wonder who I was waiting for. I wonder who I was waiting for, no? You wanna start without you? Okay, the Gemara here, Bava Metzia obviously, ah בבא מדף דל״ת. Gemara starts like a beginning of a shtikel new sugya. After we learn in the Mishnah that שנים אוחזים בטלית, זה אומר אני מצאתיה וזה אומר אני מצאתיה, זה אומר כולה שלי וזה אומר כולה שלי, the din is זה ישבע שאין לו פחות מחציה, וזה ישבע שאין לו פחות מחציה, יחלוקו. They're both coming, they're both holding on to it, and each one says that it's his. You swear that you have at least half, and then the din is you divide it. Zogt di Gemara: דבעי רב זירא, so Rav Zeira asked a she'eilah: תקפה אחד בפנינו מהו? What happens if one person, one of the two, grabbed in front of beit din, in front of standing in front of beit din, grabbed it out from the other guy, and now only one guy is holding it. What's the din here? And Rashi explains when did he do it, I'll read Rashi: תקפה אחד, הוציאה מיד חבירו בחזקה ובחזקה. He pulled it out from the other guy by force, just snatched it out of him. והרי כולה בידו, and now one guy has the whole thing. And Rashi adds the words קודם שנשבעו, this happened before they swore. So before they swore and before בית דין פסקנ׳ד that they get each one gets half they divide it, they're coming like this and in front of beit din one guy pulled it out from the other guy, and now one guy is holding it. What is the din? And the Gemara tries to analyze the case. היכי דמי? What is the case that you're asking? אי דשתיק, if the guy grabbed it out and the other guy was quiet, didn't protest, what's your she'eilah?

אודויי אודי ליה! He was modeh to him! Don't we have a כלל שתיקה כהודאה? If you're quiet, you admit! So the guy pulls it out, and the guy is quiet, doesn't say anything at all. דפשוט אז that the guy who has the whole thing keeps it, because the other guy obviously admitted that it's his, and a שתיקה כהודאה, so he keeps it. אלא מאי, maybe the she'eilah is not that. אי דקא צווח, the she'eilah is no, the guy grabs it and when he's grabbing it he screams, he says, \"What are you doing?\" Then what's your she'eilah? מאי הוה ליה למיעבד? What else should he have done? Why would there be any hava amina, any safek, maybe the guy who grabbed it keeps it? We see that they're both holding it, he grabbed it out and he's screaming, \"What are you doing?\" So obviously that grabbing means nothing, and it goes back to the regular case like before. So when is your she'eilah if he grabbed it בפנינו what the din is? So the Gemara answers: לא צריכא, דשתיק מעיקרא ולבסוף צווח. Ah! In the beginning he was quiet, but then he screamed. And that's the shaila. מאי, what's the din? Do we say מדאישתיק, אודויי אודי ליה? Since in the beginning he was quiet, that shows he was modeh. A tough luck, you were modeh and now later you can't go back, can't change your mind. In the beginning you were modeh, ממילא we assume that you gave in and you were modeh that it belongs to the other guy, and that's why the other guy keeps it. או דילמא maybe כיון דקצווח בסוף, והשתא, now he was screaming, אגלאי מילתא that shows retroactive, דהאי דשתיק מעיקרא, you know why I was quiet before? סבר, because he was thinking, הא קחזו ליה רבנן! There is a logic not to scream. If you're doing it in front of בית דין, what's the purpose to scream? Don't you see, בית דין is watching, so I don't have to say anything! And then when you saw בית דין is not doing anything, you started screaming. So it's possible to say that if you didn't scream at all later, for sure you were modeh. But since here you were quiet and then you screamed, here you can look at it two ways. You can look at that maybe that he's quiet לכתחילה is a סימן he was מודה, שתיקה כהודאה and he was modeh and this guy keeps the whole thing. Or you could say he has a good reason why he's quiet, because the רבנן saw. But when he saw after a while, a short while, that nothing's happening, he started screaming, so that proves that he never meant to be modeh. That's the Gemara's shaila. זאגט די Gemara: תא שמע, I'll bring you an answer, I'll bring a baraita to answer the shaila. There is a baraita that says like this. The baraita

comes בהמשך to the Mishnah. The משנה שנים אוחזין בטלית יחלוקו, you swear and יחלוקו. זאגט די ברייתא, במה דברים אמורים? When do you say יחלוקו? ששניהם אדוקין בה, they're both holding on to it. אבל היתה טלית יוצאת מתחת ידו של אחד מהם, but if only one was holding the טלית, המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. Then, the one that's holding it keeps it, and the other one, who's not holding it, doesn't get it, doesn't get gets nothing, unless, and I'm using these words because it's important for the whole shiur. So this other guy who's not holding it, doesn't get it, unless he will bring edut. If he brings edut that it's really is his, or half is his, he'll get whatever edut he brings. But till he brings עדות, it's not his. That's the braita. So again, the braita says, when is the din of יחלוקו? If they're both holding it. If one guy is holding it, then the other guy is המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. And the Gemara says, let's analyze the case: היכי דמי, what does the braita mean? אילימא כדקתני, if we say the braita means as it says, as it seems, that if one guy is holding it, they both come to beit din, but only one guy is holding on to it. And that's what the braita means, that the second guy doesn't get it, unless he brings ראיות, peshita, obviously. Everyone knows there's a din of המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. If I come to beit din holding it and you claim it's yours, beit din will never say יחלוקו, obviously. The braita doesn't have to tell us that. אלא must mean שתקפה אחד בפנינו. The braita doesn't mean that they came lechat'chila one's holding it. They came lechat'chila both are holding it. And when the braita says if one is holding it, the other guy is המוציא מחבירו, it means that in front of beit din now one guy is holding it. One guy grabbed it out. And Rashi says, and it must be talking וכדקיימינן, that the braita must be talking in a case like we said, שותק ולבסוף סוף צווח, that first he was quiet, the braita is talking such a case, first he was quiet, then he screamed. And the braita says המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. What does that prove? That in a case where he was quiet and then he screamed, we do consider he was modeh. We had a she'ela in a case like this: is the quiet the ikar and he's called modeh and he doesn't get it, or do we say since he screamed later it's not called modeh? Here we see the braita says that it's considered he was modeh, because the braita must be talking in a case where he grabbed it, because it can't be talking a case where lechat'chila he came holding one, that's not the case, because that's פשיטא. Must be talking a case where he came together, and then one guy grabbed it. And the case is that he was quiet and then he screamed, and the braita says he doesn't get it, המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה, is a ראיה that we do consider it a hoda'ah. So the Gemara says, no, הכא במאי עסקינן, we're dealing with a different case. Gemara has a whole different case, that they came they're holding together, then בית דין פסקנט יחלוקו, and they came out, and when came back one guy's holding. I want to go into that, that's the end of the Gemara, that the case is different. But this is what lechatchilah the Gemara thought would bring a re'iyah, be a re'iyah.

Comes the the Gra here, as you see, says, נכתב בצידי, when the Gemara says that the beraita must be talking in a case, can't be talking in a case where they came lechatchilah one guy holding, must be talking in a case that one guy grabbed it in front of us, and he לייגט צו: וכהאי גוונא, and it must be talking in a case where he grabbed it and he was quiet and then he screamed. Why? דאי בשתיקה, לא מהני ראיה, ריטב״א. And I'll explain you, the Ritva says, asks a very good kushya here, and he has a terutz. The Ritva asks a very simple kushya on the Gemara: How does the Gemara know, or why does the Gemara think that this beraita is talking when he grabbed it, that's for sure, can't be talking they came one guy holding, because that's peshita. Must be talking where they came both holding, and one guy grabbed it. But what makes what makes the Gemara think that the beraita is talking in a case where he grabbed it and he was quiet and then he screamed? Maybe the beraita is talking that he has grabbed it and the other guy was quiet the whole time? And that's why המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. Could be that case. How does the Gemara Gemara wants to prove our she'eilah. The she'eilah was if he grabbed it and שותק והדר צווח, that's the only she'eilah. Because there would be not this case, it wouldn't be a she'eilah. If it's quiet the whole time, it's no she'eilah, that it's called hoda'ah. Screaming the whole time, it's no she'eilah, it's not hoda'ah. The she'eilah is only this specific case, שותק והדר צווח. And we're trying to bring a re'iyah from the beraita, so we're learning the beraita must be talking in a The beraita didn't say it! But we're saying the braisa is talking כהאי גוונא, talking in a case where he grabbed it, and he was quiet, and then he screamed. Where does it say that? Why can't you say that the braisa is talking where he grabbed it, and he was quiet quiet, finished, and that's why the braisa says that המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. It's a very strong kashya. Now the

answer, the simple answer to this kashya, the way it comes out from other mefarshim, is that that gufa would be pshita. Just like the Gemara says, you can't say that he's talking in a case where they actually came in, one guy holding and the one guy not, and the braisa is telling us that the guy who is not holding it doesn't get it, pshita, everyone knows that, the same thing would be this: that if he grabbed it out, and he was quiet, and nothing else, שתיקה כהודאה, everyone knows that שתיקה כהודאה. So that can't be the pshat in the braisa either; the braisa wouldn't have to tell us that. When does the braisa have to tell us that the din is המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה? Must be in a case where it's not pshita, where I wouldn't know for sure. What's that case? The case where first he was quiet, and then he screamed. So now we don't know, so the braisa tells us המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. So that's how we would learn, without the Ritva, we would learn pshat in the Gemara. And again, where did the Gemara know that Why did the Gemara think that this braisa is talking in a case where he was first quiet and then he screamed? And I repeat again: the fact that it's not talking in a case where lechatchila he came in holding, one guy is holding, that's pshita. But how does the Gemara know that it's not talking in a case where the guy grabbed it, takeh, he didn't come in holding one, they both were holding and the other guy grabbed it, and that's it, he grabbed it and was quiet, so the braisa says, in this case, since he was quiet, he's modeh? So we're saying, because that's also pshita. Must be, the chidush of the braisa must be in a case where it's not pshita. What's the case that's not pshita? Must be in a case that first he was quiet, and then he screamed, and it's not so clear what the din is, so the braisa says that we do consider it that he admitted, and המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה, that we don't give it to him. But that's not what the Ritva answers. The Ritva answers another teirutz. He says like this: the Gemara knows clearly that the beraita cannot be talking in a case where he grabbed it and was and the other guy grabbed it, and he was quiet the whole time. Why? Because if he was quiet the whole time, שתיקה כהודאה, and he was modeh. If he was modeh, how could the beraita say המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה means that if he will bring witnesses that it's his, he'll get it? Even if he'll bring witnesses, he wouldn't get it! What happens if a person is modeh? If I'm modeh to you, I owe you money, and two witnesses come and say I don't owe you, what's the din? Do I owe you or not? Sure I do! הודאת בעל דין כמאה עדים. If a person is modeh he owes money, it's like a hundred edim. If you have a contradiction, like the Gemara we learned that, at דף, at גימ״ל עמוד ב׳, by הודאת בעל דין there's no הכחשה. You can't deny it. If a person says, \"I owe you $100,\" even if two witnesses come and say you don't owe the $100, since I was modeh, I have to pay! So what is the beraita going to say here? The beraita is going to say like this: a case is where he grabbed it, and this guy was quiet. So what does the beraita say? Since he was quiet, he's modeh, and therefore we don't give him anything, unless he brings edim. That's why I stressed it before, הודאת, we say המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה, Rashi says edim. If you bring edim, then you'll get it. Without edim, you don't get it. But if he will bring edim, he will get it. Why will he get it? If he was modeh, if שתיקה כהודאה, was modeh the whole time, why would he get it? He shouldn't get it! So therefore, the Gemara knows it can't be talking in a case where he was quiet the whole time, cuz then you wouldn't edim wouldn't help. Since it says if edim come it will help, it must be talking in a case where he wasn't quiet the whole time, but שתק והדר צווח, and we accept it as a שתיקה, and therefore he doesn't get, but if he will bring edim, then he will get, but without edim he doesn't get because שתיקה כהודאה, because he was quiet. That's what the Gra brings here, the Ritva, and you can look in the Ritva. He says: בהאי גוונא, the beraita is talking בהאי גוונא that he was quiet and then screamed, דאי בשתיקה, לא מהני ראיה. ראיה wouldn't help. The only shaila on this pshat, which is also a very obvious question that comes up in this pshat of the Ritva, very obvious question, which a lot of people ask, Nachalas Tzvi asks, the Ketzos asks, and the Nesivos asks, and they all give the same simple teirutz. Simple, they give a teirutz, a good teirutz, but we're going to try to give a different teirutz. But what's that what did they say? What's the kashya? The kashya is like this: we're trying to prove from this braisa that if he is shasak and then tzavach, it has a din of shtikah. What shtikah? Kahoda'ah. So what's the difference if he was quiet the whole time or he was quiet and then he screams afterwards? What does the Ritva say? It can't be talking in a case where he's screaming quiet the whole time, because then you can't say אמאי סמכת אהא דראיה, אלא ודאי that he has to bring edim, and if he brings edim, he'll get it. Why would he get it? He was modeh. But if we hold שותק והדר צווח is also modeh, so it should be the same thing. If he שותק והדר צווח, and the Gemara's shaila was is this considered hoda'ah or not? According to this side that it is considered hoda'ah, it falls in the category of שתיקה כהודאה. So in a case like this, if we hold it's hoda'ah, and obviously we're trying to show that the braisa holds it's being modeh, how do we say the braisa holds it's being modeh? That we say he doesn't get it. What does the braisa say? If a guy grabbed it from him and he was quiet, and then he screamed, that's what we're saying is the pshat, so he doesn't get it because he was modeh. If he was modeh, then how could it help, how could edim come and help? How could you say אמאי סמכת אהא דראיה? The same way the Ritva says that if he was quiet the whole time, you can't say אמאי סמכת אהא דראיה because if he was quiet, שתיקה כהודאה. So if he was modeh, the fact that the moment the guy is modeh, it does, what can eidim do? Eidim can't help. And if we say ששתק והדר צווח is also called modeh, so the same thing. How does the Ritva mechalek, and he says that the Gemara knows for sure it can't talk into shtikah the whole time because then why could he bring eidim and prove, and get, even if eidim come, he still has to pay, he still doesn't get it. And if the case of ששתק והדר צווח is different, there, vadai we believe, we accept his, we say it's quiet, but at the same time we say, but if eidim come, he will get it. Why will he get it? But we just assumed he was quiet. What's the difference? It's a very strong kashya. Come all these mefarshim, I hope the kashya was clear, 'cause if the kashya isn't clear, then we got a problem. Come these mefarshim and they answer the kashya like this, based on the Ran. I don't know why I'm getting an impression that the kashya is not clear. Clear? Clear? Yeah. Clear? Okay. Check that? No. Say if there's a bag of fruit and you don't know if it has worms, you check three figs? I'm afraid to ask so many people, because I'm afraid I'll get a wrong answer. ששתק והדר צווח. Shotek is... הודאה, כיון דשתק בשעת מעשה. Okay. Okay. So they answer, also an interesting teirutz, based on the Ran. The Ran says the Gemara's she'eilah is not in a case of ששתק והדר צווח if it's hoda'ah or if it's not hoda'ah. That's how we learned it pashut. Is it hoda'ah? If it's hoda'ah, it's considered hoda'ah! Like הודאה, ממש הודאה גמורה, שתיקה כהודאה! Or is it not hoda'ah? If it's not hoda'ah, it's not hoda'ah! The pshat in the Gemara is like this: It's a safek! The Gemara knows for sure that this is a safek hoda'ah, since he's quiet and then he screamed, and we could have two ways to learn, that he's quiet and that's it, shows he's modeh, or we could say that since he screamed later it's not called hoda'ah. So the Gemara doesn't say is it for sure הודאה or for sure not. But yet we know for sure that it's a ספק. And what is the Gemara's שאלה? The Gemara's שאלה is: What is considered the תפיסה? When they're holding onto it, and because they're holding onto it we say they're מוחזק, they're holding it, it's theirs. What is that? Is it considered, here, you're coming back, is it considered is it considered ודאי תפיסה or ספק תפיסה? That גופא is the שאלה. Is the fact that they're holding it considered that each one is a ודאי מוחזק, or is each one considered a ספק מוחזק, because the other guy is also מוחזק? And that's the Gemara's שאלה. If we hold that he's a ספק מוחזק, ספק הודאה takes away from the ספק מוחזק. Each one is a ספק מוחזק, so this guy who had, the other guy grabbed it, he lost it, before he was a מוחזק, but he wasn't, if he was not, if each one is not a real מוחזק, he's a ספק מוחזק, then now we have a ספק against a ספק. There's a ספק maybe he was מודה, so a ספק מוחזק takes, a ספק הודאה takes away ספק מוחזק, and therefore

it's called הודאה. If you say each one is a ודאי מוחזק, then a ספק הודאה cannot take away from a ודאי ודאי מוחזק. Since the Gemara didn't say that we don't know which one is a ודאי like this, a ודאי like this, the Gemara says two sides, and this is what he wanted, mimeila it's a ספק. If it's a ספק, ספק הודאה, that's what it is, could take away from a ספק מוחזק, but can't take away from a ודאי מוחזק. So, if he's a ודאי מוחזק, that's the גמרא שאלה. The גמרא שאלה is, is he a ודאי מוחזק? Mimeila this is not called הודאה because it's only a ספק הודאה. ספק הודאה... so he remains a מוחזק and he gets it. If he's called a ספק מוחזק, then a ספק הודאה takes away. Memeila, according to this, we understand very simple peshat in the Ritva. The Ritva saying, what's the difference, the kushya on the Ritva was, what's the difference whether he's שותק the whole time that we say even if he brings עדים it wouldn't help, or שותק ולבסוף צווח and we accept it as הודאה, and then עדים does help. What's the difference? If you accept it as הודאה, then what's the difference? Why does עדים help? The answer is, the Gemara never meant we accepted it as הודאה. The Gemara means to say that ספק הודאה is good enough. So, by ספק הודאה could take away from a ספק מוחזק, but ספק הודאה can't take away from עדים. Memeila, if עדים come, in this case of שותק ולבסוף צווח, which is ספק הודאה, even if we say that ספק הודאה is good enough, but it's only good enough as long as we have no ודאי, only because we have no ודאי, there's only a ספק מוחזק, so הודאה is good enough and he doesn't get it. The moment we have a ודאי against that ספק, he gets it. Mah she'ein ken if he's שותק the whole time, then it's a ודאי הודאה. ודאי הודאה, עדים doesn't help, that's why המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. So, it's like a good teirutz. But be'emet, I think you could go into another vort and say a different teirutz, a different peshat in the Ritva. And the main thing again what we're trying to find is that even if we hold שותק ולבסוף צווח, according to this it's a she'eilah is it הודאה or not, but even if we hold it's הודאה, still if עדים come, he'll get it, even though we said he was מודה. מה שאין כן if he was שותק the whole time, if עדים come he won't get it, and that's what we're looking for to find the difference. להקדים that there is another machloket, there's a machloket here between, in the Meiri, brings two shittot in a different din.

What happens in a case where a guy was, only one guy was מוחזק? A guy comes to Beit Din and he's holding it, only one guy is holding it. Comes the other guy and schlepps it out of him, and the first guy is שותק the whole time, the first guy who had it is quiet, he didn't make any protest. So the Ritva, so the Meiri says the fact that he was quiet means nothing. That guy's a מוחזק, and that's it! This is nothing. Even though the guy that was the מוחזק was quiet after you grabbed it away, but since he was the only מוחזק, so basically there was no ספק at all here, so even though he was quiet after you grabbed it away, it's nothing. And this guy who was originally מוחזק keeps it. And then he says ויש חולקין, but don't listen to them, he says. Says don't pay attention to them, he says what's the לשון there, he says that it's, טעות הוא בדבריהם, don't pay attention to them. But he brings that other people argue. So we have here a machloket in a case like this. Again, what's the machloket? If there was one מוחזק לכתחילה, and the other guy grabs away from the מוחזק, so obviously if the guy who got grabbed from screams, you've got to give it back. The guy screams, obviously there's no she'eilah. What happens the guy was מודה, that's the she'eilah, not מודה not מודה, is שותק, is quiet. So he says that's nothing. And there's another shittah that it's still, the fact that he was quiet is הודאה, שתיקה כהודאה, and he doesn't get it. Why is it like one...? Huh? Why is it like one...? שתיקה? Pashut, a pashut'e sevara. What does he care? I mean Beit Din saw it, it's all לעיניהם. Beit Din saw that I had it, and he didn't have it, what's the ספק? So why, why should I scream? The be'emet is, a ma'amar says the לשון שתיקה, you know why you're quiet? Because לא איכפת ליה. I don't, I don't care what you're saying, I don't, I don't pay attention to you, don't even react. So pashut, and that's how he says in this case. Normally we say not like that, but there are cases when it's obvious like this, he says it's obvious, but יש חולקין, he says, יש חולקין. Well, it connects to this, so I will get this. Obviously, it's connected. Okay. You're making the point. So let's understand what is the reason for the two sides, the two sevarot, because I could see both sides. I could see the sevara that it's basically nothing, his prise, on the other hand, you've been quiet the whole time. Why didn't you protest? So why should he say? We're talking about that case. I'm talking about the ודאי מודה. Just that case. What is the מחלוקת, סברא the מחלוקת in that case? That's it, that's all I'm asking. הוא ודאי גזלן. Why is it ודאי גזלן? He claims it's his. Claims it's his. Yeah, but he says it's mine, obviously. I mean, if he says it's not mine and I grabbed it, that's not what we're talking about. He grabs it out from his hand, and he says it's mine. And that guy's quiet. Okay. Then there is another מחלוקת here in this in this in this sugya here. The shita

brings three דעות. When we say שותק והדר צווח, when was the tzavach? When did he scream that we have a safek? So there are three שיטות that is brought down. The shita of the Rashba and the Nimukei Yosef is, and the same thing the Maggid Mishneh in הלכות טוען ונטען פרק ט הלכה י״ג says that it means like this: he could be quiet the whole time, the guy pulled it out of his hand, and he was quiet, and he was quiet. Before he was about to leave the beit din, before the that's when he screamed. And still, we have a sevara that this quiet is is a safek if this being quiet means anything or not. It could be that the fact that סוף כל סוף he screamed, even though he screamed half-hour later, it's still a re'aya, a possibility that it breaks the shetikah. It shows that the fact that he was quiet means nothing. So the שותק והדר צווח is what case? Tzavach before he even left the beit din, towards the end. The Ritva himself says that the שותק has to be In other words, he's trying to grab it, and while it's still in his hand, he started already screaming. In other words, as soon as he took it out, he already started screaming. If he started screaming after that, it's already too late and then for sure it's called הודאה. Huh? It has to be a tzavach by the תקיפה. But you said שותק first. Yeah, in the beginning שותק, and then as the תקיפה was going on, right, fraction of a second, could be it was already slipping from him. I mean, that's what it's called tzavach, or maybe it took a long a long thing, it slipped. These are good These things that can go in seconds. But לפועל, so the first one is שותק והדר צווח even at the end. The second one, which is the Ritva, שותק והדר צווח means towards the end of the תקיפה. And the Ritva writes, my רבי holds, רבי של הריטב״א says that it has to be in the תקיפה גופא. In other words, you have right as soon as he finished the תקיפה. The second שיטה holds it has to be at least when he right as he finished the תקיפה. As soon as he grabbed it, he started screaming. And the רבי שלו says no, before he even got it out of his hand, he has to scream. No, this is nothing. They came to Beit Din holding. Finished. They're standing in Beit Din spent for an hour. All of a sudden, the guy starts grabbing it. So for a second, he doesn't say anything, but then, before the grabbing was finished, he already screamed. But the second way is, if he screamed as soon as was finished is also enough to be a שאלה. So we have like three stages here, three possible ways this והדר צווח would be. Again, the Rashba and the Nimukei Yosef learn that it could be even later. He grabbed it out of his hand, and then time passed already after he grabbed it and he's all quiet, and they make sense also על פי שכל, because the whole reason we said there's a סברא that his screaming helps, 'I, where were you till now?' סמכא ארבנן! אדרבה, says, 'So wait, why do I have to rush to scream? I mean, it's all in front of the Beit Din. Why do I have to scream the first second? But when you're getting towards the end and Beit Din's not doing anything, then he started screaming!' And still, so ממילא, that shows that he didn't really admit. That's the first שיטה. But the second שיטה is that he has to scream doesn't have to scream while it's still in his hand, but the second it goes out of his hand, if he doesn't scream then, then already we know he's מודה, and there's no more שאלה. So it has to be the second it comes out. And the רבי של הריטב״א learns that the screaming has to be while it's still in his hand. So there is a time שותק, like he he stopped for a second and didn't say anything, and right away. But if he waited till it was scream pulled out, even the second it was pulled out, he started screaming, that screaming doesn't count anymore, and it's called שתיקה. The Gemara wouldn't have a שאלה. So each one explains the Gemara שאלה in a different way of what is the case of שותק והדר צווח. No. Didn't catch, but it has to be right away after. Right away after. And the and the Raavad who holds it has to be before it got out of his hand. So, here again we have three ways and we have to understand what is the מחלוקת. בפשטות is a very practical מחלוקת. It's a, it's a בעל־בתישע מחלוקת, פשוט. This whole thing really is what is the psychology of a person? If a person really wants to protest, when would he normally protest? That's all we're thinking. Does he wait, or does he not wait? So,

ס'איז דא the Ramban and Nimukei Yosef holds a person's nature is that if he sees the חכמים there, the Beit Din there, the nature is that even if he means to protest, he doesn't do it right away. If he doesn't do it at the end, then we know it's nothing, but if he did at the end, it's okay. And the Ritva says no, that a person, a person usually doesn't wait that long, and if he waited that long, it's nothing. And the, but the Raavad says a person doesn't wait a second. He doesn't wait till it gets out of his hand, does it before! And since they hold, each one is משער what the nature of a person is, that's what פשט in the Gemara is. But צו ענטפערן, אזוי ענטפערט מען א רמב״ם, as you know the famous joke, this is how you're going to explain a machloket? A machloket of Rishonim you're going to explain because this is pashut psychology, there's a machloket between psychologists what the psychology of a person is? We have to find some למדות here. הגם I always say the real answer is the בעל־בתישע answer, always! The real answer is the בעל־בתישע answer. That's probably what it really is. But we always have to be, you know, they call it being an איבער־חכם, to be more. It's like the famous story with the Rambam, now you made, I just mentioned the joke. Somebody, I said this joke before, I'll say it again. There was somebody who has learned a lot of Rambam and gave a lot of peshatim in Rambam, and when he came למעלה, they said you get a zechut, learning so much Rambam, that you'll get to speak to the Rambam himself. Wow! Anyway, tonight is the Rambam's yahrzeit, so. Came למעלה, he got to speak to the Rambam. And the Rambam told him how happy he is that you're answering all my kushiyot. Then he says, is there any kushya that you didn't find an answer, that now you have a chance, I'm here! Speak to me, ask! He says, yeah, one kushya on the Rambam I had that did not make any sense, I looked, I couldn't find answers. The Rambam says, I have to tell you the truth, it's a typing mistake, a printing mistake. I never wrote it, it's pashut a printing mistake, it's טעות הדפוס. So he says to the רמב״ם, אזוי פארענטפערט מען א רמב״ם? How you going to answer a Rambam, just like, by printing press? אלא מאי? This is the real terutz! If that's a printing, it's a printing, that's the... The same thing here, the בעל־בתישע way is always that's the, the simple terutz, that's the... But מ'דארף דאך זיין קלוגער, you know, we also think to be smarter than, so. Especially that this touches a subject which is something that I really talk about a million times, so mimela how could I let it go by? So I have to get into it. And maybe this is the time I'll get into it a little bit more, because I mentioned it a lot of times, and sometimes you got to get into it sof kol sof, because I always mention it as a dugma. What is it? The she'elah, what is the פשט שתיקה כהודאה? In the, when we say when you're quiet, you're modeh. There's two things: there's actually being modeh. Being modeh means בפה. I say, yes, I owe you money, or I'm modeh that that this is yours. Then we say, שתיקה כהודאה דמי. Is being quiet like you're modeh? Whenever we come to the כהודאה, כ-, we have this she'eilah, the three ways we could learn. And right away you see, we have a three-way machloket here. So usually, I have to tell you, this is noge'a to know to a lot of things that you learn, that whenever you come to something that is a three-way machloket, usually you could connect it to the three ways that they're learning the three ways. What are the three ways, and maybe we'll get into it a little bit more? The yesod of all the three ways is שליחות, שלוחו של אדם כמותו. And the Rebbe, he kocht in them so many times, and always whenever he spoke about shlichut, he said the דריי אופנים in שליחות, Rabbi Yosef Engel's three ways of shlichut.

What is the פשט שלוחו של אדם כמותו? One way is, the highest way, the strongest, is כמותו ממש. That means that the shaliach becomes the meshale'ach. When Reuven has to be מקדש אשה, and he makes Shimon a shaliach, so when Shimon is mekadesh the אשה, it's really Reuven מקדש the אשה. אי Reuven is not Shimon, and Shimon is not Reuven? That's the halachah! The halachah says that when you make a shaliach, the shaliach becomes the meshale'ach. Then you have the second way, that the shaliach does not become the meshale'ach, but it's like he's the meshale'ach, which he uses the words, the מעשה איז זיך מתיחס, that the act is כאילו ראובן did it. The first way is not כאילו ראובן did it, Reuven takeh did it! Reuven did it! The second way, no, Shimon did something, but what Shimon did is כאילו ראובן did. And the third way is that בפירוש שמעון is not Reuven, and בפירוש ראובן did not do it, it's the מעשה is not מתיחס, but Torah is מחדש that even though Reuven did not do it, if he appointed a שליח, it's just as good. It helps, but not that Reuven became Shimon. So that is the three ways. And we said many times there are many places wherever we have a din of something is like something else, we always bring this up. Lemashal שוה כסף ככסף, which we learned in Kiddushin. What's שוה כסף ככסף? So there's a she'eilah, is the pshat is that שוה כסף and כסף is the same thing, like שלוחו כמותו ממש, שוה כסף is כסף ממש? Or you could say no, שוה כסף is not כסף ממש, but the Torah, we have לימודים that אף על פי you're not giving כסף, the Torah still says it's good, lemashal by קידושין, מקדש אשה, you have to give כסף. So or the pshat is that the money that you give, and if you give שוה כסף it's mamash like you gave כסף, or the pshat is the other extreme, be'emet no, you takeh didn't give כסף, so the Torah says you don't have to give כסף, this is, even though you didn't give כסף, it's good. Or you have the middle way, which שוה כסף ככסף, that it's not really kesef, but it's like kesef, וממילא it works. And you find machloket'n between Rashi and Tosafot in Kiddushin also, that in the whole סוגיא in the Rashi and the, in the, and the Ran, which is solely on what the גדר שוה כסף ככסף. טעם כעיקר when we learn in Yoreh Deah. But then, there is even more, like I said, now we'll just talk a little bit about it, I once wrote, here I have it because I don't remember it by heart, I once in one of the shiurim here, in the shiur actually of שוה כסף ככסף, excuse me, I wrote in the paper by the מראי מקומות, ש\"פ שלח תשל\"ז, so here, I have this whole inyan in the chakirah by שוה כסף ככסף, and then I bring here 35 places in Likkutei Sichot where the Rebbe goes, is מבאר ענינים based on these three ways. And these are 35 that just off the top of my head that I wrote. I'm sure there are more. I'm sure you could find probably 10-15 more places if you think about and search, research. 35 places where it's depended on these three inyanim, the same three ways. I just want to give a few examples so to have it clear.

One example, the Rebbe in chelek ט\"ז Parashat Yitro, the inyan of תוספת שבת. We have the zman of Shabbos, and then you have the extra time that you have to add to Shabbos. It's not originally Shabbos, but it becomes like Shabbos. That's exactly the case. It's like saying the lashon, I don't know if it says such a lashon, but תוספת שבת כשבת. What does that mean? So the Rebbe brings a machloket with a whole thing, but what's the nekudah? Only the nekudah. The she'eilah is, is שבת, תוספת שבת ממש part of Shabbos? That's the highest madreigah. Or it's not really part of Shabbos, but becomes like Shabbos. Or it doesn't even become like Shabbos. A Yid has a chiyuv to accept upon himself תוספת שבת, so lechatchilah not part of Shabbos. The other two ways, it's part of Shabbos. The she'eilah how far is it like Shabbos. In other words, Shabbos doesn't First way, Shabbos doesn't start by Shabbos, Shabbos starts a minute before, or the Alter Rebbe is משמע that you need four minutes for תוספת שבת. That's So it's Shabbos. Or really it's not, but it's not the same Shabbos, becomes like Shabbos. And there will be נפקא מינה'ס להלכה according to this way. Or lechatchilah it's not part of Shabbos. The Torah said on the גברא, you have to accept upon yourself the kedushah of Shabbos and you have all the dinim of Shabbos, it's not part of Shabbos. Another example, this is in חלק כ\"ג פרשת חוקת. The Rebbe talks about what's the din, he brings it's a siyum on Maseches Megillah, the מטפחת, the מענטעלע, the cover of the Sefer Torah has a kedushah. What kind of kedushah does it have? And then brings out, there's one level of, one tzad is that it's mamash the same kedushah of Sefer Torah. Then the other way is, it's not the kedushah of the Sefer Torah, but it's part of כבוד הספר תורה. And one is that it's have a separate inyan, it's that it's nothing, it's it's an inyan for itself, in order to in order to have כבוד הספר תורה, you have to have the מענטעלע, but it's a separate inyan. Which is basically about that every thing has a separate ציור, but it's call it the zelbe zach. פיקוח נפש דוחה שבת. Here the Rebbe actually has a fourth way also. Comes Shabbos and pikuach nefesh, what's the din? פיקוח נפש דוחה שבת. And what's the pshat? One way is that this is part of שמירת שבת. He brings the Or HaChaim HaKadosh, that he says it's not the pshat that it's docheh. This is part of שמירת שבת. The other way is, it's not part of שמירת שבת, but Shabbos becomes not asur anymore. And the other way is, no, it's docheh, the other second way is hutrah, it's דוחה שבת. S'take not Shabbos, it's against שבת, נאר אף על פי כן you gotta do it, because the Torah says this is more important than Shabbos. Which if you think about it, I'm not even taytshing in how this is the same way as those three ways. A arev, I'm just kapping up just looking at it.

Likkutei Sichos חלק כ\"ו עמוד 147, חלק ל' עמוד 216, when somebody becomes an arev for somebody else's money, and actually in Rambam these days we're learning about the dinim of an arev. So it's three ways what an arev is. One pshat is the arev becomes a why pashut a she'eilah, it's I lend you money, and this guy becomes a arev, becomes a guarantor, so now I could collect for him, why could I collect from him? Who who is this? So one pshat is because when he becomes an arev, he is the מקום כמעשהו of the of the of the loveh, so now he owes the money just like the loveh owes, because he becomes the loveh. Or is the pshat is he's not the loveh, but he's מתחייב himself like the loveh, or no. It has nothing to do with, it's a new chiyuv. If an arev accepts upon himself the chiyuv, he has a new chiyuv. Forget the loan that he owes me goes on him. He has an obligation to pay me, not that he's a מחוייב now, and there's now everything that the Rebbe has all these things every time there's a נפקא מינה להלכה. Otherwise, as the way that the Rebbe used to say a לשון, צו שפאלטן א האר, when you start making this chakirot, it's like spitting a hair for no reason. Like they have this this famous נאַרישע חקירה that they have, the ones in the yeshiva that had a chakirah, what is the pshat? Are the walls under the ceiling or is the ceiling at top of the walls? How do you look at it? And I even asked them, mai nafka mina? The Rebbe says in a farbrengen once, mai nafka mina? המקדש את האישה על מנת that the ceiling is on top of the walls, אישה מקודשת or not? No, obviously you build from the bottom. So it has to be a נפקא מינה להלכה, so all these places, if you look them all up, there's a נפקא מינה להלכה. The Mishnah in beginning of Megillah: מגילה נקראת י\"א, י\"ב, י\"ג, י\"ד, ט\"ו, these are the times. But how we know that you read the Megillah on Purim or Shushan Purim? Purim in regular places and Shushan Purim. But then there's a din that והבני כפרים מקדימין ליום הכניסה beginning of Maseches Megillah that those places that didn't have they were able to do earlier. So the שאלה is So the Rebbe explains, one way is, well, this is the same זמן as the Megillah. Just like י\"ד and ט\"ו is the זמן קריאת המגילה, this is also. We're learning how do we know these that there is more זמנים? The Gemara learns it out from the פסוק בזמניהם. So you could say this is the זמן, just like נאו, it becomes the זמן. אה, it's not the day exact, this became this is the זמן, שלוחו של אדם כמותו, the zman of י\"ד, if that is כמעשהו of י\"ד. Or you can say, no, it's בעצם not the zman, but the Torah says, in this you could make it ke'ilu it's the zman and you could read in there too. And the other way is, it's takeh not a peirush not the zman and אף על פי כן the Chachamim said in certain situations you could read not in this zman. Mai nafka mina? Look up the sicha, there's a nafka mina. And then he goes on, I could go on here to tell you all kinds of One of the things is I'm just I'm just thinking off-hand when you bring I don't follow him.

When you bring bikkurim, the din is that if you bring bikkurim with a basket that's not made of gold or silver, the basket has to be given to the kohen together with the bikkurim, he keeps it. So the same the same she'eilah, is the pshat the basket is part of the מצות ביכורים, or the basket is not really part of bikkurim, but it's an extension of bikkurim? Since you give bikkurim, there's a din you have to give the basket, or it's not It's a separate din. There's a din of bikkurim, and then there's a new din that you have to give the basket too. And everything is The Rebbe usually, in all these places, makes it into a machloket. Not make a machloket, he brings the machloket and he says what's the sevara of the machloket, and he brings this nekudah as the sevara of the machloket. And a lot of the places are Then there are other places which the Rebbe doesn't bring, but I'm saying mistama more. Look it's kedai just to get an idea, look through it, that's only a few pages here and I don't write anything. Just in every case, I write just the the case just to get the general idea of what it's talking about. Once explained בנוגע דאַוונען, that's from the Rebbe, דאַוונען מנחה גדולה.

Shulchan Aruch it says that you shouldn't דאַוון מנחה גדולה לכתחילה. All the ישיבות, the ליטווישע ישיבות, the ליובאַוויטשער ישיבות, דאַוונען מנחה גדולה. Really you should דאַוון מנחה קטנה. מנחה קטנה starts an hour and a quarter before the שקיעה. מנחה גדולה is from chatzot or a half-hour after chatzot, so we all דאַוון then. But the Shulchan Aruch it says you shouldn't daven, b'dieved it's good, and there's some say it's good. Anyway, going into that inyan, there's, so I once explained, there's a chakirah there: Is the פשט בעצם לכתחילה the zman is מנחה קטנה? But then the chachamim said מנחה גדולה also is the zman? Or מנחה גדולה is like the zman? Or מנחה גדולה is b'feirush not the זמן מנחה, דאף על פי כן, the chachamim said if you daven then, you're yotzei. And you could do this in everything, but you can only do it when you have a three-way machloket, or skipping the middle way and just going to the first and the last also could be a chakirah. Is it כמאיתיה ממש or is it not at all? Then you have the middle way. So when you find sometimes two shitot, you could also say the same way of one side and the other. I explained in Pesachim last year, if you remember last year, Pesachim was two years ago, oh, so you guys didn't know, the year before. It's actually brought down in Gittin also, brought down in בבא קמא, שני דברים אינן ברשותו של אדם והתורה חמץ בפסח והתורה עשאו כאילו ברשותו.

What is the פשט כאילו ברשותו? So you could learn two ways and also three ways. You could say chametz is not yours. What's the she'elah there? Chametz is not yours, because it's אסור בהנאה, so how are you over? You're only over on your chametz. The Torah made it yours. You could say the Torah is saying that if you weren't מבער your chametz before Pesach, it's yours, the Torah makes it yours, Torah can do it, make it yours, or you could say, what's the other extreme? Befeirush the Torah did not make it yours. The Torah says that even though it's not yours, if you did this, I'm telling you you're over. Or you could say the middle way, it's like yours, but you have to find a נפקא מינה להלכה. Anyway, getting back to us, this is all the arum. When we say שתיקה כהודאה, what does that mean? You could learn the same three ways. You could learn שתיקה is הודאה. Just like when a person is מודה בפיו, he says yes, I am modeh, I owe you the money. If you are quiet and you didn't say anything, it's the exact same thing. Or you could say שתיקה כהודאה is the middle way, that means it's not really, not yet. In other words, when you're שותק, it's not yet. We'll see, this could become like it, or try to become like it. We'll see what will continue. If you're if you're quiet and there's nothing more to it, so it's megaleh gevorn. The first second You see the first way is the second you're quiet, שתיקה Imagine you say I'm modeh. The second you say I'm modeh, you're modeh. If you're quiet, the second you're quiet, you're quiet and it's כהודאה, you're modeh, if שתיקה כהודאה, the first way that it's כמאיתיה ממש, כהודאה ממש. The second way is not, but it could become, it's כאילו you're quiet, but you're not sure yet. So when time passes, a certain amount of time passes, and you were not and you kept quiet, now we say it's like הודאה. And the third way is שתיקה is befeirush not כהודאה. It's not that you're modeh. So why do we say שתיקה כהודאה? The pshat is since you are quiet, what you're doing is there's no reason not to accept the other guy's טענה, not because what you're modeh. Like this, if a

guy טענ'ט, says you owe me $100. Okay. A איד בחזקת כשרות, so you owe me $100. The only reason I say you don't owe, maybe beit din says maybe you don't owe, because you say you don't owe. So I don't know, why are you right and why is he wrong? So you don't owe. המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה, we don't know. The fact that you were quiet, שתיקה, so there's nothing to stop me from my טענה. If you're not stopping my טענה, automatically I get my money. So it's not so it's not הודאה at all. It's not that you were modeh. שתיקה is not It has the same din like you were as if Just like if you're modeh, you have to pay the money, if you were quiet, you also have to pay the money. Because if the guy is asking for it and you didn't say anything, so the guy so the guy's טענה is a good טענה. So we have these three ways. Now these three ways could be the in the נקודה of the מחלוקת between the three shittot of when he was screaming. Was it like the Nimukei Yosef, what the Rashba and the Nimukei Yosef say, or like the Ritva says, or like the רבי של הריטב''א? And we'll go like this: The

way the Nimukei Yosef and the and the Rashba say, what do they say? When is it ששתק והדר צווח? Even if צווח at the end, it also is מבטל, because they hold it's the third way. If it's the third way, ממילא שתיקה is not כהודאה. Ela mai, why do we say שתיקה כהודאה? Because if you didn't say anything, then automatically we accept his טענה. So he says, as long as you said something, even if you said it late, even if you said it towards the end before he walked out. See, if he doesn't even say it then, and after he walks out he screams, okay that you can't say, \"Ah, he screamed so there.\" You can scream, what happens if he screams a week from now? There has to be a time limit, but it doesn't have to be right away. So therefore, he holds like the way the third way, that as long as he screamed someplace before he left the beit din, even if he screamed at the end, there's also a sevara that שתיקה, that we accept that it's not שתיקה, that breaks the שתיקה. Because באמת the שתיקה itself means nothing, it's only the guy has no, there's nothing against him, now there is something against him. The Ritva will learn the middle way. What's the middle way? That שתיקה is something, it's not like it's nothing. But it has to be that the מצב, it's not שתיקה itself בשעת מעשה is not, but as the מצב shows, then this makes that the שתיקה should be should be a שתיקה, should be a הודאה. So he says, in that case, you can't wait all the way to the end. In that case, you have to see that it have to be at least as soon as he finished grabbing it, because שתיקה is כהודאה, we are looking at him as he is modeh, but we have to have like a shtikel proof afterwards that it's modeh. So the proof can't go forever, so it can't even go till the end. וממילא, he holds the middle way, that it has to be at least as soon as he grabbed it away, you have to scream, that's when it will break the שתיקה. But otherwise the שתיקה is כהודאה. And the רבו של הריטב''א, he learned like the first way. שתיקה is כהודאה. So as soon as, as soon as you're quiet, it's כהודאה. So you got to be very strong, you got to have a very strong raaya that your שתיקה is not כהודאה. So if he screams right away, as soon as possible, doesn't mean the first, because the first second there's no שתיקה, but if you got to scream this in order to show that your שתיקה is not, it's almost like saying toch k'dei dibbur. You was quiet, scream right away. So then you can say the quiet, he never were quiet. So basically to learn the first way, what you got to do, you got to make that it was never quiet. It's not enough to say you're proving that's not what he meant. See the second way is enough if you prove that's not what he meant, because the שתיקה itself is not, אלא מאי? We think that's what he meant. If you prove that's not what he meant, so you got to, can prove it a little later. But the first way isn't to prove, שתיקה is כהודאה. The only thing you got to do is, that it's not שתיקה. When is it not שתיקה? If the צווח was right away. But if the צווח was not right away, then the שתיקה was a שתיקה, and you were מודה. Imagine the guy was מודה, בדיבור. So if toch k'dei dibbur he say, \"I'm sorry,\" then that he wasn't מודה. But if he waited a moment, you were מודה. And if שתיקה the first way is כהודאה ממש like is מודה. So therefore, it has to be צווח right away. So these are the three ways we can explain that.

Based on this, we can explain the מחלוקת of the Meiri and his other ones he says argue against him and he says, \"אבל don't pay attention to them,\" but they argue. What's the case? If the guy was holding it, only one guy was holding it, and the other, and another guy grabbed it, and he was quiet the whole time. שותק the whole time. So the Meiri says the שתיקה means nothing. And others say that it does mean. So that is very clear. The ריטב''א, the the Meiri holds the third way. Mimela, what is the שתיקה? שתיקה doesn't mean anything. The only reason the שתיקה means something, because since you were quiet, so then automatically the other guy, since you were quiet, the other guy's טענה is accepted, because you have nothing to show for you. So he holds that when is this said if you weren't מוחזק. But if you were a מוחזק, then you can't say that we accept the other guy's טענה, because you are the מוחזק. So even if you were quiet, your חזקה proves that the other guy is wrong. And if the חזקה proves the other guy is wrong, so then no such שתיקה כהודאה. Again, if you hold שתיקה כהודאה, שתיקה means nothing. The only thing שתיקה means, that if you were quiet, then the other guy wins automatically. Like lehavdil in court, if you call a guy to court and he doesn't come, automatically they פסק'ן against him. In בית דין you can't do that, because doesn't mean because he didn't come, means he owes the money. You got to call him again, you put him in cherem, ikh veis what you do. But in court, if the guy doesn't come, you automatically are right. Same thing here, if the guy was quiet, you're automatically right. But that's only if you're not muchzak. Then the other guy's right. Since you who were muchzak was quiet, so the other guy's ta'anah, it's his, we give it to him. But that's only if the other if you have nothing, but if you have a chazakah that doesn't work. Mah she'ein kein the other ראשונים, they will hold or the second way, or the first way. Whichever way, in both cases we say שתיקה is כהודאה, the question is how far we go, but in both cases We will hold that even though the guy was muchzak, but if he was quiet the whole time, then you give it to him. Then you take it away from the guy who was quiet, even though he was a muchzak. Why? Because we say שתיקה כהודאה. Ela mai? You got to prove that it's not שתיקה. But if he didn't prove it's not שתיקה, he didn't do anything, he was quiet the whole time, so whether you learn the first or the second way, automatically his שתיקה counts, and therefore he doesn't keep it. The fact that he's muchzak, but he was modeh, or he's מודה ממש, or he's modeh because it looks like that's his kavanah, but the bottom line, he's modeh. The only way שתיקה won't count such a case if there is no din of שתיקה כהודאה. The whole sevara of שתיקה כהודאה is that mimela the other guy's sevara is the other guy's ta'anah is the right ta'anah, but that you don't say against the chazakah. So we understand that machloket soon. This could be the answer to the peshat in the Ritva. We said the Ritva holds the second way, that's what we said before. Now, we said that according to the first and the second way, it's against the Meiri. According to both of them, that even if the guy was a muchzak, but since he was shotek, it works. There's still a chiluk between the first and the second way. If you hold the first way, that שתיקה is ממש כהודאה, you were modeh, so it comes out like this: as much as we say שתיקה you were מודה, okay, we'll start it, looking at our clocks, that's why, what's how short to make it, what happens if we know for sure something belongs to one guy? Do we still say on the other guy that the שתיקה works?

Which by the way, I started off with Rashi. Rashi says this whole thing happened before the whole argument, and the grabbing, שותק, צווח, it's all קודם שנשבעו, before they swore. Why had it happen before they swore? What happens after they swore? They swore, and then this this scenario happened, and the guy grabbed it out, why would it not work there? And mimela, beit din paskened that it's yours, that half is yours and half is yours. Now the grabbing doesn't help, because the grab, and with the same שותק, it won't help. Why? Because if it's mamash yours, if beit din, we know for sure it's yours, not just that like the guy was a מוחזק. The previous case by the Meiri, the guy's a מוחזק, but we don't know for sure. A דין is מוחזק is a מוחזק. But let's take, we know for sure, beit din paskened: this is yours, so now it's his. So when you paskened this is yours, this won't help. So in other words, there's a klal that if it's for sure yours, the שתיקה won't help. But what happens if you have a ראיה לסתור? We have a ראיה that sof kol sof that your שתיקה is is a שתיקה, that we have a ראיה like that. So that ראיה will destroy, will destroy the the the fact that it's for sure yours, for sure yours, even though, because you have a ראיה against it. So let's apply this, to make it bekitzur of a second, let's apply this in the case where the guy grabbed it and was שותק the whole time. If he grabbed it and he's שותק the whole time, so here what did we say? Does the Ritva say, and he was שותק the whole time, so it belongs, and that עדים won't even help? If you bring עדים, it won't help, we say, even if we say to bring עדים it's his, but if he was שותק the whole time, it won't help. And we ask a שאלה: why is that different in the case of שותק ולבסוף צווח, according to the side that it's called הודאה? Because in the case where הא דצווח, what happened with the צווח? The צווח did prove that there is a ראיה לסתור the fact that he was שותק. The other guy, we're asking farkert: why didn't you scream? If it's takeh yours, we know for sure it's yours, why didn't you scream? And this comes out will be the difference: in a case where שותק ולבסוף צווח, if עדים come, and if you hold like the second way, so what's the peshat in the second way? That be'emet, it's not really שתיקה כהודאה, but we have a ראיה from the המשך that שתיקה, then the שתיקה כהודאה. What happens if you bring עדים afterwards? If we bring עדים afterwards against the שתיקה, so according to the The second way, the המשך shows that the שתיקה is not a real שתיקה. If it would be the first way, meaning that שתיקה כהודאה, the din is שתיקה כהודאה and finished, עדים can't do anything. But if it's not really שתיקה כהודאה, the only ראיה שתיקה כהודאה is because of what happens later, because we see you continued, so if he brings עדות later, that cancels out the שתיקה. But that's only שותק ולבסוף צווח. But if he's שותק לגמרי, so here we still because we have a צווח, the צווח is applied to be a סתירה to the שותק, even though we say שותק ולבסוף צווח is called מודה, but still it's only a שתיקה כהודאה because of a המשך, and since the המשך came that עדים said it's not your it is yours, so you get it. But if שותק the whole time, then his שותק is very strong. And a שתיקה against a ודאי, what's the ודאי? Even if it's ודאי his, the שתיקה against the ודאי doesn't work, like Rashi says. So there, even if the עדים come. So when does the עדים coming not work? When there's only שתיקה, but if there was a שותק ולבסוף צווח, then the edim do work. I didn't explain this properly, but maybe I don't want to take time.