What do we hear in Bava Metzia דף ה׳ עמוד א׳? Here is a המשך, a continuation to the סוגיא of הילך. What's the סוגיא of הילך? Rabbi Chiya said a din. I mean this you know there's a din of מודה במקצת. That if a person claims, \"You owe me a certain amount of money,\" and he is a כופר הכל, denies the whole thing, then you're patur. You don't have to swear. You don't pay, because the guy didn't prove it, and you don't have to swear. Rabbanan say you have to swear, but the regular shevuah you don't. When do you have to swear? If you are a מודה במקצת. That means if he says, \"You owe me a hundred,\" let's say, and he says, \"I only owe you fifty,\" or whatever amount, then the whatever you admitted, you have to pay, obviously, and then the rest, you have to swear that you don't owe, and if you swear, you're patur. If you don't swear, then you have to pay. That's the regular din of מודה במקצת. Then here we have a case of מודה במקצת in the form of הילך. Just to be simple, הילך means that Rashi says that \"I admit to part. Let's say you say I owe a hundred, I admit to fifty, but those fifty, like Rav Asher, those fifty are right there. I have them available. It's not the pshat I owe you, good, I'll pay you, I admit I'll pay. הילך, here, here they are. It's available.\" And if that fifty is available, the question is, is he still called a מודה במקצת? But you could look at it, that really he became a כופר הכל, cuz the part that he admits iz arop fun mark. That's that's all. That's here, it's it's available, it's there. Now all we're talking about is the rest. The rest, I'm a כופר הכל, I deny the whole thing. Or not, it's a regular מודה במקצת. So

here we have a machloket between Rabbi Chiya and Rav Sheshet. Rabbi Chiya says הילך is chayav. Even though he said הילך he's still considered a regular מודה במקצת, umemila he's chayav a shevuah like a regular מודה במקצת. Rav Sheshet says you're patur. We learned it before. Just to read what Rav Sheshet says, הילך, it's on דף ד׳, but we're going to go on דף ה׳. Mai taima? כיוון דאמר ליה הילך, when you say הילך, הני זוזי דקא מודי בגווייהו, the amount of money that he's מודה, כמאן דאנקט ליה למלוה דמי, it's as if he has it already. ובאינך חמשין, the other fifty, לאו מודי, he's not מודה, he's כופר הכל. The halacha is like Rav Sheshet, that הילך is patur from a shvuah, a שבועה דאורייתא. So the Gemara on דף ה׳ עמוד א׳ says, asks a שאלה, ולמאן דאמר הילך פטור, according to the one that says הילך is patur, which was Rav Sheshet, and which is the הלכה, אמאי איצטריך קרא למיעוטא קרקע משבועה? We have a special limud from the pasuk, that if you have a dispute concerning land, you're patur from a shvuah. A כלל ופרט וכלל, we learn out, whichever way, that if you dispute is over שטרות, over documents, or over land, or over עבדים, which is like land, you're patur. But the Gemara asks, why do we need a special limud to teach you that if your dispute is over קרקע you're patur? והא כל קרקע הילך הוא! Anytime a dispute is of a קרקע, let's say I say you owe me an acre of land, you say you only owe half an acre. So the half an acre that you admit is הילך, it's there. It's not like money, say, \"I used it up,\" or some object which I don't have. You can't steal land, you can't put it in your pocket. So if I admit, \"Yeah, yeah, you're asking, I owe you this land from here to there. No, no, I owe you only this land.\" Okay, this land, if I if I say I owe it to you, it's there. So every land is הילך. So if הילך is patur, so without a special pasuk to teach you that land is patur from a shvuah, you'd be patur anyway, because it's it's הילך! Asks the Gemara a she'eilah. So the Gemara answers, אמר לך, I'll tell you, איצטריך קרא, we need the pasuk to a case where it's land, but it's not הילך. And

where is land not הילך? If I admitted to the land, where is it not הילך? So the Gemara gives a case, היכא, no, no, היכא דחפר בה בורות שיחין ומערות, that you dug holes in it. In other words, in the part that, let's take the simple peshat, that that למשל, he says, \"You owe me this piece of land,\" he says, \"I only owe you this piece,\" and this piece had all the holes in it. And Rashi says, לאו הילך הוא, it's not הילך, שויה קלקלה, he spoiled it. When I when he claims, \"I took the land from him,\" the land was worth, let's say this whole piece of land was worth a hundred dollars, so half is worth fifty. I admit to this land, to the fifty, but I can't say the land is there and take it, because I spoiled it. So what do I have to do? I'll have to give you money instead. So here, it's not הילך, not if a regular land, this is not הילך. So if we'd only have the din of הילך, we wouldn't know that you're patur in this case. And that's why we need a special pasuk that if it's קרקע, since it's קרקע, you're patur. Because we divide the two. The part that you're מודה, what would be if he actually gave it to him. See, הילך doesn't mean he actually gave it. What would be if he say, you say I owe you 100, I owe you 50, here, take it. You take the 50. What are we talking about now? But you say, \"No, you owe me the other 50.\" I say, \"No, I don't.\" So now we're really dealing with 50 and I'm a כופר בהכל. And and מודה במקצת is gone. No, but if you didn't give him yet, make the distinction. He's He's giving Yeah, if you gave it, then you separated that. But if you didn't give it, we're dealing You're asking for 50 a 100, I'm giving you 50, I'm I'm מודה 50. If I say I gave you the 50, it's not מודה במקצת. I gave you already? Yeah, already paid you the 50. That's כופר בהכל. You say I owe you 100, I say I owe you nothing because I like I paid you already. No, but we say I say I didn't pay. But if I say I didn't pay now or owe you, that's not הילך. So, we're still talking about 100 and I'm מודה to 50. But if I give it to you, or it's available, right? Rashi uses a לשון here, לא הוצאתים, I didn't spend it, והנם שלך בכל מקום שהם, whatever it is, it's yours, it's there. So Sheshet says in this case, it's not מודה במקצת. But the question is every קרקע, every time I'm מודה in קרקע, should be הילך, so you should be patur. So why do we need a pasuk to tell you קרקע is patur? So we answer, in the case where the part that you קרקע that you're מודה, I can't tell you, \"Take it,\" cuz I spoiled it. So, mimela You can claim the land anyway. You've spoiled it, but You could say, \"Go ahead, move in. It's yours. I I didn't take it away from anywhere. When I'm מודה the land is yours, it's yours. Wherever it is, it's yours.\" And no condition, you know, if you borrow land, you can't dig your holes in it? You stam what implies you could, so Okay, but if you can't give it back, that's why you have to pay. Why not? It depreciates Well, it depends on what you made up. Well, if you made up you could, you could, but if not, then obviously you can't. If I borrow yours, I can make holes in it, make holes in it? So, mimela the Gemara answers that the case where the Torah tells you that קרקע is patur from a shevuah is the case where you made the holes. I nami, another pshat the Gemara says, היכא דטענו כלים וקרקעות, hey, the case where he claimed him כלים וקרקעות. If he says, \"You owe me כלים (chattels) and land.\" And he's a מודה במקצת because he admitted to the כלים, and he denied the land. That's not הילך, הילך is only in the part that I admit. So we're still disputing over קרקע, but it's not הילך. So normally you would think you're chayav a shevuah. So the pasuk teaches you you're patur. But we're going to talk about this first pshat. That the case is where he says, \"I owe you the land,\" he's מודה to the land, but there are holes there.

Based on this Gemara, the Rambam comes up with a din. And the Maggid Mishneh here says that the Rambam takes it from this Gemara. The Maggid Mishneh on the Rambam says the Rambam takes it from this Gemara. What's the din? He says like this: If somebody says to his friend, \"You made two holes, you damaged my קרקע. I know you made two holes in my קרקע. There's a damage. $100 worth of damage. I want you to pay me the money.\" And he's a מודה במקצת. He says, \"You know, I only made one. The other one, someone else I don't know. I only made one.\" He's a מודה במקצת. But the Rambam says he's patur from a shevuah, because we're dealing with קרקע. And he takes it from this Gemara, cuz this Gemara says it's called קרקע. And even though he's asking him for money, cuz the whole point here is, I'll explain it. The Raavad argues. The Raavad says that this is not called קרקע. If he says to him, \"You made two holes, and I want you to fill them up,\" and he says, \"No, I only made one and I'll fill it up,\" that's called קרקע. That's called claiming קרקע. But if he says to him, \"You made two holes, it's a damage, pay me for the damage. Give me money. Give me $200.\" It's money. And he says, \"No, I only made one and I'll pay you $100.\" That's called money. That's not called he's modeh in קרקע, cuz he's asking for money. But the Rambam doesn't hold like that. The Rambam holds דמים That's the לשון of the Maggid Mishneh. דמים הבאים מחמת קרקע, money that's claimed which comes because of קרקע is called קרקע. And therefore, the Rambam פסקנ'ס that in that case, you're patur from a shevuah, even though he's a regular modeh b'miktzat, he's claiming you owe me $200, he's only he's modeh to a 100, but since it's called קרקע. And the Raavad says, \"No, that this is not called קרקע unless he says he asks him to fill it.\" And then he says, \"I have a ראיה that money that,\" he doesn't say these words, \"that even though it's because of קרקע, the סיבה is קרקע, but if לפועל you're claiming money, it's not called קרקע.\" What's his ראיה? We find a Mishnah in Shevuot: If someone says to the other guy, \"You know, you hurt me twice, beat me up twice and you made a נזק to me twice, and you and you made a נזק you have to pay,\" and he says, \"I only made a נזק once.\" So the Mishnah says you're chayav a shevuah modeh b'miktzat, you're a modeh b'miktzat. Now, the דין is that אדם הוקש לקרקעות, it says עבד הוקש a person is like קרקע. So here we have the exact same case: he's claiming money based on what? on hurting the person, which is קרקע, like קרקע, and nevertheless you're chayav. So the Raavad says from here we see that if you're claiming money that comes because of קרקע, it's not called קרקע, and you're chayav a שבועה. Same thing here, if you're claiming money because you made a hole in my land, and therefore I want you to pay me for it, even though it's מחמת קרקע, because of קרקע, it's called money, not קרקע, which is opposite of the Rambam. He's מודה in a case where he says, \"Fill it up.\" Comes the Magid Mishnah, and the Magid Mishnah says like this, first of all, when the Raavad makes a chiluk between filling it up and not, I don't understand that. How can you tell the guy to, you can tell the guy how to pay? If a guy made a נזק, there's always a din, if a guy made a נזק you have to pay. You could pay cash, the din is you could pay with מטלטלין, the Gemara allows, you could pay it with סובין, you could pay anything. Huh? Whatever יש. In the case where he hit him, no, no doctor. You made a damage in the קרקע. You bring it back to its original? So the din is, no, you made a damage, you have to pay me for the damage. I can't tell you how to pay me, I want you to go and buy, buy sand and fill it up. I can't tell you, whatever you want you could do. So he says, what does the Raavad mean that it's only good in a case where he asks him to fill it up? You can't ask the guy to fill it up, that's one thing. Then he says, בנוגע the kashya that he asked, that we see that if he says, \"You hit me twice,\" and he said, \"I only hit you once,\" and you're chayav a שבועה, even though it comes from a person and a person is קרקע, so he says, I have to tell you that the Rambam holds that the din is עבדים are קרקע. עבד כנעני is considered like קרקע. We learn out from a pasuk, \"והתנחלתם אותם\", you should make it inheritance, but not another, not a regular person. That's the Magid Mishnah. Comes the Mishneh LaMelech, and the

Mishneh LaMelech says like this, first of all, he tells the Magid Mishnah, \"Listen here, there is a case where you could ask him to fill it up. When? If the sand is still available. Because the din is like this, if someone, let's say an example, if someone steals something, והשיב את הגזילה אשר גזל, you have to give it back. If I steal this, I have it, I can't tell you, 'Okay, how much was it worth? A thousand? I'll pay you for it.' You can't. You've got to give him back the object. If you don't have the object, then you pay money. So here also, if he still has the sand, he can ask him to fill it up. So there is a case. Okay, that's beside the thing.\" בנוגע the Mishneh LaMelech, what the Magid Mishnah answered. He dug the hole and put the sand on the side of the hole. So he says, \"Yeah.\" So you have to put it in. But בנוגע, he says, what the Magid Mishnah says that a person is like is is only an עבד is like קרקע, so answered the Raavad's kashya, only an עבד is like קרקע, not a regular person, says that's not true, that's not what the Rambam holds. Because emes is it's a machloket between Rashi and Tosafot in קידושין דף ז׳. Rashi holds every person is like קרקע, Tosafot says it's only עבד. So he says that I have a re'ayah, brings a re'ayah that the Rambam holds every person is קרקע. Now if every person is קרקע, we're back to the kashya. According to the Mishneh LaMelech, every person is קרקע, to the kashya of the Raavad. If every person's like קרקע, so how come the din is that if he tells him that, \"You hit me twice,\" and he said, \"I hit you once,\" you're chayav of מודה במקצת when the whole thing comes, and he's asking him for money, the whole thing comes מחמת קרקע, מחמת a person, which is like קרקע, and you're chayav. So how does the Rambam say you're patur? The Ketzot brings this Mishneh LaMelech, brings this din, and he says that kashya, he has an answer with the Ran. He has a whole answer there. I couldn't find the Ran what he brings. When I looked in the new print of the Ketzot where they always put in new מראה מקומות, I didn't see a מראה מקום there, so I don't know where it is. But he says that the Ran says in the case where he says, the Raavad's case is you hit me twice and he says I only hit you once, so he says in that case where a guy admits he hit him, it doesn't have to be fully like a regular מודה במקצת, and therefore there is no kashya. But you know I have a different kashya on the Rambam from a different din. The Ran says? Huh? No, the Ketzos. The Ketzos says this is his answer based on the Ran, but I have a different kashya, and that's that's a strong kashya. There's a din, and the Rambam brings the din too, someone says to a person, \"אנסת את בתי, you were an אונס, you forced my daughter.\" And there's a din that when you do that, you have to pay צער, ריפוי, שבת, you have to pay a certain קנס and you have to pay for צער. So if he says that, and the guy answers, \"לא אנסתי, I didn't do it,\" ונשבע, and he swore, and then we find him lying. So normally there is a din like this, if a person lying after Yeah, after he swore you bring edim that he was lying, so he's chayav a קרבן שבועה, שבועת הפקדון. There is a din, a special din, which we learn out from pesukim, that if a person denies, let's say, a loan and he swears, even if he didn't have to, but he swears, and then we bring edut against him, that's called שבועת הפקדון, and that's a shvuah, and for that you have to bring this special korban, etc., etc. The din is,

when do you have to bring this special korban? If the shvuah was a valid shvuah, had a din of a shvuah. The din is, in this case that if he says אנסת את בתי, you did it to my daughter, and he says לא אנסתי, ונשבע, and he swore, and then we bring edim against him, he is chayav a קרבן שבועה because the swearing that he did has a din of a shvuah. So he asks the kashya: why does that have a din of a shvuah? Since he's talking about doing something to a human being, אנסת את בתי, and according to the Mishneh LaMelech says the Rambam that if you do it to a human a human being is like קרקע, so the whole claim he has is from קרקע. So if the claim קרקע, so the shevuah that he swore is not really a shevuah, because not only you're not chayav even if you swore, cuz the Gemara comes out that if it's by קרקע, by קרקע there's no דין שבועה. Even if you swore, it doesn't count. So here, he swore and we count it as a shevuah, and that's why he's called chayav a קרבן שבועה. Man and woman would be different? No, a person is a person, no. So here we have a case, he says against the Rambam. It's exactly like the Rambam's case. Rambam is actual קרקע that you're claiming money because you made a damage on קרקע, that's called קרקע. Here, he's asking for money because he did something to the woman, to the person, which is also קרקע, and here it says you it's called a shevuah, you're chayav a קרבן שבועה. So how come here the Rambam says that it's not? So the kashya on the Rambam. Is קנס different from דמים? Not only קנס. Only קנס. Because the קנס is different, yeah, but we're talking about פגם. You pay פגם, it says. But פגם is נזק, it's ממש paying the נזק. The emet is, in the next halacha of the Rambam is another halacha, which I don't know why the Tosafot doesn't bring it, because it has the same kashya. The Rambam is aware of this. If someone says to somebody: חבלת בי, not the case of made- we said before you did it twice, you hurt me twice, it's only to one, he says to a guy: חבלת בי, you hurt me, and he says: לא חבלתי, I didn't do it, and he swore, and then they brought עדים against him, he's chayav a קרבן שבועה. Why? Because you swore where he says you're chayav, you swore that you're patur, and you were found wrong, you bring a קרבן שבועה. Same kashya: why is this shevuah called a shevuah? קרבן שבועה we said only comes if the shevuah you did was a valid shevuah, but if the person is called like קרקע, so when he says you hurt me, you hurt קרקע, and that's why I'm claiming money. So money that comes with קרקע is considered money and it's called a shevuah, and it's not considered קרקע, otherwise he wouldn't be a קרבן שבועה. So what's the difference between this and the case of digging, when he says you dug fa- two holes, and he says I only dug one. So the Rambam says he's not called, he's a מודה במקצת but he's not chayav קר- and chayav shevuah because it comes from קרקע. Hold it, it's the re'iyah of the Raavad! The Raavad says that if it comes from קרקע, but as long as you're asking for דמים, it's called דמים, it's called money, it's not קרקע. The Rambam holds that every person is is considered קרקע? That's how the, wait, not not everyone, that's what the Mishneh LaMelech says, but the Maggid Mishneh says פנים אחרות, that's the answer to his kashya. But the מגי- the Mishneh LaMelech brings re'ayot that it is, and the Rambam himself holds like that. Actually, one of the the re'ayot he brings is the Rambam says if you hire a worker, there's no din of אונאה. Right? Say, what did we learn in the Gemara in Bava Metzia? אונאה is you're not allowed to cheat somebody in money. There's a whole shiur if you overcharge him, so under a sixth it's okay, but if it's a sixth, you got to pay the difference, if it's more than a sixth the whole מקח is בטל. By a קרקע there is no din of אונאה, right? You overcharge on land, it's still you can't say you overcharged me. So the Rambam says if you hire a worker and you there's no din of אונאה. Overcharge, undercharge, there's no din of cheating there. Why? Because it's like קרקע. And that's not by an עבד, that's hiring a worker, so it's a clear Rambam, and he brings a clear Rambam. So bottom line is we're a question: what is the difference, why in the case of the חבלה we see that it is called a שבועה, even though חבלה is hurting a person, which a person like קרקע, and by actually digging in the ground is different? So,

say like this: the whole kushya is based on, because we go with the yesod, think from the Rambam a yesod that when you have a סיבה and a מסובב, when you have a cause and an effect, what is counted the ikar? The סיבה or the מסובב? So from the It looks like this is the machloket in the Rambam and the Raavad. Here we have a clear case: the סיבה is קרקע, the מסובב what comes out is דמים, what you're what the ex- is money. Is the ikar, do we look at that the main thing is the סיבה, and therefore it's considered קרקע, that's what the Rambam holds. If the ikar is the מסובב, then it's not קרקע, you're asking for money, that's what the Raavad would hold. And because of that we had a kushya. The other cases that we brought is the same thing: the סיבה there is a person, which is קרקע, and this is and that's why they had the kushya, because that's how they assume the pshat in the Rambam. Which then agav, not to get into the whole המשך, if you learn like that, we could say that in other cases, nothing to do with this case, klal wherever there's a question of what overpowers, what the עיקר: the סיבה or the מסובב, it would seem that Rambam would hold the עיקר is the סיבה and the I would think the מסובב. And I just give an example where we find in other places, but it's not true what I'm saying because the kushya that we have, if we see not in other places, but but be'etzem, the most just there are many places, but just to give one: in Gemara Pesachim, it has nothing to do with this סוגיא, but just an idea. The Gemara Pesachim says, the

Gemara says, if you had nine nine piles of matzah, one pile of chametz, and a mouse came and grabbed one, ran into the house with it. So what's the din there? So the Gemara says, I have a similar case: תשע חנויות, if there are nine stores selling kosher meat, one store sells tereifah meat. So the din is like this: if you find a piece of meat in the street, we say kol d'parish me'ruba parish. Since majority is kasher and this is parish means it moved away, and we found it over here, the stores are here, found it over here, so we go basar ruba. Most is kasher, so we assume it's kasher. If the case is that you walked into a store and you bought and you don't remember which store, oh, then we say, no, that's called kavua. That's, and it's כמחצה על מחצה, that's a 50-50 chance, whatever the reason is, and it's taref, 50-50, is a safek, and you can't, safek de'oraita lechumra. So the Gemara says, from that, we can apply the same logic here: If you found this piece someplace away, after the mouse, you found it here, nine piles of matzah here, one pile of chametz, and you find a piece here that came from there, you go basar ruba, so you assume it's matzah. If you see the mouse walk in and grab from the pile, that's where you see it, and you don't know which one it took, then it would be considered a safek, so it's asur. Legabei what din are we talking about here? So Rashi said we're talking about bedikah. So there was a house that you checked already, and this happened. Do you have to recheck the house? Because mouse just came in, so if it's parish, you assume it's matzah, you don't have to check. If not, not. Comes Tosafot and

Tosafot asks a kushya on Rashi and says, how could the Gemara compare this דין to the case of the meat? The case of the meat is a איסור דאורייתא. You can't eat tereifah meat. So if you walked into the store, it's an equal safek, we פסקן and a ספיקא דאורייתא לחומרא. בדיקה is derabbanan. So how could you compare the two? Therefore, Tosafot says, no, we're not talking about בדיקה. We're talking here about eating it. Can you eat it or not? Is it chametz or is it matzah? And that's what the Gemara compares. The Rambam learns פשט in the Gemara as we see like Rashi. The Raavad learns like Tosafot. What is the נקודה of the מחלוקת? פשוט. What's the שאלה whether you have to be בודק it or not? What's the cause of the שאלה? What is this? Is this chametz or is this matzah? למעשה, what is it נוגע בפועל? Because I want to be בודק. But the bottom line is, is this chametz or is this matzah? So Rashi and the Rambam learn that there's a סיבה and a מסובב. The סיבה is the איסור דאורייתא, is it chametz or matzah. The מסובב is do I have to check. So Rashi and Tos, and the Rambam go after the סיבה. And since the cause is chametz, so we consider it like a דאורייתא. And therefore, we could compare this to the other דין, which is also a דאורייתא. Tosafot says no, if it would be a question of bedikah, we look at the מסובב. And the מסובב is דרבנן, so we can't compare it to a דין דאורייתא. And that's how the Raavad learns. And it all fits, because the Rambam learns here also that we look at the סיבה, so over there he and always looks at the סיבה. The Raavad looks here at the מסובב, over there מסובב. The problem is that we can't say this is the pshat. By chametz maybe, but here you can't, because if the pshat would be that the reason for the Rambam is because you look at the סיבה, we got the problem with the other cases. The other cases, it's also the סיבה, the סיבה of the of the the the shevuah by the guy who says אנסת את בתי, and he says no and he swore, there the סיבה is the person, damage you did to the person, the מסובב is the money, you're asking for money. If the Rambam goes with the general shita that you follow the סיבה, so then the kashya is, why is this different in the case of bedikah? And the same thing with the other case. He says, you hit me. He said, I didn't hit you, and he swore. So obviously there must be a little bit more to it. So I want to say pshat a little bit different. It's not just a general she'eilah of what is the cause and what is the effect, סיבה ומסובב, a little bit different. And the case is like this: we'll start off with something completely completely in another ענין אינגאנצן, which will come out with a nekudah, or whatever will come out, what is the the nekudah, the geder of a תביעה? When you claim something that you want, what is its nekudah, its מהות? We'll see in a second. Start off with something else. The Gemara says in בבא בתרא, רוניא אקפיה רבינא. Ravina surrounded Runya. His fields were around, circled Runya. And he made a fence. Ravina made a fence around. In the meantime, when Ravina made a fence around, the guy in the middle gets gains from it. He gains. It's shemirah, whatever he gains. He's protected, right? Protected. So the Gemara says there's a big shailah, does the guy in the middle have to pay him for a share or whatever? So there's a big machlokes, Gemara, Mishnah, whole thing. The bottom line is there's one opinion that says you have to pay him, but you have to pay him very little. Pay him, even if he put up a very good fence, you could pay him דמי דמי עצי דביזול, the cheapest wood. Okay, that's, yeah, if it's the fourth wall, it's, I'm not, it's not נוגע to the whole shmoes when you have to pay. The case is where you do have to pay. There it says you put up the fourth wall, but in the case where you have to, how much do you have to pay? Do you have to pay 50%, like you have to pay for the wall, or עצי דביזול, or you have to pay the whole thing? So it's a machlokes in the Gemara. When Ravina did his wall, he called, tells Ronia, pay me. What did he want him to pay him? He said, I want you to pay me at least the cheapest wood. So the Gemara is like this: Ronia came, they came to, he came to Rava. What do I do? Rava was the Rav. Rava says to him, you better give him what he asked for, because if not, I'm going to pasken that you have to give the full price. That's what he said to him. Because Rava held, Rava פסקנד that you have to give the full price. Based on this din, זאגט דער Rema in Shulchan Aruch an interesting din. It's a shailah that's nogea lemaaseh for דיינים. Yeah, his share, full full price share. What is a case where you have a din Torah and a guy claims, tells you this and this what happened, and he claims a certain amount of money, and the דיין looks into it, and the דיין sees that really he deserves more, can he pasken more than he asked for? Zagt der Rema, from this din you see you can't, because they came to a din Torah to Rava, and Rava said, give him what he asked for, because if you're not going to give him what he asked for, then I'm going to knas you, I'll make you pay the whole thing. Why didn't he tell him, we came to the din Torah, I'm telling you you have to pay, because Rava פסקנד that you have to, the whole price, he didn't tell him. So the Rema says I see that you can't do that. The Tumim says I have a different peshat in the Gemara. The case was different. It wasn't a din Torah that Ronia came with Ravina. Ronia came on his own, and came to Rava and said, what do I do? So Rava says to him, you know, I'll give you an etzah: he's asking for the littlest bit, give it to him, because if he'll come to a דין תורה, I'll have to pasken, give him give him the whole thing. So what do we see from here? That even if the guy will come and he won't ask for it, he's able to pasken if he owes indeed more. So the bottom line here, we have a machloket: can a person, can the beit din, the dayan, pasken more than the תביעה? More than what he asked for? There's another דין which could be תלוי, connected to this. The Rambam says when you come to a דין תורה, and a guy says, you owe me money, he must specify all the details of why. Why does he owe you? What did he do? Everything. And the guy can't answer, no, I don't. Say why: you didn't borrow, you didn't lend, you didn't, you didn't borrow, you paid back, you have to do this. The Tur brings the Rosh that says he doesn't have to. If the דיינים feel, in order to pasken, they want to know what happened, then they'll ask questions and he has to answer. But he doesn't have to come and say the whole story. He could just say, the guy owes me money, and you could just answer, I don't owe you. The bottom line, what is the נקודה of the machloket? Besides the ראיות from the Gemara, what is the sevara? The sevara is like this: when it comes to a תביעה, and when you claim money, there's two things there: there is what you're claiming, you're claiming money, and then there is the maaseh that happened with the object that you're claiming, which is the cause why you're claiming the money. There's two ways to look at this: you could see like this, what the תביעה, the bottom line is what you're claiming, this is what it is. Then there's a reason why are you claiming, so I have a reason, but this is, the תביעה is this. Or you could say, no, באמת the תביעה, even though I'm asking you to pay me $10, what I'm really asking for is the maaseh that happened, and what I want is that the problem that you made, I want that fixed. Now, in most cases you can't fix it unless you pay me money. But באמת, this is, let's call it the מהות התביעה. What is the מהות of the תביעה? So you could look at it as two separate, this the תביעה is, I'm asking for $10, that's what the תביעה is, and that's what you're dealing with. Why are you asking? Okay, I'll find out. Or the מהות התביעה, even though I'm asking, the bottom line, that's only to show how you can fix it up, but בעצם I'm talking about the object that you broke or whatever, the maaseh that happened. It sounds like the same, but do you see the difference? Not the hurt, the thing that you did, the maaseh that you did, that's the עיקר. One second. So therefore that's the machloket. So the Rambam, ah, says that the beit din could pasken more, not the Rambam, the Rema, the the Tumim says the בית דין could פסקן more, we say why, because the בית דין is not dealing with the תביעה. But one One thing is clear, that בית דין are dealing with the תביעה. The question is, what is the תביעה? So if you hold the תביעה is the bottom line, בית דין can't give more, even though they find out, but בית דין has to deal with the תביעה, with the with the claim. So whatever it is. If you hold the meaning, the real meaning of the claim is the מעשה that happened, is that that's the מהות, is the object which was happened and the מעשה that happened, so then בית דין is not limited to the תביעה he's making. His תביעה really is that, and if בית דין sees that that מעשה that happened deserves more, בית דין can פסקן more. The same thing with the other מחלוקת. Well, how is it how is this different than before? So in effect, that's... One second, we'll see you'll see the nafka mina, that's that's what it is. Okay. Now, the same thing with the other מחלוקת. Does he have to say the מעשה that happened? If you hold that the עיקר of the תביעה is the bottom line, so the thing that you're dealing with is the תביעה. What's the תביעה? What you're asking for. The מעשה, בית דין wants to know the מעשה, I'll tell you. But if the עיקר of the תביעה is the מעשה that happened, that's the, that's why I'm using the word, because that'll be the difference, the מהות of the תביעה is that object. In other words, basically I'm asking you for that object. Fix me that object, that's what I want. Depends on how you learn the פשט in the Rambam... No, nothing to do with Rambam. is two options. Not in the Rambam. The Rambam says clearly that you cannot add. The Rema. The Rema, yeah. The Rema, you said the Rambam. So in this case, whether you could say more or not, is always if whether you have to פרט טענות or not. If the תביעה is what they're dealing with, then we have to hear the תביעה. If we're dealing with, we'll call it a סיבה, but I don't want to call it the מהות of the תביעה, which is the object that we're dealing with, that's the מהות. Basically, the מהות of what I'm asking for is that. So then, then you don't have to, then you have to say what is that, if that's what your claim is. This is what we're talking about here when it comes to our case of the Rambam. The reason the Rambam says by the case of digging the hole, that he says that it's he claims he dug two holes, and he said, \"I dug one hole.\" The Rambam calls it קרקע, because the Rambam holds like we just said, that the ikar of a תביעה is what is the object which you're dealing with. That's, so really he's asking for קרקע. He's asking for קרקע. He didn't say that. He's, bottom line, asking for money. He thinks he's asking for money, but the מהות of what he's asking for is what happened before, I want that corrected. Can we say this idea of מהות when it comes to, you hit me, or אונס ופיתוי? Can we say that over there? The מהות of the תביעה is a person? What, I want you? What I want? אונס ופיתוי and you, what did you do? What do I want be'emet? What is the מהות? That you should change that, bring it back? There's only money! So if you say סיבה ומסובב, then it was, that's that it wouldn't work. Why? Because sof kol sof, the סיבה is person. If you look at the סיבה, the סיבה is person. A person is קרקע. Saying, \"No, that's not this of סיבה.\" Because what you're asking for, not that this is, because סיבה ומסובב means you're asking for money, that's the מסובב. The reason why you ask for money is because of this. I'm saying this is what you're really asking for: you're asking for the object in which the ma'aseh was done. You're asking for that. By a person, can we say you're asking for that? What are you asking for, the person? What, I want you to become my עבד? What what is that? So if you can't say that the מהות is there, so what remains in this case? Money. Money! That's what the Rambam says. In the case where he says you made a hole in my קרקע, so there what's he asking for be'emet, even though he's saying I want money to fix my, but really in theory the מהות is I'm asking for the קרקע. Here I'm asking for the person? Besides the fact that you can't reverse it. See, קרקע in theory reverse, I want a complete קרקע. What are you, you hit me, what I want? Teeth now. What should you do? How do you how do you reverse it? Unhit me. Unhit me, yeah, unhit me! What can you do? Ruined the reputation of my daughter. That's a different thing, that's... You can't fix it. Well, you can't fix it, it's over already. I don't care, but that's already, it's no more. Whatever, no, so what is what is him asking for, not what I'm claiming the, what the problem here. What am I asking for? So here, I'm asking for קרקע. It turns out the מציאות will be to give the money. Here, what am I asking for? I'm asking you to unhit me? Undo the אונס that you did? In, or saying the the חפץ, the person, this is what the מהות, can't be the מהות הטענה! If it's not the מהות הטענה, then what is the מהות הטענה? Money! So in this case, takeh there's a din of money, and that's why the Rambam in this case would say that it's takeh called a שבועה, because it's not קרקע, מה שאין כן in this case, it is called קרקע. Well, that's one way to learn. Then I want to say another way, which will not answer the kashya of the Raavad, but that I said the Ketzos answered it, the other two שאלות, אונס ופיתוי וחבלת בי. What... Did you give Ketzos's answer? Huh? Did you give the... I didn't give it, because it's too compli-, not too complicated, he says, I could tell you, he says in the case where he says you hit me, so on that case, I I mentioned it derech agav. He brings a Ran that it doesn't have to be a real מודה במקצת with with all the דינים. And if it doesn't have to be with all the דינים, so קרקע works there, too. He brings that, that's... הילך would be chayav there, he says, it's a special din he brings. I don't know exactly the detail because I looked for the Ran, I couldn't find, but he asks, he says that I have no problem with, there is the other thing I have a problem. I'll just, a different answer. And here is נוגע what the case is about. The two cases that we said, the Ketzos's question and the other one, אנסת את בתי, does not speak that you're chayav a שבועה, and that's not about מודה במקצת. What happened there? He says אנסת את בתי, you did this to my daughter. He says, I didn't, and he swore! You're chayav a קרבן שבועה, which shows that this is a geder of a שבועה. Same thing says you hit me, so I didn't hit you. He swore, you're chayav a קרבן שבועה. It shows that this is a שבועה. That was a kashya. What I want to say now is to be mechalek a different chiluk: the chiluk between דין שבועה by מודה במקצת and דין שבועה by קרבן שבועה. By מודה במקצת, we learn out the דין שבועה from which pasuk? It says כי יתן איש אל רעהו כסף או כלים לשמור, if you will give to your friend something to watch, and then כי הוא זה, whatever, you're chayav a shevuah. What is the Torah stressing? Which words? כי יתן, you gave. The meaning that the whole discussion is what you gave, what is it that started with? You're dealing with something that he gave you. If you look by the קרבן שבועה, what does it say in פסוק? That if a person said וכיחש בעמיתו, you denied something. So what are we dealing with? With the denial! That's the difference! By מודה במקצת, the Torah says it's what you gave, so depends what it is. So since you you're telling him what you did was the קרקע, even though what I'm what the guy is denying or the guy is מודה is to money, but by מודה במקצת what counts? What you started with. By the other case which is not נוגע מודה במקצת, the other case which is I called they call a קרבן a shevuah, to be called a קרבן שבועת הפקדון, there it depends what you denied. So if you're denying money, even though the money comes because of קרקע, it's takeh it's called it's called it's called not קרקע. So this is the answer to the Rambam. The Rambam will make a chiluk. The Rambam himself paskent in the other cases that it's called a shevuah. So you could say why? Because there we're dealing with is it called a shevuah when it's נוגע the דין of קרבן שבועה. And there it depends, so it's not because the Rambam always holds you follow the סיבה. Oh, that's the reason, why, yes. It's not because he always, not like I, the no pshat, not like before because he holds them מוחזק, תביעה, whatever, תביעה. No, it's very simple. The pshat, the Torah says כי יתן, and for that you're a

מודה במקצת, whatever you gave, whatever it it started with. Over there, takeh it's called קרקע, it started with קרקע, it's called קרקע. By the other case with a with a קרבן שבועה, there it depends וכיחש, whatever you denied. Which this will explain another pshat. Okay, another two minutes, five minutes. Before you go, why did we lechatchilah compare this קרבן שבועה to to to The Gemara does! The Gemara says that קרבן שבועה you're only chayav if the shevuah was a valid shevuah, and by קרקע there is no valid shevuah. If it would be the same thing by קרקע, you wouldn't it wouldn't be a valid shevuah. If someone says to somebody, you owe me this קרקע, and he denies it, and he swears, and they catch him, he doesn't bring a קרבן שבועה. Why? Because it's shevuah by קרקע, שבועה by קרקע doesn't exist. And here we see these three things do exist. There is a shita that the Mishneh LaMelech holds, in a different place, that the Rambam holds that you do swear by שיעבוד קרקעות. We went through this last week. Like this we have a klal: אין נשבעין על כפירת שיעבוד קרקעות. You do not swear if the dispute is connected to a loan, let's say, which has the backing of קרקע. There is another case. אין נשבעין על קרקעות, that's not שיעבוד קרקעות. קרקעות means when I'm dealing with קרקע and you are מודה on half of the קרקע, there is no shevuah. There is no shevuah. So the Mishneh LaMelech says the Rambam holds, when do you say you don't swear by קרקע? Only if you're dealing with קרקע. But if you're dealing with money, and the money has a שיעבוד קרקעות, you do swear. אה, the Gemara here says אין נשבעין על כפירת שיעבוד קרקעות? This is a second teirutz. There's another teirutz in the Gemara, but I'm posek the first teirutz is the right one, is the real one, the halacha, whatever. And he brings re'ayot. I'll give you an example of a re'ayah just to make it a geshmak here. A

woman got married and then her husband divorced her. Comes to pay the ketubah, there is no documents. She says, when I got married I was a בתולה, so the שטר, you owe me $200, 200 זוז. He says, no, you were a בעולה when I married you, I only owe you 100. So the Rambam says he's a modeh b'miktzat and is חייב a שבועה, 'cause he she wants 200, he wants 100. So the Mishneh LaMelech says, חייב a שבועה? By by the דין of ketubah there is שיעבוד קרקעות. The קרקע is backing this כתובה! Right. So he says the Rambam holds that by שיעבוד קרקעות you still swear. You still swear. You still swear. By קרקע you don't swear. Problem is, and this is a, not everyone agrees to this, the Mishneh LaMelech, this is his שיטה. The problem here is the Rambam says a clear דין, that if someone comes with a שטר, says here you owe me the money, a שטר, and he denies it, and swears, and then they bring עדים against him, he's חייב a קרבן שבועה. And he says why? Because there was a שיעבוד קרקעות by the שטר. The guy claims money, not not not קרקע, he came with a שטר, you owe me $200 $100. So the Rambam says that you don't bring a קרבן שבועה here. Why? Because there was a שטר, and the שטר has a שיעבוד קרקעות, and if there's a שיעבוד קרקעות backing the שטר, there's no שבועה. So how could the Mishneh LaMelech say that the Rambam holds that by שיעבוד קרקעות there is a שבועה? The answer is pashut, according to what I said, as we look at it, we're saying that according to the Rambam, by the case of modeh b'miktzat it depends on what it starts with. The case of שבועת הפקדון, it depends not on on what you deny. The case of שיעבוד קרקעות is the exact opposite of our case. What did it start with שיעבוד קרקעות? Started with money. You borrow money. שיעבוד קרקעות is what's later. And we said that by by by the case of מודה במקצת it follows what was before. The case of שבועת הפקדון it follows later. The Rambam's din when he says about not having bringing a שבועת הפקדון is what? Is by שבועת הפקדון. There he says taka that you do swear for שיעבוד קרקעות. Why? Because it's punkt opposite, because by שבועת הפקדון it depends on what's now, and what's now? שיעבוד קרקעות. What started with is with טוענים, with money, and now there's a שיעבוד, you're coming to the קרקע, שיעבוד קרקעות. And if the Rambam follows this klal, then by שבועת הפקדון it's called a shevuah. Where the Mishneh LaMelech says that you do swear by שבועת הפקדון, he's talking by מודה במקצת. And there by שבועת הפקדון by by, I mean by שיעבוד קרקעות, you taka don't swear, why? Because by מודה במקצת it depends on the beginning, and שיעבוד קרקעות, what's the beginning? Money! And the קרקע is the result! So that's the difference. So the Mishneh LaMelech Mishneh LaMelech says, okay people argue on him, but according to this peshat, we understand even the peshat of the Mishneh LaMelech. Does that explain the difference between... No no no, that I explained before. You did? I did, yeah. So this mashkeh that's sitting here is... L'chaim.

Oh, this we got to say l'chaim, because it's ט׳ כסלו tonight. Right. L'chaim. That's why I brought it out. Some tequilas that are not kasher. Oh, it could be not kasher? The dark ones, that's why I'm asking. I don't know, isn't this light? No, it's the dark one. This is Dark you mean not yellow? Not clear, right. Not white. It has CRT. CRT means credit certificate? It was in the fridge and it was open. You wouldn't recover what was open? What What family's drink is this? Well, go get another What's not kasher with it? Don't make a problem. Glycerin. No, he says it's a she'eilah. There are brands where it's not kasher, and the brand is 1800, for example. I'm not a tequila person. I I found out when I bought I bought two bottles of 1800 brand It was open. It was in Somebody was me'orer this she'eilah, so I contacted the company Yeah, and the gold one, it has glycerin. The gold one? This is not gold. This is gold, yeah. I don't this is gold? The yellow is called gold? That one's silver, right? Silver versus gold, yeah. So the yellow one is the kasher one? Silver one is always kosher. All all brands the silver one are kosher. All all the brands. L'chaim. L'chaim v'l'chaim. ט׳ כסלו was the birthday and the yahrzeit of the Mitteler Rebbe. So the Mitteler Rebbe's inyan was his his wish was אז יידן, when they just meet together, some talk, אפילו דברים בטלים, the דברים בטלים should be about יחודא עילאה, יחודא תתאה. So that should be a little bit like it, we should see. That's a that's a teshuvah or the שובה משובה? Both. I

read this week in a Russian book about him, it says that they found documents recently that they used to think it was one year that he fought, from when the release, from when he was arrested. Oh yeah, there's a whole sefer came out, Berel Levin gave out, called... Yeah, now it seems like it's a year. First of all, the really release was a year later after the Mitteler Rebbe passed away. That's when they got the real documents is also י״ט כסלו, I think, for the year later. Who got released? Mitteler Rebbe. We always grew up saying that it was one A year later, yeah. year later, but they A year later is No, the year later was the the passed away is '84. Right. But this is a new document they found, a real document from the government, Russian government. Which was what, that he died He died or he was released? Meaning he was freed for two years, not one year. Meaning we used to say that So sad that, I don't know, isn't that what he said, he was freed for two years before? Yeah. Before he died. No, we say: קענען מיר פֿאַרברענגען if he died tonight? Yeah. What? I thought he was Could be. That see, this I can't say for sure. But what I remember, 'cause I didn't see it for a long time, I remember the documents were farkert, that the release was really not then, the release was later. After he passed away, that's when the government gave out the fact that He said, he said that also. He said that, that's, it wasn't really a true release. They only really released him after he passed away. Even so, they wanted to bother him the whole time. And