therefore I don't even have to say anything, I could start in the middle. Okay, this was בנוגע דינא דבר מצרא, בדף ק\"ח עמוד א', אז בנוגע the Gemara with רוניא, רוניא זבן ארעא אמצרא דרבינא, the Gemara says that Runya brought bought a a field on the border of Ravina and רבינא, סבר רבינא לסלוקי משום דינא דבר מצרא, רבינא wanted to kick him out, Ravina was the neighbor. Was he a Tanna or an Amora? Amora. No, Runya was a guy, סתם a guy, no, Runya סתם a guy. Anyway, so he bought it on the מצר of on the border of there was a field being sold on the border that bordered with Ravina's fields and Runya bought it. Now the din is דינא דבר מצרא as I've explained last time that if someone wants to sell a field, so the neighbor has the first choice, he's supposed to sell it to him, and mainly the din is we said then on the לוקח, on the buyer, the buyer who buys it has to give it up, if the בר מצרא wants it, he has to give it up. So here Ravina came to Runya, you bought the field, you're the לוקח, you have to give it up, because I'm the בר מצרא. So Rav Safra brei deRav Yeiva said to Ravina, the Gemara uses the lashon, אמרי אינשי, people say, ארבעה לצלא ארבעה לצלאלא. Which Rashi has different peshatim, one peshat is that four, a poor man needs four dollars let's say to support his family, and a rich man needs four dollars. That means that it's not that a rich man has more expenses and a poor man has less expenses, he has the same expenses, and therefore, we always have to worry about the poor man, he doesn't have any money to pay. And since Runya was a poor guy, leave him. And Rashi even adds that the whole reason why is there a din of a בר מצרא, it's based on the pasuk where it says, ועשית הישר והטוב, you should do what's good and what's right. And normally it's good and right to sell it to the neighbor. Why? Because the neighbor has a field already. So for one expense, he could buy get a a watchman for both, he could hire one person to plow both fields. So it's much better, it's a good thing for the guy to buy it. The stranger who comes and buys it, if he won't buy it here, he could buy it someplace else, and he'll have the same תועלת. So it's only good normally to sell it to the בר מצרא. So Rav Safra said to him, in this case where the one who bought it is poor, it's טוב וישר, it's good to leave it for him, because a poor man needs. That's if a בר מצרא is a Yid, of course, right? Yeah, talking about a Yid. That only the mitzvah of ועשית... Rashi says clearly, he says like I explained last week, the mitzvah, the act is on the on the buyer, and if the buyer buys it, he shouldn't buy it, or even if he does buy it, he has to give it up to the בר מצרא, he has to do ישר וטוב. How long does the בר מצרא have to protest to try to buy? Is there a limit? If he knew about that, if he didn't know, if he knew and didn't care, then he can't come back again later. So how long does he have to know and care? It doesn't say a time. So the other guy... So there... So there are all kinds of דינים, the whole whole הלכות of a בר מצרא, but this is the general rule. So there are different peshatim in Rashi what exactly he meant, but the תוכן of what Ravina Rav Safra said to Ravina was this, that because Ronya is poor, there is the din of the בר מצרא doesn't shouldn't, you should not push him out, because it's a good idea, it's better for him to have this field.

Comes Tosafot, and Tosafot asks some kashyot on Rashi. One kashya Tosafot asks is, הא אין רחמין בדין. What do you mean, if there is a din of בר מצרא, there's a din of בר מצרא. Tell him have rachmanut, this guy is poor, you can't pask a din like that, the din is a din. In other words, I'm adding, maybe afterwards you could have asked him, do him a favor, I'm asking you, you know, but you can't tell him al pi din that you have to let him stay there if al pi din he is a בר מצרא, how he's poor, there's no rachmanut in din. But ועשית הישר והטוב... One second. Second kashya he asks, from the Gemara is משמע that Ravina made a mistake, Rav Safra said to Ravina, you're wrong. According to Rashi, the way Tosafot learns, Ravina didn't make a mistake, Ravina was right, ela mai he said to him, but since he's poor, leave him. Therefore, Tosafos learns different. Tosafos learns two pshatim, one pshat Tosafos is that Ravina was a שכן, a בר מצרא on three sides, and Ronya was only on one side. That was Ronya was also a בר מצרא. That's if Ronya wasn't a בר מצרא. Ravina was a בר מצרא, Ronya was a בר מצרא, but Ravina was on three sides. Like this, the field that was being sold was right here. Ronya owned a field here, and this was another field, so this side was Ravina, this side was Ronya. This field was a border to Ronya, and was also to Ravina, so Ravina thought to kick him out because he's a bigger בר מצרא, I'm from three sides, you're from one side. And Rav Safra said to him, it's all the same, בר מצרא is a בר מצרא, and since he bought it you can't take him out. That's one pshat. Another pshat that Tosafos says is that in the same fields of of Ravina, Ronya was a sharecropper. Ronya, and Ronya wanted to buy this field, because he thought, he said, \"I'm a בר מצרא too, even though I don't own the neighboring fields, but I work on it. And the whole idea of בר מצרא is to make it easier for the worker.\" And Ravina said to him, \"No, you're not a בר מצרא. This The field that you bought now is neighboring my fields. The fact that you work on my fields doesn't make you a בר מצרא, I'm the בר מצרא.\" And Rav Safra told him that he's right. That a בר מצרא is whether you own the fields or you work on That's what Tosafos learns. Uh? No, that Ronya was right. Yeah, according to all pshatim, the Gemara says Rav Safra said that Ravina is wrong, but the what what the pshat is. Now, in order to answer the kashya on Rashi, how could Rashi say that he told him, \"Because he's poor, let him. There's אין רחמים בדין.\" So the mefarshim say, the Pnei Shlomo says, that Rashi himself before, is that what you started saying, Rashi uses the lashon here, he says like this: כשם שאתה אומר לו הסתלק כולי עליי בדין דבר מצרא משום עשית הישר והטוב, just like you're claiming he should get out because a בר מצרא is to do good and ישר, כך אני אומר לך, עשה ישר והטוב לו, עני זה ואל תסלקהו, do ישר והטוב to him. In other words, Rashi learns that this din, that the din of בר מצרא, which means to do good to the בר מצרא, to leave him there, does not apply if the buyer is an עני. It's not if it's not רחמנות בדין, since the whole reason for בר מצרא is עשית הישר והטוב, in this case, where it's more ישר והטוב to let the to let the לוקח stay, so then you have to let him stay. The בר מצרא doesn't apply here. So Tosafot understood in Rashi that Rashi holds that the din is that there is a בר מצרא anyway. Ela mai, he asked him to do him a favor. He פסקן, \"You have to do him the favor and let him stay.\" But that's not what Rashi meant. Rashi meant that in this case, there is no din of בר מצרא. In whichever case it's the ישר. If the בר מצרא is טוב וישר, you do it בר מצרא. If this is טוב וישר, you leave him leave him stay. Well, the beit din could decide. Like what he doesn't he needs the field to make a living. Ravina needed the field to make a lot of money, to make revach, and he needed the field to make a parnasa. Depends what car he drives. Now, Tosafot obviously learns that even if there is a poor man, there is still din of בר מצרא. And that's what Tosafos says, \"The only way I could see what Rav Safra according to you is to have rachmanus, and that I don't agree. אין רחמים בדין.\" That's what Tosafos had a new pshat. So, it comes out here that the machlokes between Rashi and Tosafos is that Rashi learns that in a case where there is an ani, there's no din of בר מצרא, the בר מצרא doesn't get first first choice. And Tosafos doesn't learn like that. Tosafos learns in the case of an ani, even in the case of an ani, there is. Which be'emet, this is not a new machlokes. As I

mentioned last time, this is a machlokes in the Rishonim in Bava Metzia. In Bava Metzia, דף ק\"ח, there's a machlokes over there between the Baal HaMaor and the Ramban. The Baal HaMaor says over there that in a case where the the the buyer is an ani, there's no din of בר מצרא, and you learn that pshat in the Gemara. And he even says over there that the story of Runya and Ravina in Bava Basra backs up what I'm saying. I've given this re'aya. Comes Milchamos, the Ramban, who always argues against the Baal HaMaor, and that's his whole purpose in that in that ספר, he calls it Milchamos Hashem. By the way, it's interesting that the Baal HaMaor writes that, \"My father writes the same way I'm writing in a ספר called Igeret HaNechama.\" So the Ramban says, \"תנחומים של הבל ניחמו אביו.\" Like what his father writes is not true. And there is no such din. Even if you're poor, there's still a din of בר מצרא. אי the story of Ravina and Ronia? There's another pshat there. He has another pshat there. So obviously, what they mean is machloket Rashi and Tosafot. The Baal Hamaor learns pshat here like Rashi, that why did he tell him to to let Ronia stay? Because there's no din of בר מצרא in a case where the buyer is an ani, the לוקח is an ani. And the Ramban learns like Tosafot, that that's not true. Okay, so we have this machloket. The she'elah is: What is the sevara of the machloket? So I'm just basically repeating what I said last time, that the sevara of the machloket we could say is based I said last time a whole thing that I wrote earlier, later, but let's go to the bottom line, that the

Rebbe explains a machloket between Rashi and the Rambam in the din of בר מצרא, and based on that, we could understand The Rebbe doesn't say that this is the machloket between Rashi and Tosafot here, or the Baal Hamaor and the Ramban, but he hints hints to it in a ha'arah in in in here in this sichah. It's a sichah in פרשת ואתחנן, חלק ט\"ו, שיחה ג׳. In ha'arah 17, when the Rebbe talks about this machloket, he says, \"וראה מלחמות ה׳ בבא מציעא שם.\" So he hints to it. What does he say there? Rebbe says there that in the inyan of a בר מצרא there is two ways to explain it. One way is, and I'll read it, number one, דאס איז נאר א ענין פון הנהגת ישרות וטובות. בר מצרא, it's only a good thing to do. It's a right thing to do. Not a halacha? No, no, no, it's a halacha that what? That you should behave fine. דאס הייסט, I'll read it, עס פעלט גארניט אין דער תוקף הקנין פון הלוקח, when the לוקח, the buyer, buys the field, he bought it and it's his. נאר די חכמים האבן מחיב געווען צו פירן זיך לפנים משורת הדין, the chachamim said we want you to behave in a good way, און דער איבער מוז ער דאס וואס ער האט קונה געווען אפגעבן צום בר מצרא. You have to take what you were kanah, give it back, give it to the בר מצרא. So it's on the gavra, we call it, the person is obligated. Give it the seller? No, no, give it to him and he pays, and he pays him back, seller. Why why why shouldn't this thing be before the buyer gets it? So the seller should According to the second, look at the peirush. דער חיוב ועשית הישר The second way is that דער חיוב פון ועשית הישר והטוב טוט אויף It It it brings up אז דער בר מצרא באקומט א געוויסע בעלות אויף דער שדה. When you are a neighbor, you get a certain ownership of the field. און דער איבער איז דאס וואס דער לוקח דארף אפגעבן די פעלד צום בר מצרא, this that the buyer has to give it up to the בר מצרא, איז עס ניט בלויז דער חיוב פון הנהגה טובה פונעם him, not only because he has to behave properly, נאר ווייל די פעלד האט א שייכות צום בר מצרא. The field has a shaychus. ובלשון הנימוקי יוסף, כאילו יש מקצת קנין בגופה של קרקע, as if you have a kinyan. And one of the differences is between the two ways, he says here, לויט'ן ערשטן אופן, according to the first way, אז דער דין איז בלויז א געבאט פון הנהגה טובה, וואס איז געזאגט געווארן צום לוקח, it's said to the buyer. אז ער דארף זיך פירן באופן ישר וטוב, he has to behave in a nice way, און אפגעבן די שדה צום בר מצרא. And he has to give it to him. And if he doesn't want, Beis Din will force him. לויט'ן צווייטן אופן, אז דאס איז א דין אין קנין הקרקע, if it's a connection to the קרקע, איז הגם אז אויך דא, דער ציווי פון ועשית הישר והטוב איז געזאגט געווארן צום לוקח, באמת the ועשית הישר והטוב is said to the buyer, איז אבער דער ציווי און קיום הפעולה גייט צום בית דין, also the Beis Din has, not also the buyer, the Beis Din is mechuyav with the seller also, everybody, that this is a דין בעצם. So the Beis Din is mechuyav to see that it goes, it's not only a din on him. That is not de'oraita. Good, that's the No, the chachamim made it. The she'eilah is that there is a לשון עפעס in the Teshuvot HaRambam that that's close to a mitzvat aseh. Could be it's de'oraita, but that's normally derabbanan. What's the inyan? Where the din of buying only לגבי this. Gornisht else. Well, the Rebbe doesn't say he has מקצת, he says it's like he has מקצת. No, the lashon is he has, כאילו יש, but but that's I understand, but that means that he has a certain shaychut to it. It's a shaychut, but it's Now it's shaychut in the קרקע. But it's a shaychut in the קרקע. The The קרקע itself claims, \"I belong to him, that I have to be bought by him.\" Belong to buy. Yeah, I have to be bought by him. And the Rebbe says, על פי זה יש לומר אז דאס איז א מחלוקת בין ראשונים,

the Rebbe after he says these two sides says that this is a machloket between the ראשונים, ובמיוחד איז דאס א מחלוקת מודגש בחילוקי דעות רש״י והרמב״ם. And he brings that this is a machloket between Rashi and the Rambam, and he brings lashonot from Rashi and lashonot from Rambam. And then in the הערות he goes more further. So when we have these two ways of learning, Rashi and the Rambam, we could explain that these, that's what I explained last time, that these two ways, these two dinim, machloket between Rashi and Tosafot here and the Baal HaMaor and the Milchamot, is based on this. Rashi learns like like like Rashi learned that the whole, I'm sorry, that the whole din of בר מצרא is not a מקצת קנין. We will call, in other words, it's a זכות. He has the first right, but there's no קנין. So the whole thing is based on ועשית הישר והטוב. Therefore, if there's no מקצת קנין, if the other guy, the buyer, is a poor man, and it's better for him, so Rashi says the din is that you have to give it to him. That's the din. Tosafot learns like the Rambam. Tosafot learns that because of דינא דבר מצרא he gets a מקצת קנין in the field. And therefore now, who cares if the other guy, the buyer, is an ani? סוף כל סוף, this guy has a a shtikel kinyan in the field. So it's not just an הנהגה טובה he says, it became a מקצת קנין. מקצת קנין, so how could how could the לוקח keep it, even though he's an ani? That's why Tosafot says, and the and Ramban says, even if it's an ani, you still he can still kick him out. He still has to give it up to the buyer, to the בר מצרא. And if you're going to tell him not to, it's called rachmanut, and it's against the din. That's And this is how I explained it last time. And I know that in all the ליובאוויטשער ישיבות, I've heard already that all the ראשי ישיבות, when it came to this Gemara, explained it based on this שיחה, that this is that the two ways of Rashi, Tosafot, and is based on this שיחה. What I want to add now is that this שיחה גופא, this ביאור גופא, that this is a מחלוקת רש״י and the Rambam, is not just a ביאור that the Rebbe has in this מחלוקת in בר מצרא. A lot of times you have a ביאור on a certain מחלוקת. I want to say that this is one branch in the Rebbe's general approach to be מבאר רש\"י and the Rambam, in נגלה, פשוט in הלכה. Huh? I thought Rashi and Rambam mostly agree. What? Mostly agree and mostly argue, what's the problem? Not necessarily. Not necessarily. Leshito. It goes leshito in a different place, where the Rebbe explains leshito of the Rambam and Rashi in different, and I think that this ביאור here is בהמשך to the biur there. What is the biur there? This is a biur of something also that you must have heard from me many times. But this is in חלק י\"ז, that's a חלק י\"ט, this is a חלק י\"ז. חלק י\"ז פרשת קדושים. Brings, okay, he brings Rambam, Raavad. Okay, let's just read the first thing. Says like this: ידוע די מחלוקת של ראשונים בנוגע די מצוות וואס א קטן איז מקיים. Let's look if I could start... He says like this: שזה כמה פעמים וואס מ'געפינט, פינף מאל, געפינט כמה פעמים אז דארט וואו די תורה געהייסן, that we find a lot of times that when the Torah told us to do a certain מצוה, וואס די קיום איז אפהענגיק פון א פעולה פריער, that in order to do the mitzvah, it depends on something before the mitzvah is done, באקומט אויך די פריערדיקע פעולה אן ענין חשיבות אינעם גדר פון די מצוה עצמה. The other פעולה, which is not part of the mitzvah, but since you can't get, it becomes part of the פעולה. הועיל אז די פעולה איז א הכרח, אן איר קען די מצוה נישט געטאן ווערן, you must do this side of פעולה, and without this you can't do the mitzvah. That's hechsher mitzvah. The hechsher mitzvah is that כאילו צוזאמען מיט די ציווי פון דער מצוה, האט די תורה אנגעזאגט וועגן די פעולה, as if the Torah said on the פעולה. And he wants to say, gives an example here, סיי בנוגע a mitzvah he brings an example, למשל according to the רבי אלעזר, מכשירי מילה דוחה שבת. Just like Shabbos you could do the milah, what about מכשירי מילה? Let's say

if you come to the milah and the guy doesn't have a knife. You have to make a knife. You can't make a knife on Shabbos. So we pasken, the Rabbanan pasken you can't, cuz the milah is דוחה שבת, but not making a knife. And Rabbi Elazar says, no, מכשירי מילה דוחה שבת, you could make a knife. Why? The biur is this: if the Torah said that you have to make a bris, and that's דוחה שבת, and you can't make a bris without having a knife, so having a knife also. The Rabbanan argue, whatever. And the Rebbe says this is not only בנוגע מצוות, but בנוגע people also. And he gives an example. He says, gives an example about learning Torah. If you can't learn yourself, pay others to learn, and it's as if you learned. So you are, you make them able to learn, so you get part of their learning. בנוגע a woman, he brings that famous Ran, where the Ran says, the Gemara says in Kiddushin second פרק that איש מקדש בו ובשלוחו, a man could do Kiddushin himself or through a shaliach. האישה מתקדשת בה ובשלוחה, a woman could get Kiddushin by herself or a shaliach. פרעגט די גמרא, if you could do it through a shaliach, why does it have to say you could do it yourself? It should have said, a man could מקדש through a shaliach, where obviously if you can do a shaliach, yourself. So the Gemara answers, to teach you מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו, that it's a greater mitzvah you do it yourself. Same thing by the woman the Gemara asks, why does it say... all mitzvot? Right, whatever, yeah. Always, no, there's a כלל, מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו for every mitzvah. Then by the woman the Gemara asks the same kashya: why does it say she could do it with herself or through a shaliach? She could do it through a shaliach certainly! So the Gemara answers, to tell you: מצוה בה יותר מבשלוחה, it's a bigger mitzvah if she does it herself. פרעגט דער Ran, what do you mean she has a greater mitzvah? She has no mitzvah בכלל! A man has a mitzvah to get married. A man is מחוייב in פריה ורביה. A woman is not מחוייב in any mitzvah. So the לשון of the Ran is like this: אף על פי שהיא אינה מצווה בפריה ורביה, מכל מקום יש לה מצוה, מפני שהיא מסייעת לבעל לקיים מצוותו. Since the husband cannot do his mitzvah without her, דהיינו ווייל אז דער בעל קען נישט מקיים זיין די מצוה נאר על ידי האשה, האט זי אויך א חלק אין די מצוה. And then he goes on further, same thing with learning Torah, it says that a woman has a chelek in the husband's learning. If she helps him, she waits up for him, she this she that, and it says she gets a sachar as a mitzvah v'oseh, as if she was commanded. Based on this, so what comes out from here is that the mitzvah that goes over. Now, we

find a din by a katan, this is going to come to the point for the Rambam. By a katan the din is like this: a katan is only מחוייב במצוות מדרבנן, חינוך, מדאורייתא is patur. We know that somebody who is mechuyav in a מצוה מדרבנן cannot be motzi somebody else who is מחוייב במצוה מדאורייתא. So if a katan is going to bentch birkat hamazon, he cannot be motzi a gadol, because he's מחוייב מדרבנן and the other's מחוייב מדאורייתא. The she'eilah is, what happens if the katan is, if the gadol is also only מחוייב מדרבנן? No, lemashal, if he only ate a kezayit, a כביצה, מדאורייתא you only have to bentch ואכלת ושבעת וברכת if you're full. Rabbanan said that you only have, also have to bentsh from a כביצה, כזית, whatever. So what happens if you have a gadol that only ate a כביצה? So he's מחוייב מדרבנן. You have a katan who ate full, who's מחוייב מדרבנן. Can he be motzi? So the Rebbe brings here like this, a מחלוקת הראשונים: דעת רש״י והרמב״ן אז די מדרבנן חינוך מצוות זענען א לאו מצוה דידיה פון קטן, אלא דאבוה.

The katan is not mechuyav even מדרבנן. It's a mitzvah on the father, דאיהו לאו מחוייב במצוות כל עיקר, the katan is not chayav. The father is mechuyav to see that the katan does the mitzvah. So the katan is not a בר חיובא at all. וממילא קען a קטן נישט מוציא זיין a gadol, he can't be motzi in ברכת המזון, אפילו when the gadol is also mechuyav miderabbanan. דעת Tosafot vehaRan אז a קטן שהגיע לחינוך הייסט מחוייב בדבר מדרבנן, he is considered מחוייב בדבר, he is חייב, און דריבער קען ער מוציא זיין a גדול ידי חובתו כשאר דרבנן. If a gadol ate derabbanan he could be motzi. How does the Rambam hold? Already we see a מחלוקת Rashi veTosafot. פון דעם וואס דער רמב״ם פסקנט, the Rambam says a katan could be motzi, איז מוכרח, shows אז ער האלט that the חינוך מצוות is a katan is mechuyav. חינוך מדרבנן. Yeah, but the father already had an obligation to teach a child, it's not a inheritable No, but the Rambam holds that the child is mechuyav miderabbanan. The father is responsible The father's responsible to see to it, right. But the katan, child is called a מחוייב בדבר, he's mechuyav, while according to Rashi not. And he brings the Rambam in many places. In הלכות ציצית the Rambam says that a katan is מחוייב חייב בציצית מדרבנן. By ברכות, הקטנים חייבין בברכת המזון מדברי סופרים. In סוכה, קטן שאינו חייב בסוכה מדברי סופרים. By לולב, קטן חייב בלולב. The Rebbe brings that כל Rambam holds like this. So the Rebbe asks a kushya, how could the Rambam and Tosafot hold that a katan is mechuyav? How could there be a chiyuv on a katan? How is it possible to be a chiyuv on a katan? The Gemara asks וואס פארא חיוב, ווי קען דאס טאקע, a katan could be mechuyav? Basically why, why did the Torah, why did the Torah not make a קטן מחוייב? Because he's not shayach to chiyuvim. How could miderabbanan make a chiyuv? So the Rebbe answers it based on this, what he said before, that the Rambam holds this sevara: since the father, everyone agrees the father is mechuyav, no one could put a chiyuv on a katan, but the Rambam goes with this shita that since the chiyuv of the father is to be mechanech the child, that means that there is father cannot do his obligation without the partnership of the child, so the child is considered already a מחוייב בדבר. And that's how the Rambam holds. And it's על דרך, the Rebbe brings the Tzemach Tzedek, what the Tzemach Tzedek says, the Rambam says an interesting thing בנוגע ללימוד התורה. We know that the katan is פטור מדאורייתא from all the mitzvot, and the father is not mechuyav to teach him מדאורייתא either. One exception: a father is מחוייב מדאורייתא to teach a child Torah. So it's in פסוק, ולמדתם אותם את בניכם, ושננתם לבניך. Then the Rambam says what happens, מי שלא לימדו אביו, if his father didn't teach him or he has no father, חייב ללמד את עצמו כשיכיר. Not כשיגדיל, it doesn't say when he becomes a גדול. כשיכיר, יכיר means when he starts to recognize, means while he's a קטן. And the Tzemach Tzedek asks, how could it be, a חיוב a קטן? So the Tzemach Tzedek says that because the father מדאורייתא is מחוייב to teach him, so the קטן is called, becomes a מחוייב. The חיוב is on the father, but since the חיוב of the father is through the קטן, the קטן becomes part of the חיוב, so the קטן is part of the חיוב to do it. So the same thing here by the דינים of other מצוות מדרבנן. And this is the Shitat HaRambam. Obviously that Rashi who argues and says that the קטן is not מחוייב holds that it doesn't work that way, that even though the father's חיוב is to do it with the קטן, we would say it doesn't transfer to the קטן that because of that, the קטן who's the one the obligation is about becomes also obligated. That's why Rashi holds that the קטן is not called a מחוייב בדבר, and the Rambam does. So the Rambam and Tosafot hold that it does, and Rashi doesn't. He brings another מחלוקת Rashi and the Rambam, this is an example, by

חיוב שמחה ברגל. We know that it says ושמחת בחגך, so the Gemara says, אישה בעלה משמחה. That a woman, it says a בעל, a man, how does he do שמחה? Is to bring קרבנות, שלמי שמחה. A woman, her husband will משמח her. זאגט רש״י, how does the husband משמח her? בבגדי צבעונים, buy her nice clothes. פרעגט אויף Tosafot from Chagigah, the Gemara in Chagigah says that a woman is מחוייבת בשמחה. The Gemara speaks about a child, so the father takes the child, and the Gemara asks who brought the child till here? And the Gemara says, עד הכא דמחייבא אימיה בשמחה, the mother is מחוייבת בשמחה. איז משמע that the mother, a woman is מחוייבת בשמחה. So therefore Tosafot, Rabbeinu Tam learns that a woman is מחוייבת בשמחה. I know the simcha is on the father, but on the husband, since the simcha, the chiyuv is on the father to be משמח, to give from the korbanot to his wife, she is considered, he says משום בעלה she is considered מחוייב. And we look in the Rambam, the Rambam writes clearly, a married woman is מחוייב and an unmarried woman is not? Ah? No, no, mimela, every woman, no, because the the din of a man, the woman is the man is מחוייב to give the woman, mimela the אשה is chayav. The Rambam uses this לשון, נשים חייבות במצוה זו. במצות שמחה. איי the Gemara says אשה בעלה משמחה, so the Rambam learns לשטתו. That because the husband has a chiyuv to give simcha to the wife בקרבנות, ממילא she is considered a מחוייב בדבר. The Raavad argues on the Rambam. The Raavad writes, what are you talking about? Not חייב בקרבן, she's חייב בשמחה שתשמח עם בעלה that she should... But look, the Rebbe brings what is the pshat here, the Rambam goes לשטתו. And Rashi learns לשטתו. Rashi learns What's her obligation? to eat the korbanot, the same thing as the husband. It's the same thing as the husband. Aye there is no chiyuv, the Torah says ושמחת בחגך goes on a man, but since ושמחת בחגך אתה ואשתך, ממילא you have to give it to your wife, so she is considered mechuyav. Rashi doesn't learn like that. Rashi says that's not a chiyuv, that she's not mechuyav. So, he says simcha of a woman is nice clothes. The Raavad learns like Rashi. So, here and Tosafot learns like the Rambam. So, all this fits that there is a line here: Rashi and the Raavad, some Rishonim learn according to this pshat that when there is a chiyuv on one to do something with the other or b'kesher to the other, it doesn't cause any המשך that that other thing gets part of the chiyuv, while the Rambam learns it does. And this is the whole shita that the Rebbe brings here. Is this Rambam only in active kesher that it does? Yeah, obviously, it comes out from here. That if it's something that's connected, it goes over. So, if it couldn't... the husband couldn't fulfill... She's mechuyav herself, because there's a chiyuv that transferred on her. How did she get it though? Transferred from the one that's mechuyav. Yeah, but she can never fulfill it, unless she has a... No, no, she could bring קרבן שמחה herself. But if she's there, she's there, but It's a chiyuv on a husband to give it to his wife, if he has a wife. If he doesn't have a wife... Right, and if he has a wife, he's mechuyav to give it to her. Yeah, and memeila since he's mechuyav to give it to her, she becomes part of the chiyuv. But he can he can fulfill the mitzvah without her. But he can't fulfill the chiyuv of giving her. No. Okay, no, sir, but there's a chiyuv on him if he's married, he has to give his wife. And he could only fulfill that by the wife's taking. But I want to say here that from here we see that the Rabbi's גאנג is in peshat in the machloket Rashi and Rambam in different things, and he brings more, I'm just giving a few examples, machloket that Rashi learns that even that if there's a chiyuv on one thing, this chiyuv stays there, it doesn't transfer to the other thing, mah she'ein kein according to the Rambam, the chiyuv transfers to the one. I

want to apply this to בר מצרא. That is for sure that the chiyuv of a בר מצרא is on the לוקח מצד ועשית הישר והטוב. This that we say that there is a קצת קנין in the קרקע, how does a קצת קנין come? How does this kinyan happen on the קרקע? Where is the where does it say in the Torah a kinyan on the קרקע for a בר מצרא? What does it say? Well, so how? Since the Torah said that he has a zechut to get the קרקע first, mimela transfers, that comes from here. It's based on this. So it transfers over that the קרקע has a sheichut to him, just like here we say that the child has a sheichut to the mitzvah, the wife has a sheichut, and all the other examples we gave. So the child has a sheichut. Now, if it's based on this, this depends. Rashi doesn't learn like that. Rashi learns that doesn't happen. So that's why over here too, here Rashi learns that it doesn't happen. Rashi learns that this zechut of בר מצרא stays zechut and doesn't continue. And the Ramban learns like Rashi. We see the Ramban in the case of the chinuch, Ramban learns like Rashi, that the child is not called a מחוייב בדבר. So the Ramban also goes with this gang, that it doesn't transfer. So the Ramban in the Milchamot also. While the Rambam and Tosafot, the the Rebbe explains here that they learn that if there's a mitzvah or something that you have to do with this, this gets the chiyuv, so according to them they learn that it gets a קצת קנין. Is there a big difference between קרקע and אודאי, it's not exactly the same thing. No, no, but that was done by people, there is by the mitzvah the פעולה, we're talking about the פעולה, the הכשר מצוה. קרקע has no chiyuv. So the not not chiyuv. Nobody said קרקע has chiyuv. But the קרקע gets a שייכות. אודאי, it's not the exact same thing, but the point is that this קרקע gets a שייכות just like the child gets a שייכות. Anything that you have to do it with gets transferred, gets געשלעפט to this. And mimela this whole thing is this oh this שיחה here where the Rebbe explains the מחלוקת between Rashi and Rambam whether it's a קצת קנין or not, gets the ביאור from here. Because you can always think, how does he get קצת קנין? What's קצת קנין? According to this ביאור, it says, and if that's the ביאור, that that's why the Rambam learns like that, but not Rashi. So the לוקח gets I think it's a good peshat. The לוקח buys it now, yeah, and the קרקע has a shaychut to a בר מצרא, yeah, when did that shaychut occur? At the moment he moved in, he he became a בר מצרא. How is it part of this this לוקח's buying? I mean So this לוקח, it's not this, it's the din of בר מצרא. And since that The Torah gave the בר מצרא זכות to get it first, that's what I'm saying, it's a zechut. The Torah gave the חכמים gave him a zechut. He has a right that if anybody will buy it, will have to give it up to him. It's a theoretical buyer. We don't even know there's nobody, no one buying yet. But that's the zechut that he got. But since he has a zechut to get this קרקע, so that zechut is transferred into the קרקע and the קרקע becomes שייך to him. They're definitely implying that the קרקע is a Yeah. Yeah, but one more than the other. Now, be-emet, we could explain this machloket in another way. Not connected with this, Rashi and Rambam, Rashi, Tosafot. Who are we holding usually by, Rashi or This is not something we could hold not connected at all. Not connected at all. Sometimes they're all the same, sometimes they don't. Both start with a ר. All the ראשונים start with a ר. Rashba, Ritva, Rosh, Rashi, Because ר means Rav or Rabbeinu. Both are bought a lot, I guess. Yeah, that's true. the husband that couldn't fulfill and bring the קרבן for his You give her clothes. Rashi says you have to give her clothes, nice jewelries. Yeah, every woman should hold like Rashi. You could explain this another way. The machloket we hear between Rashi and the Rambam or Baal HaMaor and whether, going back to the עני, whether an עני, if the buyer is an עני, על פי דין takes away בר מצרא, the בר מצרא has no right to take him away, or makes no difference and the בר מצרא goes on. This will be also connection to something that I explained many times, and that is like this. The halacha is, an interesting halacha, the Rambam says and Tosafot and the Shulchan Aruch says this, by בר מצרא the din is that if the that the buyer buys it, and then the בר מצרא comes, and the בר מצרא the buyer has to give it up to the בר מצרא, the בר מצרא doesn't even have to make a new The buyer made is ke'ilu he did it for the בר מצרא. Ad kedei kach the din of בר מצרא is so strong. And he doesn't have to make a new kinyan, he has to whatever, pay for it, and he doesn't even have to make a new Like this when you buy a field, you have to make a kinyan. He doesn't have to make a kinyan, because that kinyan, okay. He has to make a kinyan, it's not

his. Now comes out that when the בר מצרא decides to come, and he comes, איגלאי מילתא למפרע that the kinyan, this shows, reveals that retroactive, that the kinyan that the לוקח made was really a kinyan for him. In other words, it's not lechatchila a kinyan for the בר מצרא. It's not the pshat that every time a לוקח buys it before the בר מצרא decides, it's already considered a kinyan for the בר מצרא. That's not true, because if that would be true, what happens if the בר מצרא decides not to buy it? Then לוקח should make a new he'll have to make a new kinyan, because the kinyan he made originally was for him, so now he has to make it That's not true! So the fact is not like that. The fact is that when he buys it, he makes a kinyan, it's for himself. When the בר מצרא takes away, comes and wants it, and he has to give it to him, that's when למפרע, it goes back retroactive. And it goes has to go retroactive, because if it doesn't go retroactive from now, the לוקח the בר מצרא has to make a kinyan. So this is a geder of איגלאי מילתא למפרע that the the kinyan of the לוקח is l'mafre a kinyan for the בר מצרא. The moment we touched the concept of איגלאי מילתא למפרע, that it goes back, we have already the thing that I mentioned hundreds of times that there are two ways to learn איגלאי מילתא למפרע. איגלאי מילתא למפרע or נעקר הדבר למפרע. The difference, איגלאי מילתא למפרע means that now you find out retroactive that really what happened before was so-and-so. Mamash as if what happened, what you know now. Or the other way is not. Till now, takeh, it was different. Now you are changing it l'mafre, which I mentioned always, the machloket between the Ran and the Rashba in Nedarim. I'll give you the example, that for that you'll take it. The Ran says a case, if a person makes an issur on himself, איסור הנאה from everything that he owns. When you אוסר בהנאה something on yourself, it becomes hefker, because if it's אסור בהנאה to you, hefker. Hefker anybody could take. Someone comes and takes it. Comes this the first guy, and he's מתיר נדר. He made an issur a neder of an איסור הנאה, he's מתיר נדר. The moment he's מתיר נדר, and we know that a חכם עוקר הנדר למפרע, goes retroactive, so now it was never hefker. זאגט דער Ran, since it was never hefker, he has to give it back. Comes the Ran, brings the Rashba, and he says the Rashba says, no, I'm not so sure. He doesn't have to give it, because when he took it, it was hefker. איי, now you changed, what he changed is his neder, but the hefker is hefker. What's the machloket here? Machloket here like this: if you learn that when the chacham changed the neder it will be l'mafre, means אגלאי, that means we found out that it was never a neder. Just like imagine the person makes a neder and thinks something is happening because of neder, and right away they're going to think pashut didn't make a proper neder. So, whatever you thought before, let's say you make a neder, you thought it was a neder and things were hefker, and someone took it. And then later they you ask the she'eilah, \"Hey, you didn't do it right.\" It's a ta'ut. Same thing here, אגלאי מילתא למפרע. But in the other way means till now was a neder, and now what you're doing is you're changing it, and your change works le-mafre'a, meaning that as far as we are concerned, anything we're going to deal with it now is as if it never happened. But looking back before before, it תקי happened. So, therefore, the Rashba says that if he took it he keeps it because what he did, he was only oker the neder, but any הסתעפות, anything that came out, that stayed. Which I always explain is really a

machloket between the Tzemach Tzedek and the Mishkenot Yaakov. And that's noge'a in Gittin. By Gittin there's a din you could be mevatel a get. If you send a get, you could go to the shaliach and be mevatel. But you have to use a lashon of future, not of past. You're going to come and say, \"The get I gave you was no good.\" That's not batel, that's a lie. What do you mean, no good? It was good. If you come and say, \"The get I'm giving is should be no good.\" Oh, that I have a right. So, the different expressions you could use to be mevatel a get, the Gemara goes and gives examples of expressions is only a lashon of le-haba. The Gemara explain which lashon means future and which lashon means past. According to that, it would be problematic if you're claiming or something like that. How could he didn't get the get yet? No, no, he might have it with the shaliach. How do you if you say that this get was never good, it's not true pashut, the get is a kasher'e get. You have to say, \"I want it to be no no good now.\" So, there's a ma'aseh the Tzemach Tzedek writes in the teshuvos and also in the chiddushim on Gittin in he writes like this, maaseh the guy was writing, was writing a גט, he was told he was giving a גט, and he was writing the guys or the שליח or whoever, the סופר was writing, and in the middle he got into a fight. סופר? I don't know, this husband got into I don't know who the בית דין whatever, and he got angry and he started screaming. writes in the teshuvos, \"הא גא הא גא ניט דא קיין גט.\" These are the words he used, \"Stop, he's saying ניט דא קיין גט.\" Now the she'eilah was, is this word \"ניט דא קיין גט\" a word past or future? So the Tzemach Tzedek says, \"Let's look into In Hebrew, the words ניט דא קיין גט, \"ניט דא קיין גט\" is אין כאן גט. So we have to investigate in the Gemara what is the לשון אין כאן? So he says, \"I'll prove that אין כאן is מענין להבא, it's for future. Because by a נדר, when you go to a חכם, one of the ways he could say is אין כאן נדר. So he says, \"Well that's good opposite. A חכם we know takes it away lemafre'a.\" So you say, \"I don't understand. He takes it away now. Till now it was there. He now changes it lemafre'a, so he's doing something that's going to happen. Mimeila it's להבא.\" And he brings that the Mishkenos Yaakov had the same she'eilah by אין כאן גט, and he brought a re'ayah from the case of נדר that it works that it's that it's past, because since by a נדר you use this לשון, and this takes away a נדר למפרע, it's a סימן it's a לשון in the past. And the Tzemach Tzedek says he's wrong. It's a re'ayah taking for the past, but you are doing something now. What is the machlokes between them? Huh? Isn't the back and forth that the Tzemach Tzedek changed the past? Yeah, you're changing the past now. He says, I'll mashal if you have a knot, brings the Ramban, you have a knot and you untie the knot, now it's as if it was never there. And lemaaseh you have to do something to get to change it. So, you are now going to do it. What is their machloket? The same thing as the Rashba and the and the Ran we said before, whether when you're מתיר the נדר למפרע, is it אגלאי מילתא למפרע? Mamash you're showing how it was before. Or נהיה, you are causing now למפרע. So, I want to say the same thing is נוגע here, נוגע to the לוקח. When the לוקח does the קנין, and then בר מצר comes and wants to take it, the קנין that he made is למפרע now for the בר מצר. Now, there are two ways to learn this למפרע, like we said. You could learn that it means that כאילו the קנין was never for him. When the בר מצר till now it was for him, but now we found out that it was for fine. Or you could learn the other way: till now the קנין was for him, and now you're coming and changing it למפרע, but you have to change now to make עקירת הדבר למפרע. What is the difference? The difference is like this: one thing we know for sure that, let's go according to this pshat, say like this, for sure בר מצר is a בר מצר, there's a din of בר מצר. If we're going to say that a poor man there's no din of a בר מצר, that means that the Chachamim would take away the din of בר מצר in the case of a poor man, that the בר מצר doesn't isn't doesn't count. Now, what does that mean? The Chachamim took it away only for a poor man who's involved in the case. The Chachamim don't say to a בר מצר, \"If you want to buy this field, you

bought this field, there's a poor man out in the street, let him have it.\" Everyone agrees to that, wasn't for every poor man. אלא מאי, if a poor man who was involved who bought the field already, so now that you come, the Torah says leave it, don't take it the the Chachamim say don't take it away. Is this poor guy who bought it before the בר מצר, is he involved involved in this buying or not? When the בר מצרא comes, it's למפרע that it was never the עני's, never the buyer's. So if you learn it's שגליא מילתא למפרע, this buyer is as good as any person in the street. Just like any person in the street has no connection here, this guy also has no connection. Why? איי, he bought it. His buying doesn't count anything because שגליא מילתא למפרע that this kinyan was for him, so it was never a kinyan, so he didn't buy it. If he didn't buy it, so how could the בר מצרא have to leave it for him? מה שאין כן if you learn it's נעקר הדבר למפרע, that means that sof kol sof the fact is that till now he had it, so he is an ani which is involved in this case. So here it makes sense that the chachamim should say that leave it for the ani. And this could be the machloket between the Rambam and the ר״ש. Or here in this case, the Rambam and Tosafot, and the Baal HaMaor and the Ramban. The Baal HaMaor says that by an ani, you have to leave him, cuz they hold that this is נעקר הדבר למפרע, that the kinyan that he made is takeh a kinyan of an ani. So here we're dealing with an ani that was involved. And even if this בר מצרא will take it, it doesn't mean it never was by the ani. It was! So therefore, the ani is involved, so he's different than any ani in the street, so therefore you have to leave it.

But Tosafot will learn and the Rambam will learn it's not like that. The Rambam will learn that it's שגליא מילתא למפרע. So after there is a din of בר מצרא, the ani is out of the picture. איי, he's an ani, so who cares he's an ani? Sof kol sof, there are many aniyim in the street, so you have to leave it for him? And therefore, it stays בר מצרא. And based on this, if you remember from last time I explained according to the first way four machlokot between the Rambam and the ראב״ד and the Rambam and different rishonim, according to this way you could explain them all also. All the four. The case of a safek, and the case of where the baal chov came, and the case where he ate the peirot, and the case, all kinds of machlokot where you could explain it. Okay? Yashar koach. So it was a עני That's what rachmanut is, he's not part of the din. No, but to be the other way where where he is, the עני is still in the picture. Oh, he's still in the picture, that's right. He could hold he goes with it. Because he made a kinyan first! And that kinyan was true, and that even after we say that it goes to the bar metzra, we still say he made a kinyan. Just because, but because he made a kinyan, does that matter? Even though the bar metzra really has a right over Right, but the chachamim said in the case where there's an עני who bought it, leave it for him. That makes sense. But if it's a case of עני who bought it Not for rachmanut because Not rachmanut. רחמנות, אין אין רחמנות בדין, the rishonim say. So he was the first guy, and he made a kinyan. Right, and according to the other way, he never made a kinyan. But in the case of the of Ravina and Runia, because he had a, he was a bar metzra. Pshat, we're talking about if he the other pshat, if he was an עני, if the reason was because an עני. Even if he came from far away, he wasn't a bar metzra. Right, right, he wasn't a bar metzra, but he's just a poor man who bought this field. A lot of complications with these subleases and so forth. If I sell a field to an עני Yeah. good, give it Every time you sell to a poor person, so you give him a Just said, \"Oh boy, I can get that I could get that field for half price, and he's going to come and take it off.\" They're going to have to pay full price. What's What's That's what I say, where's the I can declare what full price is. Whatever, I don't know. Market. They'll tell him, \"I want only I want full price. I want market value.\" The The seller. Seller's going to say, \"I'm going to take\" Hey, so if it's overpriced he can, but if that's the price, I mean you could see what the We know what the the price is. That's so strong, and if the seller says that, \"If you, bar metzra, will take it, I don't want to sell it bichlal. I'm only selling it to him.\" The bar metzra could still take it, and if you don't want to sell, don't sell it. It's a din. Why do we use the example of an עני עני? No, it's only because an עני. The whole point is here עני. The whole discussion is only because he's an עני. Since he's an עני, there's no din of bar metzra. Chachamim took away the bar metzra. That's not That's not rachmanut? Not No. It's because the din of בר מצרא is טוב וישר, and since he's an ani, it's טוב וישר to do it for him. We had a case of בר מצרא here with our neighbor. הטוב והישר. Remember when we bought the shul? Yeah. What happened? When we bought this I guess he wasn't interested. This place, בר מצרא, yeah. They're the בר מצרא. Never heard of a good fight. According to one of the According to every opinion! According to every opinion. Yeah. The question is if the buyer is an ani if the, but if a regular guy, Apparently he's not an ani. there's no שאלות, you kick him out. Just feed the lions When when the guy became a neighbor, he gets a שייכות. That when ever this guy wants to sell it, the field belongs to him. That started right away, before he even plans to sell it, and could be that guy will never sell it! But there's a question, but what if somebody else buys it, changes the relationship of Somebody else buys it and a בר מצרא comes, so the kinyan that the loke'ach, the buyer made, automatically turns into a kinyan for the בר מצרא. It's like he's a shaliach of the בר מצרא to make a kinyan for him. There's no כוונה there. Right, no כוונה, but halacha says it. Yeah. Is there a third a third opinion about about למפרע? Is that a third third דרגא? I have to go. Yishar koach. What? Loke'ach, yeah. And if the loke'ach is a goy, certainly there's no Gemara says even when the buyer is, even when the seller is also. Because the whole the whole sale, if you're buying it Somebody not to fulfill the mitzvot. סוף כל סוף, the the בר מצרא is going to buy as the lekuch. Even though you take away from the lekuch, he's still, he's buying it from the mocher. And on לאו, but on לאו... לאו בר עשיית מצוה הוא. And that's talking about the... Go ahead, even from him! And he's not part of the mitzvah, he's not part of the Torah. It's the buying, how he's allowed to buy, that's the שאלה. His buying is is limited, but not for somebody... Yeah. Who's buying? From the mocher. זה לכתחילה ובדיעבד. So who's buying? Gut Shabbos! Gut Shabbos! Can buy himself a pair of pants. Yasher koach! Yasher koach, Alter! Yasher koach, תהיה בריא!