ready to start? Perek starts, the Mishnah: שנים אוחזין בטלית, זה אומר אני מצאתיה וזה אומר אני מצאתיה, זה אומר כולה שלי וזה אומר כולה שלי. Two people are holding onto a טלית, and each one says it's his. He says I found it, he says I found it. He says it's mine, he says it's mine. So we make them each one swear that they have at least half, and יחלוקו, we divide it. The bottom line is that the decision that beit din makes in such a case is to divide it, which simply seems superficially, since we have here an object which is a question who it belongs to, and two people are arguing over it, that's the case, two people are arguing over this טלית, so the decision in a case, and beit din has no proof obviously, this is a case where there is no ראיות, no one has עדים, no one has any ראיות, and what should beit din do? So the Mishnah tells us what beit din does. Beit din says divide it. So from here would come out that if you have a safek in money that people טענה over and we don't know what to do, we say יחלוקו.

Comes Tosafot, in the דיבור המתחיל יחלוקו, and Tosafot says, how come we find another case where it's different? We find a case of the ארבא in Bava Batra. This is, I'm just repeating Tosafot in the Gemara, what everyone knows. The Gemara says a story that there was a ship standing someplace, and two people came to beit din, this guy says the ship is mine, this guy says the ship is mine. So beit din pasak, Rav Nachman said halachah is: כל דאלים גבר. Go fight over it. That's it. Whoever will win will win. The Rosh says it means, it could be means fighting pashut, whoever gets it gets it, or go look for more ראיות, whoever brings more ראיות will get it. But the bottom line is we do not say יחלוקו. And the question is why don't we say יחלוקו? What's the difference between here? It sounds to be the exact same case. Here you have two people with a טלית, and the question is, he says it's his, he says his, we say divide it. Beit din should say there too: there's a ship, and each one says it's mine, beit din should divide it! Beit din should say the ship is worth $1,000, sell it or whatever, give him 500, give him 500, יחלוקו. Comes Tosafot and Tosafot answers that the Mishnah is different than the case of the ship, cuz the Mishnah is a case where they're both holding onto it. מוחזקין, they're both holding onto it. So if they're both holding onto it, beit din has to say יחלוקו. And Tosafot says why? Because when somebody is holding onto something, it's really his. The fact that a person is holding onto something is a proof that it's his. The

rule is חזקה כל מה שתחת יד אדם שלו הוא. Whatever a person is holding, it's his. If I'm holding this watch, and someone will come over to me and say it's mine, since I'm holding it, it's mine. So here they're both holding it. So therefore Beit Din has to give both. Each one is holding it, each one has to get it. Now try to give both the whole thing. Can you give the whole tallit to each one? So what do you do? So the best you do is you have to give at least half thing. You do whatever is your best, you give both, because they're holding. Mah she'ein ken the case of the boat, the case is where they're not holding onto it. They're both in Beit Din, the boat is someplace outside. So in a case where it's not, in the case where it's not מוחזקין, not אוחזין, then we say כל דאלים גבר. That's what Tosafot says here. Then Tosafot brings the case of מנה שלישי, and then we find another condition. That in order to say יחלוקו, there has to be another condition according to Tosafot, two conditions. When do you say that Beit Din divides it if they're both holding it, and also החלוקה יכולה להיות אמת. That means the division is able to be true.

When we say יחלוקו, it's possible that this is true. And in our Gemara, the Gemara makes the difference between our Mishnah and the case of מנה שלישי, which is not, we didn't get yet the פרק and so not taytshing you the whole thing, but our case is החלוקה יכולה להיות אמת. When Beit Din says יחלוקו, it's possibly that it's true. Why is it possible that it's true? Maybe they picked it up together. And if they would have picked it up together, who does it belong to? To both! So since here it's a possibility, and the Gemara mentions this a few times in the first blat, since there's a possibility החלוקה יכולה להיות אמת, the division could be true, in this case it could be, they're both, maybe they're both right! This guy says it's mine because they're both right, because they picked it up together, possible! You say יחלוקו. That's what Tosafot says. Concerning this first part that has to be אוחזין, Tosafot says, is a machloket between Tosafot and the Riva. I'm just repeating what I said before, earlier. The

Riva in Bava Batra argues, and the Riva in Bava Batra says that it doesn't have to be אוחזין. In order to say יחלוקו, you don't have to hold on to it. And then we have a question, if they don't have to hold on to it to say יחלוקו, what's the difference between the case of the tallit, the case of the boat? Why here you say יחלוקו and there not? So Tosafot says the Riva gives a different terutz. Rema, it's not noge'a to the shiur, that's why I don't want to go in to get confused. Hopefully you know it anyway. So the bottom line is we have Tosafot says that in order to say yachaloku, you have to have שנים אוחזין, מוחזקין, they have to both hold it, and החלוקה יכולה להיות אמת. Has to be the division should be able to be true. Mah she'ein ken, if one of the two conditions are missing, if it's a case where the division could be true, maybe takeh belongs to both, but they're not holding it, lemashel, the case of the ship. The case of the ship, the division could be true, no? Maybe belongs to both. Maybe they both own it, maybe they're partners. Even if one made it, maybe he sold half to the other, it's possible to be true. But the problem is according to Tosafot, there's no אוחזין, you don't say yachaloku. The same thing, if you have אוחזין, but you don't have החלוקה יכולה להיות אמת, the case they would be holding, but the division can't be true, like Tosafot brings the case of מנה שלישי, you also don't say yachaloku. Mah she'ein ken the Riva argues. Rashi, as I explained in an earlier shiur, you could learn two ways in Rashi. משמעות, from what most people learn, Rashi learns like the Riva. That in order to say yachaloku, you don't need the condition to hold it. In other words, it's not because they're both holding it, that's when we say yachaloku. The ראיה from Rashi, first Rashi on top, where Rashi says they're both holding it, as long as one is not better than the other, is משמע that if they're both not holding it, it would be just as good because one is not better than the other. Anyway, the bottom, not to confuse again, the bottom line is there is Tosafot on one side, the Riva on, and Rashi, let's assume, on the other side. That according to Tosafot and the Rosh, the Rosh here goes into all אריכות and learns like Tosafot. The Rosh says clearly the same thing as Tosafot, that if they're holding, and when they're holding, בית דין has to say yachaloku because they're holding. So it's Tosafot and the Rosh and other ראשונים also hold that you have to have holding. Yachaloku, that's what, we only say yechaleku if you have ochazin. The Riva says not. Rashi says not. The Rambam is efes nisht ahin un nisht aher. Look in the Rambam. The

Rambam brings the case of שנים אוחזין, but he doesn't say the case, he says two people are holding on to a כלי. Okay, he doesn't say טלית, what's נוגע? And he gives a few examples, and he says the same דין that they swear and you give yechaleku. He gives an example if two people are sitting beside an עריבה. Two people are sitting beside an עריבה is like a big bowl or a big, whatever it is, bathtub, and they're sitting on the sides of it. And each one says it's mine, that's one of the cases that the Rambam gives where we would say this guy swears that half is his, at least half, this guy swears, and you give him half, yechaleku. So what do we see from the Rambam? Does he hold like Tosafot that it has to be ochazin? No. לכאורה. Because he says they're sitting בצד עריבה, they're not holding on to it, they're sitting on the side. Comes the Netivot HaMishpat. The Netivot in Shulchan Aruch says that the Rambam also holds like Tosafot. It has to be ochazin. \"I,\" he says, a case where they're sitting on the side, so he has a whole פשט that he's talking in a case where it's a סמטא, we're talking in a case where it's not in the street. I'll mention this another time. It's not in the רשות הרבים, it's on a side street. On a side street there ד' אמות של אדם קונה, that anything that comes within the four אמות of a person is קונה. So each one is sitting next to it, so each one is קונה it על ד' אמות. So they're both ochazin, it's like both ochazin. Ochazin here is, or you're holding it or you're sitting and כאילו you're holding it. So the Rambam holds like Tosafot. The Hagahot Maimoniyot on the Rambam says not like that. The Hagahot Maimoniyot says that the Rambam argues on Tosafot. The Rambam, ad'raba, shows that it doesn't have to be אוחזין. You don't have to hold. So the Rambam holds seemingly like the Riba and like Rashi. But that's not so either. If it could be like Rashi, like the like the Riba, that you don't have to, why is it mentioned that they're sitting on the side? Who cares if not sitting on the side? Like the case of the ship. They're not on the, they're at some, they're going to beit din and the ship is someplace else. So what's נוגע? If over there there was whatever reason you say יחלוקו and you don't need אוחזין, why is it יושבין בצד? Why are they sitting on the side? A סימן that the Rambam has a, it's a third שיטה. Not like Rashi that it doesn't, and the Riba that you don't need אוחזין at all, does not have to be there at all. Not like Tosafot that the only time you say יחלוקו is when there is אוחזין, but still you have to sit on the side. This is eppes a new, a new גדר. Yeah. So the first thing we have to do is understand what is the נקודה of the מחלוקת between Tosafot and the Rosh against the Riba, Rashi, and the Rambam שיטה. What is the basis, the נקודה of the סברות that they have that they should be able to explain? That's one מחלוקת we have in this סוגיא. Then there's another one. Another, it's written in a few lines in Rashi and Tosafot, but it's a major מחלוקת. It's a מחלוקת in the whole סוגיא.

What happens if it's ודאי רמאי? For sure one is lying. If each one says, \"It's mine,\" the חלוקה, it could possibly be true that it belonged to both, but what they're claiming, for sure one guy is lying. The example Rashi gives is אני ארגתיה or אני ארגתיה. They both come to beit din and one guy says, \"I made this talit, I wove it, I made it.\" And this guy says, \"I made it.\" Now, it's possible that it belongs to both. Maybe one guy made it and sold the other guy half of it. Could be. The חלוקה could be true. But for sure a guy is lying. See, when they say, \"I picked it up,\" and, \"I picked it,\" or, \"I picked it up,\" maybe he's not lying. He thinks he picked it up before him. They actually picked it up very close to each other. He picked it up a minute before him, we don't know. He thinks he picked it up a minute before. He thinks he picked it up a minute before. It's not ודאי רמאי. It's not for sure lying. But in the case of אני ארגתיה, if he says, \"I made it,\" he says, \"I made it,\" it's a ודאי רמאי. One guy is lying. So

Rashi says in the case where it's ודאי רמאי, you do not say יחלוקו. You don't say יחלוקו if there's ודאי רמאי. Tosafot, that's Rashi here דף ב' עמוד א' on the bottom, Tosafot on דף ב' עמוד ב' on top says, \"דהיכא דודאי אין שניהם סוברין לומר אמת,\" in the case where for sure one of them is not saying the truth, \"כגון דקתני כל אחד אני ארגתיה,\" says the same example as Rashi, that each one says, \"I made it,\" says Tosafot, \"פשיטא דיחלוקו בשבועה.\" So Tosafot, for sure you say יחלוקו. Tosafot doesn't even bring Rashi to even fight with Rashi. He makes it into פשוט, פשיטא, that you say יחלוקו בשבועה, you say יחלוקו. So here we have another מחלוקת in Rashi and Tosafot. That Rashi says that if a case of ודאי רמאי, one guy is for sure a liar, you do not say יחלוקו, and Tosafot says you still say יחלוקו. According to the רבנן, no, that's another vort in the Rosh. That's that it's בממון השלישי. The Rosh actually holds in both things like Tosafot. The Rosh holds you have to be מוחזקים, and the Rosh says clearly that by אני ארגתיה, which one is ודאי רמאי, the Rosh says you will say יחלוקו. So the Rosh says like Tosafot. So here again, yeah, that's already, some go into that. Some go into that Tosafot gives the reason with the shevuah, and חשוד אממונא לא חשוד, רש\"י חשוד. Yeah, that could be a sevara. That's a different sevara, yeah. That, some do get into. That's a סוגיא later on in the Gemara in the first perek here. But the way we see it in this סוגיא here, what is the reason, why does Rashi hold that if it's ודאי רמאי, we do not say יחלוקו, and Tosafot says we still say יחלוקו? So we're trying to understand the basis behind this machloket, these machlokot. But in order to understand these machlokot, we have to understand bichlal the whole סוגיא in the Gemara here. The

Gemara is pretty hard to understand, the whole Gemara here. It's very strange, this Gemara. If you really think about it, we're so used to saying the words and this and that, and we take it for granted and it makes sense, and start thinking, a lot of things need a lot of explanation. למשל, Tosafot says, and it's taking from the Gemara we just mentioned before, that by the case of the talit, it's a חלוקה יכול להיות אמת. Because the two conditions Tosafot says, אוחזין, okay, that is a machloket. But the second condition, that the only time you say יחלוקו is the division could be true. Why could it be true in our case? How could it say true? Each one says it's mine, so we say no, maybe it belongs to both. How could you say it belongs to both? Maybe they picked it up together. So החלוקה יכול להיות אמת, could be true. What do you mean it could be true? How much chances is it could be true? You think it really is true that they picked it up together? How much possibility is there, or probability, that they actually picked it up together in such a way that they're mistaking and each one thinks he picked it up first? That means it goes within a split second. We talk about a possibility. So first of all, that's not what they're saying. Each one says, אני מצאתיה, I picked it up completely, כולה שלי. So he's saying clearly that we didn't pick it up together. Come we and say, you know, we weren't there, we don't know what happened, no, החלוקה יכול להיות אמת. You know why you say יחלוקו? Because maybe really, takeh, it belongs to both. What do you mean really it belongs to both? That's a new thing, none of them says that. Each one says I don't, it's not true, and we come as a third person, a third party, and we say, you know, החלוקה יכול להיות אמת. Certainly, certainly in a case this only thing could be if one guy says, I picked it up 5:00, and the other guy says, I picked it up 5:00. Oh, here you could say maybe he picked it up, his watch was there, he picked it a minute to 5:00, a minute after 5:00. But if one guy says, I picked it up, what time did, 3:00 I picked it up, and the other guy says, what do you mean, I picked it up before you, at 1:00 I picked it up, how is החלוקה יכול להיות אמת? How could the חלוקה be true? So you will tell me that the Mishnah is talking only in a case where they say we picked it up both at 5:00, and now each one thinks he's been first, that's the case of the Mishnah? According to Tosafot, it's ודאי not, because look at Tosafot דף ג עמוד א, Tosafot, the second Tosafos on top, Tosafos says, according to תוספות, אבל הכא אפילו איכא ודאי רמאי כגון שזה אומר אני מצאתיה היום וזה אומר אני מצאתיה אתמול, מאי טעמא דיחלוקו? One guy, I picked it up today, one guy picked it up yesterday. You say you picked it up today, I'm before you. And he says, no, you didn't pick it up yesterday. So here, for sure they both admit that we didn't pick it up together. Kumen mir arayn, we as beit din, and we come, we make a פנטזיה, it's a fantasy here, we say החלוקה יכול להיות אמת, which is even more by the case of אני ארגתיה. אני ארגתיה, what does each one say? Let's, let's analyze אני ארגתיה. According to, Rashi says takeh we don't say yachloku, but according to Tosafos, אני ארגתיה, what's the case? He says, I made it, and therefore what is it? And it's mine. The other guy says, I made it, and it's mine. Let's ask the guy, you made it, so it's fully, it's completely yours because you made it. Did you sell it to Did you sell half to that guy? Surely not! If he think, if he'd claim I sold half to him, he wouldn't claim כולה שלי. Tosafos case is אני ארגתיה וכולה שלי. Obviously, he's made it, he didn't sell it to the guy. So he says, I didn't sell it to him. The other guy says, I made it, וכולה שלי, I didn't sell it to him. Come we beit din and say, no, no, no, you sold it to him. What kind of bobe meyses is this? Well, he forgot. Well, he forgot, yeah, like that's a good claim, first comes, I forgot, this, each one forgot, one guy sold it, he forgot. That's, that's, that's what's the saying? החלוקה יכול להיות אמת because maybe he sold it to him? But it's against what they're saying! They're both saying not! So first of all, how much chance is there that that happened, and when they're clearly saying אני ארגתיה and כולה שלי, which means I didn't sell it, so what's our business here of we're coming on and we're saying that this is what happened? And with החלוקה יכול להיות אמת, why do we say yachloku? And this is not a machloket, Rashi and Tosafos agree, that because the חלוקה יכול להיות אמת, because when we say yachloku, we're not 100% sure that we're taking away half from the real guy. Because like this they think it really belongs to one. By saying yachloku, the one that it belongs to is getting half, but he's losing the other half. So we're saying, no, lav davka he's losing, maybe takeh it's החלוקה יכול להיות אמת, maybe it belongs. Where does this come in from? On what basis do we say החלוקה יכול להיות אמת? Then there's another kashya here. What did we say? This is a shtarke kashya that the mefarshim ask, and we have to halt kop a little bit with this kashya. Well, how is החלוקה יכול להיות אמת by the case of the tallit? They picked it up together. So let's look at this way: let's forget about what we asked before, let's say they claim differently, but we claim that maybe they didn't realize We have a problem here. If they takeh picked it up together, you know what? It doesn't belong to either one. Why not? So, we all know the end of the Gemara, the Mishnah, and the Rashi. The end of the Mishnah says: בזמן שהם מודים, the Mishnah says if they both admit, then you divide it without a shevuah. Admit to what? They both admit that we picked it up together. So, they don't have to swear, there's no fight. They say we picked it up together. So, the din is you divide it without a shevuah. That's what the Mishnah says. Comes Rashi and says, quotes the Gemara from later, what is the Mishnah telling us? If they both admit, what's the problem? I mean, why does the Mishnah tell us that if they both and they don't even argue, they both admit, you divide it? That's what they're not fighting. What's the problem here? As we say in Yiddish, a kashere top, a kashere lefl. When people come to a beit din, to a rav to ask a she'eilah: a treifah spoon fell into a kasher pot, a kasher spoon fell on a treifah pot. You ever come ask a she'eilah? You know that she'eilah. What happened? There's a kasher spoon fell into a kasher pot, what's the din? A kashere top, a kashere lefl. What's the she'eilah? What do you And the Mishnah would say, אם נפל כף כשר בקדירה כשרה, כשר. Makes no

sense! Same thing here, what does the Mishnah tell us? If they both admit, there's no fight, everything is kasher, everything is fine, you divide it without a shevuah. The Gemara asks it, so Rashi says it's a good kushya. It's teaching us a din. What's the din? Because be'emet, if they both admit that we picked it up together, none of them should be קונה. Why? How do you How are you קונה? Because you pick it up. What happens if a person picks up this is the tallit, or any okay, any piece, this Gemara is laying on the floor, hefker, and you pick it up like this, half. You're not קונה it, because the other half is on the floor. You're not קונה it. So, they picked it up together, each one only picked up half, so this guy's not קונה and this guy's not קונה. Because when you pick up like this, you're not קונה anything. So, if I picked up half together with you, it means I The other half, as far as I'm concerned, wasn't picked up by me. So, it's like on the floor. One second. One second. Wait, wait, I'll finish it. So, the

question is, if they're מודה, so what do you say יחלוקו? Why? Because it belongs to both. Shouldn't belong to either one by by מודה. Why? Because he picked up half, and he says the other half you picked up. And he says: you're right, I picked it and you picked this. Okay. Therefore, the Mishnah says no, they are koneh. Why are they koneh? why are they koneh? Because the din, and that is the din that the Mishnah teaches, המגביה מציאה לחבירו קנה חבירו. That if I pick up something for someone else, not in a case like this, if I see something in the street hefker, and I know you want it, you need it, so lechatchilah pick it up with the intentions for you, קנה חבירו, automatically the moment I pick it up, my friend who I took it for is koneh. Ooh, if I say since I picked it up for someone else, I'm koneh, that's why it works here. How does it work here? Because if I picked up together with you, I want and and we're both friends and we're doing it together. So, when I picked up my this half, I had in mind that this half should work for you, too. And if you pick up for somebody else, it works. So, I had in mind for you. You picked up your half, and this half you also picked up because I picked it up on your behalf. The same thing the other side. You picked up the other half, knowing that I'm picking up this half, so you had in mind picked up for yourself, you also had in mind that you're picking it up for him. And picking up for somebody else works, so half he picked up, and the other half he also picked up. How? Because the other guy had it in mind. And the same thing here for him. That's why, בזמן שהם מודים, the Gemara says, if they're modeh, you're koneh. In the case of the Mishnah, where each one says כולה שלי, אני מצאתיה... No, themselves and the other. No, sure, they were picking it together, so we both want to be koneh. So, I pick up half this for me and for you. And the other half I also picked up, because you picked that up for you and for me. So, your thinking for me works for me, so as if I picked up the whole thing, as if you picked up the whole thing. But that's only if each one admits, \"Yes, I picked it up for you.\" בזמן שהם מודים means I admit I picked it up together with you, and you have half, which means when I picked it up we were friends, we picked it up together, so I had in mind for you, you had in mind for me, it works. In the

first case of the Mishnah, where the guy says אני מצאתיה, not you, and we're saying, \"You know what happened? Maybe a חלוקה יכול להיות אמת. Why? Because maybe they picked it up together.\" Let's say they did pick it up together, and each claims I had I didn't have you in mind, what would be the din? No one is koneh. So, what is the peshat? We're saying, why do we say yachloku? Because be'emet it could be that it belongs to each one. That's why we say yachloku. חלוקה יכול להיות אמת means that the chalukah could be true, and maybe it's takke emes that they picked up together, umimeila, that's why you have to give it to them. That's the only time they say yachloku. If you wouldn't this wouldn't happen, you wouldn't say yachloku. So mimeila, so we have to say that yachloku means that really that's it really belongs to them to each one, half. On what basis? Because we say בהדדי, אגבהוה. שניהם בהדדי, they both picked up together. If that's what happened, then it belongs to nobody. Because if that happened without them thinking of picking up another guy, because that's what they're saying, see it's hard to say that what we're saying is so far. This is going to be far fetched. That what we're saying like this, maybe you picked it up together and you had a mind to pick it up together and now you're lying. Adrabah, we're saying you're not lying. We're saying it's not about ramai here. You're not lying, ela mai, you make a mistake. You think you picked it up first. But definitely with way he's טענ'ינג, I didn't have you in mind. I ta'anah, it's mine, not yours. I picked it up and not you. So we're saying maybe נעשה he thinks he picked up first, and really it was together. But al kol panim, one thing is for sure that each one who thinks he picked it up first, didn't have the other guy in mind. So he only picked up half according to what we're saying. And when he picked up half and the other guy not in mind, and he didn't have him in mind, so each one only picked up half. So no one is koneh. Yeah? Not by holding it. Holding is a re'ayah. Holding is a re'iyah it's yours, if you're טענ'ינג a ta'anah that it's yours. Here, according to their ta'anah, it's not this. According to his ta'anah that, \"I didn't pick it up for you,\" the din is that's not yours. He's modeh that it's not his. Muchzak'in doesn't make you It's not like Just because you're holding it, that's the way you get it. If you're טענ'ינג it's yours and you're holding it, so we say a re'iyah what you're saying is true. But Holding it doesn't make it more than what you're saying. And in this case, what you're saying makes it that it's not yours. Because you are saying that you didn't pick it up for the other guy. And we're saying we're making a chalukah, why? Because it belongs to both takeh. But the guy each one admits it doesn't belong to him. Doesn't belong not to him, not to him. How do we say יחלוקו here? And that's a it's takeh a kashya. And then there's another kashya here that we have to understand. Another kashya actually in the Gemara, but a kashya in the on the Ketzot and on the Shach. The din of מנה שלישי. Okay, so now

let's discuss for a second the din of מנה שלישי. מנה שלישי is the case where two people gave a shomer, a person, money to watch. One guy gave him $200, one guy gave him $100. When it comes to collect it, each one says, \"The 200 is mine.\" So what's the din there? A machloket, Rabbi Yosi and the Rabbanan, but the bottom line is, you say, \"יהא מונח.\" You say, \"Don't give them.\" Whether don't give them anything or don't give them that third, give each one, according to the Rabbanan, give this guy 100, give this guy 100, because 100 each one has for sure. And the שמונה שלישי, the third hundred, יהא מונח עד שיבוא אליהו. You don't give it to anybody. This is when they come to ta'anah, each one says the 100 the extra 100 is mine, and we don't know what it is, so we say we let it give munach. And that's what Tosafot discusses why you say יהא מונח there, why not, Tosafot says. The Gemara Come the Ketzot and the Shach and they say a case like this: What happens if no one claims? No one is asking. They both come and no one is saying that the 200 is mine. What do you do then? What does he do with the third hundred? Zogt the Shach and the Ketzot, \"יחלוקו.\" You divide it, you give each one half. Why? What's the logic behind this? That's really what we have to understand. What is the sevara that they say, what is this thing, if they don't complain, if no one is tove'a, no one is claiming, say, \"yichloku\"? Yeah, no one is fighting. No one is even claiming it, but he knows that it's not that's not his. He knows it belongs to one of the two. So the Beis Din, so the Shach says to him, \"You know, take it and divide it.\" Why divide it? What's the meaning of the division here? And then there are more shailos to get into the Somchos and this, all kinds of this. But the main shaila is this whole סברא חלוקה יכול להיות אמת, I I can remember learning the first times I'm learning, it sounds like such a fantazya, such a funny thing. What חלוקה They're saying not and we're coming up with a new idea: חלוקה יכול להיות אמת. It's a, it's a פלאדיגע זאך, it's a, it's a modern way to understand things. Lichora you could say like this. Normally we're looking at yichloku as a פסק דין that we're paskening that, you know, belongs to both. Takeh belongs to both. And that's why we put in the words חלוקה יכול להיות אמת, because since it's possible to be both, so we say, let's say, you know what? Let's divide it because let's assume it's both, because it's a chance it could be both, let's assume it's both. If that's the pshat we got a big problem. What do you mean assume of both? How can you assume of both? It's how so far-fetched and since this is a mad'נה זאך. The pshat is not, lichora, not like that. Shulchan Aruch they bring down that Teshuvos HaRosh that the Rosh says that there is a pasuk that says, \"צדק צדק תרדוף.\" You have to run after righteousness, you have to do everything right. That gives a chiyuv to Beis Din to make a pesharah. Pesharah means to make a compromise. Basically what that means to say is that there is an obligation on Beis Din to do the best they can to give a person whatever is his. And I'm adding those words: the best they can. In other words, in a place where the real thing they cannot do, they have an obligation to do the best they can. And this is the basis for the yichloku here. Not because we say yichloku and we say really Beis Din's real a lot of times if there's a דין תורה between two people, Beis Din looks into it and comes to a The court decides: you are right and you are wrong. Or sometimes they decide that we, the way we see the case, you're both right. And therefore, each one gets his part. That's not what yichloku is here. Not because the Beis Din decided. It's takeh because they're מוחזק in this. Whatever the reason that's what Tosafos, we'll get to that. Beis Din, because they're מוחזק, let's say according to Tosafos, Beis Din feels they're, has an, not feels, has an obligation to see the best they could do. The best they could do is to say yichloku. That's the reason for yichloku. Okay? Okay, so far, it's no big chidushim, but I'm saying it's not that yichloku is only said because we assume that this is, we we figure out a possibility, one of a million, it's could, it's true, and we say it's true, and that's why we pasak'n. We we realize that it belongs to both. We befeirush did not realize, and befeirush we know it does not belong to both. 99.99% it does not belong to both. Each one says, \"I found it.\" Because this agrees with the other guy, it doesn't belong to both. Beit Din has to do the best they can to see to do צדק צדק תרדוף, to give each one whatever is possible to to save. Otherwise, they lose everything. Maybe the guy steals away from him. So, you got to give it to him. And we can't allow them to lose it. Whatever, we have to save whatever we can. Actually, if you look at the words of the Rosh here, this is a teshuvah of the Rosh when he says here: Is the Beit Din mechuyav or not mechuyav? It's a chiyuv on Beit Din. Should they stop the guy from taking? He says, \"אין בית דין מחויבים למימחי.\" And on the other hand, if each one says it's his, \"אין ראוי לבית דין לחלוקה, שמא נפסיד לאחד מהם.\" The bottom line is that Beit Din has to look at the best that they could do. But there are conditions There are conditions of when there is an obligation on Beit Din to put themselves into the situation and try to salvage whatever they can. That's the yesod of the whole machloket. All the machloket that we find here is machloket not in what is the reason why we say yechaleku. Why we say yechaleku is one reason: because that's the best you could do and Beit Din is trying to do their best and they have an obligation to the best. The she'elah is, it's not always their obligation to do it. Certain situations they don't, they don't have this obligation. And the machloket is when? How far do we go and what's the situation which gives them this obligation that they have to find a way to to figure out and do the best they can, that's all it is. That's basically the machloket between Rashi and Tosafot, or the Rif and Tosafot, whether it has to be muchzakim. We ask, what's the sevara? The machloket is like this: Tosafot says that if they are both holding on to it, like the Rosh says, then we have an obligation to see what we could do. That's what the Rosh says. We can't allow things to, you know, get out of hand when each one is holding, and there's a sevara that it could belong to this guy, it could belong, each one has equal right over it. And not that we're saying that we say it belongs to both. But that's enough reason for us to be able to get try to get involved. When it's פסוקי, comes the Ribban, and the Ribban says no, you don't have to wait for that. The fact that they're arguing over it obligates us Beit Din to come and get involved into the situation and do the best you can and say yechaleku. So it's not a she'elah whether achizah makes it yechaleku or not. For sure achizah doesn't make yechaleku, nothing makes yechaleku. Yichloku is a pesharah. A pesharah means, okay, compromise is the best that we could do, that's what, and we have an obligation. The all this conditions are, when do we have this obligation? So Tosafot and Rashi argue, Tosafot and the Rivan argue, whether you have to wait for an achizah to put the beit din into the, into the point of an obligation, or without that, the fact that they're arguing. Then comes in the חלוקה יכולה להיות אמת. Not that we really think such a far-fetched thing that really they picked it up together. You think they think they picked it up together? Guarantee they didn't pick it up together, 99% they didn't pick it up together. But that's a condition, because it's a situation which, in theory, there could have been a chalukah, that's one that force forces us to say, get involved and make the chalukah. See, way we learned pashut that why do we make the chalukah? Because חלוקה יכולה להיות אמת, oh, that's the reason for the chalukah. The reason for the division is because it could be true. That's not the reason for the division, that's far-fetched to say this is the reason. That's the reason for the chiyuv on the beit din to get involved. So there's a machloket Rashi and the Rivan and Tosafot whether you need muchzakim to force that kinyan in beit din, and one holds muchzakim and one holds not. The other thing everyone agrees, that in order for beit din to have this chiyuv to get involved is only if, in theory, חלוקה יכולה להיות אמת, so what you're doing is, in theory, it's possible. So theory possible, so it makes the theoretical עניין הנאה זה בפועל, enough. If in theory it's possible, that's enough for beit din to say, \"Well, we gotta get involved and give them a little.\" In other words, if you're gonna do something outright that's impossible under no million circumstance no circumstance to be true, then the pesharah they're making is a funny pesharah. As long as it's possible, it falls under the category of pesharah, and that Rashi agrees and Tosafot agrees and everyone agrees. The question we ask by אניא דארכתיא: חלוקה יכולה להיות אמת, but they claim each one that we didn't do it. You took a claim you didn't do it, you claim you didn't sell it to him, but it's not that we're looking to say that this is what happened, it clearly didn't happen, but it's the situation which warrants the beit din to get involved. I can't hear. What do you have? One second. It's time, I'm getting to all the kushiyot and we haven't finished the kushya. This is also the machloket between I started to say אניא דארכתיא is also, we ask the she'eilah, when it comes to אניא דארכתיא חלוקה יכולה להיות אמת, it has to be, otherwise you wouldn't say yichloku. But he says, \"I made it,\" and says clearly, \"I didn't sell it to you,\" because he claimed, \"I made it and כולו שלי,\" and he says, \"I sell and I didn't and I didn't sell it to you.\" And we're saying you did? We're not saying that's what happened. It's a case where a theoretical is possible, where would if theoretically it can't be, beit din wouldn't make such a pesharah. It's like a like a סתירה מיניה וביה, how could it, but as long as it's possible even though they don't say it, and we know it didn't happen b'foal, but it's in the category of a חלוקה. That's the machloket of Rashi and Tosafot if there's a רמאי also. Rashi says if it's ודאי רמאי, you don't say יחלוקו. Be'emet you have to understand, what what's נוגע? Because one guy is ודאי lying, we shouldn't say יחלוקו? What has it got to do? Because he's lying? One is ודאי lying, so why is that a reason not to say יחלוקו? Tell you why. Not because it's a reason not to say יחלוקו. Rashi holds that if one guy is lying, beit din then says, \"We're not getting involved.\" The חיוב that that we have is people who possibly are saying the truth or this, but when one is ודאי lying, we should make such a peshara they should give a peshara and basically take away from one guy half? That's not enough to obligate us to get involved, that's all. And Tosafot says it is. Tosafot says as long as they're מוחזקים, they're holding on to it, they're arguing over it and they're holding on to it, even though one guy is lying, but as long as in theory it's possible be both, we don't care, it's enough to obligate us. See, if we'd look into the inyan of if this is a real פסק, then we got a problem, but it's not a פסק that we're saying this is what happened. The the pshat is we're saying that because חלוקה יכולה להיות אמת, we get involved. But for Rashi, if it's a רמאי, we don't get involved. Tosafot says no, even if it's a רמאי, we get involved as long as, and and and it could be if you connect it, Rashi doesn't hold doesn't need מוחזקים, according to Rashi, if you don't need מוחזקים, so the, it's They have less connection, and there's a רמאי here, so we don't get involved. According to Tosafot, as much as it's a רמאי, but there's מוחזקין, so therefore we do get involved. This explains the Shach and the Ketzot.

What does the Shach and Ketzot say? We ask a שאלה: it says by מנה שלישי, if no one is claiming, then you say יחלוקו. Why you say יחלוקו? No one is claiming, it means it belongs to both? Beit din has an obligation to take care of the money that belongs to people. And when they don't know, what is the klal? We say יחלוקו. That's the klal. That's the peshara you make. And there's no reason not to do it. So when they are claiming, then we have things which push us away from saying יחלוקו. If they're both claiming, and it's a case where אין החלוקה יכולה להיות אמת, that's what, mamash, what does the Gemara say? Why by מנה שלישי don't we say יחלוקו? Because the chaluka can't be true. So they're fighting over it, and אין החלוקה יכולה להיות אמת, so that's enough to say it's not possible to be. But if they're not fighting over it, דא פארקערט, then this, our obligation, if no one is going to hurt anybody because they don't care, so we say yeah, we have an obligation to give money back to whoever it belongs. And we don't know who, so we have an obligation of making the best we can, the peshara. What's the best we can? יחלוקו. So we say יחלוקו. It's not the If we say יחלוקו is the pesak in such a case, then what's the difference if they're arguing over it or they're not arguing over it? Because they're arguing, it's not יחלוקו, and if they're not arguing, it is יחלוקו? It's this, mamash, if we assume it belongs to both, belonging to both is dependent on whether they're arguing? Saying that doesn't not because we're פסק'ענען יחלוקו. The she'elah is do we get involved or don't we get involved? So if it's not If they're arguing over it, the she'elah is should we get involved, and if אין החלוקה יכולה להיות אמת, so we don't get involved. If they're not arguing, so even though אין החלוקה יכולה להיות אמת, but it's enough for us to want to do the best for them, and no one is no one is challenging it, so we do it, and we say יחלוקו. So יחלוקו is is like the peshara, that's all it is. This answers the other she'elah. We said that if they're modeh, the reason why it belongs to both, because each one picked it up with the other guy. So the she'elah was, but in the case of the first thing where they each one says, \"I picked it up, not you,\" so what do we say? Well, they probably picked it up together, and mimela it belongs to both. But we ask if they picked it up together, and each one claims that, \"I didn't think you have you in mind,\" so no one should pick up. This kashya is only a kashya if יחלוקו is this we're saying that's what happened. If we're saying יחלוקו because, you know what, we're assuming they picked it up together, so you say, if that's what you're assuming, big problem, then no one gets it. We're not assuming that. Like I said before, it's far-fetched to assume that. That's not what we're saying.

When we say maybe they picked it up together, it's only a theoretical thing that therefore, since there is a possibility it could have happened, that's enough for us to get involved. And when we get involved, what do we do? יחלוקו. So it's not we're saying if the pshat would be like we learned, should say eima, let's say about דאגבהוה, and we say יחלוקו because חלוקה יכולה להיות אמת, probably picked it up together, so if that's what you're assuming happened, then don't give it to anybody. Anybody could come now and grab it because it's hefker, no one's קונה. We're not saying that. We're not saying that's what happened. What we're saying is that we're getting involved, and we're saying yichaloku. So as long as it's possible that this happened, it's possible in theory that they would pick up together and each one has the other guy in mind, possible. I is claiming, \"I didn't do it.\" I know you didn't do it, but it's a case where this is a possibility in theory that such a thing could happen, mimeila we say yichaloku. That's why we give them both. Well, the Gemara, so why do they swear? Otherwise you'd never The Gemara said right here on דף ג. No, each one claims that he picked it up himself, and he's קונה, and the other guy is not קונה. And we don't know who's saying the truth, so we make a peshara. That's what we're doing. We're doing another We're doing it based on what they're saying. But what allows us to get involved and come up with a peshara is because of that, because the חלוקה יכולה להיות אמת in theory, even though in this case, had it happened, it wouldn't have worked. But it's a case where picking up two things, they could have picked it up together having in mind also. So it's a type this a type of chaluka which has no סתירה to it. מה שאין כן it gets impossible, it's not an impossibility, not because we're saying this is what happened. He could have No, the chaluka, how it belongs, but they're both claiming it belongs to me, this could have been a situation where it belongs to both. The same picking up could have been. That's right, and we assume it's not. But that's it's enough for us based on what they're saying, so we want to give them we want to make a chaluka by them, because we want to make a peshara. We want to get them the best deal we could get, but we have to have a condition that it's such a case where it's a possibility be'etzem.

That's called be'etzem, not בפועל, not בגילוי. Be'etzem it's a chaluka. And that's true, be'etzem it is. The picking up together be'etzem could make it both. הגם we know they didn't do it. Just like לפועל we didn't do it, even if it would be קונה if they would. But they didn't do it, so we know, same thing here. If they would do it, they could do it together, if they would do it together it would be קונה. But it's not. But in theory it's enough to give us the ability to be able to say yichaloku. Be'emet if you go into the same thing a little bit further and a little bit deeper, and make this sevara based along the same lines, but a little bit different, a little bit the nekuda of the ענין will be, when why do we say yichaloku? Listen to this approach. Why do we say yichaloku? We divide it. So normally is, well, we don't know who it belongs to, so we and so far now we said, it's a peshara, we talk, I know it doesn't, but we do the best we can. The whole thing is based on a safek, right?

Because we don't know who it belongs to. So what do we do? We don't know who it belongs to, so we give each one, make it yichaloku. This nekuda I'm going to say is when I'm going to try to explain it. The fact that there is a safek, whether it belongs to this guy or that guy, that safek unites them both into one metziut. It's going to sound pretty abstract. Deep, deep, deep. They're all put into one big safek. The safek makes it all into one big metziut, and makes it, because of this safek, they are really both connected to it and they are, as it were, they're both partners in it. The safek makes them all one. And because of that we say יחלוקו, not we say really they picked it up together. The fact that we don't know who it belongs to, there's one safek that combines them both. That safek makes them all one מציאות. Where do we see such a thing and what in the world does this mean? It sounds some outlandish idea. So I'll bring in a different sugya altogether and from there we'll see what I mean.

Everyone knows that there is a din, we say כל דפריש מרובא פריש, כל קבוע כמחצה על מחצה. Now, I'm sure that means Yoreh Deah is full of that. Like this we know from we have, let's take a good example, with Pesachim, you learned two years ago you learned Pesachim, by בשר, Gemara brings a case of the meat. Case is like this. If you have a city where there's nine stores selling kosher meat, one store sells treif, and you find a piece of meat in the street and you know it must have come obviously from one of these stores, and you don't know from which one, what do we say? Kosher. כל דפריש מרובא פריש. Whatever came from a group of things and we don't know from which one, we say it came from the majority, majority is kosher, it's kosher. If the case is that you walked into the store, there were the same same nine stores kosher, one treif, you walked into a store, you bought a piece of meat. You walk out, you forgot, which store did I go into? No, or the store I No, the store I went into, is it like the treifah one, is it one of the treifah or the kosher? Is it the treifah one or one of the kosher? Now, you can look at it and say, well, most of the stores are kosher, so kosher. No. We say כל קבוע כמחצה על מחצה, 50/50. It's treif, 50/50. And the difference is, פריש פריש means that the piece of meat that has the safek separated itself from the stores, and קבוע means I walked into the store and the safek is in the store I walked into. So if I, פריש, if it's separated from the stores, the din is you go בתר רובא, follow the majority, and it's kosher. If it's קבוע, we say it's 50/50 and it's not. What in the world is the difference between the two cases? Well, there is a pasuk that we learn out the din from, so some hold the שמעתתא talks about it באריכות, some hold it's a גזירת הכתוב. Okay, there's no logic behind it, גזירת הכתוב. The Torah says that you follow majority is only in this case, we have a פסוק, וקם עליו, וארב עליו, וקם עליו, there's פסוקים we learn out. The truth is, there is a logic behind it. Not a practical logic, because practically looks the same. Or the same chance, the same chance that you have in this piece of meat being kosher or treif, the same chance is if you walked in you don't know which store it was, the chances are the same. It's a halachic logic. What is the logic behind it? We're talking about following the majority. There's a another din of rov. Not following the majority, but a din of bittul b'rov. If a piece of kasher stuff falls in, if a piece of treif falls into kasher, and the majority is kasher, what's the din? Okay, so if it's liquids, it's go shishim, because it gives a ta'am. But if it's יבש ביבש, if it's dry stuff, you have one, three pieces of meat, you can't recognize them, one piece is treif and two are kasher and they got mixed together, what do we say? It's batel b'rov. It's batel. So you can eat them all. Okay, the she'eilah is can you eat them all together? Because then you know for sure you ate a treifah. Or you have to eat one separately. Some even say you have to take one and throw it away, and the rest you can eat. But even the rest, that's a safek, we don't know, maybe that's treif. We go בתר רוב, that's the din. So we

have two cases of rov. One is bittul b'rov, got mixed in. So you have a here a group of stuff, and it's mixed up, so you say we go בתר רוב. And here you have a case that you have different stores, you took a piece of meat, and we follow the majority. They seem like two separate dinim. One is bittul b'rov, and one is אזלינן בתר רובא, we follow the rov. In truth, it's the same. You know why we follow the rov? Because the one is batel in the in the other, the treif is batel in the kasher. What do you mean batel? And you have listen to this, you might not agree, but this is the fact. When we have a piece of meat, and that's the safek, what's the safek? All these stores are all a safek in one piece of meat. We have one unit which contains the possibility of all 10 stores. So you know what really it is? All 10 stores are mixed into this one piece of meat. In in in in in in הגיון, means in abstract thinking. Not bepo'al, bepo'al the stores are not in the, but this meat, the safek of this meat combines all the stores into one safek, into one unit. So you know what you have here? You have one thing which has nine kasher and one treif. And it's mixed together. What's the din if nine are kasher and one is treif and it's mixed together? Batel b'rov. If the shailah is I went into the store, what's the connection between this store and this store? They're not mixed. Each store is an entity for itself. Now you have a safek, did I go into this store or did I go into this store? If I walk into one store and I don't know if it's kasher or treif, what's normally the case if something is a safek kasher or treif? It's 50/50. How does the fact that there are other stores outside there are kasher makes this not 50/50? Each store is a separate entity, each store is a separate unit, and I don't know if it's kasher or treif. I walk in, I don't know if it's kasher or treif. You know it's kasher or treif, it's a safek. What's a safek? מחצה על מחצה, 50/50. Ai there are more other stores, what's what's noge'a? So there are more other stores kasher, what does that store have to affect on this? This is a safek, it's מחצה על מחצה. Ai by the piece of the meat, the piece of the meat, the fact that we're not dealing with the store, we're dealing with the meat and the safek is in one unit, which all the stores כביכול, כאילו, are all included in this one safek of the piece of meat, it's mixed. You can't say what does one store got to do with the other, because they're all within this one piece of meat, they're all there, in theory. Therefore, it's batel b'rov. But when you're going into the stores, they're not mixed. If they're not mixed, each one is separate. Yeah? I said before that it's not a practical explanation, it's a theoretical theoretical? In halacha, that's what we say. In halacha, as long as it's, in theory, mixed. And I'll tell you the truth, when it comes to bitul b'rov, it's all theory. The example I gave with the meat, does it make any sense? What's that, it's batel? How is it batel? When you say one you have three pieces of meat, one is treif, two is kasher, the one is batel b'rov. How is it batel? You know what? I can understand if it gets mixed in, you know you have some water treif, and water fills in and you mix it up, it's batel. Each piece is separately! What makes it into bitul b'rov? Nu, someone can tell me, what makes it bitul b'rov? What combines them all and makes it that it's all together and it's batel, when they're all called יבש ביבש separate? You know what does it? My brain! It's all in theory! Because my brain doesn't know which one it is. So you know what combines them all? The fact that by me it's a safek! The fact that there is a safek in a person's mind, and not in mine, in everyone's. Because if I don't know, someone else knows it, but if it's a case where no one knows, the fact that this is a safek makes it all into one, even though they're not one, and it's batel b'rov. The same thing here. The brain, it's it's all, like they say a lot of things, everything is in the mind. It's all in the mind, that's all. The whole din of bitul is in the mind.

I'll give you an interesting din in Yoreh De'ah. Even by even by shishim, it says if you take a spoon, and it's a let's say a fleishige spoon, put into milk, And there's 60 times as much in the milk as much as a spoon, it's בטל בשישים. What happens if you take it and stick it in a second time? It's again בטל בשישים. So it says if you stick it in once and there is shishim, but you didn't know you stuck it in, you didn't know it was fleishik, and you stuck it in a second time and there was no ידיעה בינתיים, you need twice shishim. Because you stuck it in twice. What does that mean? What's noge'a if I knew or not, or it's shishim or not? It's noge'a because the mind, what makes it into a bitul. Anyway, that's what, we've got only a few minutes, so I'll just finish what I'm trying to say. What we see from all this is that if you have a safek of a few things together, we look at it as if it's one unit. The fact that you have 10 stores and they're all a safek, but they're all in this one safek in this one piece of meat, it's all one unit. The safek combines them.

Here when we come to our case here, two people come with a tallis. There's one safek, I mean there's one tallis that has a safek of these two guys. You know what that makes it? Not in plain mamash, not practical, not practical, but in theory, it makes them together as one unit. And what happens when they're one unit? They're both like partners, they're both both in it together. What happens when you want to divide, when two partners own something and want to divide, what do you do? So יחלוקו. It's exactly what we're doing here. We're saying because there is a safek, that makes it into one unit. The machloket between Rashi and Tosafot and the Ran, all these and these conditions is when is it considered one unit? Tosafot says, you know when it's considered one unit? The safek is itself not enough. If it's a safek and they're holding it, then we look at it as one unit, and then we say יחלוקו. Rashi says, the Ran says it doesn't have to be. On the other hand, know what Rashi says? When is it one unit? If one guy is not ודאי רמאי. If one guy is ודאי lying, then they're not combined. If one is lying, so the other 100% there's no אחדות. We're trying to make אחדות between them, make them one unit, you can't. מה שאין כן תוספות says no, Tosafot says even if it's ודאי רמאי, as long as they're מוחזקים, and it goes together. Tosafot says that you have to do something to make it united. So you have accomplished a union here, so to get rid of that union is not so easy, so רמאי will not get rid of it. Rashi says that you don't need muchzakim, so it's only united because it's b'etzem united, but you didn't do anything to unite it, so any little thing will take it away. So ודאי רמאי will take it away, and you won't do it. What does Tosafos, the Rambam say? The Rambam says like this: b'emet they're united themselves, but the fact that they're not holding it is a, they're not, is a setirah to the to the union. So all you have to do is not to make a union, take away the setirah. So if you're sitting next to it, it's not a setirah anymore. You don't need to do it to make it. Tosafos says you have to make it into one into one unit, so you need muchzakim. Rashi says b'etzem the fact that they're both טענ'ינג over it is enough to make it one unit, fine. The Rambam says no. The fact that they're טענ'ינג is not enough because you see, they have no connection to it. How could it be one together? If you're standing next to it, that's already enough. And the same thing is with the Ketzos and the and the Shach. If no one is טענ'ינג over it, then automatically they're one unit. And if they're one unit, you say יחלוקו because it's a safek, we don't know. And this answered the main kushya: how could you say יחלוקו, יכול להיות ש...? But we didn't say יחלוקו, יכול להיות ש... means that it's takeh the it's takeh belongs to both and divide it. We're saying the safek makes it into one. So when does a safek make it into one? As long as in theory it's possible that there could be an emet, then we could look at it as one unit. If it's for sure not shaychut, then how could you say it's one unit when it's for sure not shayach? So it's only like the same like I said in the previous pshat. It's not the reason why we say יחלוקו, it's the reason why we were able to say יחלוקו. And the same thing is we say יחלוקו because it's one unit. Why can we say it's one unit? It's only because of this. Part of the ma'alah of sfeikot. ספיקות מאכט עס, huh? It's an art, such a thing.