Milk in other food, is a ratio uh No, for for fish? No, as much as long as it's not milk itself, you could eat it with fish. But milk So if it's 90% of uh Okay, the 90 is a lot, I mean then it's basically milk with something else, I mean. 50%? Yeah, then you could. We're we're concerned about the thickness of a wall by an inch? No, no. [laughter] Yeah, but it's as long as it's say it if it has the name milk, it's milk, like chocolate milk, you put some chocolate syrup in, doesn't make it a leaf, it's still milk. But coffee is mainly it's it has milk in it. What happens if you have cake that has milk in it, can you eat it with with with with fish? Doesn't matter, even though it has milk. It's not like בשר בחלב that if it has milk in it, it's בשר בחלב. Okay, here we're Bava Basra דף ז עמוד א. The Gemara tells a story, הנהו תרי אחי דפלגי בהדי הדדי. There were two brothers that that divided a ירושה, the inheritance. חד מטייה אספלידא וחד מטייה תרביצא. One got a building and one got the garden in front of it. אזל ההוא דמטייה תרביצא, went the guy who got the garden, וקא בני אשישתא אפומא דאספלידא. He built up a wall in his in his part, which blocked out his window, blocked his window, the other guy's window. אמר ליה, so the other guy said to him, קא מאפלת עלי. You darkened it on me. I have a window and you did it. אמר ליה, so בדידי קא בנינא, I'm I'm building my own place. I can do what I in my part I can do what I want. אמר רב חמא, so Rav Chama said, בדין קאמר ליה, he's right. Basically, he has a right to block out his window. Was there no din of היזק ראיה? In the garden? No. There's no דין היזק ראיה in the garden. He's building in the garden. He doesn't want the garden Nobody has היזק ראיה in the garden this time. Garden has a Oh, as a but as a tree, if he blocked He's stopping him from looking and seeing But that's not why he did. He stopped he put up a wall cuz he the guy's complaining. Why complain? You're great I should not be able to look at you, you make [laughter] No. No, cuz he complained, \"You gave me my light.\" I'm saying the reason why he would build the wall was because of this. He didn't want him to look into his garden. But he doesn't have to build a wall. That'll be a she'elah, we'll get into that, whether he could stop him from he could force him to close up the window, that's something else. Didn't told tell him that. He himself went to build a wall. So Rav Chama said he's right. אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי, so רבינא asked of רב אשי a she'elah, why is it all right? In other words, why does this guy have a right to block out this guy's window? מאי שנא, why is this different מדתניא, there's a din like this, שני אחים שחלקו. If two brothers divided the ירושה, the inheritance, אחד מהן נטל שדה כרם, one took a vineyard, ואחד מהן נטל שדה לבן, one took a field that's for grain, יש לו לבעל הכרם ד' אמות בשדה הלבן. Automatically, the one that got the vineyard has extra ד' אמות around his area, because in order to to to to work on his vines, you have to have on the outside of the vine, you have to have ד' אמות. So, if his wine vine, let's say this is the two, he got this vineyard, this guy got the other field, so the moment we say he got his vineyard till here, he automatically gets another ד' אמות. שאדעתא דהכי חלקו. Because when they divided, they obviously when he says, \"I'm getting\" when they divided and he got his vines, his vineyard, he meant vineyard that I could use as vineyards. If you're going to give me without the ד' אמות, then you can't use it. So, obviously it's included automatically. So, the

Gemara asks, so why is this different? When the guy divided and he got this building and he got the garden, part of a building is you have windows and you and you have light. Isn't it why this shouldn't it be included in his right, that he has it just like the guy over there? Which means, in other words, they never spoke, whatever they make up verbally, obviously, they made up you get this, you get that. They never spoke about the extra ד' אמות. But it's automatically included, because that's what a vineyard needs. So, here also by the window, automatically it's included that he has a right over the window, because that's what he got, they divided, he got a house, a house that's what is it with blocked out? So, the Gemara answers, אמר ליה התם דל לאח דהכא מאי דהב ליה מאי דהב ליה עליה. Anyway, the bottom line, the Gemara explains, not to go into the question and answer, that there is a difference. What's the difference? Here, by the case of the ד' אמות, they take it in consideration. When they divided, it's automatically part of the consideration. The window, they took in consideration, the Gemara says, that obviously this is a building and this is just a plain field, and the building is worth much more, so they probably when they divided, they took that in consideration. They probably gave this brother took the field, probably took something else to make up the value of the same value of the house. So, they took in consideration the house, but the light they they didn't take in consideration. And the Gemara doesn't explain why, what's the difference? The Gemara doesn't say why, because the question comes up right away. If you need the light for a house, then automatically when they took a house, he got a house, so the light, the right of the light is part of it, just like the ד׳ אמות. Rashi says there's a machlokes, an argument Rashi and Tosafos here. Rashi learns that he blocked out the light completely. Went and put the wall by the window and blocked out his light. Tosafos asks the she'eilah: Why How how does the Gemara say he has a right to do that? When they divide the ירושה, and a person a house need light, automatically it's as if they took in consideration that you get it with the right over the light. While, so and that so how can you say you blocked out the whole light? Basically the kashya of Tosafos is, if you learn you blocked out the whole light, why is that different than this case of the ד׳ אמות of the vineyard? In the case of the four אמות of the vineyard we see one thing, that even if you didn't discuss it, but as long as it's a must for the vineyard, it's automatically included. When we said, \"You get the vineyard, I get this,\" you get the ד׳ אמות. So the same thing there should be the same thing with the light. If we made up that you get a house, you get a place to live in, automatically it goes with the windows, a window for light. How could he say you don't have a right to it, and like you can't stop me from making my wall? Therefore, Tosafos learns different. Tosafos learns that he blocked the light, but not completely. He blocked it, it was close, so didn't light he didn't get as much light as he expected to get. And that's the difference. In the case of the garden, in in case of the the the כרם, the vineyard, if you don't have the ד׳ אמות then you're missing the כרם. You're your your כרם is partially not usable. So that's automatic. In the case of the light, since there was light there anyway, it wasn't the so much light, so you can't say that's automatically considered. The question is on Rashi: How does Rashi learn? How does Rashi learn that there's a diff- what is what is the difference lemaaseh if you blocked out the full light, what is the difference between that case and the case of the ד׳ אמות? By the ד׳ אמות, we say it's automatically included, and over here it's not automatically included. Why not? So the sefer called Nachalas Dovid explains it. He says, Rashi learns that there is a the difference, what we're looking basically for, what is the difference between this and this? There's a big difference. By the case of the ד׳ אמות, there is, in order to have a vineyard, there's a certain area he must own. So we're talking about a kinyan in a ד׳ אמות outside of the כרם. No, no, he has to use it. That's, becomes his. There's a kinyan in it. No, the guy can't. It becomes his, because he Yeah, כרם needs to he Whenever he wants to work, a כרם, the ד׳ אמות under כרם is his. He doesn't want to. He wants to own it. No, we're saying that it's so needed, so part of the כרם, that when they spoke, \"You get the כרם,\" automatically this means this also. Huh? So you have to have eight אמות, nu. Well you can't! You have to have a You have to have ד׳ אמות. A כרם needs ד׳ אמות. ד׳ אמות כדי עבודת הכרם. You always work and you have to have ד׳ אמות. Otherwise a כרם doesn't work. A guy could cut off whatever he wants, he could he could break his If he wants to, but the, lafo'al, a כרם needs ד׳ אמות outside. And since it's something we're talking about which is needed to to have a kinyan in it, so Rashi learns there's a difference between a kinyan and a zechut. Zechut means a right. Nachalat According Nachalat explains peshat in Rashi. The question was asked, why is it over there so so clear that it's part of it, and here it's not? He says over there we're talking about owning something. That's part, when you get a כרם, you own a כרם, you own whatever is supposed to be owned with it. Here, not owning anything. We're talking about do you have the right of the window, the right of the light. That's different. That right you have to make up before and deal with it, make up, discuss it. But if you don't discuss it, since it's not something of what we decide what we assume you own, there it's not automatic. That's the difference. So this is what he says:

According to Rashi, the difference be- because basically that's what they're discussing, what is the difference between the case of the light and the case of the ד׳ אמות? According to Rashi, the difference, the case of the light is only a zechut, and there it's not automatic. In the case of the ד׳ אמות, you have a kinyan in it, that's automatic. Tosafot learns different. The difference is between a a big need and a small need. The case of the ד׳ אמות, you must have. It's a must. According to Tosafot, it didn't block the whole light. Still you would need it, you would like it, but it's nisht geferlech, it's not a big tzorech. That's the difference: A big tzorech, something that you must have, that's automatic; something that you could live without, it's better if you have, that's not automatic. And that's why this, but that's all according to Tosafot, that he didn't block the complete light. But according to Rashi, he blocked the complete light, you can't say that peshat. So according to Rashi, there's a difference between kinyan and zechut. Okay. And he says, according to Tosafot, it's at all you need ד' אמות? According to everybody, the ד' אמות by כרם is a is a must. So according to Tosafot, the difference is is a a must or not such a must. This is the only source of light? Uh? This is the only source of light for that house? According to Rashi, yes. According to Tosafot, it's not. That's a זכות? Yeah. Necessity. Not saying it's not a necessity, but לגבי the other place, I have a זכות to have the light coming from your yard. That's that's that's a זכות. It's a necessary זכות, but that's not automatic. So, but it's only a זכות that you That's what he said. That's the difference. וכלל, even by the כרם maybe not. By the כרם it's also a chiddush. What's the chiddush? You should have made up. If you didn't, too bad. Buy buy it from me, pay me for it. So we say no, it's a necessity. But so Rashi says when is that special חידוש דין, that you get it automatically? If it's something that is part of it that you get the קנין, but if it's not a קנין, it's not automatic. And and ah you need it? Not always do you have a right. Certain cases, just an example, if a person had a field in the middle, and there were four people around, it's not the case of this Gemara, but just giving an example, and he had to get to his field in the middle, he had to go through one of the people, and the guy gave him the right, the guy went away and these four guys sold their fields to four people, now they don't remember, let's say, which field field he was able to go, so each one could say it's not by me, so he can't get into his field. Ah, he had a right to go? Too bad, so what should he do? So the Gemara says, or buy it and pay him as much as he wants, pay him a million dollars, or fly in the air. So he goes, יפרח באויר. Go fly a kite. Go look up, go over, that's all, nothing you can do. There's no longer the זכות? Ah? No longer the זכות? Right, I'm saying there it was like we call an easement, he only had a right to go through, a right, a זכות to go through. But giving you an example that there's a thing, ah, you must have, good, but it's only a right, you buy yourself. But by the ד' אמות, since it's not a right, it's a קנין, you had a קנין in it. Not that he had a חזקה, because there's the new owners. There was no חזקה, the father had the father had, and he doesn't. Oh, father. So, no ירושה in a חזקה. Whatever, it doesn't matter, it's already getting into the sugya. So what I'm going to just try to do bekitzur is to explain the machloket. What's the machloket of Rashi and Tosafot possibly based on. Tosafot is the one that asked the kushya on Rashi, that we said according to Nachalat David, Rashi makes a very simple simple, but a difference between the two cases, זכות and קנין. Why doesn't Tosafot like that difference? Why according to Tosafot do we don't make that chiluk between זכות and קנין? Because Tosafot asked the kushya on Rashi it don't make sense, what's the difference? But there is a difference, obviously Tosafos doesn't like the difference. What's the reason why Tosafos doesn't like the difference between זכות and kinyan? So, let's get into another inyan. It seems like, just I'm not going to get into all the peratim, that the Rambam learns like Tosafos. Okay. From the Rambam is mashma he learns like Tosafos. So basically we have a machloket of Rashi and the Rambam, Rashi against the Rambam and Tosafos. Rashi makes the difference between זכות and kinyan, and the Rambam doesn't. So what I Why it's noga that it's the Rambam also? If I'm going to say sevara, you could give sevarot, doesn't matter, because if I say it comes out that the Rambam holds like that, we'll understand based on a different place where there's a machloket Rashi and the Rambam. And that's in the earlier Gemara. In the earlier Gemara, we have another

din. We have a din like this: if you have two roofs across the street, there's a street in the middle and two roofs, and you could see from one roof to the other, there's a problem of היזק ראיה. You got to make a wall in the middle. The din is if you have two yards and could force each other to make a wall in the middle. Here you have two roofs and they used the roof, so you got to make a wall. So the din is like this, the Gemara says, each one makes a half a wall ומעדיף. Each one, this guy makes to here, this guy makes to here, but you have to overlap a little bit. Why? Because if you make it till here, it's open, you could look from this way. Rashi says, ומעדיף, so Rashi says, let's find the Rashi, מושך המעקה the wall that you make, you make more than half of the roof, so it'll be a little bit overlapping the other guy's, ומתוך כך לא יראה בהדיא לגגו של חבירו, you'll not be able to see outright. So according to Rashi, it seems like You have to make a little bit that standing normally you won't be able to see. Comes the in the Shita Mekubetzet there is a Raavad, there is a few Raavads by the way, and he asks the she'ela, even if you make it a little bit overlapping, if you go to the further end and you bend over, you'll be able to see. So how is that enough? So he says, first of all don't do that because you have to be very careful, you might fall, and therefore people won't do it. Nevertheless, the

Rambam says very clearly that you have to overlap a lot that you can't see at all, that even when you bend over you won't be able to see. So it's not just both sides, both, yeah, they both have to overlap in such a way that you can't see at all. Why? Because if you're not going to overlap all the way, the guy could bend over. Either the Raavad gave a good answer that a person won't do it, so nevertheless he says, he doesn't say it, but I imagine what the pshat is, he says aber, it's not so easy to do, but some people might do it. Some people might do it, so we he's still afraid of it. So what is the basis of this machloket? So I want to say the basis of this machloket is this. When we talk about making a wall between two neighbors of היזק ראיה, is there, let's put it in these words, is there be'etzem a din that in such a case you must put up a wall? There's a din of a wall, and each person has an responsibility because he could look into the other guy, he has a responsibility to make a wall that the other guy also has, not by two roofs, a regular two case when you put one wall in the middle. If both of them care, who cares? But if one guy says, \"I don't want you to look in. I want you to...\" The other says, \"I don't care.\" You can force him. Oh, you have you're mazik me. I'm I care because you're going to hurt me. You're looking. Look, we went through this all the shiurim. היזק ראיה is that we're not allowed to look in somebody's thing, and if you look into somebody's property that's called a hezek. It's a machloket whether it's called a hezek, it's called a damage. The question the acharonim talk about, what is the damage? Is the damage that when you see my private things, I want to do private things, and you see it, that's the damage, makes me very uncomfortable and that's the damage, or because I know you could see, I will not do it. So you're causing me to, if I have an office there, I'm going to have to move my office. Huh? You're losing the use of it because of you, so you're mazik me. Whichever way, but that's they make a big tumel here about these two ways, but the bottom line is it's called a hezek, and the halacha is היזק ראיה שמיה היזק. And therefore you are responsible to make a wall so you shouldn't be mazik me, and you could, and I have to make a wall to not be mazik you. So if we make a wall, normally we both pay. Each one gives half half of the space and they pay half. This din of a wall, why is is it, so we could look two ways. One way is there is the Chachamim made a din you got to have a wall, be'etzem you've got to have a wall. If I'm if I'm going to be able to mazik you with היזק ראיה, have to make a wall. Or you could say there's no din be'etzem of a wall. Be'etzem the din is I can't look into your you, that's it, it's hezek, it's היזק ראיה. And I want to say, \"I'm not going to look. I know I'm not allowed to, there's a din, it's a issur to look. I'm not going to look. Why don't you make a wall? I tell, I promise you I won't look.\" What do we tell the guy? It's impossible. Yeah, but it's impossible. You're going to try, but mila for one day you won't look. Even the not yetzer hara, the yetzer hatov, I want to see how you daven, I want to learn, how you say קריאת שמע על המטה, I want to look into your your house, into your yard. But I'm, but it's oh, you even forget, so it's not possible. So the Chachamim says, \"There's no choice. You got to make a wall, there's no other way.\" So, and I'll explain where this will come from, yeah, whether, but I want to say you could say it's a din be'etzem, now you got to make a wall because of היזק ראיה, but the bottom line is a din of a wall, everyone has to make a wall, and if it's in the middle you make one wall when both, and each one participates. Or it just happens to be there has to be a wall. It's not a din be'etzem there's a wall, because of היזק ראיה so Chachamim said there's no choice to put up a wall. Sounds the same, but it's not. I'll tell you what the nafka mina is. If each one, if בעצם there's a din of a wall, באמת each one has to if they're two roofs, each one has an obligation to make a full wall. Ela mai, you've got to be stupid to make two walls. Why should you waste money to

make two walls? So the Chachamim went and took off whatever is extra. בעצם you have to make a whole wall, but it's extra, so they took off. If you say it's בעצם you don't have to make a wall, but because there's a problem you got to make a wall, so you only make a wall to take away the problem. Wherever the problem is not so strong, we can't make you make a wall. And the difference is like this: if you בעצם have to make a wall, as long as we're not sure that you don't have to make, we make you make. The other way is the opposite: we only make you make a wall when we are sure that you have to make. The nafka mina will be this case: when the guy makes the wall overlapping a little bit. Now, there's a possibility that this is okay. Maybe you don't, because maybe the guy won't look. Why won't he look? Because it's going to be fall off. But maybe he will. Where are you falling off of? On the roof. Why are they on the roof? They used to use it. Even nowadays also, you have a roof that is used. Spread your fruits to dry. Used to sleep on the roof in Yemen. Sleep, yeah, okay. Now, so

the the difference between the two cases is, what is the din if there is not so clear whether you have to make a wall or not? Would you have to or not? So, depends. If בעצם you have to make a wall, you have to make a wall, unless you know for sure you don't. So, as long as there is a possibi- a safek, you have to make a wall. If בעצם you don't have to, ela mai, because of a situation, so you got to prove that the situation is that you have to make. The בפועל nafka mina is this case. Basically, what we're saying is the difference is the fact that he's making a wall half, if you learn בעצם you have to make, we only take off, באמת should make the whole thing, each one should make the whole thing. We take off, what do we take off? The one that we know for sure you don't need, but the one that's a possib- that we're not sure, you got to keep. So, how much do you take off? A little bit. And you have to overlap a lot. That's the Rambam שיטה. So, the Rambam, when he says that you got to overlap a lot, and he doesn't care that probab- maybe the guy won't look, probably he won't look, but I'm not sure. If he be sure he can't look, it's fine, so that's what you got to do. But I'm not sure, so as long as we're not sure, you got to make it, so you got to overlap a lot. Rashba will learn the opposite: there's not בעצם a wall. You got to make a wall when you know that there's היזק ראיה. So, I make whatever I'm sure is a problem. Whatever I'm not sure that you need a wall, you don't. So, you just overlap a little bit, and the rest is not sure. Maybe the maybe the guy won't look. It's not something It's not like the other place where you have to look. It's impossible not to look ever, but here it's possible. So, you don't make a wall. What do you call that? So, it's בעצם. Like, one is בעצם, the other is The בפועל, I don't know. Yeah, just in בפועל you have to make a wall. Like I said, it just happens to be that you have to make a wall. There's The only way to avoid your problem is a wall. Why do you have to overlap it? Each one can just pay for half a wall. Where you going to make the wall? Put it in the middle. We're talking about two roofs. Where are you going to make walls to begin with? On top of the roof. ד׳ אמות ד׳ אמות on top of the roof. In a yard you make one wall. In the middle. Where? At the floor? It's in the street! There's a street in between! There's a street between two houses? Yeah, across No, two houses across the street. Then you can't even see that Yes, you can. Small street? But a street. Could be an alleyway. Could could be an alleyway. Yeah, no, that's what it says, לשון is two sides of the street. And so you have So, that's the machloket. What is the real basis of this machloket? The basis is whether בעצם you have to make a wall or not. What is the basis of that? Everyone agrees that the whole thing is based on the issur of היזק ראיה. You're not allowed to look. That's all it is. So, what's the reason to say that בעצם you have to make a wall? So, the sevara could be like this, and this why would be the machloket between the Rambam and and the the Rashba. We find the Rebbe explains in a different inyan something, and that will give us to So, what am I saying here? Could be בעצם the space There's a קנין בעצם that I have a right to force you to make a wall, and there's a din It's almost as if saying that your space at your edge requires a wall. בעצם. The other way, no, your space doesn't require anything, it's just that I have to make a wall. Want to call it the famous expression חפצא and גברא. Is it the space, the מקום? In a מקום, a place like this needs a wall. Or, you say, it was nothing, the place doesn't need anything, ela mai, he shouldn't look, so you got to put up a wall. Okay. What is that based on? So, there's another place where there's a machloket with the way the the Rebbe explains, and that's by the din of בר

מצרא. We had a shiur on this בר מצרא. בר מצרא means if I am a neighbor to somebody, two fields, I own this field, you own this field, and I'm a neighbor. And if this guy, my neighbor, is ready wants to sell his field, I have first choice. Not only that, even if he sells it to a stranger, I could come and kick him out and take over the field. That's the part called בר מצרא. Pay for it. Huh? Well, I would have to pay for it, but that's but I have a right to take it away. The the Rebbe explain and the the Rebbe explains based on different dinim, uh Without paying? Ah, no, he has to pay. But But But If it be a different place, I can't come and kick a guy a buyer out because I want to buy it. But here, the Chachamim said The one Because Because Not for a low value. He has to buy it at Huh? At normal price. It has to be a normal price. Not the same value? What? Not the same value? Yeah, if the guy overpaid, I don't have to pay. I have to give him back the money. That's right, the guy, the seller has to give him back. What happens, turns out Rambam says, if if the other guy bought it and I kick him out, I don't have to make a kinyan even. His kinyan is is a שליח of me. He didn't know that, but it turns out it is a kinyan of me. Anyway, so only in field? Only houses also? Houses. Yeah, we had that din in in in our shul. I know. Yeah,

when we bought the shul, Beit Menachem, yeah, I got a call after we bought it from Rabbi Rabbi Zwieck. \"We want to buy it, Janowski, and we're בר מצרא, so we have a right for the for the house.\" Yeah, goy owned it. So I I told him, I don't know, the seller was a goy. There's no din of a בר מצרא if a goy is the seller. \"Oh, I'll have to think about it.\" Never called me back, I'm still waiting for his call. You're really waiting? But there's a דין בר מצרא even by houses. The buyer, a goy is different. A goy is different. If you go back one sentence, if you, properties, this guy gets the right of first refusal, but he gives it up. If he gives it up, there's no problem. And then the guy buys it, and he still kicks him out? No, if no, if he gave it up, not. No, he refused like, he never went to him. This guy sold it with sm- without this guy knowing. Oh, without him knowing. Yeah, right. Then he can kick him out. Then he can kick him out, but if he came to him and said, \"I don't want it,\" and he sold it, you can't decide, you know, a year later to kick him out. No, that's not. So the the Rebbe explains that there is a machloket between Rambam and Rashi, whether this is only a zechut, this guy, the neighbor, the בר מצרא, it's called a neighbor, has a right to buy this, or, he uses a lashon of the Nimukei Yosef, that the neighbor has a קצת קנין. Almost like he has a certain ownership in it. Only לגבי this din, but it's like a owner and the the Rebbe says, an ownership in this field, that's why he gets it first, because it's his almost. An inherent right. An inher- but no, it's not an inherent right, that's a kinyan. Inherent right is a zechut. A poss- a possession inherent right. Yeah. So he has that lashon \"קצת קנין\", and the the Rebbe brings re'ayot that this is a מחלוקת Rashi and the Rambam. What is the basis of the machloket there? But I think the peshat is like this, and there are a lot of re'ayot that this goes the way other places in the Rambam, but we're not going to get into that, that לכאורה, why would he have a kinyan in it? What's the reason that the neighbor gets first choice? \"ועשית הישר והטוב,\" it says in the pasuk. You should be nice to a person, do good for him. And therefore, for this neighbor to have this is much better than a stranger. The stranger who bought this, let him go someplace else and buy, just as good. Him, if you tell him to go someplace, he loses. Like this, it's all one field, so he could work together. So it's, so it's not, there's no kinyan, he has no ownership in it. All it is is a right. So why does the Nimukei Yosef say, and the Rebbe says that's how the Rambam holds also, that you have a קצת קנין? But the peshat is based on a different place where the Rebbe explains a different machloket in Rambam and Rashi. It seems like this: Because he has this zechut in it, that automatically schleps him to turn into קצת קנין. Okay, I'll tell you where it's based on, a different place where the Rebbe has a long אריכות, which I explained once before, לנוגע the chinuch, mitzvah of chinuch, when you have to teach your ch- make sure your child does the mitzvot, so there's a שאלה, does the child called a mechuyav? Is the child obligated? So according to Rashi, the child is not obligated. The father is obligated to say that the child should do the mitzvah, the child is not a מחויב בדבר. According to Tosafot, according to the Rambam, the child is a mechuyav. The nafka mina is, remember, you remember what the naf- nafka mina would be? A person who is mechuyav could be motzi somebody else who is mechuyav. Berachot. A person who bentches could be motzi somebody else who has to bentch. But if one guy is מחויב מדרבנן and another guy is mid'oraita, the one miderabbanan cannot be motzi the guy mideoraita, because mideoraita you are patur. Mideoraita you only have to bentsh if you eat כדי שביעה, when you're full. If you only eat like a כביצה, כזית, מדרבנן you have to bentsh, not mideoraita. A child is patur from all the mitzvot. Doesn't have to bentsh, but miderabbanan he has to bentsh. What happens if a guy, a gadol, an adult, ate a כזית? So he is only mechuyav to bentsh miderabbanan מדרבנן. Can the child be motzi him? The child is also only mechuyav miderabbanan. Whether if he ate כדי שביעה, or if he was... No, no. I'm asking if he ate כדי שביעה, otherwise it's two derabbanans. Would the child be motzi him in what? Bentshing. Could you be motzi somebody else in your bentshing? You certainly can, yeah, you can. No, בדיעבד, two people could be motzi. Unless my chiyuv is less than yours. They have to answer amen. That's right, even if you don't answer. Even all the way in- As long as you're mechaven. על המחיה also? Yeah, we probably don't. Amoltsaytn people, now some by some Sephardim they still do it. Why not? One guy bentshes out loud and everyone listens, everyone is quiet. Yeah, so you listen. Right. Because you could be yotzei. It's a ma'alah in that also. Because, oh, because it's a רבים, it's a ציבור. And and that's better, that's that's whatever. So, it's a מחלוקת Rashi and Tosafot, Rashi and Rambam. According to Rashi, he can't be motzi, because a child is not mechuyav at all, even miderabanan. Either it's a mitzvah chiyuv, chinuch miderabanan. The mitzvat chinuch is not the peshat that the child is mechuyav, it's a chiyuv on the father to make the child mechuyav, to do make sure the child does the mitzvah. And the Rambam says that a, different Rishonim also, the Rambam, the child is called mechuyav. And the Rebbe asked, what did, how did the chachamim put a chiyuv on the child? How do you put a chiyuv on the child? So, the Rebbe learns based on a, it's a Tzemach Tzedek, that everyone agrees the child, the chiyuv is on the father. But because the father's mitzvah miderabanan is to make the child do it, so the child becomes part of it, and it transfers to the child. Huh? Right, the whole mitzvah is that. And he brings a ראיה דרך like the Ran, the famous Ran. The Gemara says that it's a mitzvah, a bigger mitzvah for a woman to receive kiddushin herself than a shaliach. And the Ran asks, what do you mean a bigger mitzvah? She has no מצוה בכלל. The whole mitzvah of getting married is only on a man. The woman doesn't have a mitzvah to get married. So, the Ran answers because the husband cannot do his mitzvah without her, she's called, she's also called mechuyav in the mitzvah. What's the peshat why? Because since you have a connection, and and and and what's what word did he use before it? Inherent connection, automatically it transfers to you the chiyuv. And we find in other, whole bunch of cases. So, I

want to say, and the Rambam over there argues with Rashi, the same thing here. The fact that you have a connection, you have a right over this field, just like over there the fact that I have to do it with you makes you mechuyav, the fact that I am, I have a zechut in this field makes me have a kinyan in the field. And we find in other cases that the zechut brings about a kinyan, and that's why the Rambam says it's a kinyan. And that's the machloket with Rashi and the Rambam. Rashi says that it's only a zechut. What's the inyan of בר מצרא? He has a zechut to get the first choice to buy it. And the Rambam says it's a kinyan. Where did the kinyan come from? From the zechut! It's all based on this nekudah, that the Rambam holds that it transfers and Rashi holds it doesn't transfer. So, they don't disagree, it's just a stage. Zechut leads to the kinyan. And he says that zechut doesn't lead to kinyan. It's a machloket. Oh, they don't need the zechut to have the kinyan? No, you need the zechut. Oh, the Rambam holds the only way there's a kinyan because of zechut. The zechut leads to... And Rashi says the zechut is not, it remains zechut. It doesn't turn into kinyan. This is nafka minah legabei many halachot. Nafka minah is, one difference, what happens if the buyer is poor and he needs the field for parnasah? So, according to Rashi it says, give it to him, you can't take it away. בר מצרא can't take it away. And according to the Tosafot, Rambam, what do you mean? It's a דין בר מצרא, what do you mean don't take it away? Rachmanut on him? אין מרחמין בדין! We have rachmanut? If two guys have an, a דין תורה and one guy is poor, so you have to make him win the דין תורה? A din is a din. Yes. So, and he says you can't. What's the why is there a difference? Because if it's only a zechut, okay, so you don't have any right, you only have a right, so you could give it over. But if I own it, how could how could you פסקן because he is poor to give it away? So, it's נפקא מינה להלכה. So, what I'm trying to bring out is this is a nekudah whether zechut brings about kinyan or not. And it's a machloket Rashi and Tosafot, Rashi and the Rambam. So, going back to the matter, what do they say? Rashi learns that you have to go a little bit, why? Because there is no בעצם'דיקע דין of making a wall. So, the wall is a chidush, so you're only mechadesh as much as you have to. The Rambam says be'etzem you have to make a wall, so we're only taking off, so you take off the minimum. So, we ask, so I ask, so what's the basis? The basis is this: What would be the sevara of the Rambam that be'etzem you have to make, you have to make a wall because it's היזק ראיה. Because of היזק ראיה, you have a right to demand a wall. So, the Rambam goes לשיטתו, just like over there because you have a right to it, it makes that you have a shtikel kinyan, here also, it is almost like there's לגבי the wall, you have a kinyan in this field that the field, yes, this מקום needs a wall, so it's be'etzem a din of a wall. And, therefore, when it comes to this, since be'etzem there's a din of a wall, you do it more. Rashi says no, you have a right to demand a wall, that's all, and it stays a right, there's only a right. No be'etzem a wall, you're right in the, now why do you have a right? Because he's going to look. So, in the case where you're not sure, you can't demand a wall. So, this this machloket here is based on the same machloket of the case of of בר מצרא, the same idea. So, we have a machloket here, Rashi learns zechut remains zechut, doesn't turn into kinyan, and the Rambam holds it turns into kinyan. Now that Let's get back to our Gemara here. What did we say?

Rashi learns that when this guy the two brothers divided, this guy got the building, this guy got the garden, and he blocked his window. So Rashi says, Gemara says he has a right to do it. And we asked the she'elah, like the Gemara asked, why is this different that the דלת אמות בברם, the four amos in כרם we said automatically he gets it because he need it. And Rashi learns here he blocked the complete light. So what did the Nachlas Dovid say? Rashi learns there's a big difference. The דלת אמות בכרם, you're getting the kinyan, you're getting something that's your kinyan in it. But this this is only a zechus. It's only a zechus, it's not automatic. And Tosafos doesn't like it. Tosafos asks, what do you mean? There's no difference. So I asked what why doesn't Tosafos like Rashi's pshat? I'll tell you why. Tosafos learns like and we said the Rambam learns over there like Tosafos, that zechus turns into kinyan. So it's much harder to make that difference. We're saying a difference if you get a kinyan in something or you only have a zechus. So Rashi who learns that zechus remains zechus, so zechus and kinyan are two worlds. And therefore he could make a big difference. Kinyan, when there's something that you have a kinyan, it automatic becomes yours. Something you only have a zechus, doesn't. But Tosafos I can't learn like that because to me, if you have a zechus, automatically you have a kinyan. Cuz Tosafos learns, but the Rambam else learns, Rambam and Tosafos like in all other, and many more places where we find this idea, that seems like the Rambam and Rashi argue. So Tosafos says, I can't make the chiluk between, why? Because it's not of a chiluk. Cuz the zechus that you have makes a kinyan. It's as ke'ilu you have ke'ilu I have a kinyan. The guy with a window has a kinyan in your field of having the light. So you can't So your your field alone is not alright not allowed to block me. So you say, a little So he has a kinyan, therefore Tosafos has a new pshat. So a little It only blocked a little bit. And the difference is something else: if it's a big need or a small need. But to make the difference between kinyan and zechut, Tosafos, I can't. מה שאין כן Rashi could, because Rashi holds zechut is zechut, kinyan is kinyan. Tosafos holds kinyan zechut is kinyan, it turns into kinyan, therefore I can't make the difference. What is an example of a zechut that's like a zechut that turned to kinyan? A zechut what? Turns into kinyan. You said the case of the wall, in this case because the examples of of by this like the father and the son, that's not the word kinyan, but it's but it's chiyuv. Chiyuv means that you are In other words, it becomes part of you. The father cannot be chov the son. The father cannot be chov the son. Yeah, I'm saying, but l'maaseh what happens there? So, even though it's only a it's not with a right, but a chiyuv he has to him, and the other kid the other the child only has something that has to be done to him, which is similar to zechut, nevertheless he becomes It becomes part of him. It transfers to him. It transfers to him. So, we have an and that transfer case there's a shaila by the kohen, is there a chiyuv on the Yidden to hear Birkat Kohanim, in other words to get blessed? Or is it just the the mitzvah of the Kohanim? Pshat's a mitzvah on the Kohanim.

Zogt di Charedim that the Yisraelim have a mitzvah. Why? Because you can't you have to bless somebody, so that somebody becomes part of it. Because since they have a zechut of getting the blessing, they the blessing has a kinyan in them, and now they become part of it. A שאלה להלכה, can you answer Baruch Hu u'Varuch Shemo when you hear the berachah of the Kohanim, or do the Kohanim מוציא you with a berachah? If we have the If we have a part of the mitzvah, then when you make the berachah, I'm being yotzei the the berachah, because I also have to have it, so I shouldn't answer baruch hu uvaruch shemo. And we suck at dos. We say a berachah at the end. We say What do we say at the end? Say, amen. We say, amen, but we say What do we say at the end? No, it's על דברי תורה that's that's that's that's That's for the Ivrit? Huh? That's for the Ivrit. He was ברכת כהנים. Yeah. So the Charedim says that. What and it's a lot of cases where we find simchah, on יום טוב, שלמי שמחה, bringing shalom, it's a machloket the the Rambam and the Rashi. Also and there is even even in a negative thing, the Maharik says when a person takes interest, besides the issur of taking interest, he's stealing, cuz he's not allowed to take the money, so besides the issur of taking ribbit, he's stealing. The guy is giving him interest, is he over a איסור גזילה? Yes. So normally you'd say he's over giving ribbit, but he didn't steal, he's giving the money. So the Maharik says he's over and he has a issur. Why? Cuz the other guy can't steal with- without without him without him giving it to him. Memeila he's a he's an accomplice, memeila he becomes In all these cases we find that it

has I remember when the Rebbe spoke the inyan we came in us by us the the vort was the סוגיא פון איבערטראגן. The Rebbe used the word ibertrogn, es trogt zich iber, it transfers from one to another. But this this is what the Rebbe learns that peshat in the Rambam. Not the Rambam the Rambam and Rashi argue, Tosafot and Rashi argue, the Raavad and the argues against the Rambam, all kinds of machloket in different cases, where the Rebbe brings examples. משפחת שמחה says you have to ושמחת בחגך. What's the mitzvah of simcha? Bring shelamim. Gemara, what about the אשה? So the Gemara says אשה בעלה משמחה. A woman, her husband makes gives her simcha. Rashi says, how does he give her simcha? He buys her nice clothes, he gives her jewelry, he does. And Tosafos says, בעלה משמחה means she has no חיוב of simcha, since the husband gives her to eat from his קרבן in order for the husband to be מקיים שמחה to feed the family, mimela she also has simcha. And the Rambam learns like Tosafos. The Rambam says in the הלכות of simcha, he says, והיא גם היא אשה חייבת במצוה זו. Comes the Raavad and says, what are you talking about? How is she חייב בשמחה? It doesn't say anything. This is the same machloket. Because he's מקיים a part of his simcha of being משמח her, mimela she gets a חיוב שמחה. And according to Rashi, not. So, it's a different דין. The husband has to give her clothes. By שפחה חרופה, there's so many places where the Rebbe brings this these examples.

Tzemach Tzedek by לימוד התורה. See, we said that מדרבנן, you have to see your child does the מצות. There's one thing that a father has to do מדאורייתא. He has to teach his child Torah. Has to teach him Torah. Zagt der Rambam that if the father did not teach the child תורה, חייב ללמד את עצמו, he himself has to learn כשיכיר. Not כשיגדל, not when he becomes an adult, when he starts understanding. Everyone wonders, how could you make a קטן and he's מחוייב מדאורייתא? So, the Tzemach Tzedek says these words, because the father is מדאורייתא מחוייב to learn with him, and basically, the father can't do his mitzvah unless the child learns with him, mimela, the child becomes מחוייב מדאורייתא. I once told you with Reb Yaakov Kamenetsky, I once brought him to yeshiva and he and on the way bringing coming to yeshiva speaking, so I mentioned this Rambam. So, I told him the Tzemach Tzedek's pshat. Who, wow. So, he back we came into yeshiva, he says, \"ווייז מיר דער צמח צדק.\" So, I took the Tzemach Tzedek and I showed him. He says always bothered him this Rambam and here he sees. A few weeks later, I get a call. My wife has an aunt, Mrs. Feldman, her husband was the משגיח רוחני in in Mir, the Mirrer Yeshiva. He was a very איידעלע ייד. So, she calls with a גאנצע שמחה. \"I just was by a bris in Monsey, and Reb Yaakov Kamenetsky was there, and he spoke. Ah? And he spoke, and what did he say? He spoke about that Rambam, and he said that this is a Rambam that bothered him all his life till he came to Miami, and he said he Lubavitcher yeshiva,\" I was surprised that he should say it. \"He came to Lubavitcher yeshiva, and he spoke to Rabbi Schapiro, and he showed him the Tzemach Tzedek, and it lit up his eyes.\" So, she called So, she told everybody, \"That's my nephew.\" So, she called with a simcha, you know, \"Reb Yaakov Kamenetsky mentioned you there.\" Aber ס'האקעס, a moradike vort. When

when the when the the wife eats the korban, is it a חיוב בגברא or בחפצא? In other words, is it a chiyuv Well, it seems it's Well, no, see because maybe it's the thing that he has to give her and that makes it it like a kinyan, it makes it that now she's part of it. Not that she has any chiyuv, but the fact that he has to give it to her That's the machloket. If he has a chiyuv to give, does that mean that that turns transfers the chiyuv to her, too? But not that she has the chiyuv. But mimela, she has a chiyuv, it transfers the chiyuv, she has But that it has to be eaten by her. No, she doesn't have a mitzvah, but it became a mitzvah. Since that husband has to give her, it became a mitzvah that she has to have. Yeah, like it's a chelek in the in in the korban itself, as a No, it's not a din in korban. Does it have to be Does it have to be eaten by her, or does she have to eat it? Simcha is of the person. Yashar koach, Yashar koach. Yashar koach. That's a gevaldike shiur, gevaldike shiur, no?