The Gemara in Bava Kamma דף ח עמוד א discusses a case like this. You know the din that when you owe someone money, your property, your קרקע is משועבד. The property is mortgaged, like leaned to that debt. We know there are three categories of קרקע בכלל, three categories of land. There is what we call עידית, which is the best. בינונית is the middle. זיבורית is the worst. And the halacha is, yeah, yeah, it's better fields then. And the halacha is that if you owe somebody money because you caused them damage, that's called נזיקין, then you have to give עידית, you have to give the best. If you have a בעל חוב, someone you borrowed money from, you have to give him the בינונית, the middle. The כתובה that you owe, if you have a wife and you divorced her or whatever, so then you have to give her money, so then it goes from the זיבורית. Therefore, if a person has all three kinds of property and owes all these three debts, it's very clear: the נזקין will go to the עידית, the בעל חוב will go and get the בינונית, and the the the כתובה will go and get from the זיבורית. The worst. זיבורית is the worst. עידית is the best, and בינונית is the middle. Then there's another din, which is נוגע to know: what happens if a person sells his fields? When he became משועבד, when he got this debt, he had all the property, and that property is mortgaged, so to speak, to that debt. Then he sold it. Then, when it comes to collect, he doesn't own that property anymore. So the din is there's נכסים, that's called נכסים משועבדים. That's the fields that's משועבד that's sold, that's called לקוחות. This guy could go to the לקוחות and collect because it's משועבד. Then there's another din, that what happens if he sold some of his property and some he left? So here the din is: אין גובין מנכסים משועבדים במקום שיש בני חורין. That if he has enough to pay for the from what's what is left over, then they cannot go to the buyers, even if it means that he's going to get a lower-grade קרקע than he is משועבד. Let's say he had עידית, בינונית, זיבורית. He owes for the נזקין עידית. He sold his נזקין, he sold his עידית. Comes the ניזק, the guy who has to collect, says, \"I want to collect עידית. And when I did the When you did the נזק to me, you had עידית, so it's משועבד.\" But because I have קרקע that I didn't sell, this is a תקנה the חכמים made for the buyers, that we made it easier on them. That if he has property that's left, land that's left, so then we don't care what level it is, he cannot go to the משועבדים. He cannot go to what we call the לקוחות, the one that he sold. Those are the different rules. Here the Gemara talks of a case: this guy who had all three obligations, he had all three types of land, and he sold them all. He sold them all. Comes out in the Gemara... Huh? He's allowed to, but the guy's buying it taking a risk. What happened? He sold them all. Had he sold only part, then he would When these three creditors come, they would all have to go to him, not to the buyer. He sold them all. So the Gemara says like this: if he sold it to three people, and all three people bought the One bought עידית, one bought בינונית, Reuven bought עידית, Shimon bought בינונית, Levi bought זיבורית, and they were all bought on the same day, then there's nothing that was left over. They're all the same day, so what happens is these three take over the obligations of the original guy, of the seller. So the נזקין will come to the one that bought עידית, give me the עידית. The one that the בעל חוב, that lent him the money, will come to the בינונית. And the כתובה will come to זיבורית. If he doesn't tell them, the This guy has to find out. You have to do a title search, as we call it. Then, what happens if he sold it to three people in different, three different days? So here the din is different. And if he sold the first, the עידית to Reuven on one day, the בינונית to Shimon on the other day, and the זיבורית to Levi on the third day, when the נזקין, who collects the עידית, will come to Reuven and say, \"You have the עידית that the guy had and that guy owed me money,\" he'll answer him, \"When I bought the עידית, there was still two others. Go to them! The שיעבוד shifted because we said that when there is בני חורין, naturally shifted. And when he comes to the second, the second guy will say, הנחתי לך מקום לגבות. I left you the the זיבורית. And therefore, if the guy who bought the זיבורית has enough land to pay them all, all of them will go to the זיבורית, and they can't come to him.

But the Gemara says, what happens if he sold the same three fields to one person at three different days? And so the Beraita says if he sold all three in the same in three different days, that each one takes כדין. The ניזקין takes the עידית, he takes the בינונית, the זיבורית. And the Gemara asks, why? Why can't he do the same thing? Why can't he say, when I bought the עידית and the בינונית, the זיבורית was still free. So automatically the שיעבוד, the obligation shifted to the זיבורית. Then I bought the זיבורית. Okay, so come and take the זיבורית. I don't want to give the the the עידית to the ניזקין and and the בינונית to the בעל חוב. I want you all take the זיבורית. Just like if it happened by three people, he would send them all to the זיבורית, why can't he do that? That's the Gemara's קושיא. The Beraisa says you can't. So the Gemara answers, why can't he send them all to the זיבורית? Because here we're talking in a case where he sold the עידית at the end. So he'd rather not them go to the זיבורית to to the last. He can't send them to the זיבורית because the עידית is at the last. So he says to them, I'm ready to give each one כדין. He doesn't want them all go to the עידית. פרעגט די Gemara, what do you mean he doesn't want? Who's asking him? If the עידית was the last, why can't all three of them come and collect from the best? Because they say the דין is that since when you bought the בינונית and the זיבורית first, the עידית was left over as בני חורין, so the שיעבוד of all three of us shifted to the עידית. Now you bought the עידית, you have to give us עידית. The Gemara asks that שאלה. And the Gemara answers an interesting vort, that why does he not give them all the עידית? Because he comes over to them and he says like this: If you guys will be quiet and take my offer, you take the עידית, you take the בינונית, you take the זיבורית, fine. You know what's going to happen if you guys insist on all taking עידית? I'm going to take the זיבורית and give it back to him. When he'll get the זיבורית back, what's going to happen? You're all going to have to go take the זיבורית, because now he has זיבורית. So you guys better take what I'm offering you. And that's why he gives him the עידית, him the בינונית, the זיבורית. He doesn't want to do it. If it happens, he'll do it, but he doesn't want to. So even if he doesn't do it, he could tell them, this is a place he could blackmail. He could blackmail them and say, you better take the way I'm offering to you, giving you עידית, you בינונית, זיבורית. If not, you'll all take זיבורית. Fregt di Gemara, why can't he offer the Why does he have to give the ניזקין עידית? Why can't he tell the ניזקין, I want you to take בינונית, and if you're not going to take the בינונית, I'm going to give back the זיבורית and you'll get stuck with the זיבורית? Why did he have to give him עידית? We said he sold the עידית at the end, and really they should all get עידית. Why don't they all get עידית? Because he's telling him, you better take different way I'm offering you, cuz otherwise you'll take the זיבורית. So why can't he tell the ניזקין, I don't want to give you עידית, I'm offering you בינונית? And the Gemara answers that really you could. Here it happens to be a case where you can't, because it's talking by יתומים. And when the יתומים will get the field back, they will anyway not come and collect because it's not really the guy himself. And the bottom line is that That he could offer them that. That he could offer, but in this case we're talking of not. Now the Gemara says if in this case you cannot tell אי שתקת שתקת, אי שתקת means if you shut up and you're quiet, fine. If not, I'll give it back. If it's a case where it wouldn't that טענה will not help, then we'll go back to the question. If the טענה doesn't help, so why don't they all collect עידית? If he cannot make this this blackmail and get this threat, so then the last thing that he sold was עידית, let them all collect עידית. So the Gemara gives a different reason. The Gemara says because what's the reason for this דין that if something is left over בני חורין, they all go to the בני חורין, you can't touch משועבדים? The לוקח, the buyer says it's a תקנה for me. The חכמים felt that the buyer should lose less. So they said as long as he has, they cannot go to you. You know what? If the whole תקנה was made for my benefit, אי אפשי בתקנת חכמים, I don't want it. In this case, that תקנה will work against me, cuz in that case, the תקנה that you go to the last when there is with their בני חורין will work against me and it'll make me give them the עידית. I don't want this תקנה. So but this is right, it's תקנה, and since he could say it is a takana, me'eila he doesn't have to give them all idit. No, no. Cuz this this is, yeah, could pashut be like that. This is a takana made specifically for

Comes Rashi, Rashi asks a she'eilah: when the Gemara asked, why does he give the nezekin, this is a little bit Tosafot is a little bit complicated, but it's geshmak, it happens to be, especially in business world it's a geshmak topic. When the Gemara asked a she'eilah, that when we answered that the case is where he gave the, he bought idit at the end, so the Gemara said, so why don't they all collect idit? Because he threatens them, if you're going to all insist on idit, I'll give back the ziborit. Then the Gemara asked, so let him say the nezekin the same thing, let him say to the nezekin. And we just said, what should he say to the nezekin? Take beinonit instead of idit. Why else, why can't he do the same thing to the, why can't the Gemara ask the kushya on the ba'al chov? Why can't he tell the ba'al chov: you better take ziborit, you really deserve like beinonit, take the ziborit, because if not, I'll give it back and you'll get ziborit anyway. No, the Gemara only asked, let him say to the nezekin. Why not the ba'al chov? And the same she'eilah is when we say say to the nezekin, what did I say that Rashi said? You say to the nezekin take beinonit, if not I'll give back. Why can't he say to them take ziborit? Take the ziborit! I don't want to give you anything, because anyway I'll give, if you don't, I'll give it back and you'll take... So Rashi says you can't say that, you know what he's going to answer? Give back! You're not offering me anything better anyway. Why should I now give in? The ba'al chov will say: I deserve beinonit, you don't want to give me, you want to give me ziborit. Why should I take ziborit? Because if not you'll give it back and then what will happen? I'll take ziborit. So give back! Yeah, sure, but the people still want the smaller piece of עידית than a lot of זיבורית, it's much easier to work on. No, the value, yeah, the amount of money you could have saved, but it's a better field. So that's what Rashi said. That's why the words אי שתקית, which is the expression to this, to this threat, doesn't work by a בעל חוב. If he'll tell the בעל חוב I want you to take זיבורית, it won't work. בעל חוב, you can't force בעל חוב to take זיבורית. Because you're offering זיבורית, because what is your threat? I'll give you זיבורית. You're giving זיבורית anyway. The same thing with the נזקין, when the Gemara said that אי שתקית works for the נזקין, it only works that he tells him take בינונית, because if not you'll get זיבורית. And here he can't answer, you know what, give back. Who would answer that? Because he's going to lose. If he gives back, then you'll get the זיבורית, might as well take the offer. But if he's going to offer him זיבורית, it won't work. This is how Rashi learns. That why can't he offer זיבורית? Really they, let's analyze the whole thing again. Really they all deserve עידית, because עידית was the last thing. Why doesn't he give them עידית? Because he gives them this threat. And this threat works that he should be able to tell the נזקין take בינונית. But the threat will not work to tell the נזקין take זיבורית or tell the בעל חוב take זיבורית. Comes Tosafot and Tosafot asks the shaila: what about the כתובה? How come he can force the כתובה to take זיבורית? Really she wants עידית, because עידית was the last. So he says, why can't he say to her: take זיבורית, if not, he says to her, I'll give back. But let her answer: give back! I want עידית, now I deserve עידית, עידית is the last. Ah, you're threatening me you'll give back? Okay, well, you'll give back. But why should she have to take זיבורית? So Tosafot answers what you said. Tosafot answers because be'etzem she doesn't deserve more than זיבורית. So this whole ta'anah does not work if be'etzem she doesn't deserve. Right. Yep. This is the way Rashi and Tosafot learn the Gemara.

The Rosh argues. The Rosh says that he could force the, the נזקין, no, he could force the נזקין to take זיבורית, based on אי שתקית. He could tell him like this: I want you to take זיבורית. If you won't take the זיבורית, I'll give back the shtar of זיבורית and you'll have to take זיבורית anyway. So I can force you to take זיבורית. And he can force the בעל חוב to take זיבורית. Why? איי, let him answer, Gemara's לשון פשיטא עונה, you know what, give back! You want, so you can't answer that, and you'll have to take זיבורית now. And he says, because when a person says אי שתקית, if you'll be quiet etc., etc., because I have the ability to give it back and then you'll be stuck, כל מה שיוכל לעשות כאילו עשוי. It's as if it's done. As if he gave it back already. In other words, I'm just using the words, as if to say, why should we force him to go through the motions? What did we say? If he won't, if he won't accept it, what will he do? He'll give back. So he said save me, save me the trouble. Why should I have to go give it back and then you get זיבורית? Take the זיבורית and stop. He could do that. Oh, that's a different she'eilah the mefarshim ask. Why would he take, who's sure he'll take it back? So it says I'll give him as a present. The mefarshim talk about that it's a case where we know that for sure, ayin tovah, some mefarshim say that too, you make a kinyan, we call it. No, that's, so that's the she'eilah, you're threatening I'll give it back, he won't take... Yes. We don't care. But he has, oh see. Does he have to agree to take it back? Who? The the the seller. The seller. Sure he has to agree. He has to agree. Right. No, that's the she'eilah, so how could he threaten him, \"I'll give it back\"? What do you mean you'll give it back? Maybe he won't take it? So we're talking a case where where where he'll make a קנוניא with him, make a deal with him, whatever, but he'll give it back. But the Rosh says that the אישתקוס works even even if, not only if he doesn't know, we also say he doesn't care, even if he want offers him the זיבורית, even if he offers the ניזקין the זיבורית, even if he offers the בעל חוב זיבורית, he has to take the זיבורית, and he can't say, \"No, no. Now I deserve עידית.\" Why? עידית was the last thing. I deserve עידית. You threatened me to take, \"I'll give back.\" I have no reason why not to why to accept your threat. You're anyway offering me זיבורית, so what do I gain? Mila the בעל חוב, still you can't say it. The Rashi Tosafos learned he could answer that, and you can't force him to take the זיבורית, because he can always answer, \"You know what? Give back. As long as you didn't give back, I don't want to take it, and you'll have to give me עידית.\" And if ניזקין, he doesn't say that, because ניזקין is afraid to say that. Because what if I give back, you'll get זיבורית, now I get בינונית. So he can force it. But the Rosh learned not like that. The Rosh says that סיי by the ניזקין and סיי by בעל חוב you could force him to take זיבורית. He brings a re'aya that the אישתקוס, this concept of this threat is ke'ilu it's done. Quotes the Gemara in where we find another place in Shas this concept of אישתקוס. Where do we find it? The Gemara says in in in in a different place in If Ah? Bava Metzia? Yeah. But the buyer could do this lechatchila also? Ah? A buyer A buyer knows what Yeah, right. There's nothing wrong. Yeah, he didn't do any aveirah here. This threat is a first Yeah, he could. No, he bought his land. Really trick. And still he used this אישתקוס? Yeah, yeah. There was a נזק. I missed this in the beginning. There was a נזק. There was a נזק and a בעל חוב. And what was the timing? It was sold right after the נזק? After the נזק. Right after. After the נזק. Because he was trying to avoid I don't know why. Could be he stopped, sold it. Just stopped, sold. We find a Gemara. The Gemara says like this. If a person had land in middle of four I'm sorry, but he has a responsibility to pay. Who has? The original guy. The the original guy. The guy who sold. So, Yeah, but now there's there's a קרקע. Is קרקע משועבד? That sounds like a It's right there, because other was משועבד. Was משועבד, so now the קרקע is helping. But the guy who who who bought it didn't know. Didn't know. So, who knows? So, so who cares? What do you mean? He's a businessman. Yeah. He can't do anything illegal, but it's not illegal. But he knew he'd have to give something up for נזק. Yeah, so he knows he wants to give it the זיבורית. Why? He doesn't want him to take all the עידית. So he has a way to do it. He threatens the guy. And the truth is we don't even need to wait for him to say the threat. We say it for him. It's a threat that's there, but the she'eilah is how far the threat goes. According to Rosh? No, the Rosh says that if for up to זיבורית he could do it. You could even force to take the זיבורית. According to Rashi and Tosafos you can't force to take זיבורית, because there you have the answer, he said that, because you're not I'm not gaining anything. But בעל חוב But the ניזקין, you can say, it's a threat that's that's that's that's acceptable. And the din is that you you don't give him עידית, you give him בינונית. The only time the Beraisa said you have to give him עידית is because it's talking about יתומים where the threat doesn't work. Now, I knew that there is a נזק and he was buying all this land, same buyer for sure. So he's taking a risk. For sure he should have bought the עידית first. Yeah. Would have He should have bought עידית first, would have been better. But he didn't, so now he's stuck. So he has a ברירה, so he does this. But for practical reasons, it only applies to יתומים? They give him the עידית. No. What do you mean? No, by יתומים there is no אישתקוס. You can't say that, because the threat doesn't work, because even if you give it back, you won't force them to go there, because by יתומים who collected the field afterwards, doesn't go back. But by not יתומים you say אישתקוס. He brings a raya. It's a case in Gemara that if you have a field in middle of four fields. Guy owns a field here and four around. How does he get to his field? He has a דרך, he has an easement through one of the fields. What happened afterwards? He sold the four fields to four people. And they forgot where the easement is. He doesn't know which side he went through. Comes to the first guy, and he says, \"You know, I have a right over this.\" He says, \"Your right Jump in the lake. Your right was on the other side.\" You can't force him. המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. You can't force him to let him go through. Comes to the other guy, \"Me? No, it's the other guy.\" Comes to all four of them, he's stuck. So what's the din? There's nothing he could do. So the Gemara said the לשון, או יקנה בממונו, pay them for it whatever they ask you for, or יפרח באויר, fly, jump, do what you want, but you can't. What happens if he sold all four to one? One person bought all four, and they don't remember which side it was. Here he could come to him and say, \"I don't care. Mima nafshach, you have someplace that's mine. There's just one place, so give it me. Give me whichever one you want. But you can't tell me I shall have to\" He's coming to this one. So the din is like this: Admon says Admon, one of the Tannaim, Admon says that since it's one, he could force him to give him because we said mima nafshach, you own my field, my דרך. Come the Rabbanan and say, \"No.\" He could come, the guy who owns the four could say to him like this, \"אי שתקת, if you're quiet, fine. If not, I'm going to give back the four and you'll be stuck anyway, you won't you'll have to buy it. So I want you to buy, I don't want to give it to you now.\" Now here, why doesn't he Why isn't the middle guy able to answer, \"You know what? If you'll give it back, I'll have no choice, I'll have to buy. Now, you're one. So now, I want you to let me through.\" The Gemara doesn't say say that. So the Rosh says, \"Here we see that if you say אי שתקת, this type of sevara, you can't answer, 'You know what? Since you're not making me gain anything anyway, so when you'll do it, you'll do it, but now I want.'\" It's a kashya on Rashi. From that Gemara we see that אי שתקת works and you can't answer it. Even even if you don't gain anything, even if he tells you take זיבורית, obviously if you don't do, but even if he tells you, \"Take the least,\" and the offer he's giving him, \"If not, I'll give back and you'll take the least anyway.\" So you're not giving him anything to gain. You still could say it and he and and and and he will have to take the least. So the answer is, according to Rashi, this is, by the way, on Rashi it's not a kashya, cuz Rashi over there in that Gemara learns differently. Rashi learns that when he says to him, \"If you're quiet, it's fine. If not, I'll give it back,\" he's offering him a deal. He says, \"If you'll be quiet and you're ready to pay me 50% of what it costs, I'll give you the deal. If you're going to insist I should give it to you for free, then I'll give back, then you'll pay it all.\" Oh, so then here, you cannot answer, \"So give back,\" because he's crazy to answer give back, cuz then he's going to lose money. But the Rosh doesn't learn like that. The Rosh learns over there the pshat is he didn't offer him a deal. He just said, \"I don't want to give it to you. You're going to נודז׳ me, I'll give it back.\" And he's right. He doesn't have to give him. So we have here the Rosh. So we have here basically so far two shitos. Rashi and Tosafos's shita is that when you say this concept of אי שתקת, it only works in a case where you offer him a better deal now than the deal if you'll give it back. Then you could say אי שתקת. But if you offer him now the same thing as that he'll get when you give back, so what does one accept? Yeah, he's paying cuz otherwise he loses out. One never works. But if you're going to tell the guy, \"Take זיבורית, if not, I'll give back and I'll give זיבורית.\" So the guy says, \"Why should I take it? In the meantime, you didn't give it back. I want עידית.\" Right. The Rosh learns not like that. We said the Rosh learns that if he says to him this, even if he's giving him offering him the same thing that he'll get later, you could say it, because כל מה שיכול לעשות כשעשוי, we look at it as if he gave it back. And if he gave it back already, then peshita, if he gives back the זיבורית, everyone agrees then everyone has to run to this זיבורית because now it's בני חורין, that's where the זיבורית belongs.

Then we have a third shita. And the third shita is the Ramban, the Rif, and the Rambam, and the Ramban, and the Rashba. They say בכלל we do not say אי שתקת. We do not say such a thing. You can No, beit din doesn't accept it. You can't do this. If a guy deserves עידית, makes sense. You don't say it. Where do we see it? We see it in Hilchot Malveh VeLoveh פרק י״ט, הלכה ו׳ I believe it is, here. מכרן לאחד זו אחר זו, if he sold it to one person, all three to one person, one after another, so he says if he bought עידית באחרונה, he bought עידית at the end, you have to give each one according to his דין. Huh? Not עידית? No, to his דין! It mean if he's זוכה in עידית and he sold them all בזה אחר זה to one person to one person בזה אחר זה, and he says, \"ולמה אינו אומר הטורף כך? אם לקח עידית באחרונה יגבה איש מהם עידית שלקח באחרונה,\" he says, \"Why can't he say that if he bought עידית at the end, why is the din Why can't he send them all to to the זיבורית? Why don't they all collect עידית?\" So he says, the reason is שזו תקנה ללוקח, because the whole idea that if there is בני חורין, you come all collect from בני חורין, it's תקנה for the benefit of the buyer. והרי אומר לוקח, the buyer says, \"אי אפשי בתקנה זו, I don't want it.\" Therefore, כל אחד ואחד גובה מנכסיו כפי מה שראוי לו, everyone gets according to what he is... And the שאלה is, why does everyone get according to what he deserves? Why should the ניזקין not get בינונית? No. No, everyone deserves meant to get עידית. Why doesn't... what does the רמב״ם say? Get עידית. If you say אי שתקת, according to רש״י and תוספות, if you say אי שתקת, the the ניזק he could get בינונית. According to the רא״ש, they should get זיבורית, cuz he he says like this: \"Fine, I'll give back.\" So the פועל the רמב״ם says here, doesn't mention a word about אי שתקת, doesn't mention בכלל the whole thing. And he just says the din, that if he bought עידית at the end, they do not all collect from the עידית. Why? Doesn't mention אי שתקת, because he claims, \"I don't want this תקנה. The reason that the last one is the one to get is for my benefit, this case it's against me, I don't want it.\" And therefore, each one gets kadin. Why should each one gets kadin? Okay, forget it, the תקנה is out, so they don't all go to the עידית. They don't all go to the עידית, but why should the ניזקין get get עידית? Because that's his din. Let him say אי שתקת! Let him say to him, \"I want you to get בינונית, and if not, I'll give back the ziborit.\" He doesn't accept the takanah, he doesn't accept the takanah per se. No, this is for his benefit. Should be he should be his benefit, and he should be able to say, \"I want you to take beinonit.\" The Rambam doesn't mention a word, the Rif doesn't mention, it's shows all, the מפרשים say that the Rambam argues and holds bichlal there is no such thing as i shetakt. He doesn't accept such a sevara. Period. Period.

So basically we have three shitot here: two extremes and one middle. One shitah is the extreme of the Rambam and the Rif, the Ramban, the the Ramban in the Milchamot, the Rashba, no such thing as You can't say such a thing. You can't come and say threaten him. He could always answer you, \"You know what? I don't want it. I want to take What about the Gemara? We learned this peshat in the Gemara. Oh, how how does how does he learn peshat in the Gemara? So he must have a different גירסא. He must have Yeah, it must have been that this whole סוגיא here of i shetakt was skipped. Or he learns it's only a h hava amina. When the Gemara answers ומעשה ותקנת חכמים and this the Gemara changes. So I don't want to go into which is so intricate so deep detailed, it's But he learns this peshat in the Gemara obviously. You can't go against the Gemara obviously, everything in in the Gemara. You have a different גירסא, a different גירסא or he learns it from on a In the h hava amina we thought so, the end was not like that. Lemaaseh the halacha lemaaseh he learns no such thing as i shetakt. So it says we are all saying that it's a higher status the one that was who who preceded the נזק the נזק, then the one that buy then Right, right. He has the he has the Yeah, but why can he not tell him, \"You better take beinonit that I'm offering you. If not, I'll give back But when you look at the two people, what makes him better than the other one? Yeah, but he has the threat. And if What? He has He could threaten him. The other guy has no leverage. He has He He thinks that he has no option. Right, he thinks the Rambam says he has no option, he can't No, actually he has. If he If he does give it back, there is no question, everyone will go to the to the to the ziborit. If he actually gives it back, there's no question, everyone knows that. Is there a pesharah there? No, no. What did he do wrong? He can give back the ziborit, so he did not aveirah by giving back the זיבורית. How can he then He can't use it as leverage. You get No, he can't use as leverage for now, that he should force him now, yeah. If he gives back, he gives back, but you can't say, \"Because I'm able to give back, so I want you already now to take the זיבורית.\" What about כל מה שיכול לעשות כאילו עשוי דמי? So he doesn't hold like that. He doesn't even hold like Rashi. The Rosh holds יכול לעשות דמי, so we happen to have three shittot. Can he give it back, does he have to threaten? Huh? If he had a deal with the guy, he can give it back. He doesn't want to give it back! Then go just go ahead and give it back! Yeah, he doesn't want to give it back, he wants, as it is now, he wants to force him to take That's probably, I think the Beit Din are accepting his ask, whatever. Because everyone agrees if he gives back, yeah, everyone agrees if he gives back, or everyone agrees if then then the guy's Everyone also agrees, what happens if the ניזקין doesn't accept his threat? That's what he tells him, so pashut, if he doesn't accept, the she'eilah is can he force him? The ניזק said, \"I don't want to accept your threat,\" and we Rashi says, \"No, too bad. You have to take the You have to take בינונית.\" The Rosh goes a step further, he takes the זיבורית. So here we have three shittot here: we have the shittah of the Rosh, which is one extreme, that you could force him to take even the זיבורית; you have the other extreme, the Rambam שיטה, which is you can't force him to take anything, each one gets כדין; and then you have the middle shittah, which is Rashi and Tosafot, that you could force him, not always, you could only force him in a case where he's gaining, and he cannot answer, \"You know what? Give back,\" cuz he's going to take a risk. But to those that could answer, \"Look, go ahead and give back,\" we do not say אי שתקת. So there are to to explain this, is like this: first, to be מגדיר it, and then to be מסביר it, there's two things. מגדיר means you come to make a הגדרה, to classify it, that just to get in perspective all the three shittot. And then we have the sevara, why would each one hold the way he holds? The הגדרה is based you could say on one thing: the Rosh uses a לשון that when you say אי שתקת, if you're quiet, it's not a threat. Anything that you're able to do, כאילו עשוי. The she'eilah is, how far Do we use this concept of כאילו עשוי, as if it's done. And this is based on many, many places where we find that when one thing is not the other thing, but the Torah says it's כאילו it is, how far do we go? The best, and the first, and the foremost, and the one that's most famous, and especially in Lubavitch, of this, is shlichut, yeah? Shlichut. That's what we find. We have a לשון: שלוחו של אדם כמותו. You send a shaliach to do something, it's like you. He's not you! The Torah says he's like you. How far do we go?

So, here we have the famous chakirah that ר' Yosef Engel clarifies, and the Rebbe brings it in Tzentlike sichos: lemashel, you send a shaliach to be mekadesh this ishah, she should give kidushin for you. And it works. If he says, \"הרי את מקודשת\" to Reuven, even though Shimon gave the kidushin, Shimon was a shaliach from Reuven, she is mekudeshet to Reuven. How does that work? So, one sevara is the Torah was mechadesh that Shimon becomes Reuven. Sounds crazy, Shimon is Shimon, he's Reuven? The Torah was mechadesh. No, why, it's as if Shimon, as if Reuven himself gave her. Why did Reuven gave her the kidushin? Because legabei giving kidushin, Reuven is Shimon, and that's why she's mekudeshet to Reuven. What's, but here we're saying, according to this, it's it is, the Torah was mechadesh. Then you have the other extreme: no, the Torah did not say at all it is. Shimon is Shimon, not Reuven. The Torah said that even though Shimon is not Reuven, if he does it bishlichut, the Torah said it works, it's a chiddush of the Torah. And the middle way is I won't even be, because so maybe you can call me on the telephone. Nu, go, go, go. You'll be late, you'll be a little late, so be ready to call me on my phone. These are older boys, not the little ones. They eat, it's another 15 minutes? Yeah. All right, I'll be, yeah, on my phone. The other extreme is that it's not. And the middle way is, it's a little bit, that means not that Shimon became Reuven, but the Torah said that the פעולה, the מעשה that Shimon did is מיוחס, relates to Reuven, as if Reuven did it. So the first way is, not the מעשה, שמעון כאילו became Reuven, and automatically whatever he did, Reuven did, because שמעון לגבי this, only לגבי this obviously. The the middle way is, it's only מיוחס. Basically the same, and this is not only by shlichut. Shlichut is the the like the מוקד of it all. You find it in צענדליקע ממש things, where we find the same idea. That whether we say it's כי something, and it's נוגע a lot of times to מחלוקת'ן, to different שיטות, is it ממש becomes, or בפירוש ממש not, or in the middle. This is one of the examples you could give. This doesn't say this in the שיחה, but this I could you could be מגדיר it this way. The Rosh learns whatever you could do, you could do, מה שיוכל לעשות כאילו עשוי, the highest level. כאילו עשוי, as if it's ממש done. Nu, seeing that you're able to give him back, כאילו עשוי, as if you gave it back! And since you gave it back, what would be the דין if you gave back the זיבורית? You'd have to give Everyone agrees that you have to go to the זיבורית. So he could tell the בעל חוב and he could tell the ניזקין: must to go to the זיבורית. So it could be a difference. He could want to give it back, but doesn't mean the other one is going to accept it back. Obviously the Gemara is talking in a case where we know for sure he'll accept it back, because otherwise the whole threat is no threat. Then then push That's right, and then then it doesn't work. The threat is because we assume it's a case what we assume he'll give him, there's a present, there's whatever it is, it's כאילו עשוי and it's completely done. He doesn't need a threat to make it כאילו עשוי, he doesn't have to say anything. Right, so the the Rosh says he doesn't have to say it. It's automatically said, it's כאילו it's said, it's completely done. Correct! He says בפירוש that he doesn't have to say it. That's it! He goes back to the זיבורית because since I'm able to give it back and so the threat is more than a threat, it's not just a threat, it's it's... That's the Rosh. Tosafot and and the Rambam and the Rif, they say even though it's כאילו עשוי, but ke'ilu means nothing. It's like to say it's nothing. B'poal, it's not done! You have to actually do it. You have to actually do it! And in this case, as long as he didn't do it, you can't say it. So he says you can't say it at all. You can't even tell the ניזקין, \"Take בינונית, which it'll be better for you because if I give back you'll get זיבורית.\" You can't even do that! You can force him? If the guy agrees, fine, but you can't force him. Why? Because as long as I did not do it, it's nothing. So I didn't give back the זיבורית. So b'poal, the עידית was the last, and they all want עידית. So they can all take עידית, unless the guy doesn't deserve it. So if the ניזקין deserves עידית, he gets עידית. בעל חוב deserves בינונית, gets בינונית. But you can't tell him to get something else as if, so they don't hold the פסק'ס בכלל. Tosafot HaRosh, they're like in a middle of the מדרגה. Tosafot HaRosh, they say it's be'emet it does work, we do look at it as if it's done, but not completely. Not completely, there we already see how, if he could answer him, back he said, \"You know what, you're not gaining, you're getting me to gain anything anyway.\" So there we say he can. If he's takeh gaining from it, then we say because נעשה כשנעשית. So this seems to be that the three shitot fit to the three ways of this ישיבה'דיקע בחורלאך ווארט, of the sugya of כ-. How the כ- works. And we find it in a lot of places: שוה כסף ככסף, התורה עשתה כאילו ברשותיה, I mean, so many things where we find the Torah says this is like this, and we always have this, able to have this chakira, and it works a lot of times. You know, people would say you could see, you could apply these three hagdorot here. The she'ela is what's the hasvara? Each one, what is his sevara? Why would he hold like this, why would he hold like that? That's what we need to know. This is just this is not explanation. We're just saying we we figure it out that it works according to these three derachim. But what's the hasvara?

So here, maybe it's just bekitzur, there is a machloket between the Ketzot and the Maharit. The Maharit, you know of the Maharit? His name is Yom Tov, Rabbi Yom Tov. Mahari"t? ער איז אחרון? No, it's the earlier, a bigger earlier אחרון. Before the Ketzos, a few hundred. So Mahari"t in a teshuvah says like this: We know אין אדם יכול להקנות לדבר שלא בא לעולם, לשעבד עצמו לדבר שלא... I cannot meshabed myself, a promise or something, to somebody that's not in the world. I can't come to you and say, you know, \"When you'll have a child five years from now, I'm meshabed my my my watch to him.\" There's nobody to meshabed, there's nobody in the world. The she'eilah is, can I be meshabed a דבר שלא בא לעולם? Can I come and say, a something that it's not there yet? Next year. \"I'm going to buy a watch next year, so I'm meshabed my watch to you.\" Conditional. זאגט the Ketzos זאגט the Mahari"t, it could. Why? No, but how can you be meshabed it? Because I buy it I'm buying it now. It's going to happen now! It's a דבר שלא בא לעולם! Right. So he says, because I'm meshabed my guf. I'm mesh'ubad, I'm not meshabed the thing. I'm meshabed myself that when the thing will come, I'll give it to you. I'm around, I'm בא לעולם! Comes the Ketzos, and the Ketzos says he's wrong. It's not true. When you meshabed something, it's not that you're meshabed yourself to give the thing, you are meshabed the thing. And therefore, if it's a דבר שלא בא לעולם, you can't do it. You said, I'm משעבד שלא בא לעולם. So basically, the the nekudah of the machloket between the Ketzos and the Mahari"t is, when we talk about shi'abudim, of a certain karka, whatever it is, is it a shi'abud on the person, or is it a shi'abud on the karka? Is it a shi'abud that people always say \"my karka is mesh'ubad to the loan\", it's not the pshat my karka is mesh'ubad, I am mesh ubad to give my karka to you. The other way is no, the karka itself! You have a certain ownership over the karka. And the other way, you have nothing, the karka has nothing to do with you, but still I have to give it to you, still you could take it, because I am mesh ubad to give it to you. That's the two ways of learning shibud. Now, according to this, why is it if I sold the field that was mesh ubad to you, you could go to the buyer, to the לקוחות? Mimeila, according to the Ketzos we understand why. Because the karka is mesh ubad to him, so this guy, you bought, you thought you bought my karka, but I'm, it's already mesh ubad to you, you bought a karka that I have No, no, I have no right to sell. You bought I sold you the Brooklyn Bridge! I sold you something that wasn't mine. But according to the Maharit that the karka is not the karka is mine, it's nothing, I had an obligation to give it to you, so how come if I sold it he could come to you and take it away, to the buyer? The mefarshim say, because you had no right to buy it. Since you knew that I