Here in the Gemara on דף כ״ט עמוד א׳, Bava Basra. This is Perek that talks about חזקת הבתים, chazakah that a person makes that will make the field become his or the house become his. In other words, someone comes to somebody and he says, \"What are you doing in my house?\" And he says, \"What do you mean, what I'm doing? I bought it from you.\" So, \"Yeah, you bought it? Where's your shtar? You have to have a document.\" \"I lost it.\" So, till three years, if if he was there less than three years, we're talking here that the old that the guy who's claiming, let's call him the מערער, is the one that's claiming, has proof that it used to be his. He claims, \"I never sold it.\" So if the guy is in it is less than three years, since he doesn't have a document, he doesn't have witnesses that he bought it, that guy has proof that it used that always was his, give it back. If he was there for three years, and then he doesn't have to have a document, and if he goes back, you know, he keeps it. Same thing by a field. But the din that has to be is you have to make benefit, you have to take benefit of the place that you're being מחזיק. So if you're in a field, and a field is made to grow food, you have to have for these three years worked on the field and got all the profit that the field brings. Same thing with a house. A house, what do you gain by a house? You live in it. Living is is is benefit. You have to live there for three years in order to have a chazakah. So the

Gemara asks, if you have to live there for three years, and three years means complete three years, day and night, so the Gemara asks, חזקת הבתים, בתים דביממא ביממא ידעי, ביממא ידעי ובליליא לא ידעי. Who could come and testify that you lived there at night? And since you have to have the benefit of the place where you live constantly, you have to know for sure that it was always there, so how can you bring re'ayot for the night? So אמר אביי, Abaye says, \"No problem. מאן מסהיד אבתים? שיבבי. שיבבי מידע ידעי ביממא ובליליא. Who could bichlal be and testify that you live there? Neighbors. Yeah, neighbors, they can know day and night.\" Okay, but the ikar is Rava. Rava, אמר רבא says, \"I have another way that you could have two people who should testify day and night. That is כגון דאתו בי תרי, two people come, ואמרי, and they will say, אנן אגרינן מיניה, we rented it from this מחזיק.\" מחזיק, again, we're calling the guy who's claiming to keep the house is called the מחזיק. The one that's claiming to complain, coming to complain saying, \"It's my house and you have no right to be there,\" he's called the מערער. So they will come, the מחזיק will bring two people who say, \"We rented it from him, ודרנו ביה תלת שנין ביממא ובליליא, and we lived there, and we lived there day and night.\" And they could say it, they know. Even if they didn't live there day and night, just paying for it, still getting benefit. No, but you have to live there day and night. Why? Because maybe the guy gave him a present. I mean, the money doesn't mean the the the living there is what is how you are מחזיק on the house, and they're living for him. But the pshat is, the way the Gemara learns in pshat, in the hava amina, is that they come and say, \"We rented it from him, we paid him the money for the three years.\" Mimela, our living there is his chazakah, and they could say mamash, \"We lived there three full years, day and night.\" Fregt di

Gemara: אמר ליה רב יימר לרב אשי, so רב יימר said to רב אשי, \"You want to trust these guys as עדים? הנך נוגעים בעדותן נינהו. They are נוגע בעדות. נוגע בעדות, this means they have an ulterior motive. A עד is only a person that gains nothing personally by testifying what he's saying. If there's a certain gain that he gains by testifying that way, then he's פסול לעדות. He's called a נוגע בעדות. These guys are נוגע. Why are they נוגע? 'Cause דאי לא אמרי הכי, if they wouldn't say it—we're talking here they paid to the מחזיק. If they wouldn't testify that they took it from the מחזיק, אמרינן להו, we would say to them, 'זילו הבו ליה אגר ביתא להאי.' Pay the מערער! If they wouldn't testify for the מחזיק, who would keep the field? The מערער. Now they said that they lived there. We know that they lived there for three years. The מערער is going to come to them and say, 'Give me some money. You lived there for three years, pay the rent!' So they'll have to pay a double rent. The fact that they might later go and collect it back from the other guy, it's a big trouble, so they don't want to do that. So it comes out that when they testify that 'we lived there and we paid for it,' their testimony now, they have no other choice, they have to say that. What else can they say? That we gave it to the that that we lived for him? They have to say for him. The moment you have to say because otherwise you're going to lose, that's not עדות anymore.\" They

could say they gave it to the owner, they don't know who the owner is. In other words, paying the other guy... Well, the answer is the case is where they didn't pay yet. It's better. They come with the money and they say, \"We don't know who the owner is.\" Not they say, they're not to say who the owner is, אדרבה, they're saying, \"We do know.\" But they come, \"We didn't pay anybody. Where...\" just telling you we got it from the this guy, the מחזיק. They could have just as well said we got it from the מרא. They came with the money, במאי עסקינן כגון דנקיט אגר ביתא, they're holding the money, ואמרי, and they say to the בית דין, למאן ניתביה? Tell us who to give it to. בית דין will ask him, but who asked you to move in there? The, a מחזיק. Oh, so you can trust them. They're not נוגע בעדות anymore. Cuz now, the whole נוגע בעדות was because, since they paid already, now that they paid they have no choice but to say for the מחזיק. Because they can't say for the מרא, they're gonna lose. But if they didn't pay yet, they could say either way so they're not, and they're נאמן. That's what the Gemara says. Comes the Rabbenu Yonah, and he says when the Gemara says here that they didn't get the money yet and they're coming to pay, that's when they're okay. Means like this: if they paid already, טאקע אינה נמי, you would, you couldn't trust them because they're נוגע בעדות, because they have to say for him. The case is where they didn't pay yet. He says the Gemara includes something else also: even if they paid already, the מחזיק could come to them and give them back the money. He says, now I give you back the money. And now you're not נוגע בעדות anymore, so now you can testify for me. Even if they paid, if he gives them back, now they have the money, and let's say now they could say whatever they want. They could say the מחזיק gave it to us, they could say the מרא gave it to us, whoever is gonna win, they'll pay. Just like if they didn't pay, it's the same thing. So they could come and give the money. That means even though when they start this conversation, they're נוגע בעדות, because when they come and we know that they paid, they say, we paid this guy and he's the real owner because we paid him, right away we tell, hey, you guys can't testify anymore. So afterwards, you could make something that takes away the נגיעה. Not נוגע. He'll say, okay, I'll give you back the money. They'll take the money back. Now, who is it? And he brings a ראיה. If he has a שטר, forever... How does he have a שטר? If he has a שטר, so what's the argument here? What's the, where is the שאלה here? He doesn't have a שטר. Whole thing is he doesn't have a שטר. The מרא comes in and said, what are you doing in my house? If he has a שטר, he takes out the document and says, you sold it to me. He doesn't have a שטר. He says, I, you sold it. Where's your שטר? I lost it. After three years, you don't have to keep a שטר. So, losing is not, is no problem. He has a receipt book. Everything the tenants pay, he wrote, he wrote a receipt for. The מחזיק? But he wrote, that's a שטר, yeah. I can write that you owe me $100, you know. But that you, that I paid, that you paid me $100 and I wrote a receipt and I have a copy of it. You have a copy. If the מחזיק has a copy of the, of the paid moneys, Is that good or bad? I didn't understand what you said. That's good. That's good for the, for the, even if they disqualify them he still... So they're dis... They don't have to testify. They don't have to say that they, I paid rent and testify... But, you mean, so he has a ראיה, that's a different ראיה. Good. So it's not from this. That's true. We believe that they paid the rent because what you're saying is that they have to be living there constantly. No, they, and they. Right. And they say that they, they say, we lived there. I don't know if, if you could have some other ways, but this is a case where That's what he says, that even though when they started testifying they're נוגע בעדות, this takes away. And he brings ראיות from the Gemara in דף מ״ג. The Gemara says in דף מ״ג, שותפין, he says, אין מעידין זה לזה. שותפין cannot If you have two, we're two partners and somebody comes and argues on one of the car on the and the partner says so-and-so, I can't come and testify because I'm a נוגע בדבר. I'm a נוגע בעדות, because if I'm gonna testify that it belongs to this partner, I'll gain. So he can't. So the Gemara, but there's a etzah. The גמרא, הכא במאי עסקינן דכתב ליה דין ודברים אין לי על שדה זו. This guy writes to the partner, I I מסלק myself, I I I uh Remove. I remove myself from this field. So whatever comes out, whether I get it or not, makes no difference. So he doesn't gain anything. So he becomes כשר לעדות. The Gemara later on goes even further. The Gemara says like this, בני עיר שנגנב ספר תורה שלהן, someone stole the ספר תורה of the city, אין דנין בדייני אותה העיר ואין מביאין ראיה מאנשי אותה העיר. So no judge from that city and no person from that city can become an עד, testify about something. Why? Because everybody in the city owns the ספר תורה. So it's, it's נוגע בדבר. So if they're gonna find the גנב, I'll testify that this and this guy stole, we'll get it back, so I'll gain. זאגט די גמרא, נסלקו תרי מינייהו ולידונו. Two people could say, we give up our rights over the ספר תורה, and let them become the דיינים, let them become the עדים. And the Gemara says you can't do it because a ספר תורה לשמיעה קיימא. A ספר תורה is listened, they're gonna hear it. The bottom line, the Rabbeinu Yonah brings a ראיה from here that even if you were a נוגע בעדות, but if there is some way that you get מסלק, you become נישט נוגע. So he says the same thing here will be that if the עדים טאקע paid already, and now they're נוגע בעדות because now they have to testify for this guy, otherwise they're gonna pay the other guy. So if the guy gives them back, they're not נוגע בעדות anymore. So he can give it back. Come the Rashba and the Nimukei Yosef, and say they argue with him. They say you can't compare it to those cases. Those cases, there is nothing but סילוק. The guy had a before he had a had a had a an ulterior motive because he owned part of it. He gives it up, so he doesn't own it anymore. But here, he says, this guy did him a favor. The guy giving him back the money is doing him a favor. What's doing him a favor? Till now, had they said for the מערער, they would lose money, they would have to pay again. Because he gave him back the money, they don't lose. So, he did him a favor. So, he says, since he did him a favor, they will try to testify for him. So, he becomes a נוגע בדבר. I'll read the words of the Nimukei Yosef. He says, brings it here. They become prejudiced, yeah. So, he says here, שאני התם. There, לית למיחש למידי, nothing to be afraid of. אבל הכא, here, קודם סילוקו, before he gave him back the money, היה השוכר מתיירא שמא יפסיד שכרו. The renter was afraid maybe he will lose his money because maybe the other guy will win and he'll have to pay a second time. ועכשיו שזה מחזיר שכרו לידו, he gave it back, מצילו לגמרי מן ההפסד. Now, he saved him from a loss. איכא למיחש למידי איכא למיחש דמתוך שמזה שעשה עמו לפנים משורת הדין יעזור לו. He's embarrassed, or the guy did me a favor, so I should go testify against him? So, he has he's prejudiced to testify for him, so he's נוגע בדבר. So, we

have here a machloket between the Rabbeinu Yonah and the Rashba. What is the the basis of their machloket? Well, obviously, the Rabbeinu Yonah doesn't agree with the sevara of the Rashba. He doesn't agree that this feeling would make him prejudiced. לפועל ממש, when it comes to money, now they could say it's the מחזיק, they could say it's the מערער equally, and they won't lose any money because the guy gave him back the money. Ela mai? He did him a favor. Now, he could if he says the other guy, they won't lose. So, obviously looks like the Rabbeinu Yonah doesn't hold that that's such a big thing that that will make him prejudiced, and the Rashba does. But be'emet, you could say another sevara, maybe to put it into the words of the Rashba, even though it doesn't fit really into the words of the Rashba and the Nimukei Yosef, say a different sevara and could try to fit it in, but even if you can't fit it in, it doesn't matter because you could say another sevara. Even though the Rashba writes one sevara, probably in there there is many more sevarot which he didn't write. We find I mean, I remember the Rebbe once said that he asked a she'eilah, speaking of Pirkei Avot, and there are so many מפרשים, פרקי אבות probably the most מפרשים of anything in the Torah is on הגדה, פרקי three things: הגדה and Pirkei Avot and no, Mishlei? Mishlei has so many מפרשים? No. ניין, it's Haggadah, Pirkei Avot, isn't it two things? No, anyway, so the Rebbe asked a שאלה on Pirkei Avot, how could mefarshim say perushim when the Tannaim themselves wrote their perush? Avot deRabbi Natan is written by Tannaim, and it's explaining what Pirkei Avot means. So, how could come other mefarshim, rishonim va'acharonim, come and say? So, he said it doesn't matter. This is what they said, they wrote this perush, and now you could have other perushim there, too, doesn't matter. So, you can say another pshat in the machloket, what is the reason behind the machloket between the Rabbeinu Yonah and the Rashba. בהקדם like this:

There are many ways a person could be chayav to pay someone money. I'm chayav, I borrowed, so I owe you the money. I'm chayav because I stole from you. I'm chayav because I was mazik you, I damaged your thing, I have to pay, all kinds of ways. I'm chayav to pay, I found something that you that you lost, השבת אבידה. I mean, all kinds of ways, reasons, pikadon, all kinds of different ways. The שאלה that comes up in one's mind is do we look from a halacha point of view, not from halacha point of view that each type of payment has a separate geder. This is a geder, a inyan of paying a loan. This is another inyan, this is paying for נזק. Each thing could be different. The bottom line is the same: I owe you a hundred dollars, I have to pay you a hundred dollars. So, if you look at the לפועל ממש, the bottom line, what's the difference how? לפועל ממש, the bottom line is you owe this guy a hundred dollars. Or you could say, no, in halacha, there's different gederim. We see, lemashal, in the type of things you have to pay, it's different. If you owe money because of נזיקין, we learned it yesterday, you have to pay מיטב, you have to pay from the עידית, from the best of your fields. If you pay a בעל חוב, you pay from the בינונית. If you pay for a כתובה, you have to pay you could pay the זיבורית, it's the worst. So, in halacha, you could look at it, there are different gederim, each thing has a separate geder. Or you could say, no, we look at each thing, we look at the bottom line. This is the reason why you have to pay, the reason for it, whatever happened there, but the bottom line is the same. Basically this will depend on how you look at the reason when a lot of times we have when there's a reason to a something, it could be in two ways. The reason could be in a form of a סיבה ומסובב, a cause and effect, or it could be יסוד ובניין. It's a foundation and a building. I'll give examples. First, I'll tell you the difference. The

difference is if it's a סיבה ומסובב, it's possible that the סיבה, the cause, falls off, and the מסובב stays. יסוד ובניין, if the יסוד falls, the בניין falls. It's a lashon in the Ramban, נפל היסוד נפל הבניין. Which means in other words, if it's יסוד ובניין, the בניין's whole מציאות is the יסוד. The סיבה ומסובב, the מסובב is an entity for itself. I'll give an example. If a person owes someone money, his נכסים, his קרקע, his land is משועבד. Now it's mortgaged to that loan. If I pay the loan, you can't come and collect my land because there's no more שיעבוד. Why? I owed you money, the land became משועבד, now the land is משועבד. Because it's יסוד ובניין. There's no such thing as land משועבד. The whole מהות of the שיעבוד of the land is the loan. On the other hand, we have sometimes a geder that is a reason for something, and then even if the reason falls off, the din stays. By a lot of תקנות חכמים that they made for certain reasons, it says דבר שבמנין צריך מנין אחר להתירו. If the חכמים made a din by getting together and voting on a certain תקנה for a certain reason, it says even if the reason falls off, the תקנה stays. No, it has to... No. Unless they put it into it. But normally to make a תקנה, the Gemara learns it out from מתן תורה. That before מתן תורה, the Eibershter said אל תגשו אל אשה, stay away from your wives. Why? Because I'm giving the Torah. After מתן תורה, finished, the Eibershter said ואתם now, שובו לכם לאהליכם. He gave them an heter to go home. So the Gemara: why do you have to give a heter? The whole reason why there was an issur is because of... מתן תורה is over. So the Gemara learns out from there, takeh there's a reason for this, nevertheless, if the reason falls off, there's a din. You have to come with a new heter to be matir it. So a lot of תקנות חכמים, they made a takanah for a certain reason, the reason falls off. Sometimes not like that. Certain תקנות that the reason fell off, the din falls off. Lemashal, there's a din the חכמים made that you're not allowed to on Shabbos dance and sing, as while you're singing, and clap. אין מרקדין ואין מטפחין, you're not allowed to. Zogt Tosafos, and it's brought down Shulchan Aruch, and the reason is because the חכמים were afraid you'll make a כלי שיר, you'll make an instrument. So Tosafos says nowadays that we don't know how to make instruments, it falls off. It's a machloket. Misnagdim, takeh, machmir. You ever saw Misnagdim patsht on Shabbos? They hold like that, shinui. Not for this? No. Adrabah, he once saw Rabbi Chadakov clapping like this and he told him to stop... Not only that, once the Rabbi was, I wasn't there, it was earlier years, the Rabbi on Shabbos by farbrengen, we were singing, he got up, started patsching. And in the middle he looked at somebody, Reb' Eli' Shmuel, Reb' Eli' Shmuel. He says, \"Reb' Eli' Shmuel, the Minchat Elazar is matir.\" So Reb' Eli' Shmuel said later he was looking at the Rebbe and thinking in his mind it's... Halacha, it's a שאלה on Shabbos. So the Rebbe screamed out at him, he read his machshava, that \"R'' Eliyahu' Shmuel, the Minchat Elazar is matir!\" Because he brings the Tosafot and the Rema, so we see here is a תקנה that the reason fell off, mimela the din falls off. Well, it depends how the תקנה was made. Was it made in the form of סיבה ומסובב or יסוד ובניין? If it was made יסוד ובניין, it means the whole concept of the תקנה is the, is the reason. So if the reason falls off, there's no תקנה. If like two steps, there is a reason which made a din, the din remains even afterwards. So we have such things. You could, you could. Just call it a different name. Just saying, there are two kinds, we found two names for it. Sometimes when there's a reason, the reason falls off, that doesn't stay, that falls off, too. Sometimes, not. To classify as, we

call this יסוד ובניין, we call this סיבה ומסובב. The same שאלה will be here. There's a reason why you have to pay the money. The reason is you borrowed, the reason is you're a מזיק, the reason is you found this מציאה. And then that's the reason. Then what comes out of that, because of that, you have to pay money. If you look at it that the reason is the יסוד, then every one is different. In other words, there's no such thing as paying money. Paying money means paying for your loan, paying for your נזק, so each one is a separate geder. If we say a סיבה ומסובב, so this is the reason. What turns out, the bottom line is all the same. So we have these two ways to look at this in halacha. This could be the machloket between the Rabbeinu Yonah and the Rashba here and in the Nimukei Yosef. What happened here is they paid for rent. He is giving back money. Is this the same thing? Is the pshat now they got the same money back, to say it's as if they didn't pay? The Gemara gives example when are they not נוגע בעדות, when they didn't pay. They didn't pay, now they Here, if you say that all giving money is all the same, yeah, they paid, they got money back. Now they got the money back they start from the beginning. But if you're going to say every type of money has a different geder in halacha, so what happened here? They paid the money. The money that the guy gave them back is a different geder. He gave they paid money for for for rent, he gave them back to save them from from having to to become a נוגע בעדות. It's a different geder. So, know what it would be similar to? An example, what would be his pshtut if these guys are noge'a be'edut, why? Because they paid already and we're afraid they have to say for him because if they say for him, they're going to pay again.

What happens if somebody from the outside comes to them and says, \"You know what, I promise that if the end will be you'll have to pay him again, I'll give you the money.\" Will that make him a noge'a be'edut? No, for sure not. Why? Because what does that money got to do with this? Someone will come, \"I'll give you a present,\" or someone said will say, \"Oh if you do this, I'll take you into my business, you will make money, you'll make up the loss.\" Pashut men darf das nisht klern. So if you learn that every money giving type of money has a different geder, so here also. So even though it was the same guy, and even if he gives them back the same cash, lemashal, that they gave they give the same money, in inyan, that's a different reason behind it. And if every money has its own reason is the is the nekudah of the money, so then this is the fact that he's giving back doesn't change it. Huh? No, there is. Yeah, because he it's like that's why I gave the example. And if someone gives and says, \"If you lose, I'll give you back,\" so there's no negiah either. There's no negiah here, because they know for sure the guy promised them he put up the money, if you lose, you'll get it. So what would what are they going to lose? They could say whichever way though. Here if they say they'll have If they say for him, he'll get it, they won't have to pay. If they say for him, the guy will give them. Ela mai, that's why I'm giving that's why I'm giving the example for this reason. A siman that noge'a be'edut is not only pashut, will you get the money back? It's that this money will not the money for rent you will not have to give twice. So, al zeh it's possible to look at the money that that they'll give you back similar to other money. So the other guy will give you money. So then it's like it's still it's it's different money, so it's still noge'a be'edut like a stranger gives. So the the

Rashba learns that each money is separate, and therefore the Rashba says if they didn't pay, they didn't pay, but if the guy paid if they paid already and the guy will give them back, it doesn't help. Shteyt the Rabbeinu Yonah will learn, no, we look at each money is it's all the same, there's no geder in halachah of all the same, umimeila this is not noge'a be'edut. And you could try to put it into the words of the of the Rashba and the Nimukei Yosef, what does he say? Why are they still noge'a be'edut? Because the money that he gave, they feel bad that the money that he gave is to save them. So I want to say demaltas also this vort, he gave it for a different reason, that's what he means. He gave him to save him from being a noge'a be'edut, and if they will shouldn't have to pay, they gave money for rent. Vos misht men di gelt? How could you mix to say they gave back? Now, bichlal we know that in order to show if a sevara if there's a machloket or something a sevara, if you find another place where the same sevara will apply, it's mechazek it, it means it's a sevara. So, lichorah, you could explain that this sevara of these two sides is the reason for another machloket in the rishonim in a different sugya altogether. And this is the the the kitzur of the inyan. The

Gemara says in Bava Kama דף ד עמוד ב, the Gemara talks of אבות נזיקין, different things that you have to pay נזק. So the Gemara has a list in the beginning in the Mishnah of four. Then the Mishnah the Gemara says a ברייתא later, כ״ד אבות נזיקין, there are 24 types of נזקים. He counts one of them עדים זוממים. עדים זוממים are if עדים come and say to בית דין that this and this guy did something, and then you מזים them, you have to do it to them. So whatever they wanted to do. So the Gemara says if they want if they came and they claimed that this guy owes money, so now they have to pay. So they have to pay is called paying for נזק, and therefore they would have to pay מיטב, עידית, whatever. Freget Tosafos a מעכטיגע קשיא, by עדים זוממים there is a דין כאשר זמם ולא כאשר עשה. By עדים זוממים, when are they חייב? Only if they tried to get you to do something, but if they actually did it, lemashel, they testified that this guy מחלל שבת. So, he's חייב מיתה. Now, when you're מזים them, you kill them. But that's only if they didn't have, the guy wasn't killed yet. If the guy was already killed, then you don't say it. Then you don't kill them. That's the din. So, the same thing by money. When do you have to, when do they have to pay to this guy? If the guy didn't pay yet. So, there wasn't, no היזק. How do you call them אבות נזיקין? And נזיקין means that we're talking about people having to pay for a היזק. If the whole din of עדים זוממים is only when he didn't do it yet, that means they didn't pay yet, they didn't pay, it didn't happen, they have to pay, but it's not not נזיקין. So, Tosafos's first teirutz is that this din that we say, if they did it already, you don't do, is not by ממון. אפשר בחזרה. By ממון, you never could say it happened already. Meila by מיתה, you killed him already. By מלקות, you gave him מלקות. But give it back! And there's another pshat that says, no, that by ממון you also say it. It also applies. But in this case, well, whatever, I don't want to get into too much details. The kushya on on the on the Ri, this is the Riba says this in Tosafos. In that case that he says the reason why it's called nezikin is because you could give it back, doesn't answer the kushya. Mima nafshach, if he gave it back, there is no nezek. If he didn't give it back, that means it was done, then they're patur from paying. So, whichever way, it's not possible to pay for nezek. But there's a machloket, we find, whether this ענין we say by money or not. So, the peshat is on this, okay, so just bekitzur, there's the Rambam. The

Rambam has his own unique שיטה. No one holds like him. That this דין of כאשר זמם ולא כאשר עשה, that if you did it already, only applies to killing. Not by money, even if they paid, and not by malkot. Even if they gave malkot already to the guy that they they said the guy is chayav malkot and they gave him malkot, you would do it to them. If they said the guy has to be killed and they kill him, that not. The only thing is by mitah. And all the מפרשים wonder what is the The Raavad argues. Huh? The reason for this? They don't understand, what's the reason? The reason why they do mitah? Why mitah? Cuz the פסוק says: ועשיתם לו כאשר זמם לעשות לאחיו. So, we learn out כאשר זמם, you should do to him what he wanted to do, not what he did. So, לכאורה, from this פסוק, it should apply to everything. So, milah by money, they say we understand like Tosafos says, cuz you could give back, so it's never considered really done. But why by malkot? So, the מפרשים, they don't know. The Radbaz says different peshat. He tells himself that that my peshat is not so good, צריך תלמוד. The Kesef Mishneh says another peshat, that's a חסידישע פשט. In Rambam he says it, on the Rambam. He said, he says like this: that what is takeh the reason? You ask what's the reason why if they did it already you don't do it to them? Says the purpose you do it to them is a kaparah. They did such an aveirah, kaparah. If you had him killed already, the aveirah is so big that even if you'll kill him, won't be a kapparah. So, what's the purpose of killing them? But that only applies to killing. Says, so malkot, even if they gave malkot, if you'll give them, they'll have kapparah. So, why shouldn't you So, that's what the Rambam says, it doesn't apply there. Then he says another reason. Money could apply too. Huh? The Netivot Shalom... Another reason, it's similar to that. Not the Netivot Shalom, he says similar. He's he says, אלקים נצב בעדת-אל. By a beit din, the Eibershter is there. If the guy really didn't deserve to die, the Eibershter wouldn't allow beit din to pasken that he dies. If he got killed, b'shalma he deserves it. But by malkot, we don't say it. By malkot, what's the pshat? I don't understand. Maybe they he did he did deserve it? He didn't he didn't deserve it and the Eibershter allowed it? Cuz mitah is so terrible? The pshat'im are all hard. The interesting pshat that is said is by Reb Chaim Brisker. The Chiddushei Rav Chaim Halevi, he says an interesting pshat, why malkot? He says like this: by malkot, there's a din of giving malkot. There's a din how to give it, how much you give, in front of beit din, there's all kinds of halachot. In other words, by malkot, there's a halachah of malkot. If he didn't deserve it, he didn't get malkot. If you let's say they came and they gave malkot, and then you מזים them, we found out that you shouldn't have. The moment it wasn't they didn't deserve it, mimela there was no halachah of malkot. So, there was klap, but there was no malkot. So, by malkot, even if you gave, it's never כאשר עשה. It's never that you did it already. But b'noge'a money, he says the reason is like the... Sores on their back. Huh? They got sores on their back, they got good klap, they got hit, but they didn't get malkot. Malkot is a halachadige concept, and that malkus is only al pi din, you give, that's malkus. The moment there's no malkus, you didn't give. Ai misah? By misah, there's no such thing as a halachah of misah. You have to kill the guy. They wanted to have him killed, and he was killed, because the Gemara says when a person is חייב מיתה, a certain מיתה, מניין, how do you know that if you can't kill him the way the חרב, חנק, סקילה, whatever, he ran away, and you could kill him some other way, תלמוד לומר מות יומת מכל מקום, because the ikar is to get killed. So by kill, so you wanted him to get killed, he got killed. So the din is only if you wanted him to get killed, but if you killed him, you're not. By malkus, you wanted him to get malkus, and he got malkus, but you found out that it was wrong, so he never got malkus. So I want to say, oh, that's what I'm getting up to! So I want to add to what Rav Chaim says, that by money you could say the same thing. If we're going to learn, like I said before, that every type of money is a different geder in halachah, so let's say they testified that this guy owes $100 because he borrowed $100, and beit din looked and paskent, and he paid the $100. Now we found out he's lying. So we found out he never paid a loan. They wanted him to pay a loan, lemaaseh, he didn't pay a loan, he gave money stam azoy. If you're going to learn all types of giving money have the same din, same geder, so what's the difference? There's no such thing: they wanted him to pay money, he paid money. But if we're going to say that there are different gedarim in paying, and each one has its own geder, so you could say by money the same thing: they wanted him to pay a loan, he did not; they wanted to pay a nezek, whatever they testified, and he did not. Isn't that like the the warning that the judges shouldn't tell a rich man to give give a poor man money? He has to give money because he's poor. No. The poor man is trying to win the case. No, that's because you can't you can't like אין מרחמין בדין, you can't, it doesn't change the din. Now here we're saying that's a That's something else! No, you can't force him. If he want to give tzedakah, let him give tzedakah. He wants to give tzedakah, you can advise him to give tzedakah, you can't pasken a din because he needs tzedakah. So there's a kavanah to give this money. When the money is given for a reason, now he receives the money, but now for some reason the halachah doesn't apply Now the halachah makes that what the money he gave the money that he gave does not cover the the No, because it was never a loan! So even if the guy didn't give back the money He still has money in his pocket. He has in his pocket, but just like the guy got klap, no, the same thing, no. And he can keep that money. No, he has to give it back. He has to give it back. No, but I'm saying, but if he doesn't give it back, so does that mean it was done? It still wasn't done, because they wanted him to do to pay a loan, and what happened was he gave the money, not a loan. So now they will have to pay. So the kushya we asked on the Riva: how could he say אפשר בחזרה they called a nezek because you could give back? So if they gave back, there was no נזק. If they didn't give back, then it was done already, so they're פטור. So I'm saying no! It's talking about where they didn't give back, the guy went left, didn't give back, and they're still not פטור. איי, כאשר עשה? It's not כאשר עשה! It wasn't done, just like by מלקות not כאשר עשה. That's what the Rambam held. The

Raavad argues. Why? Because the Raavad holds all money is the same! So when they gave him money, you can't say it. By money, if he gave, he gave, because it's only by מלקות... And not he holds by מלקות is also all the same, only by מיתה for that reason. So what do we see here? That we could explain another machloket is based on this chakirah whether all giving money have the same geder in הלכה or not. So the same way we could explain it there, we could explain it by us also, that if they give back the money, does that change נוגע בעדות? So we say no, if it's looked like the same money, all money is the same, ein hachi nami, they're not נוגע בעדות, just like they didn't pay. They give it back, so not have it. If you say everything is different, then it's different and they did pay. איי, they gave money, it's different money, different geder, and therefore it's still נוגע בעדות. It sounds like a an illegal loophole, in other words, to give the money back, then to be נוגע then be a good עד. The Gemara says, that's what I know, but it sounds like illegal. That's what you ask the Gemara in Bava Batra from those people that they they take themselves they remove themselves from They remove themselves, they stop by giving money back Yes. The Gemara gives a loophole, the Gemara says do it! Yeah, but the fact is they lived there, so the fact that they lived Well, they don't own it! They don't own it. How do you live in a place you don't own? And it's not yours even, you're not even מוחזק. You don't even call yourself the מוחזק, because Over there, it's not מוחזק over there. They lived there and their proof No, let's say two שותפים, let's say. No, let's say two שותפים and I testify on something that we're partners in. I remove myself from it, so now, and that's a good idea, the חכמים give him that idea. That I understand, you can do that and you're completely Yeah, they have nothing to do with it anymore. You're not getting any benefit from it anymore, you have you have broken the partnership. Yeah, yeah. In this case, they live there. Okay? So, and this is money, this is not You mean the case of the Sefer Torah? No, the case of Oh, here? No, they're not... they're moving out, I don't know, they didn't need to continue to live. Yeah, but they lived there the whole time, they have They lived there for three years. ...and the whole purpose of them living there and paying the rent, and and עדות is to prove that the guy that they paid the rent to owns the house, cuz they're it's a חזקה. No, living there they didn't... That's They're not there to prove. Now they're there to prove! They lived there because they wanted to live there. Right, now their testimony Yes, exactly. It's all for the purpose of the מוחזק. So the fact is the testimony, yes, every עדות is testifying for somebody else. Fine, so I say, so the payment of the rent is a backup of the fact of that cuz they pay that guy the rent, he's a מוחזק. Oh, that's like a, that's like a בית דין. Exactly. But the moment they get the money back, so they didn't, so that's finished. So that's nothing. But then you say אם כן למפרע they can't say anything. Why should it be למפרע? They owe it. They didn't pay it, exactly like they didn't pay it. What if they didn't pay it? They'd pay it then, and we didn't pay it, so they lived there the whole time. Now if you give, Now they have to pay. Oh now they have to pay, and who do they have to pay? That's what they're saying. So the Gemara says, and they say whoever I want, whoever we, whoever's going to win. But we ask him, but who did you take it from? They could say either way. They have no personal gain by saying him or him. And they don't want to be involved. And if they're saying him, it means it's him. What what's the best way for them to stay out of the court case? They don't want to get involved, you know, in in in They can't do that. They have to. They have to? Have to. By giving the money back, doesn't that help by by absolving them to have to to do anything? No, if you're able to be an עד, you have to. Yeah, an עד has to come. If you're asked, subpoenaed. אם לא יגיד ונשא עונו. ונשא עונו. If you don't tell, ונשא עונו. Right, that's a, that's a mitzvah to stay out, right? No, it's a lav. If he comes inside and he says But you cannot withhold אם לא יגיד, if you don't tell, then ונשא עונו. That's right, it's a lo ta'aseh, okay. So, it's, he's doesn't give malkot. Doesn't hold them, it's the guy. To give malkot. It is the guy, whatever it is. In the case of עדים זוממים, בטח, בטח. By mistake? I don't know, it's a safek. Oh, you can't believe Here, the guy, they're saying they did shogeg. I can't believe you were smoking. I thought you were nervous. Don't worry about this one. Yeah, but at the end of the day, they want their money back. Says the, the previous chart, if it doesn't resolve the house, remaining landholder rather than allow him to recover the original, thereby subjecting him to new rent, because we could recover their original payments from the remaining landholder, they would prefer, I know. No, that's, I said that. I said that. Sure, they'll get their money back, but they don't want to go into that trouble. They would prefer not to have to become involved in Yeah, in the second case, now they'll have to come back to him and ask. So some say he might not have the money then, might not be here, he might deny it, he might, you know, won't be able to find him. So they'd rather say No, they'd rather say they'd rather say him, the muchzak. Because if they say me'ar'er, they'll have to pay the me'ar'er and then they'll get their money back, yeah. How are they

going to All right, good. I said, you know what? Let's start. Worse come to worse, then we'll lose him.