of true no מציאות, no no גדר חצר. That's that's העדר. העדר means it doesn't exist. This this is not a חצר. According to the second way, there's no problem with the חצר. The חצר is a fine חצר, the חצר is בטל to me. חצר המהלכת is not a חסרון in being בטל, the חסרון because it's walking! Not the שכל, it's walking! And if it's moving or a potential to move, it's not stable. So the kinyan doesn't work. You can't on this you put it down, it becomes מושרש, putting down doesn't become מושרש. So it's not a a chesaron in the chatzer, it's a chesaron in how to be קונה through the chatzer. It's a chesaron in the kinyan. So

here we have two ways of learning. If you say the chesaron is, the reason how it's קונה is because it's מושרש, and the chesaron of חצר המהלכת is you can't be משריש it, so it's a chesaron in how the chatzer will be קונה the object. חצר המהלכת is just as a good chatzer as a chatzer that's not מהלך, but you can't, since you can't be משריש, you can't be קונה. So it's not a העדר דין חצר, it's a chatzer. It's just not chatzer that could be קונה. לפי זה, will come out like this: that according to the sevara that חצר מהלכת is not קונה because it's not batel, the chesaron of חצר מהלכת and the chesaron of not being משתמר is the same chesaron. Why is chatzer have to be a חצר המשתמרת? Let's think. It has to be watched for you, because otherwise it's not for you, not batel to you. What's the chesaron if it's a חצר מהלכת according to this peshat? Same thing, it's not batel to you. If you learn the other way, the chesaron of חצר מהלכת לגבי not being משתמרת are two different חסרונות. The חסרון why you need a חצר המשתמרת is that it's not בטל. The חסרון why you need it to be that it shouldn't be מהלכת, because you can't be מקנה it, you can't be ממשמש, they're two different חסרונות. So we'll say like this:

Tosafot says that you have to ba'avarenen two separate problems. You have to make sure it's tied, so it won't be מהלכת. You have to make sure it's sleeping, so it'll be משתמרת. Why? Tosafot says they're two different problems. משתמרת is because it's not בטל to you. You've got to make sure it's בטל. חצר מהלכת is a problem that it's not מושרש. So you've got to ba'avarenen that. You've got to make it it shouldn't be a חצר מהלכת. And therefore Tosafot says you've got to have two things you've got to do. The Rambam will say learns differently. The Rambam learns that חצר מהלכת problem is also מצד ביטול. It's not בטל. So the problem of חצר מהלכת and not being משתמרת is the same problem. So the Rambam says when you do כפיתה, when you tie him up and you ba'avaren that he's בטל, you're automatically ba'avarening both problems, because now it's בטל already. And it's more than a regular בהמה, a regular בהמה that's that's not tied. So there, we're saying there's a problem of חצר המשתמרת. When you tie it, you're not only making it it should be בטל, you're doing a פעולה of being מבטל it. So that פעולה will take care, we don't care if it's not משתמר to you. Since you're doing a פעולה of tying it up, which means you're doing it to be מבטל, so that ביטול will work also for חצר המשתמרת, because you're mevatel it. And the problem of חצר שאינה משתמרת is it's not batel. So according to this it comes out, if we're learning like this, that there's a difference in pshat between Tosafot and the Rambam. What is the reason why חצר מהלכת is no good? The Rambam who says all you need is to tie him up and you don't need him to sleep because he holds the way that the first way that the way why חצר מהלכת doesn't work is because it's not batel, so tying him up, doing the pe'ulah of being mevatel him, takes care of both problems. משא״כ Tosafot learns that they're two separate problems. The reason why שאינה is because it's not batel, the reason why it's מהלכת is because it's not מושרש, and you've got to do two things to b'avarenen both problems. What do we, yeah? Yeah, yeah, על דרך זה. You're right, you're right. A good dugma, a good dugma, yeah, yeah, because you're doing something. If it's true that the Rambam learns that the reason for חצר מהלכת is because it's not batel, and Tosafot learns the reason why חצר מהלכת doesn't work is you can't be ממשמש it, will come out to a different pshat in the Gemara when the Gemara says בנוגע ספינה. The

Gemara asks a she'eilah, how, if חצר מהלכת is no good, if something comes into a ship that's floating on the water, why are you koneh? חצר מהלכת. And the Gemara answers, this is the lashon: ספינה מינח נייחא, the ship is resting, the water makes it go. It's a big difference in pshat in the Gemara according to this, between the two ways in the Rambam and Tosafot. According to the Rambam, the problem is not that it's walking. We don't care that it's walking. Like I said, according to Rambam, being that it's going על דעת עצמו, it's going according to its own da'at, it's not batel. So it's not the walking, it's the walking על דעת עצמו that's the problem. According to Tosafot' second way, what's the problem? That it's moving! Anything that's movable, that's not stable, it doesn't work. That's what he says. So when the Gemara answers, ספינה מינח נייחא ומיא דקא ממטו לה, there's a complete different פשט according to Tosafot, according to the Rambam. According to Tosafot, he says, the problem is it's moving. If it's moving, you can't מכשיר it, you can't be קונה בחצר. So when the Gemara answers that ספינה is no problem, obviously what does the Gemara say? In order to say that a ספינה is קונה and it's not a חצר המהלכת, why? Because it's not moving. Physically it's moving from here to there, but it's not considered moving. ספינה, that's what the Gemara's לשון is, ספינה מינח נייחא, the ספינה is resting, the water makes it move, so it's really not moving. That's how you have to learn according to Tosafot, because the whole problem of חצר המהלכת is it's moving. So in order to say it's not a חצר המהלכת, what do we have to say? That it's not moving. That's פשוט the answer, מינח נייחא.

According to the Rambam, we don't care if it's moving or not moving. The עיקר is, is it going על דעת עצמו? It's moving on its own. So what's the Gemara's answer? That it's not moving? No! The water makes it go, it's not moving on its own, so it's it's battel. The reason why it wouldn't be battel is because it's moving on its own. So how do you taytsh the פשט in the גמרא ספינה מינח נייחא? Not that it's actually resting. למעשה the ship is going. On its own it would rest, not According to Tosafot, it's a fact. להלכה we say ספינה מינח נייחא, the ספינה is resting, because that's how we have to say, we have to look at it על פי סדר that it's resting. The Rambam No, we're not saying it's resting, I don't care if it's going! But on its own it would be resting, ספינה on its own it would be resting, why is it going? Because מאי דקא ממטי לה the water makes it go. So ממילא the fact that it's going is no problem. Why? Because who cares if it's going, as long as it's not על דעת עצמו, it's not going on its own. On its own it would be מינח נייחא, it would rest. So according to the Rambam, we're saying that he says the problem is it's not batel, because it goes על דעת עצמו. So the answer in the גמרא ספינה מינח נייחא means it's going, it could have it would have been resting on its own, and the water makes it go, so it's no problem. According to Tosafos, that the problem is that the fact that it's moving is a problem, so it must be מינח נייחא. And so interesant is, according to the Rambam, if you look at the Rambam, you'll see that the Rambam doesn't bring the לשון of the גמרא מינח נייחא. In הלכות מכירה, פרק ו׳, I think הלכה י״א No, not פרק ו׳ הלכה י״א, I'm sorry. הלכות זכיה ומתנה פרק א׳, let's see. הלכה ה׳? Yeah, listen to this Rambam! הלכות זכיה ומתנה פרק א׳ הלכה ה׳. The Gemara: דגים שקפצו לתוך הספינה, fish jumped into the ship, קנה בעל הספינה, שזו כחצר המשתמרת היא, ואינה חצר המהלכת. שאינה חצר המהלכת, why? If you'd be the Rambam, what would you write? Well, the Rambam tries to stick to the לשון הגמרא whenever he's able to. I would have written שהספינה מונחת, saying it's not מהלך, the ספינה rests, והמים מוליכין אותה. Listen to the words of the

Rambam! And I really think it's the right peshat. The Rambam says: שהמים הם מוליכין אותה, ואינה הולכת מחמת עצמה. The Rambam doesn't say a word that it's resting! לכאורה he's trying to say it's not מהלך, it's not a אינה חצר, what does he say? אינה חצר המהלכת. So he should have said, if I would write the Rambam, אינה חצר המהלכת שהרי הספינה מונח, it's not מהלך! The Rambam doesn't say that. The Rambam says שהמים the water makes it go, it's going! But because the water makes it go ואינה הולכת מחמת עצמה, it's not going by itself, that's why it's it's not a חצר המהלכת. This all fits to what I'm saying, that the Rambam learns that the Gemara's peshat is different, not that the Gemara says that that it's resting. The Gemara בפירוש knows it's not resting! Ela mai? It's not going מחמת עצמה, מינח נייחא on its own, which is different than Tosafot. Now if you learn like that, automatically Tosafot' kashya is no kashya from the beginning! No? Tosafot' kashya was, it says אגוז ע״ג מים, it's not called מונח. רוכב כמהלך, if someone is riding a horse, he's not called מונח, it's called moving. A kashya, by ספינה, the Gemara, the same case of ספינה in the water, which is like the אגוז in the water, the Gemara says it is מונח! That's Tosafot' kashya! ספינה מינח נייחא! So it's a stira. Here it says a ספינה on the water is resting, and here it says the אגוז ע״ג מים is not resting. So a stira! Kumt da Tosafot has to answer a גאנצע ביאור, a giant, and the ביאור is very hard to understand. Rabbi Akiva Eiger in Gilyon HaShas asks, סיי in Bava Metzia, סיי here, doesn't understand it. According to the Rambam is there any problem? The the Rambam says when the Gemara says the ספינה rests, the Gemara doesn't mean the ספינה rests. בפירוש it does not rest. It's בפירוש going and it's בפירוש not מונח. אלא מאי, לגבי דין חצר, it's not a חסרון. 'Cause in חצר there is a din that the problem is only if it's הילוכו מחמת עצמו. And this is not מחמת עצמו. By Shabbos, we don't care if it's מחמת עצמו or not. By Shabbos if you put it down, you put it down. So according to the Rambam, it's not called resting because like ספינה it's also not called resting, and by Shabbos it's not called an הנחה, not called an עקירה. רוכב כמהלך. Why? Because if you're riding a horse, even though you're moving because of the horse, you're moving. It's not a pshat you're not moving. So it's not an הנחה. Like אגס, איי the Gemara says over there ספינה מנח נייחא, the Rambam says it doesn't mean it's resting. ספינה מנח נייחא on its own it would have rested. So the whole chesaron, according to the Rambam, of why חצר המהלכת is because it's not בטל. Even though the lashon is it doesn't go. So let's see a different Rambam. Let's see the Rambam in Hilchos Mechirah פרק ג׳ הלכה ח׳. Let's see if this is the Rambam we're looking for. Here. Okay. Halacha in פרק ג׳ of Mechirah, הלכה י״ג. It's the Rambam I quoted before. Let's look at the Rambam. המקנה בהמה וכלים, you're not קונה the כלים. Why? שהבהמה כחצר המהלכת היא. And ממילא it's not קונה לבעלים. So the Rambam uses the lashon of חצר המהלכת. A halacha right before that, the Rambam speaks about kinyan agav, which we will go into be'arichut more, but the Rambam says regarding an עבד. Let's read הלכה י״ב: המקנה עבדים ומטלטלין כאחת, if someone gives somebody עבדים and מטלטלין, משך המטלטלין לא קנה העבדים. You make a kinyan on מטלטלין, you're not קונה the עבדים. החזיק בעבדים לא קנה המטלטלין. You make a chazakah on the עבד. אלא אם כן היו המטלטלין על גב העבד. Unless it was laying on him. והוא שיהיה כפות, and it only works if he's כפות. And he says why? שהרי he's tied, שהרי אינו יכול להלך. And he can't go. That's the halacha we just spoke about. The halacha before, though this is not קנין אגב, this is the kinyan of חצר. Halacha before, let's go by an halacha before. הלכה י״א: המקנה עבדים וקרקעות כאחת. Not עבדים and מטלטלין, עבדים and קרקע. החזיק בעבדים לא קנה הקרקעות. You make a kinyan on עבדים, you're not קונה the קרקע. החזיק בקרקעות לא קנה עבדים, unless they are in the קרקע. ואף, even though he said to be קונה אגב קרקע, לא קנה עד שיהיו בתוכם. You're not קונה אגב and not spend them in עד. Why? So he says: שהעבד מהלך לדעת עצמו. So the Rambam says like this, you are קונה אגב. Agav means, as if we'll have enough time we'll explain it more in the Rambam, but agav means if a person is מקנה somebody קרקע ומטלטלין, you make a kinyan on the קרקע, אגב the קרקע you קונה the מטלטלין. So l'chorah when you make a kinyan on the קרקע, you should also be קונה if an עבד is, you want to be קונה a קרקע and עבדים. Make a kinyan on the קרקע, and אגב the קרקע be קונה the עבדים. He says you can't do that. Why? Unless the עבד is standing inside, but if he's not standing inside you can't, so the chesaron is: שהעבד מהלך לדעת עצמו. So here there's also a problem of the עבד going, but it's not a problem of his walking, the problem is why is he not קונה אגב, because it's לדעת עצמו! The

next halacha, where the Rambam talks about כפות, the Rambam says again that the problem of an עבד is because he walks, so it's one halacha right after the other. So I'm assuming that when the Rambam says the chesaron of an עבד that he's walking, he's not just the fact that he's walking, it's a hemshech To the previous halacha where he says what's the chesaron of the עבד? That he walks מדעת עצמו. So this all fits to the שיטת הרמב״ם that I'm trying to explain, that he holds the chesaron of an עבד, חצר המהלכת, is not that he's walking. Even though here the Rambam when he says you can't be קונה it because he's he's walking he's walking, but since before he says the chesaron of an עבד walking is מדעת עצמו, the chesaron is because of דעת עצמו. And according to this, the few halacha in Rambam mamash comes with a very good hemshech. What's the hemshech? Right before this halacha, why an עבד is called a חצר המהלך, חצר המהלכת, we just, right before that halacha, the Rambam talks about אגב. And like I said, what's the אגב? If I want to קונה קרקע and מטלטלין together, your קרקע and מטלטלין, I make a קנין on the קרקע and קונה the מטלטלין. We

have a machloket between the Rambam and the Raavad in the whole גדר of אגב. The Gemara in Kiddushin says like this, has a שאלה: When you're קונה אגב, the מטלטלין אגב the קרקע, does the מטלטלין have to lay in the קרקע? The Gemara calls it ציבורין. Gemara says no, doesn't. You can have קרקע here, מטלטלין there, you make a קנין on the קרקע, you קונה the מטלטלין. Then the Gemara asks, do you have to say the word אגב? Do you have to use the word אגב? So the Gemara says yes, הלכתא: ציבורין בעינן? לא בעינן. אגב בעינן, ציבורין לא בעינן. The word אגב we have to say, ציבורין we don't have to say. Comes the Rambam, and the Rambam says an interesting din, in פרק ג׳ הלכה ח׳: המקנה קרקע ומטלטלין כאחד, if you מקנה both, כיון שקנה קרקע, נקנו המטלטלין עמו. Whether they, yeah. במה דברים אמורים, he says when are you קונה? כשהיו אלו המטלטלין צבורין בתוך הקרקע, if the מטלטלין are laying in the קרקע. אבל אם היו במקום אחר, צריך שיאמר לו קנה מטלטלין אגב קרקע. So the Rambam says like this, that if it's laying inside, you don't have to say the word אגב. If it's not laying inside, you have to say the word אגב. Comes the Raavad and he says: אמר אברהם, זה ההפרש שכתב בין צבורין לאינם צבורין אינו מכוון. It's wrong! דשמעתא לאו הכי חזיא אלא לעולם אגב וקני בעינן. אפילו בצבורין. Says, the Gemara said you have to say אגב. The Rambam says when do you have to say אגב? If it's laying inside. If it's not, if it's not, if it's not laying inside. If it's laying inside, you don't have to say. But the Raavad says you always have to say. What's the machloket? Well, the machloket pshat in the Gemara. The Rambam learns pshat in the Gemara: אגב בעינן, ציבורין לא בעינן, you have to say אגב because it doesn't have to be צבורין. If it's צבורין, you don't need אגב, and the Raavad learns different. But what's the sevara of the machloket? So just bekitzur, in two minutes, the machloket is what is the geder of קנין אגב. The Rambam learns, know what קנין אגב is? How does קנין אגב work? That the מטלטלין are batel to the קרקע. So therefore, if you make a קנין on the קרקע, automatically you קונה the מטלטלין. And the Raavad says, nothing to do with bitul, it's a קנין for itself. And this is what the Rambam learns like this: Since the whole reason you could be קונה the מטלטלין through the קרקע is because it's batel, so if it's inside, it's batel because it's standing there. If it's not inside, you have to do something to be mevatel it. How are you mevatel it? When you say אגב. By doing that, you're making it טפל, you're making it batel. So the reason why it works, because it's batel. Now, this is the reason, it doesn't say in Rambam, but I'm going to explain, this is the reason for that halacha that I read before, and I'll read the halacha again, הלכה י״א, which is the halacha right before the halacha of חצר המהלכת, where I explained that the reason is because it's going on its own דעת. Listen to הלכה י״א again: המקנה עבדים וקרקעות כאחד, if you give somebody עבדים וקרקעות, החזיק בעבדים לא קנה קרקעות, if you make a קנין on the עבדים, the קרקע not, החזיק בקרקעות לא קנה עבדים, עד שיהיו עומדים בתוך הקרקע. If the עבד is standing in the קרקע, then you are קונה. And it has to be. Which means from the Rambam, that even if you said אגב, by an עבד it doesn't work. When do we say that מטלטלין doesn't have to be inside? Just by saying אגב is enough if it's מטלטלין. If an עבד you want to be קונה אגב קרקע, saying אגב is not enough. The Raavad says: Why does it have to stand inside? הרי אמר לו אגב וקני. And the Rambam says, by an עבד it's a separate דין. By an עבד, the עבד to be קונה through the קרקע, he has to be standing. And the Rambam gives a reason: You're only קונה it עד שיהיה בתוכה, שהעבד מ- מהלך לדעת עצמו. What's the peshat? You know why an עבד has to stand inside? Regular קנין מטלטלין, how are you קונה it? Because it's בטל to the קרקע. An עבד cannot be בטל to the קרקע. Why is an עבד not בטל to the קרקע? Because he has his own brains. That's what the Rambam מהלך לדעת עצמו. So in order for an עבד to be בטל there it has to stand inside, and saying אגב is not enough. So it comes out that this הלכה י\"א of the

Rambam when he says the word of an עבד walking, and the חסרון is לדעת עצמו, what's the peshat according to this peshat? Why is he not קונה unless he's standing inside? Because he has his own brains. What's the problem if he has his own brains? He can't be בטל to the קרקע, because the whole אגב is בטל to the קרקע, he can't be בטל to the קרקע. So the Rambam made it very clear that the חסרון of an עבד walking by אגב is because he's not בטל. Comes the next הלכה and the Rambam tells us that an עבד is a חצר המהלכת. Yes, because he can walk. And we said according to the Rambam what's the חסרון of a חצר המהלכת? That he's not בטל. So the two הלכות go together, they're both a problem of the עבד because he's מהלך לדעת עצמו. So on the first הלכה the Rambam makes it very clear, he says the לשון, not that it's מהלך, מהלך is no problem over there, it's מהלך לדעת עצמו. So the next הלכה where the Rambam says that an עבד is a חצר המהלכת, because he's מהלך, obviously he means the same thing, because next הלכה לדעת עצמו. So it comes out here בכללות, very clear from all these Rambam together, that the Rambam holds the חסרון of חצר המהלכת is because it's not בטל. ממילא it's held that it's not a חצר בכלל. The same חסרון as חצר שאינה משתמרת. So with one thing you take care of it.

According to Tosafot the reason why, not because it's not בטל. It's not a problem of ביטול. You can't be קונה that it's, and not מושרש, so you need two ענינים. According to the Rambam it comes out that when the Gemara says a ספינה is not a חצר המהלכת it's not because it's not moving. מפורש moving, but not לדעת עצמה. According to Tosafot, if the problem is it can't be מושרש because it's movable, the answer by ספינה would be it's like a resting. So according to Tosafos we have a problem: if the ספינה is resting, why is the עגלה not resting? So Tosafos has to come up with a teirutz. According to the Rambam we have a problem: ספינה is mefurash not resting either. ספינה is, why is the ספינה not מהלכת? Because it doesn't go לדעת עצמה. Which lichorah could be a נפקא מינה להלכה between Tosafos and the Rambam. What about a wagon? Is a wagon a חצר המהלכת or not? A wagon that has wheels, is it a חצר המהלכת or not? According to Tosafos it would be. Maybe, unless you're going to say the wheels make it turn. But it's be'etzem going. According to the Rambam it's no problem, it's not מהלך לדעת עצמו. According to Tosafos could be also it's not because it's like a ספינה that something else is making it move, could be. Who? חמור. חמור is like a, like a בהמה, what's the difference? Well, the פיקח שבהם, no two things here. I know, I'm just saying, but the vort, the bottom line is that according to Tosafos ספינה is מונח, and we have a problem, and we need a teirutz. According to the Rambam, ספינה is not מונח and it's still not called a חצר המהלכת. According to who? Tosafos. We're not learning Tosafos yet. What's the Tosafos, I mean you learned the Tosafos, no? Same thing Tosafos says, no? Thank you. לגבי קנין יד, לגבי חצר it's a different דין. לגבי חצר, even if it's, even if it's... לגבי חצר that's not called moving. Why is it, I don't, I don't get why it has to be stopped, I mean moving...