Bava Metzia 10b: Tofes L’baal Chov, Chav L’acherim, Shlichus, and Migo D’zachi

Transcript

The Gemara is meva'er. The Gemara tells us that migo d'zachi takes care of the problem, and that's the churah the heart of the sugya, tosfos bal chov, and migo undoes that problem. Last shiur we spent explaining the tosfos bal chov. Now today we have to explain how does the migo take care of the problem? How does it correct it? Look at the top of your sheet. I taka bring you tosfos bal chov, dash migo d'zachi, because we're going to touch on Tosfos to go back to a little bit what we spoke in order to understand the next part of the sugya: how does migo take care of the problem? That is what you have to learn in pshat. That's pshat. You have to know the sugya. The sugya is tosfos bal chov, and migo corrects it. So we have to go back to what we spoke a little bit of tosfos bal chov to see how migo corrects it. We discussed three chesronos, three shitas, in what shows tosfos bal chov and what shows chav lachrini. The first thing we spoke, the Ran, shluchush bal ha-mamon. The chesaron is you don't have shluchush bal ha-mamon. And since you don't have shluchush bal ha-mamon, therefore you have the problem of chav lachrini, and we spoke b'shem the Machaneh Efraim and the way we explained the sugya al pi the Machaneh Efraim, that the problem is not just shluchush bal ha-mamon, because that's a separate sugya in the parsha of shlichus, but the chav lachrini is a problem where there's no shluchush bal ha-mamon. The Pnei Yehoshua. Pnei Yehoshua learns that the problem is shlichus d'var aveirah, k'me'ager. Tosfos learns that the problem is there's no schiyah here, because schiyah means mamash schiyah, and when it's chav lachrini, that's not called schiyah. This Shabbosai is the final line of the three shitos in tofes l'chov b'makom shechav l'acher. Shlucho shel baal mamon, the Ran, or shliach l'dvar aveirah, most Acharonim speak, and then the Tzad, the mechadesh, that there's no chiyuv here. Now let's see it through the eyes of Rashi and Tosafos. Rashi seems to learn that shliach would work. There's a Tzad; we spoke about this Tzad, that the chiyuv is only when you're zocheh, but if you're not zocheh, you're chav l'acherim. That's not called chiyuv; there's no parshas chiyuv like that. So we spoke that there's a machlokes Rashi and Tosafos if shlichus will be a correction to the problem of tofes l'baal chov. Meaning, if tofes l'baal chov a problem even if he made him a shliach, Rashi holds that if you made him a shliach, it's good. Tosafos holds if you made him a shliach, it's no good. What's it תלוי on? What's the machlokes Rashi and Tosafos based on? L'choreh we could say it's תלוי on the previous shaila of what's the duchsaron of tofes l'baal chov. If shlichus corrects the problem of tofes l'baal chov, then we have to understand tofes l'baal chov to understand why it should correct and why it shouldn't correct. Meaning, just in the cheshbon, remember the main part of the shiur is the cheshbon, to see how everything fits. This is the fact. These are three mahalchim in tofes l'baal chov. So let's see why shliach would be a ma'alah or a chesaron. Could shliach help or couldn't help? Rashi holds it helps, Tosafos holds it doesn't. Why? L'choreh it's תלוי on these three nekudos. Why? If you don't have shlucha sheba l'amonim, that's the chisaron. Would it make a difference if I sent a shliach or not? It doesn't make a difference. If the chisaron is shlucha sheba l'amonim, a shliach shouldn't make a difference. That's l'chura to'us. If you learn that you need shlucha sheba l'amonim, so mimeila, even if I sent him a shliach, it can't correct anything, because he's not the shlucha sheba l'amonim. But if you learn that it's mitam tzricha, meaning that the chisaron is that there's no real zecha over here, so when there's no real zecha, we can come and say that if I don't use mamash tzricha, but I use shlichus, I use the psugei of shlichus, therefore says I have to be a zoche for that. Every shliach I send is only the taich with tzricha, where there's complete chus. If I'm working with a parsha of tzricha, then I can come and say shlichus takes care of that problem. If the problem is shlucha sheba l'amonim, even if I made a shliach, it's still a problem, because you don't have shlucha sheba l'amonim. But if the problem is that tzricha isn't complete when it's chav l'acheirim, so then if I make a shliach, it's not a problem, because that's not the parsha of tzricha.

Take a look at the Tosafos in Kuf Ayin, seif aleph. This is how we tackle learning the machlokes. Rashi and Tosafos, that's the Tosafos hacholek in this nekudah. Rashi holds, priyah is lav mitam shlichus. So priyah takkeh is a problem, shlichus won't be a problem, and therefore if I make you a shliach, then I take care of the problem. Mashenkein Tosafos holds, priyah is mitam shlichus. So priyah doesn't work, then shlichus doesn't work. Again, one more time. Because if you really break it up, there's two sugyas here. Okay, let's start one more time. I see a few people came late; we'll say it over one more time. The nekudah tachtona of the sugya, the bottom line of the sugya is, Tosafos, u'val chai b'makom shechav la'acher is a problem. That's the sugya. The correction to that problem is, migo d'zachi l'nafshei, zachi nami l'chavrei. That's what it says in the Gemara. If you don't know that, that means you didn't read the Gemara. It says in the Gemara. And of course, you have to understand that that's the heart of the sugya. That's the nekudah. The pratim around it is just cases. This is the nekudah: Tosafos u'val chai, and migo correction. To understand how the migo corrects it, you have to know the Tosafos u'val chai. You have to know what it is. So there's three shitos how to learn the Tosafos u'val chai: either the chisaron of shluchus shelo b'alamamin, which we spent a whole shiur on last shiur to explain that it begins with chav la'acherim, and it doesn't begin with shluchus shelo b'alamamin, the regular sugya of shluchus shelo b'alamamin that you were learning. Then we have the most Acharonim take on shlichus d'var aveirah. Then we have a Tosafos that's mechadesh that this is not called priyah. It's priyah where it's not a real priyah because somebody's losing; that's not called the schus of priyah. You have a right to make priyah, not if it hurts another person. If we understand the taifas of al chayv in these three mahalchim, then we have to go after that and go to the next step to understand the migu d'zach, how it corrects. But before we go there, it's important to see a nekudah from a Ktzos. What's the nekudah of the Ktzos? The Ktzos wants to explain with this mahalach how does shlichus work according to Rashi and not work according to Tosafos. We learned that Rashi holds that shlichus will help in the taifas of baal chov, while Tosafos brings a raya from the Gemara in Kesubos that it doesn't help. So there's really two ways how to be mazbir the machlokes, meaning how does shliach correct or not correct. If you should come and say, chisaron shlichus sheba'al hamamon, the Ran. So if I send you a shliach, would it help anything? It doesn't correct anything, because that's the problem. The problem is you don't have shlichus sheba'al hamamon. So as much as you're memaneh a shliach, it's still not going to change anything. So the Ran could have been Tosafos. Now what is Rashi? Rashi could be that it's not about shlichus sheba'al hamamon. So then what is it? It's shlichus d'var aveirah. It can't be the shlichus d'var aveirah, because then shlichus wouldn't help either, right? So which is Rashi? Tosafos is the shlichus sheba'al hamamon, and therefore it doesn't help. So what is Rashi? The pnei Yehoshua and the Ritva answer also not, because shlichus can't help if it's a d'var aveirah. Tosafos could still be the pnei Yehoshua also, because since the chisaron is shlichus d'var aveirah, even if I send a shliach, it's still no good. So the only option you can have is ifchi. Which means they're arguing the Ktzos's mahalach, and the Ktzos actually uses his mahalach to say that that's the machlokes Rashi and Tosfos. So what is the machlokes? If you learn the chisaron shluchah shelo b'fanav mamin—I'm sorry, not, I'm sorry—if you learn the chisaron in shluchah shelo b'fanav mamin, or you learn the chisaron in shlichus d'var aveirah, Tosfos, so all you have to do is say is Rashi is the Ktzos. Rashi held it's schirah, and schirah is no shaychus to shlichus, and then you don't have the chisaron of shlichus in this sugya. Right? I'm trying to—the cheshbon, pashut cheshbon. Tosfos is good in the Ran. Tosfos is good in the Ran. Shluchah shelo b'fanav mamin is good. You don't have shluchah shelo b'fanav mamin, so therefore it doesn't work. If Tosfos is good in the Pnei Yehoshua, also good, because since shlichus d'var aveirah, the infeisant of shlichus doesn't work. Could Tosfos be the Ktzos? Tosfos could be the Ktzos if you learn the Ktzos in one way, and the Ktzos speaks out this nekudah. If you learn that schirah is—

Shlichus. So therefore, shlichus doesn't work either. If you learn that shlichus shlichus, so meileh, Tosafos says, so what's the ma'alah of sending a shliach? Shlichus doesn't work, Tosafos about chayav, so the shlichus won't work, Tosafos about chayav. Ma she'ein kein Rashi could have learned shlichus lamed-tes shlichus, and that's Rashi. Does everybody understand what I just did? This is called big boy learning. I'm very sorry if it's dry. I'm very sorry that it's not this gishmakke-saying alarmist, but I can't help it. You have to know the Gemara. The ABC of the Gemara is such that l'maaseh, Tosafos about chayav is a problem; we fix the problem. And there's one variable that's put into the sugya by Rashi and Tosafos: yes shliach, not shliach. Now, once we explained in the last shiur what Tosafos about chayav, machlokes Chaverim is, the three mahalchim, now let's go to the variable of shlichus that the Rishonim put in, Rashi and Tosafos. Could Tosafos be the Ran? Yes, shlucho shel baal hamamon, and therefore it's a chisaron even if I make a shliach. Could Rashi be the Ran? No, because Rashi holds you could make a shliach. I thought shlucho shel baal hamamon, take it out. Could Tosafos be the Pnei Yehoshua? Could be the Pnei Yehoshua, because if there's shlichus d'var aveirah, so therefore even if I sent a shliach, it doesn't make a difference. Could Rashi be the Pnei Yehoshua? Abadai not, because Rashi held you could make a shliach, and the problem is d'var aveirah, so it wouldn't be a problem. It would still be a problem; it wouldn't correct the problem. Could Tosafos be the Tzitz? So here's the nekudah. So either we could come and say Tosafos is the Ran, Tosafos is the Pnei Yehoshua. I don't believe you can say that Tosafos is even the ... And that's what the ... is in the sugya. The only thing is, Tosafos holds chiyah is not shlichus. Chiyah is not shlichus. And since chiyah is not shlichus, chiyah is a problem. Excuse me, chiyah shlichus. Chiyah shlichus. And just like chiyah is a problem, says the Gemara, so Tosafos holds even if I make a shliach, it's still a problem, chiyah shlichus. Chiyah is a problem, Tosafos machlokes is a problem, and the answer is yes. I, chiyah shlichus, the teretz doesn't help. Therefore, Tosafos, even if I make a shliach, doesn't help. Rashi could be learned, zokt the Tosafos, chiyah is lav mi'tam shlichus. Since chiyah is lav mi'tam shlichus, therefore chiyah won't work, shlichus will work. Rashi, after understanding the sugya that chiyah is a problem with Tosafos machlokes, the way he understands chiyah, he puts in a new chiddush, that if a person would be memaneh shliach, it would work. So the peshuteh before the Tosafos is that Tosafos is the Ran, Tosafos is the Pnei Yehoshua, and Rashi is the Tosafos. That's the peshuteh. Zokt the Tosafos, I hold that Tosafos is also. Tosafos is also my ... of chiyah, and the chiluk is: one is chiyah. If chiyah shlichus, the Tosafos shlichus doesn't help. Rashi holds chiyah is not shlichus, then it does work. This is the Tosafos, kuf ... I'm sorry, kuf ... Kufei Aleph. So, kufei Aleph. Does everybody understand what we just did? Shluchos is a problem, and shlichus will be no problem. Why? Because Tosfos is the most simple, because he holds shlichus doesn't work, because it's the Rambshuk, shlucha l'ma'amin, it's because shliach d'var aveirah. Rashi couldn't have held those two other reasons, because then shlichus wouldn't help. Then Rashi had to learn that it's priya. So what does that mean? Priya can't be if it's a chav l'acheirim, yeah, but maybe shlichus could be. Who says shlichus can't be? No, he's being shliach, not mezayche. No, he's being shliach. It doesn't mechadesh that priya is a new schus that a person has to be able to do. I'm able to make zechus for you. I'm able to help you, not if it's hurting other people. Shlichus doesn't help you. Shlichus is not doin' help. Shlichus is a parsha that if I send you, you're my agent. That's not l'tzvus. That's Tosfos yisod. Priya is schus, shlichus is shlichus. But Rashi learned, like this Tosfos could say, you know what? Priya is no good for chav l'acheirim, but shlichus is good. We still see that those who sheima chelek on this, but that's l'choira the Rebbe's kushya, the shakla v'tarya in this Tosfos.

The Taisis is a contradiction. Either, and before the Tzais I would have said it's the Ran or the Pnei Yehoshua, and as they learned al haachronim, that's the pashut pshat in Taisis. Taisis comes along and says, I have another way how to learn. I want to learn that Taisis is also mai mahalach, that the chesaron is tchiya, and tchiya is not when it's not a kos. It's not. Ilishlichus and tchiya is the same, but tchiya doesn't work shlichus. This is pashut pshat in the Gemara. This is nothing fancy here. Pashut. Whatever the problem of Taisis l'halachah is, and factually it is documented, it's three problems. That's a documented thing. It's either shlucho shel adam k'moso, it's either what most Acharonim learn shlichus d'var aveirah, or the Tzais that this is not the parshah of tchiya. Now we have to go to Rashi and Taisis. What did Taisis hold? And the answer is he could have held A, B, and maybe C. A is clear, shlucho shel adam k'moso, you don't have it when you're shliach. Shlichus d'var aveirah, it doesn't help you to be a shliach. What is C? C is like this: it's possible that if the problem is tchiya, אי למעשה corrected with shlichus, you have a priah shlichus, you see, doesn't correct it. Rashi, Rashi could have not been shlucho shel adam k'moso in the Ran. Rashi could not be the Pnei Yehoshua. The only other thing Rashi could have been is the Tzais. And the Tzais is that tchiya is a problem, except Rashi, but shlichus is not a problem. What's the machlokes Rashi and Taisis? Is tchiya a problem, mashein kein shlichus is not a problem. Rashi's holding that tchiya will be a problem with chav l'acherim, mashein kein shlichus not. Taisis held tchiya is a problem, tchiya is shlichus, and the problem applies to shlichus too. What would be the nekudah, the daas between Rashi and Tosafos? That Rashi held that shlichus is a problem in chavlah chinam, whereas Tosafos held it's not a problem. That's not mevur yet. It's mevur that it's behechrech, is techiyah works, doesn't work. Shlichus doesn't work because it's the same; that's Tosafos. But why should it be? Why should it be that it's techiyah, and shlichus—the chesaron of techiyah is actually the same chesaron by shlichus as well? Well, Rashi is going to say, no, I hold by techiyah it's a problem; by shlichus it's not a problem. You understand that jump? I understand why Rashi held what he held. Rashi held because, like the Tosafos explains, techiyah is shlichus; it's not shlichus. Techiyah doesn't work, maybe shlichus does. I think Tosafos held it's the same. Couldn't make that split. He couldn't make that difference. But I still don't know, in sevara, why should it be. That's our job. That's what we have to explain. We have to explain why would it be, not what it is. What it is is a Tosafos. It has to be that according to Rashi, we could split techiyah and shlichus, and according to Tosafos it's unsplittable, because techiyah is shlichus. But why, in sevara, should it be a problem side by techiyah and side by shlichus according to Tosafos, and why, according to Rashi, by techiyah it's a problem, by shlichus it's not? You're saying chayav. I mean, I don't see it. You're being zocheh; maybe you can't be zocheh when you're chav l'acheirim. The sevara that it's a chesaron by techiyah should l'choirah be the same sevara that it's a chesaron by shlichus. That's today's shiur. You understand the difference between an our work? Because it's very important. The fact are a given. The Tosafos are a given. It's a fact that Rashi must have held shelichus and zechiyah is flippable, and zechiyah is not shelichus. Tosafos held it this way, that zechiyah doesn't work shelichus. That's a fact. Now the question is, in svara, why should it be that zechiyah might be a problem chav l'acheirim while shelichus is not? And why is Tosafos the opposite? That zechiyah is a problem and shelichus—I hope shelichus is also. What's the chiluk between zechiyah and shelichus l'gabei the din of chav l'acheirim? That l'cheirah, the work that's cut out for us in the sugya. So let's begin to learn the sugya, so to speak, on our own. There's a very, very famous kasha on Rashi. Rashi himself, all over Shas—and if you don't like all over Shas because it frightens you, it's right here in the Gemaras as well. You can look at Daf Yud Aleph amud beis, Gittin, amud ches. You could look at Rashi, beis amud aleph, Gittin daf beis, that learns zechiyah mitam shelichus. So it's not a problem.

So, I mean, you're right off the crack of the bat, as they say, you're in trouble. How could you come and say that Rashi holds priya shlichus? Rashi says clearly it's not that way. Pashut Rashi. Rashi said, Anan sahadi, I am eidus by priya that he's happy that he's my shliach. You saw the Rashi? Look it up on it. You know the Rashi, you know this. Rashi says it clearly. Just pashut Rashi. Rashi, a lav from the beis din of matzah. Rashi, your beis din of ... got a problem. Got a very big problem. I mean, I don't believe the Tzais overlooked the פירוש רשי. It's a Rashi in Gittin, tes amud beis. All over פירוש רשי. It's not even the ... all over Shas. All over Shas, whenever Rashi talks about priya, Rashi talks about shlichus. Not in פירוש רשי? ... פירוש רשי. Help in Rashi. Anan sahadi, the neicha lei. He's very happy that he's a shliach. How could you Tzais talk against the פירוש רשי that's explaining Rashi? Rashi, you're learning up the Taisvis that priya is not shlichus, and the chesaron is by priya, not by shlichus, and therefore make your shliach would help. You see clearly not that way. You see that priya is shlichus. So there are many terutzim, and what I like is pshat terutzim. So I'm going to tell you what I hope the pshat terutz is. If you look at Taisvis in Gittin, daf tes amud beis, where he discusses the geder of priya, he brings shlichus as priya, but with a different wording than the Rashis we have all over Shas. I'm not happy to avid l'shliach. Made a shliach. Is that what Rashi says over here, as well as in Gittin? D'neicha lehu, I'm happy that he is, is my shliach. Not that I made him a shliach, but I'm happy that he is. First the Tosafos, first Rashi. The difference is everybody's learning lomdus, and I'm learning the Gemara. When you read the Gemara and you read the words of Rashi, Rashi never said that zechiah means I made you a shliach. Does it sound familiar, rabosai? I told this to you last year, that zechiah is shlichus without the minui. Is that not what Rashi says? I'm happy you're my shliach. That's zechiah, koisis learn avid. That zechiah means I even made you a shliach. Rashi never said that he made him a shliach. All Rashi said was, I'm happy that you are my shliach. Zechiah is shlichus without the minui. Rashi, I told you, learns that the chesaron is in the minui. If I'm memaneh you, then there's no problem of chav l'acheirim. If I'm not memaneh you, then there is a problem. Liyos koisis me'eila. Have I told you pshat in the Rashi? From the me'eila, we can come and say that that's what the Tosafos meant. The Tosafos meant avadus, zechiah and shlichus. Zechiah has in it the proponents of shlichus. No one argues on the mechanics. What he meant to say was that it doesn't work like shlichus. Because it works without a minui. It works that I have a shliach without making you a shliach. Lachein, Tosafos learned that the shechiyah is mamash minui, so I don't understand, what's the ma'alah of minui shliach? If I can help you, because shechiyah is minui, and minui does not work, so too shechiyah does not work, so too, the same reason and the same way, shlichus doesn't work. This is l'choira what the Tosafos meant. I don't believe the Tosafos missed the פירוש Rashi all over Shas. I can't believe it. Rashi. Rashi, for me, says we mekabel the Tosafos says shechiyah is not shlichus; Rashi talks all over Shas in shlichus. What I believe the Tosafos is saying, the words of Rashi is, it's shlichus, that's how it works. But I didn't make him my shliach. Tosafos learned of it, I made him my shliach, and it is therefore, if shechiyah doesn't work, as shechiyah is minui shlichus, so minui shlichus can't make it better. That's the churah of the difference between Rashi and Tosafos, the minui. And that's what I explained to you last year, the minui. Tosafos from the eilu. Rashi stresses, not that the concern is you're not my shliach. The concern is I never was memaneh you my shliach. You're a...

What's the difference, Rabosai, if I was memanei or not? This I pretty much told you last year, the chiluk between kaivas me'eilav and not, and I told you I don't know why it's that way. Remember I told you in the beginning of the sugya, I still don't know why it's that way. Today I know why it's that way. After learning more of the sugya, after building blocks one on top of the other, as they say, I have now a clearer picture of what's the chiluk, yes minui, not. Again, we are addressing two things at one time. We're addressing the shaila: why is it that shechiyanu might be a problem, chabla acheirim, while shlichus is not Rashi? Tosfos, if it's a problem, it's a problem by both. That's the first thing we're addressing. The second thing we have to address is how and why would the minui change anything? Again, if you follow with me, you'll see I'm not telling you anything more than the truth. There is nothing here that's chidush. It's pashut cheshbon. Everything fits step on top of step. It's what it says here. I will not learn a Tosfos and misconstrue his words and say he didn't mean—he did mean. I mean, he says clearly, shechiyanu is not mitam shlichus because of Rashi. And the answer is, what he meant to say was that maybe the mechanics is shlichus, but there's no shliach being made here. Ma she'ein kein Tosfos, you did make a shliach. So what's the chesaron? They didn't make the shliach, so what? They didn't make the—so what? Where does it say I have to make the shliach? Where I make the shliach... Then there's no problem of chav l'acheirim, where I didn't make the shliach, l'maaseh you're a shliach. Why should it depend on choshes me'eilav and not choshes me'eilav? What's the difference? There's a kishmake pnei Yehoshua. Pnei Yehoshua asks, I don't understand בכלל. How could we talk about a chesaron of chav l'acheirim where I could do it and you can't because you're chav l'acheirim? Isn't there a klal of shlucho shel adam kemoso? It's not even you doing it, it's me doing it. Shlucho shel adam kemoso, so there's no sugya here. How could you begin discussing chav l'acheirim? It's not you. You're not doing anything. You're doing nothing. I'm doing the whole thing. There's a Pnei Yehoshua, there's a ta'ina: how בכלל are we to understand the sugya of chav l'acheirim? Something wrong over here. You're not being chav l'acheirim. I'm allowed to do it, you're not allowed to do it, but you're not doing it; I'm doing it because I sent you as a shliach. How could there be a chesaron according to Tosfos? This one, if it's without shlichus, okay. If you're learning that's with shlichus, Rashi, Tosfos, how could there be a chesaron בכלל? Shlucho shel adam kemoso. It's very shayach, and we'll soon get to this, that it is because of this Rashi held that shlichus helps, because since it's shlucho shel adam kemoso, so therefore it's not even chav l'acheirim, it's not chav l'acheirim, shlucho shel adam kemoso. The problem is, what's the chosh minui and not minui? We'll soon get to it. But now at least I'm starting to see what's the ma'alah of shlichus. The ma'alah of shlichus is that it's not a chav l'acheirim בכלל. What's the difference, Tosafos? How do you learn Tosafos? The Tosafos says there's a problem of sending a shliach, shlucho shel adam kemoso. Are you being chaval chaveir? No, it's not you. You're not doing anything. I'm doing it. Yad shliach kiyad hameshaleach. So the Rosh, over here in siman chaf-zayin, says an interesting point. Because where do we say yad shliach kimoso? Only when you're not a chaval chaveir. But where you're a chaval chaveir, there's no din of yad shliach kimoso. That's the lashon of the Rosh. The Rosh. When do we say yad shliach kimoso? אומר the Rosh, היכא דליכא חב לאחריני. Where you don't have chaval chaveirim, where you're a chaval chaveir, you don't have this yad shliach kimoso. I don't understand why. I mean, if it's not chaval chaveirim, then I have yad shliach kimoso. Where it's chaval chaveirim, I don't have yad shliach kimoso. I mean, what's it dependent on? I mean, if the shlichus means I'm doing it, so how does it change in what scenario it is? Meaning, if it's chaval chaveirim, so then by action is not—what's the difference? You have to understand, how does it become a chesaron? Before I explain to you, one thing is clear.

In the Rosh, then who, by who is the chisaron? The shliach. It's his koach of shliach to be yad meshaleach. He doesn't have that power when it's a chav l'acherim. That's what you see from this Rosh, is the ayuwiski. What? פשוט. The sugya is telling me there's a problem of chav l'acherim when you do for me; there shouldn't. Halacha is shlucho shel adam k'moso. Beis Pnei Yehoshua, I don't know what's going on. I don't understand. I don't know the whole sugya. Something's wrong here. So I'm telling you that actually this Pnei Yehoshua was addressed already in the Rosh, siman chaf-zayin, where the Rosh explains that we only say yad shliach k'yad meshaleach when it's not chav l'acherim. But when it's chav l'acherim, we don't have it. No, it's hard to understand, I mean, how does it change in the scenario? I mean, l'maaseh there's a shlichus. My hand is your hand, so when it's not chav l'acherim only and where it's chav l'acherim it's not my hand, it's like your hand. U'chaira, the wording of the Rosh is that he's saying it's a chisaron in who? In the shliach. That the shliach's power of attorney doesn't fulfill itself to be a real shliach yad k'yad meshaleach when it's chav l'acherim. Why should it be that way? Unless you learn, unless you learn, that the chisaron is מצד the meshaleach making a shliach. Meaning, in order to be a shliach shelahadin k'ma'asi, it has to be— That it is the same scenario as the shliach. But if for the shliach it's a chavlah chini to the meshaleach, it's not, so automatically it can't be the same ma'aseh. Where do we say yad shliach kimshaleach? Possibly is when the ma'aseh to you is pakking the same ma'aseh that it is to me. Then the get, so the giving of the get for me and for you is the same thing. But if for me it's not a chavlah cheres, and for you it's a technical problem because you're a chavlah acheirim, there we don't have the ma'alah of yad shliach kimshaleach, which means I can't compare me to you. But the machlokes is who's the problem? The shliach. Where the shliach, his action is different than the meshaleach's action, the shliach can't represent the meshaleach. That's what I see in this Rosh. Again, what I'm telling you is the yesodos of the sugya. I took 50 pages of—I don't want to say what sefer, because I was introduced this morning with a very high task. The bar was raised very high for me. To finish the sugya today, 50 pages of this sefer on it. You said 50? That was a number you gave me? I won't have 50 pages. I'm going to make it a condensed two shiurim, the whole thing. I'm almost finished, because I'm going down to the yesod of the sugya. I'm not interested in all the pilpulim and all the cheshbonos and the sevaros. I'm not ... at the moment. Maybe when we learn to pilpul shiur we'll be busy with that. I'm a pashut pshat here. You learn the Gemara, ... You're not a tosfos, you're my shliach. What are you talking about? So l'maaseh, the Rosh is a big chiddush. There is no din of yad shliach kimshaloach, where it's a tofes l'bal chov. Machshavah l'cheirah. Yechavah chini? Why not? And the answer is: how could you be doing what I'm doing, but if I do it it's okay, when you do it it's not okay? There's a word called shtel tzu. Shtel tzu, which means your action becomes as if it's my action, but it's not. It's not the same action. What you're doing is a chav l'achrini, and what I'm doing is allowed. So there's no din of yad shliach kimshaloach. The point being, the chisaron is who? The shliach. There's no shlichus in such a case. I saw this Rav Nelson, this ... beautiful, beautiful. Mamash beautiful. The chisaron maybe is not the shliach. The chisaron is in the mimai shliach. There's a din that I can't be memaneh you a shliach to ..., which means I have the right to get for myself, but I have no right to send you to be a .... Me.

I'm allowed to take it for me. To send a shliach, to do a chav l'acheirim, I can't be memaneh in such a case, in such a scenario. Let me tell you why I think it's so important, this nekudah. You know what Reb Yisrael Salanter is talking? He's talking tzadik in yad shliach k'yad meshaleach, which means that you only have rights to shlichus where it's zechiyah. You don't have rights to shlichus where it's hurting people. That's why I like it. I'll tell you what I like about it. What I explained to you in the tzadik—well, actually it's not me, but what the tzadik explained to you in the sugya—that the sugya and the parashah of zechiyah is only when you have takkas zechiyah, not when you're hurting somebody. I remember Chaim a few minutes ago, you asked me this she'eilah, but why should shlichus be different? And the answer is, Reb Yisrael Salanter is not. Just like zechiyah is to help and not to hurt, minui is given to you as a zechiyah, not to hurt people with. The chisaron is the meshaleach, not the shliach. Do you see what I want? Pashut pshat. Choves bal chov, and makif shechav l'acheirim is a chisaron. Shlichus might or might not help. The problem is every time— I send you to do something. It's me, so it's not even you, so where's the kavachomer? And the Teretz is, says the Rosh, you can't be a yad sheliach kemoso. It's you. Your hand cannot be my hand with kavachomer. My question is why, what, when, why should it be that way? And the answer could be because your ma'aseh and my ma'aseh is not the same. Not the same ma'aseh. Whose? It is the shaliach. What does that mean, the chesaron of the shaliach? How can I say your ma'aseh is my ma'aseh when it's not the same thing? It's just not. What you're doing is kavachomer, and what I'm doing is not kavachomer. The chesaron becomes in the shaliach's action to be the koach of yad sheliach kemoso. Now, to this is almis. It's possible that the chesaron is in the shaliach, but the chesaron is in the minui of the meshaleach, which means, rabosai, like soystik in schiyah. Just like schiyah was not given the makom you hurt somebody, shlichus was not given the makom to hurt somebody. It's for your benefit, not to hurt people. The sugya and parshas shlichus was not said b'makom chavalacheirim, the way the Ketzos explains the sugya in parshas schiyah was not said b'makom chavalacheirim. Rabosai, let's go back now one step. Let's backtrack a step. Rashi learns that for schiyah it's a problem; for shlichus it's not a problem. Tosafos learns the s'chiah and shlichus problem. Tosafos asks you, what are they arguing here? It's very shayach that the Rabbeinu's yesod is what Tosafos is saying. The same way I don't hear the chiyuv of makom shechav l'acheirim, I don't believe shlichus can be makom shechav l'acheirim, because it's not given b'makom shechav l'acheirim. It's given for your benefit, but not l'acheirim. So Tosafos, I don't see the kasha, because you need shlichus. Lachein kid Rashi, Rashi could be held that the chisaron is chiyuv, which means chiyuv is a problem b'makom shechav l'acheirim, because that's not called chiyuv. Meheicha teisi the parsha of shlichus was not given b'makom shechav l'acheirim? Who says? The divide between Rashi and Tosafos is, should we say that shlichus was also not given b'makom shechav l'acheirim, or it's possible that it was given b'makom shechav l'acheirim? That's l'chora the divide. Now let's add to the Rashi to complete the picture of Rashi, and you'll see what I mean. Every shlichus has two dinim. Shlichus is—

But the maaseh is misyaches to the shaliach. You did it as if I did it, which means what counts, it counts like me. Possibly you did it, but it counts like me. That's what we call in the poskim, the maaseh is misyaches. There's another point to shlichus, which is yad shliach kimshaloach. Chiyuv, the maaseh is misyaches, as if you did it for me, for me. Shlichus is more. Shlichus is yad shliach kimshaloach. Rashi holds, where there's yad shliach kimshaloach, you don't have the problem chav lachrin because of the ... If you're looking at priah, priah is your maaseh is misyaches to me, then you have a problem chav lacheirim, because your maaseh is bad, chav lacheirim. If shlichus is that not only it's your maaseh for me, but your maaseh is my maaseh, so then it's כאילו you didn't do it, I did it, and then you have the ... that how could there be a problem? And the answer is, a ... Therefore it works. The divide of Rashi and Tosafos is this: Rashi, Tosafos holds כפשוטו. You know something? Just like priah was not said ... chav lacheirim, so Tosafos, I hold shlichus was not said ... chav lacheirim. And mimeila, if chiyah doesn't work, shlichus doesn't work, and it's the same sugya. What did Rashi hold? Rashi held obviously it's not the same. Rashi held chiyah maybe won't work, while shlichus will work. Chiyah was not said b'makom shechav l'acheirim; shlichus was said b'makom shechav l'acheirim. I expect chiyuv gedayah, why should there be a difference? And the answer is there pashut, because chiyah is not your ma'aseh; it's his ma'aseh, the person who did it, and he is a chav l'acheirim. Shlichus is yad shliach k'yad sholeach, and therefore what? There's no chav l'acheirim by ma'aseh; it's meyashur. This, rabosai, is pashut. This is not lomdus, in the sense that kiddushin and ma'aseh kiddushin, it's the way I learned the Gemara. There's nothing here more than how you learn the Gemara. This is it. This is what it says here. Tosafos learns chiyah and shlichus the same. Why is it the same? Because he explains it that it's all about rights b'makom shechav l'acheirim, and we can come and say that just like I have no rights in chiyah b'makom shechav l'acheirim, I have to say there's no rights in shlichus b'makom shechav l'acheirim. What do you mean the peshat is kasha? But not when it's chav l'acheirim, like the Rosh, like the Rosh. Yeah, but the Rosh says, but not when it's chav l'acheirim; it's not called, it's not a heter b'makom shechav l'acheirim. I'm not saying b'makom shechav l'acheirim. It's very nice if you did it to start thinking misyaches, not misyaches; I'm not going to send you like that. The Torah forbids me shlichus in such a case. The Torah restricts shlichus that it's not like this. Same way chiyah is not b'makom shechav l'acheirim, shlichus is not b'makom shechav l'acheirim, if you weren't an adult. If you learn like the ... that the choice is mahalach of shliach, it's actually the same problem by shlichus and tofes. It's the same thing, and therefore just like this, this doesn't work. Rashi, Rashi is learning it's an entirely different problem. Rashi is learning that the problem is that tefiah is your ma'aseh and therefore it's chav l'acherim. Shlichus is my ma'aseh, therefore it's not chav l'acherim. Simple as pashut. The pnei yeshuah's problem with the sugya is actually the ma'alah of Rashi and shlichus. That's what Rashi wants. When I send a shliach, you're not a chav l'acherim. ... and not b'mechavein. I learned in Rashi that Rashi learns that the ... is shlichus, but with a ... shlichus.

is okay. And without a minui shliach, it's not okay, because you can't argue with furish Rashi. The teretz is there, there, b'shmak. It's very shayach, and I believe it's emes, that the yad shliach k'mo sholeach only have a minui. You want to be my hand, I can send you for it. You want to know when you're me, if I send you b'makom. If you pick up for me, you're my shliach, I never sent you, and therefore you can't say you're my extension. I could go to the store, or I could send my son. ... It could even be the ta'am shlichus. But all you have is that the ma'aseh is yachad. The yad shliach k'mo sholeach, you need the minui for. This is the shakla v'tarya of Rashi. Are you maskim? Beautiful. Isn't he with me? This was learning that kinyan is a problem, and the stam for the same mechanics that kinyan is a problem, shlichus is a problem. And that's what the Tzais means, kinyan and shlichus is the same, and therefore kinyan is mechanically impossible, the makneh chav l'acheirim, shlichus is mechanically impossible. Who said this sevara? Chaim Yehuda ... in the shiur. It's different. I mean, how can you be chav l'acheirim? What's kinyan? Shlichus. You're right. That's Tosafos. What is Rashi? Rashi is saying, wait a minute, if I send the shliach, you didn't do it, I did it. And if I did it, you weren't chav l'acheirim. Ela mai, chazakah shel shlichus? Why do you do with that problem? L'maaseh, it's a Rashi, and the teretz is about the shlichus, the minui. And like I explained to you, minui, minui, minui is very important. But we didn't explain why it's important. Now I'll explain to you why. Because in order to undo the problem, you need yad shliach kimshaloach. The minui, you have that. Without a minui, you have the chesron minui, the shlichus without the yad shliach kimshaloach. Abadi, your ma'aseh is b'shlichus to me. I never sent you. So the yad shliach kimshaloach, your ma'aseh extension works with the minui, and there's raayos to this all over Shas. Not nogea for right now. Let's move along. With this, I think we can go answer a few very important nekudos. Very shmak. Listen carefully. Tosafos brings in the first sugya in Kesubos that there's a problem of tofes l'baal chov with a shliach. What does Rashi do with that Gemara? Very shverdike ta'ina. Another question: the Ramban himself, the Ramban himself says that we don't have to go to Kesubos; we have it here in our Mishnah. The Mishnah has the whole problem with hamagbia metzia and the whole sugya. Wait a minute, what's the problem? Tofes l'baal chov, l'maaseh he made a shliach. So therefore the ta'ina is that there shouldn't be a problem. So why does the Gemara make a whole problem? According to Rashi, once he made a shliach, there's no problem. The Gemara says, you're right, ... never said, he never meant. Who cares? There shouldn't be a problem here. The sugya is about shlichus. This is the Ramban's ta'am. Remember the Ramban? The Ramban says, l'choira the raya is from the Mishnah. Tosafos's pak is not bringing a raya. A, the Ramban is right. Rashi's drawn from the Mishnah, and B is, how come Tosafos doesn't bring it? We mentioned this in earlier shiur. Rabosai, let me tell you what I feel is the teretz to the neged. It's possible that Rashi held that by metzias shliach is not a problem. The Mishnah, Avadah talks about shliach. Avadah, the Mishnah talks about shliach. There's a chiluk between shliach to fix the tofeses baal chov b'makom baal chov, and there's a chiluk to fix the tofeses baal chov by metziah. If you look on your sheets I printed, v'al korchach muchach — the last line — v'al korchach muchach, d'shani metziah mibaal chov. That's what Tosafos, right? If Tosafos is searching for ksubis, ksubis is baal chov, and he's not satisfied by our Mishnah, and he answers he held from our Mishnah it's not a raya. From our Mishnah that shlichus doesn't work, that's not a raya to knock off Rashi. Why? Al pi hanal, this is according to what we said. If the chesaron is—

The shliach. If the chesaron is in the shliach, so then there should make a chiluk between metzia and baal chov. Ma she'ein kein if the chesaron is in the meshaleach, then I have a right to get paid here. I can't send you b'makom shechav l'acheirim. But where I have rights to this mamon, of course I can't make you a shliach. If the problem is you, shliach b'makom shechav l'acheirim, there's no yad shliach k'yad meshaleach. It's very shayach to say that's eino chanami. Just like by metzia, so too by baal chov. Who gives you rights b'makom shechav l'acheirim? If the chesaron is in the mamon, I could say like this: if the mamon has rights, baal chov maybe has rights in the money. There there's paka no chesaron of shliach b'makom shechav l'acheirim. Only by metzia there is a problem, and that's why Tosafos says I can't knock him up, Rashi, from our Mishnah, because our Mishnah I understand why there's a problem. I'm trying to knock him off dafka from baal chov. Let me explain to you what I mean. If our sugya tells me that there's a problem of Tosafos baal chov by metzia, and shliach doesn't help, it's paka very strange that Tosafos searches for a Gemara in Kesubos. So what does that teach me? When you read such a Tosafos, what are you supposed to take out from such a Tosafos? That for some reason the Mishnah couldn't have knocked off Rashi's shita of Tosafos baal chov. Now tell me, when Rashi spoke Tosafos baal chov, he spoke by baal chov, he spoke by metzia, he spoke by baal chov, right? So the answer is our Mishnah could not get off. Mitziah would not be a right to baal chov. That's what you see from this Tosafos, correct or incorrect? I mean, Tosafos asks the kasha, and our whole sugya is—you have to understand what the Ramban is saying. Our whole sugya is based on that tofes l'baal chov doesn't work, and therefore our Mishnah doesn't work, and therefore our Mishnah is a problem. So when Tosafos tries to disprove Rashi, he has to search more ksubos, and the answer he held that obviously from our sugya it's not a disproof to Rashi. Why not? I mean, Rashi speaks about tofes l'baal chov, and it works with a shtar, and our Mishnah says it doesn't work. And the answer is the Mishnah is talking about metzia, not baal chov. Tosafos searched for kesubos because there it's talking about baal chov. What's the difference? Why by metzia would it be that tofes l'baal chov maybe doesn't work, where by baal chov it should work, and therefore Tosafos has to search kesubos where that it doesn't work? And the answer is very poshut. The difference between metzia and baal chov is by the meshale'ach has rights to the money by baal chov. The meshale'ach has rights to the money by baal chov. So could there be a chisaron in me sending you? Think about it. The problem is, Evan Azeldik, so to speak, I can't send you b'makom chav l'acheirim, my money. I have rights to get that money. So how could there be a chisaron in shlichus to send you for that? By metzia, that I have no rights to it. So then it's only te'ilu s'chirah, that I'm being zoche for you. So either I'm doing it through schirah or through shlichus. And the vart is, mechateis, you have the right to win off the back of somebody else. Where are the taiches that it's you, meaning this is mamash your money. So could the meshaleach have a problem sending somebody to get that money because it's called a chav l'acheirim? Missing my point. Very simple. You know what? Let's close out Gemara. Can I tell you that you have no right to get your money because it's not fair to other people? Can I talk—can I talk to—can I, if I told you this, you know, it's not right for you to get your money from somebody else. So why don't you talk about it? My money? What are you talking about? It's not right to send my son to get it? Why not? I mean, how could there be a problem sending a shliach to get my money? You want to explain that to me? If you learn that the problem is not eved, but rather the problem is the shliach.

Shliach, you don't have yad shliach kiyad meshaleach, because to you, it's not a good thing for you. Then I could say even where the meshaleach, in the right, shliach l'maaseh doesn't have a koach here. If I learn that the problem is the meshaleach and the sugya of shlichus, how can I talk about your money? It's your money. You don't write. You can't. What are you talking about? This is such a halacha like this? By tofes l'baal chov b'makom shechav l'acheirim, it's different than the sugya of metzia, because by the sugya of metzia I can hear shlichus might be the same thing like zechiyah. Meicha teisa you have this luxury. It's a luxury. What's the luxury? Zechiyah. What's the luxury? Shlichus. Not b'makom shechav l'acheirim. Who says? I'll give you the best example. You know what? I'm in a good mood today. Give me an example. When you wait on line—well, I don't know if you guys wait on line. I told some of you guys—can I go and have somebody wait on line for another person? Not fair? No, you say yes, but that's what I'm telling you. To you it's fair, because that's what you do, but l'maaseh it's really not fair, right? Is it a fair thing? I mean, I don't see it. Why? You're not even here. You're still at home. Let me tell you, it's really not fair. You want the truth? It's extremely not fair, and I don't argue with you because I know that you think different. I know that. That's what I'm telling you. Technically has some who wait on line. That's not the way it works. It's not the way it works. I'm not telling you that the people who do it are ... they don't care. I'm not discussing that. The case is very simple. When you're waiting on line for something, could you have somebody just wait on line, take the turn for you? Just wait on line. Okay, then when you come, okay, so I leave and you take over. Could you do that? I'm not saying that I sent you to buy any ticket, buy any ticket. Just save the place, wait on line for me. ... walking around getting stuff, and you're still standing on line, going closer to the cashier. They do it all. You want the truth? In medus, in medus, it's really wrong. In medus, it's really wrong. What's the ...? I fear. Why can't I do for you? Yeah, because you're hurting people with that. I mean, it's very nice of you to want to stay on line to help me, but you're hurting the guy next, you're hurting the whole store. People are ... That's called ... If I could hear that shlichus, but I'm standing on line, it's like he's standing on line. Wait a second, we have to fix this problem. When do you need this? This is my ma'aseh. Take the guy and drag him by the neck and throw him out of the line. My ma'aseh, this guy starts saying ... It's my ma'aseh, because in shlichus it's like I'm standing there. Take the guy and throw him out the window. What are you talking about? That's what Evan also explains is a chisaron. Obviously he doesn't bring the mashal and the dramatics. But that's what he explains is the same chisaron. Priah is no good l'mafkia chaverim. Shlichus is no good l'mafkia chaverim. If it's my money, so what's wrong if I send you to get my money? How could you compare the two cases? L'maaseh, Tosafos understood, if I want to knock off Rashi by Tosafos about chov, shlichus doesn't work, I can't bring out. How is sugya makes sense? Because meheicha teisi I could come and stand in the line for you, even if it's shlichus. But by baal chov, how can I say the opposite? How can I tell you to go get my money? What does that mean? The nafkamina is, but the case, the chisaron is not in the mishale'ach. The chisaron always is that the shliach doesn't have a koach l'mafkia chaverim. Lo shna b'chi, lo shna b'baal chov, it makes no difference. I hope that's the nekudah tachtona, that the Rishonim are arguing here, Tosafos and the Ramban. The Ramban is saying, I don't understand, why don't you bring a Rashi in our sugya? I'm not Tosafos, I'm not looking for our sugya. Our sugya is a mesiach; I'm looking for baal chov. I'm looking to show you that there's no sugya of shlichus even by baal chov. That's what I want.

It's more, and by bechoyu the ... said you still get ... searches for bachay. Okay, so let's move a little quicker now, because I think we're going to have to give up the room. Now, let's go back to see how the miguim work in light of everything I just explained to you, type of bachay. Migu takes care of the problem of tofes l'baal chov b'makom shechav l'acheirim. How does migu help? How does it work? How does migu take care of the problem? According to the Pnei Yehoshua, according to the Beis Meir, that the chesaron is shlichus d'var aveirah, so then I could come and say that this is not called a d'var aveirah because it's not called a chav l'acheirim. If I undo the d'var aveirah shebai, because technically I could take it for myself, so no one's really losing, meila it's not called a d'var aveirah. According to ... that the chesaron of tofes baal chov was shlichus d'var aveirah, if I was able to be zoche for myself, you're not losing anything, the meilah it's not called a d'var aveirah anymore. Migu, the zoche l'nafshei, so therefore it's not a chav l'acheirim, that it should be a chesaron if I'm zoche ... What about according to the Ketzos? According to the Ketzos, that there's no s'ficha b'makom shechav l'acheirim, so how does migu change that? The bottom line is, I'm being zoche for you b'makom shechav l'acheirim. The teretz that I have to, according to the Ketzos, undo the entire chav l'acheirim. Ishaylus like this. How does migui take care of the problem of the pnei Yehoshua, of tofes l'baal chov, of the Ran of tofes l'baal chov, of the Tosafos of tofes l'baal chov? There's three mahalchim of tofes l'baal chov: shlucho shel adam kemoso, schirah, and shlichus d'var aveirah, the pnei Yehoshua. How does migui correct that? So the easiest of the group is the pnei Yehoshua. Migui: d'zachah l'nafshei, zachi, nami l'chavrei; it's not a chav l'achrini. Since I could get it for myself, it's not a chav l'achrini. Tosafos is a little bit more problematic, because I can only be zocheh b'makom if it's not hurting anybody. L'maaseh, I'm hurting people. And the answer is, I undid the chav l'achrini, and I think that there's a difference between the pnei Yehoshua and the Tosafos in this nekudah. What do I mean? According to the pnei Yehoshua, the migui undoes the dvar aveirah. Meaning, the problem was dvar aveirah; this is not called a dvar aveirah. In the Tosafos, you undid the sibah of the problem. Meaning, it's true the problem is you can't be zocheh, where I'm hurting somebody, it's on your debt. True that where it's chav l'achrini, there's no schirah. Since I take away the chav l'achrini, I could be zocheh b'makom shechav l'acherim. In other words, I don't believe that you're fixing that it's not a schirah for one and a chav for the other, because that's what's happening. But since I can undo the chav l'achrini, therefore the schirah problem... Meaning like this. The pnei yeshua is very simple. The problem is your dvar aveira. This is not called an aveira because meheicha teisi you're supposed to get it. According to the Ktzos, it's a little more complicated, because you are being zocheh b'makom shechav l'acheirim. Meaning, you are being zocheh for one hurting another. Yeah, but that's not a problem where the person meheicha teisi was supposed to get it. You understand? It's one step, it's a jump a little bit. According to Pnei Yeshua, it's very simple. This is not called bar aveira. You know why? Who says you were supposed to get it? Bar aveira is chav l'acherim, meaning this is not called a dvar aveira. This is not called a problem of avela. It's not a such a big avela. In the Ktzos, that's tchiyah is only when I don't hurt people. Then the ta'itz is, I know I'm hurting people with this, but we have to say, since l'maaseh, meheicha teisi anybody else would end up with it, therefore the chiyuv hurting, a chiyuv for you in hurting somebody else is not a...

It has to be refined a little bit, you understand what I'm saying? You have to fine-tune the migu takes off the chavla chrini. You understand? In the pnei yeshua, it's very simple. This is not an avlah. It's not an avlah, right? Ein sheliah b'makom avlah. Not an avlah. Who says anybody else would get? It's not an avlah. So, you can't have chazakah to hurt people. I am hurting people. Maisah, I'm hurting people. Nervous. This isn't a problem since meheicha teisi anybody would get it. So the chesaron, what we call sheliah b'makom hurting people, is minimized, the makom shechavla chrini. When you chazer, you'll see the ktzos needed a fine-tuning in the migu fixing the chavla chrini. Rashi. Rashi learned that the chesaron is koifetz me'eilav. So how does the migu help that? How does the migu undo the problem that you can't be a koifetz me'eilav? Why is there a problem of koifetz me'eilav? The answer is, meheicha teisi you have the right to touch. So how does the migu change that? If you take a look, I bring on the sheets, l'Rashi, shechesaron koifetz me'eilav, mamahani migu, yesh loimar lomar. You can say a lomdus. B'makom she'ein chavla chrini, ein chesaron b'koifetz me'eilav. The koifetz me'eilav is only a problem where it's a chavla chrini. The moment you're not a chavla chrini, you could be a koifetz me'eilav. Koifetz me'eilav works means meheicha teisi. Yeah, but what does that mean? You have no right. So when I learn ktoisik—see, the ktois wants to learn ktoisik in Rashi. But if you don't learn Rashi ktoisik, so then what's the ... ktois me'eilav? The teretz is it's only where it's chav lachrini. So if you undo the chav lachrini, automatically kois me'eilav is a chisaron. In other words, you see, the ktois wants to learn that the problem is that you're being a koves me'eilav b'makom shechav la'acherim, and bhechrech you have the right for that. So then if I take away the chav lachrini, so then there's a parashat stirah. But if you don't learn ktoisik, so Rashi's just saying, bichlal you're not a koves me'eilav. Who gives you bichlal the right to be over here? Minuso mina, who says you have the right to touch it? How does chav lachrini change that? And the teretz is, where there's no chav lachrini, there's no chisaron koves me'eilav, and that's the parashat stirah. You see what I want? Okay, you'll soon see. It learns a little differently. The peirush explains one type of din of a migri that I could do for myself, so memeila I'm not a koves me'eilav, because technically I have the right to be tofes for myself. It's a very lomdisha birchas Shmuel. This is not called a koves me'eilav because I also have the right to be here. A koves me'eilav means who told you to touch it? What are you touching? And you know what the answer is? What do you mean? I can take it. Don't tell me not to touch it. Don't tell me not to pick it up. I have the right to take it. Not a koves me'eilav, the me'eilav, because l'maaseh, migu d'zacha l'nafsha, zacha nami l'chavrei. That's how Reb Boruch Ber learned. Now let me explain to you the Rambam, and you'll see how everything ties in. How did the Rambam learn? The problem is shluchus shelo ba l'amamon. How does migo take care of that problem? Locha l'maaseh, you don't have shluchus shelo ba l'amamon. So I want to say like this. Explain to the Birchas Shmuel, it's very nice. Why? Because once the chisaron—the chisaron is, you have no right to be po'el on somebody's money if you're not the shluchus shelo ba l'amamon. But I have a right to take it. What's the chisaron? The chisaron is, who told you to touch? I need, in order to create taking, I have to have shlichus that it's mine. And that's why I have to be the baal hamamon for that, not if I have the right to pick it up and keep it. The Birchas Shmuel explains, because otherwise how do you learn according to the Rambam, the chisaron shluchus shelo ba l'amamon? How does migo ever take care of the problem? What's the answer? Migo is zochin... yeah, but you're not shluchus shelo ba l'amamon. The teretz is, ki'ilu I'm become the baal hamamon here. What's the shluchus shelo ba l'amamon? What right do you have to make Yonah's money chefetz don't belong to you? You're not meshale'ach to do it. Who sent me to do it? What, the guy who doesn't own the money sent me to do that? Do I have a right to pick it up? Yeah. Once I have a right...

I'd like to pick it up. So that right means that I have ... baal hamomen here. I have shaychus to the thing. So meileh there's no chashash of baal hamomen. According to the Bechasmur, I understand now in the Ran, why there's no problem of shluchus shelo baal hamomen. Fine. What do I want with this? Even though I know it's from the right to the left, but let me tell you what I want here. Mi sheliket es hapeah, and I'll try to be the kid. Rashi learns that what's the sugya of mi sheliket es hapeah? Rashi says it's not the baal habayis. You know what I want? Why explain to me ...? Explain me the words. So tell me the words. What's the— And the answer is, first we have to know what the problem was and see how this corrects it. So let's tackle, work out the problem. Let's— ta'anis baal chov, let us take the simplest pshat, which is the pnei Yehoshua. Shliach l'dvar aveirah. How does migu take care of that problem? Easy. How does migu take care of that problem? The problem is that it's an aveirah, so the solution had to be what? That it's not an aveirah. Well, forget about the word aveirah; not an aveirah. Tell me why it's not. Why not? And the answer is, meicha teisa anybody would get it, maybe in two seconds it's mine. I take it. So therefore what? It's not a shliach l'dvar aveirah. Good? Pashut. So that I undo the base of the problem where I undo the whole problem according to the pnei Yehoshua. No. It's not a problem. But the problem is that you cannot do aveirah. So if I tell you it's not an aveirah, so it's not an umda d'meisa, it's just not an aveirah. Just not an aveirah. So then there's no sugya here. If Tosfos learns that it's about tzriah, Tosfos bachai, you can't make a tzriah if it hurts other people. So how does migo help them? What I mean, and l'maaseh I'm not hurting other people; I am hurting other people. And the teretz is that even though I'm hurting other people in tzriah means, but since l'maaseh, since l'maaseh I could pick it up and not necessarily anybody else would get it, the tzriah problem that I think is a problem won't be a problem in such a case. I have the right to hurt you where technically I would be hurting you anyway, let's just say it like that. Because we can't come and say I'm not hurting you. The fact is I'm taking it away from you and I'm giving it to him. So quite simply, I just say it's not an aveirah. Nice. Tosfos, you have to work it a little bit. It's not so פשוט. I mean, l'maaseh I'm taking it away from you, and the answer is that's not called the problem of taking it away from you, because who says you would have it anyway? All right. Now let's go to the Ran. The Ran learns it's about shlucho shel adam k'moso. So how does migo fix that? How does migo fix that? So the pashut pshat you have to say is that the shlucho shel adam k'moso is dependent on this chav l'acheirim, so we don't care. We don't care that you need shlucho shel adam k'moso, which is machlokes. We don't care because the whole problem of shlucho shel adam k'moso was about what? What's about chavah acherim? So the minute I take care of the chavah acherim, I took care of the shuk shel baal hamamon. Remember the shiur the first year? But the whole problem of shuk shel baal hamamon is the chavah acherim. So if I took care of the chavah acherim with the migu d'zachi, I took care of the shuk shel baal hamamon. Dr. Bichashmuel is not because of that. It's teilu you are the shuk shel baal hamamon, because you're the baal hamamon. I mean, he says in the Rashi, but I'm thinking in the Rashi. Because according to Rashi, ... you're a kovetz me'eilav. So how can you be allowed to do it here? How can migu work? The teretz is, you're not called a kovetz me'eilav. You're not me'eilav; you're a kovetz as a baal habas over here. Your mom's the baal habas. Your mom's baal habas. Mimeila, I say that's the same teretz in the Ran. The Ran learns there's no stirah in shuk shel baal hamamon. This Rav Eliezer's pashut ches. We will learn, im yirtzeh Hashem, it's possible that migu d'zachi l'nafshei could be worked, that it's mine and then it becomes yours. It's a different sugya. Very tzad that the migu d'zachi works, that it goes through me. First it's mine, then it's migu d'zachi, and now it's, okay, I picked it up for me and then I give it to you. That's a lomdush vort, which is not muchach in the sugya as of now.

What am I ... from the peah? The sugya, mi sheliket es peah is peah. The sugya of peah. So Rashi says clearly that who did it? It has to be not the baal habas, not the owner. Adam d'alma, a poor person. Baal habas can never pick it up. A baal habas can never pick it up because he has a problem that it's his. Comes along the Rishonim and ask an unbelievable kasha. Just like migo works, that he could be an ani, migo could also work and he could be mafkir his nechasim, and it's not his. So how could Rashi make it into a problem that the baal habas could never do it? He could have the same migo. Migo that he's mafkir his nechasim and he's not the baal habas. So the Rishonim answer, the Ritva among them, that the issur of lo sechaleh pa'as sadcha will never go off. True migoim work, that you should be able to pick up for somebody else, but it's not going to take off the issur of you're not allowed to take the peah of your own field. What's the pshat in what they're saying? Possible. Shema ba'inan lav zeh peah sheloi, aval Hashem peah al adam. Which means, could be it's not your peah, but the shem peah won't fall off of it. In other words, it's possible it's not yours, but you can't undo that it's peah. What? Once it's peah, so then the taich is, when did it become peah? When it's... When you cut the field, then it was yours. There's no way to undo that. I mean, because you're not gaining anything. What do you want to do? You want to undo the shem peah. Meaning what? The bottom line is the shem peah was there. So you want to undo it now. So now you undid it, but from then it can't get undone because there is a shem peah. The shem peah was that it was yours. When you cut your field, there was peah. As much as you want to undo it, there's still peah. If you look, I bring from the Shitah Mekubetzes. Okay, you'll see already in the sheets. I'm marich a little bit here in Shitah Mekubetzes, okay? There's a very famous vort from the Pnei Yehoshua. Pnei Yehoshua wants to say that there's no such migu, that a person mak rolls mechasim, that there's no normal person would do that. And who's going to be makneh all his nechasim? ... The nechasim, to him. But when I be makneh all my nechasim to you, which normal person would do that? A person comes, you know, all my fields are nothing, I give it to hefker, so I should come be zoche peah for you. But the Pnei Yehoshua, there's no such story. There's no such story. It can't be. So meileh there's no such migu. So I was clarifying, l'choira, who says migu is that I would do it? Migu is I could do it. Where is migu that I could do it, or migu that I would do it? Migu that I could do it. So what's the Pnei Yehoshua's taanis? If you look in your bracket—well, it's not bracket, it's on the side over here—I wanted to say that it's תלוי. How to learn the migui. If you learn that if you have to take away the chavla achrini, so to take away the chavla achrini could be you need that the po'el, I would do it. Otherwise, I'm not taking away the chavla achrini. But if you learn like the Birchas Shmuel, just to make me that I have a yad over here to be able to do it, then I should have a koach. So as long as I could do it, it's good enough. It doesn't say I should do it. If you want to make it a technical problem that nobody's losing, then it has to be a realistic migui. It has to be that I would do it. But if it's like the Birchas Shmuel, all I need the migui to give me what? That I'm a yad over here to do. Once I could do it, it's good enough. I think that the shaylah of the Pnei Yehoshua is very important. Is migui boi would do it, or migui boi could do it? Look on your sheets, I bring this down. Now, l'maaseh, the Rishonim bring you Rishalmi that there's a migui even if he's not makpid nisan. What's the migui? Migui that he could come and take from a different field, peira; therefore he could collect this peira. What's the cheshbon, Rashi, migui d'i bai mafki nachasin, zachti Pnei Yehoshua, that a person wouldn't do it. The Rishonim bring from the Yerushalmi a better case: migui that he would collect.

From a different field, peh. Therefore, migu can come and collect already from this field. Why can't you say that, migu? I thought Reb Chaim is a mechadesh. And with this I'll end, and I'll tell you what I want, and then we'll take it apart. Actually, what I want is a shiur, but that's a different story for a different day. Reb Chaim wants to say, yisod, that miguim can only take off mamonistic problems, but miguim can't take off issurim. Migu, we'll make it that I have a din mamon to take for you, but migu won't take off the issur, lois sachalal pas pasim that I can give to you. You hear? What's the hesber in the lomdus? Why should it be? Why should it be that migu takes care of the mamonus and migu doesn't take care of these issurim? I want the ta'ina telling this shaila. If you learn that it's to take off the chav lachrini, so mimeila how can it take off the lois sachalal pas pasim? What do you want it to take off exactly? If it makes it technically that it's not chav lachrini, so how does that change that it would take off also the lois sachalal pas pasim? But if you learn that it gives me a koach to do for you, even where I can't do for myself, because migu that I could do for myself, so why can't it work even when there's a lois sachalal pas pasim? Reb Chaim wants to say, yisod, that if we're discussing what I couldn't do for myself mamonus-wise, migu will help me that I could do for you mamonus-wise. If the pshat is that if al issur that I can do, migu is not going to say, since I could, therefore I can do for you b'issur also. That's Reb Chaim's yesod. I want to say, what's the hesber? Very poshut. If you learn that migu gives me a koach that I could do, so din in schiyah that I could do for you b'makom. So what's the difference? Is b'makom issur, b'makom the issur of chav lachrini. What's the difference which issur it is? What's the difference if the issur is chav lachrini? The issur is lo sachal pasa... The answer is I could do for you migu that I could do for myself. It makes me a ba'alim here that I could do. Then it wouldn't make a difference what the reasons that I'm trying to use the migu for. If you learn that the migu is just to take off the po'eldik chav lachrini, that's all it is. Right now, in fact, when the chav lacherin, where do you see that migu is going to take off the issur? Reb Chaim's saying a pashut svara. Just because migu makes that it's not a chav lachrini, technically, how do you know that it takes away an issur? If you learn that it gives me the right to do b'makom I can't do, then I can say, what's the reason why I can't do? I can't do because there's an issur of chav lachrini. I can't do because there's a lo sachal pasa... So maiseh, now I could do. But if you learn that the whole migu is to take off the chav lachrini technically, Reb Chaim is mashma it'll take off the chav lachrini technically, but it doesn't mean that it'll take off the lo sachal pasa... What does one have to do with the other? This, rabosai, is the ...