First, the Gemara in Chazakat HaBatim דף כ״ט עמוד ב׳ tells the story, ההוא דאמר ליה לחבריה מאי בעית בהאי ביתא. This man said to his friend, \"What are you doing in my house, in this house?\" אמר ליה מינך זבינתיה ואכלי שני חזקה. He says, \"I bought it from you,\" and obviously he didn't have the document, the שטר, that he bought it, \"but I have a chazakah. I'm living here for three years, and I'm using it for three years, so I have a chazakah.\" אמר ליה, so he said to him, אנא בשכונה גוואי הואי. He says, \"But you know, I was בשכונה גוואי,\" and I'll explain in a moment what that means, \"and therefore you don't keep the field, even though you had a chazakah, but I was in שכונה גוואי.\" So רב נחמן, אתו לקמיה דרב נחמן, they came to Rav Nachman, אמר ליה, he said to him, זיל ברר אכילתך, he said to the מחזיק, \"Yes, you got to prove it. You claim he wasn't בשכונה גוואי, and that's why you claim you have a chazakah, you got to prove it.\" And obviously if the מחזיק will not prove it, he loses the field, it goes back to the מערער. אמר ליה Rava, so Rava said to him, הכא דינא, this is the din? המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. It's the opposite. The מערער tries to is trying to take the field away from the מחזיק, the מערער has to prove that he was in שכונה גוואי. So first let's just explain what is the שכונה גוואי, what does this mean? So here you have the peshat of the Rashbam, which we always learn first the peshat of the Rashbam, and it's not only the Rashbam, Tosafot, the Rosh, all learn the same peshat. That what did he say to him? When the מחזיק said, \"I bought it from you and I have a chazakah,\" he answered him, \"But I lived together with you in the house. You have a chazakah, but I was in the back, and I lived together with you, and I used to some many times walk through your area, so it's not a peshat you were מחזיק it yourself. I was there. In other words, you lived by me. It's not a peshat that that it's your house.\" And that's the safek here. Obviously, the מחזיק said, \"It's not true,\" and the question is, who has to prove it? So

Rav Nachman said that the מחזיק has to prove that the guy did not live together with him and משתמש, and Rava said that the מערער has to prove that he wasn't living there and was using it together with him, and therefore it's not a chazakah. That's the machloket here. That's the peshat of the Rashbam. And truth is, there are other peshatim in this Gemara. The Rif learns a different peshat. The Rif learns that when he said בשכונה גוואי הואי, he says, \"I have a chazakah. I bought it from you and have a chazakah,\" and he answered him, \"I was בשכונה גוואי.\" So the Rif learns what it means is שכונה גוואי means, \"I was far, far away.\" So he's טענ׳ינג to him, \"How could you claim that you bought it from me? I was out of town all these times. It couldn't have been that you bought it from me.\" And that's where you have a machloket between Rava and Rav Nachman. Rav Nachman says that the מחזיק has to prove that the guy was not out of town, and mimela he could bought it from him, and Rava says that the מערער has to prove that he was out of town, and mimela he couldn't buy it from him. That's the Rif's peshat. Then we have the Rashba and the Nimukei Yosef learn a little bit like the Rif, but a little bit different. They also say that שכונה גוואי means, \"I was far, far,\" but not \"far, far, and therefore it can't be that you bought it from me.\" They learn, \"I was far, and therefore I didn't hear about your chazakah. So the fact that I didn't make a מחאה doesn't count. Or I was sure, we were I was such a far place that my מחאה would never reach you, and therefore I didn't have to make a מחאה, and therefore your chazakah is not a chazakah.\" And that's where you have the machloket between Rav Nachman and Rava. Rav Nachman says that the מחזיק has to prove that he's right, and Rava says that the מערער has to prove that he's right. Then we

have the peshat that the Mordechai brings. He brings from Rabbeinu Meir. He says like the Rashbam, but he adds a little vort, that the case here was he says, \"I bought it from you and I have a chazakah,\" the מערער says to him, \"I lived together with you,\" but he adds, when does this take away the chazakah? If he says, \"I lived together in your house and I always walked through, and not only that, I was more than you. There was one area that we both used, if I ever had to use it, I came first. I would push you away.\" But בכללות it's the same idea as the Rashbam. Now, what we have to understand basically, according to all the פשטים, but mainly we're going to talk about the Rashbam, that's the one that's we learn always, what is the basis of the machloket between Rav Nachman and Rava? Why does Rav Nachman say that when there is a safek, here, what happened here is, he claims he has a chazakah and the מערער comes and says, \"Your chazakah doesn't work.\" And the מחזיק says, \"What you're saying is not true, mimela the chazakah works, but now we don't know who's saying the truth.\" So there's a safek whether this guy was the שכוני גוואי or not. So, Rav Nachman says that the מערער is right. In order for the מחזיק to get it, he has to prove that the מערער is wrong, so without anything, if we'd leave it like this, the מערער gets his way. The מחזיק has the obligation to dispute, to disprove the מערער, and Rava says the opposite: the מחזיק is right, and the מערער, in order to get the field back, he has to prove it, and if he doesn't prove it, the מחזיק keeps it. What's the yesod here of the machloket, whether the מערער has to prove it or the מחזיק has to prove it? Now, likhora, bifshitut, the machloket is very simple, based on what we've been saying many times. We said many times in חזקת הבתים that there is a she'elah: who is called the מוחזק and who is called the מוציא? The guy is sitting in the field, the מערער comes and says it used to be mine, and obviously he proves that it was, cuz if he doesn't prove it, then it's nothing, so we know it used to be his. This guy claims, \"I bought it from you,\" and he's sitting in the field. So, we went through, I'm not going to go through the details again, the question is, who's called the מוחזק? Who's called the one that's holding it, and who's the one that's trying to, called the מוציא? The moment we establish this guy, whoever it is, is the מוחזק, the other guy is called המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. If he's the מוחזק, he has it. The other guy is trying to take it away. So, who's the burden of proof? On the guy trying to take it. If we're going to say that this guy is called the מוחזק, then the other guy is called the המוציא מחבירו. And we went through this many times, that there are two ways to look at it, and we're not going to go through all the two details, but there are two ways to look at this whole thing here. You could say that the one that's sitting in the field, because he is מחזיק the field, he is called a מוחזק, just like by מטלטלין, if I have something, I have this, and you claim it's yours, you could prove that you had it before, but I claim it's mine, I bought it from you, whatever, I say it's mine, the fact that I'm holding it, I become the מוחזק. I don't have to prove anything. You want to take it, you have to prove. The same thing here, also: I'm sitting in the field, I'm the מוחזק, you're trying to take the field away from me, you're the מוציא, so the מערער, who's trying to take the field away from the מוחזק, has to prove it. He's a המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. Or you could say the opposite: by מטלטלין, the fact that I'm holding it, I'm called the מוחזק, not by קרקע. קרקע, you can't hold on it. There's no such thing, you can't put it in your pocket, you can't hold it in your hand. So, by קרקע, the guy that's sitting in it is not called a מוחזק. The first guy, the מערער is called the מוחזק. Why? Cuz he, we know for sure he has עדות that it was his, so it's for sure his. The question is, did you buy it from him? The fact that you're sitting in the field means nothing, according to this pshat. So, אלא מאי? You're trying to take it away from the מערער, who's the מוחזק, by saying you have a chazakah. Now, if there's a safek, who has to prove it? The מחזיק has to prove it, because he's not the מוחזק. He's מחזיק, means he's sitting physically there, but he's not the מוחזק. So, the מחזיק has to prove against the, cuz the מערער is the מוחזק. So, lechora, this whole thing that we've been talking about so many times, that there are two ways to look at this whole thing, whether the מערער is called a מוחזק, or the מחזיק is called a מוחזק, seems to be basically the machloket between Rava and Rav Nachman. Very simple. In this case, this guy has a chazakah, this guy comes and now we know the field was his, this guy is sitting, and he has a chazakah. Now, there's a safek: is the chazakah a good chazakah? Cuz he טענ'ס שכוני גוואי. Whatever פשט שכוני גוואי, but whatever שכוני גוואי means, it ruins his chazakah. Who is the one that has the burden of proof? So, Rav Nachman says the מחזיק has the burden of proof, so obviously he holds that the מערער is the מוחזק, and Rava says the opposite, that the מערער has the burden of proof, so who does he hold is the מחזיק, is the מוחזק? The מחזיק is the מוחזק. So, לכאורה, this seems to be the simple peshat of the machloket. It even fits to the words of the Gemara, cuz when the Gemara later makes a comparison between this and the whole case case of Bar Sisin, where the Gemara uses the lashon here that it's או הכא לקיח קאי, this is peshat in Rava. You're coming back? This is the peshat in Rava. That why does Rava here say that the מערער has to prove? So Rava says the lashon in the Gemara later, הכא לקיח קאי בנכסי, נכסי. The לקיח, the buyer, which is the מוחזק, is sitting there. So obviously Rava holds The Gemara, as if, almost says it, that do you know why Rava says here that the מערער has to prove it? Because the לקיח is sitting in the field, that means the לקיח is the מוחזק. So לכאורה, it would be very simple to explain that the machloket is who is the מוחזק? Rav Nachman holds that the מערער is the מוחזק, that's why the מחזיק has to prove it when there's a safek here, and Rava says that the מחזיק is the מוחזק, and therefore the מערער is the one that has to prove it. Sounds like it's a good peshat. I think it's a good peshat. The only problem is we keep on saying that these two sides, whether the מערער is the מוחזק, the מחזיק is a machloket in the Rishonim. We said it's machloket the Rambam and Rashi, and the Rashbam and Tosafot, ראיה לכאן, ראיה לכאן. If this is the simple machloket between Rava and Rav Nachman, then how could it be a מחלוקת Rishonim? Everybody should agree because in this case the halacha is like Rav Nachman. The Rashbam says clearly here He says halacha is like Rav Nachman. Why? ובהני תלת סבירא לן כרב נחמן. In these three, these cases we pasken like Rav Nachman. דהלכתא כוותיה בדינא, because the halacha is like Rav Nachman when it comes to דינים. דינים means דיני ממונות, when it comes to monetary discussions. וכן פסק פירוש רבינו חננאל, we pasken here like Rav Nachman. Also the other Rishonim say bichlal, besides that we pasken like Rav Nachman בדינא, here we pasken like Rav Nachman because Rava was a talmid. When Rava asked Rav Nachman, \"Why do you say the מחזיק has to prove it, and I'm telling you I think the מערער has to prove it?\", he was a talmid speaking to his rebbi, and the halacha is כהרב במקום התלמיד. So the

bottom line is the halacha is like Rav Nachman. If the מחלוקת between Rava and Rav Nachman is what I said before, that according to Rav Nachman the מערער is the מוחזק, according to Rava the מחזיק is the מוחזק, so everybody should hold למסקנא, למעשה, that who's the מוחזק like Rav Nachman? The מערער is the מוחזק. How could it be a מחלוקת הראשונים whether the מערער is the מוחזק or the מחזיק is the מוחזק when there's a clear Gemara if this is the מחלוקת? So those ראשונים that we say hold like that the מערער is the מוחזק, אדרבה, it's very good. They say, \"Exactly, we learned this Gemara like that, and we see that the halacha like Rav Nachman.\" The question is, according to those ראשונים who learn that the מחזיק is the מוחזק, they can't learn the peshat like I just said in this Gemara. If they're going to learn peshat like this in Gemara, then they cannot say that the מחזיק is the מוחזק, because Rav Nachman holds the מערער is the מוחזק and halachah like Rav Nachman. So there must be other ways, or another way, to explain the מחלוקת of Rava and Rav Nachman. So

what I'm going to try to do is go into different ways of explaining the מחלוקת of Rava and Rav Nachman, and basically only according to the Rashbam's pshat. The ביאורים I'm going to give will not fit to the other, so we're going to go according to the The ביאור I said before fits every pshat. Whichever pshat you learn, in שכוני גוואי there's a she'eilah here, there's a safek whether it works or not. Who is burden of proof on? So one holds the מחזיק is the מוחזק, one holds the מערער, and that makes sense according to anyway. The pshat I'm going to say now, or the other few pshatim, will only fit according to the Rashbam. Now the Rashbam learns, again, what is the case here? He said to him, \"I have a chazakah. I bought it from you and I have a chazakah.\" And he answered him, \"Your chazakah is no good, it can't work, because בשכוני גוואי I lived in the house together with you.\" Mimela, it's not a It's not that A chazakah means you're living there, you're מחזיק it, and you're טוען you bought it from me. I was there! You lived in my house basically. So how'd you make a chazakah? Okay. So in this inyan that the whole she'eilah is, is he saying the truth? The מחזיק obviously says it's not true, \"You never lived in my house. This is, I...\" lived myself. And the מערער said I didn't, so that's a safek. Let's say if we would know for sure that he lived there, obviously the chazakah wouldn't work. The only טענה of the מחזיק is why he says the chazakah does work, because you're lying, you weren't there. That's the she'eilah. But the fact if he would have been there, we see from the Gemara that the chazakah wouldn't work. The question is, why wouldn't the chazakah work? And there are two ways to learn this idea why the chazakah would, two ways to look at it. On one way you could say that this guy who lived, the baal habayit, the מערער, who lived in the house, the fact that he lived in the house is like a מחאה. It's like a מחאה. I'm living there, so I'm מוחה against you being בעל הבית. It's like a מחאה. That's one way you could learn. Another way you could learn not because it's like a מחאה, it's not a חזקה. When you make a חזקה you have to live there by yourself. If you lived there together with the guy who's claiming he sold it to you, then your חזקה doesn't count. It's not a חזקה, you're not מחזיק. You're not מחזיק when there's another guy with you. So again there are two different ways: you could learn this guy takeh was מחזיק, he takeh was מחזיק, but this guy made a מחאה by being there walking through made a מחאה, and therefore the חזקה doesn't work. The other way is, not because he made a מחאה, lechatchilah your חזקה is no חזקה. Now the

Ketzot tries to bring a ראיה from the Rashbam that it's because it's like a מחאה, because the Rashbam says here right in the words, I'll read the words, when the טענה is the מערער says אנא בשכונה גוואי הואי, the Rashbam says בחדרים הפנימיים הוי עיקר דירתי, I lived inside the inside rooms, והייתי עובר דרך עליך, and I used to pass by through your part, ומשתמש עמך בבית החיצון שדרת בו, and I used to use the outside where you lived, ברשותי, you lived there because I gave you permission, and then the Rashbam adds three words: ולכך לא מחיתי, and that's why I didn't make a מחאה. So the Rashbam taytsh azoy that what's the טענה of the מערער? That I lived there with you, therefore I didn't make a מחאה, as if saying I didn't have to make a מחאה, I made a מחאה, this is the מחאה. So the Ketzot is מסביר that it seems that the Rashbam learns this way: that had he, if he would have, if he takeh lived there as he's saying, this is a mechah, that's why this ruins this chazakah. It's not pashut, it's not davka muchrach, it's not, it sounds like it, not muchrach because you could learn that what he means is that this is no chazakah, and he finishes off, and I didn't make a mechah, I didn't have to make a mechah because you had no chazakah to begin with. But that is mashma, yes, I would say from the words mashma that the fact that he lived there is a mechah. On the other hand, from the Ravinu Gershom, Ravinu Gershom's lashon is mashma the other, also not for sure, mashma the other way. He says here like this: שכונה גוואי, the מערער טענ'ט, I lived in שכונה גוואי, והחזקתי בו, the מערער says and I was machzik it, ולא שימשת בו יותר ממני, and you didn't use it more than me. And I was machzik it. So what's he basically saying? That you are not machzik, you didn't make a chazakah. Again, it's not muchrach, you could taytsh I used it more, memeila it's like a mechah, but if you're going to go straight into the words, the words from Ravinu Gershom is mashma that he's ta'anah'ing that when he said I lived inside, ובמילא, your chazakah is no chazakah. So again here we have two ways to look at this guy who lived inside. If he would have, if he takeh lived inside that house, which now we don't know if he did or he didn't, the she'eilah who has to prove it, but if he lived in the house it would ruin, it wouldn't be a chazakah. One way to learn is it wouldn't be a chazakah because it is a chazakah, but this guy makes a mechah. It is a chazakah because you lived in the house, the machzik lived in the house, it's a chazakah. The fact that the guy lived there too is a mechah. The other way to learn is since the guy lived there you have no chazakah to begin with. Chazakah is only if you live yourself, if you live with the with the מוכר it's not a chazakah, so it's no chazakah.

One of the differences בכלל to show it's not just, before we even get to explain the machloket here, there is a another, a difference which would come out halachah from this. Tosafot says in a few places, let's see, I have it written down here: דף ל״ג עמוד א׳, Tosafot דף ל״ט עמוד ב׳, Tosafot says that in order to have a chazakah, it has to, let's say if a guy had a chazakah, and then the guy made a mecha'ah, let's say, but after a mecha'ah, another three years passed without a chazakah, without a mecha'ah. Who keeps the field? If three years passed without a mecha'ah, the מחזיק, because now there you have to be מוחה every three years. So Tosafot says this chazakah will only work if it came to this guy he claims I bought it, and it came to me as mine, and therefore I have a chazakah afterwards. But if lechatchilah it came to him he says you hired me as a worker and I'm in your field, so we know that he got into the field as a worker for him. Then he says, but you know what happened later, after I got into the field and I'm staying in the field, I bought it from you, and now I have it for three years and you didn't make a mecha'ah. In that case, the chazakah doesn't work. Chazakah only works if it started off with saying I'm here because I it's mine, I bought it, and then I have a chazakah to prove it. Instead of the שטר, I have a chazakah to prove it. But if he claim- but lechatchilah didn't start off with holding on to it as his, then later on the chazakah doesn't work. In this case, it'd be a big difference. If we say this guy who lived in the house made a chazakah, the fact that the other guy lived there too doesn't take away from the fact that he's מחזיק it, it just makes a mecha'ah. So in that case, what happens if afterwards the guy moved the original guy moved out and three years the guy the the the מערער didn't live there for three years? What would be the din? Would the מחזיק keep it or not? What would be in this case? The guy lived

there for together with the מחזיק, but then the מחזיק the מערער moved out, and the מחזיק continued living there for three years, would he have a chazakah or not? Why not? The guy when he lived there made a mecha'ah, but then after the mecha'ah three years passed, and he made no mecha'ah, he didn't live there anymore, there's no mecha'ah. But that's only true if we say when the guy lived with him there was a chazakah, chazakah with a mecha'ah. If you learn the other way that when the guy lived with him there was no chazakah to begin with, so he didn't start off with with holding it. If he didn't start off with a chazakah, so the fact that he could have it another five years won't work. So there is a big difference whether we learn that this guy living the מערער living with him in the house ruins his chazakah whether is the p'shat it's a mecha'ah, or the p'shat is and that it makes that you don't have a chazakah to begin with because I lived there, you never machzik it, never got to you. You're my you're my tenant, not my tenant, you're my boarder, I let you in, you're my guest in the house, so there's no chazakah. So if there's no chazakah, so now living there and continuing to live there for three years without any mecha'ah won't do any good, because you didn't start off with yours. And the din is that it has to start off with being yours. Mah she'ein kein if you learn no there's chazakah, so you started off with being yours, ela mai this guy made a mecha'ah, by living there it's a mecha'ah, when the mecha'ah stopped and three years passed, you keep it. So לפועל ממש we have two ways of learning this whole thing here of this guy who lived דשכונא גוואי inside, why his chazakah doesn't work: is because this is called a mecha'ah or because there's no chazakah to begin with. This could be is the machloket between Rava and Rav Nachman.

Rav Nachman says that who has to prove it? The machzik. You know why? Because he holds that the ta'anah of the מערער that I lived with you in that house makes it that there's no chazakah. His ta'anah is you have no chazakah to begin with because I lived there. So what's the safek now? The safek is did the machzik have a chazakah or not? If it's a safek if he had a chazakah, who has to prove it? The מערער owned it for sure. The machzik claims I have a chazakah. Now we don't know if he has a chazakah, so he has to prove that he has a chazakah. So the machzik has to prove it. That's what Rav Nachman said. Rava learns it's not like that. The chazakah is a definite chazakah. The me'arer ta'anah is I made a mecha'ah. I lived there, made a mecha'ah. And there's a safek: did he make a mecha'ah, didn't he make a mecha'ah? So who has to prove it? The me'arer! In other words, there's things which is established, and the burden of proof is the one that trying to take away from the way it's established. So if you learn it's a chazakah, so it's established chazakah. Ela mai? There's sounds like there's a mecha'ah here, but we don't know if the mecha'ah was there or not. So you don't have to tell the guy who has a chazakah prove it. He has a chazakah. You claim there's a mecha'ah, prove that there was a mecha'ah. So the machzik doesn't have to prove it, the me'arer has to prove it. If we say the opposite, that in a case like this there is to begin with no chazakah, so what's the מערער טענ'ינג? Which makes a safek. You have no chazakah! Mine, it's for sure I had it. You claim you had a chazakah, you have no chazakah, but we don't know if it's true. So there's a safek if there's a chazakah. So if there's a safek if there's a chazakah, the machzik has to prove it. So that's one way to explain, which basically is not one way, it's the second way already. The first way explained the general way: generally, who's always the muchzak, the me'arer or the machzik? And we said that only fits according to some, but not to everybody. So now we have a new way to explain the pshat: The machloket is whether the living inside there makes that there is no chazakah, or it's a mecha'ah. Then there's another way to explain it. And that is bichlal when you have a mecha'ah, what's the purpose of mecha'ah? I'm going to say the words first, then I'll explain it. The she'elah the the two sides would be here, when you have a mecha'ah, does a mecha'ah ruin the chazakah? Or the mecha'ah doesn't ruin the chazakah? Now I'll explain what it means. No, definitely it makes the... you make a mecha'ah there is... you can't rely on the chazakah, but what does it accomplish in ענין? Does it make that there is no חזקה, or it makes a different vort? It makes you have to bring your shtar, because without a shtar you won't get it, and therefore you don't keep the field. Now I'll explain what it means. What's the purpose of a מחאה בכלל? Rashi said in דף כ״ח עמוד ב׳, which we still had Rashi, the Rashbam says this later on in דף ל״ט, it's written in many places: The purpose of the מחאה is... in דף כ״ח עמוד ב׳, what does Rashi say there? What's the purpose of a מחאה? The Gemara compares it to שור המועד. The purpose of the מחאה is it's a warning to the מחזיק: Remember, you got to keep your shtar! And therefore, for the next three years, if you don't have your shtar, you'll lose your field. Because בכלל when a guy sits, says: I bought it, the first question we ask him: Where's your shtar? You bought it? You buy only with a shtar, no קרקע is bought without a shtar. אחוי שטרך! Show me your shtar. I don't have a shtar. Oh, you don't have a shtar? Get out of here. But if he has it for three years, he doesn't have to have the shtar. So when he makes a מחאה, you have to keep your shtar for another three years. And therefore if you make a מחאה, and you come later to him, where's your shtar? I don't have it. The מחאה is a warning to you. Rashi says in דף כ״ח עמוד ב׳, these are the words of Rashi here, he says: שהרי ואף המחאה התראה היא להזהר בראיית זכות שטר מכירתו. And the Rashbam says it also. So the whole

purpose of a מחאה is to warn the guy to keep your shtar. And therefore, if you make a מחאה, it ruins his חזקה. Why does it ruin his חזקה? You can't rely on that because we have a problem: Where's your shtar? Okay. According to this, we have a problem. It says later on in Tosafot, we find later: What happens if we know for sure that the מחזיק did not hear of the מחאה? The מחזיק was far away, the מערער lived, moved someplace far, he made a מחאה there, but the מחזיק didn't hear it. And we know for sure he didn't hear it, it's not like that he claims so, we know for sure he didn't hear it. What's the din there? The din is that the chazakah is no chazakah. If he made a מחאה, it ruins the chazakah. That's the din, even though he didn't hear it. Even though the whole purpose of the מחאה is that this guy should... tell him that, the fact that you didn't watch your shtar shows that you don't have a shtar, because if you'd have a shtar, you would have heard a מחאה, you would have kept your shtar. But he has ראיות, clearly, that he didn't hear the מחאה! The answer is: It's still the din like that, that if you make a מחאה, it ruins the chazakah. Actually in many cases like that, if a guy makes a מחאה the last day of the three years... The only way the guy could hear about it if you send him an email, but otherwise he can't hear, but it was before the three years were up. Chazakah, he loses the chazakah. That's the din. פסק השולחן ערוך, that's the din, Tosafot says that's the din. The

question is, why? So, bepeshitut the answer is, ein hachi nami, originally the reason why where the concept of מחאה came is to make the guy watch his shtar, and therefore if he doesn't watch his shtar, we take away the field because it shows he doesn't have a shtar. But what happened was, because of that it became the din. The din became that a מחאה ruins your chazakah. That's the din. A מחאה ruins your chazakah. So even though בפועל ממש that the reason isn't there, so that's one way to learn. It became a din. It started because of that, became now became the din that a מחאה ruins the chazakah. Or you can say like this, the מחאה does not ruin the chazakah, it's not a din. The reason why in this case we said that if he didn't hear it, he still has a it still ruins his chazakah, is a side a side reason because there's no choice. Lo plug, the Chachamim can't make if it's three days, if you're 10 miles away, if you're 50 miles away, Chachamim can't make any differences, lo plug. So Chachamim said, too bad, but be'etzem it's not because the מחאה itself has the power of breaking a chazakah. The real reason for the מחאה why the chazakah is no good, because you should have kept your shtar, that's all. Why we take the field away from you when the guy made a מחאה? Because you should have kept your shtar. Ai in this case I couldn't have kept, I didn't know about it? Lo plug, the Chachamim can't make differences, but not it became. In other words, the two ways are like this. One way is, it became a din. Originally the reason is because you should keep your shtar, it became a din that מחאה ruins your chazakah. And the other way, it didn't become such a din. It's only because we want you to keep the shtar, and if you didn't, you lose it because you don't have a shtar. Certain cases the Chachamim couldn't help it, so they did it. The din is that if a guy makes a מחאה in front of עדים and tells the עדים, I'm telling you, I'm making a מחאה, but don't tell it to the מחזיק, that מחאה doesn't work. Because that's different, that's not ראוי, that's not even possible to get. Or in the case the Gemara says a Mishnah, if there are two countries which don't have any communication, שעת חירום, מחאה doesn't do anything. Ai we just said who cares, מחאה is a din? Because it's not even ראוי, it could never. But if it's ראוי, so then the din is it becomes a din. Or it doesn't become a din. It's not a din, it's a fact, it's a metziut. Certain cases we have no choice, but it's not that the מחאה ruins the chazakah. ולכאורה, this is a machloket between the Shach and the Ketzot and the Netivot. An interesting case. The Shach says like this: If two people came to a מערער and said to the מערער, you know, this came to the מחזיק I mean, and said, you know, the מערער made a מחאה, but it was a lie, the מערער never made a מחאה, they just told it to him. Befo'al, three years passed, but the middle there was no מחאה, but they told him there was, and then the מערער comes, so the

Shach says the מחזיק loses his field, even though three years passed and there was no מחאה. So the Shach says, too bad, he should have kept his shetar, because he thought that there was a מחאה, and the whole idea of a מחאה is to keep the shetar, so as far as we're concerned, he should have kept his shetar, and he didn't keep his shetar, so he loses the field, even though there was no real מחאה. Comes the Ketzot and the Netivot, they say, I don't know what you're talking about, there's no מחאה here. They they faked they it's a false מחאה, there was the עדים came and told him a מחאה which never happened. So if there's no מחאה here, why should he lose? There's no מחאה, so after three years he keeps the field. What's bifshitut the sevara of the machloket between the Shach and the and against the Ketzot and the Netivot? What we're saying now. Is the pshat that a מחאה ruins the חזקה, there's a דין a מחאה ruins the חזקה, or is it a practical thing, not a מחאה ruins, I said pashut practical that if you heard a מחאה, you have to keep your שטר, and if you didn't keep your שטר, you don't get the field because Why? Because where's your שטר? You should have kept your שטר. So the Ketzos learns that he loses the field because he says it's a practical thing. If we're looking at a practical thing, whether the מערער was true or not makes no difference. Practically speaking, the מחזיק had to keep his שטר, should have kept his שטר. He was warned to keep his שטר. איי, באמת באמת the מערער never did it, who cares? It's a very practical thing and as far as he's concerned, he was told to keep the שטר and he didn't, so he loses his field. The Ketzos and the Nesivos learn the other way b'pashtus, that it's a דין מחאה. If מחאה is a דין, so obviously it has to be a מחאה. There was no מחאה, there's no דין מחאה. There's no דין of a מחאה when it's a fake, there's no real מחאה here, because they hold it became a דין מחאה. In other words, everyone agrees that it all started because we want you to keep the שטר. That's what Rashi and the Rashbam say, that the reason for a מחאה is to warn you to keep your שטר. But the שאלה is, but because of that, did it become a דין that מחאה now that to have a חזקה is only if there is no מחאה, מחאה ruins your חזקה? Or it's not a דין, it still remains with this. If you want to use the words that I always use, I'll use it again: is this ענין that the purpose of the מחאה is to make you hold the שטר, a warning for the שטר, is it a יסוד to the דין מחאה, or is it a סיבה to the דין מחאה? סיבה ומסובב means that it's two entities, the cause and effect, and יסוד means this is the whole point of it. If you hold it's a סיבה, that means like this: the reason why you have what's the ענין מחאה ruins the חזקה, why? It's because not because it ruins the חזקה, you have to keep the שטר, but because of that, there became a separate entity, a דין of מחאה. If you say יסוד, that means that the whole ענין in making a מחאה is making you keep the שטר, that's all. That's the יסוד. Even though it became a דין that if you make a מחאה it ruins the חזקה, it doesn't ruin the חזקה, it just makes a קשיא on you: you had to keep the שטר and you didn't. So the bottom line is again here we have two ways of looking, not בכלל, not in in our case, בכלל I mean. בכלל, what is the דין of a מחאה? Is a מחאה ruining the חזקה, or מחאה doesn't ruin the חזקה, מחאה just brings up the point, where's your שטר? And you don't have a שטר, that's why you don't keep the field. In our Gemara, we have this מחלוקת Rava and Rav Nachman. So we'll say like this: before we said the pshat that the מחלוקת is whether being in that the מערער living in the house makes no חזקה or not, or it makes a מחאה. Now I'm saying let's learn a different pshat: everyone agrees that it makes a מחאה, let's stick to that. The מחלוקת is something else. The מחלוקת is does a מחאה ruin your חזקה or not? Or a מחאה is a din that because of the מחאה and you don't have the שטר, you lose the field, but it doesn't ruin the חזקה? What's the difference? The difference will be exactly this: if you learn that a מחאה ruins a חזקה, so when this guy says, \"I made a מחאה, I was in the I lived with you, mimela I made a מחאה,\" but we're not sure, so what is basically the bottom line of the safek? If מחאה ruins the חזקה, so the question is, is this חזקה a ruined חזקה or not? So if the safek is if the חזקה is ruined or not, who has to prove it? The מחזיק, because there's a safek whether his חזקה is a good חזקה, so you have to prove that your חזקה is a good חזקה. If you learn מחאה does not ruin the חזקה, it's just a din that takes away the field from you because where's your שטר, so in this case where this guy claims, \"I made a מחאה, I lived there, which was a מחאה,\" we don't know if it's true, it doesn't ruin the חזקה even if it would be true. He wouldn't keep the field, but it wouldn't take away the fact that this is a חזקה, so a חזקה is there for sure. Ela mai, the question is was there a מחאה or not? So the מערער who claims there was a מחאה has to prove it. The the guiding the logic is all the same, but the שאלה from which at which from what do we focus on. So now we're focusing on a different thing, we're focusing whether a מחאה takes away the חזקה. If there's a ספק מחאה, what does it mean in other words? There's a safek in the חזקה. The other way is no safek in the חזקה, there's a safek in the מחאה, and the ספק whether mecha'ah is good, but that doesn't have to do with chazakah, it's just lema'aseh it will take away the field not because he didn't make a chazakah. So then that depends whether the מערער will do, what the מערער or or the מחזיק. So let's look in the words of the Rashbam, it fits the words of the Rashbam also. First the Rashbam says when the guy claims \"I lived בשכונה גוואי\", he says like I said before \"ולכך לא מחיתי\". That's why I didn't make a mecha'ah. In other words, he's טענ'ינג that it's a גדר of mecha'ah. Then when he explains Rav Nachman's words, what does he say? Rav Nachman says, \"Go bring עדים that you lived there by yourself, כדין כל חזקת ג' שנים\", like the chazakah of every chazakah that you have to bring עדים that you made a chazakah. So it's as if he's saying clear that in Rav Nachman, he says that what is it? You have to prove you have a chazakah. Because the fact that he made a ספק, he claims that he made a mecha'ah means that he made your chazakah no chazakah. So we don't know now, maybe he's right, maybe not. Prove that your chazakah is a chazakah, so he says prove that you're a מוחזק. But before when he says it, he says that therefore I didn't make a mecha'ah, as if saying it's a דין in the mecha'ah. So according to Rava it's a דין, מחאה is a דין on the mecha'ah, but it doesn't take away the chazakah. So who has to prove it? The guy who claims \"I made a mecha'ah\", that's the מערער. מה שאין כן רב רב נחמן, he says the מחזיק because there's a she'eilah on the חזקה, so the מחזיק has to prove it. That's another way to explain the מחלוקת of Rava and Rav Nachman. Then there's another way to explain. Actually there are two more ways, but we ain't going to get to two more ways, but let, one more way. To go from another angle. See before, all the two peshatim I said now was that according to the מחלוקת is whether the ספק is on the חזקה, the ספק on the מחאה, but two different ways to to focus on it, but that's the שאלה. Here we're going to go a different angle altogether. It's not a question on the חזקה, yeah, מחאה, חזקה, it's a different שאלה here. When this guy lived in the house together with him a certain amount of time, those days, weeks, months that he lived there cannot be counted in the three years. Let's say the guy was the מחזיק there for three years, let's say there's no, before the ספק, and it would be true that this guy lived, for two months he lived there in the same house, in the back, in the middle of the house he lived there for two months. Those two months cannot be counted as part of the חזקה. So, what would be if the guy had a חזקה not three years, three years and two months, and out of those three years and two months, two months of those, the מערער also lived there. So what happens is those two months that he lived there doesn't count, but it doesn't matter, l'poel, he had it for three years, but in middle, two months, but he had for three years and two months. So two months, you take out the two months, so you're left with three years. So let's say after the second year, he lived there for two months, take out those two months, and he has three years. Ai, we know from before that it has to be רצופות! You can't have three years with breaking up in middle, you'll have two months off and, has to be straight. But here it won't apply. You know why? The Rashbam says in דף כ\"ט, why do you need רצופות? Because if you skip, the guy will say, the מערער will say, \"I came here, I saw you're not living there, you're not eating the פירות, you're not using the field, you're not using the house, memeila, I had nothing to to, so I didn't care.\" In this case, he can't say that. Because even though we're saying that those two months that he lived there they don't count, but the guy lived there! He can't say, \"You know, I saw you didn't do it.\" He did eat the פירות! He just ate the פירות in a way that it doesn't count. So here, רצופות doesn't matter, that's for sure.

According to everybody, you don't need רצופות. When do you need רצופות? Let's say if he would live there for three years and two months, and two months in the middle he moved out. Too bad, it ruins the whole חזקה. It has to be straight, consecutive. If you skip two months, it does ai altogether you added two months at the end so you had it for three full years, but it has to be רצופות. But that's if you moved out completely. But if you lived there, so you can't count those two months because he also lived there. But it doesn't say being that it has to be רצופות, in this case, you're just missing the time. You make up the time later. But that's only if he came if it happened he added three months and two ye- three years and two months, and he says, \"I lived there for two months,\" and we tell the guy, \"Goodbye, he has a good חזקה.\" The case here is he came after three years only, it was full three years, that's all. Two months in the middle he lived. So he says to him, \"You don't have three full years because I lived there for two months, and those two months don't count.\" A good טענה. What does he answer him? \"You're lying, it's not true, you didn't live there.\" So we have the ספק: is it true or not? Basically, if he's lying, then he has full three years. If he's not lying, it's pashut, not because חזקה מחאה, no, different thing, he's missing the time, he's missing two months or whatever the amount is, missing two months. Now, we

learned a case before that sometimes you don't need רצופות. Now who remembers, when don't you need consecutive? כדרב הונא באתרא דמוברי באגי. If it's common. If it's a place you have a field, and most people or many people skip a year. So then, you have to have three years, but it doesn't have to be You could skip a year and you know you'll have four years with a year skipped. So one thing is clear, that in that case the year that you skipped is not part of your חזקה. For sure. You have to have three years that you're מחזיק. That year that you didn't use it, it's not part of your חזקה. Machloket between, if you remember, the Rishonim whether you have to do ניר or not, okay, but it's not part. In our case, it's not so pashut. Those two months that this guy lived with him, you can learn two ways. You can do the same thing, those two months are not the No chazakah, you weren't machzik those two months. But really you could say differently: those two months you were also machzik, because you lived there. Over there, you takeh didn't eat the perot for a year, so it's not a So you skipped a a year of chazakah. It nevertheless, no mind, you have to have three years to make up the time, but it doesn't ruin the chazakah if you have extra time, but it Those years are not part of the chazakah. Here you could say this time that the guy lived with you is part of the chazakah. You just can't count it. A new type sevara. Why would I say this is part of the chazakah? Because you were machzik it. What's the chazakah of a house? How are you machzik a house? Living there! He lived there! אלא מאי, there is something that is מעכב, that is מונע, that holds back from this time to work. So you can't count it, it's not counted as part of the years because of a side thing. What's the side thing? That this guy also lived there. So you can learn here two ways. Over there by מוברי באגי, it's no two ways. That year that you didn't have to eat perot, so it's not a chazakah. Here, the time that the guy lived with you, which we don't count, you also ate the perot. So here, you could look two ways. You can say one way is it's the same thing, since he even though you ate the perot, but this guy lived that with you, so these two months don't count, and finished. Doesn't count, so it's not part of the chazakah. Or you can say it doesn't count, but it's still part of the It's three part of the chazakah which you can't count because there is a מניעה. You can learn these two ways. That is the machloket

between Rava and Rav Nachman. If you learn that this, let's call it two months, is not part of the chazakah, it doesn't not only it doesn't count, you didn't do a chazakah, so now there's a she'eilah here. This guy says, \"I was there for two months.\" The machzik says, \"You were not there two months.\" What's the safek now? And And it was he only had it for three straight years, nothing more. Two months out of those years is a safek. What's the safek? The mara says, \"I wasn't there, mimela you don't have full three years.\" I mean, \"I was Forget it. I was there together with you, you don't have three full years.\" So if you learn that those two months are not part of the chazakah, so what comes out the safek is: does he have three years of chazakah? Does he have three years? The mara says you don't have three years that you're machzik. So who has to prove it? The machzik. There's a safek now whether he had three years of a chazakah, so the מחזיק has to prove it. Like any time, since he claims I have a chazakah, I don't, we don't know if you have a chazakah, you got to prove it. If you hold the other way, that even those two months are also part of the chazakah, the question is different: is his, did he live there, and if he lived there he doesn't allow these days to be counted? That means, was there something that was מונע these two months from being counted? So as far as the מחזיק is concerned, he has a chazakah no matter what. The question is, the מרא says, but I did something that those two months cannot be counted, even though they're a chazakah. It's not the peshat he claims that there was no chazakah, so we have a safek in the chazakah. He claims that I did something to not allow the two months of chazakah that you have, and I agree that you had a chazakah even those two months, cause you ate there the fruit, it means you lived there, but I'm טענה'ינג that there's something that didn't let. There's something that didn't let. The she'eilah is, is it like that or not? So who has to prove it? Not the מחזיק. The מחזיק says, \"I have a chazakah. You're claiming that there was a עיכוב, there was something that was מונע, so you have to prove that there was a מניעה.\" So the machloket is this: is the, are the two months or the time that the guy lived with him together there, is it a chazakah but it can't be counted, or those two months he's not a מחזיק? And it fits to the words of the Rashbam too. When it comes to the, what what Rav Nachman said, the Rashbam says like this. The Gemara says, Rav Nachman said, \"Go and prove.\" He tells the מחזיק, \"Go prove it. הבי עדים שדרת בבית לבדך, you lived by yourself for ג' שנים, without this guy, כדין כל חזקת ג' שנים, like every חזקה, שצריך להביא עדים שהחזיק בה חזקה גמורה, that you have to prove that you made a real chazakah.\" So normally we taytsh in the Rashbam you have to prove that you made a full-fledged chazakah. I'm taytshing he made a chazakah gemurah, he made a full three years. You had it for three years. You have to show, Rav Nachman says that if I lived there, the two months were not a chazakah, so you don't have three years of chazakah. So you have to prove, so who has to prove it? The מחזיק. So he says to the מחזיק, \"Prove it.\" Like any case where you have to, say you had three years, let's say you're going to bring עדים for two years. You claim you had three years, עדים come for two only. No chazakah, you have to prove all three. Here also you have to prove all three. So, but it's a שאלה, there's no chazakah for three. מה שאין כן רבא says, המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה, דהיינו the מרא has to bring a ראיה שנשתמש בו, and he says וסבירא ליה לרבא, רבא holds, דכיון שראו עדים לזה המוחזק שנשתמש בו שלש שנים, since עדים say that he was מחזיק for three years, אין לנו לחוש שמא גם זה היה עמו, we're not afraid that maybe this guy was with him, until he proves it. So he's saying it very clear. Here the שאלה is Rav Nachman holds that we have to have, show that you have a chazakah of three years, cause according to his טענה you don't have three years, cause you didn't make chazakah three years. And Rava says no, he he for sure made a, that, so so Rav Nachman says you have to prove that it was three years, and and he says farkert, the מרא has to prove, because the fact that it's three years is no problem, because he had it for three years, those two months he also had it, he was a מחזיק those two. אלא מאי, you're claiming that you have done something not to allow those two months to count, so he says for that the מרא has to bring. Since he has a ראיה for his chazakah and we know for sure, so then you have to prove that you were with him that stopped it. So comes out that the מחלוקת according to this peshat is a different way. So we

have one way is, the first way is all the way is, is the מחזיק בכלל, who's the מחזיק? Who's the מוחזק, the מחזיק or the מרא? Then the second way, where the guy lived inside, is that a מחאה or no chazakah? The third way is בכלל every מחאה is it ruined the chazakah or is it a din because of the מחאה you have to hold your shtar? Now we have a new way: that this time, this time that he lived with him there, does it mean that it doesn't count, he was מחזיק it, but it doesn't Doesn't count, or that's not called he wasn't מחזיק it to begin with? And that'll be the difference like Rav Nachman and Rava. Yeshaya. He has two questions: whether was he all the...