First the Gemara brings לגבי שנים אוחזין בטלית, when it said in the Mishnah there are two people holding on a talit, each one says it's his. So each one swears and then yichaloku, you divide it, divide it equally. Gemara explains, based on the Beraita, that we read the ברייתא, שנים אדוקין בטלית, two people holding a טלית, זה נוטל עד מקום שידו מגעת וזה נוטל עד מקום שידו מגעת והשאר חולקין. That whatever you're holding, you get, the rest you divide equally. And the Gemara says, אי the Mishnah says stam, if they're both holding it, you divide it equally, so the Gemara בכרכשתא, that means they're not holding a piece of it, they're holding the fringes. But if they're holding onto it, so whatever you're holding, you get. Like he's holding up, this guy is holding up to here, that's his for sure. He's holding like this, so that's his for sure. And the difference in between, that's where you divide in half. Then the Mishnah says, the Beraita says I mean, שנים אדוקין בשטר. Two people come holding a shtar they found, and the two people that we're talking about is the malveh and the loveh, the borrower and the lender. מלוה אומר שלי הוא ונפל ממני ומצאתיו. The malveh says, \"It's mine. I have a shtar. He owes me money. He never paid, and I lost this, and I found it. So I want the shtar back, and I should be able to collect.\" לוה אומר, the loveh says, \"No, it's mine, parua! That means I actually paid you, you gave me the shtar, and it fell off from me.\" So there's a מחלוקת Rabbanan and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, but the bottom line the Gemara says is that you say yichaloku too. You divide it. That means you divide, the Gemara will explain it doesn't mean you divide the amount of money that's written in the shtar, but you divide the value of how the shtar will be sold in the market. That when you could take a shtar which says that he owes him a hundred dollars, you want to sell that shtar, you get $90 for it, so you divide that money. That's not nogea to our inyan yet. That's in the Gemara. So the גמרא, אמר רב אלעזר, the Gemara on דף ז' עמוד ב', מחלוקת בששניהם אדוקין בטופס או שניהם בתורף. This yichaloku that is said by the shtar is if they're both holding onto it equally. In other words, the Gemara is comparing this holding onto the שטר to holding onto the טלית. Just like by the טלית we say that you only divide it equally if they're both holding equally, but if one is holding more than the other, he gets more and he gets less. The שטר also.

When do we say יחלוקו? בששניהם אדוקין בטופס או שניהם בתורף. Both are holding the טופס or the תורף. Now the טופס means the form of the שטר. The תורף are the details that are put into it. And it seems like the שטרות that they had those days, it was like divided in half. The first half, the top of the שטר, had the date, had the amount of money, had the the names of the people. And then the second half of the שטר, that's where it had this general, normal things that it says that you have to pay and if not, משועבד, all the general things that we say is in every שטר. And then at the end of the שטר, there would be the חתימת עדים, the signatures. So the Gemara says like this, when do we say that they divide it equally between the מלוה and the לוה? If they're both holding the same thing. They're both holding the טופס, like they're both holding onto the bottom of the שטר, they're both holding onto here, so they're both equal, or they're both holding at the top of the שטר, which is the תורף. אבל אחד אדוק בטופס ואחד אדוק בתורף, but if one holds the טופס, which is the form, and one is holding the תורף, with the details, so here, the דין is זה נוטל טופס וזה נוטל תורף. They divide it, not equally. They give this guy who gets the תורף gets the תורף and this guy gets the טופס. And the Gemara explains later what it means. And the Gemara says like this: the difference between the תורף and the טופס, or in other words, the

מעלה that the תורף has over the טופס, the Gemara explains is only one thing: in the זמן. Here. שטר דאית ביה זמן כמה שוה ודלית ביה זמן כמה שוה. That otherwise, they're both the same. There's only one מעלה the תורף has is זמן, and you have to evaluate how much is the date worth. What's the מעלה of the date? שטר דאית ביה זמן גובה ממשעבדי. If a שטר has a date, if the person who owes the money, the לוה, doesn't have any money to pay, you could not only go take from his property, that's obviously, that's called בני חורין, but if he doesn't have anything, you could go to the fields that he sold to other people after the loan took place, and you could take from them. But if it doesn't have a זמן, then you can't go because you never know when the date of this, maybe he bought the fields before he had the loan. So the מעלה of, so you have to evaluate, take a שטר Go to the market, and same שטר which says that you borrowed a hundred dollars, if it has a זמן, how much would someone pay for it, and if it doesn't have a זמן? So let's use an example. Let's say if for the שטר without זמן he'll pay 90 dollars, with זמן he'll pay a hundred. So that means that the זמן is worth 10 dollars. So the one that's holding the תורף has the זמן, וממילא 10 dollars already goes to his credit. And the rest you divide equally. That's what the Gemara says.

Comes Rashi, and Rashi says like this: תורף עדיף מטופס דאית ביה מקום הזמן. What's the מעלה of the תורף over the טופס? Has the זמן, date. The truth is it's not so. The תורף has the date, no, the signatures are at טופס, the תורף has the date, the תורף has the names, has the amount of money, that's the main part of the שטר! So why do we say his מעלה is only the זמן? So Rashi zogt: דאילו שם המלוה והלוה והמעות כתובין אף בטופס. The names of the מלוה and the לוה and the amount of money is rewritten, in the second half you rewrite it, שצריך לחזור מענינו של שטר בשיטה אחרונה, because at the end of the שטר you rewrite all the details. And not only that, but who he cares, that's even the most important part. אבל זמן לא מהדר, the זמן we don't rewrite. So the other details, they both holding equally: he's holding the bottom of it, he's holding the top of it, but they're holding the same thing. The זמן you do not repeat. Now the שאלה, what about the עדים? The עדים are by the טופס, at the end of the שטר. Rashi: ואי משום חתימת עדים, איי the guy has the עדים, שהוא תחת הטופס, it's by the end of the שטר at טופס, so Rashi says this Gemara goes according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. And the

Gemara explained before that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds מודה בשטר שכתבו אין צריך לקיימו. We spoke about this last week, that the machloket of Rabbi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, if someone has a שטר, and it's not מקוים, now normally a שטר if it's not מקוים, it's not certified, the guy could טענה מזויף, and he doesn't have to pay. What happens if the guy does not טענה מזויף, he doesn't say that it's forged, he's modeh, not forged, it's a good שטר, פרעתי, but I paid? So Rabbi says he's believed. The reason, pshatut, without going into the shiur of last week, because there's a migo. He's believed para'ti b'migo, he could have said מזויף. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says no, מודה בשטר שכתבו אין צריך לקיימו. If you're modeh that the שטר is good, even though it doesn't have קיום, it doesn't need קיום. You were מקיים it! And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel looks at it that since you were מקיים it, against a שטר מקוים, פרעתי doesn't work. Imagine a person brings a שטר מקוים and he's going to answer 'I paid'. If that could happen, then no שטר is worth anything, he could always say 'פרעתי'. So Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that even though the way the שטר became מקוים was through the לוה himself, the שטר is מקוים! So Rashi says here, so Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that a שטר, even if it doesn't have קיום, the לוה being מקיים, being מודה, gives the validity to the שטר. אי בהא, since about the עדים which is תחת הטופס, so אי סבירא ליה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל מודה בשטר שכתבו אין צריך לקיימו, והא מודה שכתבו! What's the case here? They're both holding the שטר. The מלוה says 'You didn't pay me', the לוה says 'I paid'. So he's מודה that the שטר is a good שטר. So who cares that the bottom guy, the guy holding the טופס has the עדים and the top guy doesn't? You don't need the עדים, because the guy is מודה that the שטר is good. This is Rashi שיטה. Comes Tosafot, and

Tosafot asks three kushyot on Rashi and has a new pshat. Three kushyot Tosafot asks: Number one, what Rashi says that you repeat all the details at the end of the שטר of טופס, that's not, that's true, but that doesn't mean anything. Because when you repeat it in the שיטה אחרונה in the last line, the דין is you cannot use it, they cannot learn it. The only reason they made this repeat in the last line was a different reason: because when you finish the שטר, Tosafot doesn't taytsh it, but that's the pshat: you finish, you have a שטר, and you finish the שטר and the עדים sign, what happens if there's a little space between the end of the שטר and the עדים? You could fill in whatever you want. After the עדים sign that it says you owe me a hundred dollars, you fill in, 'And you also borrowed a million dollars', you could fill it in! So the חכמים wanted that there should be some kind of end to the שטר, so they said after you finish everything, repeat the details. And that'll be the סימן the שטר is over, but that's not valid! So he says to Rashi, what are you telling me that the details he doesn't have extra, why, because the other guy also has it? Because it's repeated, that doesn't count. So ממילא the other guy doesn't have it, because what he has there is nothing, that's one kushya. Then he says, why don't we say that the guy who has the טופס has more than the other guy because he has the עדים? So Rashi says because Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that if the guy is מודה, the לוה is מודה, then the שטר is good even if not מקוים. He says sure, A שטר that has עדים and the עדים is not מקוים and he's מודה, okay. But if a שטר has no עדים, פירוש התוספות דאם חשיב האי שאינו תופס עדים כאילו יש לו שטר בלא עדים, if you're gonna say the guy is holding the first half, it's like he doesn't have עדים, if we're saying his part he doesn't have עדים, אם כן, לרבן שמעון בן גמליאל נמי לא אתי שפיר, for Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is also not good. דנהי דסבר דאין צריך לקיימו, it's like he says that a שטר that has עדים and there's no קיום and the לוה is מודה, you don't need to מקיים it. מכל מקום כשאין כלל עדי חתימה, פסול. עדי חתימה is, well that's what we're saying. We're נחשב that he's, oh, he has his part. For I, we're giving him that part. It's like the talit. We say the part you're holding, that's separate. That you got. So we're learning the same idea by the שטר. So you're looking why does he get this, he get this? Because we're looking as if he's holding this and it's cut, ke'ilu it's merely cut off. So you don't have the עדים. But Tosafos says, who cares you don't have the עדים? But you're מודה that the שטר is good. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that if you're מודה that the שטר is good without עדים it has the דין of a שטר? If it has עדים and it's not מקוים, it works. And a third kashya he asks, Tosafos asks, ובכלל he says, ועוד במה עודף תורף מטופס? Why would you say the תורף has extra? Why? Because we look at he has the part with the זמן. If we're looking at it as if this is cut off, any part of the שטר that's cut off makes the שטר פסול. So he says, כך השטר פסול בלא טופס כמו בלא תורף, and the other guy is holding the טופס, so it's also important to the שטר. דאם נמחק אפילו שיטה אחת מן השטר הוא פסול, if one is erased. So the whole pshat of Rashi is strange. אלא ודאי that Tosefos has a different pshat. ודאי יש לומר דבמה שהשטר נפסל אין שמין. Farkert, we do not count that you have this place this place this part. If it's a part that you have that if we're gonna consider that you have it the שטר will be pasul, then we don't give it to you. Since it's a שטר, we look at it that every part that if you take it away the שטר is pasul, the other guy is holding the שטר is holding it too. They're both holding it. Whatever part you're holding that is important to the the חשיבות of the שטר, they're both holding. דכך שוה כי כשנמחק שיטה אחת מן הטופס כמו תופס לוה ומלוה ועדים. If you're holding this, you're holding the whole שטר, and he's holding this, he's holding the whole שטר, because without it it's worthless. שהשטר אינו כשר בלא זה כמו בלא זה. So then what's the pshat in the Gemara? The pshat in the Gemara is a very good pshat. אבל זמן, the only thing that we give this guy extra credit for the זמן, because זמן, השטר כשר בלא זמן. Anything that you hold that the שטר would not be kasher without it, so that we consider it that the other guy is also holding because he's holding the שטר, and if you take this away there's no שטר. And what he's holding, even if his part has no name, but it's part of the שטר. The only thing that we give, so they're both equal. So בכלל, you don't care what they're holding. The only maalah that this guy has that's holding the תורף is he has something that would not make it pasul. So the עדים, we don't count he has the עדים, not like Rashi said because we don't need, because without the עדים, what he's holding is worthless. So עדים goes on everything, everything, except the zman, because a shtar is kasher without the zman. This is Rashi, this is Tosafos. Now we have to answer Rashi, what's pshat in Rashi? Beis Din, no, we don't have, we don't know. So you can't collect from משועבדים, that's all. But the shtar is good, you still have a ראיה. It's not worse than a מלוה על פה, I mean, that's. No, he has something a maalah. He has a maalah over the other guy. He has a maalah. The maalah is because it will sell more. No. To someone else. No. That's how you evaluate it. The maalah is you collect from משועבדים. Right, how do you evaluate how much is that maalah worth? How do you evaluate a maalah? How much a maalah will be sold in the market. So if you see like many times when you see an עבד you have to evaluate a person when you give a hezek, how how is sold as an עבד? Say you have to pay for the ולדות if a person in Mishpatim we learned, a person hits and kills the fetus of the woman, so you have to evaluate and you pay the value of the ולדות. How how do you evaluate the value of the pregnancy? Huh? In Rambam, I mean in פרק קמא, huh? So you evaluate it, you go to the market and you ask a שפחה that's pregnant is how much would you charge, and a שפחה that's not pregnant. And that difference, that's the value. Same thing here, how much you would sell, but that's how you evaluate it, but the maalah of the zman is you can collect from משועבדים. That's what the Gemara says. According to Tosafos, though, if there's only one thing that's in the entire contract that can make a difference, why did why do they have to go and say it backwards? Why didn't they just say whoever has the zman part is better? That's what he said, no? No, because the beraisa said, he takes this one and he takes that one. But that's a roundabout way of saying who's getting it, instead of saying. No! You're right it's a roundabout way, but he's trying to tell us why, because you're holding this and you're holding this that's Just like by the talis we say, זה נוטל עד מקום שידו, he takes what he holds and he takes. So here you want to say also, the reason we give him the extra maalah of the zman, because he's holding this part. So we use that lashon. He gets the טענה, he gets the maalah of the shtar because he's holding the shtar. He has no ma'alah, he has the shtar. He also has the shtar. They both have the shtar. So they're both holding the same thing. The ma'alah is that, just to to enter Rashi, so a a long אריכות till we get so a זייטיגע ענין in a few of the סוגיות before in the Gemara. Even though they're different ענינים, but it has a שייכות here. Somehow, we'll see. Gemara דף ג' is... Gemara דף ה' I mean... No, ו'.

Gemara דף ו', the story with the מסוסתא. There was a bathhouse that two people were arguing over. He says it's mine, he says it's mine. One guy got up and was מקדיש it. Said it's הקדש. The Gemara wants to know, is the הקדש חל or not? So Tosafot here explains what the two sides of the question is. So Tosafot says like this: the דין by the מסוסתא, what should have been the דין? Forget about the הקדש. Let's say they wouldn't be מקדיש. What would the בית דין פסקן in the מסוסתא? Tosafot says that the דין would be כל דאלים גבר. That's one of those cases called כל דאלים גבר, that whoever grabs it, he keeps it. Tosafot holds בכלל, against, different than the Rosh, that by כל דאלים גבר it could go back and forth. Reuven and Shimon are fighting. Reuven got it, now it's Reuven's. Comes Shimon and grabs it back, now it's Shimon's. The Rosh holds it can't be, after the first guy gets it, that's his. But Tosafot holds not like that. So Tosafot says like this: that for sure, if one guy would have grabbed it and then he was מקדיש it, it would be הקדש. הגם, בעצם, the other guy could come and grab it back. Nevertheless, no, it still would be הקדש. The she'eilah is, if the guy did not grab it, and he hak arayn and he was מקדיש it, is the הקדש there? What's the sevara why it shouldn't be? Cuz the Gemara uses a לשון: אמירתו לגבוה כמסירתו להדיוט, that if you're מקדיש it... So he says, because my only right why could I be מקדיש it, if anything, because I could grab it, but the other guy could grab it away from me. So if the other guy could grab it away from me, so ממילא I can't be מקדיש it for that reason. Or maybe not, maybe I could be מקדיש it also. So Tosafot basically is making a chiluk between if I was if I would take it, if I grabbed it and then מקדיש, or I was מקדיש without grabbing. Now we have to understand. One thing is clear: why does Tosafot say that if I grabbed it and then I was מקדיש it, the הקדש stays, אי the other guy could go and grab it back? So that based on No, not now, but later it could go away. But once you take it, he took it as a matzav of fightable. No, and when he does מקדיש it's still could have been a matzav of fightable, isn't it? No, no, cuz that's the point. It was a You throw a ball up in the air, we're grabbing for it, it's in a matzav of it can go either way. Right, and when you grabbed it, it's finished. No, once I grab it, even according to Tosafot, I'm taking it out of this playing field, I'm putting it into הקדש, it's no longer... And if I give it to somebody else? Exactly. What's the difference? If I if I take it, and I give it to you, the guy could come and grab it from you. Not if I'm a bona fide, if I if I took it and I made a kinyan on it, how can he... No, that's by Tosafot's shita, nu! It's the fact that I gave it to you, yeah, that's the peshat fun di zach. Tosafot holds כל דאלים גבר that that guy has a right to grab it back. So what's the difference if he gave it to הקדש? The answer is very pashut, that doesn't have to we don't have to go too far. The answer is that something that becomes הקדש, הקדש בכדי לא פקע. הקדש stays. Takes it out of a... Not because it's another רשות. No, takes... Because it's הקדש! It's transferred... Something that became הקדש could never become אויס הקדש. The only way something can release הקדש is if you're שואל על ההקדש, you go, you מתיר נדר. So here the question is this guy never had the permission to give it to hekdesh, obviously we know... No, a second, he grabbed it, it's his! Let let me finish, hold on. He grabbed it, and it's his, and he's makdish it. That he could do. The question is why can't the other guy go and grab it, since the din is he could grab it back and take it away? Because hekdesh doesn't go away. You cannot Something that became kadosh cannot go away. הקדש בכדי לא פקע, the Gemara says. There's a לשון in the Gemara in different places: קדושה שבהן, היכן הלכה? What happened to the kedushah? Kedushah doesn't go. Kedushah is it stays. I can just bring an example, I once mentioned בנוגע the Gemara in Gittin, where the Gemara says, if

somebody, a שכיב מרע, someone who's dying, and the din is with a שכיב מרע when he's dying says, give this and this to somebody, you give it, even though there was no kinyan, it becomes his. But nevertheless, the din is if he became healthy again, he could have charatah. Now the Gemara says, what happens if a person when he was a שכיב מרע gave all his נכסים, everything he has, away to his עבד כנעני? So two things happen: first of all, he becomes free. He becomes free, cause he gave it to him, so he gave him back. What happens when a עבד כנעני becomes free? He's a Yid. It's a full-fledged Yid. And he keeps all the נכסים, because he gave him everything. What happens if he became healthy? So the גמרא says, חוזר בנכסים ואינו חוזר בעבד. He could have charatah from all the נכסים and say, \"שכיב מרע, שכיב מרע, I have charatah.\" But from the עבד, you can't. Zogt Rashi, why not? He says, why? שכבר קידש השם. He became kadosh. Kedushah, you can't, alright, you could have charatah on the dinim, but something that became kadosh, he became a Yid, so the kedushah of a Yid, you can't have charatah. This kedushah never leaves. This question that we're talking about, could somebody marry, give this שוה פרוטה to a wife, and will she be מקודשת, and even if that comes, you cannot take it back? It's a good sheilah. I don't know. Probably it's a good sheilah, I don't know. Happy February 10th. So, we see from there that kedushah, Tosafot learns it's derabbanan, but for a different reason. But באמת, this kedushah doesn't go away. We just,

דרך אגב, I have a kashya on the Rambam, in Hilchot Beit Habechirah, the Rambam says that there is a difference between קדושה ראשונה and the קדושה שנייה. When Yehoshua conquered Eretz Yisrael, he was מקדש ארץ ישראל. But when Nevuchadnetzar chased Jews out of Eretz Yisrael, the קדושה ראשונה בטל. קדושה ראשונה, קידשה לשעתה ולא קידשה לעתיד לבוא. Not forever, and it became בטל. Then when Ezra came back, and Ezra was mekadesh the second time, קדושה שנייה, קידשה לשעתה ולעתיד לבוא, that stayed forever. And the Rambam gives a whole reason, cause the first one came through כיבוש. It came because they conquered it, so the kedushah is from conquering. And since it's from conquering, the moment the conquering stopped, the kedushah stopped. The second one came through chazakah, because they held onto it. So then it stayed forever. And all the mefarshim ask kashya of, what's the chiluk from the first one? That's what the Rambam, besides Yerushalayim, so Yerushalayim and the בית המקדש, מפני השכינה, קדושת השכינה, שכינה לא זזה ממקומה. I don't understand. Ein hachi nami, taking care through כיבוש, but it's a kedushah that came. קדושה לא, קדושה doesn't leave. So how does the Rambam say, like this, with all of this, just how does the Rambam say? I just

think, if you learn the שיחה, where the Rebbe explains this Rambam, mora'dik, talking at this shichah with the Rebbe, the lamdanut that the Rebbe gives, it's, I once restored it to somebody, it's a Brisker vort. Ten times better. Huh? No, no. The Rebbe doesn't answer the kashya I'm asking, but the Rebbe has a whole arichut in the shichah, and explains that the whole difference between קדושה ראשונה, the whole bottom line is that the קדושה ראשונה, the tzivui of the Eibershter is that the kedushah depends on kibush. And therefore it goes away. Mah she'ein kein the second one, that the Eibershter said it should come through chazakah, and chazakah is ba'alut, and the ba'alut never leaves because the Yidden are ba'alei batim over ארץ ישראל no matter what, even if we're out. So if the, if the kedushah is totally dependent on the ba'alut, the kedushah stays. The first one, the kedushah didn't depend on the ba'alut. The Eibershter said to conquer it. It's, it's a arichut, a shichah mamash, but mora'dik. But ba'al korchach, what do we see from there? That this kedushah is a special type. It's a kedushah that's totally in the דיבור השם, that the Eibershter gave a condition to the kedushah. Stam azoy, when a person is makdish something, and it became kadosh, it doesn't go away. But according to the way the Rebbe explains that the whole thing is totally in the ציווי השם, that the Eibershter said it should be kadosh through kibush, so the Eibershter gave a condition. So if Hakadosh Baruch Hu, a condition in the kedushah, it's there. But if you make a regular kedushah, not. So let's get back to this Tosafot. We're going

What about עבודה זרה? Takes it and instead of kedushah, makes it עבודה זרה, he bowed down to it. Yeah. It's his at that moment. Yeah. The guy can't grab it back. With עבודה זרה, what happens to it? It's the opposite of kedushah. Could be, could be, takeh, you can. Could be you can, because, but I'm not sure by עבודה זרה what the din would be, because someone else's thing, because someone else's thing you can't make, אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So it would be something to think about. So we understand what Tosafot means, that if he grabbed it and was makdish, makdish it, the fact that somebody else could grab it back doesn't change it. So what, what, what the דא פארשטיין is, but maybe because it's possible for the other guy to grab it away, lechatchilah the kedushah shouldn't be chal. Just like Tosafot says that he didn't grab it. So, and he's makdish it. So Tosafot, why can't, why is there a sevara that the kedushah is not chal? Because the only reason he could grab it, but the other guy could grab it away, too. So lechatchilah the kedushah is not chal. So why don't they say the same thing? Takeh, ein hachi nami. If we say the kedushah is chal, then we understand it doesn't change, kedushah doesn't go away. But maybe the kedushah shouldn't be chal. So we're going to say the answer, the peshat, and then this and this will lead us into our inyan. The

answer would be like this: when a person, there are sometimes there are two things that a person could do about the ownership. There is what we call ba'alut, he owns it, and then sometimes you have certain zechuyot, you have a certain right over it. Now usually, they go together. If I own something, I have all the rights over it. But there are sometimes when you have a right, this is only a zechut, but you don't own it, you have certain rights over it. Now peshat Tosafot, when you have two people, and one has ba'alut, and one has only a zechut, the ba'alut always overcomes the zechut, the ba'alut is stronger. And this is the pshat in this Tosafot, I think. בשעת he grabbed it, he has בעלות. What does the other guy have? A זכות, but he has the right if he'll grab it. But he has only a זכות, he doesn't have בעלות. If you have בעלות and זכות, which one is stronger? The בעלות is stronger. So he has the בעלות. So if he has the בעלות, he overcomes the fact that the other guy has a זכות, and therefore he's מקדיש it, and it's kadosh. And after it's kadosh, it's כבר חל, it stays. But the reason he could be מקדיש it even though the other guy has a right, because his בעלות is stronger than his right. Potential בעלות. Huh? Yeah, that's a זכות. A זכות, a potential בעלות, it's not even בעלות. In the case where he was מקדיש, it was without grabbing, they're both equal. What's his right to be מקדיש it? Because he has the right to grab it. But if he has a right to grab it, the other guy also has a right to grab it. When you have both זכויות, so his מעשה, mine is not better than his. If mine is not better than his, so then טאקע די קדושה is not chal. I don't have If he would not have anything and I have, maybe it would chal. But if it's only a זכות, and he has a זכות, just my זכות is not better than his זכות, so I can't be מקדיש it. That's the that's the pshat of Tosafot. So what I'm trying to bring out here is just one thing: that when we have זכות and בעלות, the זכות does not have any תוקף against the בעלות. And the אמת is, we see from I think there's a מחלוקת HaRambam and Tosafot later or whatever, how far that goes. On the Gemara before, בנוגע תוקפו דכהן, we have a whole sugya before, which there we could also see a long אריכות through Tosafos, and I'm not going to go into it. But we see that the בעלות, that the זכות sometimes could be in the סברא that the זכות is worthless. When it comes to זכות versus בעלות, you don't take the זכות into consideration at all. According to the Rambam, in a case of מעשר, ודאי, okay, but not to It will take very long. So the bottom line is, let's learn it like this: that זכות in the place of בעלות, the בעלות is what counts, and the זכות doesn't count. Okay. Based on that, I want to go back to our Gemara. And listen to this: The

Ritva answers Tosafos kushya on Rashi, the second kushya. The second kushya on Rashi was that Rashi said the עדות, there's no problem with the עדות, because Rabban Gamliel holds if you're modeh, then you don't need to מקים it. But Tosafos said, \"What are you talking about? But the bottom line but you need עדות. If you don't have עדות, how could you have not עדות? If you have עדות and it's not מקוים, the modeh worked, but you have to have עדות.\" So the Ritva, so I'll tell you, he he defends Rashi. And he says like this: This עדות is at the end of the שטר. The עדות is not on the papers. The עדות is on the whole שטר. וממילא, you cannot say that he has the עדות and he doesn't. איי, the עדות is not written here? So he gives a good example, interesting example: What happens if you have a שטר, and there's עדות signed, and it's getting erased, and the עדות got erased, and the Beit Din saw, and the Beit Din wrote a קיום? So here you have a שטר that you cannot see the עדות, but the עדות is there. So he says, \"What do we see from here?\" the Ritva says. There's a מציאות that the עדות is considered there, even though you don't see it, because that's the whole שטר. The top, the תורף, the guy who has the תורף doesn't have the עדות, but you can't say the מעלה of this guy over that guy, because this guy, the עדות goes on there. Ay, you don't see it? So you don't see it, but the עדות goes on the whole שטר. פרעגט ער, אבער, what about זמן? Why can't you say the same thing with זמן? The Gemara says that זמן he has a מעלה. But this זמן is not the זמן of this piece of piece of paper, it's the זמן of the whole שטר! So he says that this זמן of the whole שטר, this זמן is not מעצם השטר. זמן is not part of the עצם השטר. וממילא, this זמן doesn't you can't consider this זמן go on the whole שטר. You can't say this. The עדים, which are מעצם השטר, so every aspect of the שטר, beginning to the end, everything is is the עדות. The עדות go on it. Why? Because that's מעצם השטר, but זמן not. It's not so clear. I mean, he says it and I understand it, but sof kol sof, and if it's not מעצם השטר, but still, it's the זמן of the שטר. Why is it that so so מוגבל to the fact that if it's מעצם השטר, then it goes on everything, if it's not מעצם השטר? But l'poel, when you write this זמן, you mean this line? You write this זמן on the whole שטר. No, he's not saying because it's מקים. Good, so who cares if it doesn't require kiyum? That's right. Who cares if it doesn't require kiyum, but it's something that applies to the whole שטר! What's the זמן of this line? It's זמן. What, the לווה on this line? It's not מעצם I'm not saying I'm not asking a kushya, because I could understand it, I I I see it, but I want to say extra based on what I said before. No. So, he

says the Gemara says no! The Gemara says the זמן is only in the top, and that guy who has this part gets the זמן, and this guy is not considered holding the זמן. So, I want to say like this: that let's accept the Rashba's peshat in in Rashi. The only problem with the Rashba's peshat in Rashi, it's a good peshat, Rashi says a different reason. The Ritva. Huh? No. He's saying the Ritva, I'm saying yeah, the Ritva, sorry the Ritva I said. The Ritva says a good peshat in in the shita of Rashi, but that's not what Rashi says. Rashi says that the reason why the עדות don't count because Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that you don't have to be מקיים it. So, how does we fit that? That's what the she'eilah, that's that's a she'eilah: how can you put that into Rashi? So, the Ritva so they can ask, maybe he doesn't hold like Rashi, he's saying a peshat like Rashi, but for different reasons. But if you want to I want to say that Rashi holds like that. It's basically I want to say that Rashi be'emet holds like Tosafot. Rashi be'emet learns the Gemara like Tosafot. It's the what he says is a זייטיגע זאך. Now, bring proof of this. I don't know if it's so or not. I told you before there's a difference between the בעלות and the זכות. I think that the זמן, the fact that you have the זמן, that's called a זכות. Having the עדות, because it's מעצם השטר, you have the בעלות of you have the בעלות of the שטר. The זמן, since it's not מעצם השטר, that's a certain right that you have to collect from the משועבדים. That's what the זמן is. וממילא, when you have בעלות and you have זמן and you have you have, so the בעלות is what and and the the זכות doesn't count. So, therefore like this: the זכות So, the guy who has the זכות, so this זכות will not go on the whole שטר. The זכות is a זאך that we have it only here. בעלות of the שטר, since בעלות means you own it, that goes on the whole שטר. And that's the chiluk that the the Ritva is making. I'm trying to put it in, that the ענין of עדות which is the בעלי בעלות of the שטר, that we say is the whole שטר. זמן is different. זמן is not is is only a זכות that you have, and the זכות that you have is all is not the whole שטר, וממילא it only goes on this guy. So, לכאורה you could say like this, maybe, that באמת there is no מחלוקת between Rashi Tosafot didn't learn like that in Rashi, but באמת what Rashi means, Rashi means like Tosafot. That the אמת is, why do we say that everything else doesn't count, because like Tosafot says the פשט, whatever the שטר will be פסול without is מעצם השטר. And if it's מעצם השטר, it goes on the whole thing. Like the Ritva says בנוגע to the עדות, you say it on everything: say it on the מלוה, on the on the שם המלוה והלוה, say it on the amount of money, cuz the amount of money is not this part, it's the whole שטר, and that's מעצם השטר. So, there Rashi means that. The reason why the עדות are not is because the עדות And the עדות, the same thing, the עדות are not. Why does Rashi mention Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? Rashi mentions it to bavaarnen a different שאלה. I'll tell you what the שאלה is. The שאלה is like this: the אמת is they're both holding the עדות, because the עדות is מעצם השטר and it's the בעלות of the שטר, so it goes on everything, so. But there's a little מעלה, the guy holding this, a zaytige maalhe, a small מעלה: he can be mekayem it, this guy can't be mekayem it. So, there's a certain zechut, this is only a zechut, there's a certain zechut that the guy has. That's what Rashi bawarnt: mekayem it? So, big deal! Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that you don't have to be mekayem it. So, the way you learn pashut peshat in Rashi, that he holds that the whole עדות doesn't count because of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, that's Tosafot's kashya, that doesn't make sense. But I'm saying not that from Rashi. Rashi bawarnt a זייטיגע זאך. Like we're saying, the whole thing, the zman is a zechut and that's what he has. So, kashya, what about the edim? There's a zechut in the edim, too! What's the zechut? The kiyum is the zechut. So, kashya: no, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that you don't need kiyum, so mimela there's no zechut either. So, mimela the עדות goes on the whole thing, so they both have the edim. The zman is only a small thing, it's only a zechut, and that only goes on the guy who has it. The first kashya that he asks So, I want to say, huh? Why don't you call the edim the mekayem the the בעלות? No, the mekayem is no, the שטר is the the the... Why don't you call it... The שטר is a שטר, the עדות are there. The only thing that's missing is kiyum, but he wasn't mekayem it, he has a right to be he has an ability, that's only a zechus. The first kashya, just the first kashya that Rashi that Tosafos asks, that Rashi says that since it's repeated later, memeila what Rashi, why is the name of the malveh, the malveh, the loveh, the the money that doesn't count? Because it's repeated. So, hey, repeated, that doesn't count! So, I You could learn I don't know if it's so pashut, this dachuk maybe, that Rashi again learns the reason that doesn't count is because it goes on the whole שטר, u-memeila they both have it equally. A re'ayah that this is מעיקר השטר, it's only a re'ayah, the fact that the Chachamim said that when you want to repeat things end of the שטר, put that in. Why do they pick this? The Chachamim could have said, you know, at the end of the שטר make a scribble-scrabble. They picked the שטר itself and say just repeat the שטר, cuz what's the purpose? The purpose is to show that the שטר finished. So how do you show the שטר finished? Put what the שטר is at the end! Basically it's finished. So Rashi is like learning that way: since you put the שטר at the end, the Chachamim put it at the end, is a re'ayah that this is referred to as מעצם השטר, and since it's מעצם השטר, not because he has this. He has the names because it's all one שטר and it's all one thing. But it's a re'ayah for it. So it comes out like this, that what Rashi says that this inyan it's only a re'ayah. It's not a sibah, it's a siman. A lot of times we have these two inyanim. Certain things are a siman to something, that's not the cause, and certain things are a sibah. Lemashal, the famous Rogatchover, דער Rebbe brings it many places, with סימני טהרה, by a kasher animal, the two simanim, is it a siman, the reason it's kosher because it's kosher whatever the Eibershter wanted, Eibershter gave us simanim, or that's what makes it kosher. Nafka mina, huh? If a If it's הבא מן הטהור, if a cow is born from a kosher'e cow and doesn't have the simanim, is it kosher or not? If the simanim are the sibah, it's not. If it's only a siman, here we have another siman. The siman is the mother. Then we have other places where we find this in halacha, just in different areas. למשל, מחלוקת בית שמאי ובית הלל, it's a completely different sugya altogether, but when on on Yom Tov, certain melachot you're allowed to do, מלאכת אוכל נפש. And Beit Hillel says, מתוך שהותרה לצורך הותרה נמי שלא לצורך. If you, the Torah said לצורך אוכל נפש, you're allowed to do the same melacha even if it's not אוכל נפש. And Beit Shammai says, \"No, it's only אוכל נפש.\" So what's the machloket? The Rebbe bases on the Ramban, so the Rebbe explains the pshat is, is the inyan of אוכל נפש the reason why the Torah was matir this on Yom Tov? Then it's only מלאכת אוכל נפש. Or is it a siman, the Torah wanted to be matir certain melachot. So instead of going down and giving you a list of the melachot, the Torah gave one siman: the מלאכות of אוכל נפש. So mimela it doesn't have to be. And I think this is a very important pshat, because otherwise, the whole sevara of Beis Hillel is so strange. It sounds, lehavdil, conservative. Since the Torah was מתיר through אוכל נפש, nu nu, zol shoyn zayn, use it for other things also, haha, it's interesting. Okay, the Alter Rebbe in Shulchan Aruch uses a לשון קיבלו חכמים. So according to Beis Hillel, it's like a halacha l'Moshe miSinai or something. But the way the Rebbe says, he learns pashut pshat in pasuk. That the pshat in pasuk is, it's not a סיבה, it's a siman! And it's a siman, so what's it got to do whether you do it for אוכל נפש or not? So I want to say the same thing here. That the first thing that Rashi says is a siman which thing is important, that this is important, mimela, it's part of the whole שטר. In other words, the way you learn it pashut, is the cause. Rashi says, why is this not considered a תוספת, why is not his מעלה? Because he also has it. It's the reason why, it's not the reason, it's just a siman. So we understand, so now all three sheilos of the Rashba are

off. His first sheilah, the שאלה בנוגע the עדים. Rashi means exactly what the Ritva says, that the עדים are part of the שטר. איי, Rashi brings a different sevara of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, that's a בבואה of the אייזיקע זאך. And the reason why זמן is different, he says, Tosafot, the third קשיא is, it's כשר without this. I understand Rashi learns the same way. איי, what's with זמן? So not, so the Tosafot says because this זמן is כשר without it. I'm saying this זמן, because it's only, it's only a זכות, and a זכות the בעל חוב doesn't count. Mimela, whatever he has, he has the זכות. The other guy doesn't help because it's not מעצם השטר, and this clean pshat in Rashi. Okay. Yashar koach, Yashar koach, Yashar koach. Months, seems like this. Okay. I know you are in a rush. You have to go home, that's right. Yeah. What are you waiting, unless you're waiting whatever. But this זמן is so important by the משועבדים, right? I mean, that's really That's not מעיקר השטר. There the Ritva says, it helps for משועבדים. Well, especially when you have two guys arguing on this, it's very it's very important. So what do you think? It should be כשר right away. Well, we met. Tell me, we met something? Huh? You know, you you know when you when you when you write when you write a שטר if you if the things in mind that anything could happen, and it could come that they'll have to collect from some other party so, Yeah, so So the זמן becomes very very important. They're not talking if it's important or not, is it מעצם השטר? I thought that's עצם השטר is Has nothing to do with importance. Does it make it מקוים or not? It doesn't make it מקוים. You don't have to have a a זמן. You're leaving out a detail, it still could be you have a קיום. As long as you have the עדות. The עדות and the names. You have the names and the amounts and And the עדות with this kind of שטר, did it have a זמן on it? If it's a כשר זמן, yeah. But that's they know that the שטר is going to be not not to to its full capacity, because you can't collect from משועבדים. Yashar koach, Yashar koach. A nice a greise oilam. Next time the pie will be better, I promise. You

said that you have to leave, so you're right. Generally, yeah. But it's great, he he said he had to pick up his wife after Maariv. I guess the wife is waiting at the airport now. From the airport? So I talked to him, what'd you say? I guess, 'cause he's late. Yeah, that's what he said. It's from Boro Park.