Traffic, in traffic. They're all in traffic. איז אויך דאך נישט קיין מעשה. מיין טאטע, מיין טאטע. געזאגט אלע אלע שאלות דאס איז מיין מענטש. גערעדט צו מענטשן האלט אז די בית מנחם. יא, עס קען גרינגער. Okay, I don't remember קיין כח צו זאגן תנחומים. Where? I don't remember if we spoke, I mean, about the דינא דבר מצרא, did we speak this year? I know, but that's not, not this year, you know what I'm saying, but anyway, I was going to say something else, but just want to know if I had What is that again? No, a neighbor who has a field and you have to sell it to him, we didn't go into that. Not not this year, but I have it back I know, yeah, but that's the Gemara. That's from מעשה שהיה. But I was going to say different anyway. I just want to know if I have to explain the Gemara, because if I did already, I don't have to go into details again. No, we didn't do it this year. Didn't do it? No, you did not do דינא דבר מצרא. Okay. The Gemara tells a story here. We're learning Bava Basra דף ה. Gemara says like this: Runya Remember him? Him. זבן ארעא אמצרא דרבינא. Ravina had fields. Runya, there was a guy called Runya, bought a field right the neighboring field to Ravina was being sold, and Runya happened to buy it. סבר רבינא לסלוקיה משום דינא דבר מצרא. So Ravina wanted to get rid of him. Told him that you have no right to buy it, I want to buy it, and I have first rights. Why? That's where the whole דינא דבר מצרא comes in. בר מצרא is a din that if I own a field and there's a field next door to me that is being sold, even if someone bought it, I have a right to tell the guy, \"Get out,\" and I'm allowed to get it. Why? No, not unless No, unless you passed up the No, if you don't want it, something else. Aggressively go after it whatever brought him, but this is the din. The din is that a normal situation, right, a stranger, let's call him the לוקח, the buyer, buyer buys the field next door to the בר מצרא. The בר מצרא means the neighbor. Next door to the neighbor, the בר מצרא comes to him, that's the din, and tells him, \"Get out.\" And the chidush is even more, the בר מצרא who's going to get the field from the buyer, doesn't he have to make a new kinyan? Doesn't have to. No, the kinyan that the first guy made turns out is his kinyan. An extension of of what he owns or cuz he's a neighbor? That's well, we have to get into that. What's it? In other words, he gets like we would call it he gets first referral, first first refusal, first refusal, yeah. Did you tell a story about Beis Menachem or That happened at Beis Menachem? Yeah. So so Ravina wanted to tell him to get out, because he's the בר מצרא, I'm the בר מצרא, I'm the neighbor to that field, you have no right to take it. אמר ליה רב ספרא בריה דרב ייבא לרבינא, so Rav S afra said to Ravina, \"No.\" And he said, \"אמרי אינשי ארבעה לצלא בצללא, ארבעה לצלא,\" it was an expression he said, the bottom line the way Rashi learns what he told him was: this this Ronia is a poor man. Let him! Let him sit, let him keep the field. Rashi, this is what Rashi said. Wasn't a neighbor, Ronia wasn't a neighbor. Ronia wasn't a neighbor. Was? No, if he be it. So this what he told him was that this is זה עני, I'm reading the Rashi, this guy's poor, וצריך להא שדה לפרנסה, he needs the field for his parnasah. וכשם שאתה אומר לו \"לא, יסתלק מעלי בדינא דבר מצרא\", just like you, he tells Ravina, are telling the guy, \"Get out of here because I have דינא דבר מצרא\", where does this whole דינא דבר מצרא come from? Because a pasuk. What pasuk? It says ועשית הישר והטוב. It says you should do good, you should do good and straight in the eyes of Hashem. And the Gemara learns out from here that this is right. Why? It's much because if the guy is a neighbor, if he buys a neighboring field, it saves him a lot of money, because he could have one watchman, he could what work together, but the other guy bought a field, you tell the other guy, \"What's the chiluk? You'll buy someplace else.\" If you tell the neighbor to buy someplace else, he's going to lose. So the Torah says, the Torah doesn't say a דינא דבר מצרא, the Torah says ועשית הישר והטוב, from that we learn out בר מצרא. So here Rav Safra said to Ravina, \"Just like you are telling him to go away because of ועשית הישר והטוב, כך אני אומר לך, I'm telling you, עשה ישר וטוב לעני זה ואל תסלקהו. You do good for him. In this case, since he's poor and this is going to help him make a living, let him keep it.\" Why couldn't the poor guy buy it in another place? What's the difference to He spent $5 here, spend $5 there. Yeah, but this is available now, now he has it. So so that's what he said to him.

Comes Tosafot and Tosafot asks a kashya. The פירוש הקונטרס מקשה רבנו תם, רבנו תם has a kashya on Rashi: ואין מרחמין בדין! Right? What do you mean the the He could have asked him for a favor, but how could you pasken it? He came to him and he pasken'd to him that you have to let him. If the din is that דינא דבר מצרא, you have rachmanut? There is no such thing as rachmanut in a din! But al kol panim, this is Tosafot' kushya, and that's why Tosafot learns a different pshat. Tosafos learns that the case was that Ronya was a neighbor, also. But Ravina was a neighbor from three sides, and Ronya was a neighbor from one side. So, Ravina thought since I'm a neighbor from three sides, I have first choice. And then he told him, \"No. What's the difference?\" No, according to the Gemara, it just mentioned there is there's four you pay for this, and four It's a she'eilah how the words of the Gemara means. According to Tosafos, nothing to do with poor, nothing to do with poor. Saying it's no difference if you're from three sides and from one side. He's a neighbor, he has the same right as you. He got it, you can't kick him out. But Tosafos does not learn like Rashi, because if you learn like Rashi, he says, \"What do you mean, have רחמנות and פסקן the din because of a רחמנות?\" So, No. He thought, Ravina thought, Yeah. That's what he thought. A neighbor is a neighbor. So, be'emet the mefarshim say that Rashi answered Tosafos' kashya. Tosafos asks, \"How could you tell him leave him because it's if you let him do that, because he's poor, it's רחמנות, you can't have רחמנות when it comes to a din?\" Rashi said that this is the din. I'll read again Rashi. Rashi says, \"The only reason why you have first choice, you neighbor, bar metzra, because ועשית הישר והטוב. In this case, it's ישר והטוב that you give him.\" No, no, not bar metzra. There's no din of bar metzra. The the din of ועשית הישר והטוב says that if you're a bar metzra, and that guy is not, so you got first. If the guy is poor and it's ועשית הישר והטוב to him, then then then he gets it for the same reason. So, he says So, the So, the mefarshim say that that he meant Rashi meant be'emet Right, but the Torah is But that's the din. This is a This is not רחמנות, this is the din. So, I say so the whole din Oh, you want to see these words. The whole din is based on rachmanus. Right, right, that's that true. So, the whole din is not a דין בעצם, it's a din based on rachmanus. So, in this case, the rachmanus is the opposite. They both have the same right. Or you sell to both if they want to go בשותפות, and if not, whoever gets it first. Now, be'emes, this is not only a machloket Rashi and Tosafot. Here, it's not even clear. Rashi says and Tosafot asks a kashya, it's rachmanus. It's a real, real machloket, we find between the Ramban and the Baal HaMaor in Bava Metzia. Bava Metzia דף ק״ח, that's where you have the main sugya בר מצרא. Here, it's just one few lines. There, it's the main sugya of בר מצרא is over there. There, it says like this, so the there it's the Baal HaMaor and the Milchamot argues. Who wrote the Milchamot? The Ramban. The Ramban wrote a ספר, he called it Milchemet Hashem. He's fighting a war for Hashem. Who's he fighting against? Against the Baal HaMaor. He took himself a ספר. The Baal HaMaor, he went everything that he writes is against the Baal HaMaor. So, here the Baal HaMaor writes like this. No, the Ramban is the Milchamot. The Baal HaMaor is Rabbi Zerachia HaLevi, the Razah. With the Raavad. Yeah, he calls it Milchemet Hashem. Yeah, a little the Rambam a little later, but it's yeah, more or less there. So, the

Baal HaMaor writes, and he quotes his father, and he says, \"My father in the ספר that he called Megilat HaNechamah,\" I don't know why, writes based on the Gemara in Bava Metzia, not to go through that it'll take too long, he says that from that Gemara we see that if the neighbor, if the stranger, the buyer is poor and he needs it for parnasa, then there is no din of bar metzra. The neighbor doesn't have the first right. And then he says that the story of Ronya and Ravina in Bava Batra is a re'ayah to me, because that's the story there. Comes the Ramban in the Milchamot and the Ramban says First, he says, תנחומים של הבל ניחמו אביו. He writes it in a sefer called Megilat HaNechama. Says, \"It's false comfort. It's a law as false, it's not true.\" And he says that's not the peshat in the Gemara. There is no such thing. You're poor, it doesn't matter. And then he says, \"Ah, he brings a re'ayah from the ma'aseh of Ronya with Ravina? There are different peshat. Everyone knows the peshat there.\" What does that mean? The Baal HaMaor learned peshat in the Gemara like Rashi. So he says, \"Here I have a re'ayah! I have a re'ayah because the reason why he told him, give it to the buyer, don't use your rights of a bar metzra, because he was poor. So that's a re'ayah to his din, to the Baal HaMaor's din.\" But the Ramban says that's a did- No, the Gemara in Bava Batra is a different peshat. So what's the peshat? It's a different peshat. What must be the different peshat? Something like Tosafot's peshat. Okay, that's over there. But what we have to understand is: what is the basis of the machloket? So there are different ways we could understand the basis of machloket. I'll say it one way, and then we'll see, maybe we'll go and say it another way. As I said before, that the din by bar metzra is when the loke'ach makes the kinyan, the buyer, the stranger, not the neighbor, comes and makes a kinyan, and the בר מצרא comes and says, \"Hey, I have a right first!\" So the loke'ach has to give it up, and the the בר מצרא doesn't even have to make a kinyan. He stands where the other guy stood. Because the kinyan that the other guy made works for him. Excuse me, you mean that first buyer who wasn't supposed to? First buyer wasn't supposed to, made a kinyan, and that kinyan works for the בר מצרא. The בר מצרא has it, doesn't even have to make a kinyan. In other words, what it comes out from this din that when the בר מצרא makes a kinyan, it's אגלאי מילתא למפרע. It works retroactive, that the kinyan that he made was for him. Lama? No, because the din of בר מצרא. Oh, okay. Now, in

other words like this, the קנין בעצם, בשעה he makes it, it's for himself. It's not for the בר מצרא. The best proof is, what happened if the בר מצרא doesn't come? בר מצרא doesn't care. Does he have to make a new kinyan? No, it's his thing. So he makes a kinyan, obviously the kinyan is his. So then if the kinyan was his, just waiting for the chair. You want to sit here? I go there, come. He always sits there. Anyway, so the kinyan that he made is at that point his. אלא מאי? What happens later? בשעה the בר מצרא comes and wants it, and he has to give it to him, so then it changes. אגלאי מילתא למפרע, that reveals for the retroactive that the kinyan that he made was for the בר מצרא. So it's not the peshat that originally it's for the בר מצרא. If it would be originally for the בר מצרא, then if he stays in it, if the בר מצרא doesn't come, he should have to make a new kinyan! Obviously the kinyan is his. Why would you have to say למפרע that the buyer could have had money, and the way the din works is that if the בר מצרא comes, so when he makes that kinyan, it's also includes the possibility that the בר מצרא might come. So in other words, when he makes a kinyan, it's a kinyan for himself, he bought it! No, I'm saying it could be also if He didn't have in mind. You don't have to, it's intrinsic So why, why No, it's intrinsic that what? That that that the בר מצרא might Right, so when will that- what will happen then? We say it's It goes back lamafre'a. The moment we say it goes agla'i milta lamafre'a, it goes back lamafre'a, here comes what we spoke about last week or two weeks ago, what we spoke about... whatever we say something was retroactive, there are two ways to learn it, if you remember. One way is called agla'i milta lamafre'a, that now is revealed that what happened before was the way we know it now, not the way it happened before. In other words, we found out we thought, as if saying, we thought before it was this, now we found out it wasn't. And the other way is not like that. The other way is נעקר הדבר למפרע, that דוקא before it was, whatever it was, and now it changed lamafre'a. And if you remember, I don't want to go through the whole thing again, but the machloket is

בנוגע נדרים, a neder. If someone makes a neder, and the neder is that certain things of his should be asur bahana'ah, should be forbidden hana'ah, something that's asur bahana'ah becomes hefker, because it's not yours anymore, because you can't do anything with it. What happens if somebody comes and takes it? That guy could use it. It's asur bahana'ah to him, so for him it's hefker. Then this guy who made the נדר אתה מדבר הנאה, זה ליהנות? Hana'ah, yeah. To use it, to use it, he can't use it. Hana'ah? Issur hana'ah? He makes a issur hana'ah, that he shouldn't use it, he shouldn't sell it, he shouldn't be able to have any use out of it. So how could he take it? Someone else came and took it, he's zocheh it, because it's hefker. אבל איך הוא יכול לקחת הנאה? Rega, he made a hana'ah for himself. A person has a right to make some- a person has a right to say that this cup of tea, I make a issur hana'ah neder that I shouldn't be allowed to have hana'ah. And if I take hana'ah from it, I'm over a issur, issur neder. Someone else could have hana'ah. So the moment he says that, it becomes hefker. Comes somebody else, zocheh min hahefker. Comes this first guy and he's matir neder. Matir neder, we know that when a chacham is matir neder or a בית דין is matir neder, the neder is מותר למפרע. מראש. It's mutar from before, that the neder never was. The question here is, does this guy who took it have to give it back now? No. So it's a machloket between the Ran and the Rashba. The Ran in Nedarim says that he has to give it back, yeah. Because the reason before he had it was, and he was allowed to take it because it was אסור בהנאה. Now that it's not that became מותר בהנאה from later when he's matir it, it meant that it was never אסור בהנאה. Oh, so the guy took it by mistake, he thought it was allowed, he's at least give it back. And the Rashba says it's not true. Ah. The Rashba says the neder that he made is mutar for him. Any any other part that happened, any result that came out of his neder before, stays, and therefore the guy does not have to give it back. Which means in other words that how how do you explain their machloket? You explain their machloket that the Ran holds גלויי מילתא למפרע, that you reveal that it never was. Imagine a person makes a neder of איסור הנאה, and someone takes it, and then you find out that the way he said it was wrong, he didn't make it good. So you thought it was a neder, it's not. Sure the guy Just like a guy thinks something is hefker, and he takes it, and then you find out it's not, you give it back because it was never hefker. Yes. That's the Ran. Mah she'ein kein the Rashba, he learns that it's not like that. He learns that it's נעקר הדבר למפרע. Till now it was אסור בהנאה, even though now you're oker the neder, you tear out the נדר למפרע, it doesn't matter. The way we judge it is למפרע as if it never was, but before, before, before it was. And I saying man, I'm not going to go through again the Tzemach Tzedek with the Mishkenot Yaakov with the whole get, that's not the case. There's another place on why I am going to bring in because that will be noge'a. A case that says seems to have to say the same thing. That's a case in Gemara in Gittin. When we

learned that Gemara, we were dealing with that Gemara in Gittin, I explained it then. The Gemara says that there's a case when you say אפקעינהו רבנן לקידושין מיניה. Sometimes a person does something, the חכמים say that now we take away the kiddushin. Certain cases a person does something. Like like I'll give the example that the Gemara says over there. Over there, the case is if a person sends a get to his wife and wants to and the shaliach is on the way, and he wants to be mevatel it. Decides, \"I don't want to give a get.\" So, the din is he has to Originally, the way it was mid'oraita, you could wherever you are, make a beit din And say the get is batel. What's a beit din? Beit din. Beit din? It could be beit din. Beit din, beit din. Beit din. Yeah. So, you make a beit din where you are and you mevatel the get. Came the chachamim and said, \"There's a problem. The shaliach doesn't know about it. The shaliach goes, gives it to the isha. She goes, gets married. She has children. It's a mamzerim, I mean so.\" Chachamim said you can't do that. What do you have to do? Chase the shaliach. Send the shaliach to the shaliach, or come to the woman before she gets the get, and then you can be mevatel it. Huh. So, then according to one opinion, the Gemara says, \"What happened if a guy didn't listen to the halacha?\" Right, we talked about And he made a beit din right here, mevatel it. Is the get batel or not? No. So, the Gemara says according to one opinion, the get is not batel. So, freg the Gemara, how could that be? Mid'oraita, the get is batel. If the get is batel, what does that mean? This woman still remains an אשת איש. Came the rabbanan, and said the get is not batel, and she's divorced. The rabbanan could take a woman who על פי the דין is a married woman, and allow her to get married, yeah? How could they do that? How could they say that the get is not batel, so mimela the get that was given is a good get, and mimela now she's divorced and she could go marry. When מדאורייתא the get is not a good גט, מדאורייתא she's a married woman. And the Gemara answered that this is what happens. When this guy does this, it's not that then the Rabbanan say the get is a good get. What the Rabbanan do, they say at that moment, אפקעינהו רבנן לקידושין מיניה, the Rabbanan took away the kiddushin from before. So, this guy who did this, looking back retroactive was never married. That And the Chachamim have a right to do that? How could they make someone who is married not married? Because the person made a tenai. Since when a guy gets married he says כדת משה וישראל, so he made a tenai that as long as the Chachamim agree. For this If the guy does this, the Chachamim say, \"Today we disagree with your marriage, and mimela it goes back and you And never It was a תנאי, never marriage.\" This is what the Gemara says, אפקעינהו רבנן לקידושין, take away retroactive. Then that lady had the had the committed adultery previously, and she had a mamzer. Tosafos says she it's not a mamzer. He's not a mamzer? He's not a mamzer. So, Tosafos says, so you could be mevatel a mamzer? In that particular case, he's not a mamzer. No, you could, according to this. It's If you If the guy knows his wife is מזנה, what does he do? He sends a גט, מבטל it שלא בפני שליח in front of a בית דין, and mimela she never was a אשת איש. Yeah. What a loophole. Tosafos answers. So, Tosafos answers a couple a couple of teirutzim. One teirutz, he says you're right, takanah. הוא לא ממזר. Yeah, a way to be מטהר ממזר. That's the way to get Yeah, that's before Mashiach we'll have we'll do that. We'll do that with mamzerim. It's a finite amount of time, obviously past what? So, I don't want to get

involved with the sugya. I had a she'elah like this. This guy, Goren told me to do this. Told me He says a sevara. Goren, the Goren from from from from Eretz Yisrael, the Chief Rabbi. I spoke to him on the phone, it was a she'elah. was a guy whose mother was married, then she divorced, but didn't get a get, and then she remarried and had a boy. And this guy wanted to get married. So his mother married his father when she didn't have a get yet, so he is a mamzer. So what can you do? So Goren came up, said this sevara that what you, he sent me a קונטרס that he wrote based, it's called the Get HaMaharsham. The Get HaMaharsham is if the husband, the first, is still alive, so Maharsham says, \"Do this.\" And then the child won't be a mamzer. Well, now can't he get married to her? Huh? Can't he get married to her? She is not divorced. Theoretically, yeah. No, but Maharsham says don't do it, I say I'm just saying a פלפול, not not like, the Shach says there, don't do it. They found a heter there. The Shach says a kohen should never send a mamzer. No, no, they didn't do this. They found other type of heterim that get the first קידושין was Conservative, whatever, they found it. But let's get back to בר מצרא, whatever, I don't understand. What? In a very, very

quick one, if the person, the בר מצרא, he has the right to buy the land. Yes. If the seller was asking, let's say, a thousand dollars, and the Runya gave him a thousand five hundred dollars, The לקוח. the לקוח gave him more than the בר מצרא? Yeah. If if that that's normal price, Market price, yes. the market price, and the בר מצרא wants to give less, so that the לקוח gets it. Really? Yeah. So let's get back here. So this is what Tosafot the Gemara says, that when you do this the חכמים אפקעינהו לקידושין. Now, this could always be done, you never know, a guy could do that. So פרעגט Tosafot a קשיא in in Gemara in Gittin דף ל״ב ע״ב: So how could ever an אשת איש, a married woman, how could she ever get סקילה, get killed for being מזנה? Why not? In order to get killed, you have to have התראה, you have to warn. The din is it can't be התראת ספק. It has to be a warning that's very clear. If you warn a person at the time let's say Shabbos, a guy is מחלל שבת, he gets killed. But you're only killed if the guy walks over to him, the minute before he did it, says, \"You know if you do this you're going to get killed.\" And he says, \"I don't care.\" But if you walk over to a guy and say, \"For doing this, I don't know, you might get killed.\" If it's התראת ספק, that התראה, that warning doesn't count. So as if there was no warning! So he says, how could anybody ever warn a woman by doing adultery, you're going to get killed? How do you know she's going to get killed? It's a safek. Maybe the husband is going to send a get, and then he's going to מבטל in front of a בית דין, ובמילא she will retroact and never be an אשת איש, as she never was, and therefore she won't get killed. So even if it doesn't happen she shouldn't get killed! Even if it didn't happen, because the warning is a warning based on a safek. And Tosafos answers two teirutzim. One teirutz is well, it's not called התראת ספק, it's not called a warning of safek, because most people don't do it. Most people don't divorce, and if you do divorce, you don't send you don't do it like this. But that that's not the teirutz I'm trying to talk about. Then he says Tosafos says like this, that another teirutz is because the chazakah is that now she's married. So when you warn a woman for what you're doing now you're going to get killed, the chazakah is she's married. And then Tosafos brings a dugma: A nazir, if a nazir drinks wine, he gets he gets מלקות. But you have to warn him. So if you warn him, \"Don't drink wine because you get מלקות,\" it's התראת ספק, because the same nazir, what happens after he drinks wine, he goes to a בית דין and he is מתיר נדר, because nazir is a neder, so retroactive he was never a nazir. So you're never sure! So even if he's not מתיר נדר, but lemaaseh the warning is a safek. So Tosafos: the same thing. Now the chazakah is a nazir, it's called a good warning. So some mefarshim ask, I don't understand this. The chazakah itself is a safek! If the if he's going to do this, what's that chazakah? Usually chazakah means the way it's now, it's for sure going to stay. The question is did things change? So we say, no, as long as the chazakah, we don't think assume the things changed unless you have a proof. So it's like the last thing that we know It's it's one of the chazakot, it's an example. It's like this, so this is for sure. Now, maybe it changed to here, maybe it changed to so we say as long as we don't know when it changed, we say the chazakah continued. But what's the she'eilah here? He might go and send her this get, or by the nazir he might be מתיר נדר. If he's מתיר נדר, then she was never he was never a nazir! So what do you mean the chazakah? It's not like a regular chazakah where the chazakah is definite. The chazakah itself is the safek! Same thing with the ishah. If he sends her the get, then then there was she was never an אשת איש. What do you mean the chazakah of אשת איש? Now you might think it means because in most cases you won't do it, that's the other teirutz of Tosafot. Obviously this teirutz is not that part. So the she'eilah, what does Tosafot mean? So the peshat in Tosafot is like this: The hava aminah of Tosafot was that when you give this get, or you do this, and it makes retroactive למפרע that there was she was never married, so Tosafot הוה אמינא was that איגלאי מילתא למפרע. איגלאי מילתא means it was found after he does this, and never she was never married. It's as if there was a mistake and that we thought she was married, but she's not. So Tosafot asks a good kushya, so how do you know that she's married or not? It's not That's why התראת ספק. It's not אפקעינהו דרבנן לקידושין It is אפקעינהו. What, we're talking about אפקעינהו. This אפקעינהו רבנן תוספות learned meant איגלאי מילתא למפרע, goes back. So Tosafot asks if you're going to do this, you were never married. So in other words, you're really not sure if you're married or not, so it's a התראת ספק, a safek warning. So how does it work? Same thing by the neder. Tosafot learned that the neder when you're מתיר נדר, איגלאי מילתא למפרע that never was a neder, you were never a nazir. So now every time a guy's a nazir and you warn him, you're not sure, cuz the neder, the fact that he's a nazir is a safek. Tosafot's teirutz is the chazakah. What's the chazakah? That Tosafot learns that it's not איגלאי מילתא למפרע, it's נעקר הדבר למפרע. What does that mean? That be'emet, before, it was! Even when you're doing it למפרע, she was married before. And that is, it's going to stay. Anything later when you do it, לגבי then, we look at it as if it never happened, but before before, it takke happened. Same thing with a neder. Tosafot about a nazir, even if you're מתיר נדר, and it goes למפרע, but it's not איגלאי מילתא למפרע, it's נעקר הדבר למפרע. Okay, so we have these two things. Doesn't it really make more sense? Because if you make a neder, then there would, there's no substance to the neder at all if you can mevatel it with some איגלאי מילתא למפרע, I mean, what was the point? Has to be something real, so it would be like a Why not make a neder, but never made it 30 day, whatever it If you're if you're if you're מתיר נדר, then it goes. Could be. I mean, we see that's a machloket, the Ran and the and the Ran and the Rashba, clearly. Takes the substance away from the idea of the neder. No, when it's a neder, it's a neder! When it's a neder, it's a neder. When you do it later, then you have the two ways. Till you do it, everyone agrees it's a neder, everyone agrees that she's an eshet ish. A woman is married, eshet ish! If he does this, then there are two ways: it definitely goes למפרע, but is it איגלאי מילתא or נעקר? That was under the protection of the woman. Huh? It was done under the protection of the woman, not for him. Why, the chachamim made this אפקעינהו רבנן, yeah. Some places not, some places other, can What happened to their children, if they had children? This couple, the husband wants to mevatel the get. That's what problem. Of course could be the problem. then it came out a mamzer. No, no. Touch it. No, פגום. What is all this noge'a? I

want to explain the machloket between the Ramban and the Baal Hamaor, which in our case is Rashi and Tosafot, based on that. Since we said that the guy, the בר מצרא, when he comes to the לוקח who bought the field and made a kinyan, so we said that after the בר מצרא wants the field, the kinyan that he made lemafre'a is the kinyan for the בר מצרא. Before, it wasn't, like I said, before when he made the kinyan, it was for himself. The re'aya is that if the בר מצרא doesn't come, he doesn't have to make a new kinyan, the kinyan is there. So, it's his kinyan. When the בר מצרא comes and wants it and then we give it to the בר מצרא, then lemafre'a goes. We have the same she'ela here: is it איגלאי מילתא למפרע or נעקר הדבר למפרע? If it's איגלאי מילתא למפרע, that means that the kinyan that the לוקח made was nothing, for himself wasn't. Now we found out he was only a shaliach of the guy, he didn't do anything. If you say נעקר הדבר למפרע, you know what's the peshat? He made a kinyan. He made a kinyan and it became his, now it's changed lemafre'a, but it's changed now. What's the difference? So let me explain like this, what's a noge'a to us. One thing is clear: when we say that the the בר מצרא, let's say if we would hold the בר מצרא has to give up the his rights if the guy is poor, that's not, if the guy is a poor guy and he has to give up the his, even though the בר מצרא has a right to have the field, but if the guy who bought it, the לוקח, is poor, you have to give it up. Because of a Now, obviously, obviously, the giving up that he has to do is only to an ani who bought the field. Right. What happens, do we say to the בר מצרא, \"You see there's an ani out there in the street, you know, you have no right, give it to the ani\"? Makes sense? No. The whole thing has to do with with with an ani who's right. If you say איגלאי מילתא למפרע, when the בר מצרא comes, this ani who bought it has no shaychus! He didn't make a kinyan, he didn't buy this, like a stranger in the street. So why would I have to give it up for him, just like I don't have to give it up for another stranger? If you say נעקר הדבר למפרע, so when this ani made the kinyan, his kinyan was takeh a kinyan for himself. And even after the בר מצרא comes, we still say he had a kinyan. Oh, so here we have an ani who made a kinyan on the field. So here the chachamim said, makes sense to say, that this ani who's part of this whole gesheft here, give up your right for him. Yes. But if you're going to say איגלאי מילתא למפרע, he made no kinyan ever! So if he made no kinyan ever, why would you give it up for him? Why give it up for him, why not give it up for somebody else? Give it up for a guy in the street, the guy has nothing to do with this! And that's the machloket! So Rashi, who says that an ani you have to give up, and the same thing the Baal HaMaor says you have to give up, holds that the whole din when the kinyan, when the בר מצרא comes that the kinyan goes as if it were he did it, it's only a ניכר הדבר למפרע. Mimela, the chachamim felt right to say, give it to him. He made a kinyan, no? He has a shaychus to this field. Give him up. But Tosafot and the Ramban learn it's not like that. That this whole thing is אגלאי מילתא למפרע. So, לכה, the בר מצרא comes and there's a din of בר מצרא. What do we say? This guy has nothing to do here. Ela mai, you want to push away the בר מצרא to give it to him because he's poor. Give to who? Some poor guy out in the street, because this kinyan is nothing. Here, the rabbanan didn't say it. So, lichora, you can explain that the machloket They could give make him a chance and they gonna they could do a lot of things. The question is not what they could do, it's what they did. You know, as I want to explain this machloket, there's many ways to explain machloket. But one of the ways I want to explain is that everyone agrees that the בר מצרא has first rights. Ela mai, the she'elah is the חכמים felt that the בר מצוה בר מצרא should give up his right for the עני. It's not the peshat that like we like we said peshat peshat, peshat in Rashi is that the בר מצרא has no right when there is an עני. Just like you want it because of ועשית הישר והטוב, do it do for him. Yeah, but לפועל, what's the difference? Well, I'm explaining what's the difference. לפועל to the end. The to the end is that it the nafka mina will be the halacha. If the guy is an עני, does the בר מצוה בר מצרא have this give up his right, does does the חכמים take away the right from the בר מצרא and give it to the עני? That's the she'elah. If an עני came and bought from the original owner, from the מוכר. He's a לוקח. Comes the בר מצרא and says, \"I'm an עבר, give it up to me.\" So, Rashi says, \"Yes, we told the בר מצרא, get the out of here. The עני did the לוקח keeps it.\" Same thing with the Baal HaMaor. The Ramban and Tosafot say, \"No. We say, 'No, if you're going to say that, it's rachmanut because, al pi din, you can't tell him to do it.'\" Why not? So, I want to say that everyone agrees, even Rashi and and the Baal HaMaor hold that, בעצם, the בעל המצר has his first right. When we say that the עני will get it, the peshat would be that the חכמים pushed away the בר מצרא in order for the עני to get it. The question is why would they push away? So, על פי שכל, they wouldn't push it away for some any עני in the street. They have to push it away for an עני who has a shaychus here. So, if you say the kinyan that the עני made is a kinyan, even though now the בר מצרא comes and the kinyan becomes for him, He has a shaychus. But lefoal, we said it's only ניכר למפרע. It remains that he had a kinyan before. And if he had a kinyan before, he keeps it. Because the chachamim pushed away the בר מצרא because of this עני who has part of the deal. But Tosafos learns, and the Ramban learned, How does he keep it? Does he give it over? No, he doesn't. No, he keeps it. The לוקח keeps it. The לוקח bought it. And we tell him that the בר מצרא comes and he says now it's mine, and על פי דין, you would have to give it up to him. And what will happen if you give it up to him, the kinyan he made will be for him. But lefoal, we still said ניכר, it means his kinyan was סוף כל סוף a kinyan for him. So, the chachamim said if after doing this he still has a kinyan, we don't want the בר מצרא to take it. So, let the לוקח keep it. But if you hold it's אגלאי מילתא למפרע, then what are we saying? This guy has to give up. Why, who's he? Because he made a kinyan? He didn't make a kinyan. If the בר מצרא comes, his kinyan falls off as if it never was there. Just like by the get, we said. If you learn אגלאי מילתא למפרע that she was never married. She was not his wife. The whole thing was a was was a joke. Same thing here, the לוקח here, the עני, the poor man is a לוקח, is not is not a לוקח. He's really an עני. Huh? Just to clarify, you're making him more an עני. I I thought if it's a kinyan, then you have to give it back מצד דרך חסד. If it's a No rachmanus, you can't have. What? How else he could send them a rachmanut? No, you I said rachmanut, but that's not a rachmanut. That's a din. Tosafos says if you'd give it to the עני, that's called rachmanut. And אין מרחמין בדין. Why does he say rachmanut? Cuz, in din, there is no reason for it. There is no din that you have to give it to him. Ela mai, you want to say rachmanut. You can't do that. You can't pask a din based on rachmanut. But the Rashi holds it's not rachmanut. This is the din itself. Why? Cuz Rashi learns that the קנין of the לוקח is a קנין. And mimela, the עני is a לוקח that the חכמים felt, \"We want to give this לוקח to keep it because he bought it already and he made a קנין here and that קנין is a true קנין and he's here already. Give it to him.\" But if you hold אגלאי מילתא למפרע, you're not saying who's he? He has nothing to do with it. and the Ramban that hold that hold that the the אגלאי אה, אגלאי? Oh yeah. Yeah, אגלאי. So, there was never Tosafos says this rachmanut is in in the din itself. But Tosafos says to Rashi, Yeah. that is if we're going to say is the reason is because he's poor, as far as I'm concerned, that's called a rachmanut because, al pi din, you can't do that. Even the בר מצרא, should But Rashi holds it's not called rachmanut because it's a din. What about

What about this whole fact that Rashi used the the language of poor? Why can't we No, he was poor. It is It is because he's poor. Right, but why can't we make the argument like we in the beginning that we said, listen, the halacha is that it's because you have to show somebody He used the words of of of the Torah. Rashi is not a problem. Tosafos is a problem. Right. Why does Tosafos call it rachmanus? Yeah. So, we have to explain According to Tosafos, what happened? I'm saying, what is the difference? Right. So Tosafos learns איגלאי. Memaileh he says, there's no way we could say the חכמים said that it's part of the din of בר מצרא. Then what does Rashi hold? Rashi holds it's נעקר. Wait, Tosafos is right. So if rachmanus is intrinsic in the din of בר מצרא, right, because you're saving the guy money, he's your neighbor, it's easier for him, possibly a little rachmanus, then by עני it's even, it's lifnim mishurat hadin, one might say. Right, but I want to say that they both hold that be'etzem the Torah gave it to the בר מצרא. The question is, do they take it away from him and give it to the לוקח? Right, it's lifnim mishurat hadin, you could You can't do lifnim mishurat hadin when it comes against the din! It's against the din! If the din is on it, you can't force him to give it up. You could ask him to do a favor. Some people behave that way. There's two things: there's the rachmanus, someone told me about this guy in England, in London, a very rich man, I forgot his name, that he would help people with money, mamash he was a baal tzedakah, epes gevaldik. And he had all kinds of apartments and there was one guy who didn't pay rent, a yid, a frumer yid. So he got him out, pashut evicted him. And people started begging him, how could you evict him, the guy has no money and you're such a baal chesed? He said, no, he has to pay the rent and he has to pay it. And he evicted him, then he came over to him, gave him a sum of money, here's the money for the rent and come back. It's two things. People will always say that. Don't mix, don't mix! He said the Frierdiker Rebbe, no, the Frierdiker Rebbe once, the Rebbe Rashab asked the Frierdiker Rebbe once to send a telegram, I think to Rav Chaim Brisker, about something. When he came and told the Rebbe, his father, I did it, so he says, what, how much did the telegram cost you? So he got insulted. He used to give away his salary that he got, most of the salary that he got from the yeshiva he used to give back to the yeshiva, so he gave it back to this, his father. So here the few the few pennies that I spent, you want to pay me? He got insulted. So the Rebbe Rashab says to him, don't get insulted. There are two things: business is business, and you want to give your tzedakah, gezunterheit, I have to pay you! You want to give it back, you want to give it to tzedakah, put it in the pushke, that's your business, but how could I not pay you? Anyway, let's get back here.

Based on these two ways how we learn the din of בר מצרא, we could explain another machloket, not between Rashi and Tosafot, not between the amoraim, but we could explain it based on the machloket the Rambam and the Ramah. What happened? There are certain dinim when, in the Gemara it says, when בר מצרא doesn't apply. What happens if there's a safek? A guy bought a field, and the בר מצרא comes and says, I have first right, get out of here. And he says, and the guy answers him, you have right? Yeah, I'm a neighbor. I know you're a neighbor, but you're this and this and that, all kinds of dinim that makes you, that makes that the din of בר מצרא doesn't apply to you. Who says that to him? The לוקח says, you really don't own it, you're only a worker there. Who says that to him? The לוקח, the buyer. Okay. So, we don't know. Who's the muchzak? Who has to bring a re'ayah? In other words, do we say the guy who bought it stays there? Yeah. Who's the motzi? That's the she'elah, who's the muchzak? If the guy made a kinyan, he is the muchzak now. So the

Rambam says that the buyer is the muchzak, and he doesn't have to move till the בר מצרא brings a re'ayah he's a בר מצרא. The Ramah and the Or Zarua say clearly not! He said, the בר מצרא is the muchzak, because there's a din of בר מצרא, he has the right. Now you want to change it? You prove it! So what's the machloket? That's it! If you learn, not only so, if you in in in in the inyan of the kinyan, if you say that the kinyan that the לוקח made is איגלאי מילתא למפרע, that means that the the whole kinyan that he made is a ספק בכלל if it goes on him. How could he be the muchzak? Why is he muchzak? Because he's holding it. Could be you're holding it for him! Farkert, he's the בר מצרא, so he's the muchzak. The Rambam who learned that's נעקר דבר למפרע, that means that his kinyan is a kinyan for him, that's for sure. The she'eilah is, do we take it away, we change it, but even if we'll change it, לפועל he had a kinyan. So that's the Rambam says, the לוקח is the muchzak, because he has a kinyan. And the, and the Ramah learns, the Or Zarua learns not, that he's the muchzak. That's another machloket. So wait, you take המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה, you would analogize that No, no, it's The she'eilah is who's the motzi, who's the muchzak here? Like by the, by the Torah and with the, the malachim and Very good! Moshe was arguing, no? Like בר מצרא. So, who said, who's the muchzak there? Yes, but wait, you guess. No, that was no kind of safek, there was no safek there. They said the Torah shouldn't be given to us They asked for it, so? It's like a לוקח comes and asks for it, but the בר מצרא gets it, it's not a safek. Here's a safek You have to prove it, you have to prove who the בר מצרא No, I have to explain it, to explain why. Then there's another din.

What happens if the בר מצרא got the field, the לוקח bought it, the בר מצרא came and took it away from him, with right, let's say a regular case, then comes a a creditor of the original the owner and takes the field away. Foreclosure. It's a lien, right? The mortgage. Yeah, the mortgage comes and takes it away. So the Rambam says a strange din. What's the problem with that? One second. So the she'eilah is what happens here. So the guy took it away. The בר מצרא, who does he go to claim his money? Now the בר מצרא who paid for it, who does he go to? So the Rambam says he goes to the buyer. The Raavad says, why go to the buyer? Says I don't know where he got this from. Who did the בר מצרא buy the field from? No. There is an original owner owns the field. And he sold it to somebody. And then came the בר מצרא and took it away. And what did we say before? That the בר מצרא took it away and the kinyan that the buyer bought is the kinyan for him. So whom did the בר מצרא buy it from? From the original guy! Original guy. So how does the Rambam say that when the guy when the בר מצרא has to go collect his money, he's coming to the לוקח, and the לוקח has to pay him, and then the לוקח will go to the buyer, to the seller? So the Raavad Oh! That's what I'm saying. The machloket, are they not saying the same thing? The Rambam learns that it's נעקר הדבר למפרע, so mimela his kinyan is a kinyan, even though he gets it. And the Raavad learns it's נתגלה מילתא, so the the buyer is as soon as the בר מצרא takes it away from the buyer, the buyer never existed, because he נתגלה מילתא למפרע, is נתגלה געווארן that it was never there. So pashut that he goes to the goes to the מוכר. Then there's another din, which is another machloket. A machloket a machloket is that we we could tie to these shitot.

What happens if till the בר מצרא came, the לוקח ate the fruit from the field? A field with fruit, and the לוקח bought it, ate some of the fruit, and then later the בר מצרא comes and he gave gives it up to the בר מצרא. Does he have to give him back the fruit? Does he have to Yeah, pay! Pay for the fruit that he used because it wasn't his field. על פי שכל, what would you think? When he bought the When he made the kinyan on the field, really, he now is נתגלה געווארן that the kinyan was for that guy, so that guy bought it. So you came to my field and ate the fruit, and you have to pay me. זאגט the Rambam, no. That the לוקח does not have to pay. And the Shiltei HaGibborim says he does have to pay. But the Rambam שיטה says Exactly. The Rambam goes according to his own shita. He holds that that's נעקר הדבר למפרע. Mimela the לוקח, when he got it, it's his. A now למפרע it's not, but it's נעקר. Just like That's why I brought in the case of the Rashba. When the guy made איסור הנאה and somebody came and took it, and then he's מתיר He made it up. He made it up a שאלת חכם, but, no, the שאלה is Who? The person who took it ate it? No, the שאלה is if even if he didn't eat it, does he have to give it back or not? No, the דין, the Ran says he has to give back, and the Rashba says he doesn't. Why? So he says because what what the מתיר נדר למפרע is on me. Any side thing that happened, if it's נתגלה מילתא, פשוט, any side thing is the same. נתגלה מילתא למפרע, there's a it's a mistake. If it's נעקר, it's not like that. So the same thing here, also. The Rambam learns it's נעקר, ממילא, anything that happened at somebody else when he ate it already, and now it doesn't exist, he doesn't have to pay. That's not a side thing. That's the actual נעקר. That's from נעקר. It's not No, נעקר means that what at that time it was takeh his. The question is a third party. If a innocent third party comes and eats, that's more No, so then he probably has to pay to the בר מצרא. Then there's another case, just another case where we could learn out the same and explain. What happens if the לוקח if the לוקח bought it Another three minutes. If the

לוקח bought the field and then the לוקח gave it away to a present to somebody, can the בר מצרא still come, take it? Or the לוקח went and died and the son took over, ירש'נט it. So the Rema says in Shulchan Aruch a machloket. Some say no. No, unless he had a chance, and that didn't know. That he didn't know about it. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So it's a machloket. What's the machloket about? This is a machloket This is exactly the machloket. If you say it's נעקר הדבר למפרע, but בשעת מעשה, he's it is, so it was takeh his. And now that it went away from him, that guy doesn't have to give it up. Just like the case of the by the by the case of the of the Rashba with the נדר, he doesn't have to give it. מה שאין כן, if you hold that's נתגלה מילתא למפרע, so what's the חילוק? The guy gave a present, now we find out it was never his to give a present! Back to the beginning. That's not mine to give. Yeah, sounds like that's even more complicated because he doesn't have to give it up, he gifted. The other guy really even if it's נעקר הדבר למפרע, then, which means that No, so it was takeh his and he gave it away. So the change happens between him and him, but the other guy who took it? Just like by the Rashba! If the other guy took it, he doesn't have to give it back. ענין ממש of hashavat aveidah, if somebody's not gonna be able to find it. Hefker. נאך פסח קען ער למפריע? Chas v'shalom! פאר וואס? די ששת ימי פסח גייט עס זיין חמץ. ס'איז נישט געווען, ס'איז נישט געווען גאר. ס'איז געווען זיין חמץ. אויב דו זאגסט ס'איז למפריע, חס ושלום, פאר וואס? When you buy it back, it's not that you're buying למפריע, you're buying chametz! I

thought Moshe was trying to claim that we deserve the Torah because of, you know, of all these reasons that he gave, the ראיות or whatever. Therefore, So, that was, he was just proof to Hashem that that's why He was explaining why they The malachim were saying we deserve it because because I had all these inyanim. They were Yeah. I don't know, I have the, I don't know the שיחה well, you can, but All kinds of reasons why they טענה'ד. Yeah, yeah, you know, we don't have this, our fathers, you can't keep it, our fathers. No, but then Moshe answered them why, why? See, they טענה'ד they were a בר מצרא. Yeah, right. And משה טענה'ד that it's ביסודו of status. Right, well, okay. They were a בר מצרא. So, there was no safek. There was no safek. No, but we're the, we're not the לקוח. We're the לקוח. Yeah. But there's no safek. Right, there's a Sure, there's no safek. Hold on, there are certain dinim where there is no בר מצרא. Right. Yes, there are certain dinim where there is no בר מצרא, but we don't know if this is the, that's the case. Yes! You don't know that's the case, it's a safek. You don't know if that's the case. But here it's no safek, Moshe has to explain to them why in this case, דין בר מצרא doesn't apply. Money launder... We can money launder... Okay. With an א, you know. In this case, with You can make a ישבה with them. We have to make a thing... You can make a business with them. וממזרים. ממזרים washing. Money laundering shop. ממזרים washing. We don't פסק like that opinion. And besides that, you're not allowed to do it! You tell the guys to go עבירה? Tell them to take it... you're not allowed to do it! Better than doing it having a ממזר come around and and That was different. He came up with a different סברא. What? But besides that case of whatever, there's another case.

There's you throw a get to a woman, and it falls into her ד׳ אמות. Yeah. She's divorced. Yeah. Now, the din of ד׳ אמות קונה is a דין דרבנן. Yeah. So, the Rashba and the Ritva ask, how could דאורייתא, she's an אשת איש, how could this דין דרבנן make her not an אשת איש? Yeah. So, they ask, אפקיעינהו רבנן לקדושין מיניה. So, that's what he said, do that! Throw her, let her, her first husband throw her a get, but let it be fall on the ד׳ אמות, not give it to her hand, u'meila she'll be divorced. Why don't we do that now with, like, Even the even the even the the Maharsham said befeirush not to do it. He said, \"Don't do it.\" Okay, but why can't we, in in בשעת הדחק? Gezeira. Gezeira. That's what he told me. Hagra"n told me, the only thing I can think of is this, and I'll send you the קונטרס. He sent me the קונטרס. There's a lady in Israel Just like we have all the men who are these people that don't care, there's a lady who won't take a get. Throw it at her! Take a guess, but the Takanat Rabbeinu Gershom said you can't divorce בעל כרחה, that's the whole problem. Otherwise, we could do that. So how's Rabbi Goren giving this עצה? It's not בעל כרחה, she's ready to take it! Okay, this mother, this guy's mother is still alive, and she, okay, she wants her sons to be, not to be a mamzer. Okay, so it's not בעל כרחה. It's not בעל כרחה, it's just that you're not allowed to throw a get, give a get and then מבטל in front of a בית דין. That's how it would be למפריע. The whole thing is למפריע. Oh, yeah! You can't give בעל כרחה? No. That's Takanat Rabbeinu Gershom. And that's still on? Yeah, yeah. A thousand years is over. Getting married to two wives is the same thing, no? Also a thousand years is over. Goes together. Who re- who reinstituted it? Automatically. Just two rabbis agree? No, you don't need Just went on. It just goes on. Where does that, but how does that happen, it goes straight on? It doesn't go straight on. The halacha, it says that There's nobody to stop it. There's nobody to take it away. Nobody to start it, either. So, the question is, is it a נכר הדבר למפריע? You can say there's nobody to start it to stop it, but you have to also, but is there anybody to continue it? The same nobody that start, not starting it and the stopping it, are they not available to continue it? Because what what does it mean it's a thousand-year ending? And they make it forever. Almost like he said, it's a thousand years and then you have to renegotiate. Renegotiate, so. There's nobody to renegotiate, so. Renegotiate whether to stop it. Yeah, so what is it? It's a, so is it the רוגטשובר? Is it a, what's it called? Or is it a חלות or an הסכם or not? It's not a חלות or an הסכם. It's automatic. As he said, in order to nullify, then, like, after still 1,000 years, you've got to go in with, But he didn't say in order to nullify, he said then it's renegotiable.