Harry Portman

Rav Baruch Simon Fall 2009 Bava Basra Final Bechina Chazara

Disclaimer: All errors/incomplete answers are entirely my own fault.

Things get a little rough at the end of Birkas Kohanim – but I wanted to get this posted.

Gemara, Rashi (Peirush) and Tosafos (GEFET)

1) Give the distinction between Beis Hashalchin and Beis Haba’al with
regard to Chezkas 3 Shanim.

The concept of Chezkas 3 shanim refers to a person living on land/in a house

(or using an olive press, etc) for three years without being challenged - which
is supported by testimony from witnesses – and serves in as proof of his
ownership lieu of a shtar rayah for that property, should the original owner
protest and claim he never sold the land.

There are two types of fields – Beis Hashalchin – which is a field watered by
irrigation or a spring – it always has watered piped in. It produces peiros
consistently, and its chazaka is 3 full years.

The second type of field is the Beis Haba’al – which is a non-irrigated field
that subsists only on rain. As such, it only produces one crop a year (Rashi),
and therefore its chazaka is 3 years, but not day-to-day.

2) Give the distinction between Sadeh Lavan (grain) and Sadeh Ilan
(orchard) regarding the length of time for its chazaka.

A Sadeh Lavan (grain field) requires three years of crop production to create
its chazaka, since it can only grow one crop per year. However, according to
R’ Yishmael, a Sadeh Ilan (orchard), which can have several different types of
trees, each with its own growing season, only requires a person to harvest
three separate crops to achieve a chazaka, for example: grapes, then olives,
then figs.

3) What do Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva argue about with regard to
the length of the chazaka?
 Both argue with the Tana Kama who says the definition of a 3-year chezkas
ra’ayah is 3 full years. Rabbi Yishamel holds that a 3-year chazaka can be
accomplished with the last three months of the 1st year, the first three
months of the 3rd year and the entire 12 months of the 2nd year – for is a total
of 18 months. Rabbi Akiva holds that a 3-year chazaka can be accomplished
with the last month of the 1st year, the first month of the 3rd year and the
entire 12 months of the 2nd year – for a total of 14 months.

4) What does Tosafos ask and answer with regard to the chazaka for an
olive press?

Tosafos in Chezkas Habatim v’beis habadim” – cites the R”I son of Mordechai
referencing daf 24B in Chagigah that talks about a specific time of the year
that the amei ha’aretz are trusted to have used grape and olive pressers
b’taharah. The implication is that the olive presses have a specified window
of use – and are NOT used year-round like our own Mishna implies. Tosafos
answers the majority of people do press their olives during that specific
season, but our Mishna is referring to a miyut of people who store away their
olives and press them little by little over the course of the year.

5) Explain the words of the Gemara (Bava Basra 36B) Pirah Raba
u’Pirah Zuta in two ways.

The gemara there says that the difference between the shittos of Rabbi
Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva is the distinction between Pirah Raba and Pirah
Zuta. Rashbam explains the difference as follows: Rabbi Yishmael holds that
you can’t create a chazaka until you harvest a Pirah Raba – which means that
all the produce has fully grown. Therefore, he requires 3 month intervals for
crops such as barely, oats, and lentils – which grow in 3 months. Rabbi Akiva
holds that you only need Pirah Zuta for the chazaka – it doesn’t need to be
fully grown. For example, a low growth of barley/corn for animal food – even
though it did not complete its growth, or a vegetable that only needs 30 days
to grow. That explains their numbers of 3-12-3 (R’ Yishmael) and 1-12-1 (R’
Akiva).
6) With regard to what to Rashi and Tosafos argue related to “three
months in the first year?”

Tosafos – “Shlosha Chadashim Barishona” claims that Rashi says you need
to both plant AND harvest in those first and last three months to count for the
chazaka. Tosafos says all you really need to do is plant, you don’t need to
harvest as well. Tosafos also mentions that the guy should remove the “hay”
that grows during those three months and take it for himself – that way he’s
constantly doing some work on the crop without damaging the overall growth
of the final produce. By a sedai ilan (orchard) he can prune the trees and
keep the bits of wood.

7) What is Tosafos’ chiddush regarding na’al, gadar, u’paratz in the

laws of chezkas ra’ayah?

Putting up a fence around the field is not sufficient by itself as a proof of

ownership. His building of a fence and the daily opening/locking of the gate
must be combined with planting/harvesting – that would work according the
Rabanan as a chazaka as well. We see proof for this from the later case of
tzunma (the rocky field), since the gemara does not tell us to simply make a
fence and lock it – doing that alone isn’t enough and it must be combined
with another action of ownership.

8) Explain the words of Tosafos and Rabbeinu Chananel regarding the

matter mentioned in the Mishna “kaneis es tevu’aso u’masak es
zeisav”- “he brought in his produce and pressed his olives.”

Tosafos “Kanes Es Tevu’aso” – The list mentioned in our mishna in the

shittah of Rabbi Yishamel for an orchard – tevua (grapes), then zeisim
(olives), and lastly the kaitzo (te’ainim/figs) – implies a chronologic order to
the three harvests. Tosafos asks a question – we know from Bava Metzia 63A
that the grape (wine) harvest comes before the olive (oil) harvest, but it IS
NOT true that figs are harvested last. How can you say te’einim come last
when they in fact come first? As it says later in Bava Metzia 106B – the
summer (Av) is called kayitz because of the te’einim harvest, the time of
wine pressing isn’t until Tishrei. Hence, te’einim come before wine. So why in
our Mishna are te’einim mentioned last?
 There are two answers:

1) The reason why the summer months are called kayitz after the figs is
because that’s when they dry up while still on the trees, but they aren’t going
to be harvested until later, after the grape harvest/wine pressing.

2) Maybe figs are in fact cut down in the summer (in Sivan) and set aside to
dry, but they aren’t brought into the house until after the grape harvest. In
this case, lekita (harvesting) doesn’t count toward a chazaka since it can be
the common practice of anyone to let cut them down and leave them in that
field to dry, which is not a sign of ownership. However, bringing the figs into
your house certainly is a sign of ownership.

Rabbeinu Chananel has a different pshat – the order of the growth with figs
coming first in Av, then grapes in Tishrei, then olives in Shvat IS the correct
order. The Mishna here is teaching this list in the order of the calendar year
where Tishrei is the first month. It would have been clearer had the Mishna
used the seasonal year (where figs would be first) instead of the calendar
year.

9) Give the dinim that differentiate between Shor Tam and Shor Mu’ad.

When a Shor Mu’ad does damage (hezek) such as goring another ox or

destroying inanimate property, the owner pays nezek shaleim. When a Shor
Tam damages, the owner pays chatzi nezek. When a shor kills a human
being, whether Shor Tam or Shor Mu’ad – it will be chayiv misa. The only
difference is that the owner of the Shor Tam that kills doesn’t pay kofer, but
the owner of a Shor Mu’ad does. (Based on Shemos 21: 29-35).

10) Explain the Gemara in Bava Kama that asks, “How do we ever
have a Shor Muad?”
(Source is in Shiur Packet 4).

Bava Kama 41A (p.7) - we always kill a shor that kills a person – which
would include a shor tam that kills someone, then how can it ever become a
 shor mu’ad? A shor mu’ad for killing means it killed three times, yet we don’t
let it make it past the first one. The Gemara suggests several possibilities:

1) It attacked people 3 times with enough force to kill, but the people
escaped.

2) Rav Ashi: the ox gored 2 people, seriously wounding them, and when the
shor gored and killed the 3rd person, the other 2l died at the same time.

3) Rav Zevid: the ox killed 3 animals (which is just nezek), and a mu’ad for
animals is also a mu’ad for people.

4) Rav Shimi: the ox killed 3 goyim, and a mu’ad for goyim is a mu’ad for
Jews.

5) Rabbi Shimon ben Levi: the ox killed 3 people who were tereifos (hence
not chayiv misa), and a mu’ad for tereifos is a mu’ad in general as well.

6) Rav Papa: the ox killed a person and then evaded capture 3 times.

7) Rav Ika (via Rashi).: The ox killed twice, and two separate sets of
witnesses testified on the two killings. A 3rd set of witnesses are then
mezamein the first two sets. A 4th set of witnesses then testify that the ox
killed a 3rd time, and a 5th set of witnesses are mezamein the 3rd set, thus
making the first 2 sets kosher again, and the ox is now chayiv for all 3
killings in one shot, and the owner also pays kofer on the 3rd victim

8) Ravina – the witnesses saw the first two killings, but not identify the ox,
and after the 3rd killing they recognize the ox as the same from the first 2.

There are 2 ways of learning this gemara:

Rashi (p.5) – views all these cases as questions/suggestions and rejections.

Rambam (p.13) – views all the cases as statements, so each works to create
a shor mu’ad.

11) What are Abaye and Rava arguing about regarding Shor
Mu’ad? Give the explanations found in the shittos of Tosafos
regarding this matter. (Source is also in Packet 4)
 Shemos 21:29 (P.1) – The posuk says, “V’im shor nagach hu mitmol
shilshom v’huad b’va’alav v’lo yishmerenu, v’heimis ish or isha, hashor
yisakel…”

Bava Kama 23B (p.5) – Mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says a mu’ad is witnessed
goring once a day for three days… Rabbi Meir says that a mu’ad is defined as
goring 3 times (even in 1 day)…

Gemara: Within the shittah of Rabbi Yehuda, Abaye has a machlokes with
Rava.

Abaye says: says that “Timol” = 1st goring, “Mitmol” = 2nd goring, “Shilshom”
= 3rd goring, and “V’lo yishmerenu ba’alim” = 4th goring – the owner pays
nezek shaleim.

Rava says: doesn’t darshen the added Mem in Mitmol, so “Mitmol” = 1st
goring, “Shilshom” = 2nd goring, and “v’lo yishmirenu” is the 3rd wherein the
owner also pays nezek shaleim.

In summary: according to Rashi: Rava holds chayiv by the 3rd goring, Abaye
holds chayiv by the 4th goring.

Tosafos “Ee Mah”(Bava Basra 28A) – Rashi’s explanation in Bava Basra

is a retraction of his explanation in Bava Kama. In Bava Kama, if Rava holds 3
times, and Abaye holds 4, that means that Gemara is against the established
halachic pattern, because we always poskin like Abaye and not like Rava
(except for “Ya’Al KeGam”), and we know for sure that 3 also hold by 3
gorings. So in Bava Basra Rashi claims that they both agree on 3 gorings,
but are simply arguing about the way to darshen that from the posuk.
However, Rabbeinu Ezra says that both Abaye and Rava hold by 4 gorings,
not 3. They are arguing how to get that number 4 from the posuk: Abaye
sees all 4 in the words (see above), and thus the 4th goring following the
pattern of being on a separate day, so you need 4 gorings on 4 days. Rava,
however, reads the 4th goring as implicit, and therefore the 4th goring could
happen on the same day as the 3rd.

12) What do the words of the Gemara “Elah Me’atah, a chazaka

without a ta’ana would be a chazaka” mean according to Tosafos?
 The Gemara suggests that if you’re deriving the concept of 3 from shor
hamuad for a chazaka, such a chazaka might not even need a ta’ana. We
know it’s not true that there can be a chazaka without a ta’ana.

Tosafos “Elah Me’atah” (Bava Basra 28B) – what’s the possibility that
chazaka without a ta’ana could work? You didn’t claim anything. Maybe the
case in the Gemara is that after 3 years of being there, the mara kama is
mochel him. The chazaka is then in lieu of the shtar.

Problem: mechilah only works for an intangible obligation, not on something

that exists (be’ein). If I owe you a chov, and you say you’re mochel, the chov
is finished. But, I can’t say I’m mochel a tie to you. How do you answer this
question? Let’s say I forgot the tie at your house, and I say I’m mochel, you
keep it – since it is already in your reshus, maybe mechilah works even on a
b’ein. So perhaps since the karkah has been in his reshus for 3 years, that the
mechilah would work on a b’ein.

Another idea - a chazaka alone without any ta’ana can’t possibly be good.
Being there for 3 years without claiming to have bought it is worthless. But
let’s say he claims that he bought it from someone who claims he bought it
from you. Even though he never claimed that he saw his seller buy it from
you – he could be an imposter – he just claims that his seller said he bought
it from you. At least that’s some type of ta’ana, but still not good enough to
be called a chazaka sheyesh bo ta’ana – but it’s not a real ta’ana – which
would be claiming to have bought it from the guy who is established as the
mara kama.

13) What is the question of the Tosafos from the sugya in Bava
kamma, warning the ox or warning the guy? Give Tosafos’ two
answers in this matter.

Answer 1: We know there is a concept of 3 gorings from the shor – does that
show the shor is ragil, or that the gavra who was warned three times and he
didn’t watch his animal. If it’s on the shor, then the number 3 makes sense =
3 gorings. But if it is on the gavra – then it has to be more than three – the
first negicha doesn’t count since he wasn’t warn for that, he has to be warned
3 times, so only gorings 2, 3, and 4 count. Cites the Rashba – by the fact
 that our Gemara says all you need is 3 times, our sugya is holding with
regard to the shor, and not the gavra, which would require more than 3
times.

Answer 2: The Holchei Usha just said that we learn it out from shor muad –
there is no proof how they learn, they didn’t say which three we learn from
(shor vs. gavra). We want to bring proof from the earlier source of Holchei
Usha – really something like this, if you want to learn Gavra – wasn’t warned
on first goring, he was warned and he violated the 2nd, 3rd and 4th

14) What does Tosafos ask and answer in the question of the
Gemara, “Elah me’atah, then a then a warning that isn’t in front of
the squatter isn’t a warning.”

Tosafos “Elah me’atah… mecha’a” (Bava Basra 28B) - Since the

Gemara suggests we learn the 3 year chazaka from from shor hamu’ad, just
as there a macha’ah shelo befanav isn’t a macha’ah, that should apply here
too, the mara kama has to do the mecha’ah in front of the machzik.
Additionally, although the machzik squatting on the guy’s land is well talked
about, a mecha’ah isn’t talked about as much. Nevertheless, the Gemara
says chavra d’chavrach is leih – word will get around. We can’t apply that to
Shor Hamu’ad, even if 100 sets of eidim told the owner that his ox gored, we
have a gezeiras hakasuv that he has to be warned in person.

15) Does the owner of the shor need to be in beis din when the
eidim testify?

Yes the ba’al has to be there.

16) What is the din regarding mecha’ah when the marei kama is in
another city?

On daf 29 the gemara says that the me’arair issued the mecha’ah from
another city, and the machzik claims had he known about the macha’ah he
would have been more careful about keeping the shtar. This whole din of
mecha’ah only works if the guy who was supposed to be mocheh was in the
same city. Tosafos says: if the mareh kama in a different city, he is not
mechuyav to go to that city to make the ma’acha’ah. Since he can’t make
the mecha’ah, then the chazaka won’t work either.
17) Is there a chazaka with aspasta?

Gemara says if you snatch the little growths as they come up, that isn’t a real
achila, you didn’t let it grow fully, so that wouldn’t work. What about three
crops in three months, like aspasta? R’ Yishmael would say that is good,
because you have three harvests. Sdei Lavan you need three years, but Sdei
Ilan you can harvest grapes, olives, and figs – that counts.

In short: 3 harvests in 30 days will not work. But 3 harvests in 90 days, let
each one grow a month, that would be good, according to R’ Yishmael.

18) Explain the proof for chazaka from the psukim in sefer
Yirmiyahu. Give the shittos of Rashi and Rabbeinu Chananel
regarding the explanation of words.

According to Rabanan, you need three years, three harvests not enough.
Shor Ha’Muad is the source for R’ Yishmael. What’s the source for the
Rabbanan? The Gemara learns it from the psukim in Yirmiyahu – there is
going to be a Galus, so better keep the shtar because otherwise they won’t
be able to get their houses back when they return from the galus.

Rashi: this was prophesied in the 10th year of the reign of Chizkiyahu, and
the galus occured in 11th year, hence only 2 years will go by and no one will
be able to have a chazaka, so they need a shtar to prove ownership – the
mashma’os is you need three years for a chazaka.

Rabbeinu Chanenel: learns that Yirmiyahu said this in the 9th year of
Chizkiyahu’s reign. All the shtaros are going to be lost when the city was
overtaken, so the people will need to rely on chezkas 3 shanim that will take
effect at the end of three years. it’ll still be ok (opposite of R’ Chanenel).

The Gemara questions these psukim as a rayah and suggest Yirmiyahu was
giving them an eitza tova.
19) Give the distinction between 3 years he is mochel, and 3 years
he isn’t makpid.

The Gemara gives another answer for the Rabanan’s shittah – maybe it’s talui
on mechilah – 1 year, 2 years, the mareh kama will be mochel, but 3 years
won’t be mochel – so if he doesn’t complain after 3 years, he must be that he
sold it to the machzik. The Gemara doesn’t like that – in the case that the
machzik didn’t have the full 3 years and was using the land b’issur, the
halacha is he has to return the land and the peiros, if the din was in mechilah,
the guy was mochel on the peiros, so why is the machzik paying for them?
Mochel means he gets rid of the chiyuvim! The Gemara agrees and says it
wasn’t mochel, it is makpid – he wasn’t makpid to collect during the first 2
years, but he would be makpid for 3 years. If he doesn’t complain by then,
the machzik acquires the land via chazaka.

20) How does the machzik have testimony about living in a place
at night to be able to have the 3-year chazaka?

Bava Basra 29A – Chezkas Habatim is 3 complete years – so how are you
going to have eidus on the nights? The gemara gives 2 answers: 1) The
neighbors know about the nights and will be the eidim. 2) Rava says the case
is the guy making the chazaka rented it out to someone and they were lived
there for three years, so they testify that they lived there for three years and
that serves as eidus for the renter (machzik). The gemara asks a question –
but aren’t they nogaya b’eidus? It’s in their best interest that this guy is the
one who gets the house because they paid him the rent already, if the mareh
kama wins – they have to pay double rent, so of course they’ll say it’s the
lokeach’s field/house. The Gemara then says, maybe the case is that they
didn’t pay the rent to either party yet, and they just want to know who they
should pay the rent to – the mareh kama or the machzik – so they are NOT
nogaya b’eidus.

21) Explain the words of the Gemara “Amar Mar Zutra… d’lo ta’an
ta’aninan anan.”

Bava Basra 29A –– the machzik has to bring eidim that he was there for 3
years, but the eidim don’t have to say b’feirush that they saw him there the
day and the night. Mar Zutra says that testifying about him being there fore 3
years assumes day and night. But if the me’ar’air says he doesn’t think they
 were there at night – the machzik needs testimony on the nights as well. But
the beis din won’t ask about the nights if he doesn’t bring it up.

Rashbam explains that if the me’arair makes a ta’anas bari that he knows
they weren’t there at night, then they have to bring eidim on the night as
well.

Bava Basra 29B – However, even Mar Zutra would agree in the case where
the mareh kama was a peddler who travelled a lot – he would never see the
machzik since the machzik would only go to the proper when he was away –
the beis din would make a claim asking about the nights.

22) What the does Tosafos find difficult regarding these eidim
being nogaya b’eidus, what does Tosafos answer about this?

Tosafos “Amar Mar Zutra” 29A-B: has a different pshat – Mar Zutra was
saying they were not nogein b’eidus – if the machzik brings eidim that they
lived there for three years, day and night, and they paid rent, but they are
not living there anymore, and now someone else is living there, it’s no longer
a problem of being nogaya b’eidus. If the mara kama ends up winning, they’ll
say I paid you already, and they will be believed b’migo because they could
say that they never lived there, so peh she’assar, peh shehitir – we would
never know anything about them other than what they said. So even if they
paid the rent, but they aren’t living there anymore, they can be eidim since
they aren’t nogein b’eidus, can’t be at risk paying the mara kama thanks to
the migo of saying they never lived there in the first place. Nogaya b’eidus
only applies if they are living there now. That’s a totally different way of
learning the gemara, according the Rashbam, the gemara has nothing to do
with the previous line, but this is going on the question of nogaya b’eidus.

Gemara talks about Rochlin – Rashbam the only time you need to bring
eidim for nights is when the mara kama says that he knows they weren’t
there at night. But what if the mara kama was a businessman – so he was not
able to know if the guy was there at night or not? So we could then forward
the claim on his behalf – who says you were really there at night, and then
he’ll have to bring eidim that he was there at night. Rochlin isn’t going on the
nogeiah b’eidus issue, but back on the nights issue. Rava says needs retzufin
 (on amud aleph), need 3 full years – Rav Huna says retzufos then the gemara
asks a question about the nights, the people you rented to they testify. But
Rava is modeh –these eidim who rented are rochlin, so they can’t know, but if
the sochrin are businessmen, they can’t tetify that they are there every
night, so for them, that derech is good enough. Ta’anusam ta’anus – that
really means eidusan eidus. Rashbam – me’arair is the rochlin, not there
every night so we make the ta’ana for him. According to Tosafos the sochrin
on the rochlin are the eidim, the answer is that’s their derech. They lived
there fore 3 years, even if they went away sometimes, that is ok.

Tosafos asks a question 3rd – if they paid, they can say they paid the mara
kama. So believe the eidim when they say the lokeach, because migo if they
wanted to lie, they could say they already paid the rent to the mara kama.
But Tosafos says they would never say such a thing, because once the
lokeach wins – he’ll say, oh you paid the mara kama, now you need to pay
me (again) – they would never say they paid the mara kama, could end up
paying the lokeach a second time (having already paid him once).

23) What is Tosafos’ chiddush related to the zman k’viyus for the
chazka of a store?

Then the Gemara talks about chanus (storefront). Rav Huna is modeh that
the chanus is only made to be used during the daytime, not at night, so don’t
need to be there at night to achieve the chazaka, because that’s its normal
usage. Hence, you could be there three years just in the daytime and have
the chazaka.

Tosafos “UMODEH” asks a question – v’im tomar – isn’t that pashut? One
could say that since there are some people who actually live in these
storefronts, even if you are using these storefronts as a store, you might
think you need 3 full years. Ka Masha Lan that you don’t have to be there at
night, and hence don’t need consecutiveness for the chazaka. However,
Tosafos is mechadesh that you still need to be there for the time length of 3
full years, which in this case meands you need to be there six years in the
daytime, which is equal to three full years of days and nights.
 Bottom line: don’t need retzufos (day and night), but since some people do
live in these things, so you can’t just have 3 half years. Since we can’t be
mechayiv you to be there at night, we mechayiv you to be there for 6 years
of days.

24) Explain the words of the Gemara that two people made a
chazaka with a maidservant as a partnership, one used her for the
1st, 3rd, and 5th, years, and the second used her for the 2nd, 4th, and 6th
years. What does Tosafos ask and answer about this?

Bava Basra 29B – Rami bar Chama and Rav Ukva bar Chama bought a
maidservant in partnership, one used her 1st, 3rd, and 5th years, the 2nd used
her the 2nd, 4th, and 6th years. The mara kama says she’s mine, and they go
Rava for judgment. Rava asks: so why did you alternate years like this? The
reply: we don’t want each owner to be able to say that HE’S the owner – IE 3
years with one guy, he’ll claim he’s the owner. Rava replies: But since you
didn’t want to have a chazka vis-à-vis the partnership, so too there won’t be
a chazaka by the mara kama either – so no chazaka at all.

Tosafos - D’lo Techzeku Ahadadi - asks a question: then shutafim never

have a chazaka! Bava Basra 42A: even if you do three years in a row, there is
no chazaka, the derech of partners is that sometimes he uses it and
sometimes he uses it. Why do 1st, 3rd, and 5th to avoid a chazka, even doing
1st, 2nd, 3rd doesn’t create a chazaka. If we have eidim that they are shutafin,
doing the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd years, is fine. But if there are no eidim, the first guy
could say I have the 1st, 2nd, 3rd years and you have no right to 4th, 5th, 6th
years, since I have a chazaka. Rashbam is learning that there are no eidi
shutafus. Once there are no eidi shutafus, so what’s to stop the guy from
year #1 to get off the land for the 2nd guy to have year #2 – he could
dishonestly say – who are you? It must be that there are eidi shutafus here,
and if so, why do 1st, 3rd, and 5th when 1st, 2nd, 3rd is much easier, since having
consecutive blocks of time much easier. It appears to the R”I that they still
don’t want to do it that way, because the partnership will be forgotten, even
if technically speaking the partners don’t have power over each other legally,
it’s just easier this way to remind themselves that they are partners. If it will
be forgotten, then they can get the eidim and have a messy din Torah – so
they just trade off to remind themselves of the partnership.

25) Explan the words of the Gemara “v’lo amran elah d’lo kasuv
itrah, aval kasuv itrah, kola ees lei.” What does Tosafos ask and
answer on this?
 The fact that there is no chazaka of ownership between the partners is only
when a shtar itra wasn’t written, but when a shtar itra was written – there is a
kol.

Tosafos “Aval kasuv itra…” – quotes a Gemara in Bava Metzia (39A), that
we are more machmir for yesomim to not let anyone go into their inherited
land, whether or not they have a shtar. Even if they have a shtar, we are
extra careful not to let anyone on their land to prevent anyone claiming that
yesomim own the land unrightfully.

26) What is the chiddush of Tosafos in the matter of shechuni

gavoi havei?

Shechuni Gavoi – mareh kama claims that he was really there in the inner
chamber with the machzik the entire time – and tells the machzik has to
bring proof that he was there alone. This ia an attempt to undermine the 3-
year chazaka process.

Tosafos – bshechuni gavoi – can’t just say he was b’shechuni gavoi, he has
to have eidim that know he was actually there in that inner room. However,
they don’t have to know which door he used to go in and out (main or side). If
mareh kama claims he was b’shechuni gavoi and the machzik doesn’t have
eidim to prove that he wasn’t the machzik loses.

27) What does the Gemara ask about the din of “All the property
d’bei Bar Sissin I will sell to you?”

Bava Basra: 30A – One who says to his friend, all the land that I bought
from Bar Sissin I will sell to you. But there was a piece of land called “Bei Bar
Sissin” – which he wants to claim wasn’t bought from Bar Sissin, and that’s
merely what it is called coincidentally. They came before Rav Nachman – he
said – the buyer gets it. We assume it IS bei bar sissin. Rava asks: What about
hamotzi mechaveiro alav hara’ayah? It is still in the possession of the seller,
shouldn’t the buyer have to bring a ra’ayah? Rav Nachman replies: Since it is
called Bei Bar Sissin, the assumption is that it IS Bei Bar Sissin – to say that it
is merely called that way is burden upon you to prove that. In Shechuni Gavoi
 -Rav Nachman sides with the mara kama and Rava sides with the machzik.
But here by Bei Bar Sissin, Rav Nachman says the buyer (machzik wins),
saying the mara kama has to bring a ra’ayah that is really is just called Bei
Bar Sissin, but isn’t, while Rava says the mara kama wins, because of
hamotzi mechaveiro alav haraya.

Now we have kasha of Rava on Rava and kasha of Rav Nachman on Rav
Nachman. Neither is a problem. Rava is not a problem because he holds that
person currently on the property wins (Shechuni Gavoi = the machzik, and
Bei Bar Sissin = the seller. Rav Nachman is not a problem because in the
D’vei Bar Sissin case, the Mareh Kama has to back up what he’s saying with
proof, otherwise we assume it’s all D’vei Bar Sissin. Regarding Shechuni
Gavoi, it’s like Rashbam explains: it’s like saying the shtar is mezuyaf and
he has to prove otherwise; when he claims the chazaka isn’t good because
he was there, the machzik he has to substantiate by saying not only was he
there to create the chazaka, he has to prove the machzik was also NOT in the
house.

28) Explain the Gemara where the Me’ar’air says: But I was in
Shuki Barai.

The Mareh Kama asks what the machzik is doing there, the machzik says he
was there fore three years and has witnesses to prove it. Mareh kama says
he was living far away and there was no communication or wagons in
between the two cities, so he didn’t hear about it or couldn’t give a
mecha’ah. The machzik says – but I have witnesses that you came into town
one a year for 30 days to do business. The mareh kama says – that is true,
but I was too busy and didn’t have a chance to make a mecha’ah. We say
that this is a legitimate claim.

Meforshim

FIRST PACKET – BINYAN CHEZKAS KINYAN V’CHEZKAS RA’AYAH

1) Give the explanation of the Ritva in the halachic difference chezkas

kinyan (acquiring) and chezkas ra’aya (proof). Explain.

Ritva (p.2) – The chazakos mentioned in our Mishna are specifically chezkas
ra’aya. There are two types of chazakos, and they are very different from
each other. Chezkas kinyan is used to acquire something, and in the case of
land that is kessef, shtar and chazaka. Chazaka for a kinyan means a tikkun
 on the land, such as na’al (locking), gadar (fencing in), u’poratz (breaking
down a wall). Chezkas ra’aya along with witnesses is used in lieu of a shtar as
a proof of ownership and NOT as a means to acquire land. For that you need
something such as eating the produce, which displays ownership and chezkas
ra’ayah. Trying to do one method of chazaka to function in the place of the
other – IE: eating fruit to acquire land, or doing a tikkun to prove ownership –
DOES NOT WORK.

2) What do the Rambam & the Ra’avad argue about when the land is a
tzechiach selah? Explain.

Rambam (p.5) – When the land is a tzechiach haselah – a piece of rocky

land that can’t be fenced in or planted – you can acquire it via the chazaka of
using the land, such as spreading out your fruit and putting your
animals/belongings there. (Presumably kessef and shtar would work if there
was an owner to buy the land from, which there doesn’t appear to be one
here).

Ra’avad (p.5) –Rambam isn’t clear – the Gemara that Rambam is quoting
is referring to chezkas ra’ayah (Ra’avad read the Gemara like Rashi there) –
these actions cannot serve to function as a chezkas kinyan! You need to
improve the land, like na’al, gadar, u’poratz.

Maggid Mishna (p.5) – There are two ways to be koneh the land, depending
on the buyer’s plans. 1) If he isn’t going to use it right away, then he does a
tikun like na’al, gadar, u’poratz, since he won’t be there to benefit from the
land. 2) If he is going to use the land right away, and the seller has kavana to
give it over, the buyer can benefit from it by putting his belongs there, and
he will be koneh the doing that (this is what the Rambam is saying).

R’ Akiva Eiger (p.6) quotes the Maharit (p.9) – the Rambam meant
utilizing shimush as a Chezkas Kinyan only works specifically regarding a
sechiach selah. It’s so rocky you can’t even put up a fence, so this is the only
option – a regular field or house, however, requires the standard tikkun. (This
is against the Maggid Mishna). This is especially relevant when attempting
to acquire an tzunmah shel hefker.
 Mirkeves HaMishna (p.11) – Not only can you acquire a normal field via
the standard tikkun method (na’al, gadar, u’poratz) but you can also acquire
it by harvesting and eating the produce, which demonstrates real ownership.
However, shimush only works by tziach selah because there is no alternative,
so we allow a low-level chezkas kinyan such as spreading out your fruit.

Yerushalmi Kiddushin (p.7-8) – If someone sells a house to his friend,

once the buyer puts his stuff in the house, he is koneh. (Sounds like the
Rambam according to the Maggid Mishna) .

Korban Ha’eida (p.8) – explains it differently. The gemara means ba’al

makes a formal invitation to the buyer – “leich, chazeik, u’kni” – “go, do a
chazaka, and acquire it.” This isn’t the kinyan, it is an invitation to go do
na’al, gadar, u’paratz.

3) Explain the Geder Kinyan Zhazaka for an Eved Canaani.

Kiddushin 22B (p.13) – Mishna: an eved canaani is zcquired with kessef,

shtar, or chazaka.

Gemara: How do you make a chazaka? He should service you – have him
take off your shoes, or take your stuff to the bathhouse, undress you, wash
you, anoint you. Then it says “higbihah:” R’ Shimon – there is no greater
chazaka than hagba’ah because it can happen anywhere (IE regular hagba’ah
should work). Rav Ashi says that this only works when the eved picks up the
owner, not the owner picking up the eved (the opposite of the usual – the guy
who wants to be koneh picks up the item, because here this is part of
servicing the master).

Ramban (p.17) – The eved has to do some servile act for the master that
demonstrates ownership – hence undressing him or carrying his stuff to the
bathhouse. However, the master asking the eved to sew a sweater for him
doesn’t work, because that’s akin to “achilas peiros” which isn’t a good
chazaka to acquire land. So too, asking a non-servile menial act isn’t a
chazkas kinyan here either.
 Ran in Kiddushin (p.14) – quotes the Ramban – and says he is referring to
the eved doing menial things with his body, undressing the master, or
carrying the stuff to the bathhouse – which is an embarrassing act (neither of
which an eved Ivri would be allowed to do). However, asking the eved to
make food for the master doesn’t count, since that is parallel to “achilas
peiros” which we know don’t work to acquire land.

Rambam (p.16) – In order to be acquired, the eved has to service the

master. In listing the kinyanim from the Gemara he writes that the master
picks up the eved. (Rambam holds that it works both ways –if the eved is
mag’biah the master – koneh midin servicing/chazaka, if the master picks up
the eved – he is koneh the eved midin hagba’ah).

Maggid Mishna (p.16) – according to the way I explained the Rambam

before – there are two tracks to acquire land, chazaka and shimush – the
same thing should apply over here. You can acquire the eved by chazaka, or
shimush. Hence, telling him to knit the sweater would work.

Kessef Mishna (p.16) – argues against the Maggid Mishna. The acts that
the eved does (such as taking off shows, carrying things to bathhouse), are
done specifically in the manner of a servant, which indicates ownership.
Asking him to prepare food (or knit a sweater) does not demonstrate
ownership at all – that is just hana’ah or “achilas peiros,” which will not work
by an eved. Achilas peiros DOES work by acquiring land, since every can see
that the person getting benefit by doing the harvesting/eating is
demonstrating ownership. Non-servile acts that benefit the master do not
indicate ownership in the way that benefitting from land does.

PACKET 2 – OD B’INYAN CHEZKAS KINYAN V’CHEZKAS RA’YAH

4) What do the Rishonim argue about in the understanding of the

Gemara in Bava Basra (53B) Hamatzia Matzaos B’nichsei HaGer
Kanah? (really packet 1, but all the sources are in packet 2)

Bava Basra 53B (p.1) – A convert is no longer related to any of his previous
relatives, so he if dies without starting a new family as Jew, all his property
becomes hefker when he dies. The Gemara says that if anyone spreads out
mats in the Nichsei HaGer (the now hefker land formerly owned by the ger),
he is koneh that land.
 Rashbam (p.1) – It is not enough just to have belongings there, he also lies
down to sleep on the mats after spreading them out – that counts as a
chazaka (this is not mentioned in the Gemara). Even if he didn’t do a tikkun,
he was neheneh miguf hakarkah. That counts as a chazka. Thie is similar to
an eved – just as when the eved services you and you’re koneh, the karkah is
servicing you and you’re koneh.

Shittah Mikubetzes (p.10-11) – quotes the Ra’avad’s shittah – don’t have

to sleep on it, like the Rashbam says. Rather, spreading out the mats is
decorative. That’s improvement of the karkah.

Tosafos Hamatziah Matza’os (p.1) – You need more than lying down on
mats you found spread out, you need to spread them out yourself and then
sleep on them.

Rosh siman ‫( סא‬p.9) – implies that you have to do both, spread out the mats
and then lie down on them. You Need a tashmish chashuv – which means
lying down on the mats, not merely spreading them out. (seemingly the for
the Rashbam, if he just lay down on the land, that’d count since the land
was servicing him).

5) Explain the stirah in the Rambam and the answer regarding if

plowing the land works for kinyan chazaka.

Rambam Hilchos Zechia U’Matana 2:1-4 (p.3-4) – 1) Nichsei HaGer are

hefker. 2) Achilas peiros counts. But by Nichsei HaGer – achilas peiros is not
enough, you need to do something to the land. Quotes the story (in Bava
Basra 54A – p.2) of the woman who was eating peiros hadekel for 13 years
and someone else came in and did a chazaka by working on the tree – he
won. Everyone eats peiros from nichsei hefker – so it doesn’t count, need to
do a ma’aseh b’guf hadavar. 3) If you find palaces in the Nichsei HaGer, and
you painted it –you’re koneh. 4) If you plow in the Nichsei HaGer you ARE
koneh.

Rambam Hilchos Mechia 1:16 (p.5 in PACKET 1) – plowing works when

buying land from your friend (implying that plowing works with all cases).

This is a stira! The first Rambam (above) said plowing only works for Nichsei
HaGer. So which one is it?

R’ Isser Zalman Meltzer / Even Ha’ezel (p.6) – Regarding plowing, there

is a distinction in practice. By Nichsei HaGer – plowing just a little amount of
land is koneh; a small tikkun in the land is enough. By Nichsei Chaveiro – you
have to plow all of it; your friend was the owner, now you have to show that
you’re the owner.
 Rambam is making a distinction by Achilas Peiros. Achilas Peiros only works
by Nichsei Chaveiro, since you can demonstrate ownership by harvesting the
whole field – which shows that you are now the owner, and not your friend.
Achilas Peiros does not work by Nichsei HaGer because it’s hefker – like the
story of the lady eating from the date-palm for 13 years. A specific
improvement is needed in such a case. His whole diyuk is in the 2nd Rambam
which says after you buy the field from your friend it says “vnichnas bah” he
goes into the property and plows or harvests the entire field.

6) Give the explanation of the Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh for the psukim in
parshas Chayei Sarah regarding Avraham.

Ohr HaChaim (p.14,21) – Why does it say “Vayakam HaSadeh” twice (in 17
and 20)? The halacha by a goy is that when you give him money to pay for
something, you are not koneh right away (which you would be with a Jew).
After paying the money the goy ke’ilu is “mafkir” the land, and then you have
to do an additional kinyan. So in posuk 17 “Vayakam Sedei Ephron – Ephron
receives the money and the land is no longer in his reshus. In posuk 19 the
land enters Avraham’s reshus by doing the chazaka of benefiting from the
guf of the land by burying Sarah ( (this is like what Rambam says that you
need ma’aseh b’guf ha’aretz by Nichsei HaGer). If you hold by the other
shittah, that you need to beautify/improve the land (“yipui”) then you can say
that Arvaham did that when he built a monument of some sort over the
grave.

7) Give the explanation of the Tzafnas Pane’ach (Rogachover)

regarding the din of hilchos Sukkah that you bring mats to a Sukkah.

Sukkah 28B (p.22) – During all 7 days of Sukkos, you need to make your
sukkah your diras kevah, and your house need to bring all your good stuff
into the Sukkah you diras arai. If you have nice dishes or nice mats, bring
them into the sukkah.

Tzafnas Pane’ach (p.23) – You have to make a k’viyus in the sukkah, just
like spreading mats in Nichsei HaGer creates a chazaka because it shows
k’viyus, so too here that spreading mats will create a k’viyus.

8) Give the explanation of the Tzafnas Pane’ach for the posuk

(Beraishis 25:13) “the land that you are lying upon etc.”

Parshas Vayeitzei (p.24-26) – Yaakov took stones, made a pillow, and

slept on them. HaShem the says the land you are sleeping on is yours and
your children’s.

Tzafnas Pane’ach (p.27) – Gathering and sleeping on the rocks is like

matziah matzaos – Tosafos says you need both spreading and lying on them.
 Footnote 28 – Chazal say that HaShem folded up all of Eretz Yisrael
underneath Yaakov to say that it is under his domain. However, he was
already sleeping before the land was folded up beneath him. That’s why he
took avanim which are something that’s fit to sleep on since it’s a sleeping of
tzar. Hence, every second that you’re sleeping on stones is a new type of
moshav, so it is ke’ilu you’re making it into a moshav now (again and again).
Hence it was as though he collected and slept on the rocks when the land
was put under him, and he was therefore koneh the land.

9) Explain the Shittah of the Rambam in the distinction between

Nichsei Chaveiro and Nichsei HaGer with regard to the matter of
achilas peiros in the laws of kinyan chazaka.

Rambam Hilchos Zechia U’Matana 2:2 (p.3-4) – Achilas peiros works for
Nichsei Chaveiro but not Nichsei HaGer.

R’ Isser Zalman Meltzer / Even Ha’ezel (p.6) – Rambam is making a

distinction by Achilas Peiros. Achilas Peiros only works by Nichsei Chaveiro,
since you can demonstrate ownership by harvesting the whole field – which
shows that you are now the owner, and not your friend. Achilas Peiros does
not work by Nichsei HaGer because it’s hefker – like the story of the lady
eating from the date-palm for 13 years. A specific improvement is needed in
such a case. His whole diyuk is in the 2nd Rambam which says after you buy
the field from your friend it says “vnichnas bah” he goes into the property
and plows or harvests the entire field.

Sho’el Umayshiv (p.15) – discusses the fact that there is a da’as acheres
makneh by Nichsei Chaveiro – when you’re ochel peiros – you’re not doing
anything to the guf hakarkah. If you buy it from someone, he is makneh it to
you. But you don’t have anyone to be makneh it to you by Nichsei HaGer – so
can’t be koneh with achilas peiros.

PACKET 3: V’HER’ANU B’VINYANO V’SAMCHEINU B’SIKUNO – YESODOS

HASIMCHA V’HAKIYUM

10) Explain the words of the Gemara (Bava Basra 53B) “Rav
Nachman says in the name of Raba bar Avuha: one who builds large
palaces in the Nichsei HaGer and another guy comes after him and
installs doors on them – the later guy is koneh the Nichsei HaGer.”

Bava Basra 53B (p.6) –Rav Nachman quoting Raba bar Avuha says that if
you build a big palace b’Neichsei HaGer you don’t acquire it until you put the
doors up. If someone else puts doors up, he’s koneh, not you.
 Aliyos d’Rabbeinu Yonah (p.8-9) – the other guy who installs the doors
makes the palace into a dirah, and thus fit to live in. He therefore does the
gmar tikkun and acquires the land.

Ri Migash (p.10-11) – how is adding doors considered a “ma’aseh bguf

hakarkah?” 1) The building is now considered part of the land, so by adding
doors to the building, he has improved the land. 2) By adding doors, he has
created a chatzer mishtamshus, which is automatically koneh the land via
kinyan chatzer.

11) Explain the shittah of Rashi regarding the building of the Third
Beis HaMikdash.

Rosh Hashana 30A (p. 5) – The Gemara suggests that it is possible that the
Third Beis HaMikdash will be built on the first night or day of Pesach, IE: Yom
Tov.

Rashi “Lo Tzricha…” (p.5) – You may ask how it is possible to have the
Beis Hamikdash built the 15th when it is Yom Tov, especially since the
Gemara in Shavuos 15B says that it won’t be built on Yom Tov or at night.
But that’s referring to the Third Beis HaMikdash being built by man, but the
future rebuilding will come Min HaShamayim. it’s tru that Rashi says the 3rd
BH will come min hashamayim – in both Sukkah and Rosh Hashana.

Masechta Sukkah (p.27) – The Gemara talks about the 4 craftsmen who
are going to be involved in the building of the Third Beis HaMikdash:
Moshiach ben David, Moshiach ben Yosef, Eliyahu HaNavi and Kohen Tzedek.

Rashi “Charashim” (p.27) - is interpreting that there will be human beings

involved in the building of the Third Beis HaMikdash. How does that fit with
the other Rashi?

Aruch Laner (p.13-14) – The language of our tefillos is “bimheira yibaneh,”

(it should be rebuilt soon) if it were like Rashi’s shittah that the Third Beis
HaMikdash would be Min HaShamayim, the tefillah should say “bimheira
yigaleh,” (it should be revealed soon). Based on the Gemara in Sukkah that
mentions the 4 builders, the Third Beis HaMikdash will certainly be built by
man. What does it mean it’ll come Min HaShamayim? A spiritual banyan,
provided by HaShem, will come from Shomayaim and be settled within the
physical structure – like a body and a soul.

That explains the physical binyan. But the Gemara says the Beis HaMikdash
could be built on Yom Tov – so how can that be?

Masechta Shabbos 95A (p.16) – we know about the prohibition of the 39

melachos on Shabbos, while on Yom Tov there are melachos that are mutar –
such as cooking – for ochel nefesh. But we also poskin like Beis Hillel and
 accept the concept of “mitoch” = any melacha that is mutar for ochel nefesh
is also mutar for things that aren’t for ochel nefesh. For example, you are
permitted to carry chicken to your house for the seudah, and so you can also
carry your lulav to shul. But if a melacha is not mutar for ochel nefesh, like
writing, it is then not mutar for non-ochel nefesh.

The Gemara here is discussing an issur melacha on Shabbos called magban

= making cheese (take milk, add an ingredient and it becomes hard, turning
into cheese). There is a machlokes between R’ Eliezer, who holds that
magban is a form of boneh (building), and the Rabbanan who say that
magban is not a form of boneh (the difference is a chiyuv derabbanan or
deoraisah if you violate it).

Tosafos “V’Harodeh” (p.16) – if making cheese is mutar for ochel nefesh,

we can then apply the din of “mitoch,” and it turns out that boneh should be
mutar for non-ochel nefesh. So een hachi nami, it’s only a din derabbanan
that we don’t apply this and to boneh for non food things, and deoraisa it is
totally mutar.

Aruch Laner (p.14) – Even Rashi says the 3rd Beis Hamikdash will be boneh
b’yidei adam – so how can it be built on Yom Tov? If you hold the issur of
boneh is included as mitoch from using boneh as a form of ochel nefesh to
make cheese, then you can build the Beis HaMikdash on Yom Tov.

12) Explain the language of the tefillah “V’hareinu B’vinyano

V’samcheinu B’Tikuno.”

Siddur shel GR”A (p.1) - quotes the Maharal Diskin – Rashi writes in
Sukkah that the Third Beis HaMikdash will come from Shomayim - so how are
we going to be mekayim the mitzvah of “v’asu li mikdash?”

Eicha 2:9 (p.2) – When the Beis HaMikdash was burned, the gates of the
Beis HaMikdash sunk into the ground.

Siddur shel GR”A (p.1) - Hence, in the future, “we will be shown its binyan”
since the Third Beis HaMikdash will come Min HaSHamayim, and then “we will
be b’sameach with its tikkun” because WE will do the final tikun of digging up
the gates and installing them.

We see the significance of this from our Gemara in Bava Basra by Palatin
B’nichsei HaGer - a guy builds a whole building on the field of hefker, but
another guy puts up the doors – he is koneh the field, so too here. By putting
up the gates, that will be our binyan.

Rav Goldvicht (p.18-19) – that’s why there is Simcha K’tikuno – simcha in

his own effort. There is less simcha involved, ifwe’re just spectators –
 “V’hareinu B’vinyano,” but we will have simcha with the tikun that we do –
“B’samcheinu B’tikuno”

PACKET 4: B’IMNYAN HAGDAROS SHOR HAMU’AD V’HAMISTA’EF

13) What do Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda argue about within the
confines of Shor Hamu’ad? And what do Abaye and Rava argue about
in this matter? And what do the Rishonim argue about in this
matter?

Shemos 21:29 (P.1) – The posuk says, “V’im shor nagach hu mitmol
shilshom v’huad b’va’alav v’lo yishmerenu, v’heimis ish or isha, hashor
yisakel…”

Bava Kama 23B (p.5) – Mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says a mu’ad is witnessed
goring once a day for three days… Rabbi Meir says that a mu’ad is defined as
goring 3 times (even in 1 day)…

Gemara: Within the shittah of Rabbi Yehuda, Abaye has a machlokes with
Rava.

Abaye says: says that “Timol” = 1st goring, “Mitmol” = 2nd goring, “Shilshom”
= 3rd goring, and “V’lo yishmerenu ba’alim” = 4th goring – the owner pays
nezek shaleim.

Rava says: doesn’t darshen the added Mem in Mitmol, so “Mitmol” = 1st
goring, “Shilshom” = 2nd goring, and “v’lo yishmirenu” is the 3rd wherein the
owner also pays nezek shaleim.

In summary: according to Rashi: Rava holds chayiv by the 3rd goring, Abaye
holds chayiv by the 4th goring.

Rabbeinu Chananel (p.5) – Really everyone holds that a chazaka is defined

as 3 times changing the status, such as shor tam  shor mu’ad, or a woman
who gets married and her husband keeps dying (after the 3rd one she’s
considered a katlanis and can’t marry again), or establishing what a woman’s
period is (after 3 cycles = chazaka). This is also evident from the Gemara
itself, which asks against the Mishna that Shor Mu’ad implies a chiyuv on on
the 4th time. Abaye and Rava are only arguing about interpretation of the
posuk for deriving this, not the number of gorings. There are some Geonim
 who mistakenly say that a shor is chayiv to pay nezek shaleim for the third
goring, and that is wrong.

Tosafos “Ee Mah”(Bava Basra 28A) – Rashi’s explanation in Bava Basra

is a retraction of his explanation in Bava Kama. In Bava Kama, if Rava holds 3
times, and Abaye holds 4, that means that Gemara is against the established
halachic pattern, because we always poskin like Abaye and not like Rava
(except for “Ya’Al KeGam”), and we know for sure that 3 also hold by 3
gorings. So in Bava Basra Rashi claims that they both agree on 3 gorings,
but are simply arguing about the way to darshen that from the posuk.
However, Rabbeinu Ezra says that both Abaye and Rava hold by 4 gorings,
not 3. They are arguing how to get that number 4 from the posuk: Abaye
sees all 4 in the words (see above), and thus the 4th goring following the
pattern of being on a separate day, so you need 4 gorings on 4 days. Rava,
however, reads the 4th goring as implicit, and therefore the 4th goring could
happen on the same day as the 3rd.

14) What is the chidush of the Maharam MiRotenberg in the matter

of Mashiv HaRuach U’Morid HaGeshem? What is there to explain
about his words?

Tashbeitz (p. 20) – If one isn’t sure that he said “Mashiv HaRuach U’Morid
HaGeshem” within 30 days of starting Shemini Atzeres, he has to repeat
Shemonah Esrei. After 30 days he can assume he is now accustomed to
saying it. He then quotes that his rebbe, the Maraham MiRotenberg would
say Atah Gibor until Morid HaGeshem – 90 times on Shemini Atzeres to make
up for the 30 days. He brings a proof from the Gemara in Bava Kama – the
idea of kol shekayn from Rabbi Meir (if a shor can become a mu’ad after 3
gorings on 3 days, then kol shekayn if it gores 3 times in one day).

Tur (p.22-23) – quotes the Maharam MiRotenberg’s practice,but then

cites Rabbeinu Peretz as never having seen the old rabbis in France do this.
Shor Hamu’ad is different because we are establishing a chazaka, not regilus
– which is the objective over here by Mashiv HaRuach.
 Drisha (p.23) - asks the obvious question: isn’t that only shittas Rabbi Meir?
We poskin like Rabbi Yehuda who disagrees and says that it has to be 3
separate days.

Masechta Ta’anis 21A-B (p.18) – dever = a plague in a city that warrants

the proclamation of a fast is defined as 3 deaths in 3 days. Does it also work
for 3 deaths in 1 day? That depends on the machlokes about Shor Hamu’ad
between Rabbi Yehuda (he’d say no) and Rabbi Meir (he’d say yes).

Magen Avraham (p.24) – don’t we poskin like Rabbi Yehuda? He answers –

the reason why we don’t poskin like Rabbi Meir in the case of the beheimah,
maybe he just had a wild streak that day – one bad day. Or perhaps it isn’t
called dever if the 3 people die in one day.

Taz (p.24) – To establish regilus in saying “Mashiv HaRuach” would actually

take more than 90 times (including Mussaf), and “V’sein Tan U’matar” would
require less than 90 times (excluding Shabbos). In an event, we don’t poskin
like R’ Meir. By the shor, we need to establish that is has a certain nature –
which is seen in three days of goring or perhaps 3 gorings in one day. The 90
repetitions wouldn’t really work, since you need time (several days) to get
used to saying it. All we need to do by the shor is confirm if it has a violent
nature or not.

Rav Shechter – Everyone agrees with Rabbi Meir’s sevara of koln shekayn.
The issue by the shor mu’ad however, is that we have a gezeiras hakasuv
that is very specific, it tells us about the halachic chalos that must take place
– specifically, goring 3 Jews over 3 days. We are not simply trying to establish
a regilus of goring by the ox, but to see if the ox fulfills the halachic specifics
that define a shor mu’ad.

PACKET 5: B’INYAN HAGDARAS CHEZKAS GIMMEL SHANIM.

15) Give the explanation of the Ritva in the words from the
Gemara “From where do we know that a chazaka is 3 years?”
Explain.

Ritva (p.3-4) – tefisa works for metaltelin, by physically holding onto an

object (like wearing a tie), you demonstrate ownership. But anyone can walk
 onto a piece of land, so being “tofeis” doesn’t prove anything. Clearly land
isn’t like metaltelin, otherwise there would be an immediate recognition of
ownership by the fact that I’m standing in the land now, even for a few
moments. Since land is not like metaltelin, even three years should not be
enough to establish ownership via chazaka. (Rav Simon then said in shiur
that the Gemara then learns the concept of chazaka from Shor Hamu’ad –
this isn’t so clear).

16) Explain the words of Tosafos (Bava Basra 28B) “Ela Mei’atah”
that you are able to acquire with a chazaka of three years through
mechilah.

Tosafos “Elah Me’atah” (Bava Basra 28B) – what’s the possibility that
chazaka without a ta’ana could work? You didn’t claim anything. Maybe the
case in the Gemara is that after 3 years of being there, the mara kama is
mochel him. The chazaka is then in lieu of the shtar.

Problem: mechilah only works for an intangible obligation, not on something

that exists (be’ein). If I owe you a chov, and you say you’re mochel, the chov
is finished. But, I can’t say I’m mochel a tie to you. How do you answer this
question? Let’s say I forgot the tie at your house, and I say I’m mochel, you
keep it – since it is already in your reshus, maybe mechilah works even on a
b’ein. So perhaps since the karkah has been in his reshus for 3 years, that the
mechilah would work on a b’ein.

17) Explain the distinction between karkah and metaltelin related

to chazaka about anything that is beneath his hand is considered
his.

Ritva (p.3-4) – tefisa works for metaltelin, by physically holding onto an

object (like wearing a tie), you demonstrate ownership. But anyone can walk
onto a piece of land, so being “tofeis” doesn’t prove anything. Clearly land
isn’t like metaltelin, otherwise there would be an immediate recognition of
ownership by the fact that I’m standing in the land now, even for a few
moments. Since land is not like metaltelin, even three years should not be
enough to establish ownership via chazaka. (Rav Simon then said in shiur
that the Gemara then learns the concept of chazaka from Shor Hamu’ad –
this isn’t so clear).

18) What do the Ramban and the Ktzos argue about in the
understanding of the din of chezkas gimmel shanim?
 Bava Basra 42A – achla ha’av shana, v’haben shtaim, the chazaka is
divided by father for 1 year and son for 2 years – you can combine the
father’s living there and the son’s. Or if the father lived there 1 year, the son
a second year, and the lokeach a 3rd year – if the mara kama doesn’t say
anything – both are good chazakas.

Ramban (p.8) – Yesh meforshim say that the son has to be a gadol,
because you can’t be mocheh to a katan, he won’t listen and protect his
shtar. Like the different city – no chiyuv macha’a, so no chazaka either.
Another braisah says achla bifnei haben – also refers to son who is a gadol.
Then he says a pun – but I am not muchzak in this reason. Ramban says the
reason is not just to preserve the shtar, but also if the mareh kama is quiet,
that gives raglaim l’davar that it isn’t mine anymore and after 3 years that is
confirmed. So memayleh – that applies to a katan also, if the machzik is a
katan that counts. If you hold the reason for 3 years is just to keep the shtar,
fine. Mashma that 3 years is a din de’oraisa, an umdenah that it’s probably
not yours.

Ketzos HaChoshen (p.9) – quotes this Ramban – this whole thing is a

takanas d’rabbanan. It’s not like today with file cabinets, etc. to preserve
documents. People had a hole in the wall where they kept pieces of paper,
and they were eventually damaged or lost. If shtaros were the only proof of
ownership, people wouldn’t want to do commerce because they knew if they
bought things, it could become a problem once the shtar wore out, so they
wouldn’t want to buy things. So chazal made a takana that after 3 years don’t
need to keep the shtar and the chazaka becomes the proof of ownership.
According to the Ketzos, the deoraisa din is that the mara kama always wins
out, but derabbanan – after 3 years, the chazka takes effect.

19) What do the yesh meforshim and the Ramban argue about in
the words of the Gemara that the father ate one year, and the son
two years, etc.?

Yesh meforshim say that the son has to be a gadol, because you can’t be
mocheh to a katan, he won’t listen and protect his shtar. Like the different
city – no chiyuv macha’a, so no chazaka either. Another braisah says achla
bifnei haben – also refers to son who is a gadol.
 Ramban says the reason is not just to preserve the shtar, but also if the
mareh kama is quiet, that gives raglaim l’davar that it isn’t mine anymore
and after 3 years that is confirmed. So memayleh – that applies to a katan
also, if the machzik is a katan that counts. If you hold the reason for 3 years
is just to keep the shtar, fine. Mashma that 3 years is a din de’oraisa, an
umdenah that it’s probably not yours.

20) What does the Ketzos explain regarding the words of the
Gemara “Rava says if there is a katan lying in a crib, there is an
immediate chazaka?

The mishna (Bava Basra 28A) says avadim have a chazaka of 3 years, and
the Gemara (36A) says if it’s a katan in an arisa, a little eved canaani, that
you say you bought, he has an immediate chazaka.

Ketzos HaChoshen (p.13) – Ramban says really each chazaka should work
every time immediately, except for the re’eisa that lasts 3 years of show me
your shtar. So if I have a baby in a carriage, and no one came to get it, the
baby should be mine – but shouldn’t the re’eisa of achvi shtarcha apply here
also? He gives a mashul – sometimes the ra’aya is SO strong that l’altaiur
wins, because it’s such a strong ra’aya. Brings a gemara – the me’arair is
helping him harvest the fruit, load the trucks, the protester is helping the
machzik, so how can he say it is his if he is helping him and putting it into the
machzik’s house? But a katan mutal b’arisa – no one just leaves a baby
around, so you must have sold it, so that trumps even achvi shtara.

21) Is there a chazaka by godros? Explain. Is there a chazaka by

metaltelin that was made to borrow or rent? Explain.

The gemara says tha avadim have chazaka of 3 years – but what about
godros – cattle, don’t have a chazaka because they are always wondering.
How can you say avadim have a chazaka when godros don’t?

Rambam (p.20) – Only mentions that avadim have a chazaka of 3 years, he

doesn’t mention godros at all.
 Maggid Mishna (p.20) – says the Rambam doesn’t bring this din of godros
having a chazaka of 3 years. The Mishna only says chazaka of 3 eyars by
avadim, but doesn’t mention godros.

Rashi learns that beheimah and chaya have the same din of avadim, which
is 3 years. Once it wanders onto my land and no one says anything for 3
years, it’s mine.

Ba’al Ha’Itur (p.21) – Does a split, no chazaka by metaltelin, because of no

shtar, but quotes Reish Lakish on godros.

Beis Yosef (p.23) - Rambam wrote the 3-year chazaka by an eved. Says the
Ba’al Ha’itur holds like the Rambam.

Sema (p.24) – godros ain lahem chazaka. Also, something that is usually
lent also has no chazaka because the fact that it is in my possession doesn’t
meant anything, since they were probably borrowed or rented. But the big
thing by metaltelin is that metaltelin are not bnai shtara.

As R’ Shechter explained – how do you define metaltelin? Like defining a

chair? A piece of land can be described by its location. Maybe like the Ketzos
– the whole takana d’rabanan was never said by metaltelin – that’s what the
Ba’al Ha’Itur says.

PACKET 6: B’INYAN KEVI’US MAKOM DIRA L’CHEZKAS GIMMEL SHANIM U’LECHIYIV

MEZUZA

22) What is the connection between the sugya in Bava Basra

regarding living in a dwelling both day and night and hilchose
mezuzah?

Shulchan Aruch (p.11) - says that a chanus/storefront is not chayiv in a

mezuzah/
The Taz (P.11) - says because you’re not there at night.

Minchas Ani/Yad Ketana (p.12) - Or they are makeshift chanuyos – only

up for the fair, but if they were a permanent office, or store, even if onl y
there in the daytime – would need

Shulchan Aruch (p.10) - says a beis haotzer is chayiv in mezuzah. (Why is

a chanus different from a beis otzer?)

The Taz (p.11) – the beis otzer is serving its purpose of storage, by day and
night. For a chanus, the main thing isn’t storage – it’s selling. Since you’re not
there at night, no mezuzah.

Or maybe talking about not keeping the merchandise there at night, so een
hachi namii, if you did, it’d be chayiv in mezuzah.

Birur Halacha (p.18) – Mentions the explanation of the Taz. The beis otzer
is actually attached is one’s house, so there is an aspect of “living there” – or
benefitting from there while living in the house, hence it needs a mezuzah.
You would never have that connection to a storefront.

what about stores nowadays that are open at night? They used to close
stores at night.

Rav Abadi said the chiyuv of mezuzah is referring to a dirah. R’ Abadi

quoted R’ Yaakov Kaminetzki – beis haotzer only chayiv if it is attached to a
dirah, like have a storage room in your house that you keep your wine in –
that’s the kind of beis haotzar the Shulchan Aruch is referring to.

L'ma’aseh – we put up mezuzos without a bracha on a business office, to be

choshesh for the Yad Ketana.
23) Explain the inyan of retzufos regarding chezkas habatim. What
is the connection between this and the chiddush of Rabbi Akiva Eiger
regarding the bracha on a mezuzah?

R’ akiva Eiger (p.23) – living in a house for the sake of establish a chazaka
has to be retzufos – if you go away for Shabbos, do you lose the chazaka,
maybe you do. Maybe for chazaka it has to be mamash retzufos, day and
night, and every single day and night.

R’ Akiva Eiger brought some chiddushim – if someone moves into a new

apartment, and there are already mezuzos up, he has to make a new bracha
on them, because he is making it a makom dirah, since no one was living
there recently.

Then he wants to say a bigger chiddush – every time you come home from
work each day, have to make a bracha on your mezuzah. He’s not sure,
tzarich iyun on this. Le’ma’aseh when you’re not there, it isn’t a dirah.
(Pashut pshat is, I’m still living there when I leave sometimes – that’s how
people live).

Magen Avraham (24) – David Hamelech in the bathhouse, not have any
mitzvos, but he has mila. The question is, the ARIZAL is machmir that you
have to sleep in the talis katan, brings a raya from David HaMelech. Why the
bathhouse and not when he goes to sleep? He had his tzitzis, but you could
also say he had his mezuzah, which he wouldn’t have by the bathhouse,
since it isn’t a regular house. R’ Akiva Eiger wants to bring a raya from that.

R’ Yitzchak Elchanan (p.28) - wants to say that isn’t a proof, David just
wanted to say that he wasn’t surrounded by mitzvah, not a question of being
mekayaim any mitzvos – he’s not surrounded, no mezuzah there. So when he
gets back later in the day, shouldn’t make a new Bracha.

Rabbeinu Yonasan (p.26) – a person has 10 houses and only goes in them
once a year, are they chayiv in mezuzos? He says yes. Not everyone agrees.
24) Explain the shita of the Rambam related to ta’anas shemah
related to a dwelling at night and establishing a chazaka of 3 years.

Rambam (p.3) - The mara kama says perhaps you weren’t there at night.
This is against the Rashbam who says it has to be a ta’ans bari – knows for
sure you weren’t there.

Shach (p.5) – shemah/perhaps isn’t a ta’ana, you could say shemah about
anything. Rambam doesn’t mean shemah mamash. Rather, he says I was
there several times when I knocked on your door at night and you weren’t
there. Could be you were out those nights – or maybe you don’t live there at
night. Stam shemah out of the blue is nothing.

PACKET 7: B’INYAN CHAZAKA B’MITZVOS

25) Explain the parameters of the chazaka for mitzvos.

Yoma (p.1-2) Gemara: pinch hitter kohen gadol, one year, but then the real
kohen gadol comes back. What do we do with the second one? Is he also a
kohen gadol? Or not even serving as a kohen hedyot?

Tosafos (p.2) – what’s the difference, we don’t have kohen gadol. Rav Yosef
is who we poskin by, that he is neither. Rather it is relevant for the Rosh
Hakahal in shul – let’s say he got sick, and someone replaced him, he got
better – so he gets his job back.

Maharsha (p.3) – everyone agrees that he gets his job back, but what is the
status of the other guy, or the 2nd kohen gadol?

That’s the din – if a person has a position given to him by the community, he
is muchzak in it.
Ta’anis (p.4) – when Ezra brought people back for Bayis Sheini – had no
wood to do the avoda, so some families donated wood. The nevi’im made a
takana that these families get first priority to donate wood any time they
want, even if the Beis Hamikdash has wood.

Why need to do that? Especially if they had chazaka? R’ Berger –

Mahahram Ash(?) – they didn’t establish a chazaka, they just donated when
no one else could. Chazaka would mean that they were the ones that
donated (when others could as well) and then they were appointed to the
donators. This was a one-time thing – so not a chazaka.

Mordechai in Bava Basra (p.5) – if a person is ragil to do a certain

mitzvah, like gelilah or taking out the 2nd sefer Torah – and he got sick and
couldn’t do it, so he gets it back. But if he declines when offered – he loses
the privilege.

Mordechai in Megillah (p.6) – a guy bought the rights to pay for the wine
for havdallah. There seems to be no chazaka here.

Shairei Knesses HaGedolah (p.7) – no chazaka if he dies, but there is a

chazaka by mitzvos.

Shulchan Aruch (p.8) – brings the Mordechai in Bava Basra (p.5)

SHUT Radvaz (p.10) – widow lit the candles in the shul, they wanted to sell
it, but the husband built the shul and gave her the rights.

Rama (p.12) – you donated a sefer Torah to the shul – and they read from
your Sefer Torah, and then someone else donates a sefer Torah and they
want to split the reading, can they do that? The Rama says – there is no
chazaka here, it isn’t the pshat that they gave him the right. They had no
other sifrei Torah. If they had 5 sifrei Torah and they chose his – that’s giving
him the right. But here, they were only using his because they had no other,
so the 2nd guy CAN ask for them to read from his Sefer Torah.

Gemara in Gittin (p.14) – which house do you keep the box of matzos for
the eruv in? Keep it in the old house you always used, mipnei darchei
Shalom.

Gemara Gittin (p.15) – chashada, if you change the house, people might
think – there’s no eruv in the house, so there is no eruv anymore. People are
still carrying, think they are carrying without an eruv.

Maharik (p.16) – why don’t you just say it is because of chazaka? Why
mention because of darchei Shalom? Chazaka is when there is no reason, so
have to keep it. But there is the other aspect of chashada – people will say
that some scandal is going on – that’s the pshat in the gemara. There must
have been a reason that they wanted to change the eruv from one house t
another – a valid reason. Regarding the chazaka, that’s ok – the chiddush of
the gemara is that once there is no chazaka, there is still the issue of
chashada.

Shulchan Aruch (p.18) - Same thing with the minyan – maybe had a good
reason, but it will cause chashada – people will think there is some scandal in
your house.

If no one of the tzibbur officially appointed him – even if he was doing it, that
isn’t a chazaka either.

Shut Imrei Eish (p.20) – quotes the Mishpetai Shmuel, they had a chevra
kadisha, and now someone else wants to do it. That’s only if, according to the
Magen Avraham that there was no official group appointed to do it. If there is
an official chevra kadisha, given eh right of doing this mitzvah, someone
can’t come in and say they want to be in charge of burying meisim.
 Eliyahu Raba (p.19) -He tells a story of when the Kli Yakar passed away –
his talmidim wanted to bury him. Why should they lose out just because a big
tzadik dies – they do it for the pashuteh Yidden, they should be able to do it
for the Gadol as well. That’s the din, it’s their right. If they want to give it to
the talmidim, they can.

Igros Moshe( p.29) – Someone was ba’al tefilah, and now two shuls merge
– R’ Moshe feels that vis-à-vis the second beis hakenesses, he doesn’t have a
chazaka – and there is no chashad here either. They were never mekabel him
as their chazzan. So now that they are having a merger, all bets are off – a
new combination of two shuls, it’s a new entity. That’s even if they are
staying in the same building – certainly if they are going to a new building.
Sometimes could be a good chazzan for a small building and not so good for
a big building.

Maharam Shik (p.23-24) – this guy in shul became a ba’al machlokes – so

they wanted to make a kenas (fine) on him, can’t get an aliyah for a certain
time, and he donated a yad (the pointer) to the shul, and they didn’t want to
use his yad, also his “Shevisi HaShem L’negdi Tamid” sign –they wanted to
give it back to him. He didn’t like that – even went to secular court over this.
There are two reasons not to meshaneh, he said – chashada and chazaka.
What about the cheifetz itself that it had a chazaka of using this particular
item? Keren in the north of the mishkan, that board that was used there was
holiest. You should keep the yad there and someone else should buy the
rights and you’ll take his name off, same thing with the Shevisi sign.

Inyanei D’Yoma

B’inyan Rosh Hashana Shechal Lihiyos B’Shabbos

1) Explain the psukim of Yom Teruah v’Zichron Teruah according to the

Bavli and Yerushalmi.

Emor (p.1) – Zichron Teruah - we only remember the teruah.

Pinchas (p.2) – Yom Teruah - we do blow the shofar.

 Bavli Rosh Hashana (p.3) – we don’t blow the shofar on Shabbos. The
posuk in Pinchas is Rosh Hashana on a weekday, and posuk in Emor is Rosh
Hashana on Shabbos. If that’s a deoraisa, then how can we blow shofar in the
Beis Hamikdash, if this was a derabbanan then we have a rule that there is
no derabbanan in the Beis Hamikdash, so how can we have a “kulah” to blow
shofar in the Beis Hamikdash on a Rosh Hashana that was on Shabbos? The
Gemara says you’re right – there must be a different reason – and that is the
gezeira d’Raba – that you’ll come to carry. That’s the masgana of the bavli.

Yerushalmi (p.6) – cites the same two psukim with the same question. They
don’t backtrack – the reason why we always blow in the Mikdash – by Pinchas
where it says Yom Teruah is also mentions the Korbanos – so in the makom
Korbanos you always have Yom Teruah.

Shibolei Haleket (p.8) – Raba is not a gezeira d’rabanan, because his

gezeira works with the psukim. He’s explaining why it is in the psukim like
this – not creating a new gezeira derabanan.

Birkas Moadecha (p.9) – even our minhag, regular Rosh Hashana we say
Yom Teruah and on Shabbos we say Zichron Teruah – it’s also based on the
same notion of that it’s based on the psukim. Even if you hold like Raba –
he’s just explaining, not new gezeira.

Zichron Shmuel (p.24-25) – Mitzvah of Shofar is in Pinchas, when Yom Tov

mitzvos are in Emor, Pinchas is for korbanos. He explains that we know
Shofar is like what R’ Saadia Gaon says – to be mamlich HKBH, making HKBH
our king. So the makom of HKBH’s throne is the Beis Hamikdash. The psukim
in Pinchas are talking about the mishkan – like Beis Hamikdash – the mitzvah
of Shofar is that of crowning HaShem king.

2) Give the shittah of the Rif on the inyan of Tekiyas Shofar on Rosh
Hashana that falls on Shabbos.

Mishna in Rosh Hashana (p.3) - says you can blow shofar on Rosh
Hashana that falls on Shabbos in the mikdash, also in a beis din.
 What type of Beis din you need? Real Beis din is smucha – with semicha ish
mipi ish from Moshe Rabbeinu. We don’t have real semicha anymore, we
don’t give Torah punishments anymore – need 23 people who have that
semicha. So when it says need a beis din, do we need that real kind of beis
din, or the kind that we have nowadays?

Rif (p.5) – quotes this din that you can blow shofar on R”H that falls on
Shabbos in front of a beis Din.

Ran (p.5) – comments – why is the Rif quoting such a din, he only quotes
things that are le’ma’aseh. We don’t have real semichah nowadays, so the
din shouldn’t apply. So you see from here that the Rif quotes it – he must
hold that a beis din doesn’t have to be a beis din of smuchim. The Rif himself
did that – they blew shofar on R”H that was on Shabbos.

3) Explain the Taz that perhaps they did not decree that perhaps you’ll
come to fix an instrument with regard to blowing the shofar.

Taz (p.11) – has a yesod, whenever the Torah permits something explicitly,
the chachamim don’t have a right to say you can’t do it. Famous idea – we
don’t play musical instruments on SHabbos because if they break you might
come to fix them and fixing them is a melacha. So how can you ever blow
shofar on R”H at all – might come to break and fix it – can’t say that, because
you’ll never have the mitzvah of shofar. So chachamim can’t say that a
mitzvah that the Torah said it exists doesn’t exist. Never explicitly said to
blow shofar on Rosh Hashana on Shabbos, so can make a gezeira, but not
against blowing shofar because of possibly fixing an instrument.

4) Explain the words of the Gemara in Rosh Hashana (16B) “R’ Yitzchak
says, any year that they don’t blow shofar at the beginning it’s bad
for that year at the end. What’s the reason? Because they didn’t
mess up the satan.”

Rosh Hashana 16B (p.13) – any year that you don’t blow shofar at the
beginning of the year, there will be something not good at the end of the
year – you weren’t mearbayv the satan.
 Tosafos says from the Bahag – it doesn’t mean that it fell out on Shabbos –
you don’t blow, it doesn’t mean it’ll chas v’shalom be a bad year. What’s it
referring to? If bemayzid not blowing shofar, I understand. But the Behag is
referring to Oneis – some unforeseen circumstance happened and you
weren’t able to blow. The question is – Oneis Rachmana Patrei – why should
you be held accountable if it was an oneis?

Meshech Chochma (p.14-15 ) – says that the pshat is, we know that the
shofar helps us in front of HKBH – a person needs medicine, and for some
reason the pharmacy is closed and can’t get his medicine. The shofar is like
the refuah – if you don’t do it, won’t get better – like the mashul.

5) Give the Shitas HaGRA about the times of kesiva and chasima on
rosh hashana and yom hakippurim.

We say l’shana tova tichaseiv v’seichaseim on Rosh Hashana, because no

one has a chasima on R”H only a kesiva. Even thoughthe gemara says that
the tzadikim gemura are nechtav b’nechtam l’altair, it’s only the beinonim
who are in limbo. Our minhag is to say this on R”H – wishing that everyone
should be considerd tzadikim gemurim and be sealed immediately.

Rama (p. 10) – just mentions “v’seichaseiv” in the greeting.

Magen Avraham (p.10) – adds v’seichaseim, because of tzadikim who are

written and sealed for

life.

GRA (p.11) says by Tosafos (p.7) – when they say the tzadikim are written
and sealed immediately, that’s for life in the next world – that’s inscribed for
them on R”H. But to be written and inscribed for life in THIS world – no
guarantee, even for tzadikim gemurim – so no point in saying the greeting
because no one is sealed for this world.
 Tosafos Rid (p.9) – if Tzadikim get written and sealed for life immediately,
how do they ever die? HaShem has His cheshbonos, and the din of Tzadik or
Rasha is for that year, so a Tzadik may be deemed a Rasha for whatever
reason so that he dies that year.

6) Give the shittah of the Kochvei Ohr has a question about teshuva
during the 10 days of teshuva.

Gemara says that you have to the beinonim teshuva during the 10 days of
teshuva.

Kochei Ohr (p.15) – why have to do teshuva? If equal mitzvos and aveiros –
why do teshuva, just do more mitzvos? Tzadikim gemura are nechtav
immediately for chayim, and the reshayim are nechtav for misa right away,
for beinonim, that’s what the aseres ymei teshuva is for.

Rabbeinu Yona (p.21) - Not doing teshuva will be counted against you –
mashul of guy in jail, and he didn’t escape, king beats him up – you’re stupid
for not getting out.

Meshech chochma (p.26-27) - Teshuva doesn’t just work for us, it can also
work against us. Do an aveira, a one second lapse. It is bad, but doesn’t last
long. You’re responsible for all the subsequent minutes that you didn’t do
teshuva. We have two psukim, Re’eh (p.24) posuk mentions – bracha and
klalala andNitzavim (p.25) – chayim and maves. Why the change? When
you are doing a mitzvah or aveirah, that’s bracha and klala, but now that
you’ve done the aveira, you’re subsequently responsible for every moment of
teshuva that you didn’t do.

Amek Habracha (p.28-29) – teshuva works retroactively and can change

the aveiros into mitzvos, the year is over, can’t add more onto it. Doing
mitzvos isn’t going to help tip the scale for the previous eyar, you’re in the
new year.
 Rav Simon – based on the Tosafos Rid – how does anyone ever die? The
year that the chofetz chayim died he did more aveiros? No tzadik means
tzadik in this din. A person may be a rasha, but in this particular judgment
HaShem might want him to live this year, look at certain mitzvos he did and
not look at his aveiros. HaShem can be selective in making His judgment. So
memeilah, doing more mitzvos won’t count, HaShem won’t count them, but if
you do teshuva you will knock out all your aveiros – and HaShem won’t have
anything to hold against you, even if He wants to judge against you, there
won’t be anything left to judge you by.

7) What do the Rambam and Rosh argue about regarding chal shem
shomayaim on a sukkah?

Sukkah (p.2) says that the Sukkah has kiddusha like a korban (from posuk
on p.1) and can’t be used for anything for the 7 days of Sukkos. You Can’t
decide that you need extra wood for a table in the middle of sukkos and take
away part of the Sukkah. If you do, it may be a possible Torah violation.

Rambam (p.3) – this is on the schach and the walls (defanos)

Rosh (p.4) – this is only the schach, not the walls.

Shulchan Aruch (p.5) – poskins like the Rambam.

8) What is the chiddush of the Taz regarding chal shem shomayim on

the sukkah?

Taz (p.6) – this issur is one when taking something away from the Sukkah,
but can get hana’ah from the structure.

9) Give the chidush of the Rashba regarding Sukkas GANBA”CH

 Masechta Sukkah 8A (p.2) – if a goy builds a sukkah in a kosher way, for
shade, the fact that he’s a goy doesn’t make it the sukkah not kosher for use.

Rashba (p.9) – has a chiddush – even though the sukkah is kosher, it is not
chal shem shomayim, it doesn’t have the added element of that special
kiddusha. You can be yotzei it without having that kedushas sukkah.

10) Explain the distinction between mechilah and ritzui.

Level 1 – not even mochel. Level 2 is mechilah, but the relationship won’t be
restored to what it was. But then there the 3rd level, not only is there
mechilah, but there is ritzui – you want the relationship to be the way it was.

Rabbeinu Bachaye (p.20) – by Yosef and the brothers there wasn’t even a
real mechilah. Even though Yosef said – “don’t worry, it all turned out for the
best” – there was no mechilah. Hence 10 martyrs.

GRA on Shir Hashirim (p.16) - Sukkos represents ritzui . Why is Sukkos on

the 15th? When we did the golden calf, we lost the ananei hakavod. So at Yom
Kippur, HaShem says “Salachti Kidvarecha” – but the relationship wasn’t
restored because they didn’t have the Ananei HaKavod back. Moshe went
down the day after Yom Kippur, the 11th – told them to donate for the
Mishkan. On the 12th and 13th they brought their nedavos. On the 14th the
Chachmei Lev started gathering the donations. And on the 15th they started
building, and that’s when the Ananei HaKavod came back. Not only do we
have what we lost, but everything was restored to the way it was initially.

GRA siddur (p.21) – hence it says “vratzisa banu” for Sukkos. Hence it is
compared to a korban.

11) Give the shittah of the GRI”Z regarding the non-Jewish nations
wanting schar…

Avoda Zara 2A-B (p.4) - On Yom HaDin - All the goyim come to HaShem
and say all that they did in this world, all the roads they paved etc was for the
purpose of Bnei Yisrael learning Torah. So HaShem says – shotim, you did it
for your own purpose.

Brisker Rav in Beraishis (p.5) – quotes Rambam introduction to Mishnayos

– a king builds a palace because he wants it. No, BR says – one day a tzadik
will walk by and he’ll get benefit from the shade of the big building and that’s
the one reason why HaShem let that palace exist. It says shotim and not
shakranim – that’s the reason – that wasn’t your kavana. That’s why I let it
happen, but that wasn’t your intention. He didn’t have that tzadik in mind,
but HaShem did.

Tehillim - A person will only be able to build a house if HaShem gives His
approval.

R’ Yitzchak Sorotzskin (p.8) – on Sifrei – if I lost $10 bill in the steet, have
ye’ush and the Ani finds it a few days later, you get schar for that act, even if
it wasn’t your intention.

Rinas Yitzchak (p.9-10) – HKBH isn’t just stam giving schar, but for esek
haTorah – so people who learn Torah get schar, so too those who support it.
Other acts only count as esek haTorah if that was your intention. Help people
be osek baTorah. But if you didn’t have kavana for it, doesn’t count. Ex. – you
pave the road with the intention of making sure people get to the shiur.

Explain the drasha of the Gemara in nazir on the posuk – HaShem Yislach La –
a woman took a neder, like not to eat icre-cream, and one day she goes and
eats and icecream cone, and the husband had already nullified it. When she
did it, she thought she was doing and Aveira – still get punished. So the
question is like this

Vayechi (p.13) - when Yosef is sold by the brothers, you thought it was
bacd, but good indeed. The brother didn’t really wrong him.

What about Nazir (p.11) – even though it wasn’t intended to be a bracha,

you still need kapara. When she though she was biolating the neder and
wasn’t – still need kapara.
Kli Chemda (p.15)– makes a distinction between bein adam l’chaeiro and
bain adam L’Makom. Bein Adam L’chaveiro – if you didn’t poison him at the
end of the day, that counts.

Bein Adam L’Makom – intended/thought to do something wrong, need

kapara.

R’ Yitzchak Schmelkes – depends if you had in mind to do wrong, but did a

mitzvah in the end, ok. But the woman – intended to do an aveira, but didn’t
quite – need kapara.

Menachos (p.12) – There’s a little baby drowning in the sea and this guy is
fishing on Shabbos. His kavana was to pull his net in to catch fish, but he
saves the baby. He had kavana to be mechalel shabbos, but ended up doing
something permissible (saving a life). It’s a machlokes between Raba and
Rava if we follow the kavana or the ma’aseh.

R’ Chaim Shmulevitz quotes a Gemara: Thought Rav Kahana was laughing

– but it was just the way his jaw was. R’ Yochanan was so hurt that he
thought he was laughing at him, Rav Kahana died. So R’ Chaim Shmuleviztz –
bein adam l’chaveiro is mamash the result. I put my hand in the fire with the
kavana that it shouldn’t hurt – it’s going to hurt you anyway. The same thing,
when you hurt someone’s feelings, it’s like putting your hand in the fire, even
if you didn’t have kavana.

R’ Chenoch Leibowitz argued with this Yesod – Mishna in Yuma – when

they’re getting the Kohen Gadol ready for the Avoda – they made the KG take
a shevua to do the avoda properly – everyone was crying – felt bad that they
were chosheid him. Taking this old rav with a long, white beard and making
take a shavua that he won’t mess up – that’s an insult. So the question is:
weren’t they just doing what they’re supposed to do? One of the talmidim
wanted to say based on R’ Chaim Shmuelevitz – this is what you’re supposed
to do, but since it is still insulting, that’s why you’re punished. R’ Leibowitz
said he didn’t like this idea by R’ Chaim Shmulevitz – it’s impossible to say
that R’ Kahana didn’t do anything wrong and he was punished. So what’s
pshat in the gemara in Yuma? They just realized how big an aveira choshed
k’sheirim is – they were allowed to in that case, but it triggered a feeling in
general how to be careful with this. But he doesn’t explain the gemara in
Bava Kama – why was Rav Kahana punished? If person is less mature, only
 know what’s in front of him. Said this, didn’t do this – doesn’t know what the
ramifications are.

HALACHA: INYANEI BIRKAS KOHANIM

1) What do Rashi and the Ramban argye about with the explanation of the
posuk in Vayikra 9:22 – Vayisa Aharan es yadad el ha’am vayivarcheim

Shemini (p.2-3) – Aharon lifted his hands and blessed the people.

Rashi (p.2) – this is Birkas Kohanim.

Ramban (p.4-5) disagrees – maybe nothing to do with Birkas Kohanim. Just a

regular bracha, like how Shlomo HaMelech blessed the people.

2) Is the practice of Brikas Kohanim today Deoraisa or just

Derabbanan? Explain.

R’ Yaakov Emden (p.11-12) – hence Birkas Kohanim nowadays is only

derabbanan because you have to have it with the korbanos.

Amek Bracha / Rav Soloveitchik – no, it is deoraisa, because we say it in

the context of tefillah and tefillah is b’makom korban. We start off Birkas
Kohanim by saying v’sayareiv – that our tefillos should be like a korban – so
we want out Birkas Kohanim to be deoraisa. Amek Bracha says that
someone asked R’ Chaim – if tefillah is only derabbanan, so how is Birkas
Kohanim going to be deoraisa? Tefillah d’rabannan means that the obligation
is only derabanan, but the inyan of tefillah is deoraisa according to everyone,
when you daven you are mekayaim a deoraisa.

3) What are the differences between Birkas Kohanim in the Beis

Hamikdash and in the Gevulin?

Misha in Tamid (p.6-9?) – in the morning they would bless the people

p.8-9 – in Mikdash it was one bracha – only answer Amein at the end, in the
medina it was 3 brachas, said amein as we did. In Mikdash, said shem HaShem
with shem hameforash, but in the medina – at shoulder level hands, but in
Mikdash – put hands above their heads, except for Kohein Gadol who couldn’t
put his hands above the tzitz.

Sifrei (p.22-23) – gevulin

 Sefer Yeshuas Ya’akov and Sefer Keren Ora explains this as well – how can
you have duchaning today, isn’t tefillah derabbanan? He’s bothered by this.
Then he says like R’ Yaakov Emden – it’s only in the Beis Hamikdash, but he’s
afraid to say such a thing, especially since Sifrei Zuttah says – Also Mishkanos
Yaakov – is Tefillah is only derabbanan, so how can duchaning be deoraisa?

The fact that a yachid is mispalel is only a mitzvah derabanan(huh?)

The people standing there in the mikdash when the korbanos were brought –
they were the shluchim of klal Yisrael – and everyone was yotzei with their
tefillos, even those who weren’t there. The chachamim were mesakein that if
you don’t know how to daven, you should daven by yourself (?). So when the
gemara says tefillah is derabbana – that’s personal tefillah, but communal
tefillah is deoraisa.

It’s only after the churban that people started davening themselves also.

Once there is no B”H and we started davening, does that make tefillah deoraisa.
When Ramban says that tefillah is derabbanan, it could mean that tefillah in the
tzibbur is deoraisa, but personal tefillah is derabbana, but when the chazzan
davens, that’s like the ma’amados – which are deoraisa, everyone is yotzei the
deoraisa. Bzman Ma’amados, only the anshei ma’amados davened not even a
chiyuv derabanan. Today, the yachid and the tzibur davens.

4) Explain the minhag of Kohanim in Chutz La’aretz that they only duchan
on Yom Tov.

Duchaning should be everyday.

Maharil (p.2) - why don’t we duchan everyday? Because the kohanim had a
minhag to go to the mikvah before they went. It isn’t the easiest thing to go to the
mikvah beforehand. So then it would be embarrassing, if some had keri come out of
him, he wouldn’t duchan until he went to the mikvah, if he went to the mikvah, then
everyone would know why, and if he didn’t he’d say why – (keri) and that would be
embarrassing. Second reason – people have to get to work, just like no Hosafos
during the week, so too no Birkas Kohanim – people have to get to work.

Darchei Moshe (p.1) – quotes the beis Yosef on Os chaf aleph – people are always
busy with their work, so they are not really happy – always thinking about their
work, even on Shabbos, thinking about their work. But on Yom Tov – people are
b’simcha.

Shulchan Aruch - Rama (p.4) – tov lev hu yevareich, ma she’ein kein beshar
yom. Even Yom Tov, only nosei kapayim by Mussaf. (By Reishis Bikurim because of
– chatas), by Mussaf because people are happier – know they are about to go home
and eat a meal, still a lot to go by shacharis where there is a lot of time to go and so
less happy.
Magen Avraham (p.6) - not duchan on Shabbos because it isn’t easy to get a
mikvah on Shabbos. So since they would always toveil before duchaning, and
couldn’t get a mikvah Shabbos morning, so they would mevatel the mitzvah of
ona’ah. So instead of not being with their wives, they were mevatel the duchaning.
Also, a minhag developed that some kohanim are not with their wives on leil yom
tov for this same concern. But if it is the leil tevillah, then he should to the mikvah in
the morning.

Sefer Chassidim (p.9) – quotes this minhag that people go to the mikvah to be
tahor for the yom tov. So that became a good time to duchan since the Kohanim
were tahor.

Rama mi’panu(?) – doesn’t like this minhag of not duchaning everyday. The
darshen of duchaning only on yom tov and then only by Mussaf but he doesn’t like
it.

Chasam Sofer (p.14-15) – tefillah is b’makom korban, but during the year when
people daven in a rushed fashion, they have very little kavana. So, on Yom Tov
when you have more time to daven and more kavana, so we want the birkas
kohanim to be coupled with a “better korban.”

Sefer Aliyos Eliyahu (p.10) – quotes the GR”A: The GR”A tried to reinstitute daily
birkas kohanim, and that very day he planned to start, he was put in jail. So he
stopped trying. Rav Chayim Velozhin also wanted daily birkas kohanim, and
announced “tomorrow, we’re starting!” That night, the shul burnt down. So they
decided to stop trying to reinstitute weekday/daily birkas kohanim. The Netziv
quotes these stories as well.

Munkatcher (p.12?)– discusses the minhag that when Yom Tov falls out on
Shabbos some places don’t duchan. The Magen Avraham says this is because of
the mikvah issue.

Sefer Nimukei Orach Chaim (p.12) – Shabbos-Yom Tov was a concern because
people might end up doing shechita after going to the mikvah and be chayiv skilla.

Beis Ephraim (p.19-23) – we’re not really sure kohanim today are real kohanim –
no one can really trace back the lineage to Aharon HaKohen. Basically, since they
are safek kohanim, how can they get up and duchan? So we will let then duchan
every once and a while so they don’t forget the Toras Kohanim. If we let them
duchan everyday, then we are giving approval that these kohanim are real
kohanim.

5) What’s the din if you only have one kohen in the beis hakenesses, is
there a chiyuv to say birkas kohanim? Explain.

Nasso (p.1) - The posuk says “amor LAHEM”

Sota 38A (p.2) – Abaye said – if there are two kohanim, call out “kohanim,” but if
only one, don’t say “kohen” becase the posuk says “amor lahem” – which means at
least 2.

Menachos 48A (p.4) – any kohen that doesn’t go up to duchan, he violates 3

mitzvos aseh.

Rabbeinu Tam – Tosafos Kol Kohen (p.4) – if you don’t have two kohanim, then
there is no amira to go up, and hence no chiyuv deoraisa based on the posuk, but
there is a chiyuv derabannan.

Yerushalmi Berachos (p.5) – by kohen echad, you DO say “kohan,” for two
kohanim, say “kohanim.” The second opinion is you would even say “kohanim” for
one kohen, because it is in reference to the entire shevet hakehuna, which he is
representing. This is in contrast to the Bavli.

Semak (p.10) - the minhag is to be koreh even for a yachid. But if the yachid
doesn’t go up after being called, he doesn’t violate an aseh because the posuk is
written in loshon yachid.

Maharam Mintz (p.13) –based on the smak, there is no chiyuv at all, and it he
can’t make a bracha, it would be levatala.

Tur (p.17) – quotes Rabbeinu Peretz (even if he means the Semak) – if there is only
one kohen, he isn’t over on the mitzvas aseh, because the posuk refers to at least
two.

Beis Yosef (p.17) – this is against the Bavli. Mayeb the tur holds there is no chiyuv
on a lone… (finish from notes)

Shulchan Aruch (p.18) – you aren’t koreh for a kohen echad, but he should still
duchan.

Magen Avraham (p.18) – quotes the Rabbeinu Tam that he duchans as a

derabbanan.

Pri Chadash (p.21) – quotes the Yerushalmi that for even kohen echad you call
out. The minhag is to make a bracha.

Maharam Schick (p.22) - discusses this: Birkas Kohanim is like an avodah. For the
avodah, we split up the kohanim into different groups. If there is only one kohen, it’s
obvious that he goes up because he has a chiyuv. But if there are more than one
kohen, he can say” let the other guy go do it for me.” So they have to call them all
up, to prevent them from saying let the other guy go up. The fact that there is no
amira is not a chisaron, you don’t need it.

Teshuvas Yehuda _____ (p.25) – quotes the Yerushalmi. In the time of Shas, the
guy who called out was the gabbai, because he could check and see how many
kohanim were there. Nowadays, it’s the chazzan, and he has no clue who is in shul,
so he always says “kohanim.”

6) Is a non-kohen (zar) able to go up to duchan? Explain according to the

Meforshim.

Parshas Nasso (p.1) – Amor Lahem implies only Kohanim, and not a non-Kohen.

Shabbas 118B (p.2) – Rabbi Yossie: “I always listen to my friends, I know that I am
not a kohen, but if my friends tell me to go up to duchan, I’d go up and duchan.”

Tosafos (p.2) – what’s the problem, maybe a bracha levatala.

Kesubos 24B (p.3) – it’s an issur for a non-kohen to go up and duchan, even if it
isn’t an explicit lo ta’aseh.

Maharsha (p.4) – maybe pshat in the gemara is that he would just go up. He
wouldn’t listen to his friends if they told him to make a bracha levatalla. So he
would go up to the duchan and not say anything.

Bach (p.5) – Rabbi Yossie would go up and say the words of birkas kohanim, but
wouldn’t make the bracha of asher kideshanu before or spread his hands. The issur
is only when you spread your hands.

Darkei Moshe (p.6) – Different pshat: Tosafos said a zar can go up, but that’s
against the Gemara in Kesubos. Perhaps a Yisrael can go up if there are other
kohanim as a kavod. But if he goes up alone, that’s an issur aseh.

Shulchan Aruch Rama (p.?) – maybe that’s pshat in Tosafos, but we don’t do that
either.

Magen Avraham (p.7) – quotes the Maharsha. Then he says that this is Rabbi
Yossi talking. There is a machlokes in Eruvin whether a woman can do mitzvas aseh
shehazman grama, like semicha on a korban – which women can do. It’s a
machlokes if she can or can’t, and Rav Yossi says she CAN do a mitzvas aseh
shehazman grama, so too a zar can do birkas kohanim. The Gemara in Kesubos that
says a zar is over an aseh if he does duchan, that’s the Rabbi Yehuda, other shittah
which says women can’t do mitzvas aseh shehazman grama.

Taz (p.__ - we didn’t do this in shiur, look for it) – I always thought I wasn’t a kohen,
but if my friends would tell me I was a kohen, that I would listen to them.

Pnei Yehoshua (p.12) – wants to make a distinction and say there is a difference
in the Beis Hamikdash, where they use the Shem HaMeforash, only kohanim can
duchan. But elsewhere, there isn’t a problem, it’s like saying psukim, so no issur.

Torah Temimah of Rabbenu Yerucham (p.26) – duchan just means the dais.
She’aini kedai, not she’aini kohen, it’s referring to being at some big affair, I don’t
think I’m so great, but if my friends tell me to go up and sit on the dais at a big
banquet, I’d go.

Just like there is a din of amor lahem – Vilna Gaon would only bless with one hand.
The concept of blessing with two hands is like the kohanim.

R’ Yaakov Emden (p.25) - even for a Yisrael, he can give a bracha with two
hands, like blessing for children.

7) Explain the parameters of kol ram in Birkas Kohanim.

Sotah (p.1) – like a person talking to his friend

Sifrei (p.2) – everyone has to hear.

Yerushalmi Sotah (p.5) – everyone has to hear, or not too loud, not too soft.

Pri Chadash (p.6) – if a very big shul, need to be loud.

Bach (p.7) – always have to do it loud

Tzafnas Pane’ach (p.10) – wants to make a chiluk, kol ram is the same as
shehiyeh kol echad shomaya, and if all the people in the shul are kohanim and they
go duchan, there is no one to hear anyway, so why even need kol ram – can be
b’lachash, it’s just for the people in the field then.

Nefesh HaRav Rav Shechter - ?

Mekor Chayom (p.12) – didn’t like it when the kohanim yell

8) Is there shomaya k’oneh by birkas kohanim?

Reishis Bikurim (p.13) – we only duchan by Mussaf, because it says chatas, then
he discusses the minhag in Triest Italy – only have one kohen duchan, all the others
would listen, based on shomaya k’onah. That’s pshat in the Mishna in Megilla
(p.15) where it says it was an insult to get maftir, so let him do other things like
duchan. What do you mean let that person duchan? According to him, this makes
sense, the guy who got maftir would also be the kohen who would say it out loud for
all the other kohanim.

Beis Halevi (p.14) - Birkas Kohanim needs kol ram, lachash is no good, shomaya
k’onah is like lachash

Chazon Ish (p.16) – not true, with Kiddush get also holding the cup W/shomaya
k’onah, as well as megillah holding a kosher megillah. So if the guy saying Birkas
Kohanim does it kol ram, everyone is yotzei.
Turei Even (p.9) – law is if there is 10 kohanim in shul, they all go to duchan, but if
there are 12, only 2 go to duchan and 10 stay back. How do you decide? The guy
who got maftir, he’ll definitely be one of the two to go up to duchan.

Netziv (p.17) -Thinks the Beis HaLevi is right, but for different reason – it’s tefillah,
and you don’t say shonaya k’onah by tefillah.

Rav Abadi though like Beis HaLevi. Thinks that Har Hatzvi says the same thing – the
guy holding up the cup relates to you.

9) Tzafnas Pane’ach on Birkas Kohanim b’lachash.

Tzafnas Pane’ach (p.10) – wants to make a chiluk, kol ram is the same
as shehiyeh kol echad shomaya, and if all the people in the shul are
kohanim and they go duchan, there is no one to hear anyway, so why
even need kol ram – can be b’lachash, it’s just for the people in the field
then.

10) What does the Chazon Ish ask about the Beis Halevi?

Beis Halevi (p.14) - Birkas Kohanim needs kol ram, lachash is no good,
shomaya k’onah is like lachash

Chazon Ish (p.16) – not true, with Kiddush get also holding the cup
W/shomaya k’onah, as well as megillah holding a kosher megillah. So if
the guy saying Birkas Kohanim does it kol ram, everyone is yotzei.

11) Give the answer to the Chazon Ish about megillah and Kiddush.

12) Explain the Netziv with regard to Shomaya K’onah.

Netziv (p.17) -Thinks the Beis HaLevi is right, but for different reason –
it’s tefillah, and you don’t say shonaya k’onah by tefillah.

13) Is there shomaya k’onah by bikkurim?

Bikkurim 3:7 (P.22) - Mikrah bikkurim? Also has to be kol ram – but it
seems if one was makreh for the others – so what does that mean? He
reads and they listen, or repeat after me?

Vilna Gaon – repeat after me situation

14) Why do we remove shoes?

The gemara had two reason – kavod tzibbur (shoes dirty, etc), 2 there could
be a retzua that is nifsak and you’re not going to know.

Rambam says yechayfim – could mean just without shoes. Another chashash,
they’ll think these are ben grushim and ben chalutzim.

Can you wear batei shokayim (socks)?

Hagaos Maimoni – according to the Ravya and Rav Ashi

Beis Yosef quotes it – then he says – even made of leather, since there is no
retzua – no chashashy that the strings will break. By shoes, even if they are
slip-on shoes – can’t wear it, since they were gozer on all shoes.

Perush chai -it is l’ikuva

Duchan is not le’ikuva – so maybe that’s what it means – the kohen shouldn’t
go up to duchan without shoes. Only on a platform they’ll see your shoes.
Only danger of laces getting caught, etc is only going up. M’ikar hadin, if
you’e not rising to a platform, you could wear your shoes.

Rav Ovadia Yosef – what if the kohen is an old man, can’t take off his shoes,
should he still duchan? He says that there is what to rely on.

The Shulcah Aruch said – in some communities, they’d take off the socks
even, so to have a moom on his feat – can see it now. Since they are nohaig
to take off socks, and so you have to, but have blemish on your feet, can’t
duchan.

R’ Moshe – a kohen that doesn’t have real feet. Wear shoe, not only notices,
and if takes off, looks strange - a moom on his foot. Should be able to leave
it on like the shoe.

Rav Moshe (p.23-5) says – people might think you’re a ben grusha or ben
chalutza. So what’s the pshat in Shulchan Aruch – someone who has mumim
b’raglav, he shouldn’t duchan in a community where they take off their
socks. The pshat is, if he wears socks when no one else wears socks –they
will think he has moomim, and that will be a distraction. But if it’s not a
chiddush, and everyone knows about his mumum, then it is okay for that guy
to duchan. The distraction isn’t looking at the difference between people, but
rather seeing that he is doing something different – so think there is
something different about him. If everyone knows, the din of the Shulchan
Aruch deosn’t apply. Therefore, not a distraction, but people thinking he’s
different, he must have a moom. But having socks and not having socks -
that’s no a deformity.

The difference is not a distraction, rather only if we see a difference that

makes us think of his deformituy. As long as he had this deformity, just go up
with your shoes.

Radvaz p.( ) IF ONLY one Kohen and he is the shaliach tzibur, he’s facing the
Aaron, so let the people come to the other side. One of the points he makes
– don’t worry that he’s not on the platform, it’s no le’ikuva.

Piskei Teshuva – duchan is no me’akayv

Sefer Pischei Teshuva, Teshva Beis Yehuda (couldn’t find it). That’s the only
source that holds you HAVE to go the duchan.

15) Explain the chiyuv of netilas yadaim for duchaning and the geder
of immediately washing followed by the bracha of hamotzi.

Hence semicha and shecht right away, but by metzora, have to wait and
bring it out to him, semicha, and bring it back

Gemara asks that question –so why don’t you just bring the animal out?
Could he put his hands inside the Azara = biah b’miktzas, does that count or
not. If lav shmei bia, let him put his hands inside and shecht right there. No,
have to shecht in a different part of the Azara. The Gemara says – according
to the Hava Amina like Rebbe, like the whole azara is kesheira for shechita,
even if you hold shmei biah, then it’s a problem

Magen Avraham (p.10) -But if you hold like Rebbe and mitzas is shmei
biah bring it out to him then bring it back. So we see from here that holech
mimakom l’makom is a hefsek, even a halicha muetes.
Amek Bracha – maybe halicha muetes is a problem if you have to be in a
certain place, from one halachic makom to another

Birkas Kohanim also with Netilas Yadaim, what do you do?

Aishel Avraham (p.13) - Buchacha – it’s enough takef walking toward the
duchan.

Keren Orah – as long as you do your best, then it is ok.

Pri Megadim (p.11) – may as well wash now, and maybe get water later –
yirei shomayim should be notail al haduchan.

For Chanukah – Maharam Rotenberg, Rambam, Mordechai, Ravya, Bach,

Yerushalmi