think we'll get started. We'll discuss a piece of Gemara here on דף כט עמוד ב in Chazakat Habatim, Bava Batra. This is a sugya that deals with the chazakah that a person can have in a house or in a field. And as we learned last week, a person buys a house, buys a field or any other property, and three years passes, and the owner comes later on and says to him, \"What are you doing in my house? It's my my house, or my field.\" So normally you would expect that how could he prove that he bought it? He answers, \"I bought it from you.\" And the guy says, \"It's not true. You bring out your document.\" So in truth, till three years, if he doesn't bring out his document, then we tell him, \"It's not yours.\" That guy, we know for sure it's the other person's because he used to own it. You claim you bought it, prove it. You can't prove it, so obviously it belongs to him. So we give it back to the one we call the מערער, the one that's arguing. But if three years passed and he lives in this house, then the din is that it stays with him, even without a document. And the Gemara said before the reason as we spoke about last week. And the Gemara here goes through many different stories of cases where there was an argument between the מערער and the מחזיק. The מחזיק is the one that's in the field, the מערער is the one that's arguing, the original owner who is arguing against him, and different cases and different dinim of what we would do in those cases. But it's all based on this one simple rule: that when a person sells a house to somebody, that person must keep the document for three years. Until three years, if he doesn't have the document, he loses it. After three years, he keeps it, unless the original owner makes a מחאה, makes a protest. And therefore, when a person hears that somebody is living in his house, and he claims that he never sold it, so it's still his house, and he hears someone is living there, he should know that if he's going to let three years pass without doing anything, he lost the house. He'll come to the guy and tell the guy, \"It's mine.\" And the guy could say, \"I bought it.\" And the guy won't have any proof, and he'll still keep it, because three years. And the only way he could prevent it is by making a מחאה, by protesting wherever he is, he doesn't have to go to the person. Wherever he is, in whichever place, he calls two people together and tells the two people, \"This and this person or somebody is living in my house in that and that city. I want you to know that he's a he's a ganav, it's my house, and I'm making a מחאה, I'm making a protest, and I plan to call him to a din Torah when the when I will be able to.\" Then he has it for another three years, he doesn't have to make a מחאה. If three more years pass and he didn't make a מחאה, he again could lose it. And that's how it goes, and that's the din. Here

the Gemara tells a story, דף כט עמוד ב: ההוא דאמר ליה לחבריה מאי בעית בהאי ביתא, a man told his friend, \"What are you doing in this house?\" אמר ליה, so he said to him, מינך זבינתיה, \"I bought it from you,\" ואכלית שני חזקה, \"and I have it for three years of chazakah, that's a chazakah, three years.\" And in order to make a chazakah, by the way, you have to use it to its fullest extent. If you're making a chazakah over a field, you have to take the fruit, use the fruit that grows in that field for three years. If you make a chazakah over a house, you have to live in the house, which is the fruit. Are you talking about three consecutive years? Yeah, we'll see, that's Doesn't matter. Well, if it's a year that you can't plant, then that doesn't count. Then it's not count as a year. No, it doesn't count as a year. Doesn't count, so you actually have to do it for four. So that is for four years. So in this case, what happened here, he came and he said, \"What are you doing in my house?\" And he said to him, \"I bought it from you, and I ate it three years of chazakah.\" And eating means making use of it, and as I said, you have to make use of it to its fullest extent as much as you normally would make use of a house, which means I lived in it. And he says, \"I lived in it for three years.\" And obviously, when you say that, that's not just said, you have to bring proof, you have to bring witnesses. And obviously, he brought witnesses that he was there. אמר ליה, so the other person, the מערער, said to him, אנא בשכוני גוואי הואי, \"I was in שכוני גוואי.\" And

there are different peshatim, peshat in this Gemara here, there's the Ritva's peshat, and there's the Nimukei Yosef's peshat, and the Rashba's peshat. Then there is the Rashbam's peshat and Tosafot and the Rosh, they all hold Rashbam's peshat, and we're going to go now in this whole discussion here according to their peshat. What was his answer? He says, \"I was בשכוני גוואי means that you say you lived in this house for three years, true, but I lived in the back. In the same house, I lived there, and I used to walk through always through your where you used to live. So what kind of chazakah is it? You're making a chazakah here because you say you're living in there, it's with my permission. So what kind of chazakah is it?\" Obviously, what did he answer? The Gemara doesn't even bring the end, but what did he answer? He said, \"You're lying. It's not true, you never walked through.\" אתו לקמיה דרב נחמן, they came to Rav Nachman. אמר ליה, so Rav Nachman said, זיל ברי אכילתך. Rav Nachman said to the machzik, to the one that's sitting in the field, \"You go prove Your eating. You prove, you have to prove that your chazakah is a good chazakah. That means you have to bring witnesses that this guy did not walk through your house, and mimela your living there for three years is a proper chazakah. אמר ליה רבא, so Rava said to him, הכי דינא? Is this the right din? המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. This guy is trying to get the house away from him, so he is the מוציא, המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. Somebody who tries to take something from somebody else, he has to prove it. So in this case, Rava says that the me'ar'er is the one that has to prove it. So the machzik doesn't have to do anything. The me'ar'er who is claiming that he walked through, you have to prove that you used to walk through, and then you will get the house. As long as you don't prove it, he keeps it. Then the

Gemara goes, asks a kushya, contradiction to someplace else, they said the opposite, and the Gemara answers it. That's not part of our discussion. We're just going to stick to this little, these few lines, this story. All I want to do is try to explain what is the basis of the machloket between Rav Nachman and Rava. What is it based on? And I actually mentioned it last week at the end of the shiur, I mentioned what it seems like the machloket. That would be the first glance pshat in this machloket. What did I explain last week? The whole shiur I explained last week that there are two ways to look at this case of a machzik and a me'ar'er. The question really is, who is considered the muchzak? Who is considered the one that we say has the the control, who has the ownership, and who is the one that's called a motzi? And there are two ways to look at it we learned last week, and I tried to explain it's a machloket between the Rambam and the Tur. What are the two ways? On one hand, you could say that just like, I'll just repeat it in short, just like by metaltelin, by regular objects, the klal is כל מה שתחת יד, the חזקה, כל מה שתחת יד אדם שלו הוא. Whatever a person has is his. So if I'm holding this and you come and say this is mine, the burden of proof is on you, because the fact that I'm holding it is the best proof that it's mine. So I'm the muchzak, you're the motzi. The question is, do we say the same, do we apply the same rule to קרקע? That since I'm living in the קרקע, I'm automatically the muchzak. You're trying to get me out, you're the motzi. Now till three years, how do you get me out? I'm taka the muchzak, but you have a proof against me. Your proof is, if I bought it, where is my שטר? אחוי שטרך! Where is your document? So we have a proof. So really I'm a muchzak, but the din is by a מוחזק המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. The one that's trying to take out brings the re'aya. He brought a ראיה, אין הכי נמי. The other guy is taka the motzi trying to get it out, עליו הראיה, he has a re'aya. What's his re'aya? This guy has no document. That's one way to look at it. The other way to look at it is no, that that first, by קרקע we do not say this rule. There is no such thing as what you're, that you're living in it, you are the muchzak. By קרקע we say, according to this opinion, that קרקע כל מקום שהוא, it's תחת יד הבעלים. Wherever it is, it's in the control of the owner. מטלטלין you could put in your pocket, you could hold in your hand, so here we say your holding is possession. But קרקע, wherever it is, the owner owns it. And therefore, since the the מערער has witnesses that it used to be his, that's not that question, because if he doesn't have witnesses then he doesn't win. All the cases where the מערער fights with the מחזיק, he brings witnesses that it used to be his. So he is the mara kama, he's the original owner. And this guy is a safek, we don't know if he owns it or not. That person is the muchzak. And the מחזיק, the one that's in the field, he is called a motzi. That's another way to learn. He is called a motzi. After three years, he gets it. Why does he get it? Because we tell the מערער, why didn't you make a מחאה? No person, no normal person hears that there's somebody living in his house for three years and doesn't say anything. Ah, you could say you were far away and you didn't hear, no, the Gemara says חברא חברא אית ליה, everyone friends has a friend, friend travels, news travels, he for sure certainly knew. So the fact that you did not make the מחאה, that's why, that's a re'aya against you. So the other one who is the motzi, the one that's living is a motzi, but he has a re'aya. So we have two ways to look at it, which one is the motzi and which one is the muchzak. Now at first glance, this is the machloket here between Rava and Rav Nachman. We said before it's a machloket between the Tur and the Rambam and everything, it's a machloket between Rava and Rav Nachman, it seems like. Which could be the פשט. In this case, what was the שאלה? This guy said, \"I have a real חזקה, three years.\" The other guy made a doubt in his חזקה, he said, \"No, I walked through, so it's not a חזקה.\" Now the שאלה is on whom is the burden of proof here? That's the machloket here between Rava and Rav Nachman. So Rav Nachman said that the burden of proof is on the one that's living in it. Obviously, he holds that the מערער is the מוחזק. That guy is the real owner. He is trying to get it away from him. He's trying to get it away, and there's a ספק whether he got it or not. So the burden of proof is on him. That's why Rav Nachman said to him, \"זיל ברר אכילתך, you go prove your part.\" אמר ליה רבא, המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. Rava learnt out, turned around and said, \"No. The other guy is the מוציא, he is the מוחזק. So the other guy has to be the one to bring the ראיה.\" That's how that's you could learn the machloket. That's one way to learn לעניות דעתי. The only thing is, we do find in the ראשונים that it seems to be a machloket whether the מערער is the מוחזק or the מחזיק. Those ראשונים definitely don't learn that פשט in this Gemara. Because if they'd learn פשט in this Gemara, they wouldn't argue in a machloket of אמוראים. Can't be, especially here we know who the הלכה is. The הלכה in this case is like Rav Nachman. All the ראשונים say the הלכה is like Rav Nachman. So if you learn the pshat of the Gemara that this is their machloket, obviously the bottom line would be that who's the מוחזק? According if halacha is like Rav Nachman, the מערער is the מוחזק. So how could any one of the rishonim say the שיטה that the מחזיק is the מוחזק? Therefore, it must be that they they those rishonim must learn a different pshat in this machloket. So there's a different way to learn the machloket here between Rav Nachman and Rabbah, what's behind the logic behind the machloket between Rav Nachman and Rabbah, and that could be based on another chakirah, another thing that you could discuss and see which side is the right one. In this case, what happened? He had it for three years. That wasn't the question. Obviously, he had a proof he had it for three years. The only thing the guy said is, \"I used to walk through.\" There are two ways to look at this טענה. Did he mean to say Now, we don't care what he meant, this guy meant, whoever the guy was. You mean in halacha, what's the value of such a טענה? Does this טענה mean that therefore your חזקה is no חזקה? Or does it mean that I made a מחאה? Is the pshat that since I walked through memeila, you were never מחזיק. מחזיק means that you exclusively are using it. Since I'm walking through, it means eyes still mine, so you never made a חזקה. Yeah, for the guy. Yeah. And here this guy you could say this this is no חזקה. Or the טענה is not that it's no חזקה. But it's I made a מחאה, adrabah. No, it's a מחאה. What's this טענה? You made a חזקה, but if a guy made a מחאה while you made a חזקה, your חזקה doesn't work. Why? Because you made a מחאה. So the she'eilah is what is And there are different discussions here. Some The Ketzos wants to bring Bring, not wants to, brings the Meiri, and the Meiri is medayek in the lashon of the Rashbam. The Rashbam here says, let's read the רשב״ם, אנא בשכוני גוואי הבאי, in this lashon, he says, בחדרים הפנימיים הוי סמיכא דירתי. This guy says the מערער, \"My main place of living was inside. והויתי עובר דרך עליך, I used to pass through. ומשתמש עמך בבית החיצון, and I used the outside room, I used to use with you. שדרת בבית ברשותי, because you live there with my reshut. ולכך לא מוחיסי, and therefore I did not make a protest.\" So he medayek in the Rashbam as if saying this is the place of my protest. Why didn't I make a protest? Not because he didn't make a chazakah, because I have a protest, this was my protest. It's mashma like that. Now, the truth is to say that it's 100% proof is no re'ayah, because you could say what he means is, therefore I didn't protest because, since I used to live with you, so your chazakah is no chazakah, so I there is no need for my protest. If you don't make a chazakah, then. But it's not mashma. I'm just using this to show there is an indication of such a side. I'm not trying to say that the Rashbam holds like that. I'm just saying that's an indication that's all. I just want to show two sides. We look at the Rabbeinu Gershom who explains the Gemara the same way. He said a few different words, which indicates that also not a proof. He says like this: אנא בשכוני גוואי והחזקתי בה. \"I was machzik,\" the מערער says. ולא שימשת בה יותר ממני, \"And you didn't use it more than me.\" What does that mean? You didn't make a chazakah. So we So you could also say, \"You didn't use it more than me, that's my protest.\" I mean, you could be dochak. But it's more like נוטה it seems to this side. So what we have here is two ways of looking at this case here. Is it that he did not have a chazakah? Is his claim that you didn't have a chazakah to begin with, or is his claim, \"What I did was a macha'ah, and when you Even though you did a chazakah, but my macha'ah blocks, ruins your chazakah\"? There's a נפקא מינה להלכה, not just in besides the uh I would say this is the machloket of Rav Nachman and Rabbah, but there's another נפקא מינה להלכה between these two sides. What would be the nafka mina?

From Tosafos later on in different places, it seems like this: that when does a chazakah help? If the person started with the chazakah. See what I mean. Let's say a person Tosafos says if a person We learned last week that a חזקה שאין עמה טענה is no chazakah. That means if a guy lives in a house 5 years, 20 years, whatever it is, the original owner comes to him and he says, \"What are you doing in my house?\" And he says, \"I don't know, I saw an empty house, I moved in, and I lived there for 10 years, no one said anything.\" That's nothing, that's not chazakah. That's called a חזקה שאין עמה טענה, there is no ta'anah there. You admit it's not yours. Chazakah doesn't make it yours, chazakah is just a proof that you claim you bought it. This is a re'ayah you bought it. But if you say you didn't buy it, חזקה שאין עמה טענה. So Tosafos says, \"Well, what happens if a person moves into a house and he says, 'I don't know, I just moved in'? Then, later he claims, 'I bought it from you.' He's still living there and he bought it from him, he says, 'I bought it from you,' and 3 years passed without a mecha'ah.\" So lechora'ah it's fine. Lechora'ah he His ta'anah is already He claims I bought it. He has a chazakah 3 years after the ta'anah. The guy didn't make a mecha'ah for 3 years, so lechora'ah it should be fine. Tosafos says no. Why? Because his moving in didn't start off with a proper chazakah, with a ta'anah that he bought it, it's not really a chazakah. So since he started off wrong, so then it can't continue, now he has to keep his shtar forever if he ever bought it. It won't help, the chazakah doesn't help. In this case here, what would happen in a case like this? Let's say the guy is living there and this guy is walking through, and then after that for three years he didn't walk through. He was walking through at the beginning. Yeah, in the beginning he walked through, that's how it started. He says, lechatchilah comes to him and says, \"What, you say it's a chazakah? I've been living with you, I walked through here.\" Then three years passed and he didn't say anything, and then he comes and claims, \"Hey, it's my house.\" So we tell the guy, \"Let's say you're right, that that time you walked through, but since then till now three years passed.\" Now if we're saying that the pshat is that the guy who lived there originally and walking through it's a chazakah, the only reason is it's no good is because it's a mecha'ah, what happened now? Three years passed without a mecha'ah, so then this guy, the machzik gets it. If we're going to say it never, at the beginning it never was a chazakah, so he started off without a chazakah. And Tosafos, he started off without a chazakah, because we're saying that his walk, according to the other pshat, that his walking through makes it that there is no chazakah, so he started living in the house without a chazakah. And then all of a sudden he claimed now he's starting to get a chazakah, that chazakah like that doesn't help, you have to start with a chazakah. So according to this, he takeh wouldn't keep it even if he didn't make a mecha'ah later on. Huh? In that case, he's living there just like the case of חזקה שאין עמה טענה. חזקה שאין עמה טענה is the same thing. He started there, let's not, let's disregard it. There also didn't start, there also you could say, he didn't start, חזקה שאין עמה טענה is nothing, it didn't start. Now, from when he claims he bought it, it started, and it's three years without a mecha'ah. Tosafos says no, because he started it, אף על פי כן איז ער, he started the wrong way. Here also, he started without a chazakah, never moved out, he's living there, continued living, so the same thing. So this would be a nafka minah lehalachah. So there are two ways to look at it. Now here, you could say that this is the machloket between Rava and Rav Nachman, and it's very pashut. If the ta'anah is that it's not a chazakah, who is the one that has to prove it? What's the safek here? If it's a chazakah or not. That original owner, the me'ar'er, has proof it's his. He has original re'ayot. Now there's a safek whether you are machzik or not, whether you made a chazakah. What's the din always when there's a safek if someone made a chazakah? Who has to prove it's a chazakah? The machzik always has to prove it's a chazakah. Comes Rav Nachman and he says, \"You're machzik, prove your chazakah.\" Why prove? Because Rav Nachman holds that this guy's ta'anah of walking through means his ta'anah is that you didn't make a chazakah. Zogt im Rava, \"No, המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה.\" Rava holds farkert. His chazakah is a good chazakah, you're just ta'anah'ing you made a macha'ah. Now there is a safek: did he make a macha'ah or not? Now, on who is the burden of proof whether there was a macha'ah or not? On the me'ar'er! So he says, המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה, the other guy has to bring the re'ayah. So that's what he

says, that the me'ar'er is the one that has to bring the re'ayah because he's, the chazakah is a definitely good one, maybe you made a macha'ah, maybe not, that's a שאלה. You claim you walked through, you made a מחאה, he says you didn't, so you prove that you made a מחאה. This would be the מחלוקת. There's another way to explain the מחלוקת. And that's basically, that's I'm just throwing this piece to see different ways of being able to explain the two sides of this coin of whether it's like Rava or like Rav Nachman. Let's assume they both hold that the case is it's not that that spoils your חזקה, but it's a מחאה. His טענה is not that you don't have a חזקה, his טענה is that this is called a מחאה. Let's assume that way. What is the גדר of a מחאה? Now we know for sure that מחאה means that this guy has a חזקה, you have to make a מחאה to to not let let him keep it. But there is an interesting דין. There is a דין in Tosafot later and other places, Shulchan Aruch פסק'נט all over, that if we know, let's say even if we know for sure that the מחזיק never heard the מחאה, his חזקה is still a חזקה. And this is a fla'dige zach. I'll tell you why. What's the reason for the guy to make a מחאה? Why does he have to make a מחאה? What does he accomplish with a מחאה? So the Rashbam says before and later, and that's an accepted thing, I'll read you just a few words of the Rashbam here just to, here: המחאה היא התראה להזהר בראיות זכותו ושטר מכירתו. The

מחאה is a warning to the to the מחזיק to watch, to keep his document, that's all it is. When the מחזיק hears that the guy made a מחאה, that tells him you better watch your document, because if you don't watch, you're not going to have proof. So if the whole thing is that he should watch his document, obviously it's, would seem, only if he heard the מחאה, and we assume in most cases he heard. So we assume he heard, so he should have kept the document. And if he comes later, even after three years, but you don't have your document, obviously you don't have one, and it proves that you're a liar and you didn't buy it. That's the simple meaning of מחאה. says in this Rashbam, different places. I mean, that's the simple thing. The question is how come the דין is that if we know for sure that the מחזיק did not, let's say we know for sure there are people who are witnesses, we lived with this מחזיק for three years, in the same house, whatever. He never heard, it never got to him, you know, it could happen it never got to him. The דין should be that his חזקה should be a חזקה. If the whole idea is that, you have a חזקה, the only thing is why didn't you watch your document when you heard a מחאה? I didn't hear a מחאה, and we know it like this. When he says it we don't know if he's saying the truth, we don't believe him. But if we know for sure he didn't. Nevertheless the din is that it doesn't matter, chazakah is a chazakah. And the question is what is the logic behind it? So

there are be'emet two ways to explain that. One way is, lo plug. What can we do? Chachamim can't make for every single individual case separate dinim. So, it's takeh in this case, he loses out, and he takeh it's not his fault, but lo plug. But then there are others who say no, that's not the pshat. The pshat is that it became a din that the מחאה spoils the chazakah, it's a din. It's not a, it started off because the Chachamim wanted you to watch your document, but it turned into a din that the moment the guy makes a מחאה, it blocks your chazakah, you have to start all over again. If you want to have a chazakah from today three years, he shouldn't make a מחאה, but it's a din that the chazakah is lost, there is no more chazakah. The other way is no, מחאה doesn't spoil a חזקה, מחאה is to watch, but in certain cases where we can't help it, so the Chachamim nevertheless did it. But be'emet remains that מחאה does not spoil the chazakah. Those are the two ways, which be'emet it seems like this could be a machloket between the Shach and the Ketzot and the Netivot. There's

another case, case like this. What happens if two witnesses come to a מחזיק, that's a she'eilah that comes up in the Shach case, if two witnesses come to the מחזיק and tell the מחזיק: You know, this and this man, the original guy you claim you bought your, we know you bought your field from, made a מחאה. He lives someplace in another city, and we're telling you, we know he made a מחאה. And lefo'al three years passed, not from the מחאה, but three years from when you lived in the house, and it turned out it was not true. The guy never made a מחאה. And this guy doesn't have his document. So the Shach, it seems from the Shach he holds that nevertheless the guy loses his chazakah. Because the whole reason for the mechah is he should watch. What's the chiluk if it's true or not? You were told, we know for sure, two witnesses told you that there was a mechah, so you should have watched your document. Comes the Ketzot and the Netivot and they say: Yisrayin gevald, I mean, there's no mechah here. How could, there's no mechah. A mechah will spoil the chazakah, there's no mechah, it's a bluff. So how could that spoil the chazakah? And they argue and there is the two sides here. The nekudah that we could say between the two sides is this: whether it became a din that mechah spoils the chazakah, it's not a technical thing anymore, so then in the case where there is no mechah, there's nothing to spoil the chazakah. If you hold the other way that it remains a very practical thing, pashut, if there is a mechah you have to watch your shtar, so as long as there is a reason you should have watched your shtar because you thought there was a mechah, you should have watched your shtar, you didn't, you lose your chazakah. But if we say no the chachamim and it turned into a din that mechah spoils chazakah, so it has nothing to do with, so it's only bepoal if there is a din a din a din of, if there is a mechah. If there's no mechah there's nothing to spoil. So it's a din. So it comes out that if it's a din mechah, that mechah spoils the chazakah, it'll come out a kula and a chumra. You follow what I'm saying? It'll come out on one side a kula, one side a chumra. In the case where the guy never heard, the guy made a mechah and he never heard the chazakah, never heard it, so likhorah, according to the other way that it's to watch a שטר, here you can't blame him. Nevertheless, being there's a דין מחאה spoils the חזקה, in this case it's spoiled. On the other hand, when if it was a bluff, there was no מחאה. So if it's just for him to watch it, he should lose the חזקה. If it's pashut a דין מחאה, he doesn't. So what I'm trying to bring out is that we have these two ways. So one way is that there is no more דין מחאה. מחאה means חזקה is spoiled, and the other way מחאה is a דין for itself. What comes out here, like the same way I explained before, that the מחלוקת between רב and רב נחמן is whether the חזקה is in question or the מחאה is in question, we could say now they both hold that it's a, it's a being a מחאה, not not the חזקה's in question. But if you hold that every מחאה spoils the חזקה, so the moment the מחאה is in question, the חזקה's in question. Because what's the טייטש מחאה? מחאה is a דין that the חזקה's no חזקה. So the moment there's a question if he made a מחאה, it's not a question on the מחאה, it's a question: is there a חזקה or not? According to the other way, it's not like According to the other way, חזקה is a חזקה. A מחאה might do something. So in this case where it's a question of מחאה, who has to bring the proof? The one of the מחאה, the מערער. But if we say every time there's a מחאה, a מחאה is questioned, automatically the חזקה is no חזקה, so it's a דין on a question on the חזקה. So it's a question on the חזקה, so the מחזיק has to prove. And by the way, this explains, we see in the Rashbam two different לשונות. Before we quoted the Rashbam that the Ketzos quotes, and he says since the Rashbam says, ״ולכך לא מוכיחי״, that he says to him, \"I used to look, walk, through and I was mishtamesh, and that's why I didn't make a mechaah, so obviously the Rashbam kvetsheses that what is this? A mechaah. And I didn't make a mechaah because I didn't have to. Later on, the Rashbam says here, where is it? Here, זיל ברר אכילתך. זיל ברר אכילתך, right? When Rav Nachman said you go prove that you ate the three years, הבא עדים שדרת בבית לבדך ג' שנים, bring witnesses that you lived in the house yourself three years, בלא איש זה שבא עמך לדין, without this guy who's disputing you, כגון כדין כל חזקת ג' שנים, like anytime when you make a חזקה, שצריך להביא עדים שהחזיק בה חזקה גמורה, that you have to bring edim that you made a proper chazakah. In other words, what's he saying here? You have to prove that you made a proper chazakah. But before we've seen, right, that the question wasn't whether he made a proper chazakah. The question was whether he made a mechaah or not, so he should have said, you prove that he did not make a mechaah. He says no, you prove. So, he's taking it from both ends. On one hand, he's saying it's a question of the mechaah. On the other hand, the Rashbam hat arayn in Rav Nachman's words that it's a question of the chazakah. So, I'm saying true, Rav Nachman holds they're both true. It's a question of the mechaah, but the mechaah is a question of the chazakah because mechaah does with chazakah. So, he starts off, ולכך לא מחיתי, so that's why I didn't make a mechaah, because this is my in place of my mechaah, but the other guy questions it, mimela it's a question on the chazakah, that's what he says. But the Rava, Rava says no, המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה, that the me'arer has to bring a re'ayah because he says no, it has nothing to do with chazakah, it's a question of mechaah purely on the mechaah. When it's a question purely on the mechaah, the me'arer has to because mecha'ah is on the מערער's side, he has to do it. Then there's another pshat that you could say in explaining the two sides of Rav Nachman and Rava. I feel like I'm an actor, right? Right behind you, right behind you. So, the mecha'ah's purpose only comes to remind you or tell the person who's sitting there that you better keep your shtar, better keep your shtar. It's kind of weak because someone protests a week before the end of three years, and that's to remind them to keep the shtar, yeah? He lost it already. Can't! He lost it. The Gemara said that a person keeps a shtar for three years. A person keeps a shtar for three years. It's only after that he has to come. Why do we have to come? Why don't we have to come and warn him? Tell just only to warn him. Because after three years he doesn't have to. That's why he says so he has to. Three years, we're talking about after three years. But shtar till three years is not going to lose. If a guy comes without a protest under three years, they'll take it away. It's only if he comes more than three years. If someone comes with a protest after If someone, no, if someone comes before three years, you don't even need a protest, because till three years you expect the guy on his own to keep the shtar. So, if the guy comes and says, it's my field, and he says, no, I bought it, where's your shtar? You don't have a shtar, get out of here. If a protest is only to make him hold it, to make a new three years. But till, without a protest, he himself has to keep it for three years. If none of the kids Okay, so If none of the kids were aware of the protest That's the protest. A protest A protest is known to the whole world. Yeah, but we assume it comes here. We assume חברך חברא אית ליה וחברא דחברך חברא אית ליה. You assume from the time that he makes the protest or you add another three months? No, no, no, nothing. From the time the protest From the time of the protest? Yeah, yeah, because we assume that he's going to say, two months ago There's another way to learn. A completely I think it's considered a completely different pshat. It's a whole different pshat in the Gemara. No, the pshat of the case is the same, but till now we were saying that this guy was trying to say to him, I still live with you, and therefore, your chazakah is no chazakah. Whether we said it's a question of mecha'ah, that because I made a mecha'ah, so then you lose your chazakah, or do we say, we said before that it's a chazakah that you don't have, you can't have a chazakah, whatever. But he's trying to ruin the whole thing here. There's another way to learn here.

The Gemara says before here that you have to have three full years. We know that, three full years. Now there are cases in the Gemara here like okay, let's learn the Gemara here. אמר רב הונא שלש שנים שאמרו ושיהו רצופות, the three years have to be consecutive. Now, what happens if they're not consecutive? Then it loses, has to be three years in a row. On the other hand, there are certain cases, Gemara says מודה רב הונא באתרא דמוברי באגי. Let's say you have a field and the custom in that area is that for a year they don't plant the field, that's what people do, or even some people do it, then it doesn't have to be consecutive. Let's say you have a year, skip a year because that's what most people do, have a second year, year number three skip a year and have a third year, so now you have three years. So, it could take longer than three years, but you have to have eating the פירות, which means the benefit of the field or the house has to be for three years. But sometimes you could skip in the middle because these things in the middle don't spoil the time, like does it have to be consecutive? But like this, where normal people normally people skip, so that doesn't spoil your chazakah. But in other cases, if it's not a place where people normally skip, then if you skip Let's say you have it for five years. Year, skip, a skip, and people don't skip. You decided to skip, then not only then the fact that you skipped ruined your chazakah. Here, the case could be, when the guy came and he said, \"I used to walk through.\" He didn't say, \"I walked through, and mimela you don't have a chazakah.\" \"I walked through You had it for three years, true. Out of the three years, 10 days I walked through. You're missing 10 days to your chazakah.\" That would be his טענה. \"You're missing 10 days to your chazakah.\" Now, this is a case that the fact that he's missing those 10 days wouldn't spoil his chazakah if he would have 10 days later. In other words, he has to have three full years, and if he's missing 10 days, it would help. Ai, before we said that if it's not consecutive, if there's a time it spoils. But in this case, it wouldn't work. Why? What is the reason, takeh, there it has to be רצופות? The Rashbam explains, שלש רצופות. אבל הניחה שנה שניה, let's say he left it for a second year, ואחר כך אכלה שתי שנים. Let's say he used it for a year, skipped a year, then for two years, third and fourth year he used it. It's not a chazakah. Ai, he had it for three years? The fact that he skipped in the middle ruins it. Why? Because מצי אמר בעל השדה, the owner, the original owner could say to him, האי דלא מחאי לך, you know why I didn't protest? היינו משום דחזיתך דלא עבדת שנה שניה, because I saw in the second year you didn't use it. דגלי את דעתך, by not using it, you revealed your mind דלאו דידך הוא. By that itself, since you didn't use it, you showed that it's not yours. So, I thought הילכך חזי דעתיה, that's why you didn't plant it, so I didn't feel important, necessary for me to make a protest. So therefore, in a case like this, it's not a chazakah. But the reason why if you skip time in the middle even if you make it up later, it doesn't work is because you didn't eat the perot. That doesn't apply to our case. Our case, the guy lived there for those that He says 10 days are not counted. But they're not and not because you weren't there. Had he come to him and said like this, and that the Gemara speaks about later, \"You say you had a chazakah 10 years, 3 years, you lived there for 3 years? I'm telling you, there were two weeks within the three years that you didn't live there.\" If he'd say that, his ta'anah is your whole chazakah is spoiled. Because those two weeks you didn't live like normally. What's in this case here? He lived there every day. He doesn't come and say there were 10 days that you didn't live there. He comes and says there were 10 days that I lived with you. So, these 10 days cannot be counted as part of the chazakah, because those are 10 days that he's there. But on the other hand, these are 10 days that cannot that do not spoil the chazakah. So, the case let's say I'm using the example of 10 days. The case here is that three years were up to the day. He comes to him at the end of that mamash three years were up. He comes to him and says, \"What are you doing in the house?\" \"What do you mean? I have it for 3 years, 3 full years. Every day I have it.\" So, the guy says, \"For 10 days, or whatever it is of those three years, I walked through, so you're missing 10 days.\" No, but according to his ta'anah, he doesn't have a chazakah. Not because your chazakah is spoiled, not because I made a mecha'ah, that's a different story. The reason you can't keep it is because you don't have three years yet. What would be a normal case, when a guy is there for three full years and the owner comes the last day, the last day before the 3 years are up and says, \"That is my field.\" What is the din? And he doesn't have a shtar. No good, he's out. So, he's telling him the same thing. \"You're missing 10 years to your chazakah.\" So, it's 10 days to your chazakah, which is a complete different peshat than we were learning till now. This is not the I'm telling you that this is not the simple peshat the way the מפרשים learn. And the מפרשים learn it's a case which is trying to spoil his chazakah, and then we're said before the two ways you could learn how to spoil it, it's not like that. There is a shtikel re'ayah to this from Tosafot. Because Tosafot who talks about it says that his ta'anah is the Gemara says, \"והייתי עמך שני ימים,\" let's say I was with you for two days, \"ואין לך שלש שנים שלימות.\" Doesn't say \"ואין לך חזקה\", \"אין לך חזקת שלש שנים\". Tosafot says, \"You don't have three complete years.\" It's an indication to this peshat that his ta'anah is you're missing those days. Now, had I come 10 days later, even though there are 10 days that skipped, it wouldn't spoil the chazakah, even though normally if you skip days, it spoils. In this case, it wouldn't. And this that this is the ma'aseh that happened. What's the machloket between Rabbah and Rav Nachman? When this happens here, that the 10 days in the middle, he to'en's, we don't know. The other guy says it's not true. The other guy says, \"It's not true, you never walked by. I had it for three years, you never...\" This guy says, \"I did.\" According to this guy's ta'anah, what is the peshat? Do these 10 days not count? They're not like Imagine they would be 10 days before the end, so you don't have 10 days. What is it then? A safek on what? Whether he has a Let's say there's a doubt. A guy comes and says, \"It's my field.\" This guy answers, \"I have it for three years.\" And this guy says, \"I don't know. I think you're 3 You moved in this and this day. Today is less than less than three years, and 10 days missing.\" And this guy says, \"No, I moved in 10 days before.\" Who would have to prove it? In a case where you're missing the 10 It's a she'eilah who has a chazakah. What's every case? Who has to prove a chazakah, the mara or the... The mara has to say, \"No, you don't have a chazakah,\" or the machzik has to prove it? It's always the machzik. The machzik has to show that he has a chazakah. So the

machzik, the din is clearly, has to bring witnesses that he was there for three full years. And if he only brings witnesses I was there for two years and nine months, it's nothing! We tell the guy, \"Bring three more witnesses for the three months.\" So in this case, when the three the 10 days that are not counted according to his ta'anah, you could say that they're not counted as if they weren't there. Or you could say in this case it's different. The guy was there, but his walking through ruins these days from being counted. So if he wouldn't be there at all, then it's a question that's לכתחילה אין חזקה. You can say no, lafo'al he was there, and there is no question that he was there. He has witnesses he was there for those, the machzik. The only thing is the mara says, \"I was there also.\" So you can say the machzik has his chazakah of three full years, the mara is trying to spoil 10 days of the three. And then Huh? To what? That he was there for that That's the question here! Who has to bring the witnesses? Does the mara have to bring witnesses that he walked through, or does the machzik have to bring witnesses that he didn't walk through? That's the whole question!

So Rav Nachman holds that the machzik has to bring witnesses that he didn't, and Rava says that the mara has to bring witnesses. So I'm saying the machloket is this: when you have these 10 days that he says he walked through, is it the peshat that these 10 days, let's say we would know they walk, let's say we do bring witnesses that he walked through, that means that this guy didn't have these 10 days, these 10 days are out of the counter, they don't count! That's the question. So his ta'anah is, which we don't know if it's true, but his ta'anah is you're missing 10 days to your chazakah. Or his ta'anah is you're not missing 10 days to your chazakah, you have a chazakah, but concerning 10 days, I'm spoiling your chazakah, because my walking through spoiled this chazakah. כאילו נאמר it's a chazakah with a with a אפשלאג, with a problem. And that would be the yesod of the machloket. According to Rav Nachman who says that the machzik has to prove, cuz he טוענ'ט that these 10 days, if it's right like the מרא says, they don't exist. These 10 days are not part of the chazakah. So he comes then and says, \"You have a chazakah, fine, but you have a chazakah minus 10 days.\" So Rav Nachman says very clearly, what do what do you have to do? What is a normal case when there's a chazakah missing 10 days? The machzik has to prove it. Comes Rava and says no, he has a chazakah of three full years. This guy's trying to come and spoil his chazakah, because l'poel he lived there, ela mai this comes and says, \"I lived there too.\" So he's trying to spoil. What's the case when this guy has a chazakah and he's trying to spoil it? Peshita the מרא! And let's look in the words of the Rashbam. I think it fits very good in the words of the Rashbam. No, he's here now! Yeah. That means that, not, you mean the second way. Not that there's no 10 days, right? Right, and why wouldn't it But no, you can't now! Now he's there! If he didn't, in both ways, if he did if he l'poel he spoiled those 10 days, so you're lacking 10 days. Not because you don't have it, because he spoiled it for you. So l'poel if you don't have 10 days and he's here asking for it, you don't have a chazakah! The bottom line is the same. There is no question that if we would know for sure that he walked through, let's say we know for sure he walked through, he brings witnesses, would there be a she'eilah that it's not a chazakah? It's certainly not a chazakah! My she'eilah is only, why is it not a chazakah? Is it because we prove that he's missing 10 days lechatchilah, or we prove that the 10 of the days that you have are no good? So what is the difference? The difference is when we don't know if it happened or not. What are we trying to prove? Are we trying to prove that he has a chazakah, or are we trying to, is this guy trying to prove that he's breaking his chazakah? And that's what the difference is, whether who's the burden to prove. But if it did happen, right, let's say they did miss... those 10 days are not there. Then he would just need another 10 days. No, it's too late. But now it's too late already! It's too late! He would have he would have, both ways he would have needed. Both ways he would have needed. Because these 10 days don't count! It doesn't ruin That's what I kept on saying, it doesn't ruin the whole chazakah, that's for sure. It ruins the chazakah of these 10 days. These 10 days cannot be part of the chazakah. Each day is spoiled as a day, not the whole chazakah. Why should he spoil the whole chazakah? It's not a מחאה, it's not a מחאה. No, I'm saying now a different peshat, it's not a מחאה. All it does is your claiming that you lived there and you were machzik it, you were not machzik it. That day is not considered part of your chazakah. So, or it's not to begin with part of your chazakah, or the fact is that you did live there, but this is ruining it, but it's only for these 10 days. So had he come 10 days later according to both ways it would have been good. Had we had proof now that he walked through, according to both ways he loses, because he's missing 10 days. The she'eilah is when we don't know who has to prove it. Now

let's look at the Rashbam's lashon. The Rashbam says like this: זיל ברור אכילתך, that's Rav Nachman's sevara, hava edim bring עדים שדרת בבית לבדך שלוש שנים ולא עיכבוך כדין, you prove that you lived there by yourself three years, כדין כל חזקת שלוש שנים like any חזקה, שצריך להביא עדים שהחזיק בה חזקה גמורה, that you have to bring edim that you were machzik a חזקה גמורה. So I want to taytsh in the word חזקה גמורה See, normally you taytsh pshat in this Rashbam: Show that you made a complete chazakah, meaning a real one, like in quality. Instead of a chazakah that's not a valid one, show that you made a valid chazakah. I want to say good chazakah means a complete these three years. Show, bring edim that you were machzik for the full three years. חזקה גמורה is like a חזקה שלימה. See, normally you taytsh גמורה means a real chazakah, a valid one. I want to say it's not a valid one, that's how he taytshes. That's what the Rashbam says in Rav Nachman's opinion. Now let's see what he says in Rava. המוציא מחבירו, which is the מערער, עליו הראיה. He said the me'ar'er has to bring a re'ayah, that's what Rava says, שנשתמש בה. He has to bring a re'ayah he used it within those days. So what does he have to do? וסבירא ליה Rava, Rava holds, דכיון שראו עדים לזה המוחזק שנשתמש בה שלש שנים, since edim saw that the muchzak used it for three years, because that's true, the muchzak brought edim that he used it. The she'eilah is, did he also use it those days? So since the muchzak brought edim that he used it for three years, אין לנו לחוש, we don't have to be afraid, שמא גם זה היה עמו, maybe this guy was with him, הא בלאו הכי לא שמעינן דילמא, we don't know about it. What's he saying? So he starts off by saying: Since he has a re'ayah for three years, in other words, his three years are three years no matter what. The question is, he wants to say I spoiled some of the days and those days don't count. So he says for that, you're trying to prove it. But he starts off by saying, וסבירא ליה לרבא דכיון שראו עדים לזה המוחזק שנשתמש בה שלש שנים, he wants to say the yesod is that this guy has full three years. And that's what I said, that's the second sevara that Rava holds he has full three years, and therefore he's a muchzak. And therefore the other guy is trying to spoil some of the days. Days that you have! According to Rav Nachman, he's not trying to spoil days that he has, he's trying to say you don't have days! According to Rava, he says you have three years, but he's trying to spoil some of the days, so the burden of proof is upon him. Okay, I guess we'll stop here. I guess we could go on, you know there's basis behind all this, but... In the first walk through, somebody just said I rented the apartment. Can he even do it through an agent? A shaliach? In which way? אי משום הא, you could say my shaliach walked through for ten days. How do you know, how do you know he's a shaliach? Huh? In this case you have to, he claims that he told the... That's yourself. No, but how does that, if he claims that I told the shaliach to tell you that he's coming in my behalf, then yeah. But if not, I mean he's a stranger, who knows that he's...? Another thing is the definition of one of the chazakot is that he has to live there day and night for three years in a house. A field, he has to eat the produce. Whatever, yeah, also. This is a house which he walked through. He slept in the back room, but the other guy did live there for three years. But day and night.

What happens if you have a guest in your house for three years? Not for ten days. No, I'm asking you what happens if you have a guest in your house for three years? Later on he'll come and say: It's my room, I bought it from you. Where's your shtar? Three years, I have a chazakah. What's going to be your answer? What do you mean, it's my house! You lived in my house! You throw him out, for three years. Yeah, so if you have a guest for three years you've got to worry. Yeah, you've got to worry. No, you don't! Because if you live with him together in the same house, then no, then it's not... [Non-speech audio]