the same sugya. Right. And therefore I don't even have to say anything. I could start in the middle. Okay this was בנוגע דינא דבר מצרא, דף ק\"ח עמוד א'. This is בנוגע the Gemara with Ronya. רוניא זבן ארעא אמצרא דרבינא. The Gemara says that Ronya brought bought a a field on the border of Ravina and רבינא סבר רבינא לסלוקי משום דינא דבר מצרא. Ravina wanted to kick him out. Ravina was the neighbor. No, Ronya was a guy, stam a guy. No, Ronya stam 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 Ronya 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 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 Ronya, you bought the field, you're the לוקח, you have to give it up because I'm the בר מצרא. So told Rav Safra brei deRav Yeiva said to Ravina the Gemara uses לשון אמרי אינשי, people say ארבע לדצללא ארבע לצלאלא.

Which Rashi has different peshatim. One pshat is that for 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 Ronya 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 be 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 a get a watchman for both, he could hire one person to plow both fields. So it's much better, it's 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 Yeah, talking about here. Rashi says clearly who he says I'll explain last how I explained the מצוה בעצם is on the on the buyer, and if the buyer buys it, he shouldn't buy it or if even if he does buy it, he has to give it up to the בר מצרא. The he has to do yashar v'tov. If he knew about it. He knew about it. If he knew and didn't care, he can't come back again later. It doesn't say at any time. It depends. So there are all kinds of dinim, the whole the whole halachot of 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 Runya is poor, there is the din of בר מצרא doesn't you 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 קשיא Tosafot asks is, הכי מרחמינן בדינא? What do you mean? If there's a din of בר מצרא, there is a din of בר מצרא. Tell him have rachmanut, this guy is poor? You can't pasken 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 על פי דין that you have to let him stay there. If על פי דין he's a בר מצרא, how is he poor? There is no rachmanut in din. One second. One second. And kashya he asks, from the Gemara is mashma 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, אלא מאי he said to him, but since he's poor, leave him. Therefore Tosafot learns different. Tosafot learns two peshatim. One pshat in Tosafot is that Ravina was a shachen a בר מצרא on three sides. And Runya was only on one side. It was Runya was also a בר מצרא. Not that Runya wasn't a בר מצרא. Ravina was a בר מצרא and Runya was a בר מצרא, but Ravina was on three sides. Like this, the field that was being sold was right here. Runya owned the field here. And this was another field. So this side was Ravina, this side was Runya. This field was a border to Runya 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 kick him out. That's one peshat.

Another peshat the Tosafot says is that that in the same fields of of Ravina, Runya was a sharecropper. Runya and Runya 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 new 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 the fields, that's how Tosafot learns. Huh? No, that Runya was right. Yeah, according to all peshatim, the Gemara says Rav Safra said that Ravina is wrong, but the question is what the peshat is. Now in order to answer the kushya on Rashi, how could Rashi say that he told him because he's poor, let him? Say, מה רחמנות בדין? So the mefarshim say, the Pnei Shlomo says, that Rashi himself b'feirush, so that's what you started saying, Rashi uses the lashon here, he says like this: כשם שאתה אומר לו הסתלק מעלי בדין דבר מצרא משום ועשית הישר והטוב, just like you're claiming he should get out because of בר מצרא is to do good and ישר, כך אני אומר לך, עשה ישר והטוב לעני 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. So then it's not רחמנות בדין. Since the whole reason for בר מצרא is ועשית הישר והטוב, in this case, where it's more ישר והטוב to let the לקוח 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's a בר מצרא anyway, ela mai he asked him to do him a favor, he paskent 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 טוב וישר. If the בר מצרא is טוב וישר, you do it בר מצרא. If this is טוב וישר, you leave leave him stay. What, a beit din could decide. But he needs he needs the field to make a living. Ravina didn't need the field to make a lot of money, to make רווח, and he needed the field to make a parnasa. Now Tosafot obviously learns that even if there's a poor man, there's still din of בר מצרא. And that's why Tosafot says, the only way I could see what Rav Safra according to you is to have rachmanut, and that I don't agree. אין רחמנות בדין, that's why Tosafot had a new pshat. So comes out here that the machloket between Rashi and Tosafot is that Rashi learns that in a case where there's an ani, there's no din of בר מצרא, the בר מצרא doesn't get first first choice, and Tosafot doesn't learn like that. Tosafot learns in the case of an ani, even in the case of an ani there is. Which be'emet, this is not a new machloket. As I

mentioned last time, this is a machloket in the Rishonim in Bava Metzia. In Bava Metzia דף ק״ח, there's a machloket over there between the Baal HaMaor and the Ramban. The Baal HaMaor says over there that in a case where the the buyer is an ani, there's no din of בר מצרא, and he learns that pshat in the Gemara. And he even says over there that the story of Runya and Ravina in Bava Batra backs up what I'm saying. Obviously it was a kashya. Comes the Milchamot, the Ramban, who always argues against the Baal HaMaor, and that's his whole purpose in that that sefer, he calls it Milchamot Hashem. By the way, it's interesting that the Baal HaMaor writes that, \"My father writes the same way I'm writing in a sefer called Igeret HaNechama.\" So the Ramban says, תנחומים של הבל ניחמו אביו, that what his father writes isn't not true. And there is no such din. Even if you're poor, there's still din of בר מצרא. Ai the story of Ravina and Ronia? There's another pshat there, he has another pshat there. So obviously what they mean is מחלוקת 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 lakoach is an ani. And the the Ramban learns like Tosafot, that that's not true. Okay, so we have this machloket. The she'eilah 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 can say is based, I said last time the 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 can 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 to it in the ha'arah in in in here in this sichah, the שיחה פרשת ואתחנן חלק י״ט, 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? The Rebbe says there that in the inyan of 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 הנהגה ישרה וטובה. בר מצרא, it's only a good thing to do. It's a right thing to do. It's not an halachah? No, no, no. It's an halachah that what? That you should behave fine. דאס הייסט, I'll read it: \"ס'פעלט גארנישט אין דעם תוקף הקנין פון דעם לוקח.\" And when the loke'ach, the buyer, buys the field, he bought it and it's his. \"נאר די חכמים האבן מחייב געווען צו פירן זיך על דרך הישר והטוב.\" The chachamim said we want you to behave in a good way. \"און דער עיקר מוז ער דאס וואס ער האט קונה געווען אפגעבן צום בר מצרא.\" You have to take what you were koneh, give it back, give it to the בר מצרא. So it's on the gavra, we call it. The person is obligated. Give it or sell it? No, no. Give it to him, and he pays, and pays him back, sell it. Why shouldn't this din be before the buyer gets it? The seller should according to the second look, figures, the chiyuv, the ועשית הישר והטוב... the second way is that the chiyuv from the ועשית הישר והטוב, it brings out, \"אז דער בר מצרא באקומט א געוויסע בעלות אויף דער שדה.\" You are a neighbor, you get a certain ownership of the field. \"און דער עיקר 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 נישט בלויז מצד א חיוב פון הנהגה טובה,\" not only because you have to behave properly, \"נאר ווייל די פעלד האט א שייכות צום בר מצרא.\" The field has a שייכות. \"ובלשון הנימוקי יוסף, כאילו יש לו קצת קנין בגופה של קרקע,\" as if he has קצת קנין. And one of the differences is between the two ways, he says here: לויט'ן ערשטן אופן, according to the first way, אז די דין פון בר מצרא איז א גדר פון הנהגה טובה, דאס איז געזאגט געווארן צום לוקח. It's said to the buyer. אז ער דארף זיך פירן באופן הישר והטוב, 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, beit 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 איז די ועשית הישר והטוב איז מחוייב צום לוקח, באמת דער ועשית הישר והטוב is said to the buyer, איז אבער די תביעה און קומען בטענה צום לוקח צום בית דין, also the beit din has, not just the buyer, the beit din, which mimela the seller also, everybody! Because this is a דין בעצם. So the beit din is mechuyav to see that it goes, so it's not only a din on him. That's not deoraita? Good, that's it's no, it's chachamim. There's she'eilot, there is a לשון עפעס in Teshuvat HaRambam that it's קרוב למצות עשה, could be it's deoraita, but it's normally derabbanan. About the din of buying. Only לגבי this, nothing else. But the Rebbe doesn't say he has a קצת, he says it's like he has a קצת. No, the לשון is he has. כאילו יש, but I understand, but that means that he has a certain shaychus to it. Not a shaychus in the קרקע, but it's a shaychus in the קרקע. The קרקע itself claims, \"I belong to him, that I have to be bought by him.\" In order to buy. Yeah, \"I have to be bought by him.\" And the Rebbe says, על פי זה יש לומר אז דאס איז א מחלוקת צווישן ראשונים. The Rebbe after he says these two sides says that this is a machloket between the ראשונים, ובמיוחד אז דאס איז א מחלוקת מודגש בחילוקי דעות רש\"י והרמב\"ם. And he brings that this is a machloket between Rashi and the Rambam, brings לשונות from Rashi and לשונות from Rambam. And then in the הערות he goes further. So when we have these two ways of learning Rashi and the Rambam, we could explain that this, 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 learns, you know, that the whole din of בר מצרא is not a קצת קנין. We will call, in other words, it's a זכות. He has a first right, but there's no kinyan. So the whole thing is based on ועשית הישר והטוב. Therefore, if there's no קצת 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 קצת קנין in the field. And therefore, now who cares if the other the buyer is an עני? Sof kol sof, this guy has a שטיקל קנין in the field. So it's not just an הנהגה טובה, you say, it became a קצת קנין. It's a קצת קנין, so how could how could the לוקח keep it even though he's an עני? That's why Tosafot says, and the Ramban says, even if it's an עני, you still you 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, that it's against the דין. 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 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 we have a ביאור in a certain מחלוקת. I want to say that this is one branch in the רבי's general approach to מרווח זיין רש״י and the Rambam, in נגלה, פשוט in הלכה. How do you like that? Huh? How come Rashi and Rambam mostly agree? What? Mostly agree or mostly argue? Not necessarily. Not necessarily. What about the לשיטתו? What about the לשיטתו, in a different place, where the רבי explains the לשיטתו of the Rambam and Rashi in different, and I think that this ביאור here is בהמשך to the ביאור there. What is the ביאור there? This is a ביאור of something also that you must have heard from me many times. But this is in chelek י״ז. That's in chelek י״ט, this is in chelek י״ז. חלק י״ז, פרשת קדושים. There, he brings, okay, he brings Rambam, Raavad. Okay, let's just bring the first thing. Says like this: ידוע די מחלוקת הראשונים, בנוגע די מצוות וואס א קטן איז מקיים. I'm just looking to see if I can start after the second part with the ביאור הגמרא, because otherwise... He says like this: ס'איז גלייך כמה פעמים וואס מ'געפינט, כ'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 איר קיום איז אפהענגיק אין א פעולה פריער, that in order to do the mitzvah, it depends on something before the mitzvah is done, באקומט אויך די פריערדיקע פעולה, אַ חשיבות און גדר פון דער מצוה עצמה. The other פעולה, which is not part of the mitzvah, but since you can't get it, it becomes part of the פעולה. היות אז די פעולה איז אַ הכרח, אָן איר קען די מצוה ניט געטאָן ווערן, you must do this other פעולה, and without this you can't do the mitzvah. That's a מכשיר. The הכשר מצוה, is עס כאילו צוזאמען מיטן ציווי אויף דער מצוה, האָט די תורה אויך אנגעזאָגט אויף דער פעולה. As if the Torah said on the פעולה. And he wants to say, gives an example here, סיי בנוגע א מצוה, he brings an example. Lemashal, according to the Rabbi Eliezer, 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, the guy doesn't have a knife. You have to make a knife, can't make a knife on Shabbos. So we pasken, the Rabbanan pasken, you can't. Because the milah is דוחה שבת, but not making a knife. Rabbi Eliezer says, no, מכשירי מילה דוחה שבת, you can make a knife. Why? The ביאור 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, you can have 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 like about learning Torah. If you can't learn yourself, pay others to learn, and it's as if you learned. So you are a, you make them able to learn, so you get part of their learning. בנוגע a woman, he brings that famous Ran. What 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? Mishnah should have said: a man could mekadesh through a shaliach. Well obviously, if you could do a shaliach, you could do it yourself. So the Gemara answers, to teach you מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו, that it's a greater mitzvah if you do it yourself. Same thing by the woman, the Gemara asks: why does it say, by all mitzvot? Right, whatever, yeah. Always, no, there's a כלל, מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו by every mitzvah. Then by the woman the Gemara has the same kashya: why does it say she could do it herself or through a shaliach? She could she could do it through a shaliach, certainly. So then what answers? To tell you מצוה בה יותר מבשלוחה. It's a bigger mitzvah if she does it herself. פרעגט דער ר״ן: 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 mechuyav for פריה ורביה. A woman is not mechuyav, what do you mean mitzvah? So the lashon of the Ran is like this: אַז די אשה, כאָטש זי איז ניט מצווה אויף פריה ורביה, מכל מקום, יש לה מצוה, מפני שהיא מסייעת לבעל לקיים מצוותו. Since the husband cannot do his mitzvah without her, דהיינו ווייל דער בעל קען מקיים זיין די מצוה נאר על ידי אשה, האָט זי אויך אַן ענין פון דער מצוה. And then he goes on further. Same thing with learning Torah, it says that the woman has a chelek in the husband's learning. If she helps him, she waits up for him, she this she And it's that she gets a sechar as a mitzvah v'oseh as if she was commanded. Based on this, what what comes out from here is that the mitzvah that that goes over. Now we find a din by a katan. This is going to come to the Rambam. By a katan the דין is like this: a קטן is only מחוייב במצוות מדרבנן. It's חינוך, מדאורייתא he's פטור. We know that somebody who is מחוייב in a מצוה מדרבנן cannot be מוציא somebody else who's מחוייב in a מצוה מדאורייתא. So if a קטן is going to בענטש ברכת המזון, he cannot be מוציא a גדול, because he's מחוייב מדרבנן, he's מחוייב מדאורייתא. The שאלה is: what happens if the קטן is מחוייב, if the גדול is also only מחוייב מדרבנן? No no, למשל if he only ate a כזית א כביצה. מדאורייתא you only have to בענטש, ואכלת ושבעת וברכת, if

you're full. רבנן said that you only also have to בענטש from a כביצה, כזית, whatever. So what happens if you have a גדול that only ate a כביצה? So he's מחויב מדרבנן. You have a קטן who ate full, who's מחויב מדרבנן. Can he be מוציא? So the רבי brings here like this, a מחלוקת ראשונים: דעת Rashi vehaRamban, אז די מדרבנן חינוך מצוות איז א לאו מצוה דידיה פון קטן, אלא דאבוה. The קטן is not מחויב even מדרבנן. It's a מצוה on the father, דאיהו לאו מחוייב במצוות כל עיקר. A קטן is not חייב. The father is מחויב to see that the קטן does the מצוה. So the קטן is not a בר חיובא at all. וממילא קען א קטן נישט מוציא זיין a גדול. He can't be מוציא him in ברכת המזון, אפילו when the גדול is also a מחויב מדרבנן. דעת Tosafot v'Ran, אז a קטן שהגיע לחינוך הייסט מחויב בדבר מדרבנן. He is considered מחויב בדבר, he is חייב. און דעריבער קען ער מוציא זיין a גדול ידי חובתו, כי שניהם נתחייבו מדרבנן. If a גדול ate מדרבנן, he can be מוציא. How does the Rambam hold? Already we see מחלוקת Rashi and Tosafot. פון דעם וואס דער Rambam פסק'נט, the Rambam says a קטן could be מוציא, איז מוכח, shows אז ער האלט אז די חינוך מצוות is a קטן is מחויב מדרבנן. Yeah, but the father, while he has the whole obligation to teach the child, does that in Yiddish? No, but the Rambam holds that the child is מחויב מדרבנן. So the father's responsible to see to it, right. But the child is called a מחויב בדבר, he is מחויב, while according to Rashi, not. And he brings the Rambam in many places. In הלכות ציצית, the Rambam says that a קטן is מחויב חייב בציצית מדרבנן. By ברכות, הקטנים חייבים בברכת המזון מדברי סופרים. In סוכה, קטן שאינו צריך חייב בסוכה מדברי סופרים. By לולב, קטן היודע לנענע חייב בלולב. The רבי brings that כולם, the Rambam holds

like that. So the רבי asks a קשיא: How could the Rambam and Tosafot hold that a קטן is מחויב? How could there be a chiyuv on a קטן? How is that possible to be a chiyuv on a קטן? The Gemara asks a לשון: חיובא אדרדקי?! A קטן could be mechuyav?! Basically, why did the Torah, why did the Torah not make a קטן מחויב? Because he's not שייך to חיובים. How could the רבנן 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 קטן, but the Rambam goes with this שיטה, that since the chiyuv of the father is to be מחנך the child, that means that there is, father cannot do his obligation without the partnership of the child, so the child is considered already מחויב בדבר. And that's how the Rambam holds. And it's על דרך, the Rebbe brings a Tzemach Tzedek, what the Tzemach Tzedek says, the Rambam says an interesting thing בנוגע בנוגע לימוד התורה. We know that a קטן is פטור מדאורייתא from all the mitzvot. And the father is not mechuyav to teach him מדאורייתא either. One exception: a father is מחויב מדאורייתא to teach a child Torah. It's in the pasuk: 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 recognizing. It means while he's still a katan. And the Tzemach Tzedek asks, how could it be? A chiyuv on a katan? So the Tzemach Tzedek says that because the father mid'oraita is mechuyav to teach him, so the katan becomes a mechuyav. The chiyuv is on the father, but since the chiyuv on the father is with the katan, the katan becomes part of the chiyuv. So the katan is part of the chiyuv to do it. So the same thing here by דיני כל המצוות מדרבנן. And this is the shita of the Rambam. Obviously, the Rashi who argues and says that the katan is not mechuyav holds that it doesn't work that way, that even though the father's chiyuv is to do it with the katan, we would say it doesn't transfer to the katan, that because of that, the katan, who's the one the obligation is about, becomes also obligated. That's why Rashi holds that the katan is not called a מחויב בדבר, and the Rambam does. So the Rambam and Tosafot hold that it does, and the Rashi doesn't. He brings another מחלוקת Rashi and the Rambam. This is another example:

בחיוב שמחה ברגל. We know that it says ושמחת בחגך. So the Gemara says, אשה בעלה משמחה. That a woman, says a ba'al, a man, how does he do simcha? Is to bring קרבנות, שלמי שמחה. A woman, her husband will mesameach her. Zogt Rashi, how is the husband ער משמח her? בבגדי צבעונים, buy her nice clothes. פרעגט דער תוספות, in Chagigah, the Gemara in Chagigah says that a woman is מחויבת בשמחה. If you want to speak to a child, so the child takes, the father takes the child, then the Gemara asks who brought the child till here? And the Gemara says, עד הכא דמחייבא אימיה בשמחה אייתי, the mother is מחויבת בשמחה. איז דאך משמע that the mother, a woman is מחויבת בשמחה. So therefore, Tosafos, the Rabbeinu Tam learns that a woman is מחויבת בשמחה. Ay, we know the simcha is on the father, but on the husband, since the simcha, the chiyuv is on the father to be mesameach, to give from 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, memeila every woman, no, because the din of a man, the woman is the man is מחוייב to give the woman, memeila the אשה is חייב. The Rambam uses this lashon: נשים חייבות במצוה זו, במצות שמחה. Ay the Gemara says אשה בעלה משמחה, so the Rambam learns l'shitaso that because the husband has a chiyuv to give simcha to the wife b'korbanot, memeila she is considered a מחוייב בדבר. The Raavad argues on the Rambam. The Raavad writes, what are you talking about? Not חייב בקרבן, she is חייב בשמחה שתשמח עם בעלה, that she should... But like the Rebbe brings, what is the peshat here? The Rambam goes לשטתו and Rashi learns לשטתו. Rashi learns, what is her obligation? To eat the korbanot, the same thing as the husband! It's the same thing as the husband. Ai there is no chiyuv, the Torah says ושמחת בחגך goes on a man, but since ושמחת בחגך אתה ואשתך, mimela you have to give it to your wife, so she is considered mechuyav. Rashi doesn't learn like that. Rashi said that's not a chiyuv, she is not mechuyav, so he says simcha of a woman is in 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, the Raavad, some ראשונים learn according to this peshat, that when there is a chiyuv on one to do something with the other or בקשר 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 לשטתו that the Rebbe makes here. Does the Rambam learn in every case that it does? Well 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 himself... She's mechuyav herself, because there is a chiyuv that transferred on her. How does she get it though? Transferred from the one that's mechuyav. Yeah, but she can never fulfill it unless she has a husband. No no, she can bring קרבן שמחה herself. No, but if she's there... If she's there, but there is a chiyuv on the husband to give it to his wife, if he has a wife. He doesn't have a wife... Right, and if he has a wife, he's mechuyav to give it to her. Yeah, and mimela, since he's mechuyav to give it to her, she becomes part of the chiyuv. But he can fulfill the mitzvah without her. You mean he can't fulfill the chiyuv of giving her. No. Okay, no, so, but there's a chiyuv on him, if he's married, he has to give his wife. And he can only fulfill that by the wife taking. But I want to say here that from here we see that the Rebbe's גאנג is in pshat 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 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 it, where does it say in Torah that there's a kinyan on the קרקע for בר מצרא? Nowhere! So how? Since the Torah said that he has a zechut to get the קרקע first, mimela it transfers, that comes from here, it's based on this, so it transfers over that the קרקע is a shaychut to him, just like here we say that the child has a shaychut to the mitzvah, the wife is a shaychut, so all the other examples we gave. So the קרקע is a shaychut. Now, if it's based on this, this depends. Rashi doesn't learn like that, Rashi learns that it doesn't happen. So that's why over here too, here Rashi learns that it doesn't happen, Rashi learns that the 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 Milchamos also, while the Rambam and Tosafos, 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 he gets a קצת קנין. Big difference between קרקע and... א ודאי, it's not exactly the same thing. No no, we're talking about not by people, there is by the mitzvah, the פעולה, we're talking about the פעולה, the הכשר מצוה. So the, not chiyuv, you can't say קרקע has chiyuv, but the קרקע gets a shaychut. א ודאי it's not the exact same thing, but the point is that this קרקע gets a shaychut just like the child gets a shaychut. Anything that you have to do it with gets transferred, gets geshlept to this. And mimeila, this whole thing is this, this sichah here where the Rebbe explains the machloket between Rashi and Rambam whether there is a קצת קנין or not, gets the biur from here, because you talk about this thing, how does he get a קצת קנין? What's a קצת קנין? According to this biur, since that mimeila, and if that's the biur, so that's why the Rambam learns like that, but not Rashi. Wait, the לוקח gets... I think it's a good peshat. The לוקח buys it now, yeah, and the קרקע has a shaychut... When did that transfer occur? At the moment he moved in, he... became a בר מצרא. How is it part of this לוקח's buying? How does- This לוקח, it's not this, it's the דין of a בר מצרא. And since that the Torah gave the בר מצרא a זכות to get it first, that's what I'm saying, it's a זכות. The Torah gave, Chachamim gave him a זכות, he has a right that if anybody will buy it, we'll have to give it up to him. So it's a theoretical buyer, we don't even know, there's no one buying yet. But that's a זכות that he got. So since he has a זכות to get this קרקע, so that זכות is transferred into the קרקע and the קרקע becomes a שייכות to him. The קרקע has a neshama, the קרקע has a רצון to fulfill the mitzvah of the בר מצרא? That's similar to what you said. And land lovers, you know, that when you'll see a you give it you give it Definitely implying that the קרקע is a Yeah. Because you run out of time Yeah, but one more than the other. Now, באמת, we can explain this מחלוקת in another way, not connected with this. Rashi and Rambam, Rashi and Tosafot. Who are we holding usually by, Rashi or...? This is not something we can hold. That's not true at all! Sometimes they hold the same, sometimes they don't. Almost all of them with ר? All the ראשונים start with ר! Rashba, Ritva, Rosh, Rashi! The ר means Rav or Rabbeinu. You consult both a lot, I guess. Yeah, that's true. According to the husband that couldn't fulfill and bring the קרבן for his wife, 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 מחלוקת we hear between Rashi and the Rambam or Baal HaMaor and whether going back to the עני, whether an an עני, if the buyer is an עני, על פי דין takes away בר מצרא, the בר מצרא has no right to pick him away, or makes no difference, and this the בר מצרא goes on. And this will be also in connection to something that I explained many times. And that is like this: The halacha is, an interesting halacha the Rambam says and Tosafos and the Shulchan Aruch says this, by בר מצרא the din is that if 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, בר מצרא doesn't even have to make The buyer made, is ke'ilu he did it for the בר מצרא. עד כדי כך is the בר מצרא, the din of בר מצרא so strong. And he doesn't have to make a kinyan. He has to whatever and pay for it, and he doesn't even have to make a kinyan. Like this, when you buy a field, you have to make a kinyan, there's no kinyan, because that kinyan- Okay. Why wouldn't the din of בר מצרא be intrinsic in the din already that it's a בר מצרא, so why-? Right. So he has to make a kinyan. It's not his. Now,

comes out that when the בר מצרא decides to come, al pi din he comes, איגלאי מילתא למפרע that the kinyan, this shows, reveals that, retroactive, that the kinyan that the לוקח made is 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 the לוקח should make a have to make a new kinyan! Because the kinyan he made originally was for him, so now he has to It'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 bar metzra takes away, comes and wants it, and he has to give it to him, that's when l'mafre'a, it goes back retroactive. And it goes that it has to go retroactive, because if it doesn't go retroactive from now, the the loke'ach the bar metzra has to make a kinyan. So this is a geder of igla'i milta l'mafre'a that the the kinyan of the loke'ach is l'mafre'a a kinyan for the bar metzra. The moment we touch the concept of igla'i milta l'mafre'a, that it goes back, we we have already the thing that I mentioned hundreds and times, that there are two ways to learn igla'i milta l'mafre'a: igla'i milta l'mafre'a or נעקר הדבר למפרע. The difference, igla'i milta l'mafre'a 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'a, which I mentioned always, a machloket between the Ran and the Rashba in Nedarim. Say it again. I'll give you an example, then for that you'll take it. The

Ran says a case if a person makes an issur on himself, issur hana'ah from everything that he owns. When you אסר בהנאה something on yourself, it becomes hefker, because if it's אסור בהנאה to you, hefker. Hefker anybody can take. Someone comes and takes. Comes this the first guy and is מתיר נדר. He made an issur a neder of an issur hana'ah, 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, now since it was never hefker, he has to give it back! Comes the Ran, brings the Rashba. He says that the Rashba says, \"No, I'm not so sure. He doesn't have to give, because when he took it, it was hefker. איי, now it changed? What he changes is his neder, but the הפקר is הפקר.\" What's the מחלוקת here? מחלוקת here like this. If you learn that when the chacham changed the נדר למפרע, it means איגלאי. That means we found out that it was never a neder. Just like imagine a person makes a neder, and thinks something is happening because of a neder. All of a sudden we realize that it's a mistake. Pashut didn't make a proper neder. So whatever you thought before, let's say when you make a neder, you thought it was a neder and things were הפקר, and someone took it. And then later you ask a she'eilah, \"Hey, you didn't do it right.\" It's a ta'ut. Same thing here. איגלאי מילתא למפרע. But if the other way means till now was a neder, and now what you're doing is you're changing it, and your change works למפרע, 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 תאקו happened. So therefore, the Rashba says that if he took it, he keeps it, because what he did, he was only oker a neder. But any הסתעפות, anything that came out of it, that stays. Which I always explain is really a מחלוקת between the Tzemach Tzedek and the Mishkenot Yaakov. And that's nafka mina in a גט. By a גט there's a דין you could לבטל a גט. If you send a גט, you could go to the שליח and be מבטל. But you have to use a לשון of future, not of past. If you're going to come and say, \"The גט I gave you was no good.\" That's not בטל. That's a lie. What do you mean no good? It was good. If you come and say, \"The גט I am giving is should be no good.\" Oh, then I have a right. So, the different expressions you could use to לבטל a גט, the Gemara goes in and gives examples different expressions. It's only a לשון of להבא. And the Gemara explained which לשון means future, which lashon means past. According to that, it's going to be problematic. תהיין or something like that. She didn't get the get yet. No. When they have it, was it clear? if you say that this get was never good, it's not true pashut. The get is a כשר'ה גט. You have to say, \"I want it to be no no good now.\" So there's a maaseh, the Tzemach Tzedek writes in the teshuvot and also in the chiddushim by Gittin in He writes like this. There's a maaseh, the guy was right was writing a get. He was told he was giving a get and he's right the guys or the shaliach or whoever, the sofer was writing, and in the middle, he got into a fight. Sofer? I don't know. The husband got with, I don't know who, the בית דין, whatever. And he got angry and he started screaming, \"הא גט\", so he writes in the teshuvot, \"הא גט הא גט, ניט דא קיין גט.\" These are the words he used. \"Stop\", he said, \"ניט דא קיין גט.\" And 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 \"דא קיין גט\", \"ניט דא קיין גט\" is \"אין כאן גט\". So we have to investigate in the Gemara, what is the lashon \"אין כאן\"? So he says, \"I'll prove that 'אין כאן' is become a lehaba, it's for a future. Because by a neder, when you go to a chacham, one of the ways he could say is, 'אין כאן נדר'.\" So he says, \"Wait, but it's the opposite. A chacham we know takes it away le-mafre'a.\" So he says, \"No, understand. He takes it away now, till now it was there. He now changes it le-mafre'a. So he's doing something that's going to happen. Mimela, it's lehaba.\" And he brings that the Mishkenot Yaakov had the same she'eilah by \"אין כאן גט\", and he brought a re'ayah from the case of neder that it works that that it's that it's past. Since by a neder you use this lashon, and this takes away a neder lemafre'a, it's a siman it's a lashon of the past. The Tzemach Tzedek says he's wrong. It's already taken for the past, but you are doing something now. What is the machloket between them? Huh? Going back to what the Tzemach Tzedek changed the past? Yeah, you're changing the past. Now he says on lashon if you have a knot, bring the Rambam, you have a knot and you untie the knot, now it's as if it was never there. And lema'aseh 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 that we said before. Whether when you're matir the neder lemafre'a is it an איגלאי מילתא למפרע? Mamash you're you're showing how it was before, or נעקר, you are causing now lemafre'a. So I want to say the same thing is noge'a here, by לקוח. When the לקוח does the kinyan, and then בר מצרא comes and wants to take it, the kinyan that he made is lemafre'a now for the בר מצרא. Now there are two ways to learn this lemafre'a, like we said. You could learn that it means that ke'ilu the kinyan was never for him. When the בר מצרא, till now it was there, but now we found out that it wasn't for him, fine. Or you could learn the other way. Till now the kinyan was for him, and now you're coming and changing it lemafre'a, but you have to change now to make נעקר a דבר למפרע. What is the difference? The difference is like this. One thing we know for sure that, let's go according to this peshat, say like this. For sure בר מצרא is a בר מצרא. There's a din of a בר מצרא. It's a kinyan. If we're going to say that a poor man there's no din of a בר מצרא, it means that the chachamim would take away the din of בר מצרא in a case of a poor man. That the בר מצרא doesn't is 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 מצרא, \"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 For every poor man? Ela mai? A poor man who was involved who bought the field already, so now that you

come, the Torah says leave him, don't take it, the Chachamim said don't take it away. Is this poor guy who bought it before the בר מצרא, is he 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 גלויי 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 you גלויי 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? Mah she'ein kein 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 עני which is involved in this case, so here it makes sense that the Chachamim should say that leave it for the עני. And this could be the machloket between the Rambam and the Rosh, or here in this case the Rambam and Tosafot and the Baal HaMaor and the Ramban. The Baal HaMaor says that by an עני you have to leave him, cuz they hold that this is נעקר הדבר למפרע, that the kinyan that he made is davka a kinyan of an עני. So here we're dealing with an עני that was involved. And even if this בר מצרא will take it, it doesn't mean it never was by the עני. It was! So, therefore, the עני is involved, so he's different than any עני in the street, so therefore you have to leave him. But Tosafot would learn, and the Ramban would learn not like that. The Ramban would learn that it's גלויי מילתא למפרע. So after there's a din of בר מצרא, the עני 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, stays bar metzra. And based on this, if you remember from last time I explained it according to the first way, four

machlokot between the Rambam and the Raavad, and the Rambam and different ראשונים, according to this way you could explain them all also. All this four, this case of a safek, and the case where the בעל חוב came, and the case where he ate the peirot, and the case, and all kinds of machlokot where you could explain this. Okay. Yishar koach. So the ani, that's what rachmanut is. He's not part of the din. No, but to the other way, where he is, the ani's still in the picture. Oh, he's still in the picture, that's right, you could hold it, you could leave it to him, 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 cuz, but because he made a kinyan, doesn't matter even though the bar metzra really has a right over it. Right, but the chachamim said in the case where there's an ani who bought it, leave it for him. That makes sense. But if it's the case ani who bought it. Not for rachmanut, because. No, no rachmanut, there's אין רחמים בדין, there's no such thing. Right, so he's the first guy and he made a kinyan. Right, and according to the other way, he never made a kinyan. Right, but in the case of Rav Eina and Aronia, because he had, he was a bar metzra, so. That's a peshat. We're talking about if the other peshat, if it was an ani, if the reason was cuz he's an ani. But he come 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 at least... If I sell a field to an ani. Yeah. Give it,

every time you sell to a poor person, say you give him a, just said, oh boy, I get that, I get that field for half price, he's gonna come and take it away. So he'll have to pay full price. Where's that's I say, where's the full price is? Whatever, I don't know, market! They'll tell him I want only, I want the full price. I want market value. The seller. The seller is going to say I'm gonna. Listen, if it's overpriced they can't, but if that's the price, I mean you can see what the, you know what the show, what the price is. The koach is so strong that 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 can 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 ani, an ani? No, it's only because an ani! The whole point is here ani! The whole discussion is only because he's an ani! Since he's an ani, there's no din of a בר מצרא. Chachamim took away the בר מצרא. That's not, that's not rachmanut? Not, no. It's because the din of a בר מצרא is טוב וישר, and since he's an ani, it's טוב וישר to do it for him. Okay. We had the case of a בר מצרא here with our neighbor. טוב וישר. Remember when we bought the shul? Yeah, right. When we bought the. The gas station with Kantor's? This place, בר מצרא, yeah. תורה דרך בר מצרא. That would have been a good fight. According to one of the, because we're an ani. According to every opinion. According to every opinion. Yeah. The question is if the buyer is an ani, but if for a regular guy? There's no she'eilah, you kick him out. Shalom bayit. When the guy became a neighbor, he gets a shayachut. That when whenever this guy wants to sell it, the field belongs to him. That started right away, before he even plans to sell it. And it could be the guy will never sell it! But when somebody else buys it, it changes relationship. Somebody else buys it, and the 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 was no kavanah there, right? Right, no kavanah, but that's what the halachah is. Yeah. Is there not a third a third opinion about למפרע? Is there not a third

a third darga? I'm not familiar. Yishar koach. What? The mitzvah according to what he calls Right, the the mitzvah is on the loke'ach, yeah. And if the loke'ach is a goy, certainly there's no דינא דבר מצרא. Gemara says even when the buyer is, even when the seller is a goy. Because the whole the whole ציור, if you're buying it from somebody he's not part of the mitzvah. Sof kol sof the the בר מצרא is going to buy instead of the לוקח. Even though he'll take away from the לוקח, he's the he's buying it from the מוכר. לאו בר לאו בר לאו בר עשית הישר והטוב. Yeah, that's talking about if the לוקח is a goy. Even when you took from him and he's not part of the mitzvah, it's not part of the ציור. It's the buying, how he's allowed to buy, that's the שאלה, right? His buying is is limited, but not that somebody else, that's what the Gemara says. Yashar koach, Moshe. Yashar koach. What? Can buy the second pair. The other one. Yashar koach, Avner. Yashar koach. Get ready.