Reb Moshe Usher, thank you for your good thoughts. May we be Zocheh soon to more peaceful days, b'Ezer Hash-m.

1) I would like to relate an account that I once heard about discussions among Talmidei Chachomim, which may help us answer your question. There was once a Beis Din composed of Rav Elyashiv zt'l, Rav Ovadyah Yosef zt'l, and Rav Betzalel Zolti zt'l. It often happened that a question was brought before the Beis Din, and Rav Ovadyah would cite, with the help of his tremendous Bekiyus, many sources in the Poskim to help answer the question. The next stage in the discussion would often be that Rav Zolti would analyze the different Shitos that had been cited, and would sometimes show that questions could be asked on these opinions, or on other occasions there might be a subtle difference between the case discussed by the sources and the case in front of the Beis Din. Often, Rav Elyashiv was relatively quiet in these discussions, while from time to time making a comment here and there. However, when it came to making the final decision, the other two Rabanim would often look towards Rav Elyashiv to hear what his conclusion was, after he had weighed all the relevant sources, examined how reliable each source was, and how relevant it was to the case at hand.

We learn from this anecdote that there may often be a difference between the discussions in the middle of the process and the finak Psak. When Rashi writes that Yehudah had Nitzachon, this does not necessarily mean that he had a final victory. Rather, it means that Yehudah seemed to be winning in the arguments, but at the end of the day there might have been some point that he overlooked that was later picked up by the other Chachamim, which caused Yehudah's opinion to be rejected in the final analysis. To put this in different words, you might win the battle but this does not mean you have won the war. So this is part 3 of the Gemara, that Yehudah received a power to fight in the Halachic arguments. Part 4 is that his opinion was accepted. This means that the majority of the Sages agreed with him, which is why the Halachah now followed him. "Shemaitesa Aliba d'Hilchasa" means "Davar ha'Miskabel," because if an opinion is agreed to by the majority of the Beis Din it becomes the Halachah. In addition, often the way to have an opinion accepted is not through powerful arguments, but through saying a few well-chosen and authoritative words, as Koheles 9:17 says: "The words of the wise are heard when said gently." So part 4 meant that Yehudah was Zocheh to a higher Madreiga, since his words were accepted now without any arguments.

Now we can understand why Rashi in Makos writes "Koach" -- it is because Yehudah's victory in part 3 was not a lasting victory even though he appeared to have powerful arguments.

2) The Aruch la'Ner in Makos relates to the difference between the Girsa in Sotah and in Makos. He writes that in fact the two Girsa'os mean the same thing. After part 3 of Moshe's Tefilah, Yehudah was already able to discuss Halachah with the other Chachamim. However, when he would say a Halachah they asked questions on him which he was unable to answer and as a result his Halachah was rejected. This is why the verse says, "And he will receive help against his opponents." After part 4 of Moshe's prayer, Yehudah received the ability to answer the challenges on him and, as a result, the Halachah could now be established according to his opinion, as our Gemara says. The Netziv of Volozhin (in Ha'emek She'eilah on She'iltos 30:14) also writes that the two Girsa'os mean the same thing, because if what one says does not constitute the Halachah then there will be many Kushyas on it, and the person who said it will not "find his hands and feet in the Beis ha'Midrash."

3) I saw another important source to help answer your original question about the difference between part 3 and 4 of Moshe's Tefilah: Rashi to Bava Kama 92a, DH Aliba. Our Gemara also appears there, but Rashi adds an important word into the discussion. He writes that after part 3 of Moshe's prayer, "Lo Havah Mistaya Milsa" -- Yehudah did not possess "Siyata" to be able to say the right word so that the Halachah would follow him. Rashi is referring to "Siyata di'Shemaya." We learn a very important concept from this: that even if one possesses good proofs for his opinion, without a special Siyata di'Sehmaya one will not be Zocheh to say the accepted Halachah.

A further source for this is Sanhedrin 93b, where the Gemara explains the verse (Shmuel I 16:18) that says that David was "a man of war, who understood matters, a man of good appearance, and Hash-m is with him," to mean "a man of war" -- that he knows how to fight Talmudic debates, "a man of good appearance" -- that he knows how to "show favor" to the Halachah by adducing proofs for his position, and "Hash-m is with him" -- that the Halachah always follows him. Again, we learn from here that even though one has good support from the sources for one's Halachic opinion, this is not enough. One requires "Hash-m is with him"; one needs Siyata di'Shemaya in order that the Halachah should follow him.

Similarly, in our Gemara, even though after part 3 of Moshe's Tefilah, Yehudah was able to gain victory with his Halachic arguments, nevertheless he was still lacking the crucial Siyata di'Shemaya, without which the Halachah could not follow his opinion, and he only merited this after Moshe's 4th prayer.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom

1) I posed this important question to a Talmid Chacham, and he answered that the word "Nitzachon" does not necessarily mean victory. His source for this is Bava Metzia 59b, concerning the famous dispute between Rebbi Eliezer and the other Chachamim. Rebbi Eliezer commanded the walls of the Beis ha'Midrash to prove that he was right, so they started to collapse. Rebbi Yehoshua rebuked the walls: "If Talmidei Chachamim are Menatzechim each other in Halachah, what does this have to do with you?!" We see from here that the word "Menatzechim" does not have to mean victory, since Rebbi Eliezer and the Chachamim had not yet resolved their dispute. Instead, in this case it means "arguing" or "debating."

2) If we translate "Nitzachon" this way, Rashi in Sotah is easier to understand, for otherwise there is something rather strange in what Rashi writes in the context of the Sugya. The problem is as follows: Before Moshe Rabeinu's third prayer, Yehudah was unable to discuss Halachah with the other Chachamim. What Moshe's third prayer achieved was that now Yehudah was able to take a full part in the discussions. If so, what forced Rashi to say that Yehudah had a "Nitzachon"? If we understand "Nitzachon" literally to meaning "victory," is Rashi not jumping somewhat by going from a stage where Yehudah was not even able to debate with the other Sages, to the stage where he immediately defeated everyone else? However if we translate "Nitzachon" to mean not acually winning, but merely discussing, it is now easier to understand Rashi. Before the third prayer, Yehudah was unable to argue with the other Chachamim, and after the third prayer he was able to argue, but only after the fourth prayer did he actually win the arguments.

3) I think that this explanation is actually similar to my first answer, where I argued that one sometimes wins a battle, but one has not yet won the war. According to this, we can understand that "Nitzachon" means that the battle has been won, but not yet the war. This is what the Gemara in Bava Metzia 59b means when it says that the Talmidei Chachamim are "Menatzechim" one another in Halachah. They are involved in heated discussions and sometimes one Chacham wins one argument and another time a different Chacham wins a different argument, but it is only at the end of the day that we make a judgement to decide whom the Halachah follows, when we weigh everything to see whose argument is most convincing in the total picture. Now we have a source from Bava Metzia 59b for the idea I suggested.

4) We do find, however, that the word "Nitzachon" is used sometimes in the literal sense. See the last Mishnah in the first chapter of Berachos, which we say on the Seder night, in which Rebbi Eliezer ben Azaryah says that he did not possess the merit that Yetzi'as Mitzrayim should be mentioned at night. The Bartenura explains this to mean that he did not "defeat" the Chachamim. However, Rashi in Sotah understands that "Nitzachon" does not mean a final victory.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom

Reb Moshe, I sent this question to a Gadol and he replied:

"Lo b'Halachah." ("Not in Halachah.")

After the third prayer of Moshe, Yehudah gained victory, but it was not yet the final victory that enabled the Halachah to be fixed according to his opinion.

Dovid Bloom