We're gonna learn a piece of גמרא on דף ל׳. בבא בתרא דף ל׳. About two down: ההוא דאמר ליה לחבריה. There was this man who said to his friend, to the other person: מאי בעית בהאי ביתא? What are you doing in this house? In other words, he says, it's my house, what are you doing here? אמר ליה, so he said to him, מינך זבינתיה, I bought it from you, ואכלתיה שני חזקה, and I have it for three years of חזקה. And as we've been learning till now, that if you buy a house and you have it for three years without, with חזקה, you're מחזיק it for three years even though you don't have a שטר, it's yours. So, that's what he answered him, I have a חזקה. And he obviously had עדים. Whenever a guy says I have a חזקה, it must be with עדים. He had witnesses that he had a חזקה. And if the other person would have wanted to avoid him having a חזקה, it was something he could have done. He could have made a מחאה. Had he made a protest before the three years were up, then this guy's חזקה wouldn't have been a חזקה. The case here is where he did not make a מחאה. So, it seems like this guy gets the field, cuz he said, what are you doing in the house? He said, I have a חזקה. He gets it. No. אמר ליה, he

answered him, בשוקי בראי הואי. He says, I was בשוקי בראי, the רשב״ם explains, means בארץ מרחקים, I was very far away in a place where I could not have heard that you made a חזקה. And the דין is, as we learned later, that if you're in a place where you can't hear the חזקה, then we don't expect you to make a מחאה, we don't expect you to make a protest. And since we don't expect you to make a protest, his חזקה is no חזקה. A person's חזקה is only valid if the other person, the מערער, had an opportunity to make a protest, and he didn't. But if he said, I lived I was far away and I didn't hear, so then I couldn't make a מחאה, so your חזקה is no חזקה. אמר ליה, so he says to him, והא אית לי סהדי, but I have witnesses, דכל שתא, every year out of the three years that I was here, every year הוה אתית תלתין יומי. For thirty days you came to town. So how do you say you were far away? Yeah, you were far away, but every year for thirty days you were in town. And while you were in town for these thirty days, that's when you should have made your מחאה. אמר ליה, so he said to him,

תלתין יומי בשוקאי הוה טרידנא. When I was here for the thirty days, all the times, I was busy in the market. And therefore, I couldn't make a מחאה. I didn't, so we'll see in the רשב״ם two פשטים, but this was his answer, so I didn't make a מחאה because I was busy in the market. אמר רבא, so רבא said, yes, עביד איניש דכל תלתין יומי טריד בשוקא. This is a common thing. Yes, we accept that excuse, that for those thirty days he was busy, and therefore we don't expect him to make a מחאה. And therefore, the guy loses the field. The מחזיק, the one who's sitting in the field, loses it, cuz his חזקה is only a חזקה if the guy could have made a מחאה and didn't. Here the guy couldn't have made. First of all, he was most of the time in a place where he didn't know, and when he was here for those thirty days, he was busy. So the רשב״ם explains, that's the main thing we're gonna learn now, the רשב״ם explains in the דיבור המתחיל, בשוקאי הוה טרידנא, the thirty days I was busy in the market, למכור סחורתי, to sell my merchandise, ולקנות אחרת, to buy others, ולא ידעתי, and I didn't know, שאתה דר בביתי, and I didn't know you were in my house. Most of the year I was away, but even when I was here, I was too busy, I didn't hear. איי, if you claim this is your house, so when you came here, why didn't you come to this house? כגון שהיה לו בית שכר בעיר. He had another house in the city, שהיה מתאכסן שמה, he stayed there, כל הל׳ יום, all the thirty days. So the רשב״ם's פשט is that what was his excuse about these thirty days? That these thirty days he was so busy, he didn't know that this guy's living in his house. So basically, his excuse is that for all the three years he had not known that this guy made a חזקה. Most of the time he was far, and even the three months, the three times for a month he was here, he didn't know. You do know, you hear...

There are certain places where we don't. If there is a חירום, normally you do, but there are certain places, the גמרא says if there is a war between two two countries, or if there is a... where it's very far, there are places, the רשב״ם says this before, there are places that we we do assume, accept the fact that he didn't hear. Why thirty days? Why did he use the example thirty days? כך הוה המעשה. It happened. It happened that it was thirty days. Yeah, this is a that's a story that happened that he was thirty days there. ויש מפרשים, and some say, the רשב״ם says a different פשט. When he answered, and he said, I know you were here for thirty days, and he said בשוקאי הוה טרידנא, I was busy in the שוק, ולא היה לי פנאי למחות, and I didn't have time to make a מחאה, אף על פי שידעתי, even though I knew. So the first פשט in the רשב״ם is that his answer is, those thirty days I was here, I didn't hear. The other פשט is, some יש מפרשים say that he says those thirty days I was too busy. And all he has to do is say in front of two people... Yeah, but I was so busy, I tried, this, I couldn't get it, I didn't get people together, I was busy. I still haven't done my taxes. And the רשב״ם says, ואינו נראה בעיני. I don't like the second פשט. I like the first פשט, he says. The second פשט is That's the רשב״ם. Comes the נימוקי יוסף, right here in the back. Well, what if he didn't excuse it, it all happened. I mean, is it important enough that I guess it is, if the גמרא accepts it, you see, the גמרא says it is. Says the נימוקי יוסף like this: So the

נימוקי יוסף, when he quotes this גמרא, says the last the thirty days דשוקאי הוה טרידנא, I was busy with the markets. So רשב״ם the the נימוקי יוסף says the same פשט as the רשב״ם. ולא שכינתי שם, I didn't live in this house. When I came to your town for thirty days every year, I didn't live in this house. אלא בבית אחר שמי, I had another house. אי נמי איצטרכתי למיקם עם חברותאי בדוכתא אחרא, or another, or he could have said I came with a group, so I had to stay together with them, אשר אכלנו בשותפות, because we ate, we did things in partnership. ומתוך זה, and therefore, לא ידעתי שהיית מחזיק, I didn't know that you made a חזקה, כדי שאוכל למחות, so I should be able to make a מחאה, so the reason I didn't make a מחאה, because I didn't know you made a חזקה. והכי הלכתא, the הלכה is דלא עלתה לו חזקה, there is no חזקה. This is what the רשב״ם the the נימוקי יוסף says פשט in the גמרא. Then the נימוקי יוסף adds, and look in: ומשמע מהכא, from here it's משמע, from here it comes out, דאין צריך שיהא המערער כל השלש במקום שיכול למחות. The מערער, in order to have a good claim, the מערער, let's not confuse the names, the מערער is the one that's the original owner. The מחזיק is the one that's living there now. So the מערער doesn't have to be all three years in a place where he could be מוחה, אלא דוקא בסוף שלש, דוקא the end. That means if for, let's say, two years and three quarters, he lived in a place where he couldn't be מוחה, but he knew, yeah, and at the last, the end of the three years, he was in a place where he could be מוחה, and he wasn't מוחה, then the מחזיק gets it. He can't say, well, I usually, you give the מערער three years to be מוחה. I didn't have three years to be מוחה, because for two and a half years, I was in a place where I couldn't be מוחה. Too bad, as long as the end you were in a place where you were מוחה, you could have been מוחה, and if you didn't, the guy gets it. Then he says, ואפילו היה בתחלת שלש במקום הראוי למחות, now he says the opposite, even if he was in the beginning of the three years, he was in a place where he could be מוחה, ולא מיחה, and he didn't make a מחאה, והלך למקום שלא היה יכול למחות, and he came to a place where he couldn't be מוחה, let's say for two and a half years he was in a place where he could not be מוחה, where he could be מוחה, and he didn't, then at the end, he moved to a place where he can't be מוחה, and he claims, you know why I wasn't מוחה, because at the end I was in a place where I couldn't. לא עלתה לו חזקה כלום, so this guy חזקה is not a חזקה, and he has a good excuse. The מערער has a right טענה, saying, because at the end, I still had my chance, I had a chance to be מוחה then, and then I was in a place where I couldn't. דאימור, we could say, דעתיה הוה לחזור ולא אסתייעא ליה, you could say that this guy had in mind to go back to the other place where he could be מוחה, and he didn't get a chance, and therefore the רשב״ם says in this case the מחזיק loses. This is the the the I mean the נימוקי יוסף says this. Comes the בית יוסף in שולחן ערוך, on the טור, not on the שולחן ערוך, on the טור. The בית יוסף wrote this פירוש on the טור besides the שולחן ערוך, because the טור brings this נימוקי יוסף. And the בית יוסף on the טור says that this נימוקי יוסף says this דין, but ליתא. This דין is not true, אלא this דין only fits according to the second פשט in the רשב״ם. He says that according to the second פשט in the רשב״ם, that says that the case when he answered for the thirty days, I was busy, and what did he say? Not that he's busy, I didn't know that you were מחזיק, I was so busy, I I couldn't, this פשט fits only so the this דין of the נימוקי יוסף fits only according to that פשט. Comes the דרכי משה, which is written by the רמ״א, and asks, he says, I don't understand why. Why does this have to do with this פשט? What's the difference between which פשט it is? Why is it only according to the second פשט in the in the רשב״ם, that the נימוקי that the the בית יוסף says this דין of the נימוקי יוסף fits? The ב״ח adds the adds to the קושיא, he says, how could even the בית יוסף say such a thing? If you're going to say that this דין of the נימוקי יוסף only fits to the second פשט, but not to the first, look at the נימוקי יוסף. He only brings the first פשט, and then he says this דין. The נימוקי יוסף himself quotes the first פשט of the of the of the רשב״ם, and then he says, משמע מהכא, and he quotes the whole דין, משמע from here. So that shows that it has nothing to do with two פשטים. Even according to the first פשט this דין fits. And many of the נושאי כלים of the שולחן ערוך and נושאי כלים of the טור wonder פשט in the בית יוסף. What's the בית יוסף mean? Why does this פשט only feel fit, according to this דין, that he says only fit according to the second פשט? And the קצות and the נתיבות and they all have different explanations, all kind of complicated סברות, and each one has, no, פשט, but there's always a problem. What we're trying to say is trying to understand פשט in this בית יוסף. What does the בית יוסף mean that this דין of the נימוקי יוסף only fit to the second פשט? So to get to the point, what I tried to say is like this: that the נימוקי יוסף, I want to say, says two things here. Number one, he said משמע מהכא, and here comes out that אין צריך or the מערער does not have to be all three years in the place where he could be מוחה. Only at the end, and if he's there only at the end and he wasn't מוחה, the מחזיק gets it. And he can't say, well, I only had a chance to be מוחה for a month, when regularly people get a chance for for three years, he has no excuse. Then he continues, אפילו if in the beginning for most of the three years he was in a place where he could be מוחה and wasn't, and only at the end he was in a place where he couldn't, he he wins. So I want to say like this, that these two things, the first thing is משמע מהכא. The first part comes out from here, it's very clear here, because what happens in the גמרא here? When he said to him that I was away for three years very far, I couldn't be מוחה, so he said to him, but thirty days you came. And had the guy not answered that I was busy, what who would have won? The מחזיק, right? So from here we see clearly, that's what he says, משמע מהכא, that he doesn't have to be all three years in the place where he could be מוחה, because that's what he's doing here. The second part of the רשב״ם, of the נימוקי יוסף, is not something that he says is משמע from our גמרא, I want to say. That the רשב״ם says on his o- the I'm confusing you, that the נימוקי יוסף says on his own. His שיטה is on his own. And I'll say in a moment why. That in this case, if for most of the time he was a place where he could be מוחה and wasn't, and at the end he was a place where he could be מוחה, where he couldn't be, and where he couldn't be מוחה, and that's called an אונס, this has a דין of an אונס. Which really comes I'll explain comes to the שאלה when a person has a certain amount of time to do something, and the beginning or most of the time he was a פושע, he was negligent, he could have done it and he was negligent. He left it for the end like some people procrastinate and they leave things for the end, and it came to the end and there was an אונס, he couldn't do it. What does he had called? Is he called an אונס or called a פושע? You could say on one hand, since he could have done it before and he neglect- he was negligent, he's a פושע, right? Or you could say, he didn't have to do it then, he could have left it to the end, nothing wrong, and at the end he wanted to do it, it was an אונס. So I want to say that the נימוקי יוסף holds on his own, this is his שיטה, that if a person was the whole time able to do something and he was negligent in doing it, and he was ready to do it at the end and he wasn't able to, it's called an אונס, and it's not his fault. And that's what he says here. And we find that the נימוקי יוסף holds like this. In בבא קמא, the נימוקי יוסף brings a case there and from that case he brings out a דין. And he says like this: for instance, if a person made a שבועה to somebody, on a certain day I'm going to give you money, a certain amount of money, he swore. And came the morning of that day, he remembered. Yes, I'm going to give the guy the money. But he says, I have a whole day, 12 hours, I'll do it later. Came towards the end of the day when he was supposed to leave, he forgot. Now forgetting is called an אונס. So the נימוקי יוסף brings a ראיה from that גמרא that that's what he holds, that this person is called an אונס and he's פטור. He's not עובר on the שבועה. אונס means you're forced. Even though he was a פושע in the beginning, he was able to do it a whole day, and in the morning he was able to do it and he didn't forget and he intentionally did not do it, but being that he left it to the end and he was able to do it later, and later it was an אונס, he's called an אונס. The אגודה, there's a ספר האגודה, argues. And the אגודה says, no, that if a person was able to do something in the beginning and didn't do it, even though later it was an אונס, he's called a פושע. He's called he's did a פשיעה, it's a פשיעה. But the נימוקי יוסף himself holds that this person is called an אונס. He comes out על פי זה להלכה he says בנוגע דאווענען. The דין is if a person didn't דאווען a certain תפילה, so if the person was an אונס, something happened by אונס, that's not his fault, then you have a תשלומין, you're able to דאווען the next תפילה two שמונה עשרהs and you're משלים, right? If you were a פושע, if you intentionally didn't דאווען, too late, you can't make up later. That's the דין. So the נימוקי יוסף says, what happens if a person was able to דאווען and he remembered and and he said, no, I'm going to דאווען later, and he had time to דאווען later, and came later, he forgot or something happened that he couldn't דאווען? The question is, can he דאווען two שמונה עשרהs or not? So the נימוקי יוסף says, I hold it's an אונס. It's an אונס, and if it's an אונס, he could דאווען. According to the אגודה, it's not. These two דעות are brought in שולחן ערוך, in יורה דעה in שולחן ערוך, לגבי the דינים of הלכות שבועות, and they bring the רמ״א brings both דעות: the דעה of the נימוקי יוסף and the דעה of the אגודה. Now the נימוקי יוסף, we just finished saying, holds that he's called an אונס. So if that's called an אונס, we understand the נימוקי יוסף over here. It's exactly the same case here. The נימוקי יוסף says that if for two and a half years he was in a place where he could be מוחה and he didn't, intentionally, you are right, came the end was an אונס, so he says, I hold it's an אונס, and if it's an אונס an אונס, you can't blame him for not being מוחה, for not protesting, and if you can't blame him for not protesting, automatically the חזקה, which I'm confused if. [Non-speech audio] [Non-speech audio] [Non-speech audio]