שתא קמייתא לא קפיד וכולי—The first year he is not annoyed, etc.

Overview¹ It seems from our גמרא that only ר' ישמעאל derives חזקה from המועד שור. תוספות argues that the reasoning of ר"י and the רבנן are similar. The רבנן should also be able to derive חזקת ג' שנים from המועד שור.

תוספות asks: תימה² מנא לן דר' ישמעאל דוקא יליף משור המועד ולא רבנן – It is astounding! [If it is indeed so that the reason a חזקה requires three years, is because that by the third year we are certain that a person takes offense and would have been מוחה, then] how do we know that it is only ר"י who derives חזקת ג'**** שנים from המועד שור but not the רבנן. Perhaps – אינהו נמי מצי גמרי משור המועד – The רבנן too can derive ש"חג from המועד שור – דהיינו טעמא נמי דלעיל³ דגמר משור המועד – for this reason that רבא is giving according to the רבנן, was also previously given according to ר"י who derives ש"חג from המועד שור – דכיון דקפיד בג' זמנין ולא מיחה אם כן ודאי מכרה או נתנה לו – that since a person is offended by someone eating his produce three times and (yet) he did not protest, then certainly he sold it or gave it to him; otherwise he would have protested since it occurred three times already. This same thought is being now voiced by רבא according to the רבנן. Why can they not derive it from המועד שור as well? תוספות answers: ויש לומר דלא דמי דודאי דרבי ישמעאל דאזיל בתר אכילות שפיר מצי למיגמר משור המועד – And one can say; that ר"י and the רבנן are not comparable; for that is certain that according to ר"י we can derive ש"חג from המועד שור since he takes note of the consumption of the produce; and is not necessarily concerned with the amount of time required for a חזקה he can properly derive from המועד שור the laws of חזקה, in the following manner – דמה התם הוחזק נגחן בג' פעמים אף כאן בשלש אכילות אם לא שמכרה לו היה מקפיד – for just as there by המועד שור, the ox is established as a goring ox by goring three times, here too by חזקה through three consumptions he is considered a מוחזק; because if not for the fact that he sold it to him he would take offense and certainly protest. ואין זה וזה תלויים בשהוי זמן – And neither המועד שור nor חזקה are dependent on any elapsed time frame; the חזקות are established through incidents, not elapsed time frames. Therefore it is a proper comparison.

However according to the רבנן that a חזקה is dependent on elapsed time; that it is necessary to establish how much time must elapse until he is offended, therefore it is not possible to derive חג"ש from שור המועד.

SUMMARY We can derive קרקע חזקת from המועד שור, only if the חזקה is dependent on recurring incidents, similar to המועד שור. If the חזקה is dependent on elapsed time it cannot be derived from המועד שור. Thinking it over⁴

1. How are we to understand תוספות question, when the גמרא just stated⁵ that the חכמים cannot derive ש"חג from המועד שור, since the חכמים disagree with ג' אכילות; which is seemingly the same answer that תוספות gives!⁶
2. How does תוספות indeed know that רבא is not incorporating the לימוד fromשור המועד in his answer?⁷
3. What advantage would there be if the חכמים do derive חג"ש from שור המועד?⁸
4. Why did not תוספות asks this question on the first answer of רבא?⁹
5. It would seem more appropriate that the ה"ד of תוספות should be 'קפיד תלת', as opposed to 'וכו קפיד לא קמייתא שתא!¹⁰ Appendix¹¹ The גמרא inquired as to the source of שנים 'ג חזקת. We will assume that the question is that a חזקה should be immediately when the original owner (מערער) becomes aware that someone (the מחזיק) is using his property, and remains silent (שותק). The גמרא answers that we derive it from המועד שור. By a שור even if he gores twice he is considered a תם. Seemingly, since he gored (even once) he is no longer a תם; he is a goring ox. Nevertheless the תורה teaches us that to change the status from a תם to a מועד it requires that the שור act like a מועד three times.¹² Similarly in order to change the קרקע חזקת from the מערער to the מחזיק it requires three acts of שתיקה.¹³ The גמרא stated that if this is the source of חזקה, then if the מחזיק ate three אכילות and the מערער was silent all three times it should be a חזקה, regardless if it was three years (similar to המועד שור, where there is no time limit, only three incidents are required to establish a חזקה). The גמרא concluded that this is indeed so; according to ישמעאל 'ר three אכילות are sufficient to establish a חזקה. The גמרא asks that according to the חכמים who maintain that three אכילות are insufficient, but rather three years are required, from where do they derive ש"חג. The גמרא understood that since three אכילות are not sufficient to establish a חזקה, that indicates that a חזקה cannot be established by merely three incidents, but rather a (single) long period of three years (almost eleven hundred days) are required to establish this חזקה. The question remains; why is such a long period of time (eleven hundred days) required to establish this חזקה? It should be established as soon as the מערער is aware and is שותק. רבא offered two explanation, initially. That for the first two years the מערער is either willingly giving up his claim to the produce (perhaps giving it as a gift to the מחזיק) - מחיל, or he is biding his time – קפיד לא; he will protest later. However once three years pass, we may safely assume that no one is willing to donate so much of his produce, and no one is willing to wait such a long time to lodge a complaint. Therefore after three years it is a חזקה. There is a basic difference in understanding the חזקה whether we derive it from המועד שור or whether we accept s'רבא ideas. If we derive it from שור המועד, then the שתיקה of the first (two) year(s) is not to be interpreted as a מחילה of the פירות or even not as a קפיד לא.¹⁴ Rather it may be a sign of genuine שתיקה which perhaps should transfer the חזקה to the מחזיק immediately. However we derive from המועד שור that two נגיחות, even though they indicate that he is a נגח שור, nevertheless they cannot change the status of the שור. Similarly (even) two שתיקות do not have the power of transferring the חזקה from the מערער to the מחזיק. Three שתיקות are required just as נגיחות 'ג are required. However, according to רבא, even one שתיקה would make a חזקה. It is only that רבא claims that during the first two years we cannot be sure that there was a real שתיקה; a tacit admission of a relinquishment of rights. Perhaps it was a מחילה; or perhaps he was biding his time (לא קפיד). If however we would be sure that it is an authentic שתיקה, as by the אלישיב בר דבי, there is no doubt that it would be a חזקה immediately, even with one שתיקה.¹⁵ There seems to be a difference between the two answers of רבא; whether שתא קמייתא מחיל וכו' or whether שתא קמייתא לא קפיד וכו', when we view it retroactively after the three years. If we assume that מחיל קמייתא שתא, then even after the three years, that assumption does not necessarily change. During the first two years it still may have belonged to the מערער; he was merely מוחל the פירות. It is only after the third year, that the חזקה is transferred to the מחזיק, because a person would not be מוחל so much of his produce. The שתיקה of (only) the third year is a genuine שתיקה. However if we assume that קפיד לא קמייתא שתא; the מערער may have been biding his time; he was planning to protest at a future date, then after three years pass, the assumption is no longer true. He never protested at all. That indicates that he was שתיק right from the beginning. The קפיד לא of the first two years wasn’t merely a biding of time; it was an actual שתיקה. Once רבא gave his two answers that it depends on 'וכו קמייתא שתא and (שנין) תלת , it seemed to תוספות that (even) according to the חכמים the three years חזקה is not merely a single (long) stretch of time, but rather the חזקה can be broken down into three (repetitive) segments, similar to המועד שור. Therefore, even though the חכמים maintain that three אכילות alone are insufficient to establish a חזקה (perhaps because they are not as significant incidents as the נגיחות are by המועד שור), nevertheless they can still maintain that חזקה is dependent on three repetitive yearly incidents. This makes ש"חג similar to המועד שור. That is why תוספות felt justified asking his question after רבא gave his answers.¹⁶ תוספות asks (only) on the second answer of רבא that לא קפיד קמייתא שתא. Even רבא agrees that after three years have passed and he was not מוחה, we may assume that he was (probably) a שותק all three years; not merely a קפיד לא. Therefore תוספות asks why does רבא say that he is קפיד only on the third year, which is an arbitrary estimation, forced on us by the משנה, when we can simply say that he may be a genuine שותק all three years (which is the natural assumption)¹⁷ for a person is קפיד immediately, but we derive from המועד שור that there has to be a genuine שתיקה three times, not less.¹⁸ The advantages of this interpretation are dual. The three years are not arbitrary (but derived from המועד שור), and mainly that there would be no question from the אלישיב בר דבי.¹⁹ The תורה requires three (yearly) שתיקות. תוספות could not have posed this question (as strongly) on the answer of שתא קמייתא מחיל כו'. According to that answer even after the three years passed there is no proof that there was שתיקה the first two years; he could have been מוחל as an owner. There may have been no שתיקה at all. It is not a חזקה comparable to המועד שור where he is actually נוגח the first two times; acting as a full fledged מועד.²⁰ However according to the answer of קפיד לא, once three years passed that indicates that he was not merely קפיד לא, but actually שותק. תוספות answers that we cannot derive three segments of time establishing a חזקה from המועד שור where three incidents, independent of time, create a מועד. Therefore we have to assume that he could not have been קפיד immediately, otherwise the חזקה would have been established right away.

footnotes: ¹ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1 (and ‘Appendix’). ² The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read תימה אם כן מנא ³ See תוס' כח,א ד"ה עד and תוס' כח,ב ד"ה אלא (הא'). ⁴ See ‘Appendix’. ⁵ כח,ב. ⁶ See footnote # 16. ⁷ See footnote # 14. ⁸ See footnote # 19. ⁹ See footnote # 20. ¹⁰ See footnote # 17. ¹¹ The ideas presented in this appendix are speculative and should be treated as such. ¹² We will assume that the reason is irrelevant; this is what the תורה teaches us. ¹³ An act of שתיקה is, presumably, when the מערער should have protested but did not. ¹⁴ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ¹⁵ If, however, we derive חזקה from המועד שור, then even by the אלישיב בר דבי, three שתיקות would be required to establish a חזקה. ¹⁶ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ¹⁷ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 5. ¹⁸ This may be the reason that תוספות phrases his question: 'מיחה ולא זימנין 'בג דקפיד דכיון' and not 'כיון דקפיד בפעם הג''. ¹⁹ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 3. ²⁰ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 4.

אלא מעתה מחאה שלא בפניו כולי—However, it should now be apparent** that a protest lodged not in his presence, etc.**

OVERVIEW רבא maintained that the three years required for a חזקה is because a person (usually) does not keep his שטר for more than three years. The חכמים were concerned that an unscrupulous מערער may wait three years (from after the time he sold the field to the מחזיק), when he is reasonably certain that the מחזיק lost his שטר, and will claim that he never sold the field. We protect the מחזיק from such fraudulent claims made after three years of a purchase, by instituting the three year law of חזקה. The מערער is being put on notice that any מחאה must take place within three years of the חזקה.¹ Otherwise he loses his status as a מוחזק, and the מחזיק becomes the מוחזק. [If, however, the מערער has a valid reason why he did not make the מחאה, then it would not be a valid חזקה.]² אביי argues that if the purpose of חג"ש is to insure that the מחזיק does not lose his property through the deceit of the מערער, then the מערער should be required to make his מחאה (within the three years) in the presence of the מחזיק.³ The מחזיק will then be aware of the מחאה and be able to safeguard his property, by holding on to the שטר. If however the מחאה is made שלא בפניו it should not be a valid מחאה; but rather the חזקה should be sustained. We are assuming now in the הו"א that a מחאה שלא בפניו will not necessarily be heard by the מחזיק.

אומר רבינו יצחק דליכא לאוקמי פירכא דאביי אלא כשהן⁴ בעיר אחת – The ר"י says that we cannot justify the challenge of אביי (namely, that a protest that is made not in the presence of the מחזיק should not be a valid מחאה, rather the חזקה should stand; this cannot be justified), in all situations, but rather only when the מערער and the מחזיק are [living] in the same city. אביי argues that the מחזיק can claim that had the מערער made the מחאה in my presence, I would have kept the שטר longer than the usual three years. However, since the מערער made the המחזיק בפני שלא מחאה (in order that the מחזיק should not be aware of the מחאה); therefore the מחזיק did not watch the שטר after the three years. The fact that the מערער was המחזיק בפני שלא מוחה supports the claim of the מחזיק that he indeed bought the field, and the מערער is being deceitful.⁵ תוספות argues that this challenge of אביי is valid only when they live in the same city. The מערער should be required to come to the מחזיק personally and make the מחאה (within three years of the alleged purchase [חזקה]). Then it would be clear to all; if the מחזיק has the שטר he is the מוחזק, otherwise the מערער is the מוחזק. However if the מערער made the מחאה שלא בפניו, it should not be considered a מחאה. A מחאה שלא בפניו does not fulfill the intent of a מחאה; namely to warn the מחזיק to hold on to his שטר. This challenge of אביי is proper when they both live in the same city; where we can reasonably (without undue hardship) demand of the מערער to make a מחאה בפניו. דאי בעיר אחרת היכי פריך דלא תהא מחאה ותהא חזקה – However if the מערער lived in a different city than the מחזיק how can אביי challenge רבא that it should not be considered a valid מחאה, but rather it should be considered a valid חזקה,⁶ since the מערער did not make the מחאה in the presence of the מחזיק; This cannot be – אדרבה כיון דלא הויא מחאה לא הויא חזקה – On the contrary! Since it is not a valid מחאה; for it is בפניו שלא and the מחזיק is not aware of it (to keep the שטר), then the ruling should be that it is not a valid חזקה. The basis of all חזקות is that if the מערער is truthful, then he should have made a מחאה (within the three years). If, however, we assume that the בפניו שלא מחאה will not reach the מחזיק, then there is no purpose in the מחאה.⁷ If there is no purpose or reason to make a מחאה, there can be no חזקה. The מערער will argue that he did not make a מחאה since it is useless; the מחזיק will not hear it anyway. It cannot be argued that the מערער should make it his business to appear before the מחזיק and deliver the מחאה personally – דהא אינו צריך לבא בעיר⁸ אחרת לפני המחזיק ולמחות כדמוכח⁹ לקמן:¹⁰ For the מערער is not required to travel to another city to lodge his מחאה in the presence of the מחזיק, as is evident later in the גמרא. In conclusion; אביי did not ask his question in a case where the מחזיק and the מערער live in separate cities. In such a case אביי maintains that it should not be a חזקה; i.e. a חזקה הוי לא בפניו שלא חזקה.¹¹

SUMMARY The question מחאה תהא לא בפניו שלא מחאה is only in a case where the מערער and מחזיק lived in the same city. In a case where they lived in different cities, the ruling will be (in this א"הו) that there is no חזקה; for there is no obligation on the מערער to travel in order to be בפניו מוחה.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Why does תוספות interpret the previous question of 'וכו מחאה מעתה אלא (on ב,כח דף) to mean that since it is not a מחאה it should not be a חזקה;¹² however here תוספות interprets this (same) question to mean that it should be a חזקה?
2. Why does תוספות assume that the מערער need not travel to the city of the מחזיק to make the בפניו מחאה?¹³
3. Could have אביי challenged רבא in a case where the מערער and מחזיק live in two different cities?¹⁴
4. It seems that אביי was certain that a מחאה הוי בפניו שלא מחאה. From where did he derive it?
5. Why does אביי ask this question of אלא מעתה מחאה וכו' only on the last answer of רבא; not on any of the previous answers?¹⁵

footnotes: ¹ This is one of many interpretations concerning שנים 'ג חזקת. [It seems to complement the content of this תוספות.] According to this understanding we do not interpret the silence of the מערער as a tacit admission that it is not his field. Rather we maintain that if the מערער was not מוחה during the first three years (while the מחזיק still possesses the שטר [as the חכמים require]); any subsequent claims are not valid. ² One must bear in mind that in these cases, the מערער (usually) has proof that he was the original owner (the מרא קמא). The מחזיק is the מוציא. There must be sufficient cause to change the חזקה from the מערער to the מחזיק. ³ If the explanation of חג"ש would be based on the fact that since the מערער was not מוחה for such a long time, that proves that it is not his field, then even a בפניו שלא מחאה would be sufficient. According to that explanation, since the מערער brings עדים that he was מוחה שלא בפניו then there is no proof. If however we are not attempting to prove anything from the s'מערער silence per se, but rather we require a מחאה within three years to protect the rights of the מחזיק (and) that he should retain his שטר, then the מחזיק must be aware of the מחאה; otherwise it is a useless מחאה. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 5. ⁴ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read כשהן דרין בעיר. ⁵ A בפניו שלא מחאה is similar to a מחאה after three years; in both case the מחזיק will not watch the שטר. ⁶ It is evident from the way אביי phrased the argument of the מחזיק, saying אי מחית בא[נ]פאי הוה מיזדהרנא בשטראי, that the intent of the challenge is that the מחזיק is in the right, and it should be a חזקה. See תוספות כח,ב ד"ה אלא, where the question מחאה מעתה אלא is explained differently. See ‘Thinking it over # 1. ⁷ This is especially true since the (whole) purpose of the מחאה is to warn the מחזיק that he should safeguard his שטר. See footnote # 3. ⁸ The הגהות הב"ח amends this from בעיר to לעיר. ⁹ See א"מהרש who states that when תוספות writes that it is ‘evident later’, תוספות is referring to what he said previously that when there is no (possibility of) מחאה there is no חזקה, this is what is evident from the גמרא later (see following footnote # 10). [However concerning what תוספות states immediately prior, that the מערער need not go to another city to be המחזיק בפני מוחה, that is self-evident, and needs no proof to support it. See ‘Thinking it over # 2.] ¹⁰ See the גמרא on א,ל concerning בראי בשוקי and the משנה on א,לח. ¹¹ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 3. ¹² See footnote # 6 ¹³ See א"מהרש. See footnote # 9. ¹⁴ See footnote # 11. ¹⁵ See footnote # 3.

הני נוגעין בעדותן הן—These, have a vested interest in their testimony

OVERVIEW רבא explained that the witnesses who testify that the מחזיק made a proper חזקה, are the tenants of the מחזיק, who claim that they lived in this house for three years day and night. יימר רב challenged this explanation; that these witnesses are biased. Their testimony cannot be accepted. It could be that they did not live in the house for three years ובלילה ביום, however they have a reason to lie and say that they did live there ובלילה ביום ש"ג; for if they would say the truth that they did not live there ובלילה ביום ש"ג,¹ then the מחזיק would not have a חזקה. He has no proof that he was there ובלילה ביום ש"ג. The house would revert back to the מערער. The מערער in turn would demand from the עדים the rent for the past three years.² How can we believe these עדים who have a motive to lie? עדים must be completely objective. תוספות will originally challenge this assumption that they are בעדות נוגע, and subsequently resolve his question.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר ואמאי הוו נוגעין בעדות הא איכא מיגו דהוי מצי אמרי פרענא לך אגר – And if you will say; and why are they considered biased in their testimony; there is a מיגו, which absolves the witnesses from any partiality for they could have said to the מערער we have paid the rent to you. When the עדים were called upon to testify, (even) if in truth they did not live there ג"ש ביום ובלילה, they had no need to lie (that they did live there ג"ש ביום ובלילה ), out of concern that they would have to pay the מערער the rent (again), they could have said the truth (concerning the time they lived there) and concluded (with a different lie) that we paid the מערער the full rent that was owed to him for the period that we lived in this house. The מערער will have no recourse to claim the rent from them. The עדים, in their dispute against the מערער concerning the rent, will be considered as a כופר הכל, who is פטור even from a שבועה. The עדים, therefore, to protect themselves, if they are indeed lying, had no need to testify that we lived there ג"ש ביום ובלילה. They could have just as easily lied that we paid the rent to the מערער.³ They could say whichever of these two positions they choose. This מיגו removes any bias from the testimony of the עדים;⁴ it was not necessary for them to say this particular testimony to protect themselves. The עדים therefore, should not be considered as נוגע בעדות and their testimony should be accepted. תוספות anticipates a difficulty with this reasoning and resolves it: ואף על גב דבתר דתקון רבנן שבועת היסת לא מהימני לאסהודי בהאי מיגו – And even though that after the רבנן instituted a היסת oath;⁵ this abovementioned מיגו would not make them believable witnesses, they would be considered biased; we can longer say that the עדים have a choice of which lie to say. The עדים will prefer to say that they lived in the house ובלילה ביום ש"ג (in which case they would be exempt from any further obligations) as opposed to claiming that they paid the מערער (which would obligate them to take the היסת שבועת) – כדאיתא בריש האיש מקדש (קדושין מג,ב) – As it is cited in the גמרא in the beginning of מקדש האיש פרק,⁶ nevertheless – הכא דאמתניתין קיימינן ואכתי לא ניתקנה שבועת היסת מאי פריך להימניה במיגו – Here, however, that we are discussing the משנה; how is it possible for the משנה to state that הבתים חזקת is ש"ג; who will testify to that effect. Concerning the משנה there is no difficulty since the היסת שבועת was not yet instituted at the time of the משנה**.** Therefore תוספות original question remains what does the גמרא ask that they are biased and should not be believed; it is not so, they are not biased they should be believed on account of the מיגו; they could have said we paid the rent to the מערער (and in the times of the משנה they would not be obligated (even) to swear). תוספות answers: ויש לומר דהאי לאו מיגו הוא שיראים לומר פרענו לך – And one can say; that this claim of למערער פרענו is not a proper מיגו; for they are afraid to say to the מערער we paid the rent to you – כי שמא יזכה האחר⁷ ויתבע מהם פעם שנית [ועיין עוד תוספות שבועות מה,ב דיבור המתחיל בעדים]: For perhaps the other litigant (the מחזיק) will be successful [in this suit] and the מחזיק will demand from them a second payment. Therefore we are concerned that they are lying, and did not live in the house ובלילה ביום ש"ג and the best option for them, is to lie and say we did live ובלילה ביום ש"ג in order not to pay the מערער. They are reluctant to lie that they paid the מערער, since they do not know the outcome of this תורה דין. Perhaps the מחזיק will win the case (he will find other עדים, etc.) and then they will have to repay him the three years rent again. They are indeed בעדות נוגע.

SUMMARY The מיגו that the עדים could have claimed that we paid the מערער is not sufficient to remove their בעדות נגיעה. They are reluctant to claim פרענו למערער, since it is possible that the מחזיק will win the case and demand a second payment from them.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות contends that since the עדים have a מיגו of פרענו למערער, they are not נוגע בעדות. Seemingly this is not sufficient: A. When the עדים testify that they lived there ג"ש, they are benefitting themselves. Even though they could have achieved this benefit through other means, it does not detract from the fact that they are benefiting (somewhat) from their testimony. It is not comparable to other עדות, where the עדים are completely objective and gain nothing from their testimony. This should be considered נוגע בעדות!⁸ B. It would seem that given a choice of lies, the עדים would prefer⁹ to lie that they lived ג"ש ביום ובלילה, where no one is sure that they are lying; as opposed to lying that פרענו למערער, where the מערער knows that they are blatant liars.¹⁰ This מיגו should not be sufficient to remove their bias!¹¹

footnotes: ¹ The truth perhaps was that they missed some of the לילות, etc. There was no ובלילה ביום ש"ג. ² It is irrelevant, as far as paying the rent is concerned, whether the (עדים) tenants were there ובלילה ביום or not; they must pay the full rent. It is only in regards to establishing a חזקה that ובלילה ביום ש"ג is required. ³ תוספות writes in many places that we do not say a מיגו with two associated litigants (on the same side). The reason תוספות gives is that each of the עדים will be afraid to claim the מיגו, because he does not know if the other witness will also claim this מיגו. Our תוספות seems to disregard this principle. However תוספות himself (in קידושין מג,ב ד"ה והשתא) answers that in a claim where they wish to acquit themselves from liability we do say a מיגו בי תרי, for they are confident in each other that they will present the same claim. See בל"י אות סה for an alternate explanation. ⁴ The purpose of the מיגו here is not to be taken in the usual sense of מיגו, where the מיגו is the cause why he is believed. Rather the function of the מיגו here is to remove the נגיעה from the עדים. Once the נגיעה has been removed through the מיגו, the עדים are believed on their own merit, as עדים. See: ‘Thinking it over’ B. ⁵ In the times of the אמוראים, the חכמים instituted that even a הכל כופר must take an oath that he owes no money to the claimant. [Until that time a הכל כופר was משבועה פטור (even מדרבנן); only a במקצת מודה had to swear].Therefore the עדים would be required to take this היסת שבועת if they claim that they paid the מערער the rent (and he denies it). ⁶ The גמרא there states that if a לוה sent payment to the מלוה with two שלוחים, the שלוחים can testify that they paid the loan to the מלוה and the לוה is פטור even if the מלוה claims that he never received the money. A similar question arises there. The עדים are בעדות נוגע. If they will not testify that they paid the מלוה, the לוה will request his money back .The גמרא answers that the עדים have a מיגו, they could say to the לוה that we returned the money to you. Therefore they are not בעדות נוגע and are believed. The גמרא there concludes that after the רבנן instituted היסת שבועת, this מיגו exists no longer, therefore these שלוחים are בעדות נוגע and will not be believed. ש"עיי. We derive from that גמרא (both, that a מיגו can remove a בעדות נגיעה [see ‘Thinking it over’ A], and) that היסת שבועת invalidates the מיגו. ⁷ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read האחר בדין ויתבע. ⁸ See footnote # 6. ⁹ In קידושין 'מס both claims – whether they paid the מלוה or returned the money to the לוה – are equal; as opposed to our case. ¹⁰ In a regular מיגו, the מיגו is usually a stronger and better claim than the actual טענה. It does not seem so in our case. In addition, when they claim ובלילה ביום ש"ג ודיירנא, they maintain a status of עדים; however when they claim פרענו למערער, they become litigants. The aloof status of עדים is preferable over the involvement of a litigant. ¹¹ See footnote # 4.

אמר מר זוטרא אי טעין ואמר כולי—מר זוטרא said; if he claims and says, etc.

OVERVIEW The גמרא discusses how it is possible to find עדים that the מחזיק was in possession of his house for three consecutive years day and night. אביי answered that the neighbors know. רבא answered that the עדים are the tenants who lived there for the past three years (but did not pay the rent as of yet). מר זוטרא assumes that עדים who testify that the מחזיק lived in this house for three years, are acceptable, even if they do not say we know he was there all the days and nights. However if the מערער claims that he knows for sure that the מחזיק was not there on certain nights, then the מחזיק is obligated to produce witnesses that he lived there ג"ש ביום ובלילה. The גמרא concludes that מר זוטרא admits that if the מערער was a peddler, then בי"ד will demand that the עדים for the מחזיק testify specifically that he lived there ג"ש ביום ובלילה. This is the interpretation and text of the גמרא according to the רשב"ם. Our תוספות will briefly discuss the opinion of the רשב"ם, and then offer two alternate interpretations of the גמרא.

תוספות asks: הקשה רבינו יצחק בר מרדכי לפירוש הקונטרס¹ כי לא טעין נמי אמאי לא נשאל מהן – The ריב"ם has a difficulty, according to the interpretation of [ם"רשב] (י"רש) who maintains that (unless the מערער specifically demands it) all that the עדים are required to testify is that the מחזיק lived here for three years, without being specific whether it was ג"ש ביום ובלילה or not; even if the מערער did not claim that the מחזיק should produce witnesses that he lived in the house three complete years day and night, why should we (ד"בי) not ask the עדים whether the מחזיק was there ובלילה ביום ש"ג. The reason we should ask, is – כי שמא אינן יודעין על הלילות – Because perhaps the עדים do not know concerning the nights, whether the מחזיק indeed was there.² Probing these עדים will assure – שלא נוציא על פיהן שלא כדין – that we do not unjustifiably remove the מערער from his property, based on their testimony. דבכל עדיות אנו דורשין יפה וכאן נמי אמאי לא נחקור אותן מספק – for by all testimony we inquire properly to assure that the verdict is based on proper testimony and here also, why do we not investigate them on account of the doubt that we have, namely that they are not aware concerning the nights.³ תוספות answers: ולאו פירכא היא דכיון שהעידו על הימים אפילו יאמרו אין אנו יודעים על הלילות – However this is not a valid challenge, for since they testified concerning the days; that the מחזיק was there during the days, even if the עדים were to say (originally, or) subsequently after we question them, ‘we do not know concerning the nights’; whether the מחזיק was there or not, nevertheless – מסתמא כיון שדר בימים דר נמי בלילות אם לא שטוען המערער שבודאי לא דר – It is presumed that since he dwelled in the house during the days, he dwelt there also in the nights. Therefore there is no point in questioning the עדים⁴ unless the מערער claims that the מחזיק certainly did not dwell in the house during the nights.⁵ In that case we will require that the מחזיק produce עדים who will testify specifically that the מחזיק was there by nights as well. The opinion of the רשב"ם may be summarized as follows: According to רבא it is always necessary to have עדים who can testify that the מערער was there ג"ש ביום ובלילה (regardless of what the מערער claims). מר זוטרא maintains that if the מערער claims that the מחזיק was not there certain nights then מר זוטרא would agree with רבא; that עדות ג"ש ביום ובלילה is required. However If the מערער makes no specific claims, then a general testimony that the מחזיק lived there ג"ש is sufficient. There is a difference of opinions as to the ruling of אביי. Some maintain that אביי disagrees with רבא and מר זוטרא; that according to אביי the neighbors are always satisfactory witnesses (regardless of what the מערער claims); while others maintain that if the מערער contends that he knows for sure that the מחזיק was not there certain nights, then שיבבי are not accepted and we need עדים (tenants) who can testify that the מחזיק was there ג"ש ביום ובלילה (similar to the opinion of מר זוטרא). According to this latter opinion it is also a matter of contention whether מר זוטרא requires שיבבי as אביי does, or any עדים are sufficient. תוספות offers a different interpretation of s'זוטרא מר statement: ורבינו חננאל פירש דמר זוטרא קאי אפירכא דרב יימר דפריך נוגעין בעדותן הן – And the ח"ר explained that זוטרא מר is referring back to the challenge that רב יימר posed to רב אשי concerning s'רבא statement.רב יימר challenged s'רבא answer, claiming that the tenants who testify, their testimony is biased! וקאמר מר זוטרא אי טעין ואמר המחזיק – So מר זוטרא responded to this challenge of רב יימר,**** saying if the מחזיק claims and says in response to the challenge that he should produce עדים that he lived there ובלילה ביום ש"ג; the מחזיק may respond, that – לייתו תרי סהדי דדרו⁶ ביה שלש שנים ביום ובלילה והבו לי אגרא ונפקו ואזלו להו – Let two witnesses come, i.e. tenants who lived there three years day and night and they paid me the rent for the three years and they left my house and went away – והנהו דדיירי ביה אחריני נינהו טענתו טענה⁷ – and those tenants that live in my house now they are other tenants; not the tenants that will testify, his claim is a valid claim; and these former tenants will be accepted as valid עדים – תוספות will now explain why in this case there is no concern of בעדותן נוגעין. A synopsis of תוספות explanation follows: In the previous case of רבא where the עדים are the current tenants there is a בעדות נגיעה. The tenants are aware that the ownership of the house is being contested. They already paid rent to the מחזיק. If the מערער wins the case and retrieves the house they will have to repay the rent to the מערער. The מערער is aware that they are living in this house. It is in the interest of the tenants that the מחזיק retain the house. Therefore their testimony is biased and not acceptable. In this proposed case by זוטרא מר, the tenants who will testify have vacated; the מערער is not aware that they lived there previously. To these tenants it makes no difference who wins the case. Even if the מערער wins he will not bother them for the rent; he does not even know them to be tenants. That is why they are not בעדות נוגע. תוספות continues: ולא נוגעין בעדותן הן⁸ דלא דיירי בה השתא דמצי למימר להו הבו לי אגר ביתא – and the former tenants are not biased in their testimony, for these former tenants are not living now in the house, so that the מערער should be capable of saying to them give me the rent for the house (which was the reason יימר רב challenged רבא that the עדים are בעדות נוגע). In this case it is not so. The עדים have nothing to fear from the מערער. The reason they need not fear the מערער even after they testify and the מערער becomes aware that they lived in the house for the past three years, is since it was – אלא אינהו אמרו דיירנא ואינהו אמרו פרענו – only they who admitted and said we lived here for three years ובלילה ביום (the מערער did not know about it) and it is they who say we paid the rent to the מחזיק (making him the מוחזק and therefore freeing themselves from any obligation to the מערער)⁹ תוספות explains that it is considered שאסר הפה, because they were in a compromising situation only on their own accord, through their own testimony – והפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר¹⁰ דאי בעו אמרי לא דיירנא ביה – For the same mouth that bound them to the מערער (by saying we lived in the house that you claim as yours); that is the same mouth that frees them from the מערער,¹¹ for if they wished they could have said we never lived in that house – תוספות responds to an anticipated question: וליכא למימר דדילמא מכחיש להו שהוא לא היה יודע כלל שהיו דרים באותו בית – And we cannot say that perhaps the מערער would contradict them if they would have said that we never lived there, therefore they had to come and testify to protect themselves. This is not so; because the מערער did not know altogether that they lived in that house. According to this interpretation of the ח"ר, there will also be a change in the גירסא in the following גמרא. ובסמוך לא גרסינן מודה מר זוטרא אלא ומודה רבא דבעינן¹² שלש שנין ביממא ובליליא – And in the following גמרא the text does not read; ‘זוטרא מר admits’, but rather the text reads; ‘and רבא admits’; for it was רבא who required that there be witnesses who can testify that the מחזיק was there three years by day and by night, nevertheless רבא will admit that – אם הנך עדים¹³ רוכלים המחזרים בעיירות – If these witnesses, who testify that they were tenants for three years [they] are peddlers who travel to various cities to peddle their merchandise; then רבא admits that – אף על גב דלא אמרו דדרו ביה שלש שנין ביממא ובליליא – even though they did not say that they lived there three years day and night – אלא אמרי בידינו היה זה הבית שלש שנים רצופות – but rather they say that this house was in our possession three consecutive years; they were the tenants all the time, then – אף על גב שימים רבים הם מחזרים בעיירות ולא היו¹⁴ בזה הבית עדותן עדות¹⁵ – Even though that for many day they are visiting other cities and they were not [sleeping over] in this house during those times, nevertheless their testimony is a valid testimony; and it is considered that the מחזיק made a proper חזקה. The reason the ח"ר changes the גירסא from זוטרא מר ומודה (as it is in our גמרות, which is the גירסא of the ם"רשב) to רבא ומודה is as follows: According to the ם"רשב, זוטרא מר stated that (only) the מערער can demand ובלילה ביום ש"עדות ג; however בי"ד does not demand such עדות. Therefore the גמרא continues that זוטרא מר admits that if the מערער is a רוכל, then even if the מערער does not demand עדות ג"ש וכו', nevertheless בי"ד will demand ובלילה עדות ג"ש ביום. However according to the ח"ר, זוטרא מר is merely interpreting s'רבא answer that it is possible to find tenants to testify ובלילה ביום ש"ג and not be בעדות נוגע. It was however רבא who insisted that we must find עדים for ובלילה ביום ש"ג (as opposed to אביי, who maintains that neighbors are sufficient). Therefore it follows that it is רבא who is מודה that there are circumstances – by רוכלין – where עדות of ובלילה ביום ש"ג חזקת is not strictly required. The opinion of the ח"ר may be summarized as follows: זוטרא מר is explaining רבא. That it is possible to have the tenants as עדים (even if they already paid the rent) provided that the עדים tenants do not presently live there and the מערער is not aware of their previous tenancy. In addition; רבא agrees that the acceptability of tenant עדים applies even if the tenants do not live in the house continually but leave town to peddle wares elsewhere. תוספות offers yet a different interpretation of the סוגיא: ורבינו תם גרס דדיירנא ביה שלש שנין – And the ת"ר maintains that the text reads (not דדר as the ם"רשב would have it and not דדרו as the ח"ר maintains, but rather) that I (the מחזיק) lived there three years. ופירש דאביי ורבא תרוייהו סבירא להו דאין צריך להביא עדים על הימים ועל הלילות – And the ר"ת explained that אביי ורבא both maintain that it is not necessary to bring witnesses to testify concerning the days and the nights. אביי said so clearly; for אביי maintained that the neighbors are sufficient to testify concerning the ש"ג. Even רבא who is seemingly saying that (only) the tenants can testify for the ולילות ימים ש"ג, nevertheless רבא does not maintain that it is required to have עדים for ג"ש ימים ולילות – ורבא לא אמר ביממא ובליליא אלא להוציא המקשה מסברתו ולא לפלוגי אאביי אתא – for רבא did not state that the tenants can testify for the days and the nights to imply that it must be this way, but rather only for the purpose of disabusing the questioner from his conviction that it is impossible to find witnesses who can testify concerning the entire three years by day and by night. רבא pointed out that it is possible to find such witnesses, i.e. tenants. However רבא had no intention of arguing with אביי, who states that neighbors are sufficient witnesses, even though they cannot testify with certainty that the מחזיק was there ובלילה ביום ש"ג. רבא agrees with אביי. זוטרא מר is explaining the opinions of ורבא אביי: וקאמר מר זוטרא אם אמר העידוני סתם¹⁶ שדרתי ג' שנים בחזקת ימים ולילות – And זוטרא מר said that ורבא אביי also agree that if the מחזיק said to witnesses, testify on my behalf that I generally lived here three years, presumably days and nights, so – אף על פי שלא ראו ממש כל הימים והלילות אלא שבחזקת כן מחזקין אותו – even though the witnesses did not actually see that he lived there all the days and all the nights of this three year period but rather they assume this presumption – שכל שעה שהיו נכנסים פעמים ביום ופעמים בלילה היו רואין אותו בביתו טענתיה טענה¹⁷ – because whenever they would enter the house sometimes during the day and sometimes during the night the עדים would see the מחזיק in his house. זוטרא מר maintains that the claim of the מחזיק that these witnesses should testify is a valid claim, and we accept these witnesses. תוספות anticipates a difficulty with the s'ת"ר explanation: והוה ליה למימר עדותן עדות – And זוטרא מר should have worded his ruling by saying that their testimony is a valid testimony instead of what זוטרא מר actually said that טענה טענתיה. Saying עדות עדותן would make it clear that a general testimony is also sufficient. תוספות responds that it is not that difficult; even though it should have been worded עדותן עדות אלא אגב דנקיט ברישא דמילתיה אי טעין אומר נמי טענתיה טענה¹⁸ – However, on account that in the beginning of s'זוטרא מר statement he used the term ‘if the מחזיק would claim’; therefore since he started with that term he also said in the conclusion of his statement that ‘his claim is a valid claim’. The real intention of זוטרא מר, however, is that it is a valid testimony. תוספות now concludes with the interpretation of the ת"ר concerning 'וכו ומודה : ומודה רבא והוא הדין מר זוטרא ואביי¹⁹ ברוכלין המחזרין בעיירות – And רבא admits [and similarly זוטרא מר and אביי whose names are not mentioned here together with רבא ומודה; they also agree] concerning peddlers who circulate in various cities peddling their wares, and are coming to testify on behalf of the מחזיק, that – אף על גב דלא טען טענינן ליה²⁰ דאין צריכים להעיד שראו ממש – even though the מחזיק himself did not claim that he wants them to testify, since he knows for sure that they cannot testify concerning the entire**** three years**** (in which case בי"ד would not ordinarily encourage them to testify), nevertheless we (בי"ד) will argue on his behalf that they should testify because it is not necessary that the רוכלים actually saw the מחזיק in the house for the full three years**.** The reason בי"ד does not require them to testify for the full three years is –** שהרי הם מחזרין בעיירות ואין יכולין להעיד על הראיה²¹ –** For these witnesses are travelling in various cities and they cannot testify about seeing the מחזיק in the house for three full years –

However, they may testify that this house was in the possession of the מחזיק, generally for three years, days and nights.

SUMMARY A. אמר מר זוטרא ואי טעין a. רשב"ם - if the מערער claims that the מחזיק was not there at nights we require עדות for ג"ש ביום ובלילה. b. ר"ח - (זוטרא מר is explaining רבא) If the מחזיק says I have tenants who left, they may testify, for they have no נגיעה בעדות. c. ר"ת - (זוטרא מר is explaining ורבא אביי) The מחזיק can bring עדים that they always saw him whenever they came to his house (no ובלילה ביום ש"ג is required). B. ומודה [מר זוטרא] [רבא] a. רשב"ם - זוטרא מר agrees that if the מערער is a רוכל we require עדות ג"ש ביום ובלילה b. ר"ח - רבא agrees that if the tenants are רוכלין they are proper עדים. c. ר"ת - רבא (and זוטרא ומר אביי) agree[s] that רוכלין are encouraged to testify as tenants.

THINKING IT OVER If we were to assume that the ח"ר maintains that a חזקה of שכירות requires that the מחזיק receive the rent;²² how can we explain that which רבא stated previously that we are discussing a case where the tenants did not pay the rent yet? According to the ח"ר, that רבא agrees that רוכלין tenants can be proper עדים, what would be the ruling if the מחזיק himself is a רוכל, would it be a proper חזקה even though he is not there ובלילה ביום ש"ג?²³ Why does תוספות ask that it should have said עדות עדותן (instead of טענה טענתו) on the ת"ר only and not on the ח"ר?²⁴ According to the ר"ח if רוכלין are permitted to testify, even though they were not there ג"ש ביום ובלילה, why in all other cases is it required that they should testify ג"ש ביום ובלילה?

footnotes: ¹ The הקונטרס פירוש generally refers to רש"י. We do not have י"פירש on this גמרא. Here are some options to choose from. A. תוספות (as well as the ם"רשב) perhaps had a previous version of רש"י on ב"ב, B. תוספות refers to ם"רשב 'פי as the הקונטרס פירוש since it filled that void. C. The ם"רשב perhaps also distributed his פירוש in קונטרסים as רש"י did. See רשב"ם ד"ה אמר. ² We are not concerned that perhaps the עדים know that the מזיק was not there during the nights. If that were the case, they would not, in good conscience, testify that the מחזיק made a proper חזקה. ³ The ם"ריב assumes that the reason the ם"רשב maintains that a general testimony is sufficient, is because we assume that when the עדים state that the מחזיק lived here three years, they meant to say that he lived here ובלילה ביום ש"ג. Therefore the ם"ריב asks why we should not verify exactly what the עדים meant. ⁴ תוספות maintains that the reason a general testimony is sufficient is (not because we assume that the עדים mean that the מחזיק lived here ובלילה ביום ש"ג, but rather) because we assume that if he was there generally, it can be assumed that he was there ובלילה ביום ש"ג. ⁵ When the מערער claims that he knows for sure that the מחזיק was not there all the nights, then we cannot rely on the assumption, that since he was generally there, he most probably was there all the nights as well. ⁶ This is different than the גירסא of the ם"רשב and our גמרות where the text reads דדר instead of דדרו. According to the ם"רשב the עדים testify that the מחזיק lived there – דדר. However according to the ח"ר the עדים themselves lived there – דדרו. ⁷ See later in this תוספות why the expression טענה טענתו is used instead of עדות עדותן, which seems more appropriate. See footnote # 18. See “Thinking it over # 3. ⁸ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read, הן דהא לא ⁹ It would seem that the ח"ר is of the opinion that a חזקה of a rental property requires two conditions; a) that the renters lived there ובלילה ביום ש"ג (so the מערער cannot claim that it was not a proper חזקה) and b) that the מחזיק receives the rent; for only through receiving the rent, does the מחזיק become the מוחזק. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ]See נח"מ who changes the גירסא to אינהו וכו' ואינהו אמרי דיירנא ג"ש.] ¹⁰ A classic case of שהתיר הפה הוא שאסר הפה is a woman who comes to בי"ד and states; “I was once married, and now I am single”. When בי"ד does not know the (past) status of a woman and she claims she is single, the woman is believed. If בי"ד knows that the woman was once married, then the woman must bring proof that she is now single. If the only way we know that she was once married is through her admission, then we say שאסר הפה the woman who said she was once married (and thus forbidden to marry) – שהתיר הפה הוא is the same woman who claims that she is now single (and permitted to marry). The woman is believed. We cannot prevent her from remarrying, since the only reason to prevent her from marrying is her exclusive testimony that she was once married, however she simultaneously proclaims that she is now single. ¹¹ When the עדים state ביה דיירנא, they place themselves at risk; for the מערער can then demand the rent from them (since merely living there three years does not accomplish a חזקה for the מחזיק – see previous footnote # 9).However since they conclude simultaneously that we paid the three year rent to the מחזיק (making him a מוחזק), that removes any threat from the מערער. The concept of 'וכו שאסר הפה is that the testimony is not viewed as two separate statements: a. we lived there, so you have a claim against us; and b. but we paid the מחזיק, so we do not owe you; for then they would be בעדות נוגע for they are testifying that they paid the מחזיק in order to make him a מוחזק. Rather it is considered as one statement; ‘the house belongs to the מחזיק’ (because we lived there and paid him the rent); ¹² Others amend this to דבעי. ¹³ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read עדים הם רוכלים. ¹⁴ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read, היו לנים בזה. ¹⁵ This does not necessarily mean that the ח"ר changes the גירסא to read עדות עדותן. The גירסא can still be דאע"ג דלא טען טענינין ליה. The meaning would be that if the מחזיק is hesitant to bring these tenants as עדים, because he mistakenly assumes that they are not valid, then בי"ד will encourage him to bring them as עדים. See footnote # 20. ¹⁶ Perhaps זוטרא מר claims that even שיבבי are not required; any עדים can testify to this effect. ¹⁷ It seems that only if the מחזיק claims that these עדים should be accepted, does בי"ד accept them. However initially בי"ד would not encourage these עדים to come and testify. ¹⁸ See footnote # 7. ¹⁹ The reason we mention only רבא, even though זוטרא ומר אביי also agree that we are lenient with עדים who are רוכלין, is because רבא stated the most stringent requirements for these עדים (and even though רבא does not actually require that stringency, nevertheless he verbalized it). The גמרא is saying that even רבא who is supposedly the most stringent is (also) lenient concerning the רוכלין. ²⁰ See footnote # 15. ²¹ ת"ר maintains that we never strictly require עדים that can testify that the מחזיק was there ובלילה ביום ש"ג. It is sufficient to have עדים that testify that the מחזיק was there whenever they came. However, that is only if the מחזיק demands that we accept such עדים; בי"ד does not encourage it. If, however, the עדים are רוכלין then בי"ד will encourage (the מחזיק to bring) them to testify. ²² See footnote # 9. ²³ See ש"רא. ²⁴ See footnote # 7.