Oh, the meal is not So who's Problem is the weather's bad, everyone's past time home. So the Gemara here in בבא מציעא דף ב עמוד א, most, one of the most famous משניות, שנים אוחזין בטלית. Two people come to Beit Din holding on a tallit. זה אומר אני מצאתיה וזה אומר אני מצאתיה. This guy says, \"I found it,\" and this guy says, \"I found it.\" זה אומר כולה שלי וזה אומר כולה שלי. This guy says the whole thing is mine, and this guy says the whole thing is mine. So the din is זה ישבע שאין לו בה פחות מחציה. One guy swears that he doesn't have less than half, which means I have at least half. The other one swears זה ישבע שאין לו בה פחות מחציה. The other one swears that he has at least half, and yachloku, he divides. Comes the Gemara, and the Gemara asks, למה לי למתני זה אומר אני מצאתיה וזה אומר אני מצאתיה, זה אומר כולה שלי וזה אומר כולה שלי? ליתני חדא. Why does it have to say double expression? He says, \"I found it,\" and he says, \"I found it.\" He says that whole thing is mine, it's all mine. Should say only one, because it's the same thing. If you say, \"I found it,\" that means it's yours. If you say, \"It's mine,\" it's mine. Why do we have to repeat twice? So the Gemara says, חדא קתני. It really means it doesn't mean like two cases, it means the same thing. It just saying that the guy's it's one case of one guy says, \"I found it and it's mine, and the whole thing is mine,\" and one guy But why do we need double expressions? ליתני אני מצאתיה, ואנא ידענא דכולה שלי. If I just say, זה אומר, this guy says, \"I found it,\" that means that we know if he found it, it's his. So why do you have to piece, \"I found and it's mine, the whole thing is mine\"? So the Gemara answers like this: At the

end, the Gemara will explain business, but we're going to talk about hava amina. אי תנא אני מצאתיה, if it would just say this guy says, \"I found it,\" without adding the words כולה שלי, הוה אמינא, I would think, מאי מצאתיה? ראיתיה. What does it mean, \"I found it\"? I saw it. And that would mean it would like seem, I think so, it's mine, that af al gav, then the גמרא, דלא אתא לידיה, even though it didn't come to my hand, בראייה בעלמא קני. I would think, \"Oh, I found it,\" because people when they see something, \"Oh, I found it!\" So I saw it first, it's... So I would think you became That's why תנא כולה שלי, that's why he adds, no, כולה שלי, it means, בראייה קני? בראייה לא קני. What's ראייה? With with seeing, you're not koneh. Then the Gemara asks a kashya, but we find in a פסוק מצאתיה means different, the Gemara says, \"Well, that's chelkit.\" נוגע, this is what it says here. What about ד' אמות...? What? Don't we have ד' אמות and... Yeah, yeah, you're We're going to talk about that, but that's not נוגע to this second. So here we see that the Gemara says I would have had a hava amina that בראייה בעלמא קני, because a guy who says, \"I saw it,\" he's koneh.

Comes Rashi, and Rashi says like this: The guy says, \"ראיתיה, I saw it, קודם שהגבהתה אותה.\" That maybe we would think that the guy says, \"I saw it before you picked it up, and therefore, I'm koneh it.\" That's why you have to say כולה שלי, to tell you that that doesn't work. So again, what does Rashi taytsh? ראיתיה, if a person says, \"I saw it,\" we would think you're koneh, what did he mean, \"I saw\"? I saw it before you picked it up. So that's the words that we're focusing on: קודם שהגבהתה. Comes the Maharsha... They're both saying the same thing. Yeah. Comes the Maharsha, and he says, \"I don't understand what Rashi's saying. If we're holding now that with re'iyah, with seeing, you're koneh, so you don't say, 'I picked I saw before you picked it up.' I saw it before you saw it! If picking up doesn't count here, it's the it's the seeing, so if he would actually want to say that, 'I saw it first,' what does it mean, 'I saw it first'? Not, 'I saw it before you got it.' I saw before you saw it. Because maybe he saw it before you, and he's koneh, cuz re'iyah is koneh, so Rashi should have said, ראיתיה קודם שאתה ראית, before you saw, not before you picked it up.\" That's what the Maharsha says, it has to be changed. Make a a shinui, a a girsa, a different girsa: not, \"I saw it before you picked it up,\" but, \"I saw it before I picked it up!\" Supposed to be קודם שהגבהתי אותה, before I picked it up, you understand. In other words, he's saying like this: for sure the guy picked it up. How do you know the guy picked it up? He's coming to Beis Din with it in his hand! So he's just saying, \"You know, I'm not claiming that I have it because I picked it up. I'm claiming I have it because before I picked it up, I saw it.\" That's what the Maharsha says. The Maharsha says that the word has to be not קודם שהגבהת אותה, but קודם שהגבהתי אותה, before I picked it up. The question is... He's changing the girsa. He's changing the girsa. The question is, okay, he answers the kashya that he asked. He asked, what what the way it says בתוך רש״י doesn't make sense. You mean before you picked it up, who cares what you picked it up for, it's before you saw it. So he changed it, now it makes sense. But the

question is, why would Rashi say it? Why would Rashi have to say, \"I saw it before I picked it up\"? What what's noge'a before I picked it up? Ein hachi nami, this is a case where he picked it up, cuz he's holding it, fine, but the main thing he should have said... The guy claimed, \"It's mine, why? Cuz I saw it first.\" What's the geder? \"I saw it before I picked it up\"? Because it's it's like a match, \"I I picked it up.\" Yeah. \"You say you saw it before I picked it, but I say, 'But I saw it before I picked it, so because I saw it'\" So, but why is it a roundabout? What's the geder here? He should say, \"I saw it before you saw it.\" \"You say you saw, I saw first.\" Right. Or not say anything, \"I saw it first. I saw it first.\" That's the ikar. By actually saying he saw it, and the proof is that I saw it before you is I picked it up. That's not a proof. What, otherwise why would he claim you saw before me? You picked it up before me. No, no. I proved you who's closer, I'm closer. I mean no. No re'iyah, a re'iyah doesn't lock this. Now what's the geder, in other words, why would Rashi Let's accept the girsa of the Maharshal. But why does Rashi have to say it, that the guy says, \"I saw it, and with seeing you're koneh, but I saw it before I picked it up.\" Picking up is not taking smoking. Picking up doesn't mean anything here. But also, of course he saw it before he picked it up. Otherwise, how would he pick it up? Right, right. Of course, right. But why but why does Rashi say these words? The ikar is who if we hold the hava amina that seeing, if you see it you're koneh, so the she'eilah is who saw it first. So this guy says, \"אני מצאתיה\", means \"I saw it first.\" That's all. \"I saw it first.\" Strange way So they say, \"I saw it before I picked it up.\" What does that תלוי? The עיקר גדר is the way it says in in the Gemara, then it doesn't make sense. Right. Not only extra, it doesn't make sense. \"He saw it before he picked it up.\" Who cares? He could make it Even even if I saw it before you picked it up. I was raising re'iyah re'iyah that אני ראיתי uh אני ראיתיה. ראיתיה. So if so But when the guy says, \"I saw it before you picked it up,\" it doesn't mean anything. Because maybe he saw it before you saw it. So that doesn't make sense. The way the Maharshal says, it makes sense, but I'm asking why does Rashi have to say it? It's an extra word. Okay, so we have that she'eilah to keep in mind, to remember.

There's another question here. This is a little bit more complicated. Tosafot on the words ראיה בעלמא קניא that a person would think that you're koneh just by seeing. So the Mishnah the way the Gemara says at this point that's why the Mishnah adds the words, \"כולה שלי\", to teach you that seeing you're not koneh. In other words, if the Mishnah would say here, \"שנים אוחזין\" and זה אומר אני מצאתיה\" and that's all, people who learned would think that you could be koneh with seeing. That's what the Gemara says. Like Tosafot says, not true. People would never think so because we have other Mishnayot. From there we know that seeing is not enough. Where's other Mishnayot? So he quotes later on. אע״ג דתנן במתניתין later on דף ט is a Mishnah that says like this, \"ראה את המציאה\", someone sees clearly that לשון, someone sees a מציאה \"ואמר לחבירו תנה לי\", and he says to his friend, \"Give it to me.\" So the Mishnah says clearly that the guy who saw it does not koneh the בריאה. So the guy picked it up, says He says, \"Give it to me,\" and the guy picked it up and said, \"Sorry, I'm not giving it to you, I'm keeping it.\" So even though this guy saw it, but who cares, the Mishnah says clearly that seeing doesn't count. This guy is picking he told him, \"Give it to me.\" So this guy picked it up, keeps it, he's allowed to keep it. That's one Mishnah. There's another Mishnah. דף י״ קמ״ל דהתם ראה את המציאה ונפל עליה, it says if a person saw a מציאה and fell on it, you're not koneh it. Why? He didn't make a kinyan. He didn't make a kinyan. \"I saw it.\" He saw it, right. Doesn't help. So mimela so why is that not good at a פרעון? Why does the Gemara say that if it would say here just, \"אני מצאתיה\", without, \"כולה שלי\", people might make a mistake thinking that you could be koneh with seeing? Can't make such a mistake, because there's a next Mishnah, two more Mishnayot later nothing, right after that where it says clearly if you saw it, you're not koneh it. So Tosafot: no. That would not be enough to teach us you're not koneh with seeing. Why? Because מצי למימר I could answer, I could say it's not a re'aya. Why? כיון דאמר תנה לי In the first Mishnah, what did he say to the guy? \"Give it to me.\" Or in the second Mishnah, what did he do besides seeing? Fell on it. Fell on it, נפל עליה. גלי דעתיה I would think he reveals his mind, he shows דלא ניחא ליה למיקני עד שתגיע לידו that he doesn't want to be koneh until he gets it. In other words, by doing that, if It's no re'aya from there that if a guy sees it and says, \"Okay, I want to be koneh it with seeing.\" You're not koneh it. A guy saw it and he said, \"Please give it to me.\" In other words, he's telling the guy, \"I want to be koneh I want to be koneh it with picking up.\" Oh, so since he say he showed he doesn't want to be koneh it with seeing, that's why you're not koneh. Same with the second one. He saw it and he fell on it. What do you fall on it for? Tripp. No. No, it's not. I mean, he jumped on it. He fell, threw himself down on it. If he wanted to be koneh it with seeing Grab it. No, he wouldn't have to grab anything. He sees it, and finished. And now it's his. So the fact that he fell on it, he's like showing that the way I want to be koneh is not through seeing. Oh, so if he showed that you don't want to be koneh through seeing, you're not koneh. But it's no re'aya that if you want to be koneh with seeing, that you're not koneh. So if not for this Mishnah here, I would takkeh make that mistake. I takkeh saw the Mishnayot later, and there I see that You're not koneh, but not because you're not koneh with re'aya, because you're מגלה דעת that you want to be koneh with something else. How can you need a third one? In a third time, you know? That probably depends on why would you want to go somewhere else? Somewhere else. I don't know why, but L'poal is what he did. Now, Tosafot says it, but he saw that Tosafot is from a Gemara, such an idea, such a logic. I'll show that Gemara takeh. On the same Mishnah, on דף י״א, where it says he saw the ראה את המציאה ונפל עליה, he fell on it, ובא אחר והחזיק, someone else came and took it, זה שהחזיק זכה בה, the guy who took it, why? Because the seeing is nothing. There, the Gemara asks that kashya. It's a fumble. The guy didn't he didn't have apprehension of it. No, he didn't pick it up, hold on, what was in the the guy that tripped over the guy that fell on it, right? He's not koneh. He's not koneh, even though No, he saw it. tripped. So he had to actually hold it. Yeah, so Tosafot said that it's no re'aya that you don't koneh with seeing, with re'aya, because maybe the reason why you're not koneh in that case because he was מגלה דעת that he wants to be koneh some other way. Right. So if a person is מגלה דעת he wants to then he's not koneh. Where did Tosafot get this logic? In that same Gemara, same Mishnah, the Gemara over there asks a kashya. The Gemara brings the din that he mentioned, the talmid chacham here mentioned, that there's a din of ד׳ אמות. And the חכמים made that any ד׳ אמות around you, anything that comes outside into your ד׳ אמות, you're koneh it. The

Gemara, so how come this guy who saw it and fell on it, how come he's not koneh how come he's not koneh with ד׳ אמות? But the Gemara answers, because since he fell on it, system's working, yeah, it's just working, right right now, you know, since he fell on it, he was מגלה דעת that he doesn't want to be koneh with ד׳ אמות. That's a I'll read you the Gemara. Here. כיון דנפל, גלי דעתיה, he was מגלה דעת, דבנפילה ניחא ליה דנקני, that he wants to be koneh with falling, ובארבע אמות לא ניחא ליה דנקני, not with ארבע אמות. So since he wants to be koneh with falling, not so the ארבע אמות is not koneh. And therefore, and falling is also nothing, so that's why he's not koneh. So from that Gemara we see the logic that if a person showed something that he doesn't want to be koneh with that kinyan, you're not koneh. Mimeila, that's what we could learn, that's why from that Mishnah we would have no raaya that seeing is not koneh. For the same reason, because they say since he fell on it, he wants to show that he's koneh with falling, not with seeing. But it's no raaya that seeing in its own is not a kinyan. That Tosafot says. But ד׳ אמות, I would say simple answer, the guy didn't know about ד׳ אמות, that ד׳ אמות is is koneh. How could you say that? The Mishnah tells us the din. No, the Mishnah is not telling a story if what happened if a guy happened if a guy did this, the Mishnah has a din, if a person does this, you're not koneh. So how come you're not koneh? So he says the reason you're not קונה ד׳ אמות, is because a person who does this shows that he doesn't want to, and the same thing here with raaya. What what was this question? What is this question again? Why does the Mishnah have to teach us that you're not koneh with raaya? If we know it from there? Right. So he says, from there or from the other one, where it says you saw it and asked the guy to give it to you, or you saw it and then you threw yourself on it, so he says over there, because I was able to say because you were מגלה דעת that you don't want to be koneh with raaya, you're not koneh, but otherwise you would. That this פירוש of Tosafot, which is based on this Gemara, is not so pashut. Why? The

Nimukei Yosef, here in the back, on this Gemara, says like this. Now, when the Gemara says that since you were מגלה דעת that you don't want to be koneh with with ד׳ אמות, right, that's why you're not קונה it, so the Nimukei Yosef says like this, and therefore, because the קנין ד׳ אמות is a תקנת חכמים, that's why if you don't want to be קונה, you're not קונה with it. זאגן אלע מפרשים, including, Likutei Sichos has a גאנצע אריכות, מדאורייתא? that any קנין דאורייתא, even if you showed that you don't want to be קונה, you're still קונה. And just to be clearer with this, the Rebbe explains it, it means like this. If a person doesn't want to be קונה, no matter what קנין it is, you're not קונה. Right. If it's against your ratzon, you're not קונה, just like by a mitzvah. If you hear shofar and you don't have in mind to be yotzei, you're still yotzei. But if you have in mind not to be yotzei, that's what they say if you go and blow for somebody else, people have in mind not to be yotzei so that later you should be, whatever. Same thing here, if a person doesn't want to be קונה at all, you're not קונה. Here we're talking about a person that wants to be קונה, he just wanted a different קנין. So this din is only if the קנין you're making now is a קנין דרבנן and you say you want to be קונה some other way, then this קנין is not קונה. Because there's a klal, the לשון הגמרא: אי אפשי בתקנת חכמים. Any תקנה that the Chachamim made was for the benefit of the person. So it's the benefit of me. So the guy says, \"I don't need your favors, Chachamim. I don't need your favor.\" So a person could say that. So if a person is מגלה דעת that he doesn't want to be קונה, with this with this קנין דרבנן not קונה. But if the same thing would be a קנין דאורייתא, and you do one קנין, and at the same time you don't want to be קונה with it, but you have in mind a different kinyan, this kinyan is koneh. You can't say, \"I don't want.\" And that's how we, and this is because he had in mind to be koneh. See, there's a kashya that they, I don't know that, that the Rebbe, the Rabbi Akiva Eiger asks: There's a din like this,

העודר בנכסי הגר. A ger has no yoresh. A ger, it's possible to have no yorashim. Like this has nobody, no Yid in the world cannot have yorashim. So whoever's first, owns it. The only one is that if he dies not having any yorashim is a ger. And what happens if a ger dies and has no children, and he didn't It's hefker. You mean to say he can't, right? No, גזל הגר! גזל הגר. So a ger dies and leaves over something, it's hefker, anybody who wants could take it. What happens if a guy was working for the גר, העודר, he was planting, plowing, and he was working for him, and while he was working the ger died and he didn't even know about it. The ger died and he didn't know. Now he's making a kinyan, this what he's doing is a kinyan, but he didn't have mind for a kinyan. So the din is he's not koneh. Why, it's a derabbanan? One second, no, not derabbanan. This kinyan is a de'oraita. He's not koneh. So the question is: Why? If we just said by a kinyan de'oraita, even if you're not interested, you're still koneh, so how come he's not koneh? So the answer very pashut, because he didn't have a mind to be koneh in any form! He was in mind of working. But if you have in mind to be koneh a different way, and lefo'al you made this kinyan, so if it's a kinyan derabbanan, like the ד' amot, you're takeh not קונה, because you don't want this קנין. But if it's a קנין דאורייתא, you are קונה. Now

let's go back to our Gemara. In our Gemara, according to the hava amina that ראיה is קונה And our Gemara is a קנין דאורייתא? Wait, wait, let me. When we say ראיה הוה אמינא ראיה is קונה, what would be If ראיה would be קונה, what kind of קנין would it be? A קנין דאורייתא or a קנין דרבנן? What would be a דרבנן? Why would it be a Why, that's the big Why would the רבנן make such a קנין? The רבנן try to make it easier, many קנינים. The רבנן would make it that you see it and then you'll really have fights, right? I saw it first, you saw it first. The רבנן trying to avoid. The reason they made ד' אמות, it says, because people shouldn't come to argue, because you grab it. So the moment it comes into your ד' אמות, so it'll be easier. So it makes sense that the חכמים would come and make a קנין which will make trouble? So why would the חכמים do it? So פשטות, according to the hava amina that ראיה is a קנין, it would be a קנין דאורייתא. Now, דאורייתא, where would the Torah say it? So we said there's a פסוק ומצאתה. There's a פסוק that says ומצאתה, and the Gemara says that ומצאתה, people say it means, \"I saw it.\" So from that we would learn out. I'm not going into that part, it's too tight. So the פשט is, the קנין of ראיה, if it would be a קנין, and we're going now according to the hava amina ראיה is a kinyan, it's a קנין דאורייתא. By a קנין דאורייתא, we just finished saying, this doesn't help. So then, how does Tosafos answer it? How does Tosafos say that from there from the Gemara over there we would not know ראיה is not קונה, we were thinking, \"No, why

ראיה is not קונה over there? Because he showed that he doesn't want it to be קונה with ראיה.\" So he doesn't agree with the So although he doesn't agree with the Nimukei Yosef. The Nimukei Yosef. So how will he answer the Nimukei Yosef's kushya? And the Nimukei Yosef over there asked the kushya! Or he has a different idea of what No, he has all kinds The Nimukei Yosef has all kinds of kushiyot there and comes up with this conclusion. So how would Tosafos answer? ובפשטות, ובכלל we don't find anybody arguing on that Nimukei Yosef. Everyone agrees, in the poskim everyone agrees that by a קנין דאורייתא, even if you don't have in mind to be קונה with that kinyan, as long as you have in mind to be קונה with a kinyan, you are קונה. And if this would be a קנין דאורייתא, so even if he had in mind to be קונה by falling, but לפועל seeing is a קנין דאורייתא, and you saw it, you should be קונה anyways. How does Tosafos say that this is He had in mind not to be קונה with with ראיה? Well, not davka. He didn't have in mind to be קונה with it. I'm saying that could be an answer to the Tosafos. That's what No, the Gemara doesn't say that. Or you can say that the hava amina in the Gemara is not a דאורייתא, it's a דרבנן. Good, so I would say that's I mean it could be, but it's a stretch.

Why How would we say that, what would be the reason for a קנין דרבנן? A קנין דרבנן it's it makes no sense. Well, I mean look, kinyan, to pick something up could be a bit hard. You know, the bottom line is, hands could be full, I could be holding my kids and Yeah, but they make so much I know that this, but to make so much problems, as long as, the Gemara says, you know, for people to argue this, this is the worst thing. To know who saw it first, right? Yeah, right, right. That's the worst thing, it'll make this trouble. I mean that's not a It doesn't I mean I could tell you, It doesn't seem like the benefit is out- Right, the benefit is so so much. And so therefore in my mind, it's hard for me to understand that should be a קנין דרבנן. Now, if it's a קנין דרבנן, then we got the we're finished, then there's this kashya no kashya, but I don't think so, I would think it would be the הוה אמינא קנין דאורייתא. And how does Tosafos answer it? So just al kol panim the ענין בקיצור. Make it Hurricane hurricane is coming. I want to say על כל פנים שטיקל חידוש that when the Gemara says that I would have a hava amina that the ראיה is קונה, the Gemara never meant that just by picking just by seeing it you're קונה. The

Gemara meant like this: if you see it and then you pick it up, then you're קונה למפרע. Then you're קונה. If you don't pick it up, the ראיה is not קונה. And this, I'll tell you, makes a lot of sense from a different point of view. We never heard of such a thing as being קונה without a מעשה. Every kinyan is a מעשה קנין. You got to do something. Did you ever hear a kinyan without doing something? If this would be so, it makes it's not yet. אלא מאי, a shtikel answer you could have, you could say like this: when it comes to making kinyanim, there's the famous chakira or whatever, we'll say she'eilah. How does it work? One pshat is the kinyan, when you do the מעשה הקנין, becomes yours. That's what kinyan is. Another sevara is different: קניה באמת to be קונה something בעצם, if I want to be קונה something from you, I make up my mind that I want it, you make up your mind that you're giving it to me, that, we call it גמירת דעת, that itself transfers it. The problem is, who knows if you made up your mind or not? That's why there's a דין קנין. Kinyan is מגלה what you had in mind. That's one sevara. ראיה doesn't help in that. Huh? ראיה doesn't help. Now one second, so no, who if this is a pshat, then maybe that's what ראיה is. So ראיה is you see it, because בעצם, איי, how do you know? So I'll tell you, if the whole and it's not true what I'm saying, but we would have thought for a second that the whole reason why you have to do it, because otherwise who knows what you thought. Because we're dealing with two people. Doesn't matter who saw first. We're dealing, forget about that for a minute, with every kinyan, we're dealing with two people. So you, I don't know if you really thought to give it to me, you don't know if I really thought to take it. But then if I make a kinyan and we both work together, then we know. What happens if I want to be קונה from an הפקר? There's no other person. Maybe over there ראיה works. So

we're talking here maybe at least from הפקר ראיה works. So maybe this the pshat, and we're so, no, you could never get to the גט. Okay, so a מציאה here. So you found it for הפקר. But this is not simple, cuz first of all, even by הפקר, not everyone agrees that הפקר means that I'm not taking it from anybody. There's the famous חקירה in הפקר. Does הפקר mean that it belongs to nobody or belongs to everybody? And the difference is between the two pshatim, when I make a kinyan from הפקר, according to the first pshat it belongs to everybody, I have to take it away from you guys. If it belongs to nobody, it means I have to take it. If it belongs to no one, so I have to take it. According to the first one, I don't have to take it. It belongs to everybody including me. All I have to do is get you guys out. According to the other way, not. So if הפקר belongs to everybody, so הפקר is the same like a regular kinyan, so I have to make a מעשה. There's no such thing as without a מעשה. I'll tell you the truth, even if you learn the other way, that הפקר belongs to nobody, but the fact that you need to know that this is, is not only because of the other person, because of a third party! A third party could come and take it! If I'm זוכה from הפקר, even though I'm not, there's no, we call it, no דעת אחרת מקנה, there's no one giving it to me. But there are so many people in the world who want to take it. How do they know my thought, if I thought or not? So על פי שכל you would need to have a מעשה. It's very hard to say there should be a kinyan without a מעשה. So how is there even an hava amina, you're a פשוט'ער שטיקל גמרא, how is there an hava amina in Gemara that you're קונה just by ראיה? Therefore, I say that's not the pshat. The pshat is like this: ראיה starts it off. If you later pick it up, then what you then it goes retroactive that from when you saw it, it becomes you. In other words, if I saw it first, and then you went and picked it up, and then I took it back from you, who gets it? I get it. Why? Because I saw it first. But if I wouldn't get it from you, if I wouldn't take it from you, then then I wouldn't get it, so cuz ראיה itself doesn't work. Now if we learn like this, I understand Rashi. We ask the שאלה, רש״י says I saw it before I pick according to Maharsa, I picked it up. So I ask, what's the נפקא מינה I picking up? Very much נפקא מינה! Such a thing that because if I wouldn't pick it up, I wouldn't be קונה it. That was the start of picking up. So that says I saw it before I picked it up, and then I picked it up, so now it goes back to the time when I when I saw it, and that's why it's mine. Cuz we ask, what is Rashi's importance that I saw it before I picked it up? Who cares if you picked it up? He's just trying to teach us the ענין of ראיה. Right, he's trying to teach tell us פשט that when the Gemara says that you're קונה בראיה, רש״י is saying don't make a mistake and think the Gemara's hava amina you're קונה בראיה. The Gemara means you're קונה בראיה before you pick it up, because you saw it before you pick it up, you're קונה it. But you got to pick it up later. If you don't pick it up, not. And the פשט will be, let's put it this way, that ראיה is the בכח of the picking up, right? When you see it, that's the the potential of then picking it up. So the כלל is like this: it starts with a potential, it doesn't actual come to real to actual till it comes למעשה. But when it comes למעשה, it works retroactive from the time of the בכח. אבל עומד על מעשה? No, not עומד על מעשה ממש. Doing the מעשה just by being there? That's קנין חצר, like a חצר, like if somebody falls into your house, yes, it came to someplace. But here the thing no מעשה מעולם. Yes, the מעשה doesn't have to be at your end, there has to be something concrete. ראיה is not concrete. You saw it, you didn't see it, it's not. So therefore, even though ראיה is בכח, but when does a בכח make the קנין? The בכח came into הפועל and then it works retroactive. But if the בכח never came into the הפועל, then the בכח is not enough. I want to bring an example to this, to such a thing that things depend on בכח, but when does the בכח work? If it works בפועל, but if it doesn't come בפועל it doesn't work. It's a ענין as we spoke about I think more than once, but here it fits into the whole concept. The famous Nemukei Yosef in Bava Kama, here this is Metzia in Bava Kama, the throwing the the the חץ, go back again. The famous Tosafot, we repeated it. Tosafot, the famous Tosafot, if someone threw something down from the from the from the top, a כלי that's falling to the floor and the floor is a stone floor, it'll break, there's no question it'll break. But before it fell before it reached the floor, someone broke it. Who's chayav? The Gemara says the first guy is chayav, because the second guy broke a broken כלי. It's true, so it broke a broken כלי. And if you broke a broken כלי, so so then then the guy who who threw it down broke it that second. Nobody could catch it, nobody could catch it maybe? Maybe, but בפועל the way it's going now it's broken. Comes Tosafot and Tosafot says: What happens if it's a different story? He didn't throw a כלי down. There was a כלי laying on the floor, and someone threw a rock at it. Before the rock reached the כלי, someone broke it. So it be the same thing! So Tosafot, no. סברא פשוטה לחלק! It's very obvious to make a difference between if someone threw the כלי itself and it's supposed to break, that's called מנא תבירא, it's called a broken כלי, or someone threw a חץ, someone threw a stone or a arrow on it. That's what Tosafot says. Comes the Ketzot and Ketzot says that this is a machloket between Tosafot and the Nimukei Yosef. We find in the Nimukei Yosef which disagree. What did we find? The

famous Nimukei Yosef case, asks a kushya, the Gemara says אשו משום חציו, that if a person starts a fire, one of the מחייבים that you're chayav for, if you start a fire and the fire goes and burns down someone's house an hour later, you're chayav. Why? It says משום חציו, because just like when you shoot an arrow, so you also say, I did something here, but 30 seconds later it's it's there, so why am I chayav? Ela mai, it goes. So the same thing, if I start a fire here and it goes and burns, that's what the Gemara says. So the Nimukei Yosef, it comes out like this, that if I start a fire, whatever happens all along, it's as if I'm doing it. Otherwise he wouldn't be chayav. So I'm doing it. Asks the kushya, how could you light candles Friday? You light candles Friday and the fire continues burning into the שבת. And the according to the according to the Gemara that it's like you're constantly working doing it, so it's as if you're making the fire on Shabbos! עולם השבת? דאס איז, דאס איז עפעס, דאס איז מער, דאס איז מער practical than עולם השבת. עולם השבת איז א רוחניותדיגע זאך. I mean we don't see it. Here we see the fire going! It's it's renewed, it's it's all your koach as if you are constantly doing it, because you started it and you're doing it, so you're constantly burning the fire, so Shabbos! So, shoot an arrow. אומר Ketzos, so he comes up with a chiddush and he says you're making a mistake. It's not the peshat you're chayav when you start a fire or by an arrow, because as it's going, it's as if you continue with it. פונקט פארקערט, he says, whatever happens later was included in the first figure that you did. When you started it, you did everything that's going to happen later. So mimaileh, Friday also, yes, as if it burned down all the whole time. So therefore, so right at the beginning, so it's not the peshat that you're continuing. There, פארקערט, everything from later was there in the beginning. So he asks a she'eilah, according to this, doesn't make sense Tosafot. Because Tosafot says that if you throw an arrow at a rock, we don't consider it מנא תבירא, it's broken. But according to the Ketzos according to the Nimukei Yosef, the

Ketzos says according to the Nimukei Yosef that whatever happens later is included in the beginning, so since this thing is going to break the kli, so it should be included right away in the beginning, so it should also be called a broken kli and the first guy should be chayav, not the guy who threw the rock! So he says, obviously if you talk bifshut, it'll break. Ela mai, he says there's a machloket between Tosafot and the Nimukei Yosef. Nimukei Yosef says that everything is included in the beginning, and therefore when you throw an arrow at something, whatever is going to break is as if it broke now. And Tosafot doesn't hold like that, because if Tosafot would learn whatever is going to break is, so it's also when you threw it, it's as if it broke now! broken kli, so why is the guy who broke it chayav? Why is he not patur? That's what the Ketzos says. Many mefarshim argue on the Ketzos. They say it's not a machloket, they're two different cases. Why? The Ketzos is only saying the Nimukei Yosef is only saying it if the bottom if the end is it broke. Right. So there is like this is b'foal. When it happened b'foal, then we say all that happened from the beginning. But if someone else broke it, then it would never have Not only would have b'foal meaning it would have happened, I don't know, but since it didn't happen, the b'foal didn't In the case that Tosafot is talking about, you threw the rock at the kli, but your rock didn't break it. So if your rock didn't break it, so that koach never came into the b'poal. So it's not the peshat that the that the Nimukei Yosef doesn't mean that as you do it now, right away it's as if you did it. First of all, how do you know how much it's going to do? You see, you start a fire, when you start a fire now it's as if everything How do you know how much it's going to go, how much it's going to burn? It's only now it's b'koach of everything. When it goes on and when it happens, then we say it comes back to the koach. But that's only if it actually did it. But if it actually didn't do it, so it's left with only b'koach, and the koach never came to b'poal. So we're not considered that you did it. When does the b'poal count, when does the b'koach count? If the b'poal happens. How do we account for when somebody throws a plate off the roof and somebody else breaks it? No, because there you did something in the kli. So then We're talking only if it's from the outside. doing something that broke it No, someone threw it off the roof, it broke and then someone broke it more, no? No, no, there also, no, someone went and broke it before. But there it's different because there's a difference if you're taking from the outside. In other words, So the reason being There is. But that's but that's where the kli itself changed. There's something the beginning of the actual breaking started in the kli, right? When the kli is flying off the roof it's not only b'koach, it's a shtikel b'poal. It's not broken yet, but it's... By shevirah in here, the kli is laying calmly there, has nothing to do, you threw something, the kli is... So how many times removed from the Right. So when, that's for sure. So in this case, when you throw something at the kli, even though b'koach it's there, but when does the b'koach take effect and mean something to consider it as if it broke? If it breaks b'poal. When it breaks b'poal, it goes back. So we see that difference. I want to say the same difference is over here.

When you see it, it's b'koach. But the koach is not enough. If afterwards it comes into b'poal, that you took it, then we say you're koneh it from before. Like we say here, if you threw the rock and it broke the kli, so when it broke the kli, now we say it's all included in what you did in the beginning. The same thing with re'iyah. When you saw it, you're not koneh it yet. The re'iyah can be koneh, but it's the beginning. It's a it's a b'koach. Then you actually took it. When you took it, it goes back to your seeing, and you're koneh it retroactive from the time you saw it. And that's how the Rabbanan are are helping us by making No, and this oh, this is not the Rabbanan. This would be de'oraita. But it's But how does it answer? Rabbanan, and anything could come into play here at all. One second, davka not. But what I'm trying to say, going back to answer how this answers Tosafot, Tosafot says that from there is no re'iyah. The fact that he saw it and fell down and you're not koneh it, there's no re'iyah that re'iyah is not koneh, because maybe the reason it's not koneh is because you showed, you're מגלה דעת, that you don't want to koneh with, you want to koneh with... So we ask that sevara doesn't work. It only works by derabbanan, not by de'oraita. So I want to say like this, when when are we mechaleik between derabbanan and de'oraita? When there's a real kinyan. A kinyan that you did, which is a full-fledged kinyan. But you didn't have in mind to be koneh with this kinyan. So by derabbanan you could say I didn't have in mind, so I'm not koneh. By de'oraita, it doesn't help. But here, we're talking about re'iyah, which we're we're saying now a new thing, that re'iyah is not koneh like a full-fledged kinyan. So if you saw it, and after you saw it you were מגלה דעת that you want to be koneh with something else, even if it's a de'oraita, but you מגלה דעת before the kinyan. What's the pshat here? Why by de'oraita it works? Because you make the kinyan, you made a kinyan. Here, you didn't make the kinyan. So if you מגלה דעת before you make the kinyan that you davka don't want the kinyan, in other words, even though you started the kinyan, and you מגלה דעת you don't want, then davka even by de'oraita it doesn't work. And that's why Tosafos says that I would say כיוון ש he said give it to me or נפל, גלי דעתיה דלא ניחא ליה דליקני, and you're not koneh. Ai, this is a kinyan de'oraita, but in this kinyan where the kinyan is not happening yet till later, you have a chance to stop it. By de'oraita you can't stop it. Whatever it is it is, it's done. But here, where it's still in the middle because even though it'll work backwards if you do it, but if you decide before you you started the befoal, then it does then it does it doesn't make the kinyan. And therefore in this case, there's no ראיה that ראייה is not קונה. That's why the Gemara says you have to bring a ראיה from here. And we can say that the hava amina, but we can comfortably say the hava amina where where it's Was a de'oraita? Yeah, I'm sticking to my sevara that this hava amina is de'oraita. It's hard to say that derabbanan. Why was the Rabbanan why would the Rabbanan do this? But did he say, alright, comfortably we can say. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, R'' Aryeh, I'm picking up that was your You add that? That's your perush? That's my perush. 'Cause that's the only way it makes sense. I think so, too. It's interesting that that no one ever No one ever That's what that's what it is. It should be written it should be wrote that? Yes. And actually, I once printed this and I got a call from somebody. He said, \"I saw it. I think you're right. I think this is the real pshat.\" That's interesting, 'cause that's the only way that Look, it solves so many things. If someone says, \"ראיה,\" like everyone like so caught like someone says, \"Oh, so ברשות הרבים, you just I saw it three days ago.\" Right, you never listen, that's Exactly, nothing, everything. But a strange kinyan, a strange If you don't have to If you don't have to So, okay, I have it now in my hand, I'm מתחייב לקבל עלי, and I have a whole bunch of wars, you know. There's

definitely a reason why Rashi would do it. It definitely helps. The question is, does it help, does it outweigh the negative fighting that's going to come from it? It helps. I don't want to have to Seeing is a is is Well, you know they might have packs in their hands, they might be busy, they might be driving by, they might be walking in the and they're dealing with their horses. You see something, you want to claim it. ראיה is good. Problem is, though, you so much more than outweighs the fighting. If you said you see it, you come together an hour later, I'm like It's a great kinyan, like easier. But I'm going to say I saw it first, and I'm going to say I saw it first, and there's no way to retroactively, there's no way to settle that unless there's something solid. Therefore we say We were happy if derabbanan. You're not chayav, but you did wrong. Right. In other words, you did something that you weren't allowed to do. I don't want to go I didn't want to go too far off. I'll give an example. To

say what the Anaf Yosef says is a she'eilah is how are you how is a person over on the issur of of cooking de'oraita? How do you describe the melachah of cooking? If a fire burning, I take a pot and with raw food and I put it down. What did I do? Nothing. At this moment, nothing. So, when do you become chayav? If it cooks. But I could come over and take it off, and nothing happens. So, when am I chayav, and why am I chayav? I didn't do anything. I took a raw thing, put it on and nothing and nothing cooking. There's a fire on, but it's not cooking. Potential for cooking. Potential for cooking. So, why am I chayav? Not until when it's done. The same thing over there. The fact is I started it and it's bekoach, but I'm not chayav yet. When it happens befoal, then it goes back to me. I put it down. But you could say, \"I put it down, nothing happened, then it cooked by itself.\" The whole melachah of cooking is based on this logic. So, we see here also, you put it down, if it cooks, you're chayav. חייב מיתה, for what? For putting it down? Putting it on a fire, there's nothing wrong. What if I put it down and a minute later I take it off, it's mamash nothing. But but here, so here also, if it happens b'poal, then it goes back to the b'koach that I did it. If it never happens b'poal, not. That's why there would be a she'eilah if a person put some pot on the fire on on Shabbos and it cooks Motzaei Shabbos, like right to the end of Shabbos, is he chayav a חטאת? Yes. But he started. According to the Anaf Yosef, what would be? He'd be chayav? According to the hava amina of the Anaf Yosef if that's happening, then it's after, yeah, then you're not chayav. If according to the maskana that everything is included before, then what cooks after Shabbos, you're chayav.

It's actually a machlokes in the Chakrei Lev... You put it on and it cooks after Shabbos, you're chayav for cooking on Shabbos? According to one shita, yeah. According to one shita. Yeah. And it's the same shita that says which again, now, no חיוב מיתה, no קרבן חטאת, no, but if back to would be קרבן חטאת if he went and did it b'shogeg. There's a she'eilah... He did wrong, but what's the aveirah? Is there an aveirah? He did wrong. Put it on and then he took it off a minute later. Put himself in a matzav. If it's like b'poal, it's like another aveirah. Because Yeah, I mean, it's like spitting in space, you know, and Well, yeah, you're taking a risk on Yeah, yeah, don't play with God. Yeah, you're doing something that might you might come to kill yourself, I mean. If you kill yourself, you're חייב מיתה. Yeah. Who called you to tell you that he asked that as a pshat? What?