Gemara Markings Daf Yomi
Bava Metzia 7b, 8a
The Zion of Adalif, on the third wide line, we have a Brice-a-Tan-Rabannan. And the Brice is going to preoccupy us for quite a while. It goes for three lines. It starts here. It's two issues, which are going to be a makhlokis. Now up until now, we've been talking about, let's say, a talis that two people are holding onto. Let's say there's a star, and the essential difference between a star, a document, and a talis is, the talis is, itself, or something. The star, it basically is a paper. It's worth because of what it says on the star. So Shnaima-Dukin-Bistar, two people come before us, and they're both holding on to a document. Now, the document is a loan document. There's the mauva and the lova. The mauva, in Mary, he says, "Shelly who?" Well, it's still mine, in other words. Bob still owes me the money. What happened? Enough of me, many, it fell at some point, because the question is, "Well, if it's yours, why don't you have it in your top drawer at home?" What happened? How do you get any hold of it? It fell for me. Uman-Sas, even, I found it. The lova, in Mary, and Bob says, "Now, you can either read shal-kha or shali, because everyone agrees it was originally the mauvas holding on to it before the loan was paid back. So there's two different gears. Shali or shal-kha, bottom line, he's agreeing that it was originally the mauvas, but now he's saying that it's his because shal-kha, who was originally, Uparaziv-la, and I paid you back, and you gave it to me, and now it's mine." And that's the claim and the counterclaim. So what are you supposed to do? Yis-kha'im-has-star-be-hais-mav validate the document with its signature. So whoever signed on it, you'd bring them in, and then that way you'd validate it. What it means to validate it? What happens then? It's not so clear, but that's Steve Ray, Rebi and I circled Rebi. Rab-an-shim-a-bengam-li-hul, who we also circled. Oi-mer, and he's apparently saying different than Rebi, he's saying yach-lai-kuh, okay? That there would be a split, I guess, whatever the amount that's mentioned in the document, they would split it. Meaning, if it's a spot that's supposed to pay, the malva, 100, he'd pay him 50, and it'd be off 50, and that would be, it's not a slash. One more possibility, let's say Na'fali-yad-dai-in. I don't know, somehow this document ended up in the possession of the judge, low-yach-siu-ay-lamis. He should really, really can't come back to either of them, whereas Rab-yach-si disagrees. Rebi-yach-siu-ay-bach-siu-ay-bach-siu-ay-dai-hul, the document is assumed to be in its previous kazaku. There's a lot of generalities in this brice-a. Umura often doesn't be a little bit more specific, so let's see here. Ammar-mar. The first thing that we had said, the case seemed pretty clear. Two people holding on to a star, the malva, the malva says, "Yeah, it fell for me." And then I found it. Lova says, "Well, no, originally it was his, but then I paid it back and it's actually mine." What was the bsaki-skaimash-dara-bach-siu-ay-smu, put those through words and right angles? Okay. Well, if she kind of comes, basically means what? Have the witnesses come and say, "Yeah, that's our signature." We signed it, put an official court-like approval stamp, and then what? The gave-le-le-mil-va-kule, and then the malva will be able to collect the entire amounts? That seems to be saying. The leis-le-masnissim, but one second doesn't rebut agree, by the way, rebut was the general editor of The Missionized. He doesn't agree with the mission of the bandaf-beis. The shinayimashimbitalis, and what was the plaque over there? They split it. So what's going on? Ammar-ava. Ammar-v-nath-men. Bim-e-kule-am, dibra-kule-k-le-ku. If it had been a court authorized that the signatures were good, then everyone agree that there's a split. Where's the makhlokis, though? It's not a completely bishopinomikuyam, when it's not a court-overseen-approved document that the signatures are actually valid. And here's the makhlokis, colon, rebi, who I underlined over here. And three lines later, also the middle line is from shimugam-leel, who will explain each opinion why they say what they say. Rebi-saf are moi de bishtar shakasfu. You don't have the case where it's very clear. The lova agreed. Oh yeah, that document is truthful. It was written out. I agree. It was written. Once you have the admission of the lova, the one who owes the money, that's the case, sara-kle-kaimai. You have to have the documents, signatures, validated in court. And therefore, e-mikuyam-le, pollok, if it can be validated in court, then they split that amount. The elomikuyam-le, low pollok. And if they don't have the document validated, they don't split it at all. Now, my time, why is that, that even if the lova is moi de, the document still needs to be mikuyam. Why is it so important? Well, because basically, this piece of paper, everything else being equal, is a piece of paper. What gave it significance? The fact that the lova admitted, khasbaba-almuhu, it's like a shard of pottery, essentially worthless. Mankam-mash-file-la-hi-shtar. So what is it that's giving validity to this star, the fact that the lova says, "Yeah, I agree that it was written." That's right. This time, I did take the hundred-dollar loan. Well, hakam-mar, he's the same fellow who's saying, de parra, in this case, "Oh, yeah, and then I paid it back, and therefore it's crucial that you have these signatures validated the validity of the document, then they'll split it, otherwise it doesn't get paid off at all." There's the whole validity of the document at this stage, just because of the lova and lova saying he paid it off. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, that was written. There's no need to have the signatures validated, the alpha-ga-v-dalmuhu, even if it's not court-validated signatures, yachlok, they would still split. Okay, that's the maklokas. Rabbi looks at it more as the strength of the shard. This point is from the lova, so you would better have it in the kuyam. Roshan, when Leo looks at it a little bit less, it's still a shard, and they're both arguing about it, so yachlok, when either case. The second issue in the braysa, I put right angles over here, it's a quote from what we had after the slash about seven lines ago, "Nophilia, Diane, Leo Zilov," it's a very strange thing. Somehow, I don't know if the judge ends up with the document in his possession. Now, why the judge? Why not just say anybody other than these two parties? Bob, or Steve, Maishna, Leon, Diane, it could be anyone else who has the shard, which say the same thing. So, what's going on here? What's the case where we said it fell into the possession of the Diane? Amarava, hakikama, that this is the way to understand the case, it's a re-reading, six words. Va'a'chaar, shamasa, shard, nophilia, Diane. We're actually talking about anyone, other than the two parties, who found the shard that happened to fall into the possession of the Diane. What's the Diane doing over here? Va'a'chaar, Tommy, asks the Gomara, "Well, could you go into the cause of Bei Henpek?" When we say it fell into the possession of Diane, what it means, it fell under the auspices of the judge, meaning the court, meaning it has a court official validation that the signatures are good. It's got a Henpek. L'Oyotsioi lama is, that's the type of document, no matter who holds it. Basically, anyone, you can't get rid of it, you can't give it back to the Malvi, you can't give it back to the L'Oyotsioi, below me, "Baya, I don't even have to tell you." "L'Oyotsioi lama is, by Henpek, if there's no court validation, D'Kalamemar," because then there's a real valid possibility of saying, "Mmm, cause of the L'Oyotsioi, L'Oyotsioi, L'Oyotsioi, let's say my name is Shmuel, I need a loan. I can't just go and ask somebody for a loan, they're going to say, "Okay, Shmuel, I'm going to go to a sofa and have a document written up, so maybe I would have a document out that says, "Yeah, Shmuel owes me $100, maybe I didn't even actually use that, maybe it was written to be used for a loan by the needs, one needs the money, the loven, he never actually used it." And then it fell from him, "Ella Afilo-Kasaba Henpek," not only that case, but even when there is a court of signed document, a court of signed validation on the signatures to Mecuium, "L'Oyotsioi, why? Why don't we turn it? D'Kalamemar," because you don't know, maybe it was paid off, maybe it wasn't paid off, and therefore you can't return it not knowing who's the rightful party you should have it, whereas Rabiosi said something else, Rabiosi disagreed and said, "Put right angles here, this is the end of the brice that we started this year with," six words, Rabiosioi, "Mere, Harai-hu-Bez-Kas-Soy." It's a loan document, and a loan document means that the loan has not been paid back. "Villeau Chachinan Lipiroi," clearly Rabiosi is not concerned, he thought the town is concerned with, which is that it maybe was paid off? Why is he not concerned with that? Mashi says on the first narrow line, "R'Biosi L'Hai-Slypiroi," in general, "Demandemahadri-laish-dar." If somebody pays off a loan and gets the document back, "Parula Al-Trazarbe-Le-Korai," a double-un-le-le-Korai to tear it up, "Villeau-Mashi-laish," the last thing you want floating around is a document that says, "You, $100," after you paid off $100, and therefore, the vast majority of cases, it'll be torn up, and therefore, if it's found, pretty hard to say that it was already paid off, because it probably would have been torn up. Okay, and apparently then Rabiosi is not concerned that it might have been paid up, because it would have been torn up, really asked a little more of Al-Trazarbe-Le-Piroi, question Markham of Hataña, "If a Brice-a," Brice-a goes for five lines, and it's going to have Rabiosi in it, and apparently is going to say something that he's concerned that it might have been paid. Here's the Brice-a-Mashi-Stark-Supa. Stark-Supa is really an IOU. From the husband to the wife, and in the event of death or divorce, him or his estate will pay a certain amount of money. So, let's say that Stark-Supa is found where? Not on the wall. Do you have to put Supa on the wall, by the way? Do you know people who put their Supa on the wall? Do you know people who frame and put their Supa on the wall? Did you do it? Okay, I found it very unusual, because if you actually know it's in the Supa, it's either brutal or not. It's either brutally honest, or they've just amorazis. Basically, you know, if the husband dies, there's a responsibility. Maybe. Okay, it's anyway. It's not usually found. You're supposed to have your Supa. So, here I have the Supa. You can see it. I've never understood. Displaying it in a frame on the wall? Yeah. She never needs to use it. However, you're going down Zolpo, or Zola Mahadrin Supermarket, and there it is. It's like a Supa. Oh, right there. Matsu starts with the Supa Shuk. Bismanch Habal Mweda. If the husband agrees, then for sure, Yaxalishi says, "Oh, yeah. Yeah, that's like the woman's." Then, well, give it back to the woman. Okay. Now, I wrote in above the next phrase. Ain Habal Mweda actually wrote in the Rabbanan, and circled it, because this is the Shita's Tanakama, of what we say when the husband does not agree. Ain Habal Mweda. He doesn't agree. He basically says, "Well, I paid it off." And it felt for me. I was in the supermarket like, you know, three hours ago, and it must have fallen from me. Lo Yaxir, Lo La Zev, Lo La Zev. Well, then we can't return the document to either, and it might be another years, Lo La Zev, Lo La Zoo, not to the husband, not to the wife. Rabiosi, who we boxed. Ain Mera. Rabiosi says, "Well, it kind of depends." Oda Ta Khazba Allah. If she's still married, meaning like she's not divorced, and she's not widowed, Yaxalishi, then you give it back to the woman. However, if the case is, when you found the Supa, Nisarnal and Nisgarisha, she's already widowed or divorced, then we're not really sure. So, Yaxir, Lo La Zev, Lo La Zev. Does Rabiosi, who we had said, is not Khosha's appearance, seem to be concerned for Pironi, certainly does. Because he says, if they're divorced or widowed, you don't return it to you, "Why? Why won't you give it back to her?" You give it back to her when they were married, must be, it's Khosha's for Pironi. So the Kamara, who turns around, has three approaches, how to deal with this, and why it's not going to be a Syrian Rabiosi. I put a number one in the margin here. The first approach is going to be the eight-book approach. About eight lines down, first word on the line is "Papa". That Papa gets circled at rough Papa and is the number two in the margin. He's going to offer a second approach. And six lines below that, first word on the line is "Amore". In the middle of that line is "Ravina". Ravina gets circled and he's the number three, a third approach. So again, the question is, the way we were saying things seems like a bill. This is not concerned that maybe it was paid off, really, from this genetic source. It seemed like a bill to be concerned, paid off. Because in the case of the Star Wars Show, where it might have been paid off, and someone found it, he says, "You can't come back to either party. Why? Why don't I get back to the woman?" Well, so the first approach is "April, switch around the opinions, switch around the names in the above Brissa, and make it say like this. Here's a one and a half line rereading of the Brissa, that in the case of Nalfoliya Dain, Lo Yotzi, Oilamis, Devre Rabi Yotzi. So make Rabi Yotzi the one who said that. And then make it the Ravanan who said, "Yotzi Rabi Yotzi, it's basically the Brissa we started today, sheer with, the second part of it, just switch the names. The truth is, only said the first opinion and then the Rabi Yotzi, but if you see Rabi Yotzi first, the second opinion has to have a name to it, so we just call it the Rabi Yotzi. Okay, so make it a switch. Well, then if that's the case, Nalfoliya Dain, Lo Yotzi Oilamis is what you want Rabi Yotzi to say, then he's closer to Piro. And that would extend with the other reveals that we had this closer to Piro. And the Ravanan are not closer to Piro. And Ihakti will then you're stuck with Kasha on the Ravanan side. Because then you're making Ihakti the Kasha Ravanan, Adir Ravanan. The Ravanan with the, what you're saying is the Ravanan in our Brissa, about six lines of it. We actually wrote in the Ravanan and circled it there. Well, actually we're going to say that that Ravanan that I told you to write in and circle, that was within the Hava Amina. But the Masgana, the entire Brissa up above all five lines is all Rabi Yotzi. It's not two opinions. It's all one opinions, all turn Rabi Yotzi. Don't ask a stereo. Oh, well, the Ravanan, don't hold like that. Yeah, because it's not the Ravanan. Stark Supa, in other words, how did the Brissa up above start? Well, we're the first two words. Matsu Stark Supa. That Brissa called the Stark Supa Brissa is actually cooler Rabi Yotzi. And Rabi Yotzi is the Tanya who is Koshishla Piro. The Koshishla Rabi Yotzi, you have to actually embellish or read a little bit into the Brissa to understand it properly. And now we do a, basically a five-line rereading of the above Brissa and make it all gold Rabi Yotzi. I put the right angle in over here. We had a case of, you found a Suba in the Shuk when the husband admits, so just give it back to the woman. Then we'll pick up from the second line of that about Brissa from right here. Ain't it not about my blessing? The husband doesn't admit or agree. Then lo Yachsir, lo la zen, not to the man, but lo la zen, not to the woman. The meds varma murim. Wait, is it that you won't give it back? Chanis Armanis Garsha. When it's after a, obviously it's either the man or the, those who are coming inside the man, meaning like the children. If it's in this armila, clearly if she was widowed, he's dead. So he's not telling us anything. Oh, Niskarsha or divorce. For sure, if they're still married, Yachsir le Isha, you give it back to the woman. Chanrabi Yotzi Eimair, or the, the back ends in Diva Rebiosi, Chanrabi Yotzi Eimair. And Rebiosi then just gives us the same principle we had above. Oh, Niskarsha, they're still married. They lost stark Suba. Yachsir, they should have returned to the woman. Niskarsha, divorced or widowed, lo Yachsir, lo la zen. Bottom line, we make the above. To the exhaust, all Rebiosi. A second approach which retains the original gearster that we had originally. We're not going to switch around the chakamon Rebiosi in the price that we started with, is Rapapa. Rapapa Amr la Olam, lo Tapu, which means that really Rebiosi is not Khoshish for Piro. Then what's he talking about that makes it sound like he's Khoshla Piro? Oh, you know what he's talking about? He's not talking about it within his own sheet. Rebiosi the Diva Amr de Rabana Kamal. We have this occasionally where what we think is the opinion of one town is actually that's on the same back to the other opinion. You should at least agree to me. Rebiosi the Diva Amr de Rabana Kamal. Cola. Lady, D.S. far as I'm concerned, Rebiosi would say, I feel Niskarsha. Nami la Yachsir, Le Piro. He's not Khoshish or Piro. And therefore, you give it back to the woman. However, says Rebiosi to the chakamon. Lady of Khoo, according to Yol, O'Douli Mihas, I can't agree at least. But we're still married, D.S. or Leisha. D.Lav Bas-Pironi. Like the two is not really to be paid off. When they're still married, right? The Amr de Rabana. Well, that's not actually true. There's actually a quite frequent case where it would be paid off. A more "Srahri Itvisa". A husband or wife have a good relationship. And the husband's concerned that something's going to happen to him. And there might not be cash assets or whatever he gives her. And there's like that suitcase with $20,000 in cash in the bottom of the closet. And that's hers already. And that's the concern of what might have happened. Ravina, who is our third approach. Amr la Olam, April Kamaisa. No, flip it around. In other words, the original price that we had over here. We're going to make reveals to the Tanakama. The second opinion. Vaitaima de Rabanaan. When it comes to the Rabanaan, why we had the question? And we said that if you flip it around, isn't that a stir Rabana under Rabanaan? Well, when it comes to the ksuba, Nishum de Rashinaan Le shdei ksubais. That's a concern, which certainly since you have a couple. I don't know. Twenty years later, I don't know what the ksuba is. You can't be with that ksuba. Maybe there were two ksubas. Okay. And therefore, just because it is one ksuba doesn't necessarily prove anything because it might have been a duplicate one. Viribiosi, what would he say to that? He says that's wonderful, but that's not as significant enough occurrence to be concerned for the Ksubais le Khaish. Semicolon. Amr la Olam. So I diamond rebelizer, and three lines below that, almost directly below, is Rabiokanani. I put a diamond around him. When you have a document, the basic document has the important points of the document, like the dates, the place, the name, the party is involved. And then it has a lot of fluff. The main part of the document is called the torref, like lith rof, the thing that you grab onto. And the form of the document, I think, is about the toe face. It's like the basic form of it, which doesn't necessarily have the specific information. Says rebelizer. Maglokus. When we talk about Maglokusi means the split. That's yachloku. Same word. Maglokus doesn't mean necessarily the disagreement. It means the split between the parties of the value of it. That Maglokus, okay, sounds like 50/50. Right? That's bishishnaimaduken bittufusishnaim bittuf. Where both of them, each one of them is holding on to part of the toe face and part of the toe ref. Avel echad aduk bittufus. If one is holding on only to, like, the basic text, the echad aduk bittuf. Another one is holding on to the specific text. The main difference is the date that is written in there. Zen echad aduk bittufus zen echad aduk bittuf. Each one gets or has rights to the one that they're holding on to. And clearly the one that has the date is much more valuable because you can collect from people who you have an earlier lean. If there's no date on it, you can't collect from people who may have participating in the internet. That's a blazer. Ribiokhanan, we also put a diamond around Ammar. Olam hulkin. No, no, no. They will always split, equal split. Really? Vafilo is that even in a case where echad, one of them is aduk bittufus. The echad aduk bittuf. Question mark. Kama. Vahatanya. We have a brice. And the brice is very clear. It says, zen echil ad makum shadum magas. And then echnus eta. And each one gets certainly, like, definitely the part that they're holding on to. And you're telling me where the one party is holding on to the toe ref. They're going to get only an equal amount. They should get a greater amount. Low. So that's not the case, rather. Shrija de kai tairaf bei mitzi. The toe ref is actually in the middle. Okay. Basically, then there's no maklokis. Ribiokhanan, who says Lalaam hulkin, is when the toast in the middle. Enrobelazu says that, no, there might be a split differently. It's when the toast is not in the middle. Well, echokimayla memra. And what's the kindish? Like, of course. No, it's not so poshut. Low, rather, srija de mikar of legabe de kai. You have the two of them holding on. The toast in the middle. But the toe ref is much closer to one of the two of them. Mao de Taima, and we're going to sort of borrow from that tournament. We had the tiles with the golden strip in it. So Mao de Taima, Ammar lei, the one who has the toe ref closer to them, should say, play kai. Split it in such a way, almost like the normal way you'd say to split it, where then the toe ref is much closer to them. When they get the toe ref, kamashmulan, the other party, d'ammar lei, can say, my hos is the polkis hawkis. One second. Who says you cut it that way? Play kawkis, cut it the other way. Ammar lei, raqimayah, dif to the ravina. La Repa lazar, according to Repa lazar, we had, like, nine lines ago who said, zen eutil typhus. Zen eutil typhus. One second. What in the world is somebody going to do? If one has the tofest, the document still basically is the same. It's just the date. So what do you do with that half of the star? It's just the tofest half of the star. La malae, v'filal sappis sofis sofis sorrow. I guess they had a shortage of bottle caps, actually, having invented bottle caps in those days. What do you need it for? To keep as some sort of lid on top of your jug? Is this just a piece of parchment? Well, ammar lei, no. We're not talking about the pieces of parchment one way another. We're talking about the value of what's written in the pieces of parchment. Or the value of the words of the star, depending on who gets what. La malae, le, dummy. Not dummy like Lamont, but la dummy for the value. Da ammar hockey. Stara de Isbezmann. How much is a document worth? Let's say between two parties that has a date written in it. Well, that gives the ability to collect from people who may have afterwards taken assets. Ooh, delay space mankam. And how about a document? It doesn't have a date. Well, that's also worth something. But it's worth less. The Stara de Isbezmann, Gabi michabti, you can collect from encumbered property. The Edoch and the other star that doesn't have a date on it. Low Gabi michabti. Now, bottom line is that the fluff of the document also has the names, also has the play, also has the amount. The only thing it doesn't have is the date. So you take the difference in value between a document with a date versus a document with a date. The one who is holding on to the one with a date gets that additional value. And then the star stays as it is. Even the splits. Up until now, I don't know if we've really said this. You may have mentioned it, but it sounds very much like you take out the big proverbial scissors and cut it in half. Not necessarily, because a lot of times, two halves is not worth close to what the hole is worth. So, vie chlokunami da amren le domi. I died underline those four words. That when we're talking about a split, what we talk about is a financial split. Basically, whatever it's worth as a whole, they split the value. Not only that, but we can prove that d. I double underline the word de. And the reason I did is we're going to have three of these issues coming up. The next one is the third word on the first line of veja. And then three lines below that is another veja. It's not. So, it's going to be like three attempts to say that you have to go like this. You have to say that yachlokun means a financial split. D'lo te mahakhi. Here we go. Shnaimaikson bitalis. That was the opening case of the Masekta. Two people holding on to a garment. Shnaimaikson bitalis. What are you going to cut it in half? You're ruining it if you cut it in half, right? Well, maybe not. That's not necessarily a valid support. It could very well be. Big talis. Good for big people. Now, Ashkenazan find this very difficult. First of all, talisan was like an out-regardment. But even nowadays, it's harder to find a heart at all. Because little kids often often start wearing talisan when they're six, seven, eight years old. Ashkenazan often that ones are married. These two are the countries. Yes, they're kind of the middle. Either way, it's talisan. A talis can be talisan. This is a piece of material. Half a piece of material. You can sell a big one for $20. Sell two little ones for $10 each. Well, how about this? Vaha. I double on this one. Vaha dama rava. Imai sa talis moose heves. Let's say it had golden parts to it, then hulkin. You split it. Now, ha canami did pal gila. Golden talis, you're not going to give that to the typical kid, huh? Afsadua. You're ruining it. You can't say you're going to give it to the two six-year-old. I think you have a golden talis of six-year-olds. Well, actually, maybe you will. Depends who the six-year-olds are. The typical six-year-old, no. But haloy kasha te kazya. Lemne malakam. Now you find some kids in Lawrence or South Miami Beach or, I don't know, Beverly Hills or Ramataviv Gimmel and then it would be causing for them. Whoa. What about this? Vaha, it's non. Double on lines. Vaha. What about this? It's said, haiyushinaim raikman al-gabe bheema. All right. Two people coming in right in on the cow, or what was the other case? One was riding. One was leading. Ha thinami de pal gila. You're going to take out, like, I don't know if the chains are or something, and cut the cow in half? Haav sidua, you're clearly going to ruin its value if you do that. Okay, fine. This is not a question. Bishwamat sahaira haasillabasu. Let's say it is a cow indeed. You just call him the shaita. He chefs it. You make steak, and you split the steak. Ela tameya. Let's say it was like a horse. Haav sidua. There's no way you're going to kill it, but you're not going to basically kill its value. Rather, it must be when we talk about splitting. We're not talking about, you know, they call in the Ginsu Chinese master to hack it in half. It means a financial split. Ela ledami. Haacanami. In all other cases, when the Gomorra talks about Yaklaiku, it means ledami as a financial split. Period. Amarami bhachama. I circled his name, and he is going to... It basically still takes us down to conveniently the bottom line. So here we go. It says rami bhachama. So you say maris. I double underline this. So you say maris. From here, we see. From the fact that the mission is said, two people who lift up a Mitzi. They acquire it, and they split it. That was our mission's case. Now, when I lifted it up, that was up for me. You'll get up for you. When somebody lifts something up, that his friend should be able to acquire it, is going to be true because obviously they're splitting it. It must be that the Mitzi must be able to acquire it. It must be that the Mitzi must be able to acquire it. So those are maris. The Mitzi must be able to acquire it. The Mitzi must be able to acquire it. The Mitzi must be able to acquire it. The Mitzi must be able to acquire it. If you want to say that the other person doesn't acquire it, I can lift something up. I can acquire it for me. But I can't acquire it for someone else. Then Te Asa Zub, the mission's case. It was at Thalas. And two people lifted it up. Why don't you look at it then? Kimi Shimunachasagabe. Karka. Let's say you and I found the Thalas. We both lifted it up. I can acquire it for myself, but not for you. When you lift up your half, as far as you're concerned, the part that I'm holding on to is still on the ground. It has nothing to do with you, because I can't acquire it for you. The Zukumishumunachasagabe Karka. So from each one's perspective, the other half hasn't been lifted up off the ground yet. And neither of them should be able to acquire it. And some third guy should be able to swoop in and take it away from both of them. Ella-Lav-Shmami-Nah, it must be that the principle of giving this to the Havera, Kana-Havera, works. Which is amazing, because even though when I lifted it up, I'm claiming I lift it up, and it's totally mine. You lift it up, it's totally yours. But if we're going to say it's split, it's got to be that in some level. My lifting up is going to be effective for you and you're lifting up is going to be effective for me. Otherwise, neither of us had to think off the ground. Put brackets in over here. The reason I put the brackets in is we get Rava, a very important, so get till the second wide line. And the second wide line, about two-thirds away the line. It says the word acne, and I close the brackets there. And then comes along for acha braved or of ada, and says to Ravashi. And what he's going to say, Ravashi is this Ravi Brahm is also merit. Which part of the mission exactly do we see that from? And as he said, it's also merit, from our mission. Okay, let's go through the mission and see, can we find anywhere where we would come to this conclusion? That it's got to be that the Madhviel and Seolah Havera, Kana-Havera. So we're going to get back to that in a minute. Let's now see what's in the brackets. I'm our Rava. I circled Rava's name. Rava doesn't agree with Ravi Brahm. That's the principle that we learn. La Olamay Malak, really, I could tell you. If I am the one lifting up a lost item, like from Havera, for somebody else, that the other person would not acquire it. What's going on in our mission, how does our mission work? The Haka, I wrote about that, our Mishnah, Hainut Taima. The reason is, and I must learn this for you, because I have boxed and fire boxed and double fire boxed the word "migu". That we're basically going to be dealing now with "migu". "Migu" literally means, I think, "sense" or "because of". It's used as a one word, which indicates a whole concept. The way that the Mishnah works is, since I can be mizahqed for myself, I can be mizahqed also for you. Okay, and that's the principle. Not that I'm not going to be mizahqed for it. Could we all be? If I'm not going to be mizah, for somebody else, it's not going to be acquired by somebody else. It's only because "migu" is not going to be mizahqed for it. I know that this is true. "Sh'ilu amar le shlukho". Let's say there's "me", and there's "bab", my trusted shaliyah. And I say to "bab", "se ugen noivli". "Yugo", "bab", lift that thing up and steal it for me. "Vigana", but who's all there? He's not mentally incompetent. "Kegos", he lifts up that thing and steals it. "Potter", I'm actually potter. You might have other qib, but I just steal it. He stole it. Yeah, but Horowitz told me to steal it. Yeah, but you're your own thinking person. The qib is on the shaliyah and the mizahq is potter. "Vishutvin shagon vu, kayavin". Let's give two partners. No one says to the other. "Hey, you want to go and steal that thing?" And he steals it. On behalf of both of them, they're both going to be kayat. Now, my time, and why is that? That's the case. That even though on the one hand, if I go tell somebody else to go and steal it for me, I'm going to be potter. But yet, if we're shagon, then one of us goes, "You're going to be kayav". "La vishum dam rinun", is it not because? It must be that we say, "Mikudu Zakhal enafshay", "Zakhin am ila kavre". How do you have two partners? Where only one does it? And he's going to be making both of them kayav. It must be because mikud, he can be zakhin for himself. He can be zakhi also for his friend, "Shmamina". Amarava, hashta de amri, de amri na nigu, I underline that whole line. Now that we see that we say this principle of migu, namely, migudu zakhal enafshay, zakhin am ila kavre, we're going to have a number of cases presented over here. I put a number one in the margin here. I put three lines later. Last word on the line is karish, a number two. And about four lines below that, last word on the line is "elah", a number three. So I was going to try to apply this principle outward. Karish u pikayach shahe kiyamid siyyah. Lost item, to be walking down. And at the same time, a karish, a deputy who doesn't have necessarily the halakat ability to do things like a regular person does. And pikayach was all there. Shahe kiyamid siyyah, they jointly lifted up a lost item. Me toik shahe kana karish, kana pikayach. Since the karish is able to acquire it, so to the pikayach is able to acquire it. So the karish you can acquire for himself, the pikayach also. And normally, as far as the pikayach's concerned, when the karish is doing something, it's like a nothing. So it's almost like when the pikayach, from his perspective, just his perspective, lifts it up, the other side's still on the ground. From the karish's side, it's lifted up, and the other side's definitely lifted up also. So the gomura questions this, though. Vishnu, the karish, can be kind of. That if a karish bikayach are walking by, and they lift something up together, the karish will become it, why? Because he's only going to hear his half, which is good for him. Di kamag balay bendas, who's, what's happening with the other half? A person who has halakat das is also lifting it up. Ela pikayach bimay kana. From the pikayach's perspective, it doesn't work as well. If you can't lift it up half of it, which by the way, if he had only found the mitzi on the left of the path, it wouldn't be his. You have to do a proper hagba. The other half is lifted up by a non-halakat reality. It might as well be on the ground. Ela, so I squiggle under line the Ela, and put a number two in. Did you erase the previous Ela number two? Aima karish kana bikayach like kana. So really what we'll say over there, if you have two people, karish and bikayach, and they lift it up, you know what we're going to say? The karish acquires it. He gets his half. He lifts up the other half, which is held up by the pikayach. It's as though it's being held up by somebody else. Well then, umaymigu. Why is there a migu? Why do we have to save this whole line? Now that we've saved migu, we can apply it to this case. Doesn't it seem like there's a migu at all? No, there actually is. You know what the migu is? Migu deshne karashan ba alma khanu? Hainami khanu. Let's say you have two karishes walking down the street. They see a mitzi. They both lift something up. Would that work? That yes would work. Since when you have two karishes it would work. Even in the case we have one karish, one pikayach, it'll work that the karish will be able to acquire it. So the karish is one second over here. Hai mai. Hai mai is always determined. The karish says when, let's take a step back. Look at this. It doesn't seem to make sense. Eem team si loimar. If you want to say, in other words, even if you want to say, that mabeela se al kaverei. Kana kaverei. Where is that? Hainami lieta ta magbalei a ta ta ta ta kaverei. What's the whole case? Hey, Bob, you go well lifting up for me? Sure, Shmuel, and he goes lifting up for me. When Bob's lifting up for me, he's lifting it up for me. Hai, but this pikayach, when he sees this mitzia, he's got the karish next to him. But when he's lifting it up, who's he lifting it up for? A ta ta di daikum magbalei. He's lifting up for himself. He thinks he saw it first. He's lifting it up. Ihu, like Haini. And what do we say about that when she lifted up his half? It didn't work. Why did it not work? Because from his perspective, the karish is as though it's on the ground his half. Lakhrinimatni? That would be amazing. That he could do the physical act of lifting up his half. It wouldn't work for him. That was his whole attention to work for him. But it should be good lifting up for the other guy that he would be able to acquire it. Ella, which is so far fetched that it can't be so it comes into a third approach. In Sguiglanda and the Ella, Ella Ima, and it's interesting. We're going from that they both acquire it to one acquires it to neither of them acquire it. Me toich sholekana pikea. Since the pikea can't acquire it, because from his perspective, he's got his half up. But the other half is a non-entity who's lifting it up because he's a karish. Also like on a karish. The karish won't be able to acquire it. The kiteema? Well, one second. Why should the karish not be able to acquire it? We said there's two karashin. They can, yes, acquire it. And if you're going to then ask Meish shnei karashin da alma, well, haasam, it's very important that shnei karashin ba alma, the rabbis made a decree that they don't want grabbers. If you imagine a situation, people who tend to be grabbers just following haasam around grabbing things from them. Haasam takinu lurabana until a Aussulinsu is there wouldn't be fights. However, in this case, we're not too karashin, but it's a karish and a pikea. If the karish is going to feel slighted if he doesn't get this thing, not at all. Haasam takinam rama, the karish will basically think to himself. This guy over here next to me. He's all there. And he didn't even acquire it. The pikea kalai kani, anahakni, and I should be considered too acquired. And therefore, that case we allow it, but when it's a typical case, it's too karashin. We have to protect him. Because anytime we have karashin doing anything, they'll grab away. One karish doing something on his own. Two karashin doing something on their own. With it's a karish, and a pikea kalai. If we say the pikea doesn't get it, so find the karish will understand. No! Why can't he say that shira? He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. He didn't say the pikea karish. One guy says it's all mine. The other guy says half of it is mine. Well, hasu lama li. Like, why do we need this case for it? This is quite similar, is it not? You know why we need it? Ella mih mishna yiseira from the additional teaching shmami no? Kamakimasu kavere kanakavere. That's where we're learning it. Okay. Who says we're talking about a bitzia in that case? Umi mai de be mitzia. Dilma de mecha klamalkar. Maybe it's talking about a sail. And two people are both claiming that they were the one who got the sail. Vicki tama. And if you're going to try to sit one second, you're going to tell us that's about a sail. Even after the memka, my lemembra. Like, what's the thittish? We would know that. No. It's turi. Salka daita kami na. I might have thought to say, if these guys were liars. Or certainly if either one of them was a liar, each one would say, the whole thing's mine. High to come, or the fact that one of the parties is saying, 50% of it is mine. That's actually. Maybe we should view him almost as a lahave kameshua veda. Like if I come back to you and I say, "Hey, Steve, I found your gold watch. Oh, where's my gold ring along with it? You don't make me swing on the gold ring." So, maybe it should be like a meshua veda veda veda veda veda veda veda veda veda. Maybe it should be off the hook from a schua, kamashman. That's why we need the case, what you call it, section C in the Mishnah. Daha'i, Jews are often a couple steps ahead. He really doesn't have any of it, but he wants to get some of it. So, he knows he comes and goes, "All of it is going to make me split, make it a schua. So, he's going to claim half of it. Hi, Iyarumi kama aram, saver." He figures like this. Iyamina kulushlevi says, "It's all mine, but you know, you shtabuli. You're going to make me take a schua." I really don't want to take the Lord's name in what I know is a lie. Aymahokil, coming with this low ball claim of, "Here, half is mine, de havi kamashvaveda." And maybe I'll get off the hook, just like a mashvaveda would be. Pater would say, "Sorry, buddy. There's too many people who have a little bit of a prompt way of analyzing the situation. You're also going to have to take a schua, even if you say half of the spheres. By the way, in general, mashvaveda, we will allow him to not take a schua and something else is coming in through. But in this case, Ela, so he squiggled out on the Ela, this would be the D section of the Mishnah. He put the right angles in, haiushnaim, right havi bheema. That was near the end of the Mishnah, two people writing on the horse. Asumlama Lee asks, "What is the additional necessity of this case?" It's very similar to the previous cases in principle. Ela, shall we not say it's me, Mishnah, you say it's from this additional case. Shmami na? I'm going to be a bit similar to Shmami na. Maybe not. What could this be teaching us that we hadn't learned previously in the other parts of the Mishnah? Adhil maha kamashmalan de rakhlov nami kani. And again, for maybe like the fifth time in the past few days, rakhlov doesn't mean, as I always imagine, guys sitting on the back of the horse, riding along. He's not moving. Even though rakhlov always to me, I translated as riding on the horse. I would say, like, sitting like a statue on a horse, which is like a statue. But that's the case of rakhlov. But even that, the being on the back of the horse, is also kai. Okay, so then we still haven't found where from the Mishnah did. Ramibar kamashim. [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] When they both agree that they lifted it up at the same time, or shishim, or they have witnesses that say, "Oh, yeah, Steve and Bob, they both lifted it up at the same time?" [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] What are we talking about over here? [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] Of course, there's no issue. Let them split it. They both got it at the same time. [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] Now, how does it work? If both of them is at the same time. [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] If a person lifts something up for somebody else, it is a valid means by which to have the other person acquired. We did, however, in the bracketed section, just to finish off, have Rava. I think we circled his name, and he was the one who said, "Oh, no. It's really, you can't learn that principle." [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] It's a different issue going on. It's amigo. So then, what would Rava say to you? We just proved Ramibar kamash points from the Mishnah that amigo is Santa Kaverikana Kaverikana Kaverikana Kaverikana. So the Gomura is a type one loose end, and then we'll call it a day. [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] Rather, you're acquiring it for yourself. You have the ability also to acquire it for somebody else. That was a different issue. Because [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] Even if you're not acquiring it for yourself. Even if you're acquiring it for Rashi who says in the bottom line, "Rava Amalath, Balma." In general, "Heja de l'unis kavan habibilis glais ba." Let's say, "I don't have any intention to acquire it for myself." [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] There's no way somebody else is going to acquire it through my act of lifting it up. What then is going on with the last line of the Mishnah? What does that teach us? [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] Why? [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] - All right, I can't.