Yes, around 7:00. Here the Gemara in בבא מציעא דף ד עמוד ב, the Gemara goes into this inyan of the כלל אין נשבעין על כפירת שיעבוד קרקעות. And when a person is chayav a shvuah, but if the shvuah, the dispute, that is chayav the shvuah deals with karka, with land, then you don't swear. We learned about from all of the klalim, we learn it from the pasuk, that you don't swear. Like if a person is a מודה במקצת, and the din is every time you're a מודה במקצת you're chayav a shvuah, you have to swear. But if it's a case that has to do with karka, you don't swear. Or it has to do even with money, but there's a shtar there of the money, and every time you owe money through a shtar, you could go collect from the קרקע, דממילא that means that this also involves karka and you're patur. Okay. So Tosafos has a kashya here: אין נשבעין על כפירת שיעבוד קרקעות. ואם תאמר למאן דאמר בפרק גט פשוט שיעבודא דאורייתא, מודה במקצת הטענה למה נשבע? הא איכא שיעבוד קרקעות! So that's the sheilah, how is there bichlal according to this shita the whole metzius of a shvuah by a מודה במקצת? Why not? If you hold שיעבודא דאורייתא, which means like this, let me explain it. There's a machloket in the

Gemara whether שיעבודא דאורייתא or not. The fact that your property is mesh ubad for your loan, if you owe someone money, all your property, real estate, is mesh ubad to that loan. Mortgaged. Mortgaged. It's a machloket whether it's a din de'oraita, din derabbanan, this is what it means. The bottom line is, the fact is, only a מלוה בשטר you could collect from the mesh ubadim. Only if you have a loan on a shtar, then you could go and collect, not only from the karka of the person that owes the money, even if he had karka and he sold it to somebody else, you're able to go to the buyer, to the לקוחות, and take it away. But if it's a loan בעל פה, there's no שטר, then you cannot go. You can go to the guy who sold it, okay, but you can't go to the קרקע that was sold to somebody else. The machloket is, is this דאורייתא or is it דרבנן? One sevara is to say that מדאורייתא, if you hold this שיטה שיעבודא דאורייתא, מדאורייתא there is no difference between a מלוה בשטר and a מלוה בעל פה. In both cases, you could go and collect from the משועבדים. המשועבדים are the קרקע that were sold. The רבנן were the ones that came and said that they took away the שיעבוד that's there by a מלוה בעל פה, because of they call it פסידא דלקוחות. Imagine a person's going to buy a field, and all of a sudden they're going to come and take it away. Mimeila if it's a מלוה בשטר, the חכמים said a שטר יש לו קול, so people know. So you'll investigate, you'll find out before you buy a piece of land, you'll find out and you'll know. It's called the title, title search, you'll be able to do it. But if it's a מלוה בעל פה, it doesn't have a קול, so you won't be able to know, so you'll buy a field and somebody will come and take it away. So what's going to be the end? First of all, the guy's going to lose. Second of all, people will be afraid to buy property, to buy land, because they'll never know if it's going to be taken away. So that's why the חכמים said on מלוה בעל פה... If it's דאורייתא, how could the רבנן make such a תקנה? They could. We'll get into that, but this is what, this is a שיטה that שיעבודא ד... If שיעבודא דאורייתא, it means מדאורייתא you could collect from the land whether it's a מלוה בשטר or a מלוה בעל פה. The רבנן were the ones that came and said that a מלוה בעל פה, we took away because of helping the לקוחות. If you hold שיעבודא דרבנן, it's complete opposite. That means מדאורייתא there is no שיעבוד. מדאורייתא no loans has a שיעבוד of the קרקע, the land. The רבנן said that if there's a מלוה בשטר, they added this דין of שיעבוד. According to the first way, they took off the דין שיעבוד by a מלוה בעל פה. According to the, with the שיעבודא דרבנן, they added a שיעבוד. So Tosafos says, according to the סברא שיעבודא ד... דאורייתא, that means מדאורייתא, any loan is a שיעבוד קרקעות. So anytime you have a dispute with somebody, automatically you're dealing with קרקע, because no matter what, whether it's a loan that's בעל פה or a loan that's בשטר, there is קרקע that's backing this loan. So if you're a מודה במקצת, in any case, whenever you're a מודה במקצת, you're dealing with קרקע. So you never could swear. So how is there a מציאות בכלל that the Torah should tell you a מודה במקצת swears? Because there's always קרקע. So Tosafos's answer: יש לומר שמחל על השיעבוד. In a case where only, in other words, according to this שיטה, the whole דין, everyone who מודה במקצת מודה במקצת swears, very seldom! Only if the guy was מוחל the שיעבוד. The מלוה has a שיעבוד, the lender has a שיעבוד of your קרקע, so it's possible he should be מוחל, \"I don't want the שיעבוד.\" Now a person could do that. You could be מוחל money, too. If I owed you money, you could be מוחל my money, so you could be מוחל the שיעבוד. And... מחילה verbally? Yeah, he's saying to him, \"I'm מוחל your שיעבוד,\" and then there is no more involvement of קרקע, you could swear. אי שאין לו כלל קרקעות למשעבד. The guy doesn't have any land! He doesn't have it. What happens if the מציאות is he has no land? Then there's no קרקע involved. So according to the שיטה of שעבודא דאורייתא, the whole דין of מודה במקצת swear is only in such a case. Then Tosafos continues, אבל

לרבי יוחנן דאמר אפילו בפרק שבועת הפקדון, רבי יוחנן says, there's a דין לגבי קרבן, it's קרבן שבועה if a person is כופר בפקדון, a person denies a פקדון that you have, and then you swear, so then you have to bring a korban. So Rabbi Yochanan says like this: if it's a loan that doesn't have a שטר, then you're חייב a korban if you swore that you don't owe it, and then you're found to be lying, you're in it. Why? Because to bring a korban is only there's a shevuah. If this there's a loan that has no שטר, only עדים, then there is no קרקע involved. Because we said by מלוה על פה there is no קרקע. If there's no קרקע, then you there's a דין שבועה. So, the only time you're able to bring a korban for שבועת הפקדון, is if it was concerning a loan without קרקע. But if it יש לו, without שטר, because then there's no קרקע. If יש לו שטר, פטור. If it has a שטר, then you're פטור, משום דכפירת שעבוד קרקעות. Because if there is a שטר, automatically there is the backing of קרקע. If there's backing of קרקע, there's no דין שבועה. So if there's no דין שבועה, there's no דין קרבן. So basically what they're saying here is that Rabbi Yochanan makes the חילוק לגבי דין שבועה between a מלוה על פה and מלוה בשטר. And תוספות, אף על גב דסבר רבי יוחנן שעבודא דאורייתא. Rabbi Yochanan we know holds שעבודא דאורייתא. So according to Rabbi Yochanan, the שעבוד קרקע is in all cases, whether it's a שטר or not. So how does Rabbi Yochanan make a חילוק, and say only by a מלוה without a שטר, that's when there's a דין שבועה, but the מלוה with a שטר, there is no דין? There should be no דין שבועה אפילו by a מלוה without a שטר, because שעבודא דאורייתא. And for this, היינו משום שהפקיעו חכמים השעבוד מלוה על פה. By the time of Rabbi Yochanan's time, already the חכמים had taken away, even if you hold שעבודא דאורייתא, so מדאורייתא it's by everything. דרבנן took away the שעבוד by a מלוה על פה, משום פסידא דלקוחות, because they shouldn't lose. חשיב כאילו מחל לו השעבוד. So ממילא, since the חכמים took it away, it's considered as if you were מוחל. See, Tosefos before couldn't say that. When Tosefos had the first kashya, well how could there be a דין of מודה במקצת? That's a kashya on the Torah. How could the Chumash say מודה במקצת has to swear, there's not שייכות. If שעבודא דאורייתא, it's not you can't answer, \"Well, the חכמים took it off.\" The kashya is before the חכמים. In the Torah how does it? But Tosefos the second kashya is a kashya on Rabbi Yochanan. So Rabbi Yochanan when he said it, even though he holds שעבודא דאורייתא, that means בעצם even a מלוה על פה there's a דין שעבוד קרקע, so באמת he shouldn't have a דין שבועה. But when Rabbi Yochanan said it already the Chachamim took off already. So there's no more שעבוד קרקע. But Tosafos likes to werter it, this is what's going to be the פלא here. Tosafos says since the Chachamim took it off, חשיב כאילו מחל לו השעבוד. So it's like he was mochel, and when you're mochel there's no שעבוד קרקעות. Why does The kashya is, why does Tosafos have to add these few words? Why doesn't Tosafos say very simple, the Chachamim took off the שעבוד קרקעות, so there's no more שעבוד קרקעות? Tosafos says the Chachamim took off שעבוד קרקעות by מלוה על פה, u'memela it's considered as if you were mochel. Who cares that that you're mochel it? There is no more שעבוד because the Chachamim took it off. It's שוואל תעשה. Isn't שוואל תעשה? In דיני ממונות isn't the only שוואל תעשה? In דיני ממונות, the בית דין have to they can do anything. But אפילו שוואל תעשה don't pay. There's no Don't collect from the שעבודים. But they still have the the the שעבוד, even if you don't collect from them. Well, see that we'll see in a second. This is going to what we're going to go into. Lichorah, the she'eilah is why does he say this extra word that it's considered as if he was mochel? So we have to say that this is what Tosafos is learning: in the דין that when the Chachamim

took off the שעבוד, you could learn two ways. You could learn that the Chachamim took away the שעבוד, and now there's no more שעבוד קרקעות, and the Chachamim have a right to take away. Or you can say that the Chachamim did not, or don't want to, or can't take away the שעבוד. All they could do is they could say, \"Don't pay.\" That's what they could say. Because we have a klal, another thing, that the chachamim have no right, can't have an effect on the cheftza, they can only do on the gavra. In other what they're saying it's basically it's all taken from a Nesivos. Nesivos says that when a person does an איסור דרבנן בשוגג, doesn't need a kaparah. Chesed LaAvraham is moiche, why not? You did why chesed if you do an עבירה דאורייתא בשוגג you need a kaparah, we all know that. A chatas, it's all kind And an עבירה דרבנן you say you don't need? But Chesed LaAvraham explains by de'oraita If the Torah says something is not it's asur, the object is asur. This is treif, yeah, if something is treif, this is treif, it's ne'esar. So whether I ate it beshogeg or bemezid, like someone says poison won't hurt me if I didn't know. I didn't realize it's poison, but it's gonna hurt me. It's poison, it's poison, same thing here. I ate something treif and I need kaparah, I need it. The rabbanan when they said something is asur, they have no koach to change the cheftza. So if they say milk that cholov akum is asur, they didn't say this becomes, using the chasidishe term they didn't make it שלוש קליפות הטמאות, it's not What they said was the chachamim have a right to tell the people what to do. So they could tell him the gavra, you can't eat this. You can't eat this. A בעל חוב can't say it's not a get, it's really a get. Yeah. No, if it it it doesn't This is not about if. This is if you hold the shita, you're right. So if you hold this way, the chachamim cannot change the cheftza, they can only act the person. It's not a pshat, I mentioned many times it's not a pshat. In Tanya is mashma not like that, cause in Tanya, when he gives an example is that someone eats טריפה food, בלא הודע, בשוגג, even if it's אסור only מדרבנן, it goes into קליפה and even if you use the כח that you have from that food to davven or learn, it doesn't go up and it says yet until Mashiach, whatever. But you could do No, cause it's teshuvah like anything. From טריפה food you could also do teshuvah. But he mentions דרבנן, it's mashma that even דרבנן is an איסור on the חפצא. Whatever the Rogatchover said is you know there's everybody writes against it and in Tanya he says, it's a peshat, whatever. על דרך זה you could say here also that according to this you could say that רבנן have no right to change the שיעבוד. The קרקע is משועבד to me, רבנן can't say it's not משועבד. All they could say is the גברא. They could say to the person: you can't collect from that. You could tell the guy you don't have to give it. They tell the לקוח, the one who bought the field, don't give it. And we have to listen to חכמים. חכמים tells the guy, you want to collect it, there's a שיעבוד there, but we don't we don't want you to collect. And there is such a thing bichlal, it'll come out a strange thing, that something is משועבד to me and at the same time I can't take it. It's mine and I can't take it. On clear title also. So, but we find that by a lot of things. And then the other shiur I explained באריכות. You'll find a lot of examples where we find that we divide the חיוב into two parts: you owe the money and then you have to pay. There are two things. The best re'iyah remember I gave is from מכירת שטרות that says if you sell a שטר, he owes me money and I have a שטר he owes me money, and I sell the שטר to him, now he owes him. I have a right to be מוחל the חוב and that's it, now it's gone, right? I have to pay him because I'm a מזיק, that's something else, but right? So the question is: makes no sense. If I sold it, so now you owe it to him. You have to give it to he has to give I'm out of the picture, how could I be מוחל? The answer is like this: we divide it. The חיוב is to me, but paying you have to pay him. In other words, he has the the דין to collect from you, but the חיוב the חיוב is mine. Since it's mine, I can be מוחל. So they explain because the רבנן make took off the שיעבוד there's a שיעבוד קרקע, רבנן didn't take it off, they can't take it off according to this סברא. But what they could do is to the גברא. The other way to learn is no, רבנן have yeah have a right, especially when it comes to ממונות, to money matters, הפקר בית דין הפקר, the Torah gives the חכמים the כח to take money that's yours and give it to him. So they have such a כח like that. So here there are two ways to learn. Actually, there's a מחלוקת ראשונים in before in the Gemara which is באמת תלוי in these two ways. What's the מחלוקת? The מחלוקת before is like this: that's called Rav Chiya, it's not of Rav Chiya, חייא קמייתא, it's a דין of Rav Chiya. חייא we spoke about that the other week. What did Rav Chiya say? Like this: We know there's a דין of מודה במקצת. If I say you owe me a $100, you say oh, you owe me 50, you're a מודה במקצת, you're חייב a שבועה. Then Rav Chiya comes with another case: I tell you you owe me a $100, you say I don't owe you a penny. You're a כופר הכל. But we have two עדים who come and say we know that you owe 50. So Rav Chiya says this is like a a מודה במקצת. Even though he wasn't מודה, but it's like a מודה במקצת. And ממילא חייב שבועה? And ממילא חייב שבועה. That's the חידוש of Rav Chiya קמייתא, that you're חייב שבועה. What did the עדים say? The עדים said you owe 50. How do they know that you owe 50? So there's a מחלוקת ראשונים. Rashba and Ritva they all say the פשט is the עדים came and said that we know that you borrowed 50. We don't know whether you paid or not, but we know you borrowed. So Rav Chiya says when this case happens the 50 that the עדים say you have to pay, like a מודה במקצת, when you're מודה 50 you have to pay, and the rest you swear. Same thing here. So the Rashba and the Ritva and the Ran, they say this is the case: the עדים come and said we saw you borrowed. That's it. He claimed, I never borrowed. What we do is we combine the two. You the עדים say he for sure borrowed. He says I never borrowed. כל האומר לא לויתי כאומר לא פרעתי. If he says I didn't borrow, that means he admits that he didn't pay. So what do we do between the two? You have to pay, so you have to pay the 50 that What would be a case where the עדים come, not only do they say we know you borrowed, we know you borrowed and we know you didn't pay. We know clearly you didn't pay. It would should be the same thing, also, like a מודה במקצת, so to say. The Rashba says, no, here, Rabbi Chiya wouldn't say you swear. And he gives a reason why. Because, no, not claims, because when they say this, you could collect, it's משועבדים, you collect from the קרקע, but he claimed he didn't borrow. So who cares what he says? Two עדים say that you did. Two עדים say you did, it's a מודה במקצת. He's not מודה, he says, I either כופר הכל. But when two עדים say that you borrowed and you didn't pay, it's also it's like the same case of Rabbi Chiya, but they say there's a reason why this wouldn't work. Why? Because in this case where the עדים say clearly you owe the money, you could go and collect from the קרקע. So how could you swear if you don't swear by קרקע? מילא the first way where עדים didn't say you owe, how do we know that he owes? We combine what the עדים said with what he is מודה. If he is מודה, you can't go to the לקוחות. You can't go to the buyers and say, give it to us. How do you know he owes? What do you answer? Oh, because he said so. It's all based on what he said. His being מודה cannot affect the buyers. You could be מודה for yourself, הודאת בעל דין for yourself, you can't affect somebody else. So in the case where two עדים come and say we know you owe, the לקוחות have nothing to answer. How do you know he owes? How do you know he owes? The two עדים. But the other case where the עדים don't know if he owes, so the only way we know that he owes, we accept his being מודה that he didn't pay. So that you can't collect from לקוחות. So that's why they say the whole דין of Rabbi Chiya could only be in a case where the עדים don't say we know you owe, because if they say we know you owe, there's no שבועה, because it's קרקע. Then on, then comes the Birkat Yosef and says, no, it's in that case also. This is whether the עדים say we know that you owe or not, both cases, even if they say you owe. Correct? There's a הגה״ה he says the Rashba says איבעית אימא. So if if it's a case where the עדים say we know that you owe, how do they know? We saw you borrow and you never, the last week and the whole week you were with us and we saw you didn't pay. Ai the kashya is in such a case you could collect from the לקוחות, ומילא you're dealing with קרקע. So he says, but after the רבנן took off by, you know, and we're talking about מלוה על פה, there's no שטר, because if it would be a שטר there wouldn't be a dispute, you have a שטר, so there's no שטר. So by מלוה על פה the רבנן took off the שיעבוד. So now there is no more קרקע. So this case could be even a case where they say clearly that you owe, and you still won't be able to collect from the קרקע because the רבנן took that off. Sounds like a very good teretz in Birkat Yosef, that nowadays there's no שיעבוד. How come the Rashba doesn't learn like that, how come the Rashba wouldn't learn like that? Why does the Rashba say clearly that it's not? The Rashba knows that in the in the time of Rabbi Chiya there was no שיעבוד קרקעות already by מלוה על פה, the רבנן took it off. How does he say that if we know for sure that he owes through the עדים, you could collect from the קרקע? The answer is this is a מחלוקת. The Rashba learns that even though the רבנן said that there is no שיעבוד on the קרקע by מלוה על פה, they didn't take off the שיעבוד de jure, they didn't, the שיעבוד is still there, there is a din of שיעבוד קרקעות. What does it mean that the רבנן took off? They said even though there is שיעבוד, you don't pay. But there is a דין שיעבוד on the קרקע. A שיטה that the Birkat Yosef learns, he will learn that when the רבנן took it off, they took it off. Yeah, there is no more שיעבוד, no more שיעבוד קרקעות. And then, why can't you it's it's you won't can't collect from the קרקע, have to swear. The same thing is here, in this case. When Tosafot says, according to Rabbi Yochanan, why is there a דין שבועה in the case of מלוה על פה even though שעבודה דאורייתא, he says because the רבנן took off the שיעבוד. But Tosafot adds that's not enough, and ומילא, the guy knows he's מוחל. Why does Tosafot add that? Because Tosafot follows that שיטה that the רבנן did not take away the שיעבוד מן הקרקע, they

can't do it. They didn't take away the, ומילא, yeah, ומילא they didn't take away the שיעבוד from the קרקע. So Tosafot's תירץ wouldn't fit if Tosafot would say you know why there's a שבועה of מלוה על פה according to Rabbi Yochanan, because the רבנן took it away. Well, Tosafot said that's no good. The רבנן, they said don't pay, true, but they didn't take it away, you can't take it away. That's why Tosafot has to add, seeing that the רבנן say you don't pay, ומילא the guy knows already he's not going to get paid anyway, so he's מוחל. So the reason is because he's מוחל. So this is seems to be according to that שיטה. This explains also the מחלוקת between Tosafot, further in Tosafot, with the Ran in Shevuot. Not to get into the deal, the details of the Tosafot, but it comes out from Tosafot like this, when the רבנן took off the שיעבוד קרקעות by מלוה על פה, Tosafos learns they only took it off from the קרקע that you sold. The קרקע that you sold, you, the רבנן said you can't, and it makes sense, תקנת הלקוחות, because they're going to lose. What happens to קרקע that you didn't sell? You still have קרקע, it's called we call it בני חורין. Is there a שיעבוד קרקע מדרבנן on that מלוה על פה? So Tosafos says, \"Yes.\" One second. There are in Shavuos Tosafos ישנים, not like that. The Ran in Shavuos says, what the רבנן took off in a מלוה על פה the דין of שיעבוד קרקעות, even if he didn't sell, even from בני חורין, he says. So that means that you can't collect from the קרקע? That's not true. You could collect you could collect from the מטלטלין also. If I owe you money, you could come to me and collect from anything I have. So you could collect from the קרקע like you collect from any possessions that he has, but the דין שיעבוד that there is on קרקע, when the רבנן took off שיעבוד קרקעות from a מלוה על פה they took it off from there too. And it's not just the bottom line is the same. One second, I'll tell you. לכאורה סוף כל סוף you could collect. Call it like this, call it There's a nafka mina lehalacha. He doesn't say it, but if you think about it there's a nafka

mina lehalacha. Nafka mina is like this: The Rambam paskent, what happens if you have two loans and they come to collect, who do you pay first? The Rambam says like this: If there is a שיעבוד קרקעות, so the one that his שיעבוד is first he collects first. If there's no שיעבוד קרקעות and you come to collect, כל הקודם זכה. Whoever is first is first. In this case, where the guy has קרקע, if it's a דין שיעבוד like this like Tosafos says, if it's a דין שיעבוד, then he gets first. If it's like the Ran says that it's not שיעבוד, it's just you could collect from his possessions, it's not a שיעבוד, then כל הקודם זכה, whoever comes first. So there is a But the שאלה is what's the sevara of the machloket between them? The logic behind it. So the sevara is lichora based on what we said before. Tosafot goes לשיטתו. That Tosafot holds that the חכמים did not take off, cannot they did not take off because they only did it במעשה בפועל, בפועל you don't pay. So where is it? Only where there's a פסידא דלקוחות, only where it's going to be a loss. And here, why would you say no don't pay? There's no loss here. If you learn they took off the concept of שיעבוד on קרקע in a case like that, and it makes sense that they took it off even if you didn't sell it. And I'll explain it even a little bit, I wouldn't say deeper, but a little bit better. When the חכמים took off the שיעבוד from קרקע, when did they take it off? When you sold it? That's when they took it off? Because you sold it, there's no more שיעבוד? No, it's The peshat is משמע, if they took it off, they took it off from before. In other words, when you get קרקע, if it's a מלוה על פה, what they said was, לית דחשיש לשיעבוד! Or not, because there is a philosophy when No, but the רבנן, when they took off, what happened when you sold it? The רבנן should In other words, to say it's much harder to say there is a שיעבוד on קרקע when you have it, and then when you sell it, it falls away. Because the רבנן had a reason to make I understand, the truth is I'll tell you like this. I'll tell you like this. That would mean before you sold it. Now, if they took it off from before you sold it, that permits him to that that someone should be able to buy. Right, right. That permits I want to say you are right, you are right, when it comes to דיני דרבנן, anything works. In other words, the רבנן said they could say whatever they want, whatever they feel. Whenever we have a kushya how come in this case like this, like this, it's all by דאורייתא, but דרבנן first they make גזירות, they saw the situation and they made a גזירה. Tosafot says in many places, by גזירות דרבנן אי אפשר להשוות גזירה לגזירה, so you can't We don't know it, so מילא obviously. So it's not a kushya to say a סתירה. But what we're trying to understand, to explain what is his sevara. Right. So I'm trying to say his sevara is that the רבנן when they took off, they took off the שיעבוד off the קרקע. Tosafot, they didn't take off anything, they just tell you don't pay. So it makes sense, when did they tell you don't pay? Because there'd be a loss to the guy. But there's no loss to the guy, why should they say don't pay? Why should they say don't take from the קרקע? מה שאין כן, according to if you learned that it's a שיעבוד took away the קרקע, when did they do that? על פי פשט, it's not at the moment when you sell it, that's when the שיעבוד falls away. Makes more sense to say that our חכמים say, if it's a מלוה על פה, לית דחשיש לשיעבוד on the קרקע. When does it לית דחשיש לשיעבוד? From the beginning! So ממילא, if you didn't sell it, there's also no שיעבוד. That's the Ran. So it makes sense that this is the מחלוקת, it's not all based on this נקודה obvious. Now,

there is another way we could explain the מחלוקת between Tosafos and the Ran, and בכלל this סברא of Tosafos here. בהקדם a different ענין in in in the same שיעבודים, there is a דין in Bava Basra, דף קמ\"ה, that we all know a דין, a בכור takes פי שנים. A בכור takes double ירושה. But it's a דין, he only takes במוחזק, not בראוי. That means he only takes from whatever is available at the time of his father's about it. But let's say anything that comes in later, someone owes his father money, and after he died, comes to the children to pay. From that he doesn't get double. אין גובין מ מראוי כבמוחזק, only במוחזק, only what you have. And the Gemara says, אמר רב פפא, הלכתא says ההלכה is that even if קרקע came in, which means there was land which was משועבד to the loan to the father, and it guy brought it and you collected it after the father died, the בכור doesn't get double. Doesn't get double. Yeah, he doesn't get double. דאך Tosafos, v'tzarich iyun. What a לשון Tosafos? You have the You find it more by Rabbi Akiva Eiger, you don't find it in Tosafos. V'tzarich iyun. He says the Gemara in Gittin Pashut, דף קע״ה, the Gemara over there says that this דין only fits if you hold שיעבודא לאו דאורייתא. If מדאורייתא there is no שיעבוד, ממילא, anything any land that you take, till now it wasn't yours. When did it become yours? When they gave it. When did they give it? After the father died, so it's nothing. But if you hold שיעבודא דאורייתא, that means that מדאורייתא it's משועבד, so it was the whole time משועבד, so when the guy died, it already it was there then. So Tosafos, because Rav Pappa holds שיעבודא דאורייתא, so how does Rav Pappa say here that he doesn't collect from the משועבד from the פי שנים? And Tosafos Tosafos doesn't answer it. What? Very good question. He says it so I don't know, we're talking both about ירושה. Both are about ירושה, that if a person ירשנ׳ס, but he ירשנ׳ס קרקע, so Rav Pappa says you don't collect from the from don't get פי שנים. And and the and it seems to say, according to the Gemara in Get Pashut, that this only fits if there's no real דין שיעבוד. If you hold שיעבודא דאורייתא, there's a real דין שיעבוד, that means it belonged the whole time. Before you even got it, it's already yours. Mah she'ein kein if you hold שיעבודא לאו דאורייתא, then you say till now it wasn't yours, now it became yours. Rav Pappa holds שיעבודא דאורייתא. How does in the world did Rav Pappa say that the בכור does not get פי שנים in the case like this? The she'eilah is not only on Gemara, the she'eilah is actually on the Rambam, because the Rambam paskens both things. In one place, the Rambam says clearly there's a שיעבוד מן התורה, Maggid Mishneh says the Rambam paskens שיעבודא דאורייתא. And the

Rambam says clearly in another Hilchos Nachalos, the same דין that a בכור doesn't get פי שנים if it comes later. And he says even though he collected קרקע. In Gemara, the lashon is that he doesn't get פי שנים in any money that comes in later, בין מטלטלין בין קרקע. Makes equal. The Rambam says af al gav even though he collected קרקע he doesn't get. That was the lashon of the Rambam. Even though, the mashma the Rambam felt the sevara. It's bothering him. He says and still. Okay, so the Rambam but he doesn't say why. What's fact in the sevara? Acknowledging there is a That there's a problem, and af al pi chen hold. But the she'eilah is why. Why is one she'eilah? There's another she'eilah. Not another she'eilah, it's it's against the Gemara in גט פשוט. The Gemara in גט פשוט says clearly that the two things go together. That the only way you could learn like this is if you hold The only way you could say that the בכור doesn't get פי שנים when he collects קרקע, if you hold שיעבודא לאו דאורייתא. אלא מה, so the Yeah, no, but so that so how does the Rambam go against the Gemara? אלא מאי, the answer is very pashut, not the hasvara, the Rambam learns, as it seems, there's a machloket between two Gemaras. Our Gemara says clearly that the same Rav Pappa who holds שיעבודא דאורייתא says that it's still you don't collect from it double. The Gemara in גט פשוט so it's a machloket in Gemara. Good? So, and our Gemara that we're talking, that's the halacha against that Gemara. Because if it tells me הלכתא הלכה, so this is the halacha, the Rambam paskens. Doesn't explain, but they just So the Rambam learned that there is a machloket between the Gemaras. That Gemara holds that if you hold שיעבודא דאורייתא, then you would collect פי שנים from it. This Gemara holds you don't. And I pask like this Gemara. I thought so that everybody No, but he says, I take from the Gemara that this is halacha, and I pask like that. But what is the sevara? Obviously, Tosafot doesn't learn like that. Tosafot has a problem. Tosafot says, look, there is other Gemara, but he has a kashya, he doesn't have a teirutz. In other words, Tosafot does not learn that there's a machloket between two Gemara's. He feels there's not. And memeila, ke'ilu nemer, Tosafot holds it can't be a machloket. It's obvious that the two go together. If you hold שיעבודא דאורייתא, then this doesn't work. And memeila, I don't understand this Gemara. So we have to understand what is the מחלוקת Tosafot and and the and the Rambam. So when they say like this the sevara is this, that it goes into this idea of פעולה נמשכת. Okay, this is a

פעולה נמשכת, which is like a teshuva in the Achiezer, which the רבי מזכיר this inyan, that many things we find is a פעולה נמשכת. What is a פעולה נמשכת? That there's certain things that you do, it's not just that you do it once and it stays that way, but you do it once, and ke'ilu the פעולה has to re-happen again. Perpetuates itself. Yeah, but it has to happen again, not that The ma'aseh, it doesn't say you did it and it stays. בריאת העולם. בריאת העולם, the best dugma is בריאת העולם. In Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, the Alter Rebbe says that המחדש בטובו בכל יום תמיד, so the Eibershter is mechadesh the world, why? And the reason is very pashut. What's the klal? Why would we say פעולה נמשכת? Others don't understand, I once spoke to a Rosh Yeshiva in Lakewood, and I mentioned something פעולה נמשכת. Hooey! He says avir! S'iz avir? Avir! A joke! They don't... You know the story, the Rebbe always told the story of Rav Chaim Brisker that the Rogatchover once said to Rav Chaim Brisker that thought that kiddushin is a פעולה נמשכת, every second is mekadesh again. Rav Chaim didn't like it. Next morning Rav Chaim meets the Rogatchover in the middle of the hallway, whatever it is, he walks over to him, he gives him mazel tov. What's the mazel tov? A fresh chasan again! You just got married, you said פעולה נמשכת. That's the Rebbe told the story. I heard there's an end to the story. The Rogatchover answered him, the mazel tov is also a פעולה נמשכת. You'll have to give it to me again! Anyway, this is just... But what's the klal? He didn't give it to him the first time? Huh? He did give it! The Rogatchover was friends with Rav Chaim, they were actually chavrusa for a while. So he was at the wedding? Probably he wished him mazel tov at one point, yeah. What's the klal? When do we say

פעולה נמשכת or not? So the klal is like this: when you are two opposites, then you have to פעולה נמשכת. What what's the re'iyah? The Alter Rebbe gives an example in Tanya בנוגע to בריאת העולם, he says the re'iyah from קריעת ים סוף. קריעת ים סוף, the water stood up. How did it stand up? There was a wind blowing. So the wind had to be blowing constantly the whole night. Had the wind stopped, it would've come back. Why? Because the nature of water is to stand is to flow. If you're going against the nature, so against the nature you got to constantly do it. Like I always say, this is the I don't know why you need an example from קריעת ים סוף, I have an example from this cup. There's water inside. You know why the water is not falling down? Because there's constantly the wall's holding it up. And you have to You can't say, well, you put it into the cup, now the the water got a shape, now take away the cup, it will It won't stay! If it's against, when it's against its nature, like a velt also, the nature of velt, if you call it nature, is not to be. Be'etzem there is no velt. The fact that there is a velt is just against the way it's supposed to be, the way it is be'etzem. So you got to do it. It's a miracle, then It's true, the Eibershter could have made a miracle and changed it. We find sometimes miracles where the Eibershter changed The Eibershter could have changed the nature of the water and make the water stand. Some hold like that, but not The Alter Rebbe does not hold like that, but some hold that's what happened. רוח קדים עזה is רוח קדמונו של עולם, it doesn't mean a wind. And the פשוט'ער פשט is that it means there was a wind. So you hold the Eibershter didn't change it. The Maharal miPrag talks about this in Netzach Yisrael, that there are different miracles. Some miracles the Eibershter changed, take l'mashal the דם. Miracles, the מכה of דם. The Eibershter actually change the blood the water into blood? Because if you do that, so what would it have to be after the מכה was over? You'd have to empty the whole place. Ela mai, the Eibershter has left the water b'etzem, and was constantly making it into blood. So the moment the מכה stopped, back to water. That's the reason why the Yidden the same thing, when the Yid drank from it, it was water. On the other hand, he brings an example when the Eibershter spoke to Moshe, and Moshe The Eibershter said, \"Put your hand in here.\" Took it out, מצורעת כשלג. Then the Eibershter wanted to change it, what did he do? Put it back in. Why Why didn't the Eibershter just say, \"Okay, from now on, stop\"? Because the Eibershter changed the nature of the hand. So now to change it back, he had to do another פעולה. But the Eibershter could have made that the hand is still a hand, ela mai he's constantly making it And the moment it stopped Anyway, this is just a prat. The klal is that when do you say פעולה נמשכת is when something is against the nature. This inyan of shibud Huh? Like a chasunah? No, by chasunah he says that a זכר and a נקבה to have, there's two opposites, yeah. To have a קיבוץ of a זכר and a נקבה, that's that's against nature, two opposites fighting, that's why it has to be פעולה נמשכת. That's what the Rogatchover says. בריאת העולם also. Huh? It's בריאת העולם. Yeah, they say a maaseh, that's what they say by a marriage. Yeah, yeah. The fighting is the פעולה נמשכת. It's the same thing, often it's in itself, חכמה ובינה. Yeah, yeah. Oh, true. Okay, let's go let's go ask him. The psychiatrist has a פעולה נמשכת. A what? The psychiatrist. They like it! So let's talk about שיעבוד. שיעבוד also seems to be a strange thing. שיעבוד doesn't mean it's mine completely, it's yours, and nevertheless, I have a שיעבוד on it. From when that? It's against it's against the way it is. Be'etzem it's yours, not mine. So when you sell it to me, you give it to me, now it's not yours, it's mine. It's still yours and and mine, so there's a sevara to say that the whole inyan of שיעבוד קרקע is is a פעולה נמשכת. Or you could say לאו דוקא. I mean, even though it's it's מחמת זה, it stayed like that. There's a kinyan there, you got you got a kinyan in the thing, and it's you leave it. I want to say that this is a machloket in ארבע מאה כסף or according to the Rambam the machloket between the two Gemarot, if it's a פעולה נמשכת or not. Why? If it's a פעולה נמשכת, what's the peshat? פעולה נמשכת means it's it's there, Leaves. רצוא ושוב, Chasidut covers it, רצוא ושוב. בריאת העולם is always רצוא ושוב. Why? To say mechadesh every second means it's there, stops, do it again. It doesn't mean stops in time, yeah, like a pause, everything is, yeah. פעולה נמשכת like שיעבוד. If שיעבוד is a פעולה נמשכת, you know what that means? That every second the שיעבוד stops and starts again. So therefore, when the guy died, the second he died, you know what happened? The שיעבוד stopped, and it came again. So mimeila when the guy, when the יורשים get it, they don't get it because it belonged to the father before. That stopped! So why do they get it? Because now it's given. That's called ראוי. The kashya was, if you hold שיעבוד דאורייתא, so there's a real שיעבוד, so if he had a שיעבוד on it from before, why do we say that a בכור will not get double? It's from before. The thing is, the whole פעולה נמשכת is not from before! Everything, everything it's from now. You have to look at what's happening now. And now, the father died, so now and now it's happening. Al derech, we have another place פעולה נמשכת which will give it a little more understanding. There's a machloket, the Ketzot brings a machloket between the Rambam and the Tur: if someone sends a get with a shaliach, and the meshale'ach, the husband, became crazy before he gave the get, can he still give the get? But the husband himself couldn't give a get now, can the shaliach give it? So the Rambam says mid'oraita it's good. Mid'rabbanan they said it's no good. The Tur says mid'oraita it's no good. So the sevara of the machloket is very pashut: is shelichut a פעולה נמשכת or not? And על פי שכל, it makes sense to be a פעולה נמשכת, because whatever I said before is even stronger. Depends which type of shelichut. Even the lowest. The highest, ovadai! I make you a shaliach, you become for me. You can do something for me, you become me, שלוחו של אדם כמותו. You are you, not me. You're still you, you are still you, and it and it works for me. So it makes sense to say that I make you a shaliach, not a peshat I make you a shaliach and now now you're a shaliach, every second the shelichut has to be done over. Or you can say not, I make you a shaliach once, and now you're a shaliach. If you learn it's a פעולה נמשכת, so when he goes and is mekadesh the ishah, when is he being made a shaliach that he's able to mekadesh the ishah? The second before he gives it! The fact that he made him a shaliach before, that's not why I'm a shaliach now. That stopped! The next second, it happened again. So when is he making him into a shaliach? The rega when he's giving it. At that time, there's no, you can't make, he's not normal, you can't make him into a shaliach. But if