No, I'll try it. Okay. Uh-oh. The flight got delayed, so Okay. Bug just flew in. Okay, I'm not complaining. We just learned yesterday, זבוב מצא That's that's called ones. I'll give you another one. This is like Send another, I don't want to. I don't need it. Never mind. Never mind. That's a siman the rav doesn't want. Yes, a siman the rav doesn't want. A siman that Hashem doesn't want you to drink. Maybe that bug wants a sip, so it's a בירור. He wants to sit by a shiur. Yes, a בירור. Tikkun tikkun Yeah, you didn't make a berachah, did you? I did. I took a sip. And while I took a sip, I looked and saw it. What I drank was no problem. It's It's בטל בששים. The bug itself is not בטל. But the bug is not lost. The the בלוע is in the cup. The bug is stymied, so It is נותן טעם לפגם, also. Yeah, the only time it's not נותן טעם, is a עכבר. A mouse. A mouse in wine. It's a whole siman in Yoreh Deah. Okay,

זאגט די Gemara here, the Mishnah talks about חזקת הבתים. The din is here about someone who has a house house or a field or whatever it is, and sitting there for three years, and somebody comes and a מערער, we call him Let's give him the name. The guy who is sitting in the field is called a מחזיק. The one that's coming to complain is called a מערער. And he is מערער. He says, \"This field that you're sitting, this house you're sitting, is mine.\" And obviously, the case is he has ראיות it's his. He has a שטר or people know it's his. \"What are you doing in my field?\" He says, \"What do you mean? I bought it from you.\" \"Bought it? Where is your שטר?\" So the din is, if it's less than three years, takeh, if he has no שטר and he has no ראיה he bought it, this guy has a ראיה it's his, so he gets out. He takes away the house. If it's three years, he has a chazakah. That's the din. And memeila, the guy doesn't, even though he doesn't have a שטר, the מערער cannot take it away. זאגט די Gemara: אמר רבי יוחנן: שמעתי מהולכי אושא. Rabbi Yochanan said, \"I heard from the people who were in Usha.\" Usha was one of the ten stops that the Sanhedrin made. It says עשרה... Rashi brings that the Sanhedrin originally were in לשכת הגזית by the בית המקדש, but then they left, and they went At one point, they were in Usha. Actually, the Gemara says many times, באושא התקינו that a lot of תקנות they made in Usha. So some of the people from Usha said like this, that היו אומרים, they said, מניין לחזקה ג׳ שנים? Where do you find this the din, the re'ayah for a din of chazakah for three years? משור המועד. We learn it out from a שור המועד. What's a

שור המועד? If an ox gores, so the first three times, he's only a תם. תם means you only pay חצי נזק. You only pay half. If the damage that he caused was $100, you only pay 50. But then, then after he becomes a מועד, after three times, he becomes a מועד, and then you pay נזק שלם. So he learns out, מה שור המועד, just like by this ox, כיון שנגח ג׳ נגיחות, as soon as he gored three times, נפק ליה מחזקת תם וקם ליה בחזקת מועד, it leaves, it's not a תם anymore. It leaves the status of a תם, now it becomes a status of a מועד. הכא נמי here too, כיון דאכלה תלת שנין נפקא לה מרשות מוכר וקיימא לה ברשות לוקח. If it he ate, he was there in the field for three years, that he goes out from the רשות of the seller, and now it's his, and that's why he's allowed to keep it. The Gemara goes into other פרטים. Then I'm going to start from the second half because I don't know how long this will take, because of this. So if you don't have a shtar for three years, you don't have a shtar In the middle of the three years, if he doesn't have a shtar, he gets out. After the three years, and he טענ׳ט He stays there. Because he טענ׳ס, \"I bought it.\" And that's where the Gemara takes it from. Here the

Gemara asks a שאלה: If you learn it out from שור המועד, the din is like this, that the chazakah that you have to have is, let's say in a field, it gives food, crop, once a season, one season a year, so you have to have it for three years. What happens if, for some reason, there was more than one season in that field, and you happen to take out three אכילות, we call it. Is that good enough, like three years? Like three years. Less than three years. So it's less than three years. Example, what? So the Gemara, I'll get In a Give a second, we'll see. The quality of food? Huh? Not a quality. It gives out This a machloket between It's a machloket between Rabbi Yishmael and the Chachamim. I'll give you an example. Rabbi Yishmael says at the end of the Mishnah, if in the field, כנס את תבואתו, if the person took off, harvested the grapes, Here תבואה means grapes. מוסק את זיתיו, he harvested the olives. There was a season of grapes, then in that same field right after that was a season of olives, and then וכונס את קיצו, and figs. Figs. הרי אלו ג׳ שנים, even though it's one year, but it's ke'ilu it's equivalent to three years. But that's only the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael. Chachamim argue. Okay, I'm mentioning it because we'll see in the Gemara, because it's like because it has to be three אכילות, yeah. Frekt di Gemara like this: או לרבי מאיר דאמר ריחק נגיחותיו חייב קירב נגיחותיו לא כל שכן? We just said we learned it out from a שור המועד. Just like a שור המועד is three years becomes three נגיחות becomes a מועד,

here also. There's a machloket between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says that even though from the pasuk we learn out that when does he become a שור המועד? Only if he gores three times in three separate days. That's what we learn out. So there's a machloket between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says, if ריחק נגיחותיו חייב, if there was a bigger space, there were three days, you're חייב נזק שלם, קירב נגיחותיו לא כל שכן? So if the same three happened in one day, closer, vadai you should be חייב נזק שלם. So Rabbi Meir holds that even it doesn't have to be three three נגיחות in three days in order to be חייב. Rabbi Yehuda holds that even if it's three נגיחות in in one day it's called one. It doesn't doesn't work. So the Gemara asks, according to רבי מאיר, אכלה תלתא פירי בחד יומא, what happens if there are three types of fruit that you ate in one day, כגון תאנה, ליהוי חזקה? And the Gemara answered, finally the Gemara comes a kashya that there should be, if you ate three אכילות, it should be, because just like by the שור it's not the גדר in the three days, it's the גדר in three נגיחות. So here also, it should be three אכילות, not the גדר of three זמנים, like the three years. And the Gemara answers, yeah, you know who the halacha who she is? Rabbi Yishmael. He takeh holds like that. That's the Gemara. The Gemara's kashya is only according to Rabbi Meir. According to Rabbi Meir who says that if you gore three times, the שור gores three times in one day you should be חייב, so here also, if you have three אכילות, even if it's not three years, you should be a chazakah. So Rashi says, כלומר לרבי יהודה דאמר בבבא קמא זהו מועד כל שידו בו שלשה ימים, according to רבי יהודה he says it's only three days, איכא למימר הכא ג׳ שנים דומיא דג׳ ימים. So here you need three years like over there three days. אלא לרבי מאיר דאמר התם אפילו נגח ג׳ פעמים ביום אחד הוי מועד מקל וחומר, he says even in three days it's a מועד, הכא נמי, here it should be the same thing, אכלה תלתא פירי בחד יומא. If you ate three in one day, למשל, which would be three כגון תאנה, it should also be הכא נמי תהוי חזקה. And the Gemara takeh answers whatever the Gemara answers. Comes the Chasam Sofer, That was Rabbi Meir. Huh? That was Rabbi Meir. That was Rabbi Meir. Comes the Chasam Sofer, Why you're learning about a different kind of food? It could be the same food in the morning, noon, and No, no. If it's the same food, it's all one המשך. It has to be three separate אכילות. Yeah, but if you That's why even Rabbi Yishmael gives an example gives an example of grapes, olives. But let's say you had grapes and then you had another again grapes and again, because that doesn't work. What if you learn this from שור המועד? If you eat in the morning the תאנה, and noon the תאנה, and night So the Gemara had thought of תאנה, but then the But תאנה is the same. But then the Gemara continues I'm just going to the end already, because the Gemara goes a whole process here that תאנה doesn't work because when this was The Gemara comes the end is is takeh one thing, אספסתא. The Gemara at the end is takeh the Gemara's final is when you get even one as long as it's separate seeds. Separated by time. Yes, that's It's not to get into the whole המשך I'm going to bring. That's true. Comes the Chasam Sofer, and Chasam Sofer asks a kashya: from the Gemara it's mashma the way Rashi learns that the whole kashya of the Gemara is only according to Rabbi Meir. According to Rabbi Meir who says even three נגיחות in one day you're חייב נזק שלם, so here also. But according to Rabbi Yehuda, it wouldn't be a kashya. The Chasam Sofer says, according to what the Magen Avraham writes in Shulchan Aruch קו״ף, סימן קי״ד in Orach Chaim, it should be also according to Rabbi Yehuda it should be a kashya also, because by the case of the שור המועד, רבי יהודה would agree. What's the case? What's the story there? So

let's go through that whole case there. It all starts off with the Tur. The Tur quotes a Yerushalmi. The Tur in קי״ד quotes a Yerushalmi where it says like this. It's has nothing to do with this, but we'll get back to this. It says in the Yerushalmi that if a person has to when it comes to Shemini Atzeret and you have to change to משיב הרוח ומוריד הגשם, from then on, what happens if you forgot, Yerushalmi says, whether you said So the Yerushalmi says that if it's within thirty days, you probably did not say it, say the right thing, because you're still used to the way it was old. If it's after thirty days, your tongue got used to the new way, so mistama you said it. So comes comes the the Tur continues that the Maharam of Rothenburg, what he used to do is on Shemini Atzeret he would say ninety times that piece of Shemoneh Esrei. So it's a Why What happens thirty Why do you get used in thirty days? Because you say three times a day, so three thirty days is ninety is ninety. Alter Rebbe says not to do it. Alter Rebbe says not to Okay, one second. Yeah. So he's One second. So he says So the the is that's And that what happened. The mefarshim ask ve'od it's more in in thirty days you have more than ninety times, because you have Shabbos, Mussaf and Rosh Chodesh, whatever, that's But he said ninety. It's צ׳ פעמים. But if he had But he obviously didn't hold like that. He held theikar is a ninety. So he said ninety times, and he says with that And he said that even though in Yerushalmi it just mentions if you do it with you get used to by thirty days, so he says, if by doing it spread out it works, if you do it all together, it works even stronger. A re'ayah from this din of Rabbi Meir, that Rabbi Meir says that אם ריחק נגיחותיו חייב, קירב נגיחותיו לא כל שכן. It means that קירוב is better than ריחוק. If it's further, that's what he says. If further works, makes a kal vachomer, so certainly closer. He says the same thing here, that's what Maharam of Rothenburg said, that if it's same thing here, if it was if the din is that if you say it ninety times spread out it works, certainly it works ninety times. Then the Tur continues, אבל Rabbeinu Peretz, that Peretz writes, I didn't see רבנן קשישי דצרפת, I didn't see the great גדולי ישראל in in France say that, and he says, I I don't think it's it's you could learn out from there. He says, adraba, he says, I think that when it comes to this, even Rabbi Meir will agree that further is better. Why? Because here it's how you get used to, and your tongue, it gets used to more if it's spread out, not if it's together. Okay. Come the mefarshim, the Shlah, the Drisha, the Taz, the Magen Avraham, they all ask a kashya on the Maharam of Rothenburg, don't understand, how could he bring a re'ayah from Rabbi Meir when Rabbi Yehudah argues? And the halachah is like Rabbi Yehudah. The whole re'ayah is because Rabbi Meir said that if it works if it's spread out, certainly one day after another works, from that he has a re'ayah. Comes Rabbi Yehudah, he says, it's not true. Rabbi Yehudah argues, he says it doesn't work. It's stronger if it's spread out than if it's straight, and the halachah, the Gemara paskens like Rabbi Yehudah. So, how did Maharam of Rothenburg bring a re'ayah from here to his הנהגה? So, the Drisha has the shaila, they all has a shaila. The Taz takeh says, because of that, I don't think Maharam miRothenburg is right, because he only followed the R' Meir, which is not halacha. But the Magen Avraham the Magen Avraham says that the Maharam miRothenburg learns that it's only in the case of of שור המועד where there is a machloket between R' Meir and R' Yehuda, but in the case of other cases, R' Yehuda would agree to R' Meir, to say that R' Yehuda באמת holds that close, bechlal, everything, close is better than far. By שור המועד, it's different because you have a pasuk, you have to learn off a pasuk, but that's what they learn. I'm not going We'll get to it in a second. So the So the Chatam Sofer says, according to the Magen Avraham, why did the Gemara ask a kashya here only according to R' Meir? The Gemara, according to R' Meir over there, he says that if it's closer is better, I have a how come by the chazakah closer is not good, it's mashma, according to R' Yehuda, we understand, it's not a kashya, but in this case R' Yehuda would agree. In this case, because it's he only argues, according to the Maharam miRothenburg, the way the Magen Avraham explains, he only argues by the שור המועד, but he doesn't argue by everything else. By שור המועד is special. So the Gemara could ask the kashya is according to R' Yehuda also. So, he asked and he doesn't answer. He says, tzarich iyun, and he doesn't answer the kashya. So, in order to doesn't answer it. Chatam Sofer doesn't answer, tzarich iyun. But when he says tzarich iyun, he's got to think about it. So, so, I was me'ayen, and you could come out come out with a with a biur to answer, to first understand, bechlal, what is the machloket between the Maharam of Rothenburg and the Rabbeinu Peretz? They obviously argue peshat in machlokes Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda. Because you see what comes out here is a very strange thing. According to Maharam of Rothenburg, they only argue בנוגע שור המועד. Everything other other place, even Rav Yehuda agrees to Rav Meir. You know what Rabbeinu Peretz does? The opposite. He says, he I he says, \"I disagree with Maharam of Rothenburg, and I hold that by other cases, even Rav Meir is modeh.\" That's what he it's it's opposite sevarot. So, they obviously learned different the peshat in the Maharam in in the machlokes Rav Meir veRabbi Yehuda. So, lichorah the machlokes Rav Meir veRabbi Yehuda is like this: at first glance, machlokes is pashut in logic. What is where is it stronger? Is it stronger when they're close or is it stronger far? So, Rav Meir holds that it's stronger when it's close, so if far works to make a מועד, stronger close al achat kamah vekamah. And Rabbi Yehuda learns the opposite. But you can say the peshat is not just a machlokes which one, it's a מחלוקת במציאות which one is stronger. The machlokes is a little different, you can say, what what the peshat is here is: we find in a lot of things, especially the Rebbe goes into this a lot, when there are certain things that happen, you could call it a sibah, a ta'am, or a siman. Is this a cause, or is this just a sign? And I'll I'll give you an example in a second, but in our case, when we say when a שור does the נגיחות three times, he becomes a מועד, what is the peshat? You can learn two ways. You can learn one way: that's a re'iyah, it's a siman that his nature is to be a נגח. So, when he does it once, could have happened. It's not a re'iyah, it's no re'iyah, it's his nature. Does it twice, ken oich zayn it happened. But if he does it three times, that's a re'iyah that's his nature. Or you can learn not like that. He's supposed to watch him, yeah. No, so what's the re'iyah?

He's not going to watch him again? No, a person is different. No, here we're passing by the nature of of what what his nature is. A nature not to watch? He's a shlemazel? No, I'm saying, but in this case, in the case of the שור נגח, you can learn this one way, that this is a siman that he is a נגח, that he's a You can learn another way: it's not a siman, it makes him a נגח. If he does something three times, it becomes his nature, הרגל נעשה טבע. He did it once, and he did it a second and a third time, which means the difference is, is this a siman or is this a taam? A sibah, a cause. And we find that in different places. The most famous place where the Rogatchover speaks about it and the Rebbe brings it in a few places is the simanim of a בהמה טהורה. The siman of a בהמה טהורה is מעלה גרה, מפריס פרסה. So, the Rogatchover clarifies, is the peshat that this is the reason why it's tahor? Or why it's tahor, the אייבערשטער wanted it to be tahor, a siman which בהמה is tahor is given? And the Rebbe goes into whole nafka mina what the nafka mina how you look at it. I'll give another example. The Rebbe brings a re'ayah to one side, but it's a chakirah on both sides, is it That's what I'm trying I'm trying to bring examples to bring this out. That's a re'ayah it's his nature, or maybe or maybe now he got used to it. I don't know by a person this That's Oh, second. Obviously that has has to do with this. Not that, yeah, yeah. The she'eilah is each for a separate reason. Let let me just finish. No, but that's we talk about the future, what's going to happen. Not about this. We're talking this this this מועד for the future, that now he's going to be chayav. Now, I'll give another example just to show where the the Rebbe goes into this with a siman and a taam. We know that

Yom Tov you're not allowed to do any melachah, but מלאכת אוכל נפש is mutar. So, the Rebbe has a chakirah: is the peshat that it's a taam because the Torah wants you to have fresh food on on Yom Tov, so the Torah allowed it in order for you to be able to eat? Or it's a סימן, there are certain מלאכות which the Torah did not אוסר on on Yom Tov, the סימן to know which one that is, those מלאכות that you do usually with with food? A nafka mina would be if someone is allowed to do these מלאכות not for food. And it seems in one way the Rebbe says this is a מחלוקת בית שמאי ובית הלל. We know that the Gemara says Beit Hillel holds, כשם שהותרה הבערה לצורך אוכל נפש הותרה נמי שלא לצורך. There are many מלאכות that you're allowed to do to eat, and Beit Hillel says, you're allowed to do it even if it on Yom Tov you're allowed to do it even if it's not for eating. And Beit Shammai says, no, if you're doing it for eating you're allowed, not for eating, not. What's the נקודה of their מחלוקת? Cause it's a madne zach? What does Beit Hillel mean? Because you're allowed to do it for food that sounds a little bit conservative, no? Meg shoin, you know, you're allowed to do it for, all right, meg shoin in gantzen, you know, that that's a narshkeit. So in Shulchan Aruch the Alter Rebbe uses the לשון קבלו חכמים. Seems like that Beit Hillel holds that they have a mesorah that the that that this is what it means and it doesn't mean that only for food. But what's the pshat? So the Rebbe said the מחלוקת is when the Torah was מתיר these מלאכות. Beit Shammai says when the Torah said אוכל נפש is מותר, אך אשר יאכל לכם לכל נפש לכל נפש, it's a taam. It's the reason, it's a cause. Because it's going to be for food, that's why you're allowed. Beit Hillel says it's a סימן. The Torah wanted to give us a list of מלאכות that you're allowed to do. The Torah didn't want to אסר all the מלאכה, all ל״ט melachot. Several melachot the Torah didn't want to asor. So instead of the Torah giving you a list, gave you a siman. The siman is melachot for food, but it's not that this is the

cause. You find that in other places also, in other with if is something is only a siman or a taam. I'll use the exact another example we find other places בנוגע, not from the sichot, but the thing is a Mahari"t. The Mahari"t has a chakirah also בנוגע קניינים, when you make a kinyan. How's a kinyan? You make a meshichah, hagbahah, you make a kinyan. So he says two sevarot. One sevara is what makes that this this object what I'm giving you becomes yours? The kinyan makes it yours. If you do that, Torah says becomes yours, whatever the kinyan is. Another way he says, no, the kinyan באמת is made if I decide to give it to you, I'm gomer daat to give it to you, you are gomer daat to take it, that itself be'emet makes it yours. But how do you know what you're thinking? How do I know if you're really thinking that? So the kinyan is a siman for your gemirat daat. So one way is the kinyan is the taam for the, the sibah for for for a kinyan, for becoming yours. Another way, it's only a siman, a siman for something else and it becomes yours. So we have these things in many inyanim. So the same thing we can have by the chazakah: is the chazakah, the נגיחה in the by the שור המועד, a sibah, which means that because you did it three times, memeila he got used to it, this will make it happen so memeila this makes him into a moed, or it's only a siman? Now, the difference will be like this: if it did it all in one day. Now, one day, it's mentioned in in sefarim, one day could be funkt today was a bad weather, funkt today was something happened. Woke up on the left side. Woke up on the wrong side, exactly! Yeah, the milk got, yeah, didn't feel good, the ka'as was it got spoiled, so the fact that it did three times is not a siman that it's a meshuga, that it that it has a teva of of this that happened. So if you learn it's a siman, then if it it has to happen three separate days. Oh, three separate days, can't what, funkt this all these three days was a something special? So normally each day is different, it's a good siman and it's a re'iyah. But if it happened in one day, doesn't work, because one day is is no siman. If we're saying that because it got used to it, what's the difference if it happened in one day, for whatever reason it got meshuga, but it got did it three times, you're murgal. Three times, you are murgal. This is

how the the Maharam of Rothenburg would learn the machloket between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehudah. This is their machloket: Rabbi Meir holds even if you did it in one day, it's why? Because the ikar is the hergel, it's a ta'am. And and Rabbi Yehudah says the three times is a siman, and a siman cannot be in one day, you have to have three separate days. What's the result of this? The result of this is that according to this peshat, that the reason Rabbi Yehudah holds not like Rabbi Meir, because he holds that this has nothing to do with hergel, it has to do with siman, לפי זה, what would Rabbi Yehudah hold in a case of hergel? Not in a case of siman! Like in the case of getting your lips used to saying the new thing? He would agree with Rabbi Meir! Cuz he says, the reason I'm arguing with you, I agree be'etzem, he says to Rabbi Meir, that hergel, if it's closer, it's a better hergel than than far. I just argue that by שור המועד, that's not the peshat. The peshat is not hergel. But if you're going to try to use the sevara by make saying משיב הרוח ומוריד הגשם, which there is hergel, there Rabbi Yehudah would agree! So that's why when he brings a raya that if you do it closer it works even stronger, a raya from the din of the שור המועד, and the kashya that they all ask is, \"But that's only Rabbi Meir!\", so he'll answer, in that specific case it's Rabbi Meir, but the logic of Rabbi Meir, even Rabbi Yehuda holds, everyone. That's why he brings a raya from there. That's how you could learn pshat in in the Maharam of Rothenburg.

Obviously, the Rabbeinu Peretz couldn't learn like this. Because if he learns like this, then how could he ask the kashya on the He says to the to the Maharam of Rothenburg, \"I disagree with you, because הרגל here it's different than over there.\" But if he learns like this, the sevara of Rabbi Meir is because of הרגל. So obviously he learns a different pshat in the machloket. He learns like this: It's definitely both of them agree that it's a סימן. It's not because of you got used to it, both agree it's a סימן. The machloket is, do we say that if you do it in one day and separate parts of the day, it's also a סימן? In other words, that sevara that we said before בדה פשטא that if you do it in one day it's no raya, Rabbi Meir said it's not like that. Even in one day it's a סימן, because obviously even Rabbi Meir holds that you didn't do it all at the same time, because even Rabbi Meir agrees, what happens if you have three בהמות standing together and one ox goes over and is מנגח all three at one time? Even Rabbi Meir will agree that it's not that's not a a מועד. So he means he's saying that it's if you do it in the morning. So Rabbi Meir holds that even though it was in one day, I still feel that this is three different things, u'meimela it's a סימן. And Rabbi Yehuda holds, \"No, in one day it's all one.\" But they both go with the sevara that this is a סימן, nothing to do with הרגל. So u'meimela when it comes to הרגל, we have no raya which way, so maybe Rabbi Meir is מודה there also! That would be the sevara of the Rabbeinu Peretz. Rabbeinu Peretz says that in the case of משיב הרוח, which is תלוי in הרגל, he says, \"I'm telling you even Rabbi Meir would agree.\" Why? Because Rabbi Meir doesn't say anything about הרגל. Rabbi Meir says over here, this is a siman, and by a siman, in three times in one day is also a siman. And he says three times one is not a siman. But they both hold a siman, they weren't talking about הרגל. When it comes to הרגל zogt says Rabbeinu Peretz, it's not so. So we understand the machloket between So it comes out Is farentfert the Chatam Sofer farentfert? So how's that farentfert the Chatam Sofer? Because because it's not the same, because because Rabbi Yehuda is not modeh to him like every other occasion. The machloket is like what you just said, because But we're talking about חזקה דג׳ שנים. What's the גדר in חזקה דג׳ שנים? What's the reason? Why chazakah, isn't the reason from from שור המועד? לגבי the חילוק, לגבי the the Bavli. Bavli, but we said the chiluk we should learn it out for שור המועד. שור המועד, right, right, right. So, we're talking here The Chatam Sofer didn't ask that, the Chatam Sofer asked why it's only a kashya on Rabbi Meir. Right, because according to the Maharam of Rothenburg, Rabbi Yehuda would agree. Okay. In one instance. Which instance? Depends in what the ta'am is, whether it's whether it's a koach or or Good, nu, so Rabbi Yehuda But the Maharam of Rothenburg says that in a case where it's not שור המועד, Rabbi Yehuda agrees. Right, okay. So here when we're talking not שור המועד, we're talking about חזקת ג׳ שנים, and the Gemara says since by שור המועד he holds, Rabbi Meir holds like that, so here should also. And Rabbi Yehuda, who doesn't hold like that by שור המועד, should still agree here, because the Maharam of Rothenburg says in other places not! So here we

have to go to a whole arichus to show that this Gemara according to Rashi, and we'll stick with Rashi, according to Rashi, because according to Tosafos also, according to Rashi, the way the Gemara goes here, Rashi learns that this Gemara must go according to the Rabbeinu Peretz. And according to Rabbeinu Peretz, you have no kashya. I'll explain why. According to the whole kashya is according to the Maharam of Rothenburg that Rabbi Yehuda is מודה. But according to by by other cases. According to to the to Rashi to Rabbeinu Peretz, we don't have it, we don't see. I want to say that the Gemara goes according to the this Gemara according to Rashi will go according to Rabbeinu Peretz. Why? Because the Gemara asked a shaila here before, and this I'm going to go bekitzur, the Gemara asked a shaila: If you learn out ג׳ שנים, חזקת ג׳ שנים from שור המועד, why is the דין חזקה שאין עמה טענה אינה חזקה? What's חזקה שאין עמה טענה? So

Rashi says this: The Mishnah says like this, that if someone comes to somebody, \"What are you doing in my field?\" The regular case is, \"What am I doing in your field? I bought it from you.\" \"Where's your shtar?\" \"I don't have a shtar.\" \"Oh, it's three years? Okay, he keeps it.\" What happens if a guy comes to and he says to him, \"What are you doing in my field?\" and he answers him, \"I don't know, I saw an empty field, לא אמר לי אדם דבר מעולם, I I moved in!\" So the Gemara says that's not a chazaka. Fregt the Gemara here, if you learn out חזקת ג׳ שנים from שור המועד, just like a שור המועד from three נגיחות he goes from תם to מועד, so chazakah also by three years, so you go from the מוכר goes over to the לוקח, so why is a חזקה שאין עמה טענה not a chazakah? And the Gemara answers like this. The Gemara answers, how could it be a chazakah? טעמא מאי? אמרינן דלמא כדי קאמר. Why does a chazakah work? Because the chazakah shows that what he טענ׳ט is right. But if he's not טענ׳ינג, השתא איהו לא טעין אנן נטעין ליה? If he's not טענ׳ינג, how could we טענה? Comes

Tosafot, and Tosafot asks a שאלה: what's the Gemara's hava amina? How could there be a hava amina that without טענ׳ינג it's mine, it should stay his? The guy comes and says it's mine, and the guy proves it's his, and he's sitting there for three years and he's not answering that it's his, so the Gemara had a hava amina it should be his? Tosafot, I'll read the Tosafot: מאי סלקא דעתיה דמקשן דהיכא מצי לאוקמה בידיה כיון דלא טעין מידי? How could you give it to him? So what's the peshat in Rashi? So I'll tell you how Rashi learns the peshat, that's one שאלה. There's another שאלה: what's the Gemara's answer? What? What is the difference in the hava amina of the Gemara and the מסקנא? First, the Gemara thought that a חזקה שאין עמה טענה should be, and the מסקנא is not. The Gemara didn't know in the hava amina what the maskana, and that that the whole idea is, like Tosafot asks, what's the pshat here? So the pshat could be like this: the hava amina of the Gemara, the way Rashi, the way we learn, is that a שור המועד, the reason he becomes a מועד in three times is that itself makes it into a מועד. לפי זה, if we're comparing ג׳ שנים to שור המועד, by ג׳ שנים should also be the three years is the cause! That's the Gemara's hava amina. חזקה שאין עמה טענה, אעג״ם you're not טענ׳ינג, but the mere fact that you're there for three years is a reason for you to be to own it, because we're comparing it to שור המועד. What's the Gemara's answer? The Gemara's answer is that you made a mistake in שור המועד. The reason is not it's not a siba, cause, it's a siman only there. If it's a siman, what's a siman? A siman that that's how it's be'etzem. Memayla, here also, the three years is only a siman that it's yours, that when you had it, a siman that you bought it. But if you made it that you didn't buy it, farshtayt zich you don't get it. So the chiluk between the hava amina and the maskana is, the hava amina is that שור המועד is a siba, memayla here also it's a siba, so the Gemara thought afilu without a ta'anah it's a siba, this itself makes it yours. And the maskana is that it's a siman. Now, according to the Rabbenu Peretz, what did we say is the pshat? A tzad that a tzad of Rabbi Meir, a tzad of Rabbi Yehuda hold that by שור המועד, it's a siman, not a siba. משא״כ, if you learn like the Maharam of Rothenburg, what what's that what's Rabbi Meir's שיטה? Rabbi Meir's שיטה is that it's a siba. What did we say? Why did Rabbi Meir say in one day it also works? Because it's a siba. If it's a siba, so in this case, the מסקנא of the Gemara is that it's a siman. So this Gemara cannot go according to the Maharam of Rothenburg. According to the Maharam of Rothenburg, when the Gemara says, \"ולרבי מאיר\", the Gemara asks, \"ולרבי מאיר it should be if it's one day, so it should be also three אכילות?\" So this Gemara, and we said Maharam of Rothenburg learns that he holds that Rabbi Meir holds that it's a siba, but this Gemara came to a מסקנא that it's not a siba. This only fits according to Rabbeinu Peretz. Rabbeinu Peretz who says that they both hold that it's a siman, a tzad of Meir fits with the מסקנא of the Gemara. The hava amina of the Gemara was a siba, so mimela the three years should become just like that, because he's there. The מסקנא of the Gemara is that שור המועד is a סימן, so according to the Rabbeinu Peretz, it fits, because they hold it's a סימן. According to Maharam of Rothenburg, it doesn't fit. The kashya of the Chatam Sofer was that according to the Maharam of Rothenburg, why doesn't the Gemara ask according to Rabbi Yehuda? But the way Rashi learns, this doesn't go according to Maharam of Rothenburg. M'meila, that's why the Gemara couldn't say according to Rabbi Yehuda. But, whatever, we get the two The main thing But if it's if one is a סימן, one is a סיבה, how can we learn out חזקת הבתים? Farkert! We're getting to say they're both the same. If by שור המועד it's a סיבה, so by חזקת הבתים it's a סיבה. So the hava amina was that שור המועד is a סיבה, ממילא חזקת הבתים is also a סיבה. And if it's a סיבה, you don't need a טענה. This itself makes it yours. That's called a סיבה, it makes it yours. The maskana of the Gemara A squatter. Yeah, that's this is this halachot comes from this, yeah. You have a grandfather, and you have a squatter. Squatter, so so then the squatter Being the grandfather. So that that's a סימן that it's a סיבה. So you bought it and you show it. Aha, okay. And the squatter Squatter is is is just How is it his if it becomes his? A סיבה, just by being there. Oh. So, but

it's תלוי in what is the דין here, is it a סיבה or a סימן by חזקת ג' שנים? It depends on what's by, since you learn it out from שור המועד, it depends. So if by שור המועד it's a סיבה, so by חזקת ג' שנים it's a סיבה. If it's a סיבה, you don't have to טענה, \"I bought it.\" A סיבה means that three years, just like over there that three נגיחות make you a מועד, the three years make you an owner. That was the Gemara's קושיא. The מסקנא of the Gemara? The מסקנא is that חזקה שאין עמה טענה is not good. Why not? Three years make it yours. Ah, because it's even by שור המועד, it's a siman. It's a siman, not it doesn't make you anything. If it this shows that before and the whole time he's a he's a שור נגח. So how will apply it to the ג' שנים? The three years shows that you bought it. But if you טענה that you didn't buy it, no. Dos farshteyt zich, not? Yeah. So if you learn this way pshat, so the מסקנא of the Gemara hold that it's a siman, it can't be like the Maharam of Rothenburg. And the whole קושיא of the Chatam Sofer is according to the Maharam of Rothenburg, then why didn't the Gemara ask according to Rabbi Yehuda? But the way we're saying now, according to Rashi, Tosafot will be different, and there's a lot more here, but this is just a נקודה'דיגע ענין. What's a practical difference by the If we know that it's by a siman, that the three times you know that it's a siman, so by the first time it was already a מועד. Right. So therefore But we didn't know that. Well, okay, so you find out later. It would be retroactive to No, but the pay no, the חיוב was there already, and the חיוב doesn't change. You don't do anything to help the other guy that the the punishment, the payoff or payment to the other, no, doesn't change anything at all. Just to find out later. You would think that there would be a practical is if we we hold that somebody would hold that No, but to pay all the חיוב was already, you can't change the חיוב. When he did the first time, the חיוב was חצי נזק, he pay חצי נזק. Just pay חצי נזק. You think למפרע if he did it three times, so we go back to the first guy and we give him, I don't know, whatever you killed him. I don't know, whatever whatever would be the No, we're talking about he damaged something, and he pays half נזק. So, we should have to pay now the second half, cuz now we found out that he was a Yeah. Yeah, but that's not the דין. The Torah says, until you're not מגלה that's a מועד, you don't Nobody would think that? No, no, nobody. It would be another example. Yeah, but it's not true. You find an example, it's not true. No. Yashar koach. It was complicated. Yeah, so I'll tell you why it's complicated. I can see why, cuz you have a lot of people that are involved. Because there's so much more here to say, in order to make it clear. But that's taking another half hour. No, it was It did. No, it's quite Just go listen to the podcast, it is complicated. In the end, this is You listen a few times because there's a lot of a lot of details missing Yeah, yeah, סיבה and טעם That is something else. That's, no Because you say that's basically the same thing. That's all the same, where סיבה and טעם Yeah, yeah, סיבה and טעם is the same, you're right. Okay. I would say like this, סימן and ראיה is one thing and סיבה and טעם is Right, סימן and ראיה. Okay, סיבה and טעם. We're good. And הרגל means? הרגל means trained, being used to it. Oh, okay, used to it, yeah. Yashar koach. Fantastic. That's one for the ages. All right, Tuesday.