Bava Metzia 10a: Arba Amos Konos, Kinyan Chatzer, Yad vs. Shlichus, and a Katan

Transcript

This shiur is brought to you by the Lev Aaron Foundation. For more, visit levahronlibrary.com. ממש לא קשיא משום אבא קיים בדלים. תנא: אין לו חצר ואין לו ארבע אמות. רבי יוחנן משום רבי ינאי אומר: יש לו חצר ויש לו ארבע אמות. Okay, what's the connection, the kesher, between chatzer and daled amos? First thing you have to ask: why does these two Tannaim tie it together? יש לו חצר, יש לו ד' אמות; אין לו חצר, אין לו ד' אמות. What's the shaychus between chatzer and daled amos? I mean, the sugya is chatzer. Does she have chatzer? Doesn't she have chatzer? Daled amos is a takanah. What's the shaychus between chatzer and daled amos? So, b'pshutah you have to say that daled amos was mesukan k'chatzer, and we spoke about it. In the shiur of daled amos, I told you that from here to raya that daled amos works within chatzer, because if it doesn't work within chatzer, what's the shaychus? יש לה חצר, אין לה חצר, or daled amos she has or she doesn't have. Chamish k'shayos. It was a takanah d'Rabbanan on daled amos, so what does that do with chatzer? There's a sugya called chatzer. Tell him to make it a little lower. No, that the Tannaim must have learned that אין לו חצר וממילא אין לו ד' אמות, because since daled amos is chatzer, so therefore, if אין לו חצר, אין לו ד' אמות. So what's the mand'amar... Yesh lo chatzer, v'yesh lo daled amos, so there it's not connected, because according to the second man d'amar, l'chora, it has nothing to do with chatzer. So then it's not the taich yesh lo chatzer v'yesh lo daled amos. He's not mechadesh that there's a yesh lo daled amos because there's a yesh lo chatzer, but because by him his undo with chatzer has to do with shlichus, according to the second man d'amar, right? Okay, it was like this: according to the man d'amar that it's mitam shlichus, so you can't come and say that the daled amos is mitam shlichus. The nekudah is not about shlichus. The nekudah is daled amos. In other words like this: if daled amos is chatzer, and chatzer only works according to one man d'amar, by a gadol, not by a katan, then meileh b'hechrech it can't be that a katan has daled amos. But according to the second tzad, that the taich works mitam yad, so then it works by chatzer. So what was the shakla v'tarya of yesh lo, the yesh lo daled amos? What's the chiddush? I mean, if the geder is that it doesn't work by chatzer, and daled amos is chatzer, so therefore the chiddush is ein lo chatzer v'ein lo daled amos. But on the tzad that it does work, so what does the second man d'amar mechadesh, what, that she has chatzer, she has daled amos? Why shouldn't she have daled amos? In other words, what is he mechalek? So the teretz is only mechalek on one nekudah, that you say that she doesn't have daled amos, I hope she has daled amos. So according to that man d'amar, it's a result, it's not a result. It's to upfreg the Tana Kama. Explain to you what I mean. The first thing you have to identify in the sugya is the kesher. Why does the Abaye, why does he put it together? Ein lo chatzer, ein lo yad. I'm sorry, ein lo daled amos. Mi'lecheires, it's two different things. There's daled amos, it's chatzer, teretz is, kipshuto, mashma shain. The first thing you see in the sugya is that daled amos works b'tam chatzer. So me'eila, if ein lo chatzer, then it has to be ein lo daled amos. The second mahalach, when he comes and says, yesh lo chatzer, v'yesh lo daled amos. The yesh lo daled amos isn't dependent on the yesh lo chatzer. I mean, it could have been that she has chatzer, but it's not muchrach that she has daled amos. The opposite is true, that if it's ein lo chatzer, it can't be ein lo daled amos, since the takanah is that it should be like daled amos, so it can't be that she doesn't have chatzer but she has daled amos. But what's the fakert? Yesh lo yad, yesh lo chatzer, she has chatzer, v'yesh lo daled amos. So the yesh lo daled amos is not b'hechrech because yesh lo chatzer. D'hainu, on the tzad that it's—

Yesh lo chatzer. It's because chatzer is mitam yad. And it's sad that it's mitam yad, so it's not mukhach that she has daas l'haknos. Where is the hechrech in yesh lo yad that she has daas l'haknos? It's only klapei the Tana Kama. In the Tana Kama, you have to say the behechrech she can't have baalus. I'm telling you that hechrech isn't true. She could have chatzer. She could have baalus. But not yesh lo as a result of yesh lo chatzer. Do you understand that? Bring me some water, please. It's not that difficult today, rabosai. It's really not going to be that difficult today. It'll be very nice, and most of it is all pshat in the Gemara. Chaim, chatzer, yesh lo daas l'haknos. Ein lo chatzer, ein lo daas l'haknos. Ein lo chatzer, ein lo daas l'haknos, then the ein lo daas l'haknos is a result from the ein lo chatzer, on the side that you learn that daas l'haknos is chatzer. Do you understand that? And that's a chiddush that we're saying, that daas l'haknos is chatzer, so that one is a result of the other, and one is the hechrech from the other. That's the Tana Kama. Meaning that if you stick into the sugya that daas l'haknos is chatzer, so the Tana Kama is A plus B, namely equals C. If ein lo chatzer, then it has to be ein lo yad, ein lo... ein lo daas l'haknos, because since daas l'haknos is chatzer, it has to be. Now, the Gemara never said that daas l'haknos is chatzer. But if you stick it to the sugya, this nekudah, which l'cheira is muchach, that daled amos is chatzer, so the taanah kama is that you can't have daled amos because she can't have chatzer. So what's the second man d'amar? Yesh lo chatzer v'yesh lo daled amos. So what's the yesh lo daled amos? That she has to have daled amos because she has chatzer? Not muchach. Just because you have chatzer, that means you must have daled amos? What it means is, she could have. No, you come and say that it's a me'akev in daled amos because she can't have chatzer. I hold yesh lo chatzer, so it's not a me'akev in daled amos. But am I holding that daled amos is chatzer? Not muchach. Could be he's answering the Tana Kama. Tana Kama, you say ein lo chatzer, l'meila ein lo daled amos, but I'm telling you, yesh lo chatzer. L'meila, it could be yesh lo daled amos. But it's not that because she has chatzer, l'meila it must be that she has daled amos, because that's vadai not muchach. Meicha teisa, chachamim mesaken by her that she has daled amos? That's not a hechrech. Does everybody understand this? That's one way to learn the machlokes. Tana Kama holds b'hechrech it can't be a daled amos, because chatzer and daled amos are the same. To which the second Tana answers that it's not a hechrech that she has—I'm saying it's not a hechrech that she has, but it's not a hechrech that she can't have, because yesh lo chatzer. But does that mean that that's why she has daled amos? No. Is mashma, what's the chisaron in chatzer by a katan? What's the chisaron בכלל? He says, the problem is not so much the chatzer. It's not that the chatzer of the katan can't work, but it's that the katan can't use his chatzer. That's the kiveiger. What's the lashon of the Gemara? Ein lo. She doesn't have. So the mashma'os is that she doesn't have means it isn't there. That's kiveiger, that's not the pshat of the Gemara. You hear? What's ein lo? Ein lo means she doesn't have it. R' Akiva Eiger, ein lo doesn't mean she doesn't have it, but she can't be koneh with it. Shmak R' Akiva Eiger. You learn the Gemara that way? It's a different Gemara. Pashut, ein lo means not there. Ein lo, she doesn't have. R' Akiva Eiger, ein lo means it doesn't work. But not that she doesn't have chatzer. A katan can be koneh with a chatzer, but it's not ein lo.

that she doesn't have. Now let's turn around and learn the Gemara like this. The Gemara says, Ein lo chatzer, she can't be koneh with the chatzer. Mimeila, ein lo daled amos. She can't use the daled amos to be koneh with it. So when the second man d'amar says, yesh lo chatzer, yesh lo daled amos, the she'eilah is, could she use it? Peirush, the same way she could use chatzer, she could use daled amos. Says the connection, because daled amos is chatzer, has no shaychus there. It's the same way. In other words, the chiddush is, could she be mishtamesh with the koach of yad that she has? And the answer is, by chatzer we see that she can't be zocheh the tana kama, so I could see that even if there is a daled amos, she can't use those daled amos. Masha'ein kein the second man d'amar says, if I see she could use her chatzer, she's capable to utilize—let's use the words in English—utilize the chatzer that she has to be koneh. So she could utilize the daled amos that she has to be koneh. So then it doesn't mean that daled amos is chatzer. You remember in the previous shiur I told you that daled amos is—and grabed, you use those daled amos to be koneh. Daled amos is not the kinyan. Do you remember we spoke of such a thing? This is what this Gemara is saying. The daled amos is—the question is, could she use those daled amos to be koneh? Could a chatzer make a ma'aseh kinyan? With the daled amos that she has, and the teretz is, let's look at chatzer. Dr. Tana Kama, chatzer is mashma that she can't. Dr. Second Tanna, no, chatzer is mashma that she could. Daled amos is chatzer? Lav davka. The difference between pashut pshat and pshat after bekius ha'igger is, do we have to learn is chatzer daled amos, and is daled amos chatzer? Do you understand what I want? As soon as you read the Gemara, you see clearly that there's a connection between chatzer and daled amos, correct? When you learn the Gemara, did you see that the Gemara puts it together? She has this, she has this. What does one have to do with the other? Maybe she has chatzer, she has daled amos. What's the shaychus to it? So the next step should be in your mind, yeah, because daled amos is chatzer. Yeah, so the Tana Kama is saying she can't have daled amos without having chatzer. What is the second man d'amar saying? And understand this: he's not saying that she has to have daled amos because she has chatzer. That's not muchach in the second shita. It doesn't mean that she has to have daled amos because she has chatzer. What it means is she could have daled amos because she has chatzer, which means this, that you come and say that she can't because of chatzer, I'm telling you that that's not a hechrech, because she has chatzer also. Am I saying daled amos is chatzer? It's not muchach, right? Good? Yes or no? Talk to me, huh? Who said there's a connection? Because you connected it. I'm telling you, it's not a problem. You're connecting and saying she can't have daled amos because she has chatzer. I'm telling you she has chatzer. You said ein lo chatzer, therefore ein lo daled amos. I'm telling you, but yesh lo chatzer. Because you just said ein lo chatzer. I'm repeating after you. This is a machlokes, two Tannaim. You said ein lo chatzer, ein lo daled amos. So I'm telling you, you should know yesh lo chatzer, and you should know that yesh lo daled amos, but not because she has chatzer she has to have daled amos. But it's true, because it's not muchrach that if a person has chatzer they must have daled amos. Chachamim have to give you daled amos because you have chatzer. Does that make sense, that you have to have yesh lo chatzer and therefore yesh lo daled amos? The opposite way has to be, because if it's ein lo chatzer, you can't have daled amos, because daled amos can't exist without chatzer. So the answer to that is, the second Tanna is telling you, you should know yesh lo chatzer. You should know that she does have chatzer. So this that you came and said ein lo daled amos because ein lo chatzer, you should know yesh lo daled amos.

Because yesh lo chatzer. But it can't be that because she has chatzer, she has daled amos. It's because she has chatzer, she could have daled amos. Not that she has daled amos. And then it's not muchach that it's a shita no more than just breaking up the Tana Kama. It's not much more than that. That's all I'm saying. Reb Akiva Eiger explains that when it says in the Gemara, ein lo chatzer, it's not true kipshutei that she doesn't have it. She has it, but she can't use it. There's nothing she can do with it. So then the Gemara is saying a geshmak: yesh lo, ein lo chatzer. So the same way she can't use chatzer, she can't use daled amos. She can't use daled amos. Then the Gemara is saying, yesh lo chatzer, so she could use daled amos. If chatzer, daled amos, then it's not muchach anymore bichlal that chatzer, daled amos. I'm sorry, that daled amos is chatzer. Now, if you look, what's wrong? What's wrong? There's nothing. After Reb Akiva Eiger, you have to learn; there's no shaychus one to the other. The question isn't, could you have chatzer and therefore you could have daled amos. The same way, when a woman has chatzer — a katan, a woman, I call her a woman — but a katan has, so too she could utilize the chatzer, she could utilize her daled amos too. Reb Akiva Eiger. Is it muchach that one is the other? No. Now you'll see what I want. Notice that Aba Kohen Bardl talks about a ketanah. What about a katan? Ketanah, yesh lah yad, yesh lah... What about katan? What about katan? Katan, yesh... Just speak about a katan. Why are we talking about a ketanah? Let's look at the Rach. Shh. Amar Reish Lakish, mishum Aba Kohen Bardla: ketanah ein lah chatzer, ve'ein lah daled amos. V'Rabbi Yochanan, mishum Rabbi Yannai amar: yesh lah. She does have. Peirush: hai d'amri Rabbanan chatzeiro shel adam ha-mishtameres, koneh lo shelo mida'ato, v'chein daled amos shel adam konos lo b'chol makom, hani mili... What's the next word? Gadol. D'ketanah loi Rabbanan, aval loi l'ketanah. Gadol v'loi ketanah. What is the Rach saying? The Rach is saying is the chisaron isn't ketanah, but the chisaron is gadol and katan. Why does he say v'loi ketanah? I don't know what he means by that, but you see clearly he doesn't say gadol v'loi ketanah. It's not about gadol and ketanah. And, and he goes back to the klal itself, the klal itself, that Chachamim said that a person's daled amos is koneh to him. That klal isn't dafka by a gadol. That should come and say we're talking about ktanah, because we're not talking about ktanah; we're talking about the klal. He's going back on the klal. The klal that it said, chatzei rosho adam koneh lo shelo mida'ato. I'm sorry, the klal of daled amos shel adam koneh lo. That klal wasn't only said by a gadol. Now why does he say by ktanah too? I guess he's going back to the lashon of the Gemara, because the Gemara speaks ktanah. You'll have to assume, no? According to the Rach, the Gemara speaks ktanah, and there's a simple answer to it, but al kol panim, the Rach seems to say clearly that the klal of adam daled amos is not necessarily gadol. It's ktanah also, and that's the shaila of the sugya. You see what I want from this Rach? According to the pashut pshat in the Gemara, the Gemara is trying to say you should know what's the din of ktanah. According to the Rach, the shaila is not ktanah; the shaila is the klal. When you said a klal, the daled amos shel adam is a gadol v'lo katan. Do you see the difference? Now is he? That even if the second side of the Gemara, the second man d'amar is that—

There was a connection. It's still not muchach that it has to be because you have chatzer that you have to have baal ha'amos, correct? I mean, what's the hechrech? If you have chatzer, therefore you have to have baal ha'amos? No. It's possible, which means this, that you made a problem with it, you should know it's not muchach that there should be a problem. But does that mean that l'maskana that baal ha'amos must be chatzer? It's also not muchach. It's just a possibility. It's possible. Okay. Next point. Could be it has andut chatzer. And all we're taking out from this is the ability to use the chatzer. So too, we want to use the question: could a katan have the ability to use the baal ha'amos that she has? Chaim, is that fair? Is that a fair point? That maybe we're not saying baal ha'amos is chatzer, but we're trying to learn out just like a katan has the koach to use a chatzer, so too a katan has the koach to use her baal ha'amos. Fair? So therefore it doesn't mean that baal ha'amos is chatzer. It never said that. That's an emesdige nekudah, based on Rav Kiveiger. Now let me ask you another question. What's the question of the Gemara? Does a katan have baal ha'amos? According to the pashut pshat, that's the shaylah. Does she have it? Doesn't she have it? The Rach is saying that that's not the shaylah of the Gemara. The shaylah of the Gemara was back on the original klal. I just said before a klal that baal ha'amos shel adam koneh shelo b'chol makom. Pirush, is that by a gadol or by a katan? You see a difference? Chayim, I'm gonna take him, pick him up and start shaking you in the middle. You want me to start shaking you? You hear what I'm telling you? The question is not that that rule, could we apply it and give it to a katan too. Does the Rach say that the question is, does a katan have that daled amos? No. The question goes back to the original klal. Was the klal said only by gadol or even by katan? It's a different sugya. Shay, you understand what I want? It's a different sugya. Okay, let's go a little further. So eibazoi, so why takke katan? Why takke katan? So the Rach speaks katan, mistama only because the Gemara says katan. When he says gadol, he doesn't say gadol, he says gadol. The question was only by gadol or even by katan. Why did he say the word katan? Because the Gemara. Why does the Gemara talk about a katan? I can say because the emes is all based on the notzan b'yado by get. So the Gemara picked katan, not by katan. Takke katan gadol is the same shayla. You look at the Rambam. When the Rambam speaks this halacha, he takke doesn't speak out dafke katan and gedolah, v'loi ha'ish. He talks about ish. He takke speaks about mamash k'lashon haRach, gadol and katan. The chilukim is not katan and gedolah. But ish im tano. Ish. Look at the Rambam. Rambam says it clearly, because it's not about a ktanah and a gedolah. It's about gadol. It's about an ish, and ktan is just a case. And the case that was chosen is because the pesukim are in that context. The pesukim are talking about a ktanah. I told you many times the Rambam always follows the Rach. I told you many times the rule. The Rambam is ninety percent of the times the Rach. I see the Rach says gadol. I saw it, the Rach, the Rach gadol. And the Rambam goes once to ish. Tosfos, ish, talking about a man. We're not talking about—see, gadol, you can mean a gadol of a woman is gedolah. It's another way of saying gedolah. But ish is not a woman. Ish is a man. The Rambam is clear. We're talking about a gadol, katan, and a gedolah as well. Rambam brings down—how did something happen?—brings down, now what's the shaylah of ein lo chatzer? Im zarak lo ba logea תוך חצרה.

Does anybody have a problem with Rashi? So why does Rashi have to speak about get? What's wrong with metzia? You have a shaila sheyesh chatzer; she has—it's a simple shaila. She has chatzer, does she have shlichus? She has a daled amos. Shaila should be by metzia. The previous sugya of daled amos, tuma get, tuma metzia, bichlal. So when the Gemara has a shaila of chatzer, why get? Why does Rashi shtell a vek the shaila by get? Now let's go back to the Rach I just showed you. Did the Rach say it's about get, or the Rach said it's about daled amos shel kinyan? What? The general, the daled amos. Pashut shaila. Why did Rashi talk about get? Here, im zarak lah baalah get b'soch chatzeirah... We're talking about get. Is this masechta Gittin over here? We just learned about daled amos, and the shaila is does she have chatzer and daled amos, so it's about kinyan, it's about metzia. Why are you flying to get? Where's the sugya of daled amos? And the Rach, in fact, is saying it's about daled amos, kinyan, and it's not about get, huh? But why now? You want to know what the shaila is? The shaila is about get. That's right, so that's not the shaila. The shaila is about metzia, and try to compare it to get. Don't talk to me im zarak lah baalah get, unless you say because the pesukim are talking about get. It's a mother's srach. Tell me what the shaila is and say that it's learned from get. Rabosai, let me show you a little bit more Rashi. Says Rashi, V'chein im haysa omedes birshus ha-rabim, v'zarku lah get b'arba amosav, af al gav d'gedolah migarshes, v'shanah zeh get l'ishto v'seifa, haysa omedes birshus ha-rabim, zarak lah, megureshes, agansa ma'aseh. Now, if you learn that the whole shaylah about get, then I can understand why the Gemara didn't speak about a katan, because a katan is not going to get divorced. It's about a katan. That I get the answer to the shaylah. Why did the Gemara speak about a katan? The answer is according to Rashi, because it's talking about get. Yeah, but that's the kasha. Why talk about get? I'll give you the shaylah. Why talk about get and say that it has to be talking about a katan? Talk about metziah and it can talk about a katan. But ein hachanami, maybe talk a katan also. Right? Maybe. Chesh, pashut chesh. Let's move along. Mishum yad isha ba'i. So says Rashi, could be it's mishum yad, d'chsiv, v'nasan b'yadah. Reshusa mashma. Ki d'chsiv, vayikach es kol artzos miyado. Nasan miyado, yado is reshus, mimeila it would work. Ki heichi d'is lo yad, shedaaso shmurah get megureshes, lo mi'it rachmana ela shaita d'meshalcha v'hi chozeres, or it's mishum shlichus shal ba'i, and therefore she doesn't have it. Why does Rashi mean that it's kirshusa? What does Rashi want? D'chsiv, v'nasan b'yadah, v'yadah reshusa. Why do you need the definition of what yad is? Just say like this. This is an asa biyadah, how he says biyadah, and this is mishum yad, it's rabboi. This new chatzer, daled amos that you're trying to give her is mishum yad, it's rabboi. So why do you have to define that it's yad, that it's reshus, and that a pasuk tells me that yad is reshus? In other words, from Rashi's mashma it's a three-step halacha, three-step limud. First of all, you should know, shteit in the Torah yad. You should know yad is reshus. And you should know, now follow with me, that the chatzer and daled amos is what? My reshus or my yad? That's my shaylah. I want to know to which step are we jumping back to. Do we jump back to, you should know that my chatzer is my yad? Or do we jump back that actually it's not my yad? Don't jump back to the yad. Yad is reshus, and this is an extension of reshus. Why does Rashi need that? What's wrong with one step? Yad, and this is yad.

Pashut question. Rashi makes it into a two-step thing: yada, which means reshusa, which means chatz. Now, how does it mean chatz? Because chatz is from yad, like the Gemara says, or because chatz is reshus? Huh? Okay, so you mean Rashi is just telling me information. You should know that in case you don't know what your hand is, you should know, hey, could you put this into my reshusa? I mean, instead of using the word yad, we use reshusa, right? How is chatz a yad? Reshusa. A yad is reshus, and he brings a pasuk, Vayikach es kol artz miyado. So what are you trying to say? The definition of yad is reshus. So wait a second, wait a second. So reshus is not the translation of yad, but it's also nichlal in yad, which means like this: Vayikach kol artz miyado. Does it taka mean yad? No, it doesn't, because you're not holding your kol artz miyado. So the teretz is yad is left after. So we taka not going back to that it is yad, we're going back to that it's reshusa, which means yad. But it's not a kiyum in the word yad; it's taka not yad. Why did Rashi learn like that? What's wrong with learning that this מילתא yad? Why did Rashi have to put a variable into the sugya called reshusa, and it's not yad? I'll tell you more. Excuse me, the פני יהושע asks a peledige kasha, a peledige kasha. There's nothing more geshmak than this פני יהושע. He says, Rashi, I got a very big problem. Why? The Gemara says clearly that we don't learn out from yad. The Gemara says, Gagoi, chatzeiro v'karpifo iminayin? Talmud lomar, himatzi timatzi, matzi mikol makom. It's not learned out of the word yad. Rashi just said that it's a direct result from the word yad, because yad is reshus and this is also reshus. Which means is it's not learned out from himatzi timatzi; it's learned out from the word yad. But that's not what the Gemara says, frekt the Pnei Yehoshua. What are you thinking? What are you thinking? It's gevaldig. And that's what I mean. Why did Rashi have to stick reshus into the sugya? It's not that yad is reshus and chatzer has to be reshus, but chatzer can't be mamash yad, because then it's not learned out from himatzi timatzi; it's learned out from the word yad. If you want to know something, this is not stam a hakutne kasha. It's an unbelievable ... on Rashi, a peleh. L'maaseh, Rashi makes it that yad doesn't mean yad anymore. Yad means reshus. So if yad means reshus, then you don't have to learn out from himatzi timatzi anymore. Then chatzer is reshus. What are you saying? Same thing. Huh? How can you learn out from one Gemara? Ah, you have to learn the pshat in the Gemara. You have to learn the Gemara differently. That's what's muchrach here. That's called a blatch. See, that's the difference between pilpulim and learning the Gemara. It has nothing to do with yad. There's a special pasuk, yimatzi mikomafei. What? According to Rashi, we learn out yad doesn't mean yad. Yad means reshus, like a mefurash pasuk says, Vayikas kol artzim miyado. So that when we learn chatzer, do we need a drash of yimatzi simatsei? There's no drash anymore. Yad means reshus, and reshus is chatzer. It's the same thing. If yad means yad, and you have to also shtel tzu and add gazel, chatzeri vekarfifoi, then you come and say, gazel, chatzeri vekarfifoi needs a special limud, yimatzi simatsei, yimatzi mikomafei. But according to you, Rashi, anyway it says that yad doesn't mean yad. Yad is just an analogy for reshus. So you didn't need any more the yimatzi simatsei. Gemara is not like that. Tell me the kasha. Which is another question when I'm asking, why does Rashi take the reshus into the sugya? What's wrong with without reshus? Let me ask you another shaila. If the limud is yad, chatzer mishum yad is d'Rabbanan, then it's not only chatzer, gagoi.

And it's tartzifa also. So what's the three things over here? Gagoi, chatzeiroi, v'tartzifoi minayin. Yeah, it's the same thing. Maybe the Gemara should have found the fourth thing, maybe the beach that he has around. Today everybody has a beach around their house also, you know. Not us, because we sit and learn kollel. But today you have a summer house, a beach, and, you know. And as all you needed was one case: gagoi, his gag, chatzeiroi, v'tartzifoi. I mean, why do I need three different cases? I mean, it's all my reshus, no? If the whole yesod is whatever's in my reshus is also called yad, so why would the Gemara need a special limud of gagoi, chatzeiroi, v'tartzifoi? Just say chatzeiroi minayin, reshusoi minayin. Why does the Gemara say more simple, reshusoi minayin? How do you know it's reshus also? What's the limud of gagoi, chatzeiroi, v'tartzifoi? I probably, you know, it's muchach from this. That when the Gemara says, mishum yad is rabboi, it doesn't mean mishum yad is rabboi that it's the etzem yad. Mishum yad is rabboi is that after we know yad, we can know this also. When the Gemara says, mishum yad is rabboi, does the Gemara mean that this chatzer is yad? Or does the Gemara mean that now that we know the din of yad is rabboi, there's a ribui, meaning learned from... That we can learn this also. This is learned from here. Does that mean that this is this? And I'll prove it. The Gemara later says that could be there's a mahalach to learn, chatzer mitam yad, v'loy gara mishlichus. I don't understand. Either it's yad, either it's shliach. It's both. So when we get to the sugya, we'll learn what that Gemara means. But it's very shayach that the mitam yad means that it's learned from yad, meaning it goes under the cloud and the din of yad, v'loy gara mishlichus, but it works with the mechanics of shlichus. Being yad doesn't have to mean that it works because of yad. It works, meaning, toiras mechadesh yad works, so we learn from there that this also works. I want you to pay close attention how Rashi speaks about all these dinim. Mishum yad d'is raboi, it says, v'nasan b'yadah. Ki heichi d'is lei yad, d'mi sheyodaas lishmor es gita, megureshes, v'loy mi'ut Rachmana ela shaita, d'mishalchea v'hi chozeres. What about the second side, mishum shlichus, says Rabboi? Mid'Rabbi Rachmana shlichus l'adam, ki d'tanya, v'shalach melamed sheyesh shliach l'halacha, is Rabboi nami chateira d'hava kishlucho. Did Rashi ever say that it is shlucho, or does Rashi say d'hava ki-shlucho, like, like shlucho, ki-shlucho? Now what does Rashi mean, d'hava ki-shlucho? Does Rashi mean that it should be like shlucho, or it's rabbui because it's hava ki-shlucho? Since it's like shliach, therefore it's able to be nisrabeh from the parshah of shlichus. You see what I want? A little bit. Let's translate the words again. Is it common? Let's read it together. Melamed sheisa shliach is rabbui nami chatzeiro. It's nisrabeh also chatzeiro. Why is it nisrabeh chatzeiro? D'hava lei ki-shlucho. That's one way to read Rashi, or that it's nisrabeh from chatzeiro, nisrabeh from shliach chatzeiro, that the maskanah and the l'maaseh is d'hava lei ki-shlucho. Which one is it? Is d'hava lei ki-shlucho what we learn, or d'hava lei ki-shlucho is why we learn?

We read the Rashi. I'm not saying any — I'm reading with you Rashi, my boys. I'm learning with you. Beautiful Rashi. I love this Rashi. Rashi never said that chatzer shlucha. Did Rashi ever say chatzer shlucha? He never said it. First of all, the diyuk at the vav — this is yeshiva-she diyuk, the havalot kishlucho — he never said shliach, he said kishlucho. That's the yeshiva-she diyuk. Guess what? There's more in this Rashi, so you have to know how to read. Rashi says possibly that it's not even what comes out after the havalah kishlucho, but rather it's the reason why we can make the leima in the first place, because it's havalah kishlucho. Since it's doimeh to that parsha, so it can be learned from that parsha. Rashi says. Now that you read the Rashi, whose Rashi? It says, the havalah kishlucho. Since it's doimeh leyad, so it can be nisrabeh from the parshah of yad. You can't be medameh to the parsha something which is not domeh to it. It needs to be able to be domeh to that parsha. Rashi never said that it is yad after the parsha, and nor did Rashi ever say that it is shliach after the parsha. Rashi only said that since it's domeh to yad and it's domeh to shliach, therefore it's nisrabeh from the parsha. Now let's go back to the Rach. Says the Rach, Rabbi Yochanan amar. Yad yeichenin says, Chatzeira. What's the next word? Chatzeira. Chatzeira mikoach yado is raboi. Chatzeira is mikoach yad. Says the Rach further, k'sheim sheyesh bo yad. So just like she has a yad, v'chol ma sheyagia l'yado zachta boi, kach kol hamagia l'chatzeira zachta boi, because it's the same way. It has to be, because it's the same thing. It's mikoach yad. You see the difference? No? Not yet? You see the kisheh. What is the kisheh? What is the Rach אומר? The Rach is saying that it has to be, because if this works, then this is the same thing. It has to work, because it's mikoach yad. If there's a limud that yad works, says the Rach, guess what? Then there's a limud that chatzer works. It can't be divided and separated, that yad should work and chatzer shouldn't work, because it's mikoach yad is raboi, and therefore k'sheim says the Rach that this works, Rashi never says k'sheim. Rashi says that melamed sheyesh... melamed sheyesh... ... raboi naami chatzeiro. So, Shabbai, he doesn't go as far as to say that the same way this works, this has to work, because that's not true. According to Rashi, it's a limud. But this, I think we can go back to the answer of the kasha. So this katan, what about chatz? Rashi also says, about get. If it's talking about get, then it's talking about katan. I'm pshat in Rashi, and the tes is there, geshmak. Because the whole thing is a limud from the vort of yad in Hilchos Gitin. If you're telling me along this in yad that yad is reshus, and reshus is—when I know that Rashi uses this lashon, but wait a minute—that yad is what it is and chatzer is yad, meaning that if there's such a thing called yad, then there has to be such a thing called chatzer. A katan has a yad. It's not a drash, it's not a limud. It has to work that way. If there's—

Such a thing that the yad of a katan works, then the chatzer has to work too. Because it's not a drash in the parsha. What it is is that this is what it is. Yad of chatzer is the same. You can't be mechalek. Lach, you couldn't say it's only by a tad. What's the chiluk? It has to go back to the rule of chatzer and daled amos. Does it happen to work by a katan or a gadol? Hashem, that learns that it's a drash in the word yad. And the word yad says where? In get. It's a shayla how to be doresh the word yad. Is the daimah to chatzer? So when the Torah said yad, the Torah meant that. So it's only a ribui and mi'ut in this halacha. You don't have the klal that every time yad works, chatzer works. That wasn't the shayla. The shayla was always in Hilchos Gittin, when the Torah says v'nasan b'yadah, garda chasera v'kafifah minayin, how do I know to be marbeh all these things? Ki mati, ki mati b'yadah. It's only a drash in the word yad. It's not in the mahalach of what chatzer is. If it's a mahalach of what chatzer is, it's not din lafnei yad; it's a chiddush din in what yad is. So it's like the yad, it's the same thing. But if the shayla was in Hilchos Get that there's a din of yad, is that marbeh also? That's a din in Hilchos Gittin. It's not in Hilchos Yadim. So we have the pshat of yad, the pasuk, the ... biyado. Don't say by kinyan; it says by get, and the ... how to be ... the word yad by get. But if it's an uptight that yad is chaser, so whoever has yad has chaser. That's pshat. End of pshat. Pshat, end of pshat. Noch ein? Not yet. Okay, give me ... I don't know. Mishum yad ishtaboi. Isi, puk, chaser mishum yad ishtaboi. Translate those words. Translate. Okay, I'll do this for you. Chaser mishum yad ishtaboi means that chaser is yad. Chaser is yad. Huh? I'm sure ... chaser mishum yad ishtaboi. Chaser is yad. If that's what it means, then you have a problem, that the Gemara says chaser is not yad, because chaser is learned from himatzi, himatzi biyado, and not from the word yad. If chaser was yad, then it has to be that it's yad, and it's yad that's ... not himatzi, himatzi. Yad tells me yad, himatzi, timatzi mikol makom. But if chaser is yad, then it just should have been learned from the word yad, and that's the end of the story. That's the pnei Yehoshua's kasha. It's a gevaldige kasha. Beautiful. You see from the Gemara that it's not that way. You see the Gemara, you still need a drash after yad. Okay, listen, listen, listen, listen, listen. I'm saying it over for you, don't talk so much. Now, if I'm asking you like this: why can't you learn chatzer mishum yad istraboi? The Gemara never said chatzer is yad. The Gemara never said chatzer is yad. Later we find a nusach, chatzer mitam yad. And the word mitam yad could be translated that it's because of yad. It is the Rach that tells me mikoach yado, which I could say is also lav davka. Mikoach yado means it comes from you. You could say it's just a lashon. Mikoach yado, it comes. The Rach is saying mikoach yado. It works with the kochos of yad. Its power is yad. I see a very big difference. I see Rashi never said to me that it's yad or that it's shliach at the end of the day. And this, that Rashi says the havah amina lo kishlucho, first of all, the first diyuk the Gra makes, he never says shlucho; he says kishlucho. Second of all, I'm telling you, if you read the Rashi, you understand why he says kishlucho, because—

You know what Rashi's really saying? That's why it could be nisrabah from that parsha. He never said that that's what is after the day, after the limud. That's the reason why it could be nisrabah from there. The hava amina, kishluchah, because it's like shlichus; it could be put back into the parsha. But nowhere does it say that it's shlichus. Nowhere does it say that it's yad. Nowhere does it say that. The lach is mashma, paked that it's what? Mikoach yado, and therefore it's k'sheim. It works with a k'sheim. You know what k'sheim means? That it can't be split. According to Rashi, it could be learned that one from the other. According to the Rach, it's not splittable because it's the same thing. So k'sheim this works, then this has to work. You see the difference between the Rach and Rashi? Now let's go back to Rashi. Rashi was learning that it's a shaila of israbai. Is it put back into the pasuk? If it's a shaila of it's put back into the pasuk, then the shaila can only be by get. It can't be more than where the pasuk is. Matzi matzi b'yado. The question becomes, the naasan b'yado, what happens when it's not mamash b'yado? That becomes the shaila. You understand? Yes? Since the question was the v'nasan b'yado of get, the question was the translation of b'yado of get, so then the kasha becomes in hilchos gittin, what's the taich of b'yado? It's a definition in the pasuk. It's a definition of the ribui. But if it's the klal that's blurred, that chotzes mitam yad, then it has to work in Hilchos Mamon also. It has to work across the board. Follow your pshat. The question is, how do we translate the word yadai? And there's a ribui in the parsha. Now I understand the Nacha Nekudah. I understand, first of all, why Rashi speaks about kpanah, and why Rashi talks about a get. I also understand another thing. Why are we doresh matzis matzi byadai, ein li ela yadai, gaga, chatzeira, vkatfa? Why do we need all three things? And the perek is very geshmak, because it's not a limud that it is betzem reshus is called yad. Because then I don't have to speak about gaga, chatzeira, vkatfa; just speak about reshusai. Get to the point. Reshusai is this. Each one is a drash. How do I know to include also gagai? How do I know karfifai? How do I know chatzeirai? Yeah, but it's all the same thing, no? Because if reshus is yad, then you're right, it's all the same. Well, why would I need a special gaga, chatzeira, karfifa? But if it's a drash, when it says byado, maybe byado is davka, so how do I know gagai? How do I know chatzeirai? How do I know karfifai? And the Torah says matzi mikom makom. It's not that the lomdus is that my reshus is my yad, because then I wouldn't need gaga, chatzeira, karfifa. I don't need gaga, chatzeira, karfifa. Let the Gemara say, if it says byado, how do I know byado is lav davka? That's what the Gemara should say. The Torah says matzi mikom makom. The Gemara doesn't say that. Byado is davka. The question is, what can we stick back into yado? That's what the Gemara—I say gagai. What about chatzeroi? What about kafifoi? And the teretz is, he matzi mekomo. And now I can stick everything in. But it's a drash, not that reshus is yad. Because then the she'eilah is not gaga chatzer v'kafifoi. The she'eilah is reshusoi. If yad is daas, means reshusoi. With this, anyway Rashi puts in the reshusa. I ask you, so why does Rashi put in the reshusa? Let Rashi say that this is yad, and the question is, could this be also yad? And the teretz is because according to Rashi, at the maskana, chatzer is takanat yad. Chatzer is not yad. Chatzer is not yad, nor is chatzer shlichus. So chatzer is not yad, because chatzer isn't yad. So the only thing we could do is make a drash from yad. So we need something to connect to make that drash.

That's why Rashi sticks in the reshus. The reshus is not there to be marbeh chatzer. The reshus is there to explain how I can make a drash if yadi meidi dapsa, and the teretz is we see that yadi doesn't have to be dafka. So if yadi is lav dafka, then maybe I can stick chatzer into it. It's not that yadai means reshusa, and if reshusa, then it has to mean chatzer. Since I find that yadai could mean reshusa, therefore I can take chatzer and stick it back into yadai. Ah, you'll ask me, so then why do I need himatzi, simatzi? Because I need a drash to do that. So l'maaseh, yadai isn't reshusa, which is chatzer. And that's the teretz to the pnei Yehoshua's kasha. Gefalni. The pashut pshat. No, of course not, of course not. Yad is, yes, it's yad. Well, how's yad? What Rashi is trying to say is like this: l'maaseh, yad is yad. So I need a pasuk, which he quotes a pasuk from somewhere else here, b'midbar chaf aleph, that we find that yad can also be in the context of what? Of reshusa. That the meileh gives me the right to stick with himatzi, simatzi, chatzer back into yadai. The Pnei Yehoshua was learning, you know what Rashi means? Yad is reshus. So then what's the shaylah? It's almost sugya. If yad is reshus and chatzer is reshus, I mean, what's the big shaylah? You want something even more than that. What's the svara בכלל? What's the machlokes? ... What, he held yad doesn't mean reshus; it says ... yad is reshus. What's the second man damar? Yad is reshus. Have another kasha. Why should you say yad is shliach? Maybe ... yad is reshus, say ... How many think about it? He brings the pasuk that yad means reshus; he brings the pasuk. So what's the second man damar? The second man damar says, no, it's mitam shliach. Why? I mean, why should you say that? Let's ... say a pashut. The emes, yad is yad. Yad is yad. Yad doesn't mean reshus; that's not what it means. It's not some yad that you put it by him. The raya is that yadoi, the yado reshusa mashma, not yado is reshusa; it's reshusa mashma. There's a mashma'us in yad that it's also reshusa, like it says ... the pasuk. So meileh, when we have a drasha, himatzi simatzi, we can take chatzer and put it back into yad. Since there's a pasuk that says ... since the pasuk says, ... and there miyady didn't mean yado, yado, so therefore yadoi reshusa mashma. The word yadoi has implication of reshus also. So now that I have himatzi simatzi, so the himatzi simatzi is not a stirah to the biyadoi. ... That's what it means. Oh, but you want to tell me today it's yad? Who says? Where does it say that it's yad? It's about the drasha. Because that's not really what the yad means. Why should be me'arev without a heter to be me'arev? Why don't we stop being me'arev? Let's stop being me'arev. Be'marev the same way we were me'arev before. Don't say by ganav. It would be. Oh, just like by get, yadei could mean this, so by ganav, yadei could mean this. So I would say could be, could be, because by get there's takanah of a bi'ah. Get could be zimnus. Shaken over here, who says—why should there be zimnus? And that's a kasha, huh? Yes, why should there be? Why should there be me'arev? You did it. Yes, it's himatzi, himatzi. Why would it have to be bi'ah? Yes, there the bi'ah doesn't—that's what I'm trying to say. By get, the takanah of bi'ah probably means not bi'ah.

But why would the Torah write it? That's what I'm trying to tell you. It tried that by get, it works even without anything, because the mere fact the get is b'yado. There's a get b'yad isha. The get b'yad isha is a get. By kedeiv, it's not. By kedeiv it's a maaseh kinyan. It's not true. That's not true. You're saying not true. You're saying not true. Not true, it's not true. By get, halacha is there's a din of an asa b'yado, that that's the get. By get, that's the b'yado is the din. Don't say why the Torah write b'yado, because that's the din. Shaila is what's the implication of the din of b'yado? There is a din also. ... What do you need the b'yado for? ... I would say b'yado is dafka. ... Katnei noisi shliach. ... What's the chisaron of katan ... by shliach? What's the chisaron? The emes is shemeshaveh shliach. He can't make a shliach. He can't make a shliach. That's pshat katnei noisi shliach. ... learn. It's not so much he can't make a shliach. Now what the shliach does, if he's a katan, he can't use. Same mahalach that I told you, son by chatzer. Just like by chatzer, the taiches that chatzer, you can't use what your chatzer is doing. Davka by katan, because the taiches, the katan can't do anything. In other words, it's not that the katan can't make a shliach. That part of his ... could work. No, the pshat is that whatever the meshaleach, I'm sorry, the shliach did do, the katan can't be on the receiving end of it because he's a katan. The shliach isn't the problem. It's the result can't transfer back to the katan. There's an interesting Reb Chaim in the stencil. Reb Chaim says that the emes, the din of chatzer not by a katan, even according to the side of the Gemara, that there's because there's no shlichus by a katan. Zogt Reb Chaim that the chisaron is not the same halacha as ein shliach l'katan, because by chatzer, even if it works with shlichus, it's the ma'aseh of the meshaleach. Normal shlichus, you can always clarify: a ma'aseh shliach, a ma'aseh meshaleach, which we said has to do with if you mishaveh shliach and not, there's two dinim of shlichus. Zogt Reb Chaim that by chatzer the taiches, not that you can't have a shliach, and not that the ma'aseh of the shliach can't be misyaches to the meshaleach, but because the chatzer means shlichus, but what the meshaleach did it. If b'maiseh, the maiseh kinyan of the meshaleach, and the meshaleach's a katan, he can't have. It is a katan. Again, we chipped away. Pashut, you say that he can't make a shliach, end of story. That's pashut in the Gemara. He can't make a shliach, end of story. Zokt Reb Akiva Eiger, that's not true. He could make a shliach, but whatever the shliach does can't transfer back, because he's a katan. So therefore, whatever kinyanim that come from it, he can't have. But it's not so much that the shliach's ma'aseh is not a ma'aseh; it's very good. Reb Chaim goes one step further and chips away at that also, and says that the chisaron isn't even that this can't transfer back to the katan, but actually because it's all the katan, which means it's not a shliach. The shliach itself is the ma'aseh of the katan. It's all the katan. Therefore, it can't work by katan. Therefore, it doesn't work by katan, because it's all the meshaleach. So I'm asking you a shaylah: according to this, what does it mean if mitam shliach?

It's not a shliach. Shliach is shlichus. Chatz is mi. So what's the taich that it works mitam shliach? Saying, choira, we're choira. We're going to continue from here. Reb Chaim is saying a me'oredike taich, that even the klalim that we have, that it's mitam shliach, it's not that it is a shliach. It's not that this works with shliach, because shliach means I send somebody. Here I'm not sending anybody. It's taka my kinyan. But whenever we speak kishliach, it works not that it itself is shlichus, but it works because shlichus works. It's not that this becomes mamash a shliach. It's not true. Because if that's the case, then Reb Chaim doesn't need all Torah. Other, you can't make a shliach if it's finished. Zogt Reb Chaim, be'emes, it's not that I can't make him a shliach, because he is a shliach. I mean, can't. I'm a maneh, my chatzer could be my shliach. I told the acharonim asked this. According to the Rambam, you have to say, I want zachin l'adam shelo b'fanav, I want that my chatzer should work for me. So l'maaseh, how do you ever have by shliach? You need a minui. Where's the minui? Acharonim talk about it. We'll get to it tomorrow. We'll get snowed out. You see this nekudah. When we say the hava kishlucho, it doesn't mean mamash shlichus, and it doesn't mean that it is now a shliach, that it works in the parshah of shliach. That's what you see from Reb Chaim, and this is where I want to stop, because this is already where the lomdus begins. Okay? This is where I want to stop.