claims it's his after the fact that was already established as belonging to Reuven. So if there's a she'eilah about the transfer of ownership, now this is not, should not be anything new to us. If there's a she'eilah, a question about the transfer of ownership, the burden of proof is on the buyer. Once we know the property belonged to Reuven, someone else wants to claim that it's his, עליו להביא ראיה. Now how do you bring a re'ayah that a piece of property is yours? What is recognized as a proof, as a re'ayah? Who's the buyer here? Shimon, let's just say. Shimon claims that he bought it from Reuven, and it's had claims he Was already established in court, previously, maybe five years ago, as belonging to Reuven. Shimon's now on the property and says, \"This is mine.\" For how long? For one day. Okay. The burden of proof, obviously, is on the buyer. And the שפיץ proof would be to show a a shtar, to show a document that he bought it. If the buyer can provide proof of purchase, then he will be able to to to prove that it's his. So this is nothing really new. You're in agreement here? We're in agreement. Right. If the Torah says so, I'm in agreement. Shibud... Shtar... Yeah, that's another, not shibud. Shibud. You say, \"I own... I have moneys to buy.\" No, I say it's mine. Oh, you didn't claim a lien, you say I say I say it changes, a transfer of ownership. I bought it. Oh, so it's just like you're worried it's... Yeah, meaning a a piece of property that has already been established as yours will be yours until someone can prove otherwise. So that's how it is. It's coming. It's coming, huh? So someone can prove otherwise. We're good? We're clear about that? Yeah? No? It seems obvious. It should be, it should be, this is the basics. Sounds like, you know, pashut, I'm trying, did I miss something? Too pashut.

Well, I'm leading up to the three-year chazakah thing, we're going to get to it in a moment. Okay, so leading up here on 17, י\"ז עמוד ב'. Okay, so now having established that if I want to claim that a piece of property that is previously recognized in court as yours, the only way to do that is by showing my proof, showing my document that says, \"I, Zalman Miller, bought this piece of property from Jeff.\" If it's known to be your property, and there's a question about the transfer of ownership, the burden of proof is on the buyer to show that he bought it. And that's going to be the given rule here. And the question, though, is that do I Does that mean now that I have to hold on to my receipt, my my proof of purchase, my legal document that shows that I bought the piece of property, I have to hold on to it forever in case the owner, the original owner, the seller, disputes the claim and says, \"I never sold it. It's really mine. Get out of here\"? Do I have

Do I have to hold on to this to this shtar indefinitely? Unless it's recorded by the by the Beit Din. Yeah. But if were not to be recorded, then lichorah, one would think that maybe he has to hold on to this proof forever. Otherwise, he may lose his property. I, as the buyer, bought a piece of property from someone who has already been clearly proven to be his. Beit Din knows that it's Reuven's. And I come and buy it, even if I buy it legally, but now my concern, maybe he's going to come back and say, \"I never sold it.\" My only proof is that piece of paper. Right, yeah. It's a shtar, but not a receipt, so it's a shtar. Right, like a shtar. I guess I was using the word receipt because that's what we usually use when we buy something in a store. We get a receipt. Proves that we bought it. So there's an idea out there which is based on Gemara, so now I might explain it according to some of the way that some of the mefarshim explain it, that the teva of a

person, the nature of a person, is that he will normally, typically hold on to his shtar, his his proof of purchase, for three years. Reasons that are given are such that if the previous owner does not challenge his ownership during that time, you can put on, it's not here. Okay. Go on, whatever whatever you're more comfortable. If the previous owner, the original owner, does not challenge the buyer's right For three years, so the buyer feels secure. Doesn't think that the seller is now going to challenge him anymore, and he has that secure feeling and he will most likely be ready to throw out his shtar, his document that proves his purchase. So, given that's so, so Chazal went ahead and said that, you know what? You could even actually go ahead and lechatchilah go throw out your shtar, and you would still be able to prove your ownership by proving that you sat here and used this property for three years, not being challenged by the original owner. This is what we call ג׳ שנים חזקה, three years of chazakah, that a buyer who sits on a piece of property for three years and was never challenged by the owner of the property, the original owner of the property, which is what's called mecha'ah, meaning the original owner was never mocheh, he never protested. Thank you. The fact that I'm sitting here on the piece of property. So, after three years, I could now go ahead and throw out my shtar, and if anytime thereafter he challenges my rights, all I have to do is provide proof that I was there for three years, nothing more. I don't have to prove that I bought it. I just have to prove that I was sitting in the piece of property for three years. And you didn't, and you didn't make a mecha'ah, you never objected. Witnesses? Witnesses that I was there for three years, that's all I need to prove. But there's so many circumstances that that seem like so. Well, there's a very important point which I'm going to get to, I'm not sure if this is what you're thinking of, if not, you could ask me what your question is, but there's a very important point, which is that

it's understood that these three years have to be the ability and yecholet of the original owner to voice his opinion and object. Yeah, imagine if imagine if he was completely unaware. Someone who lives partially in New York, partially in Florida, maybe comes here once every few years, and someone is sitting in his property here, so we're going to talk about if we could expect him to yet know about it, and if he could be מוחה שלא בפניו, not in front of him. But assuming that the story is such that the original owner has no idea that someone is sitting in his property, so by the fact that he did not make any objections and he was not mocheh, so that will not allow the buyer to then what we call be machzik in the property, and it will not be recognized as the buyer's unless he has his shtar, unless he has his proof. If he didn't if the original owner was not aware. If he was not aware, did not know that he had that he should have said something, meaning the point is that the original owner, if it really was his and someone was sitting in his property, he would say, get out, what are you doing here? Right. And it's by the fact that he was quiet and didn't say anything, so either it's an indication that there was a sale or he is maybe, according to some, that he's like forfeiting whatever rights that he could have had, he should have spoken up during those three years, if he didn't, that's his loss, איהו דאפסיד אנפשיה, it's his own self-inflicted loss by not saying anything. But the point is, he had to been had to have been aware that someone was sitting on his property. If he never had that opportunity to be mocheh To be aware. Right. If he never had that opportunity If he didn't know that someone was sitting on his property, he was not aware of it, then he would have never known to be mocheh. There's being aware and not being aware, in the circumstance where you could have been aware and you chose for some reason, I guess, you could have been aware. Like you didn't have a block, you don't go to your own property, you could have gone to check up on it, but you didn't. Why? Because you figured, why should I? And then there's and then there's being across the sea and not having a real option of checking up on it. Yeah. So maybe that in the first case, like you if you didn't go, but you could have gone, being unaware doesn't necessarily mean that you are... So, it doesn't mean that he had a... Ultimately, you could have gone, but if you're across the sea, is that what you're saying? Well, I was I wasn't trying to distinguish between between different types of of not being aware. Able to be or not being able. Yeah, so so... I mean, I was thinking of a specific situation, which happened to a lot of a lot of families throughout history, which is people get thrown in jail. And people Well, that's like being across the sea, right? Yeah. In that case, being not able to be mocheh, is that like you're being maskim or... No, so right.

Someone who's in jail and does not have, again assuming this day and age you have all sorts of ways of communicating and even with people in jail. Right. So it could be that that will not really be a But in days past, but in days past, yeah, then 100%. The Gemara is going to later talk about a case about a person that was was a fugitive, he was running away, he was afraid people were trying to kill him and he had to skip town. The Gemara is going to talk about such a person if he someone was sitting on his property, and there the Gemara says that he was afraid to be mocheh because he would give away his whereabouts, even if word would get out. Even if he knew that someone was sitting on his property. But if he would go ahead and say, \"I demand that he leaves my property,\" and this way he hopes that the word passes on from friend to friend, but he's afraid that whoever's tracking him is now going to be able to find figure out where he's hiding. So he's not going to be mocheh. He's afraid for his life. In that case, he's not going to give up his rights. He can come back 10 years later and see the person on his field, and he could say, \"Get out of my property.\" And the person will say, \"Well, I was sitting here for 10 years and you never said boo.\" He said, \"Well, I couldn't.\" So that might be like Exactly. Right. So I I think as far as someone who just happened not to know about it because he decided he never took a walk down the block for 3 years, so I'm not really sure. I I think we just draw the line about what's considered normal that he should be aware of of of what's going on in his property. Most people check up on their property every now and then. The Gemara brings the machloket about that later, yeah. So we will talk about that. Yes. Coming up. So that is just some of the the background that I I just wanted to go over before we get back into our Mishnah that we had on דף ט״ו עמוד ב׳ and what the Gemara is going to talk about now on דף י״ז עמוד ב׳. So, just to summarize once again, it's not really so complicated, just

maybe a little bit new for some of us, but once again what these halachot translate into is that anyone sitting on a piece of property for 3 years without being challenged by the original owner, he could claim that it's his without any other proof other than the fact that he was actually sitting and using this property for 3 years. Does not need a document that he bought it, does not need proof of witnesses that he bought it, does not need to prove that he bought it. All he needs to prove is that he was there and using this house, this field, this property for 3 years, now it's rightfully his. So, having this in mind, I just want to now go over again hopefully clearly the two cases about the purchasing of a field that our Mishnah on דף again ט״ו עמוד ב׳ discussed, then work our way into the Gemara. So

our Mishnah had two cases. We'll call them case number one and case number two regarding the purchase of a piece of property. Case number one is the buyer claims that the field that he's sitting in right now he purchased from his friend's father: שדה זו של אביך היתה ולקחתיה הימנו. \"I'm sitting in a piece of property, and this field I claim belonged previously to your father, to your dad, and I bought it from him.\" So, if we analyze this case for a moment, what I want to point out is there's something different about this case than what we've been discussing until now for the 3 years. When we talked about the chazakah of the 3 years and the burden of proof with the shtar up until the 3 years, that was where the piece of property had already been previously established as belonging to the seller, belonging to Reuven let's just say, and now you're trying to prove that you got it from him, you bought it from Reuven. So either if you're within the 3 years you could provide your shtar, if you're already after the 3 years you could prove the fact that you lived there for 3 years. But the case of this Mishnah, case number one at least, it has not been pre-established by bet din, at least to anybody's knowledge at this point in the story, that this field ever belonged to your friend's father. The only basis for that information is now the buyer himself is providing that information for us, and he is saying that this piece of property belonged to your father, and I bought it from him. So, so, yeah, so the, the only, what would only halachically recognize this piece of property as belonging to the seller is only based on the word of the buyer. And this is what we know of and what we spoke about as פה שאסר פה שהתיר. The mouth, person that forbade this property from him and said it really belonged to someone else, he's the very same person, he's the buyer, he's the one who's saying that it's his. So we've got to take his word, and that the Mishnah says, the buyer keeps it. That was the Mishnah. Okay? The buyer keeps the piece of property. That was case number one in the Mishnah. Case number two in the Mishnah is slightly different.

Case number two is that this very same piece of property the buyer wants to claim as his is independently proven, without his word, but rather edim are able to prove that it once belonged to the seller. We don't need the word of the buyer anymore. Now the witnesses are not going to discuss whether there was a purchase or there wasn't a purchase, that's not what they're coming to talk about. All they're doing is they're verifying for us that we know it once belonged to this person, Reuven, which is now my friend's father. And I say that this piece of property, I bought from him. Doesn't matter they came after the פה שאסר, right? It does matter, but we spoke about that a different shiur, we're not going to get into that now. No, but for this point it doesn't? It seems like it doesn't matter. It's not, it's a big, it's a tumult, I don't want to get into that now. Could be it matters. Could be it matters. For our point right now, it doesn't. We're, we're, we're going to, yeah, we're not going to talk about whether it matters. It's not פה שאסר, so... We're going to assume, yeah, we're going to assume that the witnesses came first, and they established this piece of property belonging to ploni's friend's father. So now, the burden of proof is on the buyer. How'd it get, why is it mine? Do I have a piece of paper? Do I not have a piece of paper? So the Mishnah says that the buyer is not believed unless he could prove that he bought it. That's case number two. So we have case number one, where the original ownership is only proven by the, or known to us by the buyer. Case number two, the original ownership is known to us based, by independent source of information based on witnesses. So far so good? Which nullifies that פה שאסר, right? Which yeah, which nullifies, there is no פה שאסר in that case. Correct. Which is why the buyer, in case number two... So having that in mind, we're going to work our way into the Gemara right now, on דף י״ז עמוד ב׳. ומודה רבי יהושע. מודה רבי יהושע, רבי יהושע agrees, we're quoting that part of the Mishnah, which is where we had the peh she'asar. Now, the

Gemara's question is just a technicality of the case, that the Gemara asks: why did the Mishnah seemingly add more more facts than necessary to the case? We could have proven, we could have got to the point by making the case simpler. What do I mean? That once again, the Mishnah spoke about how I went and claimed that the field belonged to your father, and I bought it from him, or witnesses said it already belonged to the father, and I said I bought it from him. So, asks the Gemara, leave the father out of the picture. Why can't we have a direct question between man and his friend, not man and his friend's father? וליתני, asks the Gemara, why didn't the Mishnah just teach us the same point, same הלכה, מודה רבי יהושע באומר לחבירו, where one tells his friend, שדה זו שלך היתה, this piece of property belonged to you, forget the father, this piece of property was yours, the friend now is being told that the piece of property is yours by the buyer. The buyer is saying, this piece of property was yours and I bought it, שדה זו שלך היתה ולקחתיה. Sorry, ולקחתיה הימך, I bought it from you. So, all the Gemara is asking is why why did the Mishnah have to make the story a little more complicated than seemingly necessary? We have a very simple way of bringing out the very same point of the Mishnah by talking about one who one who tells his friend that this piece of property was yours, and I bought it from you. So, that's similar to the case of your father's, and I bought it from you. Because it was not established as being the friend's other than my word. Only because the buyer only because the buyer said that it belonged to you, the seller, but I bought it from you does the beit din know that it belonged to the original owner. So, why are we getting the father involved in the story? What do we need him for? Yeah, we're good. Good. Why get the father involved? So, the Gemara answers, and here's where the whole the 3-year 3-year halachot come in now. The

Gemara answers that the reason why we brought in the father to the picture here was because משום דקבעי למתני סיפא, because of case number two. Meaning, we have, once again, two cases of the Mishnah. Case number one was about the fact that the only way we recognize the original owner is based on the word of the buyer. Case number two, we know about the fact that it belonged to the original owner independently proven by witnesses. So, now when the Gemara was asking that we could have the same points between man and his friend without getting the friend's father involved, that he told his friend that, \"I bought it from you,\" and the only way we know I bought it from you is because I said I bought it from you, that's the only way we know it was yours. We have no other proof that it's yours. So, the Gemara says that, \"Well, how would that play out in case number two?\" In case number two, let's try the same story: that that we already know it belongs to the seller. A buyer come Because of witnesses. A buyer comes to the seller, leaving this father out of it, buyer comes to the seller and says, \"Hey, I bought it from you.\" So, the Gemara says if we leave the father out in case number two, right? Just buyer versus seller, the buyer says, \"I bought it from you,\" seller says, \"Well, what are you talking about? You never bought it. I have witnesses that this field was mine, it did belong to my family, and it's mine, and you have to prove that you bought it.\" So, now the Gemara says, \"Well, one second. If that would be case number two, in that case, it's seemingly very obvious what the halacha is. We don't need our Mishnah to teach us that. The halacha is very obvious. We have to know what the details of the case are. Was the buyer sitting there for 3 years? Or was the buyer not there for 3 years?\" And then let's apply our rules. If the buyer was not living in that property for 3 years, then seller says, \"Sorry, you got to prove it with a shtar. You don't have proof, so I keep it.\" If the buyer did

have proof that he sat there for 3 years, but he does not have proof that he bought it, but we know that he was sitting in the property and using the property for those 3 years of the chazakah, then he actually should be believed. And the Mishnah says he's not believed! We We know that he is believed. 3 years are considered a chazakah. Like we said before, if a buyer uses a piece of property for 3 years, does not have to hold on to the shtar anymore, does not have to hold on to the document. Who is contesting? The The original owner is contesting. Why do you refer to the original owner as the seller? I refer to him as the seller just to identify him. But Because But he's not selling, right? Well, he's claiming that he didn't sell. All right. He's He's claiming. Right. Right, I'm just trying Yeah, I want I guess just for I'm trying to make it as clear as possible, but I don't want to lead to confusion. I just wanted to make sure Right. Right. Yeah. Yeah. What I mean is what the buyer claims was that there was a sale, so in his world, there's a buyer and a seller. The original owner is claiming there was never any sale, so he's just claiming, \"I'm the original owner, and I don't know you.\" So, there's no shtar, there's no edim. No shtar, and and and the Gemara is asking mah nafshach, if

there were witnesses on the fact that he sat there for three years, then it should belong to the buyer. If there were no witnesses that he sat there for three years, then it should belong to the original owner. And not only should it belong to the original owner, I mean the Mishnah says it belongs to the original owner, but it's pashut, it's obvious it belongs to the original owner, we don't need the Mishnah to tell us that. Who's the original owner? He hasn't He said if he hasn't been there for three years. The buyer was not there for three years. Oh, what about the seller? The seller wasn't there for three years. Well, the seller has witnesses Who has it? No, no edim, no shtar. Well, I'm talking about the case of the Mishnah that he had witnesses that said it was his. I thought we're moving on to saying he's talking to his seller. The first people with witnesses, the people We're talking about the second case of the Mishnah where it was independently verified by by witnesses that it belonged to what we could call either the seller, the original owner, call him what you want. Right. Someone has got to come up with evidence to check to see how long the man sat there. Yes, exactly. If he was there for three years then it's the buyer's. And the Mishnah said it goes to the seller, so it must be the Mishnah is talking about where or the the original owner, we'll call him, he didn't sit there for three years, but then on that the Gemara asked, well that's obvious, that's pashut, you don't need the Mishnah to tell us. And that we know, that that's that that these are the givens already in in Hilchot Bava Batra that if you if you don't have any you've got to hold onto your your proof for three years. If you don't hold onto it then it always stays by the original owner. So a guy has only been there for two years and he has witnesses he was there for only two years, somebody says, \"I bought it,\" but nobody's got a shtar. The

other guy doesn't have any edim either that he even bought it, so it's still not clear that the guy who's been there with two years witnesses, it's not good enough. He has to have a chazakah, he has to have three years in order for it really to be his. That's the I'm not asking you to pask the din, I'm saying the way the way it's going here, only there two years, not three. That guy has witnesses saying he's been living there for two years. The other guy has no witnesses Who's the other guy? The original one or The first guy. The first guy who's Who's the original? Original means we know there's a certain That guy says, \"I bought it from you. Claims through his parents is I bought it from you.\" Who's the original? Original, where did it start? Who owned it? You. I owned it. You, yeah. Everybody agrees? Everybody agrees? I got it from Yehoshua ben Nun, it's mine. Everybody agrees? No nobody nobody knows. Nobody knows, because No, why? Nobody, only the edim say he's been there for two years. There's no shtar. Listen, our whole story starts after there's a clear owner. There's someone that we know for a fact that owned the piece of property. How How do we know? That's what I'm asking you. How do we know? Because he has a chazakah. Well witnesses. Anyway, he had a shtar, witnesses Oh, he has a shtar. The court was it was written up in court. I'm talking about the original owner. Everything that we're talking about right now is after the original owner. Someone's trying to claim he got it from the original owner. That's where the three years comes in. How did you get it from him? Did you buy it? So the second guy has to have witnesses that he was there with a chazakah. That's what you're saying? Yes. The second guy. The guy, me. I'm coming to Right. You've been there so many years. Right. Yeah. And two years is not enough. Two years is not enough. Not enough. Even if I have witnesses, \"I've been there two years,\" still not enough because guy could have been out of town, whatever. Okay. So, the Gemara throws this question out here in the again, at at the case number two of the Mishnah when when the original owner has been previously established, there are no arguments. The original owner is known to the court, the court knows that this piece of property once belonged to the original seller or original owner, we'll call him. There's no question about that. So the Mishnah seemingly is telling us a very basic halachah. I come along and say I bought it, so the Mishnah says burden of proof is on me. I have to I have to provide a a shtar. And that the Gemara is asking that's obvious. What Of course I have to prove it. I didn't sit there for three years, and if I did sit there for three years then I really should get it, it should be entitled to me. So the Gemara wants to say, so therefore we we tried making the Mishnah's case a little bit more complex, and we get the father involved and then we're going to see how that helps, if it, of course. So let's see what the Gemara says here. We're

going to start again from the ולתני. First the Mishnah brings a case that's about business, Right. the question. Right. So what would be the din? Why do we bring the father? Yeah. So we're going to take it from the top once again. ולתני, the Gemara asks on the Mishnah, why doesn't the Mishnah state simply, מודה רבי יהושע, that רבי יהושע agrees באומר לחבירו, when one tells his friend, שדה זו, this piece of property, שלך היתה, was yours, ולקחתיה ממך, and I bought it from you, without mixing the father, not that it was your father's and I bought it from your father, but say it was yours and I bought it from you. The Gemara answers, the reason why the, we brought the father in is because of the case, the second case of the Mishnah where the original ownership was established by witnesses. משום דקבעי למתני סיפא, because of the סיפא, the latter case of the משנה, the second case, which is, אם יש עדים שהיא שלו, that if there were witnesses that had already established that at one point in time it did belong to the original owner, והוא אומר, and the self-proclaimed buyer says, לקחתיה ממנו, I bought it from him, אינו נאמן, this buyer is not believed. So, if we analyze the second part of the Mishnah, we could question, היכי דמי? What exactly was the case? אי דאכלה שני חזקה, if he was אוכל, what does אוכל mean? אוכל means ate. If he ate, it's an expression. If he ate the years of chazakah, because the Gemara in Bava Batra that talks about the three years of chazakah, one of the criteria is he has to use the property like an owner. So, there many times it talks about a piece of property that produces fruit, so he ate from the fruit, that shows that shows his ownership. So, the way the buyer proves his ownership is by eating from the field. דאכלה, he ate, שני the years of חזקה, the years of chazakah. He has to have proof that he that he used it like an owner, technically was eating. Doesn't have to actually see it go down his mouth, but but he he took it off the tree. He he he conducted himself with this piece of property like an owner. And eating also doesn't mean just, you know, physical consumption, but it means anything like selling it, or just consuming. Okay. So, אי דאכלה שני חזקה, if he had the years of חזקה, אמאי לא מהימן? Then Then the ruling of the Mishnah does not seem to be correct. He He should be entitled to the piece of property. Why is he not believed? If he's able to prove that he was there for three years, then that should be enough, even if he can't prove that he bought it. He does not have to prove he bought it. He just has to prove that he was there for three years. ואי דלא אכלה שני חזקה, and if we take the other side of the coin, that he did not live there and eat from the property and benefit from it like an owner for the years of chazakah, the three years, then the halachah of the Mishnah is obvious. פשיטא, it's pashut! דלא מהימן, that he is not believed. We don't need our Mishnah here in Ketubot to teach us that. So the Gemara does not yet explain, but by getting the father involved, the Gemara hopes that that will help explain this problem. No, we're not even focusing on the reisha. The bottom case is going to have the father, yeah. It doesn't say it mefurash. So, the Gemara says the Gemara now just assumes that Right. The Gemara just now assumes that if we make the case a little more complicated by making it a a question between having not bought it from you, but rather buying it from your father, then somehow this chazakah business will will be resolved. With which the Gemara says we're not even going to think it through yet, and then we're just going to explain here as we go along, אי הכי גבי אב נמי. What's the difference if you're dealing with someone who bought it What's the difference who he bought it from? If I bought it from you, I bought it from your father, the rules are the same. If I sat here for three years, אי דאכלה שני חזקה, if I lived there like an owner for three years, then that itself proves it's mine. I don't have to show that I bought it. I can throw out my my document that shows I bought it as long as I was there for three years, it's mine. ואי דלא Why doesn't it say שלו? של אביו? Text. אם יש עדים שהיא שלו, והוא אומר לקחתיה, לקחתיה ממנו, אינו נאמן, would be the actual text. To explain the father. Right right. Yeah, the the Gemara is analyzing trying to determine if it's talking about the father or not the father. So it's not really quoting. It's not really quoting. It's trying to keep it general, because right right now the Gemara is trying to figure out if we plug in if we want to plug in the אביך or if it makes sense to stay without the father. Well, the point is we want to say the seifa, we mean to say we want to say a case of witnesses. That's the point. So the kiblu minei says a case where there were witnesses about it being his. His meaning, we'll see in a minute. Does it mean the father, does it mean the guy? He has to require a worry. Right. Right, the point so much isn't who it is, the

point is that it's witnesses, the witnesses part. So the kiblu minei says a case of witnesses. And now we're trying to figure out if the case of witnesses is talking about a father case or talking about the son. So here's the answer. Here's the big answer: ואי דלא אכל שני חזקה פשיטא דלא מהימן. So again, why should it make a difference if I bought it from you, I bought it from your father? Again, the rules are the same. If I if I if I the buyer was there for three years, then I don't have to prove it's that I bought it. If I the buyer was not there for three years, then I do have to prove that I bought it, but it's obvious. We don't need the Mishnah in Ketubot to teach us that. So what's the difference if it's from the father, from the son? It's all the same, like father, like son. So the Gemara says like this, this is the difference. Any guesses here? He started his chazakah, says the גמרא, כגון דאכל שתים בחיי האב. Here we go. This is why we need the father, because he started his three years of chazakah during the life of the father, the last two years of his life. So he only got two years, the buyer only had two years of his chazakah during the lifetime of the father, then the father died, and had it originally, had it really actually belonged to the father, then now it will belong to his heir, to his son, the one who will inherit him. So so assuming there was no sale at all, so the piece of property belonged two years to the father and one year to the son, and now the whole argument surfaces. Had the purchase actually taken place, so again, the sale was two years before the guy died, then the seller died and then one year of the seller's son taking place of the father, and the question here is does that, would we consider this kind of story to be to follow the same rules of chazakah that we have applied before? First of all, did he say he bought it from his father? Which case? Or did he buy it from his son? He bought it from the father. Bought it from the father, so it's only two years. The story's like that. Well, it's it's three years later. Right. Yeah, but when did he buy it? So, I bought it, we're now three years later. Okay? Three years later, my story, the buyer's story is that I bought it three years ago. Your father, this guy's father died two years ago, and he never said boo. He never challenged my my rights. And now you, Mr. Son here, you were quiet for a year. You never challenged my rights either. Two plus one, we all know, is three. Did he cut it? Well, we'll see in a moment. And and therefore, I had two plus one, I was sitting here for three years without the owner challenging me, without the original owner challenging me, which was either the father and or son, so it should be mine. So says the Gemara that the halachah is like this: that this son here is not just a son, but he's what's called a katan, he's a minor. And the halachah is that a minor is like what we spoke about before, a person who doesn't know how or that he should stick up for property, doesn't even know maybe that it was his father's property, huh? So therefore, even if the buyer, even if he did buy it, now he's claiming he bought it, and even if he did buy it, but he loses this this privilege of the three-year chazakah. And even though he acted as an owner for two years during the original owner while the original owner was alive, but once he died and his young son took his place, so now the young son had no clue or know-how, had no idea how what it meant to be mocheh. Therefore, the buyer is now still responsible to hold onto his legal document, to hold onto his shtar that he bought it, because if there's ever a challenge, his proof of sitting there for three years will not help him. He has to actually prove now that he bought it. And that is what the chiddush of our Mishnah is, says the Gemara. The chiddush of our Mishnah is, in the second case of the Mishnah, that it was such a case that that that someone bought the field and the and and the the original seller died after two years without contesting the rights, and his young son but and then his young son, which is now the buyer's friend, when I say friend, I mean friend in the story here, and and he didn't know to be mocheh, and even though he even though he was he was he grew up afterwards, but since he didn't know all along to be mocheh. But he still has a right as a gadol if he finds out, no? He holds the right until he becomes a gadol, doesn't he? It's not a It's not a right, it's a lack of No, I mean he could, in other words. Well, he could, but he doesn't know to. The point is that he's In this case, he doesn't. Right. Whether he's a katan or not, it makes no difference. So, then, well, peshat he is a katan. So, he has to hold on to his shtar. Right, and that's what our

Mishnah is teaching us, is that if he doesn't have a shtar, says the Mishnah, that once since since in the second case, again, that since it's been previously established by eidim that it belonged to the original owner, and you have no proof that you bought it from him, you do do have proof that you were there for three years, but there was this death, and And if you don't So, if you don't have a shtar, then you lose it. That's what the Mishnah teaches us. We'll continue tomorrow, be'ezrat Hashem. Apparently, Rashi says that the katan, when he becomes a gadol, has three years to to make a mecha'ah. Yeah, so that's a machloket in Rishonim, by the way. Right. We're just touching the iceberg here. We're trying to, I mean, we got we got to get the we got to get the Gemara clear before we can talk about For the first three years? For the first For the first For the first When the father dies. So, he had to have been a katan for those three years that his father was alive? Yeah, because he already he was a katan for sure. Certainly, if he was a katan when the father died, of course he was a katan. Right, so What if he was uh he was of age? If he was If he was Right. If he was already uh if he was already 25 So, that I'm not I'm not going to get into tonight. That's what I That was my question. I mean, is it is it really relevant the fact that he's a katan or not a katan? Yeah, so that is something which I think we're going to get into at some point. We're going to have to hold off for that. There is a concept There is a concept that I didn't research this yet well enough, but there is a concept of of of even a gadol, even someone who is halachically not a minor anymore and halachically an adult, but he could still be what's called a katan, a minor בנכסי אביו with regard to the property of the father. נכסי, what's that? נכסי is property. So, he's like a minor with regards to his parents' property, because he doesn't know his father's business, he doesn't know what his father owns and doesn't know. So, even though he may be Or or I could imagine the situation of, you know, also in years past, you know, let's say two years into it, the father dies, the son is is, you know, countries or nations away. Oh, okay, so that's a different thing. If he's at If he's Yeah, if any Any owner who's away Any owner who is away is going to be subject to the Gemara's upcoming discussion as to whether he could have been aware. That's that's coming that's coming It's coming back to what we spoke about earlier. But we're talking about a katan even if he was there. Even if he was there, but he's not expected to to be understanding of the situation and be able to properly complain. Right. Yeah, so the minor sitting the minor is in a sense could belong to him. So, could somebody take away a minor's a katan's property? Apparently not. So That might seem like an unfair advantage. Yeah, I don't think you could There might be some law like not permitting that. You know that he's a minor, he doesn't know how to, can't do anything. So, you're not allowed to take advantage. You're talking about what, even if it wasn't because of an inheritance, you mean? Yeah, he was inherited something. If he inherited, that's the whole thing, if he inherited Yeah, he inherited it. So, he would not be expected, even as an owner Yeah. of now a current owner of the property who Right. sees someone else using his property, is still not expected to to to stick up for himself. Right, right. But But that But the The The law might rule in his favor for that reason. We will rule in his favor, right. Yeah, yeah. But again, if the buyer could prove fact that he bought it, that's a different story. Well, even a chazakah wouldn't wouldn't wouldn't We're talking about, a chazakah doesn't prove that you bought it. A chazakah just proves that you could have bought it. Well, you

could have you could have technically. That, well, that's that's it's done. Yeah, it could happen. That's where this That's called, that's taking possession. That's where this term comes in of איבעי ליה למחויי, meaning halachically, meaning we have to work with what we have, and and halachically if if, yeah, forcefully one goes into someone else's property and the original owner is quiet for three years, then the person that was sitting there could say tough, it's mine. Hashem doesn't like, you know, someone who doesn't want his property. Yeah, I'm not saying it's, I'm not saying it's the right thing to do. Yeah, but it all works out in the end, Hashem has a plan. These halachot are, these halachot are What goes around comes around. Watch out. These, these are, these are very Maybe one day we'll learn Bava Batra. We're sitting in Jeff's house tomorrow. I was laughing before we started, the halachot on these three years chazakah are really, they really are fascinating. Bring mosquito repellent. Yeah, okay. They do have a very interesting application, by the way. What's that? Yeah, an interesting application about the three chazakah years, yeah, is about rights to a seat in shul. Huh? Oh, for a, wow, מקום קבוע, yeah? Someone, someone is sitting in your seat, doesn't come, קבוע, and and nobody, nobody objects to your sitting in the seat, it's three years. My seat! I sat here for three years. 50-50. קבוע, yeah? But I'm not saying, once again, this What if he's a zaken? You know, he's only there for, for one Shabbos. Wow, so you got to have respect. Yeah, but they play, these, these things do play out in very different ways in the story. Bava Batra is very For sure. I have someone tell me all the time like you can sit there, but he's been around, I don't know, you can sit there, but that, yeah, that's my son's seat. For years? 50 years, yeah. Guys, I guess he knows. Does the rav, does the rav want to be... because then that after maybe three years... Really, this case? Yeah, I don't know what comes out למסקנא, but I know it's a discussion. I know in halachah it's a discussion, that's it. Are these pages from what we're learning, Bava Batra, by chance? Just curious. I didn't look through it. Yishar koach, yishar koach. Yeah. Okay. We're done?

Shlomo, nice to see you. Good to be back. Yeah, really nice to see you. How was the wedding the other day? It was, it was nice. It was local, it was from the שוקולד family. שוקולד? Yeah, I don't know, I don't know I don't know them that well. It's more of my wife is very good friends with them and and their father. Nice. We were just learning last week about the mitzvah of הכנסת כלה. Yeah. How was Brooklyn? How was yours, by the way? It was nice, but I I don't really know them that well. Now they're called Miami Beach Chocolates. What? Hopefully, yeah, here's Peanuts, nachos. They changed the name to Miami Chocolates. That's right. As a matter of fact, Chocolatiers. We were there we were there today and I wanted to ask him why he changed the name. I didn't know why he changed the name. Yeah, he told me. I forgot a little bit. He told me that there are some people who didn't recognize it well. It was a chocolate boutique. I liked that. They didn't know that meant chocolate, you know? שוקולד. They thought it was a car car body repair. Just makes, I don't know, it's sometimes a confusion. But I liked that former, the former name, I liked it. I thought it was very I liked it. The main point is that it's open. It tastes good. Yeah, that's good.

Anyway, so how was your your Do you have a chavruta after this Gemara? Normally. I normally do. I'm available if he doesn't come. Okay, thank you. Yeah, so the wedding was the wedding was beautiful. The traveling was extremely overwhelming. Really, with all the kids, you mean? Relocating. I don't think I slept in the same bed more than two nights in a row. Huh. Wow. Why? How did that happen? Why or why? No, just because logistics. We went into New York Thursday morning, Chanukah. So then we had Aufruf there Shabbos, which was very nice. But you were where? I mean, but this was your your wife's Wife's brother. But your wife's parents you were staying with? Right, right. We were staying by her parents. Yeah. So, kein ayin hara, they have a very large family and could get very chaotic. I don't know if chaotic is the right word, but just very tons of kids. Right. And I spoke actually Friday night at the at the meal. And I

felt bad. I really I think I blew it. No, come on. What are you talking about you blew it? That's like I just had such a crazy few days and I just I didn't say the way the way I wanted to and what I I had more prepared than what I wanted to talk about. Just I felt this like pressure that when I'm sitting at at a meal, distractions and the kids and this and that, and I can't stand it when the speaker is speaking for too long. I just have this thing I have to just make it quick. So I felt like I cut too short and I didn't I didn't even get a point get get get across my point. Whatever. Whatever. But anyway. But I I can't I'm sure I'm sure it was