Take Ten for Talmud
1632BabaMetzia116- The debris from the fallen house, 3 reasons that it isn't Heilach
A very good morning on behalf of Teach 613. We welcome you to take 10-ft Almud. Baba Mitzia kuf tes zain 1 16 B pagination is 232. We have the privilege of starting the last parach in Baba Mitzia. Habbai is fuhu aliyyah. There's a house and there's an upper floor. Shoshanayim and they're owned by two different people. Shunaflu, and now the entire building, the whole structure, fell. Collapsed. Now in our times, the whole thing collapsed, I think most of us just think, okay, who's going to pay for a debris disposal? But actually, on a very basic level, the stones have value and they have the ability to rebuild and those stones are worth money. Who owns them? Shunaflu, shulkim beitzim uva'avanam uva'afar. The two of them divide the wood, the stones, and the dirt. Whatever's there, they divide it and that's how the asset is distributed. Viroim elu avanamu asuyas lehishtabar and we take into account which stones are more likely to have broken, meaning we look at the way that the house collapsed. If it collapsed at a distance, if it collapsed directly onto itself, and we figure out which stones would more likely be more likely to break. If it's going at a great distance, the upper stones perhaps would be more likely if the thing collapsed onto itself, we would be concerned that the bottom ones themselves were very weak and they simply gave. But whatever it is, different analysis, we would assess it. Detective work. Imhaya echadme amaqim iktsas avanamu, if one of them recognizes some of his stones, note-glun, so he takes those, v'olos lo minachhejban and we calculate accordingly from the remaining stones to distribute them appropriately. That's the Mishnah. iktsas avanamu, iktsas avanamu, it is an assessment done on which stones are more likely to be the ones that have broken and that person is going to end up with the broken stones to the extent that it makes sense. In sif dalid, haya echadmecha miktsas avanamu, if one of them recognizes some of his stones, v'in schleimos and they are complete stones, so they are the ones of value and he's claiming the more valuable product in this division. V'a shaini mo de la bakula and the second person agrees, those good stones are indeed yours. O shamodah, al-katsasam, v'al-katsasam, omerlo aniodea, or he admits to some of the stones and on some of them he says, "I don't know," note-lun, that person who claims those stones takes the good stones that he claims. After luhin gedolos v'itovos, yosamishhora avanamu, even though they're better than the others, v'a shaini no tokokoshleimos connecton and the second one takes an appropriate amount of what remains. Now, the question over here is that the mahabra joined together the case of modalabakula, that the second person admits, yes, those stones that you recognize, they're all yours and you can have them even though they're better, it's a better claim if we put this into monetary value, he's saying that he's entitled to 125 dollars of the debris and the other person is only getting 100 dollars of the debris because it's more valuable stones, it's better stones, that's fine if the second person agrees. But then the mahabra grouped in the same category, he says modalakut sausam, v'aakut sausam omelo iniodea, he admits to some and on the others says, "I don't know," and the other person gets to take whatever stones he claims are his. The question is a person saying, "I don't know," why is that such a weak claim, so to speak, that the other person gets to take whatever he claims. If a person, for example, would come over to somebody else and say, "You owe me 100 dollars," and he would say, "I don't know, I don't know what you're talking about," we wouldn't automatically say, "Okay, so you can collect because you don't know." So, why over here is, "I don't know, so weak." So, the smi explains sifkatan yudalif, da havele kimodabimiktsas, because once he admits that some of the stones are indeed a valid claim, so suddenly becomes a modabimiktsas he's admitting to part of the claim, and we have a rule that a person who admits to part of the claim has to swear on the part that he denies, and if he can't swear, then he has to pay, and over here also, he's not in a position to swear on the rest because he says, "Aniodea, I don't know," and therefore, kind of a by default, he's going to end up in a position where he's going to have to pay because of the rule of modabimiktsas admitting part of the claim, which is what he does when he admits that some of the stones are indeed belonging to the other person. Rabbi Kiva Eger asks a powerful question over here, "Tamu ali, I'm in wonderment. Hami komokom havele heilach. Why doesn't this person invoke the rule of heilach? Heilach is that when you have a modabimiktsas admitting part of the claim, if the person says, "I admit that part of the claim, but here's the money, it's right here." So then it's considered paid up, and it's no longer a case of modabimiktsas. "Tamu ali, because the amount that he's agreeing to, those stones verushusidimara kaimaha, those stones were in the possession of that person, and they remain in the possession of that person, and this second person who says, "Those are your stones," is not claiming them, they're not his, there's no modabimiktsas. "Vitsarach iungado," and it needs great investigation in order to understand why this case is called a modabimiktsas. Why don't you have the rule of heilach? The stones are sitting right here, take them, that's not modabimiktsas, that's not agreeing that "I have something that belongs to you." The nasyvassam ishba gives two answers. One answer that he gives is nishbar masha modabibshi uso, that through the negligence of this second person, some of those stones that are being claimed, and which he's admitting, those good stones belong to that other person, those stones were broken through negligence. You have the debris over here of the house that fell, and this person admits, "I broke certain stones through negligence, and I agree that they were your stones, and therefore he owes money, he can't just say heilach on the stones." He continues with the second answer, "Osha-lach-ran-mitchila-derach-gizayla," or originally he took those stones, he thought, "In the tomil, I'll grab the stones no one will know," and now he's admitting that he stole. So this is something that he's admitting is really a claim on him, he can't just say the stones wherever they are, go just take them. To appreciate the the scenario, the tomil, what might have happened, so we had such, by 9/11, but the Twin Towers, that the debris was being carted away, the debris itself has a mind of its own, so to speak, and how people handle that will indeed indicate what status the claim has. The piscret chuva brings this topic as well, and sends us to the Shah Mishpat. The Shah Mishpat gives a different answer, he says, "Pinam Umahram," this second person already cleared out the debris and sold it, and that's why it's no longer a heilach, there are no stones here for him to be able to say, "I admit, and just take it, because it's yours, in which case there would not be a mode of amigzas." Going back to the Mahabhar, the Mahabhar went ahead and said, "Not only if he admits to the stones, but even if he admits to some of the stones, on the other stones he says, "Ani yodaya," I don't know, says the sma, he's a mode of amigzas, and he can't make a shmua because he's saying, "Ani yodaya," I don't know, we wonder, why is he a mode of amigzas? On that part that he admits, he should be a heilach, and on that we have three answers, we have of course Rabbi Kiva Eger's starting point, Surahih and God al-Aman wonderment, why is it not a heilach, but the suggestions are, the na sivas amishpat that he broke them through negligence, or he took them by way of theft, or the shire mishpat that he sold them already, in any case, to try to make it a case where heilach would not apply, because the working assumption from these mifarsham is that heilach would indeed be relevant on what he's admitting, and on the part that is Ani yodaya, he would be considered a regular case of you're claiming something from me, and I don't know what you're talking about, in which case it would not be this simple that he grants him whatever his request is, but rather it would be processed as a claim that the other person denies to the extent that he has no idea what you're talking about. Yeshakur, thank you for joining.