Bava Metzia 9b: Meshichah of an Animal, Acquiring the Kelim Upon It, and the Rambam and Ra’avad

Transcript

What's the din? We spoke yesterday, machlokes Rishonim, Tosafos, the Ritva. We'll still see it's also Ramban, more or less like the Ritva. ... So we spoke that Rashi doesn't mention the hesber of the she'eilah, doesn't explain to me what the tzadim are. Tosafos says that the she'eilah is the meshichah of the behemah should work for the keilim, the Ritva, which we'll see is Ramban as well, that chatzer, if you're working from chatzer, that he lends to him the behemah to be a chatzer to be koneh. You have to understand what's Reb Eliezer's she'eilah doing here. How did it come into the sugya? We spoke about rochev and manhig. How did this come to Reb Eliezer, meshichah behemah liknos keilim shelah? The way did it come into Bava Metzia בכלל? Our Mishnah was rochev u'manhig, so we discussed rochev u'manhig. How did Reb Eliezer ask after the sugya of rochev u'manhig? What's the she'eilah? That's the first she'eilah you have to ask when you see Reb Eliezer. I mean, how did it connect to the previous Gemara, ba'ei Reb Eliezer, Reb Eliezer's she'eilah, what does that have to do with rochev u'manhig? Tosafos, like I tell you, learn. That the meshich of the beheimos is going to work for the keilim. The Ramban learns that it's about chotzer. But the Ramban has an interesting nekudah differently than the Ritva, who also learns chotzer. The Ramban says that Tosafos's case would definitely not help. Tosafos speaks about a meshichah of the beheimos to work for the keilim. Says the Ramban, it's definitely not Tosafos, because that wouldn't work. And therefore he learns it's about chotzer. The Ritva comes from the other angle, and he says, I also learn it's chotzer, but I hold that Tosafos's case—I'm going to shayla—would the meshichah work? The Ramban learns not like Tosafos, because Tosafos can't be a shayla, because it definitely won't work. The Ritva learns not like Tosafos, because the case of Tosafos, that you make a meshichah on the beheimos, Avada would work. It definitely would work. So therefore it has to be the shayla of chotzer. I bring you down the sheets, the machlokes the Ramban and the Ritva. Tzarich biur b'mai cholkin. What's the machlokes why the Ramban held it definitely would work, wouldn't work; the Ritva held it would definitely would work, and Tosafos says that's good for the shayla. What's the machlokes? This pashut pshat. I haven't done more than just open to you up the Gemara according to the Rishonim and to ask, what are they arguing about? Why according to Tosafos it is a shayla, why according to the Ramban it's out of the question that it definitely won't work, and according to the Ritva it's out of the question that it definitely would work. I want to open up the sugya a little bit more. This Ramban is actually a Ramban in Bava Basra. That pei-vav, Omer Aleph as well. That the Ramban says that there's a problem with Tosfos. What's the problem? That the meshicha that you did on the beheima definitely can't work for the keilim. The meshicha of the beheima definitely can't work. But the Ramban's different than here because different reason. Here he just says the reason is because ... to make a meshicha on the keilim. The hainu, you Tosfos held that the meshicha of the beheima works for the keilim; the Ramban said it can't be, you need to make a meshicha on the keilim. Ramban gives a second pshat. And actually there the Ramban makes that as the first problem, and this that he says here, that the meshicha of the beheima is not on the keilim, is the second problem, says the Ramban. What is the first problem? That it's a meshicha b'keilav shel mocher. The mocher is giving it to you. He's telling you to be koneh in whose keilim? In his keilim. The beheima is his. It turns out that it's meshicha b'keilav shel mocher.

Then the Ramban says, the second problem is that the meshicha of the beheima can't work on keilim because the meshicha was not in the keilim. We have to understand why the Ritva didn't hold this is a problem. The keilim shel moicher that the Ramban says over there is the problem, so why does the Ritva hold that's not a problem? If you see that the Ritva held that it works completely, that the case of tosfos is not the she'eilah because it definitely works. Yeah, but what about the Ramban's ta'ina of keilim shel moicher, that you made a meshicha of the keilim, the Ritva didn't hold of keilim shel moicher. Why not? What is the argument? What I'm doing is I'm just telling you over the Rishonim and working out the cheshbon of the Rishonim. That's all I'm doing. If you would learn just the Ramban here, you wouldn't even know of a sugya called keilim shel moicher. You wouldn't even know, because the Ramban in Bava Basra, that the first problem he brings, not to learn like Tosfos, he says Tosfos is a bad idea. It's not a case that you're being moichech the beheima to be koneh the keilim. And he doesn't bring the reason that he brings here. He brings it afterwards, the second reason. The first reason is because it's keilim shel moicher. You can't make a meshicha of the keilim shel moicher. Now the Ritva obviously held that Tosfos can't be right because it's so pashut that it does work. He obviously didn't hold of this whole sugya of keilim shel moicher. That becomes the second she'eilah: why? Why does the Ramban hold of the keilim shel moicher, and why does the Ritva בכלל not goeris the keilim shel moicher? Now let me tell you a little bit more. Another nekudah we have to discuss is why here the Ramban speaks about keilim shel moicher. More takke pshat in the Ramban. Why would the Ramban over there— Bring me a problem of keilim shel moicher, and here just ignore it, if there is such a problem called keilim shel moicher. So the teretz could be, if you read—yeah, what? I'm sorry, what? What is this? Before I actually explain to you the whole thing, it seems to be a very simple problem. Mehachi levi kainei? It's not me; it's by you. It's your case. It's in your reshus. I mean, meshichah needs to take it away from you, not to keep it by you. You want meshichah. Meshichah is to take it away from you. So how can I be moshech it with you in your reshus? I mean, it's by you, not by me. I never dragged it away from you to bring to me. This is called keilim shel moicher problem. So first of all, you have to know what the problem is. So let's just leave it as a peshuto that I'm taking away from you by not taking it away from you, because it's still in your keilim. So why does the Ramban not bring it here? Why is the Ramban not gores it here? I mean, if it's a true problem, it should be a problem here too. So the teretz is, read the Ramban there, because the Ramban at the maskanah holds that it's a mistake, the whole keilim shel moicher. He holds the whole thing is a mistake, and he proves from the Gemara that there's no problem of keilim shel moicher. So it could be this Ramban here is after the Ramban there, so to speak, that after he came to the maskanah that it's not a problem, so here he leaves it just with the problem of keilim shel moicher, that the meshichah on the behemah can't work for the keilim. And he doesn't bring the taam of keilim shel moicher, because if you look at the Ramban there, he taka proves there's no such thing. So it could be this Ramban is after that Ramban. It's a little bit difficult in derech hapshat to learn like that, that the Ramban here is after the Ramban over there. We can why he speaks it out here too. To say that the cheftza is over there, not here, it's a little bit difficult. That we have to say the Ramban here is being somech on what he said there, that there's no keilim shel mocher, and therefore he only brings one taam. The truth is, rabosai, if you learn the Ramban well there, you'll see that there's more that we're not touching on, and I'll explain to you as follows. The Ramban there, when he proves the keilim shel mocher, says the Ramban, therefore I believe that the Mashiach would work, differently than he says here. Here he comes out, Tosafos, you're wrong, the Mashiach won't work. There the Ramban writes like there is, that the Mashiach would work because there's no keilim shel mocher. What's the problem, rabosai? But what's the second taam that he brought? Didn't he bring a second taam? He brought a taam that the Mashiach, one can't help for the other. So how when he disproves the keilim shel mocher is not a true halacha, all of a sudden it became that the Mashiach is good? And then there's a problem that the Ramban is ... This is rabosai learning up the sugya. And you'll soon see the significance, how it's so nogea to the pshat in the Gemara. It opens up the whole sugya for us. So again, listen carefully. If you want, we'll do it through the sheet like this; you'll see it step by step.

I bring you down Tosafos, that the sugya is about there's meshicha on the beheima should it work for the keilim. You see Tosafos, sheyikna keilim b'meshichas habeheima. The Ramban is chalitz. The sevara, shehasheilah hi l'inyan chatzer. Shailah is about chatzer. First of all, it's about chatzer. How did it come into the sugya בכלל? I don't see it. What happened over here? The bishlama if you learn it's about meshicha, okay, rochev is a meshicha, this is also meshicha, all right. But if you learn that it's about chatzer, shayach at all. Ba'i Reb Eliezer, Reb Eliezer's a shailah about chatzer. Sugya's not about chatzer בכלל. I hope the kasha is even not that you learn it's about chatzer, even if you learn Tosafos, strange shailah, because you had a shailah of rochev u'manhig, mainly you have now a shailah about meshicha. We're not discussing meshicha here בכלל; we're discussing rochev u'manhig. Ba'i Reb Eliezer, Reb Eliezer had a shailah. Where did this shailah come from? This should come in, because rochev is a meshicha, and this is also meshicha, and then we have to get into the Rashi's rochev really a meshicha, because Rashi held that it's not moving. I don't want to drag you completely back into the old sugyos, but we had a whole shailah of rochev בכלל is meshicha. But let's say it is a meshicha, Tosafos. And then it becomes a shailah of simple meshicha. Maybe that's what Tosafos learned. Tosafos learned since I learned rochev is a meshicha, so therefore my shailah of Reb Eliezer has to be also about meshicha and not chatzer. And then the sugyos are connected. Hagam the connection is a weak connection, a very weak connection. This is rochev, and this is now I'm asking about meshicha. Because Reb Chaim happens to hold to be a meshicha. It's a little bit of a taichik, but that would be the pshat. This is about meshicha; Tosafos learned like that. So Tosafos learns by Reb Eliezer also about meshicha. You know that I couldn't let you just get away simply with Rishayim; I would have to start cheshboning. Follow the cheshbon. I'm saying good cheshbonos here in pshat. You hear what I'm doing in pshat? Very pashut. Reb Eliezer seems to be from nowhere. By Reb Eliezer, Reb Eliezer's a she'eilah. Reb Eliezer, how did you come from the previous sugya, and what happened? Rashi, who learns that it's not about meshicha at all, rochev, very difficult how Reb Eliezer starts talking about meshicha. Tosafos, who learns it's about meshicha, so then I have to say this is about meshicha, and Tosafos learns Reb Eliezer is also about meshicha. Could you make a meshicha on the beheima to be koneh the keilim? Then I hear a connection also, maybe, maybe. Again, it's pushing it a little bit, because we're talking about rochev, next day it's meshicha. According to the Ramban, who learns it's about chatzer, how does this Reb Eliezer come into the sugya? It's very difficult. Oy, look on your sheets, I bring you the oy. Now again, I said a lot of shakla vetarya; now you'll fit it into the few lines I wrote here. That's what's going through my mind. How did Reb Eliezer connect to the previous sugya? Good, Tosafos, meshicha, meshicha, okay, that's also schwer to learn, but the Ramban is zicher schwer; mechaser, how does this have to do with the previous sugya? The oy by Ramban: cholek a Tosafos, d'sover meshicha vadi lo mahani. The Ramban argues with Tosafos, says kinyan chatzer, why? Because meshicha for sure wouldn't work, שהרי הכלים מונחים, because the keilim are stable. The keilim are not moving, so there's no meshichah on the keilim. That it's va. Ein ritva, shecholek a Tosafos u'Rabbanan, aval lehepech. He learns it from the opposite angle, the pshita shemahani, that it definitely does work. The first shailah is, it's תלוי in the machlokes. What's machlokes? What does Rashi, what does Tosafos hold? That it's a shailah. Why does Rabban hold pshita that it doesn't work, and why does the Ritva hold pshita that it does work? That's the first shailah you have to ask. The Ramban in Bava Basra. The Ramban in Bava Basra, chavav amud aleph, maybe oi taam shelo mahani meshichah. He brings another reason, and that is, b'keilim shel mocher. You have a problem that it's the keilim of the mocher. Meshichah doesn't work in the keilim of the mocher. First of all, v'tzarichin, amai lo kaisav kein haRitva? The Ritva obviously disagrees with that. What happened to that halachah? So you have to say, because the truth is that the Ramban himself disagrees with it. He himself says that it's not a true svara in Bava Basra. Now why does the Ramban not bring all this here? Maybe because he paskens in Bava Basra already that it's not true. Maybe that's why the Ramban doesn't bring it over here. But the problem is that the Ramban is actually cholek on the second taam, because the Ramban says like the Ritva there, that it would work. Okay, but what happened to the second taam? I thought you brought a second reason. It's keilim shel mocher, okay, there's no such thing, but that the meshichah on the behemah doesn't work for the keilim, that is the second reason you brought there.

So how do you, Rabban, once you knocked off the din of keilo shemoicho, all of a sudden hold like the Ritva that it works? Comes out that the Rabban עצמו himself, from this sugya to that sugya. Bichlal it's a doichek to say that the Rabban doesn't bring the keilo shemoicho here because he's cholech on what he said there. I hold the stam a doichek anyway. But even without that, stam contradicts himself, and even the reading of the Rabban doesn't flow. Because once you knocked off the keilo shemoicho, but you're still left with the second problem: so how all of a sudden you're mashkin to the Ritva? That it's so pashut that it would work, and ממילא he learns like the Ritva, that the shaila is what? The shaila is if chatzer, the beheima, chatzer can work for the keilim. So this I bring you as a hora'ah of the Cheshbon ha-Ramban. Ha-Ramban choilek שם בדף ...: ... משיכה בקנין, לא כמשיכה על הכלים. עיין שם ... שמחיה ... קיימא. It proves that it does work, okay? V'al kach ... גם הריטבא. We have to say that that's what the Ritva means. ... לכאורה ... כאן. First of all, it doesn't flow. And I bring on the second shitah this other hora'ah, that just because the ta'am of keilo shemoicho falls off, aval oy tzarich biur. If the ta'am of keilo shemoicho falls off, but you still have the second ta'am, let it not work because of the ta'am that he brought, that the meshichah of the beheima is not good enough for the keilim. Last but not least, what you see from the Ramban is that could be if the keilo shemoicho din falls off, then the second din fell off as well, that the meshichah al yedei the beheima, that it should be for the keilim is also not a problem. Otherwise Ramban doesn't read. Mehares banan. Kel shemoicher, let's not worry about that. Yeah, but let's worry about the second reason. And the answer is the two reasons go hand in hand. And if they go hand in hand, so if I knock off the kel shemoicher, then I knock off what? I knock off the problem that the meshichah is on the behemah, not on the keilim. How and why? You see, even the Ramban, for some reason, that if I knock off the kel shemoicher, I knock off automatically what? The second taam. And we still have the problem that in our sugya he contradicts that. He says that you do have the second taam without the problem of kel shemoicher. Something is missing here. We're not seeing the entire picture of the shailah made from the Rishonim. Something is here in the Rishonim which we can't put our finger on because the words of the Ramban are not clear. It doesn't flow properly. What's pshat in the Ramban? What's pshat in the shailah of kel shemoicher? I'm sorry, of buyer u'lvezer, ... to be koneh the keilim, and what's the machlokes Rishonim? Ani, I think, I believe that if we understand the din of meshichah properly, then we can explain the Ramban, and we can explain the machlokes Ramban and the Rishonim, and Tosafos, and everything becomes meyushav. Aboisai, kinyan meshichah. What is kinyan meshichah? So be'emes, we saw in the Gemara before that roichev is a kinyan birshus harabim. אי רשות הרבים היא, קני. Remember, we right away asked, what do you mean? Meshichah birshus harabim? Roichev is meshichah, meshichah is birshus harabim. How can you have a meshichah birshus harabim? It's not koneh. Tell me. It's not koneh. We spoke from the Tosafos. That meshicha on a cheifetz breshus harabim is koneh. Meshicha of the beheima breshus harabim is koneh, says the Rama halach. Remember the Tosafos. And we said, l'choira you have to explain why it should be that way. Why should it be that there's such a meshicha on a cheifetz and that doesn't work in reshus harabim, and then there's a different meshicha on a beheima that does work? Takah pshat in Tosafos is. Then we brought also the Nesivos, that could be together, meshicha plus tefisah b'mesirah, because rochev v'koneh's tefisah, tafas b'mesirah, that will work breshus harabim. We asked on the Nesivos, onevshach, if the meshicha doesn't work, so how does the tafas b'mesirah fix that? And we never said a pshat. If you remember, I left the Nesivos by a kasha, and I was waiting for the moment that this Nesivos will become clear to me. I hope it will become clear this year. What's the teirutz here? I make a combination: regular meshicha breshus harabim doesn't work. Rachuv will work, because it's a tafas b'mesirah together with the rachuv, and it takes care of the problem that you can't be koneh b'meshicha breshus harabim. Why? Onevshach, what's takah pshat in the Nesivos? This is fact one. Baruch Hashem, I don't have to get off the block for it. It's right here in front of me, that rochev v'koneh breshus harabim, the kasha we spoke was meshicha doesn't work breshus harabim. Tosafos, Nesivos, okay.

Let me tell you another piece of information. We learned in the previous Gemara daf ches that yoledes is kaina and reicha is kalshekein. Remember the Gemara? We learned from klal in yoledes is kaina, and if yoledes is kaina, then kal shekein, rochel. Gemara daf ches. The Rambam in Hilchos Mechirah perek beis, halacha vav, does not bring the din of yoledes. Reicha is a kinyan up the Rambam; yoledes is ignored by the Rambam. Ein a she'eilah: how can the Rambam doesn't bring the din of yoledes? Gemara says clearly that yoledes is kaina, reicha, like kal shekein. Yoledes is kaina. In Hilchos Klaim, where we learn yoledes from, there the Rambam does bring yoledes. Rambam in Hilchos Klaim, perek tes, halacha tes, brings yoledes. So ha-yoledes b'karka is kaina, malkus by klaim, by beheimos, by ... is chayav. What? I can't hear. What? Wagon. Yoledes. Since yoledes, l'maaseh the Gemara says by klaim it works, and from klaim we learn also kinyan, sameh the Rambam brought it by klaim, the Rambam should have brought it by kinyan that yoledes b'karka works, and he doesn't. Ein a she'eilah on the Rambam. One second pshat. Another piece of information. The Rambam in Mechirah perek beis, halacha tes, brings an interesting halacha. If I tell you to be koneh beheima, I don't want you to be koneh now. I want you to be koneh lachar lamed, after thirty days. Says the Rambam that it doesn't work. It doesn't work. Why? Because when the 30 days are up, when the kinyan is supposed to be chal, the ma'aseh is gone already. The ma'aseh is gone. You made a meshicha about 30 days ago. Now after 30 days you want to be koneh; the meshicha is not here. It's called kosa kinyanai. It's kinyan is ended. Kosa kinyanai, the kinyan has ended. This is the Rambam's shita. The Ra'avad is cholek on the Rambam, and the Ra'avad says it will work in case the animal is in the person's reshus after the 30 days. If the animal is now in the reshus of the person after the 30 days, the kinyan was koneh. Ay, kosa kinyanai? The Rambam's ta'ina is docheh. Says the Ra'avad, no. As long as at the end of the 30 days it's in the reshus of the koneh, it's going to work. What's the heisber of the machlokes, the Rambam and Ra'avad? Meshoch behemah zu u'kni l'achar lamed. I want you to make a meshicha, that the chalais of it should work after 30 days. So says the Rambam, but the meshicha is gone by the time the 30 days. Says the Ra'avad, I don't care. As long as it's in the reshus of the buyer, who is trying to be koneh, the person who made the kinyan, the meshicha, it's in his reshus after 30 days, says the Rambam it works. This is the Rambam in perek beis, halacha tes. If it's out of kinyan chatzer, then what's the Rambam mecholek on? The answer is because I told him to make a kinyan meshicha. What's pshat? The Rambam, it's not here anymore, the meshicha. But you see from here a big yesod. Okay, this is about ... there's no Rambam, there's no Rambam. Rambam's right. Teretz is the sheich: I want you to be meikel meshicha b'kaina. So in the Rambam's raya, how can the meshicha last for thirty days? Teretz is that there's a machlokes between the Rambam and the Raavad: what is a meshicha? The Rambam held the meshicha is a ma'aseh meshicha. When the thirty days have come, it's gone. The Raavad held meshicha is to bring it to me. So as long as it's by me after the thirty days, the meshicha is still here. You see clearly that the Rambam and the Raavad are being cholek in what pshat meshicha. The Rambam held meshicha is a ma'aseh. So as long as the ma'aseh is gone at the end of the thirty days, it's called kol kinyanai. The Raavad, you see, learned that it's about bringing it to me. If I bring it to me, and the kinyan has bechal at the end of the thirty days, and it's by me, then the meshicha works. Harei meshicha lefanecha — the meshicha is right here in front of us. The me'ilah is not called kol kinyanai. If you look on your sheet, I bring you down the Rambam, Mechirah perek beis, halachah tes. I bring you down the birur of the machlokes. The Rambam soiver — you see the third paragraph — shezeh ma'aseh meshicha. Lachein, shehiyah lamid kol kinyanai. Achein kein, haRaavad soiver sheha'ikar shezeh birshuso. Lachein kol shehi birshuso lachar lamah haveh kinyanai.

Let's pause. Mamash open in the Rambam, open in the Raivid. Only thing I'm clarifying, and you'll see how significant this nekudah that bothers me, because it's a very famous vort in the Rambam and Raivid: k'mat open in the Rambam and Raivid. But I'm asking, is the taich of meshicha the toitzah, or it's the ma'aseh that it's brought to me? Even in the Raivid, that it's not the ma'aseh, but it's that by me. It's not the result that it's by me, that it's the ma'aseh that I bring it to me. I need both. From the tzad I need both. I hear this as a problem with this yesod in the Raivid. The Raivid learns that since it's by me, it's okay. Yeah, but the Raivid, l'maaseh, he flat just said it is by me, that it's brought to me. It's part of the— it has to be tied to the bringing, the ma'aseh. Once it's tied to the ma'aseh, you don't have a problem of kinyanim. It's not being brought to me; it's by me. The meshicha is not that it is by me. The meshicha is that it's brought, and the bringing is brought to me. You're not going to ignore that it's about meshicha. It's not about chatzer; it's about meshicha, right? It's not about chatzer; it's about meshicha. Here you see the Raivid, if it's emes this vort in the Raivid, we're ignoring the ma'aseh meshicha. The main thing is the result, and the result you have lacha lamaaseh. If I bring in brackets, but harba anim mistapek b'svara זו. Hagah, I want you to know that everybody says it, and then k'mat open in the Raivid. The Raivid says k'mat. I have a problem. The ma'aseh is gone. That's the whole yesod in the Rambam: the ma'aseh is gone. The ma'aseh is gone. Unless you have to learn the Raivid as I yesoid, which is a very lomdish vort. I don't bring it on the paper, but I'm thinking about it. I'm not so sure if it's real or not. That since the result is still here, we look like the ma'aseh is still here. Since the teitzad, the ma'aseh is here, then it's by me, so the ma'aseh is not called kolsa, because the teitzad that it's still lifanecha, right here in front of me. It's a very lomdishe svara. Let me tell you, believe me, the Raivid says what I'm saying. I wouldn't be saying it otherwise. In other words, I'm not פה here to tell you Torah. The Raivid is telling you there's no problem of kolsa kinyan is lomed to my reshus. Yeah, but the ma'aseh was. The teretz is, the ma'aseh is that it should be in my reshus that's here. Yeah, but wait a second. Oy, lama Torah yeshiva shetorah? Wait a minute. Talk to me, wait a second. But lemaaseh it's not about being by me, it's about bringing it to me. Even if the Raivid, you can't ignore it's about the ma'aseh bringing it. The ma'aseh is gone. So maybe yeshiva velt means with this Torah, which, like I said, it's pretty much in the Raivid here. I mean, it's not wild stuff. It's in the Raivid. What does it mean? That since the teitzad that it's by me is right lifanecha here, so on the ma'aseh we can't say kolsa. The ma'aseh has to still be here too. After the brackets, please put this in. As I'm saying, I like it more and more. In the morning I wasn't 100% sure if it's true or not. But it's a nice svara. It could be that the kolsa kinyan, the Raivid held this is the problem, because the teitzad that it's by me is still here, so the ma'aseh that it brought it to me is also still here. No, it's not. It's happening now because it's by me. So what? Yeah, that's what I'm telling you. It's an active bringing to me. That's what I'm saying. You're picking up what I'm saying, or you're arguing with what I'm saying? However you like to say it, whatever you see. You know how you see the Raivid, it's not called kolsa kinyan because those teitzad's here. You like to say it in that nusach, I'd rather like the nusach I said. You like the new nusach, I'm not. It's a free country. I have no problem with it. But one thing for sure, you see that the ra'ayah that obviously held that the kinyan is not a problem. Yeah, but it's not about the tzeitzah; it's about the ma'aseh bringing it. The teretz still has the ma'aseh. But how is it going to be ...? The kinyan is not going to find me. The kinyan is not brought to me. I don't see in the whole ra'ayah—the whole, I mean, it's a pashut pshat in the ra'ayah; everybody says this in the ra'ayah. Yeah, but you're ignoring the truth that the kinyan is not kosher; the kinyan is meshicha. Teretz is that since the tzeitzah is here, so the tefillin, the ma'aseh is not ... You understand it that way. I'd rather wish you would understand it my way; it's more lomdish. But all right, this is shaylah. Question for a different day. The right way to say it, if I really want to come down on you strongly, I would tell you the right way to say it is that the ma'aseh is still here because the chalais is here. In the ma'aseh, in the chalais, the ma'aseh still lives on. Okay, but if you want to say it simply, okay, I have no problem. Now, with this, Daniel, which way would you like to say it? Either way. Okay, say it the right way. The kinyan is, you need the ma'aseh meshicha; you have the ma'aseh meshicha through the fact that it's by you. Okay, say it the same way.

Say it with the words I said. That's the right way to say it. Now, with this, there's another machlokes that we can explain. The Rambam and Raivid have another machlokes. Yeah, another machlokes. Now we've come to the conclusion that the Rambam held that meshicha is the ma'aseh, while the Raivid held it's the toitzah. But of course, it's like I say, the ma'aseh that brings me the toitzah, but it's the toitzah that's binding. Let's discuss where and why I'm saying this. Ma'aseh is another machlokes. Chirik pei daled, halacha daled. When you're moshech and make a meshicha to be koneh, do you have to take it completely away from the mocher and completely by you? Even if you do a little ma'aseh meshicha, it's good enough. We mentioned this already in the previous shiur. If you take a look, the Rambam brings down that it's not needed to bring the whole thing to you. As long as you make meshicha, something from the person to you, it's good enough. The Raivid held that it has to be completely by you. You have to be moshech completely into your reshus. What's the hezber of the machlokes? What's the hezber of the machlokes? This, because the Rambam held it's the ma'aseh meshicha, while the Raivid held it's to bring it to me. Meila, now it has to be brought to me to be able to make a meshicha. It cannot open, like I said, in the Raivid. All this what I'm telling you, that's grois chiddushim. The only chiddush is that you have to somehow work out that it is the meshicha, the ma'aseh, and the chalos somehow is still here, so the meshicha is still here. We have to work the Raivid's meshicha and ma'aseh together. I'm sorry, ma'aseh and chalos together, that it works together to make the kinyan. That's what we added to all this. But this is famous Torah. Now, the Rambam... Like I told you, doesn't bring the sugya of yoshin. Why does the Rambam not bring the sugya of yoshin? Now, I'm not going to go into the problem of how does the Rambam ignore a mefurash Gemara. That I'll leave for the Machs Mishnah, that I'll leave for the mefarshim on the Rambam. Why and how could the Rambam ignore a mefurash Gemara? But what's the yesod that the Rambam held yoshin is not kaina? And the answer is everything I just told you. Because since the Rambam held yoshin—I'm sorry, that rochev is meshicha, and meshicha is ma'aseh—so how could you be koneh by yoshin? You do ma'aseh. How could you be koneh? I don't understand. How could rochev be meshicha like kaisa, and yoshin be a kinyan? And the teretz is, yoshin is tofes b'mesirah. So according to the Rambam, I can hear that. Since you're being tofes it, it's by you. How much more tofes do you want—how much more by you do you want it to be than if you're sitting on it? If you learn like the Rambam that the by you is not megeya, it's always the ma'aseh, the Rambam held yoshin can't work. A rochev must be that it's moving; otherwise, nothing would talk about it. The pashut pshat. I'm not getting into the problem. I understand there's a problem. I mean, there's a mefurash Gemara. What do you do? If you look at the Maggid Mishnah for that, they have an eitzah how to steer how sugyos. I'm not—I'd be here all day if we have to explain how the Rambam learns the Gemara. All the way from the beginning of rochev mani, why he ignored Gemara of yoshin. Fine. But l'maaseh, yoshin doesn't work. What's the reason? It's very pashut, because rochev is meshicha. Meshicha means ma'aseh. The rochev can't—so yoshin can't be a meshicha. There's nothing what's... What? About the ... Gemara. Okay. Rishis is a kinyan; yesh is not a kinyan. Famous kasha, famous Rambam. What do you do with the Gemara? Yeshin says ... Good, so the meforshim deal with what do you do with the Gemara, okay. But b'yesod, he held in a patur. Why not? And the teretz is because you need a ma'aseh. What are you going to do? ... Who held that it's not so much the ma'aseh; it's that it should be by you. The only problem is, like I said, but you always need it should be al yedei ma'aseh. Obviously, you see from the lomdus from the previous Rambam and Raavad that the Raavad held you need the ma'aseh. That's obvious from that Raavad, right? So I ask, it doesn't make sense. L'maaseh, the Vilna says, you see from this Rambam, this Raavad, excuse me, that you don't need the ma'aseh, that it should be brought to you. The main thing is it should be by you. Yesh is fine. You can't have more by me than sitting on a horse. ... Yesh is the kinyan also. I just said, I just ... Pashut, the Raavad, you don't care about the ma'aseh. The main thing is the tofesa, that it's by you. Okay, so tofes is by you. With this, I also explained why ... works b'shus harabim. ... works b'shus harabim. Amirah shechah also works b'shus harabim. I gave terutzim.

It's read by the ein. It's one thing, sometimes I chap it's something else. The sefer says that roichiv together with toifes u'mesirah, ach, loar gavaldik. What's the taich? You wouldn't like the ra'ayon of sefer; it's beautiful, sefer's good. What does the sefer say? Every time you make a meshicha, you have a ma'aseh. What are you lacking? That it's in the reshus harabim, so it's not by you. So if you toifes u'mesirah, it's by you. If you toifes it, you're holding it. What do you want? The toifes b'mesirah takes care of the problem that it's not by you. But if you learn like the Rambam, that the Rambam held that it's not a shaylah by you, you just need the ma'aseh meshicha, so then the shaylah becomes, so why ever meshicha doesn't work b'reshus harabim? Then we have the Beis HaAharon's vort from last week, beautiful, because the metzius of meshicha you can't have b'reshus harabim, but when you're roichev, you see you have it. Again, very poshut, very poshut, so beautiful, such a ... gemara, it's gorgeous. Roichev works b'reshus harabim, so I asked you a she'eilah: I'm meshicha doesn't work b'reshus harabim, so we have a tosfos, okay, that says different types of meshicha, very interesting. See this? Don't worry, because here you're also toifes; you're also holding on to the animal. We ask, if the meshicha doesn't work, the tosfos can't help you, and if the tosfos is good enough, you don't need—something's wrong here. So when I said it over in the shiur, I said, I said I don't have a right to hold the sefer. I even asked you to bring—remember I asked you to bring me the sefer? I don't know what you want, that together, toifes. What is it, a game you're playing? And the teretz is very poshut. Now I understand it. Because if you were like the raivid, then the taisvis becomes that meshicha must be that it's brought to me. You don't have that version, it's not brought to me, it's Rishus Harabim. So the taisvis takes care of that problem, because now it's by me. I'm holding it. It's not stam that I'm moshich it to me. I'm toifes it also. So you have the meshicha with by me as well, like I explained to you, Yoisef, that the raivid is of course paskens like this, it's by me. It's by me. What more do you want? How much more by me do you want? Meshicha means it should be by me, it's by me. The Rambam. The Rambam holds you just need a maaseh meshicha. So if you just need a maaseh meshicha, stam you have to know why birshus harabim doesn't work. All you need is a maaseh meshicha. Teretz is like the Beis Aaron, you can't even do a meshicha birshus harabim, there are people there. In the Rambam you must learn the Beis Aaron's part, because anyway you never have a problem that it's brought to you, because you don't have to be by you. So it has to be that the problem is in the maaseh of the meshicha, because the whole problem according to the Rambam is, the whole din is the maaseh of the meshicha, and the answer is birshus harabim you can't do it. Reichel does it, the maaseh, Reichel can do it. That's why the Gemara says meshicha won't work birshus harabim, reichel works birshus harabim, do it. But maaseh, he's riding the horse, he's not shliach to do it. Maybe they're scared, they're running away from him, but he's doing it. The bottom line is he's doing meshicha birshus harabim, it works. So for meshicha, and it's very shayach, very shayach that that's maybe the taisvis's girsa. That by the heima, meshicha works birshus harabim, by the pasul it won't work. The only difference is the loshon the taisvis is mashma that that's gufa the shaila of the two meshichas. The hainu, the Rambam's raivid, is it the bring to me, or is it the maaseh, how gufa is the two sides of the taisvis's read. That's l'chura the machloikes the taisvis reads. In other words, by the pasul I want it to be brought to me. It doesn't work b'shus harabim. By beheima, the ikar is you should ride with it. The pshutah that the Tosafos reads is good for the two sevaros of the Rambam and Ra'avad, that by meshichah of the taltelin, once you brought them, you don't have that reshus harabim. By the beheima, we don't care as long as you're being moshich it. You have the ma'aseh, you have the ma'aseh by the beheima, which we asked in the shiur: why should it be that way? Good she'eilah. I dilma maybe the Tosafos means gar pashut. Tosafos's saying is that by the taltelin, you want it to be brought to you, so therefore you don't have that. Mashenkein by the beheima, you have the l'maaseh that it's by you. Hagufa, you have. You're sitting on it, you're riding it, it's by you. How much more by you do you want it to be? Maybe that's what the Tosafos means. Maybe the two צדדים of the Tosafos could be hagufa. Either because the Rambam and Ra'avad, so meshichah is a taich, you have to bring it to you; you don't have that reshus harabim. Hareichah is different. By beheima it's more like the Rambam, as long as you did the ma'aseh. Then it comes out that he's saying by beheima it's one thing, and by metaltelin it's a different meshichah. One is the Rambam, one is the Ra'avad.

I don't know if that's not the point. But this, you have by the talmid to bring it to you, that's the ra'ayah. By beheima you don't need the ra'ayah, as long as you have the Rambam. It's a chiddush. Comes out he splits the Rambam and Ra'avad. By dover, you can say more pashut, that's all the ra'ayos. The ikkar is it should be brought to you. When by meshichah and metaltelin doesn't work, mashenkein when you're riding a beheima, ha-guf is by you. I know what's more by you than you need. If you remember the shiur, I said it. I said it without knowing all the information. It could be the taich is that as long as you're riding it, that's called by you, by you of a horse. What's by you of a metaltel? I said this yesterday. By you of a metaltel is in your pocket. You know what the by you of a horse is? You have to put a horse in your pocket? What's called the horse is by you? What, you're gonna put a watch? You're gonna keep it in your refrigerator? What are you gonna call by you of a horse? The teretz to me is, I write it, that's called by me of a horse. That's called using, showing ba'alus on a horse. We said this, I don't remember. Huh? We spoke about this. I think you asked me to pet them also. We spoke about that. That could be a pet, would be different. I don't know. I don't know. We spoke about it. I don't know the taich to clarify what he wants, what he needs. Either he means Rambam and Ra'avad, and then the question is why should there be a chiluk between beheima and metaltelin, that metaltelin, main thing is ra'avad, it should be brought to you; by beheima the main thing is a ma'aseh meshichah like the Rambam. As long as you have the meshichah, I don't know why it should be. Let's go back to the machlokes. After we understand the Rambam and Raavad, the two צדדים of משיכה, let's understand the machlokes that Ramban and Rif that we began with. The Ramban makes the problem of כלי שלו מיכה. The Rif ignores that whole thing. What's the taich? Say a geshmak now. If you learn משיכה is a ma'aseh, who cares it's כלי שלו מיכה? What's the difference? As long as you did the משיכה, who cares? But if you learn that the taich is it should be brought to you, כלי שלו מיכה is a tremendous problem. Doctor Ramban, you have a problem, כלי שלו מיכה. Masha'enkein, if you learn that the ikar is the ma'aseh, we're not getting to the second taich of the Ramban that there's no משיכה here. On the taich there is a משיכה. כלי שלו מיכה, so what? What's the difference? The ma'aseh of משיכה, who cares? Never is the pshat I have to be brought to me. Where does it have to be brought to me? That's a special thing, because that's not even brought. Not even brought, it's still by him. So what? No, that's what you said. That's what you said, I said כלי שלו מיכה. I never said that. I said that כלי שלו מיכה, hear that? That's a pshutah. That's a pshutah. It means it's brought to me, but it's still by him. It's ugly gabei. Different than כלי שלו מיכה in the chatzer. Chatzer means it's never brought to me. Here it's brought to me, but it's כלי שלו מיכה, so it's still ugly gabei. It's still a little bit by him. Who cares? The Rambam held it could still be by him. The Rambam held all you have to be is מושך a little bit away from him. It could be closer to him than to me. The Rambam held I could be moichel from you a little bit, even though it's more by me than it's by me. The main thing is it's got to be away from him a little bit. When it's the yad of reshus, that's not called away from him. It's by him. I never took away. Huh? It's by him. How to say? I just told you, by chatzer the taich is that it's completely by him. By shekin, here the taich is it's in the reshus ha'ram, it's by me, but there's shaychus to him because it's b'keilo shel moichel. B'keilo shel moichel. I'm not telling you this. This is what it says in the Rishonim. The Rishonim say clearly, there's no problem with keilo shel moichel. I chatzer is a problem, it's not a chatzer. I mean, that's not — you can't compare it to chatzer. It doesn't state Rishonim, that's not me. Rishonim are saying that chatzer is a problem. You can't make a kinyan in your chatzer, but keilo shel moichel doesn't apply if your chatzer completely, then it should be a problem. So what is the sugya? The sugya is, but l'maaseh, had shaychus to you. Could be that's the problem, had shaychus to you. Rambam held there's no problem like that, because I could be moichel even a little bit away from you, and that's good enough. But the Ra'avad held it has to be by me, held that it's a problem. This could be the machlokes that I'm bounder in. The Ramban learns that since it is, that it should come away like the Ra'avad, away from you to me completely, and me'il keilo shel moichel is not called completely away from you.

It's not called not. It's not by you, ... What? It's not by you. Not by you. Because if it'd be by you, then it's ... it's b'chatzer ha-mafneh, and that's not good. His chatzer is definitely not good. It's not mamish by you, but it's not completely not by you, not by you either. A little bit by you, a little bit by me. A little bit by you, a little bit by me, the Rambam holds good. That's the issue. So here, I don't have a problem ... Shenkin the Ramban. The Ramban could be going b'shitas ... it's a problem. It has to be completely by me; discommunicated from you. Another one also, perek daled, halacha vav, he learns in the Rambam that ... is a problem. That's a little bit of a stirah. I don't know. ... learns in the Rambam that ... would be a problem. He looks at the Rambam, mashma that ... is a problem. I mean, the way we're learning it, like the Rambam, ... never a problem. That's what I want to say, the machlokes, the Rambam and the Ritva. L'maaseh, I bring a bracket, me'yu. You have it? Me'yu. Ayin ... halacha yud, halacha vav. ... I don't know, I can't deal with that. I don't know what to tell you. ... makes a deal with the Rambam that it's that way, I don't know what to tell you. But it says, but I would say that it works out this way. Now, let's go explain the machlokes, the Ramban and the Ritva. If bichlal ... is right, the Ramban learns that the meshichah and the behemah cannot work. What's the one second. The Tosfos is 100% wrong, and there's no such cheshbon. D'hainu, if I made a meshichah on keilim, on behemah, it can never work for keilim, and there is no holsa puk for keilim. It's the exact opposite. That definitely the meshichah on the behemah will work for keilim, and that's why it's not a she'eilah. Tosfos is pshat in the sugya. What's the hesber of the machlokes? If the ikar is the tosefes that it should be by me, what's the difference how it came to me? If the main thing is the tosefes that it should get to me, so does it make a difference if it's by the behemah or if it directly that I was moshech? Who cares? It's by me. I take it according to the Rambam that learns that the ikar is the ma'aseh, so if there's no ma'aseh on the keilim, maybe you're not koneh. But you make it. This is learning a sugya of machlokes. This is art. You want to know art? This is art. They think Michelangelo is art. They think Picasso is art. Trust me, this is more art. It takes a lot more seichel and a lot more yishuv hadaas to be able to figure all this out. If you learn that the ikar is that it should get to you, and the ma'aseh is irrelevant, like we see from the Ra'avad of kol kinyanei is not a sugya after lachalak, because the main thing is to be by you. So what's the difference how and why it's by me? As long as I made a meshichah on the behemah, and now it's by me, it's by me. What's the difference? By me. The tosefes here, it's by me. Who cares if it was with a glove or not a glove? Look at the behemah with a glove. Who cares? Look at the behemah as a gorem to a meshichah. Yeah, but it's by me. What's the difference? If you want to make is the maisa, then the Ramban says, pshat, you know, if ik is the maisa, I do maisa on the keilim. I did a maisa in the beheima which brought me the... Then it becomes a she'eilah. Then it becomes a din that this won't work. Avadi won't work. What's Tosfos? Could be Tosfos. I don't have this on the sheet, but this, I don't... yeah. Very pashut. If you learn Raivid, if you learn that the main thing should be by me, then there's one ... shmak. The ... thing is the Ramban. You have to wait, that's why I gotta give you a few minutes. First let's get to the nekudah straight, and then you'll see how Tosfos fits, because there's two Rambans. That's what I'm doing here. There's a Ramban there and there's a Ramban here, and we have to explain why Ramban here talks differently than the Ramban there, and this is where the split comes, because Ramban there is talking Raivid, Ramban here is not. You gotta give me a minute. You gotta give me a few minutes. You'll see how everything fits into place. I mean, you have two Rambans. Ramban says, perek ... You have Ramban here ... you have Ramban here that's not the Ritva. Let's talk. Once taka pshat that one halachah the Ramban held that the kinyan, the meshichah on the beheima is no question for the keilim. Tosfos is not even a she'eilah. Hacha kein, the Raivid held...

Outside the ... to help, for care. Of course it works. What are the arguments? There's their pshat. If you learn that the ikur should come to me, then the taiches, it doesn't make a difference how it came to me. Through beheimos, through not a—it's here, it came to me, and I was the one who brought it to me. I was ... the beheimos to bring it to me. If you learn that the taiches is you need a maaseh meshichah, where the maaseh, the meshichah wasn't done on the keilim, it was done on the beheima, you can clarify maybe it's not good. That's the Ramban. What's Tosafos's hakirah? Tosafos's hakirah could be either this gufa: do we learn like the Ramban, which is l'chura the Rambam, or do we learn like the Ra'avad, which is l'chura the Rif? Maybe that's gufa the shailah of Tosafos in the Gemara. Maybe that's two צדדים. I feel like I say one ... I don't have it on the ... but it's very interesting. Could be Tosafos held that the צדדים are even in the Ramban, and even in the Ramban and even in the Rif, meaning even in the Ra'avad and even in the Rambam. Why? On the צד that you learn that the ikur is the maaseh, just call the maaseh making. Maybe making a maaseh on one thing is called a maaseh on the other, which is the pshat of Tosafos. Or we learn the other way around. The ikur is Ra'avad, that it should come to me. So why would it be not good then? What's the צד of not good? I'm sorry, what's the צד of not good? Yeah, what's the צד of not good? Wait a second, wait a second, wait a second. No, no, no, I don't want to do that. I don't want to do that. I don't want to do that. I don't want to do that. I want to do something else. Wait a second, wait a second. I don't want to do that. Toisis is saying, kepshutai, lama? And that's sad why it's not good, because it's not a ma'aseh on the keilim. So what's the tzad that it is good? That's called a ma'aseh on the keilim too. How do you break keilim? That's right. How do you break keilim? Keilim you bring is with an animal. Who said bringing keilim means I have to schlepp it? Where does it say bringing keilim is I can't put it in my car and bring it? That's what I want to tie the pshat in Tosis, that even if you held that an ambad, Toisis makes a shayla out of it. Shmak, shmak, Toisis. And you want to know something? This svara was bothering me from the moment I learned Toisis. What are you talking about? This is not called the meshichah on the keilim. Where did you get that from? Where does it say that beheima, that schlepping keilim is not called schlepping keilim to me? Where does it say that? I don't say if I put something in a car, it's not called I brought it to me, because it's a car. It reminds me of the ma'aseh in the Chofetz Chaim. A guy once went on a bus, on a wagon. He asked for a ride, a hitch a ride. They told him, come, come. He comes onto the thing, so the driver, after ten minutes, looks behind to see if his passenger is happy, and he sees he's holding his big suitcase. He says, I don't understand, why are you holding the suitcase? He says, You gave me a ride. You give my suitcase a ride. You promised me, you told me I could come for the ride. You didn't tell me my suitcase get a ride with you. So he's holding the suitcase. Putting something down on the floor of a car is taking you and your suitcase. Driving keilim in a car, to me, is called taking it to me. It's not going to be my ... I take it. That's the point. I hope that's the maaseh. The tzadim is typed like this: אפילו לרמבן you need a maaseh, because the Ramban is the Rambam, which maaseh you have, and that's what you need. So one side is you don't have it; what's the other side? Even the Ramban, you have the maaseh, because that's called bringing it. Sorry, that's not called. I mean, that's the two tzadim. I dilma, Tosafos is talking the ... itself. What's wrong with that? Two tzadim like this. Ramban, we're telling you klar, it's Rambam, and therefore you need a maaseh, and you don't have it. It's not a keli. What if there is, l'hala? The ... is so pashut that it works, because the main thing is she comes to you, and it came to you. What if Tosafos has a shaylah? That's very pashut. Even if he learned Ramban, that the ikkar is the maaseh, on the tzad you don't have it, okay, that's the Ramban, you don't have it. And the tzad that you do have it, the baal ... wants the tzad, because that's called a maaseh of meshichah keilim. That's what it means. Animals carry keilim. That's a meshichah keilim. When you have a heavy load, you're not going to schlepp it yourself. That's called a meshichah. What's the tzad?

Not shayich, that the tosfos could be holding like the Ritva. The ikar is to bring it to you. So then why isn't that pshita that it works? The could be you could say this: that since you always need the ma'aseh together with the bringing, it's not just a tosfos, but it's a tosfos with the ma'aseh, like I explained in the Ra'avad, like I explained in the Ra'avad, meilah tosfos is a she'eilah. That's called learning up a Tosfos. Is he with me? The Ramban says clearly that Tosfos meshicha of one will definitely not work for the other. This, you can't stop. I argue with you Tosfos and learn like the Ramban, that will definitely will work. What's the machlokes? Teretz is very simple. Because the Rambam—I'm sorry, the Ramban learned that the main thing is the ma'aseh. That the main thing is the ma'aseh. You don't have it. You didn't make a ma'aseh on the keilim. You did a ma'aseh on the behemah. The keilim came to you. The main thing is not the keilim should come to you; the main thing is you do a ma'aseh. Ritva, this held like the Ra'avad, that the main thing is should come to you. It came to you. That's why it will definitely will work. Good? So far so good? Ramban is Rambam, Ritva is Ra'avad. So what's Tosfos? Chakirah. Tosfos chakirah is mofes mukhrach. Either he learned Ramban, which means that you need, like the Rambam, the ma'aseh, so the side that's no good is obvious, because that's the Ramban, that it's no good. And the side that it is good, what's the boirah? Because sof kol sof, that's called a ma'aseh on the keilim also, because if it's a heavy keilim, how else do you bring keilim? Don't schlep the keilim yourself. That's called bring keilim. Put it in a car, you bring it. That's called bringing keilim. Or we could say, Toisfos's paking the ra'ayah, that the main thing should come to you, but that's the tzad that it is. What's the tzad that it's not? Because even the ra'ayah that I explained to you, it has to be with a ma'aseh. I explained to you the ra'ayah is not stam the toleh without the ma'aseh; you need the ma'aseh too. If you need the ma'aseh too, the sheich, the heima, kli heima is not a ma'aseh. It's not. That's the tzad, but that's not telling that; it becomes a safek. It's a tzad within a tzad. That's good with the shaylah. Do we say it or we don't say it? Could be that's the Ritva held. Maybe the Ritva held that it's takah. Maybe that's takah the Ritva held. Ritva held that, and you need the ma'aseh too. You have the ma'aseh also, maybe. Maybe after this whole cheshbon, we could say that that's the taich the Ritva, that the Ritva held that you need the toich tzad, you got it. I also need the ma'aseh; you got that also, and that's why he argues with Toisfos, maybe. This could be good all in the Ritva. Toisfos not like that. Toisfos held that even in the ra'ayah, you still need the ma'aseh. You don't need the ma'aseh at all, and therefore you have the toich tzad, and you have it. Now let's go to explain the stirah of the Ramban. How could the Ramban talk one way there, and over here he talks differently? I bring this down, sheet five. ... The difference between the Ramban here and the Ramban there. Pshat. ... The pshat in the Ramban could be as follows. Listen carefully. When the Ramban brings the ta'am of keilim shel moicher, and the ta'am that you don't have the meshichah on the behemah, on the keilim because on the behemah it's not called on the keilim. Are those two ta'anim that go together, or those are two separate ta'anim? Are they two ta'anim for the same halachos, or it's two separate ta'anim that they can't go hand in hand because it comes from the Rambam and Ra'avad? The keilim shel moicha holds the Ra'avad. According to the Ra'avad, is there a problem that the meshichah on the behemah is no good for the keilim? There's no such problem, so there's no beis if you learn aleph. If you learn the problem is keilim shel moicha, automatically there's no problem, the way I explained to you, that the behemah's kinyan ma'aseh is not good for the keilim because they can let you come to you. So when the Rambam speaks there two ta'anim, because he's telling you two different reasons, it's not two reasons for the same thing. The Rambam says either you're learning like this or you're learning like that. That's what the Rambam. The way I explained to you, keilim shel moicha is only a problem of the Ra'avad, and the problem of the kinyan, the ma'aseh, on the behemah should work for the keilim, that's only a problem of the Rambam. That's according to the Ra'avad, who cares? So when the Rambam brought two ta'anim, you know what the Rambam is saying? There's pakta two yesodos, two reasons, and one has nothing to do with the other. Either the problem is keilim shel moicha, and that's the Ra'avad, because according to the Ra'avad you don't have a problem that the kinyan, the meshichah one, is not good for the other.

Because about good reasons, because we don't hold like the Ra'avad, we hold like the Rambam. But then the second problem: you need a ma'aseh, you don't have the ma'aseh. The Ramban there, when he brings two reasons, understand it's not two reasons for the same thing, because then he would bring it here too. He would bring it here too. Why is he not bringing it here? That's a geshmak. When the Rambam speaks about keilim shel moicher, he's talking ra'ayah. When the Rambam speaks, or beis a second time, is it the ma'aseh, not a ma'aseh for the keilim? That's only the Rambam. Now let's discuss. Let's be careful. So when the Ramban knocks off the keilim shel moicher, what was my kasha? If he still had the second reason. I want you to understand the second reason is not a reason if you hold of keilim shel moicher. When the Ramban knocks off keilim shel moicher, he's saying according to the opinion that keilim shel moicher is a problem, now by knocking off keilim shel moicher, it's not a problem. So now I hold now like the Rambam. Therefore I continue that there's no problem at all. The sugya there, the Ramban is saying, is listen, there's two ways to learn the sugya. Either you learn the sugya, the problem is keilim shel moicher, and that's Reb Lezer, or you learn the sugya is that the Rambam, that the kinyan on one can't be a kinyan on the other, the ma'aseh on one can't be a ma'aseh for the other. So the moment I knock off keilim shel moicher, what's left? The second reason. The second reason was never together with keilim shel moicher anyway. So the Ramban, on the side of keilim shel moicher is the sugya, and the Ra'avad is the sugya, then I have to turn to choser, like the Ritva. That's what the Ramban. I'm not saying here the Ramban is saying I don't want to learn the whole sugya like the Ra'avad. I בכלל don't want to learn the sugya like the Ramban. The problem is that the ma'aseh is no good, so then it's not no good בכלל like Tosafos, and therefore I have to give a different reason of the Ritva of choser for my reason, not for the Ritva's reason. When the Ramban speaks there, two ta'anim. Understand there isn't really two ta'anim; it's two sugyas. It's two ways how to learn the sugya. Either it's ram, raivid, kelal shel meicha, raivid problem, or there's a second problem, which could be Rambam. But if I knock off the raivid, what? Now I turn to the Rambam? No, because the raivid held not like the Rambam. Then I turn to the Ritva that it's talking about chatzer. And eino kanami, it would work. That's the Ritva; it would work, and the problem is chatzer. That's why I'm ... the she'eilah; it's not a chatzer. If I knock off kelal shel meicha, I don't automatically fall back on the Rambam, because the Rambam, kelal shel meicha, goes hand in hand. When I knock off kelal shel meicha, the option is to go to the Ritva, not to go to the second problem. The second problem is kelal shel meicha. That's what the Ramban means over there. Either the problem is raivid, because it didn't come to yiyush, or the problem is I didn't do a ma'aseh meshichah because it's not on the behemah, it's not on the keli, it's on the behemah. But that's two different sugyas. That's raivid and that's Rambam. So the moment, the moment that I knock off the raivid in the sugya, so my options are what? To go to the other extreme and say the Rambam? No, or I go to the Ritva. I say it would work taka, because that's what I'm telling you: the raivid, it would work, and therefore I'm left with chatzer of the Ritva. By saying, you know, here the Ramban's saying, I'd rather learn the sugya differently. He's going l'shitaso of the raivid, of that kelal shel meicha is a problem. Here he doesn't talk about kelal shel meicha. Here he says like this: the halachah is it's a problem because of the Rambam's reason. So it cannot be good. That's why he's ... So the only answer is chatzer, but not because of the reason of the Ritva, because the Ritva is the raivid. That's Rav Bleich's ... called reading a Ramban. When you read the Ramban, you'll see I'm 100% right. That's exactly what the Ramban is saying. Ramban says, kelu shel moicher. Give a kelu shel moicher is not the Rambam. You're right, it's a raya. So the moment I knock off that kelu shel moicher, that this is called no problem even in the raya, so then I have a problem. What's Reb Leizer's safek? And the answer is the ritva, because it's not a chatzer. I have to learn the whole sugya differently. It's about chatzer, it's not about meshicha. V'geshmak, m'meila I don't turn back to the halacha. I say in Bava Metzia that it's not a good, it won't work definitely because I don't have a meshicha here. Because that's not, in the words of kelu shel moicher, it was never about meshicha. It was always about kelu shel moicher. I don't have it by me; I have it by the moicher. So once I fall away that that's not a problem called by the moicher, so למה I turn to the Rambam and say there's a problem with the meshicha? That wasn't the sugya. I say it's about chatzer. You hear what I want? Don't hear what I want. Why? With your reshus. Meaning, when I brought it, it's not in your reshus, it's with your reshus I brought it to you, brought it to me. Tell me something: am I taking it or it's staying under the beheima? Staying under the beheima. From now on, if it's keilim, I'm going to be stuck to the beheima. That's the way it's going to be. What are you talking about? I brought...

With your keilim, I brought it to me, but it's going to be by me now. So the whole problem is only in the ma'aseh that I brought it to you, that I brought it to me with your reshus. But I didn't bring it to your reshus; I brought it to my reshus. So it seems very mishmak. It's not a problem anyway in the ra'ayah of kelim shel moicher. What's the problem of kelim shel moicher? It's your reshus here, but it's not going to remain in your reshus. I brought it to me to be in my reshus. When I brought it, who said that when is so important? I went in such an important thing. The ma'aseh of bringing is the shaylah; it's the ma'aseh also part. If you hold the ma'aseh part, then eino nami, the reshus moicher is a problem even in the breaking. But if you hold the ma'aseh is not going to anything anyway, so where is the problem? It's only afterwards. Afterwards it's by me anyway. Even according to Ra'avad there's no problem of reshus moicher. That's the Ramban. So the Ramban, there's no reshus moicher anyway, even in the ra'ayah. So what do I turn around and say, what now it's the Rambam's problem? The Rambam doesn't do the ra'ayah. Yeah. Where's bit? Okay, let me tell you something. I don't like to think my Torah is a bit. Oh, you mean a little bit. That's—oh, okay. I know. The last section. Okay. Okay. I also only want—now listen carefully. Black chair, by the way. Okay, now listen carefully. Kelim shel moicher, and the second ta'am that the Ramban brings there. The meshicha of the beheima is not good for the keilim. You should be aware are not two reasons that go hand in hand. Keilim shel moiches, right, and that the meshicha one does work for the other has to be a Rambam. What? Because according to the Raivid, it's called keilim shel moiches; according to the Rambam, it's not a source, it's never a problem. And the opposite is also true. As a maaseh, the meshicha is here. The main thing is it should come to me. I don't care how it came to me. What's wrong with keilim shel moiches in the Rambam? And that was the whole shiur. I kept on explaining that these two sugyos are based on Rambam and Raivid. If you hold keilim shel moiches, it's Raivid. If you hold of Rambam, there's no keilim shel moiches. Meshicha, one does work for the other; that's Rambam. If you hold of the Raivid, it's not a discussion. That's like a stira. So two reasons that the Rambam brings, it's not two reasons that are together, because if you hold of one, you don't hold of the other. Kid, because either you hold like the Raivid, it has to be brought to you, so then the maaseh does make a difference. Or you hold like the Rambam, that the maaseh makes a difference, so keilim shel moiches is not an issue. So when the Rambam brings these two reasons, the Rambam is saying there's two ways to learn the sugya. So when the Rambam knocks out keilim shel moiches, what is he saying? He's saying that even in the Raivid, keilim shel moiches is not a problem. The reason is very pashut, because what's the problem? I brought it b'keilim shel moiches. Yeah, but I'm not staying b'keilim shel moiches, since the tzaad, the tzaad I had anyway, that it should be by me, I had even b'keilim shel moiches. All the time is maybe there's a maaseh also, like I explained to you with the Raivid. Look, I thought that that's the problem in the Raivid, the maaseh, that the maaseh has to be a maaseh bringing to me, and the maaseh is not because doing the maaseh is by you. And I'm claiming with the Ramban. I have raayos that it's not true. So what am I left with? That it works. I'm not left with the Rambam that doesn't work because the ma'aseh and the behavior can't work for the keilim. What I'm left with is that it works. He starts. He says the Ramban, therefore you are koneh like the Ritva. That's what I'm asking. How can you say like the Ritva there? Here he says, there he says you're koneh. That's how we started this shiur, that the Ramban says clearly like the Ritva there. That's what I asked. I don't understand. How can you argue like the Ritva? The Ramban there says, and therefore you're koneh, and therefore I have to learn like the Ritva's mahalach of chatzer. He says here you're not koneh. He brings a reason, because the ma'aseh one is not good for the other. It's two sugyas. Once you're not koneh keilim, so meilech you don't fall back on the Ramban. You fall to the Ritva, that chatzer has to be the sugya and not keilim shel koneh. Lachein, the Ramban here was starting the sugya from the Rambam's point. But halachah l'maaseh, it's not good like the story. Tosafos' story is not good in the Rambam. Now he makes a shaylah out of it. Okay, but the Ramban is not אפילו a shaylah. Therefore he learns chatzer, but from a different reason. Over there, the moment the Ramban knocks off keilim...

You should understand that if not, if you have the second time, then it shouldn't be good for the second time. That's what I asked you. What happened to the second time? How did the Ramban not call the first time and say, Okay, you know something? Now you can be koneh. But you have a second time. Didn't you bring a second ... Ramban? That was the kasha. Remember, that's what we started the sugya. And then it comes out that he's saying the Ritva, and here he says the Ramban, and something's wrong here. And the teretz is because Keilu Shlomoich was never together with the second time. There's no such thing. Keilu Shlomoich is a ra'ayah; that's where how to learn a sugya. The second time is the Rambam's way how to learn a sugya. And the moment you knock off Keilu Shlomoich—you're not knocking off the whole ra'ayah and saying that the Rambam is right. What you're doing is saying that even if the ra'ayah is—Keilu Shlomoich is not a problem. Why not? Because sof kol sof it's coming to you, so it's by you. The only thing is, it came being by him. Who says the ma'aseh is chashuv? You see from Kolsah Kinyanim, it's not. We don't need it. You never need the ma'aseh, as long as it's by me, it's finished. Yoshev b'karka, we see it's not a problem. It's not a problem as long as it's by me. Who cares if there's no ma'aseh? Who needs the ma'aseh l'chol? You see that the ra'ayah held that Kolsah Kinyanim, even if the ma'aseh is gone, the ma'aseh is by me, it's okay. So you have geshmake ra'ayos. Zogt the ra'ivid, zogt the Ramban, that if you hold of Keilu Shlomoich is not a sugya, then the next step is what? The Ritva, that it's Torah machatzos, the sugya, because otherwise it would work. Kise doesn't work because the time that the meshichah one is not good for the other. That's not in the ra'ivid's talk בכלל. In the hemisphere of the ra'ivid, there's no such talk. There's nothing to talk about. You cannot discuss the meshichah one to work for the other in the ra'ivid. There's no such thing. Where you could discuss it is in the Rambam. So when he brings this, he's trying to tell you that there's two sugyas here. Either there's the ra'ayah's way of learning the sugya of keilim shel moicher, or there's a sugya of the meshicha one is not good for the other. So when he masksuf the keilim shel moicher, you know what he's saying? Not that the ra'ayah is wrong, because there is a ra'ayah like this. Can't say the ra'ayah is wrong. There is a ra'ayah that you don't need a ma'aseh meshicha; you don't need it. But what is he saying? The perek says all you have to do is bring it to me. So where is the moicher's hand in the toza'ah, or just in the ma'aseh? Just in the ma'aseh. It's brought big keilim shel moicher. It's not going to remain in keilim shel moicher; it's going to come to me. That's not a problem even in the ra'ayah of the Ramban. So then what are you left with? You should be able to be koneh with it, and a Chanami, like there is for it, you should be able to be koneh. If you don't hold of the sugya of keilim shel moicher, it's a binding block. Have a nice day. Have a nice day. There's no problem. What the problem is that the ma'aseh... There's a problem. The Rambam in rishon... No, no, in the havah amina of the Ramban. In the havah amina of the Ramban, that yes, you might need a ma'aseh, and therefore keilim shel moicher is a problem. Kamashma lan, in the ra'ayah you don't need a ma'aseh, so keilim shel moicher anyway is not a problem. So what are you left with? That you can't do it because the Rambam's reason? So it comes to the reason of chatzer. That's why you have to say that maybe you are koneh. So then what's the reason why you're obligated to chatzer? It comes to shelichus. Why can't you come to the Ramban? Because the ra'ayah is the Ramban. The Ramban is not the ra'ayah when the ra'ayah holds there's no problem; automatically it becomes the Ramban's shita. What's wrong? You have it? No, no. Yes. The Ramban over there addresses the sugya in light of two shitos: ra'ayah and Rambam. Keilushel meicher is only a raivid, and kinyan on one is not for the other is a Rambam. So when he knocks off the keilushel meicher, he says it's not true. Keilushel meicher works. It's not a problem. Ramban does. Ramban says, he starts off that it's a problem, and then he says it's a raya from the sugya that keilushel meicher is not a problem. That's how he... And then, so what's the next step? The next step is that the second reason is a problem. That's the kashya on the Ramban. And the answer is the second reason is never a problem once you hold of the raivid. It's two different sugyas. So the moment you knock off keilushel meicher, and I'm saying you're not knocking off the raivid that he's wrong. You're saying that the raivid who held that it has to come to you, keilushel meicher is not a problem. Why not? Because the main thing is it came to you. It came to you by keilushel meicher. That's only how it came to you. Who cares how it came to you? It's no different than kinyan. When you don't have the ma'aseh, as long as it's by you, it's good enough. What's wrong? The Ramban always... The Ramban always... The Ramban learned that there's a problem, keilushel meicher. Second problem, lemaaseh, you can't make the meshichah on one, you should be koneh the other. The Ramban, I have proof that there's no problem, keilushel meicher. So the problem is the second problem is false. Once you knock out the first one, you're still left—how does he turn around, Ramban?

The meileh, that would work. Chatzer, perfect. You have the second problem. I don't see—you didn't remember that a minute ago you said there's a second problem? And the answer is because the two problems don't go together; it's two different sugyas. Either you hold of this problem or you hold of that problem. The Rambam's saying you should know there's two problems here. Either you hold of this or you hold of that. So the moment I knock out the kelal shel moich, what do I knock out? I didn't say the Raivid's wrong. Even in the Raivid, your kelal shel moich is not a problem. Why? Because it only came to me, the kelal shel moich, but it's not going to remain the kelal shel moicher, and the ma'aseh's never negea, like the tzad I told you, the Raivid holds the kinyan, you see that the ma'aseh's never negea. Now what am I left with? That it should work. That's the Ritva. That's mamash the Ritva and the Ramban. And the Ramban there, starting from the Raivid. What is the Ramban here? The Ramban here is starting from the Rambam. Once he starts with the Rambam, the ma'aseh doesn't work, and it turns into chatzer. So you come to the same conclusion of chatzer, but from a different angle. The Ritva comes from one angle, the Raivid, and the Ramban here comes from which angle? The Rambam. And the Raivid and Ramban there is not a stirah because he says two shittos. And when he knocks out the Raivid, it mainly comes to the Ritva from that angle. Chatzer. I'm telling you, I'm telling you, it has to be two shittos. The cheshbon is that it's two shittos, so the Ramban brought two shittos in the sugya. So mainly that's why when he knocks out one, he doesn't jump to the other one. He doesn't jump ship and go to the Rambam. He's explaining that even in the Raivid it's not a problem. So good, so you have a Raivid now that the Ramban's not a problem, the Raivid. The meileh it would work like the Ritva. The meileh you have to say chatzer. Now Rav... Let's go back into the first shaila. What does it have to do with the previous sugya? What's the shaychus to the previous sugya? Why is roichev b'rshus harabim yekaneh? If you learn that it's about rishus harabim, it's brought to me, it's not brought to me, it is brought to me, it is by me, it's not by me, then zeh, zeh, zeh gishmak. But the sugya is, is this called brought to me because of kelim shel mocher? Mi kani keilim because it's the keilim shel mocher? It's not called brought to me; it's mamash the same sugya. It's the same sugya. Roichev is a tandif. What about here? Boi Rav Elazar, now that you tell me roichev is called brought to me b'rshus harabim, however you fix that problem, shaila is, what do you do with keilim shel mocher? Next. Teisvis. Teisvis who learns roichev is called brought to me even though it's in rishus harabim. Boi Rav Elazar, is this called brought to me? That's the shaila. Is this called brought to me? Boi Rav Elazar, is this called brought to me? The other way to learn is Teisvis, which means that the shaila is the meshichah on one should work for the other. So the shaila was never what, called brought to me or not called brought to me, but in the ma'aseh of the meshichah. So then how did I explain to you roichev is kind of like the Beis Aharon? The taiches, it's about the Rambam that was, you don't have the ma'aseh of the meshichah. Boi Rav Elazar, what about here? Do I have the ma'aseh of the meshichah? That's the shaila. That's the sugya. The sugya is, roichev is called, you have to have the meshichah, rishus harabim, yes or no? And the answer is, it is called having the meshichah. According to the Rambam, you don't have the ma'aseh meshichah. You have it here. What about here? What about ...? This is called a ma'aseh meshichah. According to the Rambam, the connection of the sugya is roichev with a ma'aseh meshichah is this a ma'aseh meshichah. According to the Raavad, reshus harabim, even though a kinyan is in a meshichah, what about kli? Because kli, ... ma'aseh. That's called a ma'aseh meshichah. That's called to me. The nekudas ha-sugya is called to me. That's how the Raavad. According to Tosafos, the Rambam, what's the ma'aseh meshichah? Okay, okay, we're getting there. A few hours. Okay, let's think of it.