Gemara here in Bava Metzia דף י״א עמוד א׳, the Gemara says אמר ריש לקיש משום אבא כהן ברדלא, Rish Lakish said in the name of Abba Kohen Bardela a דין, ארבע אמות של אדם קונות לו בכל מקום, that the four amot, the four cubits around a person will acquire, will be koneh for him, wherever it is, any object that comes in. It means in order for a person to acquire an object, let's say you find an object, a lost and you're allowed to keep it in a case where you're allowed to keep it, but it only becomes yours if you make a kinyan, whether you pick it up, make a kinyan. So the din that the chachamim made that if it becomes into four amot, your four amot automatically you are koneh it, and it becomes yours. He says They're all getting to רשות רבים. Huh? רבים? Well, All This is a sugya of ד׳ אמות. And he says מאי טעמא תקינו רבנן? Why did the rabbanan do it? דלא אתו לאנצויי, so people shouldn't argue. Then it'll be easier to to know which thing is mine, which thing is yours. Like this, something comes and this guy, \"I I got it first. I got it first.\" But if it comes into your ד׳ אמות, then you're koneh it. And on this din Huh? Without picking it up? Without picking it up. That's What If you pick up, you're koneh it with a kinyan of picking up. Without picking it up, just coming into your ד׳ אמות, you're koneh it. Then the Gemara brings two kashyot.

One kashya from a Mishnah in Masechet Peah, and one kashya from the Mishnah here in Bava Metzia. The kashya from Masechet Peah is like this: נטל מקצת פאה, it says if you know what פאה, פאה is when you cut the field, you have to leave over a little bit at the edge for the poor people. What happened if a poor guy comes, took some פאה, then he saw some more, and he wanted to get the others also. What did he do? He took some פאה וזרק על השאר, all he did was he threw it on the rest. אין לו בה כלום, gets nothing. Throwing doesn't make it yours. נפל עליה, what happens if he saw some פאה and he threw himself, he jumped on it, or פרס טליתו עליה, took off his coat and he put it on it, מעבירין הימנו, we take him away. It doesn't work. So the Gemara's question is אי אמרת ארבע אמות של אדם קונות לו בכל מקום, if there's a din that anything that's in your four amot, in your around you automatically you're koneh, so if he fell on it, he was obviously within the four amot. So then why is he not koneh? Why do we say it's nothing? So נקנה ליה ארבע אמות דידיה, why don't the ארבע אמות be koneh for him? So first the Gemara wants to answer הכא במאי עסקינן דלא אמר אקני. You know why? Because the case here is, when is he not koneh? Because he didn't say, he didn't say, \"I want to be koneh with the ד׳ אמות.\" And since he didn't say, he's not koneh. So frekt the Gemara, it's not true, אי תיקון רבנן, if the רבנן made a din of ד׳ אמות, כי לא אמר מאי הוה, and if he didn't say? It's a kinyan anyway! So you can't answer me the reason he wasn't koneh over there is because he didn't say. So the Gemara comes up with a new answer. The answer is כיוון דנפל, since he fell on it, גלי דעתיה, the guy who fell on it showed his mind דבנפילה ניחא ליה דנקני, בארבע אמות לא ניחא ליה דנקני, that he wants to be koneh with falling, exactly, and not with the ד׳ אמות. So if he didn't want to be koneh with the ד׳ אמות, that's why he's not koneh. But otherwise, a normal case where something comes in your ד׳ אמות, you're koneh it. It's still peah? Huh? It was still peah what he fell on? Yeah, First he took the first peah. The first he took, but the rest was also peah, right. The rest was also something that the poor people have a right to take.

Rav Pappa gives a different answer. Rav Pappa says כי תיקנו רבנן ארבע אמות בעלמא, אבל בשדה דבעל הבית לא תיקנו, that they only made that takanah in other places, in in the field of somebody else the chachamim didn't make my ארבע אמות in your field. And he says why, דאף על גב דזכה ליה רחמנא בגויה, the Torah made him have a right to come in, כי זכה ליה רחמנא להלוכי בה ולמינקט פאה, the Torah allowed the poor people to come into the field to collect peah. אבל למהוי כחצירו, it should become like his yard, like his domain and he should be koneh it? No, לא זכה ליה רחמנא, the Torah didn't. That's the discussion the Gemara as a a kashya and an answer and the whole discussion on the Mishnah Peah. Then the Gemara continues another kashya, very similar in a Mishnah here. The Mishnah says here, ראה את המציאה ונפל עליה, someone's walking or whatever and he sees a lost object and he fell on it, he jumped on it, ובא אחר והחזיק בה, someone else comes and takes it out, takes it, זה שהחזיק בה זכה בה, the second guy gets it because the first guy was not koneh it, because falling you're not koneh it. Fregt the Gemara the same she'eilah, if Reish Lakish said that something that comes into your ד׳ אמות you're koneh, so this guy, why isn't he koneh with his ד׳ אמות? Before he fell on it he was in the ד׳ אמות. Yeah, but I don't know how far it was, but by the time he got to fall, he became close, so he's definitely in the ד׳ אמות, should be koneh. And the Gemara goes through the same motion. First the Gemara wants to answer because he maybe the case is he didn't say. Then the Gemara says he didn't say, who cares if he didn't say? Doesn't matter if he didn't say, cuz if the Rabbanan made it, it doesn't matter. So therefore, the Gemara answers the same terutz, because he fell on it, it showed he showed that he wants to be koneh with falling, not with the ד׳ אמות, and falling didn't do it, but ד׳ אמות he's also not koneh, that's why he's not koneh.

Rav Sheshet gives a different answer over here, because he says in רשות הרבים the chachamim didn't make it. Didn't make what? The din of ד׳ אמות. It's only in public place, but like in צידי רשות הרבים, סימטא, inside things, but in the case of רשות הרבים, why? And he says why, כי תקינו רבנן דלא דחקי רבים, where there is not a crowd, ברשות הרבים דקא דחקי רבים, where you have a crowd and so many people, each daled amot is within mixed with the other ד׳ אמות, לא תקינו רבנן, רבנן didn't make it. This is the Gemara. Now, in this Gemara, in this din of daled amot, we find many machlokot, many arguments in the rishonim, acharonim, different dinim. So we're going to go through a few, and try to see how to explain the basis of this machloket. Let's go one by one. The הלכה לפי? In each case, whatever is paskeded. 11. One she'eilah here is and which they argue is, this din of daled amot that we're saying the Chachamim made, which is if some metziah, something that's hefker falls into your daled amot, you're koneh, does that also apply to מקח וממכר, to selling? If I sell you something, and in order for it to become yours, you have to make a kinyan. So kinyan means picking up or whatever. What happens if I put it in your daled amot? Does daled amot work or is it worked only by a metziah? What happens by matanah? If I want to give you a present, so if I put it in your daled amot, does it become yours, are you koneh it? A get, a get is? We're not talking about transfer of money. We're not talking about transfer of money at all here. No, money is not koneh anyway. Money is not koneh. A get is, I agree with you. A get works with daled amot. A get for sure it works. But the she'eilah is does it work by מקח וממכר? Money is not koneh. We learned that a whole bunch in in this, by metziah, yeah, and later, money is not koneh, you have to make a kinyan. Meshichah, pull it, pick it up, whatever kinyan you make. So is this, if you put puts in the daled amot, are you koneh or not? Now, from Tosafos is mashma that it doesn't work by מקח וממכר. How? Because Tosafos asks the קשיא, and this din of ד׳ אמות, which we said is koneh, we find a different Gemara he brings that if someone steals something, he's not koneh with the ד׳ אמות, because to be chayav for גניבה, to be obligated to pay, is only if you took it. Taking means you made a kinyan. So it says if you stole it, but you never picked it up, even though it came into your ד׳ אמות, he didn't he's not chayav yet. Why not? That's Tosafos קשיא. If ד׳ אמות makes a kinyan, so why is he not koneh? And Tosafos answered, יש לומר, דבגנבה לא תקינו רבנן דלקני. By גניבה, by stealing, the רבנן didn't make. How does How did he steal it and not be Steal it and not be koneh? You're schlepping it on the ground. Then it's not It's not koneh. So you're not koneh, but it came into your ד׳ אמות. In your ד׳ אמות, but you're not. That's why he's saying not koneh. And then later when you pick it up, he's saying then you're koneh it, then you're chayav. It's noge'a You don't I'm not going to go into the sugya there. It's noge'a when the גניבה took place, is it koneh? But anyway, that's not noge'a to the המשך of how it is. But

Tosafos says by גניבה there was no tikun of ד׳ אמות, אלא במציאה. Yes! Only by מציאה. Why? דלא ליתי לאנצויי. By מציאה, you could come to argue. It's an הפקר'דיקע thing. I say I got it, you say you got it. So the חכמים wanted to make it easier, they said ד׳ אמות is קונה. So they only made it by מציאה and by גט. משום עיגונא. By גט, they made it easier. If you give a גט to the אשה, to the woman in her ד׳ אמות, she gets divorced. She's קונה it, she gets divorced. Why? They wanted to make it easier for a woman to be able to get a גט, because otherwise, you know, sometimes she might remain an agunah. What comes out from Tosafot? מציאה and גט. These comes out that he gives מתנה. That's what I'm saying. So comes out from Tosafot, that's what we're talking about. So I want to bring a re'ayah from Tosafot, and the mefarshim bring this re'ayah. A re'ayah that Tosafot holds that by a מתנה and מקח וממכר, by selling or by a present, it doesn't work, because Tosafot said it only works by מציאה. Know why? So people shouldn't argue, because otherwise they'll argue. By מתנה, nobody's going to argue. If I put a מתנה to you, who someone's going to say, no, it's mine? I'm giving it to you, or if I'm selling something to you. So according to Tosafot, it comes out that by מקח וממכר, by selling or by a present, there is no דין of ד׳ אמות. It's mashma from Rashi like that, because in Rashi, when it speaks about it says ד׳ אמות קונה, so Rashi uses this words: אם יש סביבותיו דבר הפקר. If something of הפקר is found around you, אין אחר רשאי לתופסו, no one else could take it, because you קונה with ד׳ אמות. Why does Rashi mention by הפקר? And if it's, what if it's by, what if it's a מתנה? But why is it by פאה it should also be? Huh? פאה's a field. It belongs to everybody. Yeah. All at once. A bunch of poor people everywhere. So what should be? And they come to argue about it. So it should fall in there. Yeah, but the reason is because it's in the רשות of what the Gemara answers. That was the Gemara's kashya, understand? That was the Gemara's kashya: how come it doesn't apply? And that's what the Gemara gave the answer, that he showed that he doesn't want, because he fell on it, or the second terutz, in the רשות of somebody's house, somebody's yard, it doesn't work. But בעצם, it should apply, that's the Gemara's kashya, why doesn't it apply? It should apply, because it's hefker. But from Tosafos and from Rashi comes out that it doesn't work by other things besides a metziah or by get. because there it's something that each one could טענה it's for me. But by by sell, by מקח וממכר, by matanah, you see that the Shitah Mekubetzet gives a different terutz on Tosafos' kushya: why not by גניבה? Because when it comes to an aveirah, the chachamim didn't say it. So it's not because of what Tosafos says, by an aveirah. So what about selling or a present? It's not an aveirah, maybe they did say. Tosafos didn't give that answer. Tosafos says they only said it in a place where you might come to argue. And by גניבה, you're not going to argue. So if that's the reason that only with a place where you might come to argue, it's only by a metziah. And that's similar to Rashi. The

Rambam says clearly, when he talks about the din of ד׳ אמות, the Rambam says, and therefore, after the chachamim made a din of ד׳ אמות, it's you have a matanah put into your ד׳ אמות, you are koneh it. So the Rambam holds clearly that it's not only there, but מקח וממכר also. That's how the Nimukei Yosef here holds, that's how the Ramban holds, that's how the Rashba holds, that's how the Ritva holds. That there is ד׳ אמות by מקח וממכר, that's what they hold. Actually, the Ritva even wants to bring, he says that there is a, this דין, whether it applies to מקח וממכר and matana also, or not, is a machloket in Yerushalmi between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish. That's how he teytsh zu. Reish Lakish holds it does apply, Rabbi Yochanan holds it's not. And he tayn't, since the Gemara here brings Reish Lakish, that means that our Gemara, Bavli paskent like Reish Lakish, that what? That it does work by מקח וממכר. So the bottom line is that we have a big machloket here whether this whole דין of ד׳ אמות was also made by a sale or by a present, or only by a metziah. Keep that in mind. So let's try to understand what is the reason behind the machloket. Then there's another machloket between the Rabbeinu Yonatan and the Ramach. The Shitah brings.

Rabbeinu Yonatan says that in order to be koneh with ד׳ אמות, you have to say, \"My ד׳ אמות are koneh for me.\" And he gives a logical sevara. You have to say! And he gives a logical sevara. He says, when you have a קנין חצר, חצר means if something comes into my domain, in my yard, in my house, I'm koneh it. So the דין is like this, the Gemara on דף י״א here says, if it's a חצר המשתמרת, if it's a yard, it has walls, whatever, it's guarded, something comes in, and it's stuck there, it's guarded there, then automatically I'm koneh it. If it's my חצר, that's one of the kinyanim. One of the kinyanim where a person is koneh through חצר. Right. If it's a חצר שאינה משתמרת, if it has no walls, it's not משתמר, not guarded, so it's only koneh if you're standing there, you have to be עומד בצדה, and if you say \"זכתה לי שדי\", you have to say \"let my field be זוכה for me, koneh for me.\" So the Rabbeinu Yonatan says, if by a קנין חצר, which is a קנין דאורייתא, it's not the חכמים made a תקנה, it's a kinyan from the Torah. If it's a חצר שאינה משתמרת, it's not you have, in order for you to be koneh, you have to say \"let my חצר be koneh\", by ד׳ אמות, which is only a קנין דרבנן, you certainly have to say, and it's definitely אינה משתמרת. It's only your ד׳ אמות, it's not guarded. So certainly you have to say, I want to be koneh with the ד׳ אמות. Huh? Yeah. If yeah, in a case where it's אינה משתמרת, yeah. No, if it's if it's משתמרת, she doesn't, but if אינה משתמרת, yeah. No, she has to say. If it's אינה משתמרת, she has to say. So he brings a re'aya. Ay, the Gemara says opposite! How could the Rabbeinu Yonatan learn like that? When the Gemara tried to answer why by פאה you're not koneh with the ד׳ אמות, because he didn't say, and the Gemara says, \"What are you talking about? You don't have to say!\" Right? That's what the Gemara says! So how did Rabbeinu Yonatan say you do have to say? It's against the Gemara! So he answers, he says you don't understand pshat in the Gemara. Farkert, he says, \"I have a re'aya from this Gemara to me!\" The first answer of the Gemara was what? Why aren't you koneh? Because you didn't Because you didn't say! That was the first approach. A siman that the Gemara learns that you have to say. When the Gemara said, \"But you don't have to say,\" the Gemara meant, in this case, you don't have to say. Since he fell on it, actions speak louder than words. That was as good as saying, and even better! That's what the Gemara says! And the Gemara slogs off and says, \"No, falling is worse.\" But at that point, it was thought it was to say. Anyway, but the bottom line is Rabbeinu Yonatan learns that you have to say זכתה לי, that the ד׳ אמות should be koneh it. And the Ramach... Nein, by ד׳ אמות, you have to say, yeah, you have to say \"I'm koneh with the ד׳ אמות.\" Huh? There's not, who wants to hear? Who's here? But we're talking about can a ganav be a liar? So whether he could lie. A frumer id comes and says, \"This is what happened, am I koneh or not?\" And the Ramach says no, you don't have to. You don't have to say. By ד׳ אמות, you don't have to say. another machloket rishonim. Then we have a third machloket rishonim. Wait, did he only say by by מקח וממכר? No, no, בכלל. By קנין ד' אמות, it's koneh for you, whatever it's koneh, it's nothing to do with your saying. You don't have to say in order for it to be koneh. Automatic. Automatic. If you can get your ד' אמות, you can. Then there's a third machloket. What did the Gemara say here? Why takeh by פאה and by the מציאה of our Gemara you're not koneh with the ד' אמות? So the Gemara says כיון דנפל, since he fell on it, גלי דעתיה, he showed that בנפילה ניחא ליה דניקני, he wants to be koneh with נפילה, בארבע אמות לא ניחא ליה, he doesn't want to be koneh with ארבע אמות. That's what the Gemara says. Comes the Nimukei Yosef, and the

Nimukei Yosef hacks around a word here. And he says, you know why since he didn't have in mind to be קונה with the ד' אמות he's not קונה? Because ד' אמות is a תקנת חכמים. Because it's תקנת חכמים, the chachamim set so. A person has a right, whenever the chachamim made a takanah, so many takanot you find chachamim for the benefit of the people, so if the chachamim made a takanah for my benefit, I have a right to say אי אפשי בתקנת חכמים. I don't want, and the Gemara says you're allowed to. So this also, the chachamim made for the benefit of the people to make it easier, so they made a קנין ד' אמות. By him falling, he's showing that I don't want that that that. Mimela he's not קונה. זאגן די מפרשים, among the mefarshim, the Rebbe looks at this. Huh? Mimela he's not קונה. That's what it That's why by the by the case of the פאה when he fell on it and the מציאה, because he fell, he showed he's קונה He's thinking to be קונה with something else. But since the the the Nimukei Yosef says that, you know why he's not קונה, based on the fact that he didn't want to be קונה this way, if because it's a דרבנן, is משמע, what would be if it would be a קנין דאורייתא? It wouldn't help. He'd be קונה whether you like it or not. And who are the mefarshim? There are many mefarshim. But the Rebbe in Likkutei Sichos has a whole אריכות on this Nimukei Yosef, and he learns like that, that the Nimukei Yosef is saying that by a קנין דאורייתא, it's even if you had a mind to be koneh with a different kinyan, and you b'foal you made this kinyan, so l'chorah when you were trying to do a different kinyan, you showed that you want to be koneh with that kinyan, not this, you're still koneh by a de'oraita. Which would mean, if the same thing would be by קנין חצר, the same thing like here, he fell on it, and it was could have been koneh with קנין חצר, we will not say, since you fell on it, shows you don't want to be koneh and you're not koneh, by קנין חצר you would be koneh. So there's a difference according to Nimukei Yosef if Because it's de'oraita. Because it's de'oraita. So there's a difference between the קנין ד' אמות and חצר. While the Rashba says that this works in both cases. What works? This fact that you showed that you don't want to be koneh will be by חצר also. That if by חצר you did the same thing, you would not be koneh. Not like the Nimukei Yosef who makes a difference between חצר and ד' אמות. Like, how's it derabbanan, or is it de'oraita when you fall on it? No, falling is nothing. Falling is not derabbanan not de'oraita, but you're showing you wanted to be koneh one way, which it doesn't work, but you think it works. So obviously you don't want to be koneh the other way. But de'oraita works. The Ra'ah So, maybe he's making it stronger by falling on it? Well, that was the hava amina in the Gemara according to the Rabbeinu Yonatan. But the Gemara says not, the Gemara says if you fall, you show you don't want. So here, again, the Nimukei Yosef holds that

there's a difference between קנין ד' אמות that if you show that you don't want, you're not koneh, and חצר, if you show you don't want, too bad, you're still koneh. The Rashba says in both cases, if you show you don't want, you're not they're both equal. The Raah says also they're both equal, but opposite. Lehalacha ulemaaseh he says even by ד' אמות it won't work, and you will be koneh, because חצר like the second terutz that doesn't apply, so this there is a whole אריכות. So we have here three opinions. But basically the nekudah of the machloket is two opinions. One says there is a difference between ד' אמות and חצר. By ד' אמות, if you say show that you don't want, you're not koneh, by חצר you would. And according to the others, they're both the same. Whether they're both the same, they're both יא, both not, but they're both the same. So what is the basis of the machloket? Then this a three machlokot in the Rishonim. איז דאס נישט נוגע זיין ווי? הא? די חצר אליין איז אבער ער וויל ניט? ער ער זאגט ער וויל ניט. ער ער ער מגלה דעת אז ער וויל עס אויף א צווייטע וועג. דאס איז די גאנצע שאלה, ודאי. חצר you don't need you need, but if a guy, that's the whole שאלה, if a guy shows that I'm trying to make a different קנין, ער זאגט נישט ער וויל ניט, ער איז געפאלן ווייל ער... אבער האלט דאך די גמרא נישט אזוי! די גמרא איז דאך נישט צופרידן. ניין, זאגט דאך די גמרא נישט אזוי! פאר וואס? ווייל די גמרא די גמרא איז משמע אז ד' אמות... א חצר אליין איז דאך קונה. ניין, ד' אמות איז אויך קונה! ד' אמות איז קונה... ד' אמות איז קונה תקנת חכמים. מאכט קיין... א חצר איז קונה ווייל עס איז זיין רשות. דאס הייסט וואס איז דאך די חילוק? What's the difference? Why is this different? No, what No, if if the idea is the Gemara accepted that if you fall on it, you show that you want this and not that, that's the nekudah. So lichora you can say the same thing by chatzer. א חצר איז דאך דאורייתא. So who cares? So the Nimukei Yosef learns why de'oraita is different. Who says it? But who says that de'oraita is different? If if if we assume, if the psychology is that by doing this you show you don't want, so you're showing by chatzer also you didn't want. The she'eilah is not that. The she'eilah is, does it help? We accept the fact that by falling you showed You don't want that kinyan. Does your not wanting work here? So the Nimukei Yosef says is a chiluk in de'oraita and derabbanan, and the Rashba and the Ran both say there's no chiluk in de'oraita and derabbanan. So there's a יש להאריך אין סוף. Then there's a machloket acharonim, an interesting machloket, happens like this: interesting machloket, this is kind of an interesting sugya, this. The

Gemara it says, the Mishnah in Gittin, where it says like this: If someone threw a get to a wife, קרוב לה, if it came close to her, מגורשת. קרוב לו, if it came if it fell but it's still closer to him than to her, אינה מגורשת, she's not divorced. מחצה על מחצה, it means safek. If it's a מגורשת ואינה מגורשת, it's a safek, that's what the Gemara says. Ah? Safek. If it's, we don't know it's exactly in the middle. So the Gemara asks: What do you mean it's exactly in the middle? So the Gemara wants to explain like this: When it says that if you threw close to her, she's divorced, it means within her ד׳ אמות. If it's close to him, she's not divorced, if it's within his ד׳ אמות. If it's half and half, then it's a safek. So the Gemara: What does that mean? What's a safek? How did it happen, why is it a safek? In whose ד׳... Or it's his ד׳ אמות, or her ד׳ אמות. Ela mai, you're saying it's both ד׳ אמות. That's what you could say! They're both standing close, and when it fell it fell it's within his, let's say this is ד׳ אמות, this whole thing, so he is standing right next to her, he put it down, so it's inside his ד׳ אמות and in her ד׳ אמות. That's why we don't know who gets it. So the Gemara says: You can't say that! Let's see who came first! Whoever came first, that's his ד׳ אמות! So if he came first, then she's not divorced. Hold back! So let's see who came first. Then the Gemara says, it tends of that could be they both came together. So the Gemara says: אי אפשר לצמצם, no such thing! Has to be one before the other, it can't be, אי אפשר לצמצם. Mimela the Gemara doesn't understand, what does that mean half and half, that it's both? So the Gemara changes, it's a different pshat. The Rabbi Akiva Eiger in a in a teshuva brings from here, says from here, the Ran learns out a din. Let me... The

Ran learns from this Gemara, when the Gemara asked if if they both are both in the same ד׳ אמות, and the Gemara asks: Let's see who came first! So he's, a siman that when you have a person coming to the ד׳ אמות, it becomes his, and if a second person comes into the same ד׳ אמות, he doesn't get the ד׳ אמות. The first one gets it, that's what you see from the Gemara, the first one gets it. That's what you see from the Gemara. So he says, I have a shaila, interesting shaila. What happens if Reuven took the place, he is standing there. Okay, so it's his ד׳ אמות. After he is standing there, Shimon comes, and he is standing there. Okay, now he doesn't have ד׳ אמות. Why? Because we said whoever is first gets the ד׳ אמות. Comes Levi and puts down into the ד׳ אמות of Shimon a matanah for Shimon, according to those that hold by a matanah there is a דין ד׳ אמות, מתנה for Shimon. Will Shimon be koneh this matanah? I'd like I'd like to say no, but... No, no. On one hand you could say, no, he doesn't have ד׳ אמות, because the first guy came first, so the first guy took away the ד׳ אמות. The second guy is going to come now, came in, there's no ד׳ אמות for him. So if I put it down, there's no ד׳ אמות. On the other hand, he says, I could say, when do we say the second one doesn't have ד׳ אמות? לגבי something that the first guy has a שייכות to. If a מציאה will come now, but a גט has nothing to do with it... But by matanah, he gave a matanah to the second guy. So לגבי things where the first guy has nothing to do, maybe the second guy does have ד׳ אמות! Only לגבי something with the first guy has שייכות. And he brings the Beit Shmuel, he taytsh's a different peshat in the Beit Shmuel in Even HaEzer, and he says according to the Beit Shmuel it comes out it takeh won't work. By a matanah, he says it takeh won't work. It won't work, because bepo'al he doesn't have ד׳ אמות. So who's koneh it, Reuven? Huh? No, no, nobody is koneh it. Reuven, he didn't give it to, and he's not... That's what he brings, and the Rabbi Akiva Eiger says: I disagree with him. I think if לגבי something that's not נוגע to him, it will work. A re'ayah he has, a very geshmaka re'ayah. Something that's not נוגע to the first guy, yeah, he only took away that he he made it took the ד׳ אמות that the second guy can't take it לגבי things which are נוגע to both. But something that's only to the second, yes, he has a re'ayah. A very geshmaka re'ayah. The Gemara said there is no such possibility by ד׳... If they're both standing in ד׳ אמות, so the Gemara says there's no such thing as both, let's see who came first! That's what the Gemara's kushya was. So he says, if the Beis Shmuel is right, the Gemara could have answered a very simple answer. It's a chap! Rabbi Akiva Eiger's chap. A guy came to the ד׳ אמות, a guy came he has his ד׳ אמות, then the man came, a man came to the same ד׳ אמות of the first guy. Then the woman came into the same ד' אמות. They both don't have the ד' אמות, because the first guy had it. And then the first guy walks away, automatically they get ד' אמות. Who gets it, the man or the husband or the wife? No, at the same time. Because the ד' אמות only starts now, now they're both standing there. So here we have a possibility of being, there would be ד' אמות for both at the same time. Why didn't the Gemara answer that? אלא סימן, that legabei something else they still have the ד' אמות. Legabei here, the first guy has nothing to do with the get. So he didn't take away the ד' אמות from the second guy legabei the get. Umimeila the husband came first, so there's always somebody first. That's what he says. That's how he's אפשלאג. The

bottom line is we have a machloket here between the Beis Shmuel and Rabbi Akiva Eiger. The Beis Shmuel holds that if the guy comes first, he gets his ד' אמות first, and the second guy doesn't get his ד' אמות even if it's נוגע to something which is not שייך to the first. The second guy has no ד' אמות, no matter what. אשאר כן Rabbi Akiva Eiger holds, not like that, that he does. That the second guy, that only legabei this inyan which is shayach to the first, but if somebody, the first guy has no shaychut to it, but then the second guy got his ד' אמות. ס'איז אבער אַ מחלוקת אחרונים. וואָס הייסט? אַ גט איז דאָך איי... אַ גט איז דאָך איינער פֿון די... ווי מ'איז מקדש... מ'איז מקדש אַ גט, ס'איז דאָך מן התורה... מן התורה... וואָס איז די פּראָבלעם דאָ? וואָס איז? ער איז מספק... נאָ, ס'איז אַ ספק-ספיקא? ניין! אָבער דאָ איז ביידע צוזאַמען. פֿאַר וואָס איז אַ ספק? די גמרא קען זאָגן דאָך, ווייל אַ סוואָדע ביידע זענען געקומען צוזאַמען. די גמרא געפרעגט דאָך, איינער איז געקומען פריער. זאָגט די גמרא, ממילא איינער איז געקומען פריער, וואָס איז די שאלה? ווער ס'איז געקומען פריער? איי ער שרייט, וואָס איז שייך, דער ענטפֿער איז אַזוי: יענער האָט נישט קיין שייכות. ער האָט נישט קיין שייכות צום גט. The גט is between the second man and the wife, and the third person. The first guy came, he was the one who got the ד' אמות. The other guys, the husband, the second guy, man who is the husband of the wife, came, so he doesn't have the ד' אמות. Then the wife came, she also doesn't have. No one has ד' אמות except the first. The moment the first guy walks away, they both get it together! So the Gemara could have answered there is a case like that. A siman that the pshat is that when he got the ד' אמות and the second guy doesn't get it, it's only legabei things which the first guy shayach. But legabei things that are not shayach, the second guy gets it. So mimela the Gemara can't answer this. So we have this machloket here. What's the nekudah of the machloket? So likhora you could say the nekudah of machloket, So that being that if the third person if the person leaves and the man and woman has the ד' אמות at the same time, but I thought there's no such thing as that in the Gemara. That's, that's what I asked you. Why didn't the, the Gemara says there's no such thing, why does, and according to the Beit Shmuel there would be, should be such a thing. A siman the Beit Shmuel is wrong. It's a קנאַקעדיקע ראיה. If it's with the get and and the two are there at the same time, the get That could be the pshat in the Mishnah, in the beraita, that if it's 50/50, she's a safek because they're both at the same ד' אמות. The Gemara says it can't be. Right, but the get's only noge'a to the woman for sure, so it's Right, between the husband and the wife. The first guy has nothing to do with it. So therefore the first guy didn't take away the ד' אמות לגבי the get. So you couldn't give such a metziut. Why would it be safek? Her foot gets the get anyway because it's only, it's only shayach to her and she she has part No, it's shayach to him and to her, to the husband and the wife. That's what we're talking about. If it's his ד' אמות, he is to get, and she's not divorced. If it's her ד' אמות, she is divorced. So something that's noge'a to them, but not to the first guy. The first guy, he's out. איך וויל וויסן איין זאַך צו פֿאַרשטיין, דער ערשטער איז דאָך נישט קיין מאַן, דאָס איז דאָך אַ גט. איז דאָך אַ גט, ער גייט, ער גייט, ער גייט, דער גט גייט צו איר, ער קען זיך נישט אָפּגעבן מיט איר, ער האָט נישט קיין גט... זי קומט דאָך צוזאַמען מיט איר מאַן וועגן גט, ניין? יאָ, נו! דאָס איז די גאַנצע קשיא! וואָס האָט דער ערשטער? דער ערשטער האָט דאָך גאָרנישט צו טאָן מיטן גט! נו! סאָ ער נעמט עס צו די ד' אמות פֿונעם גט? איר ווילט זאָגן, לויטן בית שמואל נעמט ער יאָ צו! פֿאַרוואָס? דאָס פרעגט רב עקיבא איגר, פֿאַרוואָס! דער בית שמואל טענה'ט אַז דער ערשטער קומט, נעמט ער צו די ד' אמות לגבי אַלץ, אפילו לגבי אַ זאַך וואָס האָט נישט קיין שייכות צו אים! הייסט, פֿאַרוואָס? דאָס איז נישט ווייל ס'איז נישט שייך, ווייל ס'איז אַ טייל פֿון צווייטן! ס'איז נישט אַ זאַך וואָס איז נישט שייך צו אים! ער דאַרף גאָרנישט, ער איז דאָך אַ קוראַטאָר... What's in English? נו, פֿאַרשטייט אידיש, נו פֿאַרשטייט! וואָס האָט ער צו טאָן מיטן גט? דער ערשטער קען נישט... דער ערשטער קען לאָזן נישט צוטשעפּען דעם גט צו די ווייב! He even doesn't want to take the get. ער האָט געלאָזט... ער איז נישט דער בעל הבית... רגע, יש לי כאן שאלה. למה כשגבר לא נותן גט לאישה, לא מורדים? למה? לא, נו אנטיינדו נאדה! למה? What's it, what's it noge'a to our inyan here? שופכים דם! מחמירים גט! אתמול היה בחדשות, עשרים שנה... You know this, you know the story, there was a, there was an ערבל'ה that you that goes around giving drashot, but he only knew one drasha on פרשת קרח, the business with the gelt. So what did he do? So he came to every city he would come, but what should he, it's a different parasha! So he used to play around with his handkerchief, and this and then it would fall down. So he'd say, \"Uh! איינגעזונקען זאלסטו ווערן ווי קרח. נו, אז מ'רעדט שוין פון קרח'ן,\" you should you should you think of the ground like Korach. \"Oh, we're talking about Korach already! So I'll tell you a story, I hope he'll fall on Korach.\" This is a real question. I know, but it has nothing to do with it. For twenty years the woman walk because her husband don't want to give her get.

Why the rabbanim don't make שחרור? Why they don't release her? That has nothing to do with it. That that's a good question. Because this is get! I'm talking about a get. You know, אתמול, yesterday a a man a man, they took him a man, they took him to the court, you know, the beit din yesterday. What if he's a kohen? A what? זה מופקע or... What if he's a sofer, he can't write a get? He has a get, yeah? No, why, he owes them a lot of money. How about if he don't give, that's it, the woman is stuck. Of course. If he don't check out the ד' אמות then give. The ד' אמות is not so big. It's not so big, it's six feet all sides. The ד' אמות, how many can stay in them? Yeah, six feet. Six feet all around. Square. Anyway, the bottom line is we have a machloket here. The nekudah of the machloket, the fourth machloket is, huh? I don't understand. Okay. I have it on tape. We'll listen to it again. You have to. What you don't understand? What? Rav Shapira... למה? למה לא מבין? אני לא מבין מה שאתה לא מבין. If somebody stand in a place, so he gets his ד' אמות. One second. Does that take away that, someone else comes, does it take away his ד' אמות? The other guy owes, he's within ד' אמות, can the first guy take away? So we said yes, the Gemara says he said yes. The question is does he take away the ד' אמות from the second guy even when it's concerning something that has nothing to do with the first guy? That's right, yeah. So that's the machloket. So the Beit Shmuel says it takes away, and the Rabbi Akiva says it doesn't take away. The למשל, למשל לגבי a get, the get has nothing to do with the first guy. Did he take away the ד' אמות לגבי the get from the second guy? So you could feel on one hand, no, he has to do with לגבי the get, it's nothing to him. What's the difference? What's the difference if there is writing a name for this or is said, he says it's not for you, for somebody else, he can, he can pay it? What? He he says so he thinks the get is he, and it's not for him. But who's talking about... I'll buy it for him. The get. I have no, I have no idea what you're talking about, no idea. Make him tea, to the Rebbe, because he has cold a little bit. Yes. You want sugar or no? No sugar? No, I have tea already. יביא לך, יביא לך חם, יביא לך חם. No, no sugar, todah rabbah. You get part of the ד' אמות someone on the other side? Yeah, he gets whatever his ד' אמות, yeah, but it it takes away from him, because the ד' אמות the first guy has, that for sure the first guy takes away. The she'elah is, is take away לגבי everything? And you can't you can't build layers on top of each other. The first guy comes out, the next guy doesn't have it. If he walks away, the other guy gets it, yeah. I'm saying if two other people came, so if one comes... No, that for sure that no, they both don't have. And when he walks away, they both together at the same time. Anyway, okay, I guess we're going to only say, by the way we have four מחלוקת'ן here. Huh? So to explain the machloket, what I was trying to do is to

explain the machloket in a certain way and then to show that it's not oisgehalten and go to another way, but we're not going to do that, we'll just go the first way. בנוגע this whole ענין, oh, בנוגע this whole ענין of ד' אמות... Oh, no, thank you very much. בנוגע this whole דין of קנין ד' אמות the רבנן made, make a תקנה. You explain the whole thing, and nobody nobody interrupt, so you have time to explain. Yeah. You agree? Yeah, but I don't I don't get answer about this get. אחר כך, אחר כך. אחר כך. So in this Kuntres Inyana Shel Toras HaChassidus, the Rebbe has a whole אריכות here about the קנין ד' אמות. He's using this as an example to a ענין החסידות, but he brings it in ד' אמות. And here the the what he says here and going through the הערות, he brings an Avnei Miluim. But the Avnei Miluim brings that there is a מחלוקת between the Ramban and the Ran. So, the Rebbe brings here: The Ran learns, explaining how did the, what form did the חכמים make the קנין ד' אמות? And this is what they did: They made that your ד' אמות becomes your חצר. How does ד' אמות קונה? We know that מדאורייתא there's a קנין חצר. Came the רבנן and they said not only a חצר which is דאורייתא, your ד' אמות becomes your חצר. And since it's your חצר, automatically you're koneh. Look what the, I'll use the lashon of the Rabbi: אף שהתקנה היא שהחפץ המונח בד' אמותיו שלו יקנה לו, the purpose is that the object that comes into your ד' אמות you should get, מכל מקום, בשביל קנין החפץ הקנו לו חכמים את הד' אמות עצמם, because in order to get the chafetz, they made the ד' אמות his, ועשאום כחצרו, and they made it like a חצר, ועל ידי זה ובמילא קונה לו את החפץ המונח בתוכו בתורת קנין חצר. So, you're going to get it out of קנין חצר because the רבנן made that your ד' אמות turn into חצר. קנין דאורייתא? No, it's they can't make a דאורייתא, but they took the דין דאורייתא and they said that it's similar we're making that your ד' אמות becomes your חצר. ולכן, he says, קטן שאין לו חצר אין לו ד' אמות. A קטן doesn't require a ד' אמות. אלא שזה מה שהקנו חכמים לאדם את ד' אמותיו, the fact that that the חכמים gave him his ד' אמות becomes his חצר, הוא רק לגבי תורת קנין חפץ המונח בהם. Not becomes it becomes yours because of your property, לגבי the קנין, ולא לענין אחר. Okay. Huh? A katan has a yad. Yeah. But by ketanah it must be בידה if you tell her yad. No, not חצר and not ד' אמות, but the Gemara has this sugya right after this, it's a sugya like that. So, the Rabbi brings here this is the shita of the Ran. And then he said, according to the Ramban, he said והאבני מילואים כתב שלדעת הרמב״ן לא הקנו חכמים מקום הד' אמות עצמן, they did not give him the ד' אמות עצמן, כי אם את החפץ המונח בו, only the חפץ is laying there, וראה באבני מילואים שלדעת הר״ן הקנו את הד' אמות עצמן. So, the bottom line is we have here two שיטות בכלל: Whether the way they made the ד' אמות they made the ד' אמות your חצר, or they made, nothing to do with a חצר, they made a דין that a, that the חפץ that falls in is becomes like that. Lichora, based on these two שיטות, we can explain all four machlokot. Let's start with the first. לגבי the קנין only. But, obviously, it's only לגבי this. But it's like חצר, that's the first the broader opinion. What were the two the first machloket? The first machloket was, does it apply to everything, קנין ד' אמות, or only to a מציאה? By a גט, משום עגונה, only by מציאה. So, lichora, you can say very simple: If you hold that they made it into your חצר, they didn't deal with what you are קונה. They made that this is your חצר and automatically the חצר is

קונה, then it should be by מקח וממכר also. Is it makes sense? So, that's the shita of those that hold that by מקח that the Rambam and the others hold by מקח וממכר also, because they gave you the חצר. But if you hold they didn't give you the chatzer, they said that certain things that come in, so they can make chilukim. Everything that a person makes comes into, if they make a chatzer, it's one din, so everything should be. So, the opinion of the others who hold that it doesn't, like for instance, the Rosh, that hold that it's only by metziah and not, because they didn't make it your chatzer. So, that's that's that machloket. The second machloket, whether you have to say or not. What was the Rabbeinu Yonah's re'ayah that you do have to say? If by chatzer you have to say, he said, by חצר שאינה משתמרת you have to say, you have to say here, too. Comes, so, no, by chatzer not and here yes. So, lichorah, you can explain it very simple: If you hold that kinyan is like a chatzer, so it has the din like a chatzer. By a chatzer you have to say, so you have to say here, too. But if you hold that it's a special din, has nothing to do with a chatzer, the chachamim made a new kinyan that falls into his ד' אמות is koneh, then who says you have to say? Who says you have to say? They'll even give, somebody gave the פרטים that saying accomplishes that it becomes part of the chatzer, whatever, but we understand that if it's a קנין חצר, the chachamim talked about the ד' אמות themselves and made it a chatzer, so you don't you have to say like by chatzer, otherwise you don't have to say. The

other machloket, that according to the Nimukei Yosef, only by קנין ד' אמות if you say, if you show that you don't want, you're not koneh, but by קנין חצר you still would be koneh. Mah she'ein kein the Rashba and the the Ran, they learn no, chatzer and קנין ד' אמות are the same. Very simple: If you hold it comes from, that ד' אמות is what the חכמים made it into your חצר, so how could you make a חילוק between חצר and ד' אמות? Whatever the דין is by חצר is the דין by ד' אמות, it has to be the same. That's what they hold. One holds in both yes, the other holds in both not, but they're both the same. So, the Nimukei Yosef will learn that it's not a דין in the חצר, they didn't make it a חצר, what they did was they said the חפץ is they made a דין that whatever comes in the, the object belongs to him. So, if so, they had a, it's a whole nother הלכה if you have to say. And the same thing would be בנוגע the fourth מחלוקת, מחלוקת between Rabbi Akiva Eiger and the and the Beit Shmuel. What does the Beit Shmuel say? That if you came first to the ד' אמות, It's yours, when the second guy comes in, he gets no ד' אמות, even regarding things which have nothing to do with the first guy. While Rabbi Akiva Eiger holds, no, it's only regarding things have to do with you, but לגבי other guys and things that don't have to do with you, he gets the ד' אמות. It's also for the same reason. If you hold a קנין חצר a קנין ד' אמות is a קנין of חצר, has nothing to do with the קנין, that's already a result. So it's a קנין ד' אמות, regardless of it'll be נוגע to you, not נוגע to you, חכמים gave this, and this became your חצר. So it became your חצר, and now you and you're first, and you got the חצר first, he doesn't have it, so even if he will come later and if that something is not נוגע to him, but it's still, he doesn't have the חצר. But if you're saying it's a דין in what you are קונה, then obviously, if what you're קונה is נוגע to you, לגבי that you're קונה. If it's something that's not נוגע to you, you don't have the ד' אמות. So why should I take away the ד' אמות of another guy? So לכאורה, it sounds very good and fine that this whole נקודה the way the מחלוקת where the Rabbi brings here could explain all four מחלוקות. The truth is, it's late, but I'll tell you that it's not true what I said. Not true what? What I said. The ביאור I gave is not good. Not true. The Rebbe didn't write it? No, this the Rebbe wrote. Not the, this is this is there, but I want to use this as that will explain the other מחלוקת'ן. Not at all. Take the first one. The first מחלוקת whether it goes on מקח וממכר or not. What did I say? If you're קונה the חצר, if you're קונה the חצר, if it becomes your חצר, then it goes by everything. If it's not your חצר, then you could make differences. So number one there'll be a problem: the Ramban holds that it's not your חצר, and yet holds it goes on מקח וממכר, too. So we can't say it depends on this. But the עיקר is here, if you look here, I'll read again what the Rebbe said, if you recall what the Rebbe said, you'll see it's not it's not right what I said. He said like this: that they made the קנין, he said they made the ד' אמות your ד' אמות ושום כחצירו, they made it like your חצר, by this that ממילא you're קונה anything there, and then he adds, אלא שזה מה שתיקנו חכמים ד' אמות הוא רק לצורך קנין החפץ, only לגבי that. And then he says weiter, only לגבי the object, he says, yeah, and then he says, what? It's only it's only לגבי, yeah, לגבי being קונה, so the Rebbe says, only לגבי being קונה, so, and he says they made a they made it your חצר, and let me see here on the bottom here, the הערה here, once, yeah, it's only לגבי this. And then he says, שלכן סבירא להו להתוספות והרא\"ש, because they only made it לגבי certain things, that's why Tosafos and the Rosh holds שד' אמות קונות בגניבה they are קונה בגניבה, אף שעשו חכמים כחצירו ואינו קונה בגניבה, ובמכירה ומתנה they're not קונה במכירה ומתנה, why, אף שעשו חכמים כחצירו, even though they made it into חצר, כי לא עשו כחצירו לכל דבר, כי אם לצורך קנין החפץ מפני מציאה. So the Rebbe says clearly here that it's possible to learn that it became your חצר, and still make differences between מקח I tried to say that if it became your חצר, it's automatically everything. The Rebbe says clearly not! That they could make it חצר and nevertheless, only לגבי certain things. So obviously, the ביאור that I said is nisht oisgehalten. And now when I say the second ביאור, the second ענין we said that whether you have to say or not, if it's your חצר, you have to say. If it's your חצר, you have to say, and if it's if you don't, you have to say I want to be קונה, because like by חצר. But if it's not like a חצר, they do the קנין, then you don't have to say. So I wanted to say that the the Ramach, or the one that holds that you don't have to say, holds because it's not like a חצר. A גט also, you have to say? Huh? A גט? No, a גט according to the שיטה, you have to say, according to שיטה. Then it's just a חפץ that's קונה, not Exactly. So, so according to this, that's that's worse. Let's look at this here, weiter. The

Rebbe asks a קשיא here, and he answers על פי חסידות. What's the קשיא? אם היות שקנין ד' אמות הוא מטעם קנין חצר, the Rebbe is going here according to the sevara that it's like your חצר, עם כל זה עדיף הוא מקנין חצר. It's still better than chatzer. Why? חצר אינה משתמרת, you're not קונה עד שיאמר זכתה לי שדי. ואילו בד' אמות, אין צריך לומר זכתה. You don't have to say, which is according the שיטה of the Ramach. Yeah. And a קנין אית ליה בה דאתיה. וצריך ביאור. So the Rebbe asks, כיון שכל ד' אמות הוא מטעם קנין חצר, since we're holding that ד' אמות is a קנין חצר, איך אפשר שקנין ד' אמות יהא עולה מקנין חצר? How could it be stronger than chatzer? By chatzer you have to say, and here you don't have to say, the Rebbe asks. And he answers, that that's together of ד' אמות יחידה שבנפש. L'chorah, according to what I said, the Rebbe should have answered very simple, that those that hold that you don't have to say, hold that it's not מטעם חצר. Right. Assumingly the Rebbe doesn't hold like that. The Rebbe holds that it could be chatzer and you still don't have to and and still you don't have to say, and he's looking for a ביאור. And he didn't give a ביאור על פי נגלה, he gave a ביאור על פי חסידות. But he's looking for a ביאור. Ul'chorah the simple I have a simple ביאור: adaraba, those שיטות דוקא don't hold, they hold that it's not מטעם חצר! Assumingly that what I said that if you hold that you don't have to say because it's not chatzer, is not true. Whoever wants to say קניין חצר, it's like chatzer, and still you don't have to. Like חצר, ד' אמות is We're talking about ד' אמות has a din of chatzer. But that's the Rebbe's she'eilah. And he answers a biur with that the ד' אמות של אדם מתפשט היחידה, therefore they're קונה בעצם without even saying, because יחידה שבנפש is there no matter what. So l'chorah this biur is not so... Should we stop here and continue? Yeah, we

got to go. In קניין חצר you have to say, because it's so מקיף... Here יחידה is there and everything else comes in. אה, halacha lemaaseh... No, matter is מתפשט. Halacha lemaaseh... ד' אמות is very simple between ד' אמות דינים. רגע, בוא הנה, אם נופל כדור לחצר שלי, שלי או לא שלי? כדור של השכנים. If the football go to my to my yard, It's yours. One football. Foot football. The neighbor's football. Shut the deal, claim it. Claim it, claim it. You say בחצר, that's if it's הפקר, or I'm giving you a matana, or I'm selling it to you. But סתם somebody If it comes to my ארבע אמות, So, send it back. Send it back? It's mine! No. Okay, I'm going to give him back. Fine. S'iz geshmak, s'iz doch nisht aza geshmak azoy. So how did the Rebbe answer? He says that the ד' אמות is connected to the יחידה שבנפש, and יחידה is always there, you don't have to say anything, because בעצם there, you don't have to say definitely not today. Even though it's קניין חצר, you don't have to say it for that reason. What I was going to say is that if this תירוץ על פי חסידות, I have a תירוץ על פי נגלה. Yeah. Evidently, because otherwise the Rebbe usually doesn't do that, ask a kashya in nigleh and then doesn't answer. So what, that's the punch line. You got to tell it. You know what? Next week, I didn't plan to have a shiur, we'll have a shiur to finish this. A whole shiur? Yes. And let's go figure it out. I'm working on it. Because so you have the four מחלוקת'ן, how to fit in the four מחלוקת'ן different than what we just said before, but it's מיוסד on what the Rebbe says. If you don't have an answer to put up in nigleh, then you don't answer nothing, just know על פי חסידות. The יחידה is a מקיף דמקיף, so you would have to bring it in with with with בפועל with with... Now, look look at look at this. And and usually the Rebbe didn't, whenever you wrote the sicha, a kashya in nigleh and the answer על פי חסידות, the Rebbe was upset. He says, \"You have to answer nigleh first, and then...\" קודם בדרך הפשט, נאך דעם בדרך ה... Yeah. And here that so I'm telling you that there's מרומז a תירוץ על פי נגלה in this in this... Does the Rebbe doesn't answer it up in anywhere else, it's just this is the inyan? He doesn't answer it anywhere else. Talks about ד' אמות other places. Yeah, other places, he talks about ד' אמות, which is נוגע in a different chelek, ט\"ז, which I was going to bring in, but... So when I finish, I sting with a kashya, I told the bochurim always, \"I just hope you'll be able to sleep tonight, because maybe it will bother you so much, you won't be able to sleep.\" This for ד' אמות in each direction, or is ד' אמות Square, square. Depends where you stand. Could be standing on the edge? No. ד' אמות in each direction. I

thought it's really eight אמות by eight אמות. But well, it's a circle, it's not a square, circle eight אמות in diameter. It's al derech like Shabbos, where you can't carry ד' אמות, yeah, and it's also, really since it's ד' אמות מרובעים, square, so the Rambam says you're only chayav if you go with the one How much is it, square in the circle? Something more. Pi. And therefore, and since we don't know you're standing it's a square, but we don't know where your square is. Is it like this? Is it like is it like this? Is it like this? So every side we have to count it as if it's the end of square. So that's why it gives you more than ד' אמות. So lechatchila you can't carry even ד' אמות, but to be chayav, you're only chayav if you carry more. It was just that point, that's what... You got behind you, you got in front of you, you got the both to both sides. Does a person have to say, \"I want to be koneh\"? Do they have to say, according to everyone? No, that's a machloket. No, that's a machloket. The Shulchan Aruch brings also the דעות. So automatically, when you see something, And if you want to be koneh with your ד' אמות, you have to say according to the פירוש, you got to say, \"Let it be קונה, I want to be קונה in the ד' אמות.\" You don't you have to. If you don't have to say, it's automatically yours, if it's הפקר. דו ווילסט קונה זיין? If you want to be קונה it? You have to be wanting to be קונה. No, every Yid who needs wants to be קונה חמץ. What, פרשת פ״ז? ע״ל פ״ז? I think Beshalach. Beshalach. Can you say that when when a person stands Good luck, I'm going to go to the bathroom. We'll figure it out. stands in a place and the object that's שייך to him, in the case of the גט or whatever, these two, that has gained back, meets together in a place, k'ilu they they קונה the מקום, this מקום is only שייך for for these two ענינים, for the for the person and the object. Right, לגבי that, for sure, yeah. And then then this would explain the the the machloket. Because then only if if a person stands in a place and there is a connection between the person and the object that's שייך to this person Right, that's that's the Rabbi Akiva Eiger's sevara. they're both together both together. But the Beis Shmuel doesn't hold like that. Then they they k'ilu they כאילו קונה המקום. But the Beis Shmuel says even if it's something it's not נוגע. is like a חצר, רק לגבי the object and the person. That's for sure. But what happens if it's לגבי an object it's not נוגע to the first person? Then you're not קונה. Not קונה, ודאי, but not only he's not קונה the גט, the גט is is not is not קונה is not called חצר, there's not there's not this connection. You need the two things. The person that's שייך and the object, and the object together. Yeah, but בפשטות, you could say if the חצר is something before the קנין, the חכמים gave you the the ד׳ אמות. What's נוגע what's going to happen later? So no matter לגבי what, this is your ד׳ אמות. So even לגבי something that's not shayach to you, you have the ד׳ אמות first. That would be bipshat the sevara in in in the Beit Shmuel's sevara. Thank you very much. Feels a little unstable. What was the Rebbe's question? The Rebbe's question in the end was The Rebbe said like this: He goes according to the sevara that it's like chatzer. And by chatzer you have to say, how come here A ד׳ אמות is like a chatzer? Right, that's who said that, the Gra. That's the Shaagat Aryeh. No, no, that the Shaagat Aryeh says you have to say. You have to say. So therefore, why why here you don't have to say? Why where? Which one? By ד׳ אמות, why don't you have to say? Why, because According to the chatzer you have to say, why isn't it the same? So I tried to explain. What I said was that the one that that you have to say, holds it's like chatzer. The one that says you don't have to say, because he goes the other shita that it's the kinyan of the cheftz, it's not chatzer. But then the Rebbe would have said it. The Rebbe says it's chatzer and still it should fit. Yeah, how? He asked the kashya, why? But obviously what he's saying is He didn't answer, but obviously that shita holds that it's not chatzer. He goes that shita also holds it's chatzer. Could you say that the kavanah takes place of the of the of the of the of the speech of the of the saying? Yashar koach, thank you. Could kavanah in that case take the place of of dibbur? Enjoy. Kavanah can... you don't have to have dibbur. It's an electrical one, right? Or you have to have dibbur, and if not, you don't need it. Yashar koach, thank you. We we all have to think about this before tomorrow. I see. Now he would be entitled to fix I felt like I understood it, but I Very geshmak. Very geshmak. Very geshmak. When someone asks questions, it click makes a lot of sense, and and I have to I have to just ignore What he's saying is, already I was I already regular I was having anxiety the moment he sat down. Yeah, yeah. Well, that was justified because he wouldn't have known That's why. But for some reason, that's how because he's not... I knew it, I knew he was screaming, but it's wonderful. So But there's like I mean, there's like 16 different view points here. You've got four machlokot's, but in each one you've got two situations, but there's really That's two sevarot, yeah. two sevarot and it's like And what I was to finish off the other half is to make another eight. Oh, another eight? Wonderful. To break everything up into I'm going to write I'm going to write this down. Give you something to do. It's great homework. Yashar koach. Just finish 20 minutes in the Rambam, one one a day about taharah. And about, what is it, חפצי אחרים? מקום ש... Well, thank Jeff, I'm learning little by little, you know, I have to keep coming back. A חפץ is a חפץ, מה פירוש חפצי אחרים? Really? Good to learn It's good to learn everything. Keep keep