חשיד, if he's suspect on ממון that he is stealing, we should also suspect that he's going to swear false. And if he's swearing false, if we suspect he's swearing false, what does the שבועה accomplish? The שבועה doesn't accomplish anything. So the Gemara answers: לא אמרינן מיגו דחשיד אממונא חשיד אשבועתא. Ein hachi nami, we don't say, the klal is not accepted. That means if somebody is suspected of stealing, doesn't mean that he's going to swear false. But the hava amina was: חשיד אממונא is חשיד אשבועתא. That was the first thought the Gemara had. And the Gemara is mechadesh: no, we don't say it. So we see that there is a logical sevara to say that if a person is חשוד on ממון, if he's suspected that he's going to steal, he's also חשוד that he's going to swear false. And not only is this the hava amina of the Gemara, which obviously means that this is a logical thing, according to some פשטים, the maskana of the Gemara is that way. Actually, on דף ה' עמוד א', Abaye gives a different teirutz in for the Mishnah why we swear, not like Rabbi Yochanan, at least the way Rashi learns, not like Rabbi Yochanan. And Rashi, Abaye אמר, Rashi says: טעמא דמתניתין לאו כרבי יוחנן. And he says: why doesn't he accept Rabbi Yochanan's pshat? Because דאי הוה חשיד דנהלך ותוקף טליתו של חבירו חינם, הוה ליה חשיד אשבועה, because Abaye holds that you are חשיד אשבועה, חשיד אממונא חשיד אשבועתא, and therefore we have to give a different reason in the Mishnah. So

Abaye definitely holds חשיד אממונא is חשיד אשבועתא, and according to some, this is טאקע די הלכה. Actually, some even want to explain that this is a מחלוקת רש״י and Tosafot on דף ג' עמוד ב' in Tosafot וכולה בעי דלודי ליה, where Tosafot asks: don't we have a מסקנא: חשיד אממונא לא חשיד אשבועתא? And Rashi says חשיד אשבועתא. So they say Rashi learns the מסקנא כאביי. This is just derech agav I'm saying. But what I'm trying to say is one נקודה: that we see that the sevara of חשיד אממונא yes חשיד אשבועתא is not something that's afgefragt, it's something that's or even the halacha like that. But afilu not, that's definitely the מושכל ראשון. The first thought is chasud, and the Gemara have to be mechadesh if you hold not that it's not. So there's a שאלה that the מפרשים ask, brought down in the name of Meinei Hachochma, ספר Meinei Hachochma asks: what would be the reason why חשיד אממונא חשיד אשבועתא? We have a klal, the Mishnah says in בר... in Bechorot דף ל', and we have the Gemara, Mishnah and the Gemara, and there we see clearly the klal is like this: if a person is chasud on an aveira, so for that aveira you can't trust, for that ענין you can't trust him. But other things which are more chamur, which are stricter than the one he's chasud, you could trust him. חשוד על הקל, אינו חשוד על החמור. חשוד על החמור, חשוד על הקל. If you suspect somebody that he's doing a certain aveira, so any aveira which is lighter, not as strict as that one, he's certainly chasud. But you don't say that if he's chasud on an aveira, he's also chasud on a worse aveira. On a chamur not. Just to use an example: if someone is chasud that he's not keeping a mitzvah derabbanan, a דין דרבנן, the Gemara says clearly: חשוד אדרבנן, לא חשיד אדאורייתא. We're not chashud on דאורייתא. חשוד אדאורייתא, is חשוד אדרבנן. Which one is more chashuv? Which one is more chamur, I mean: the din of stealing, or the din of swearing false? So if we look in the Rambam הלכות תשובה פרק א' הלכה ב',

when the Rambam goes there into the ענינים on what the שעיר לעזאזל is mechaper. On Yom Kippur there's a kaparah, and the שעיר that they would send to עזאזל brought a kaparah, so it was מכפר על הקלות ולא על החמורות. And it was mechaper on lighter aveirot, not on the stricter aveirot. And the Rambam gives examples what are lighter aveirot, stricter aveirot, and he says swearing false is the chamu rot. Stealing is from the lighter ones, and swearing false is from the stricter ones. So according to this, why would there be a din, a sevara, certainly if you hold the halachah like that, that חשיד אממונא is חשיד אשבועתא? If shevuah is more chamur, if you're chashud on mamon, you shouldn't be chashud on a shevuah. חשוד אשבועה is חשוד אממון, because shevuah is more chamur. So he answers that this case is different. And what he says is because this person by mamon, if he's חציף כולי האי, if he's so much chutzpah, if he can take someone's money, then he would swear false also. He doesn't even taytsh out exactly what it means, but there's a teshuvah from the Rashba that they bring, the Beit Yosef also brings a teshuvah from the Rashba, but the Rashba says it a little bit different.

He says, the same idea, he says that it's באמת ענין אחד, because the klal is if you're chashud for one aveirah, anything that has to do with that, you're not trusted. Like if a person is chashud not to eat kasher, so anything with in kashrut he's not not believed. Shabbos he is believed. Shabbos is more chamur. So he wants to say that swearing false, why would a person want to swear false? Because he wants his money. So basically it's all within the category of money. So mimela if he's chashud on money, he's chashud on swearing false even though swearing false is more chamur, but it's still called חשוד לאותו דבר. It's called chashud for money because swearing false is a nekudah of money, because that's the reason why he would want to swear false, to get his money or to not have to pay or to get the money, so mimela it's all one inyan. So this is one way you could explain, explain what is the reason why חשוד אממונא would be חשוד אשבועתא. But be'emet

there's another way you could explain חשוד אממונא, another reason, and that is based on what the Rebbe says in Likkutei Sichos chelek כ״ז, עמוד 209, as we have it in the mareh mekomot here, there the Rebbe brings the Rogatchover. The Rogatchover is mechaleik between geneivah and gezeilah and other aveirot. Geneivah and gezeilah the Rogatchover says is a פעולה נמשכת, which is, according to the Rogatchover's shittah, a lot of things פעולה נמשכת, so you know, we go on to this פעולה נמשכת, the Rebbe in the שיחות has פעולה נמשכת so much, because it sounds like I keep on speaking about it, yes, that's a ליובאוויטשער סוגיא. A ליובאוויטשער thing is the inyan of פעולה נמשכת. So he says that when you steal something, as long as you don't give it back, not as long as that, while you have it still, you're stealing it again. Every second you're עובר on the issur of גזילה again as if you're stealing it again. And I'll explain, the Rebbe doesn't explain, but okay, first I'll say the Rogatchover answers based on that, why when it comes to גניבה, and the Rambam says you don't get מלקות for stealing, and the Rambam gives the reason because it's a לאו הניתן לתשלומין. Any lav, chayav a לאו, for being עובר a לאו you get מלקות, but if it's a לאו that you could pay for, you don't get מלקות. So a לאו of stealing is a לאו הניתן לתשלומין, you could pay for it. The

question is why does the Rambam say it's a לאו הניתן לתשלומין, why doesn't he say לאו הניתק לעשה? There's another klal, any לאו that you could fix through doing an עשה, it's called you don't get מלקות, למשל, it says by שילוח הקן: שלח תשלח את האם. It says: לא תקח האם על הבנים, it's a לאו, don't take the אם, don't take the mother together with the children. You're coming back, yeah? It says לא תקח האם על הבנים, don't take, and then it says שלח תשלח את האם. So a לאו with an עשה. It says don't take, if you took, send it away. So, for taking the אם על הבנים you wouldn't get מלקות, because it's a לאו הניתק לעשה. לכאורה גזילה is the same thing: it says לא תגזול, and then the פסוק says, if you did steal, והשיב את הגזלה, you return it. So it's not because you could pay for it, it's because there's a לאו הניתק לעשה. So the Rogatchover says, that's what the Rebbe brings, that by גזילה and גניבה it's not a לאו הניתק לעשה. לאו הניתק לעשה means that when you do the עשה, later when you fulfill the עשה, you will be מנתק, מנתק means you will fix the לאו. By גניבה and גזילה, being it's a פעולה נמשכת, you will not fix the לאו. All you'll be doing is you'll be stopping the לאו from continuing. If it's not a פעולה נמשכת it means you did a לאו once, it's a one-time לאו, later on if you have an עשה to fix it, you will fix that לאו. By פעולה נמשכת it means that the לאו continues continuously, so what do you do when you give it back? You're not allowing the לאו to continue, like this, if you wouldn't give it back you would be stealing again, you're not allowing the לאו to continue, and that's not called a לאו הניתק לעשה. This is what the Rogatchover, the way the Rebbe brings the Rogatchover. It needs a little bit הסברה because why can't you be מנתק? Because it seems like it's this one לאו, once done, and that עשה is against it, you're מנתק. Here it's not מנתק, if you had it for 10 days it's not מנתק 10,000 לאוין. Whatever the reason, but l'poal that's why the Rambam doesn't call it a לאו הניתק לעשה. But the bottom line is that he says that גניבה and גזילה is a פעולה נמשכת. I want to explain סברא, why would it be a פעולה נמשכת? Why would גניבה to be a פעולה נמשכת? I mean we don't say, cause probably it sounds like a joke, like I said last time, a Litvisher yeshiva-man told me it's a joke to say פעולה נמשכת. So what, and it taka sounds, but why would they say, why do we have to say that you're stealing every second? I mean what's the reason behind it? You stole once, you're over a lav. So I explained once before that when do we say פעולה נמשכת? When what happens is היפך הטבע. Where do we find a makor of פעולה נמשכת? בריאת העולם! לעולם ה׳ דברך נצב בשמים, המחדש בטובו בכל יום תמיד מעשה בראשית. Eibishter has to renew this world every second. Not the Eibishter made the world once and now it's existing, He creates it every second. Why? Why do we have to say it? Because be'etzem the world is not here. The עצם המציאות of the world, or we'll use the borrowed term, the teva of the metziut of the world is not to be. To make it means you're fighting the teva, then it has to be, because the moment you stop, if you do it and you stop, the teva will, it'll come back to its teva. Like by the water of the קריעת ים סוף. If you hold up the water, the wind held up the water, it stood up. If it's stopped for a second, you can't say, \"Well, they made them up and they stand.\" The water will come back, you have to hold it. So you have to keep on holding it. So anything that's היפך הטבע has to be constantly being held up. Geneiva and that's what the Rebbe explains in different places, by hekdesh and other things. Geneiva, gezeila, I assume this is the peshat in the Rogatchover, it's the same thing. Why? If I buy something from you, that's not היפך הטבע. It's yours, it's yours, now it's mine! That's a normal thing. We don't say that if I bought something from you, it's a mechirah, it's פעולה נמשכת, as if every second you're selling it to me again. Why? Why should we say that? You sold it, it's mine. Geneiva, gezeila is a modne zach. I stole it, so I took it, but it's still yours! What a peshat it's mine? It's mine, but it's still yours! Where a re'iyah it's still yours? Have to give it back, it's yours. On the other hand, since I stole it, I took it. So here we're doing something that geneiva, gezeila means that I took it היפך הטבע, which is really yours, היפך בעצם, היפך the way it's be'emet. So in order for the fact that I, because I did this, I took it from you, so the moment I took it from you, so while I'm taking it, I'm taking it away, but the moment I finish taking it, it's really yours, now it's in your reshut. על דרך, I'm not saying this is the same, it's mamash different, by karka, we say קרקע אינה נגזלת, you can't steal karka. What do you mean you can't steal karka? I could, but you can't take it away from you. Here it's not that way, but the fact is that why don't we say כל היכא דאיתא, ברשות בעלים איתא? Wherever the thing is, it's yours, so it's in your reshut. Actually by some places we say it. By הקדש we say that הקדש כל היכא דאיתא, בגזא דרחמנא איתא. If I have הקדש in my house, it's the Aibershter's, it still belongs to the Aibershter. So the same thing, when I steal something, it's yours and it remains yours. So while I'm stealing it, I'm taking it. But when I finish stealing it, it's בעצם goes back. Now it's wherever, it's my house, but it's really yours and I'm holding it for you, so to speak. So in order for גניבה, גזילה to be a מציאות and continue גזילה, it has to be like as if you're stealing it again. You're constantly pulling it away. As you're pulling it away, mimela that's, you're still stealing. If he

makes a שינוי, does the פעולה נמשכת stop? If he's קונה it... If he's קונה it, הכי נמי! Yeah, yeah! If you're קונה it, takeh there's a pshat, then you're takeh don't... When you're קונה it, you don't have to give it back. What's that, a שינוי קונה? You don't have to give it back, you have to pay the money, but you don't have to give the object back. Why? Because the פעולה נמשכת stopped, yeah. Huh? Right, if it's שינוי, it's not clear. Consider there's no, the object is not there anymore. If you change it, שינוי קונה. That's, that's what's the טייטש שינוי קונה. The whole sugya of Bava Kamma, שינוי קונה means that if you change it, you don't have to give it back. If you didn't make a שינוי, you have to give it back. How can you be, how are you קונה it? שינוי, a שאלה שינוי השם, there are all kinds of דינים by גזילה. And if the דין by גזילה, whichever way it is, you're קונה it, then it's takeh no more פעולה נמשכת. Now you have a חיוב השבה. That's true, but the פעולה נמשכת of גזילה is not. Anyway, so it comes out, according to the Rogatchover and it seems like the Rebbe accepts it, because the Rebbe goes along in that sicha and explains things based on this Rogatchover, so the ענין of גניבה, גזילה is a פעולה נמשכת. Now לפי זה, you could say this is the חומרא in גניבה, גזילה over a שבועה. The קשיא we asked, we know that if you're חשוד for חמור, you're automatically חשוד on the קל. If you're חשוד on the קל, you're not חשוד on the חמור. And we asked the שאלה, ממון לכאורה, steals, it's קל and שבועה is חמור. But now we have a way to say that גזילה, גניבה is more חמור. Why is it more חמור? Because by גניבה, גזילה, you're stealing every second. When you're עובר a איסור שבועה, it's a one-time איסור. But here you're עובר every second. So ממילא חשוד על הממון, which means you're עובר on ממון and you're stealing it, ממילא you're stealing every second, so you're חשוד on a, on a שבועה, which is not so חמור. איי the Rambam does say that שבועה is more חמור and גזילה is less, that's לגבי יום כיפור, לגבי כפרה, because it's much easier to get rid of the עבירה of גזילה than the עבירה of שבועה. Pay back and you get rid of it, or at least now it stops. So לגבי כפרה, you could say that's called קל and שבועה is called חמור. But בעצם מצד עבירות, something that you do as a פעולה נמשכת, that something is it which is more chamur, and therefore if you're chashud on the chamur, you're chashud on the kal. So, this will touch, I didn't want to go into that, but this will touch the nekudah which we have the famous she'eilah, what's better, to do one חמורה'דיקע עבירה once rather than doing smaller aveirot many times, or to do many aveirot many times? So, we find in Igeret HaTeshuvah what he says. So, it's not it's not so pashut, but we're not getting into that, but lechora,

according to this, bifshut doing many times a smaller aveirah is worse than doing one aveirah one big aveirah once. It's called like a teshuvah, that Rav Yosef Engel has a whole erech: ריבוי הכמות מכריע האיכות. אה? Maskanah? And it could be that's the reason why. Could be that's the reason why, because eichut is more. Now, could be takeh. But I'm trying to explain what is the sevara why we hold, the one that holds or the havah amina, that חשיד אממונא חשיד אשבועתא? So, you could say because this is more chamur. The maskanah, if you hold that's the maskanah, we'll hold that even though this is more chamur because it's more times, but still a חמורה'דיקע עבירה is more chamur even though it's once. השאלה, נוגע למעשה, if a person is sick, and there's two choices on Shabbos to give him to eat: or to give him treifah food to eat, cuz there's no kasher food, or to cook kasher food for him. So, the she'eilah is, what's better? If he'll eat treifah food, every kezayit he'll eat will be another aveirah. Every bite is another aveirah. Cooking, you one time, you put it on, you cooked once. Is that noga who does it? I mean, we're not mistapek now this, he eats and this the other person cooks, what's makes the difference? We're talking about two types of aveirot. So, in one place it says it's better מבשלין לחולה בשבת rather than eat it. There's a סברא פאַרקערט. In Igeret HaTeshuvah, the Alter Rebbe says, בנוגע תשובה and aveirot, he says that if a lot of to do a lot of small aveirot is worse or as as one big aveirah. And he gives a mashal there, if you remember, of a cloud. You have a very thick cloud, and then you have a lot of small clouds, and the a lot of small clouds add up and they cover, they block just as much as a big cloud. Anyway, we're going here with this sevara that, let's say, doing many times the same aveirah is worse than doing one time a bigger aveirah, umemela the inyan of stealing, which is a פעולה נמשכת, is worse in this way than shevuah. And that's why the Gemara has a סברא, חשיד אממונא חשיד אשבועתא. Yeah? Well, we assume you hope a person does understand. A Lubavitcher knows it, yeah, a Lubavitcher learned Likkutei Sichos, he knows this way, doesn't know? So, for a Lubavitcher he knows that indeed חשיד אממונא חשיד אשבועתא, cuz he knows he knows the sevara, he knows it, or someone learned like a teshuvah. We're talking about mah nafshach, this is what the person knows. Well, many times from the punishments. We know klalei, first of all, a lav is more chamur than an aseh. A לאו שיש בו כרת is more chamur than a lav. A לאו שיש בו מיתת בית דין is more chamur than that. So, usually from the punishments, but sometimes you can't go from the punishments. Mashal, the lav of the inyan of shevuah is what the Rambam says is more chamur, it's not from the punishment, cuz you don't get malkot for a lav of shevuah either, cuz it's a לאו שבדבור, לאו שאין בו מעשה. But that's the Rambam says, because the inyan of shevuah is such a chamuradike thing. You see in Tosafos, Tosafos says, why is חשיד אממונא לא חשיד אשבועתא? משום דשבועה חמורה. This Tosafos makes the kasha, the kasha I asked at the beginning. How can you have an hava amina חשיד אממונא חשיד אשבועתא when Shevuah is more chamur? But go to Rambam, look in Tosafos, Tosafos says, because שבועה חמורה כדאיתא בעולם נזדעזעה. But then the she'eilah is, if עולם נזדעזעה, what was the hava amina? I'm saying the hava amina was because there's a פעולה נמשכת, mimela it's more. So the hava amina is that in that case this is more chamur. But the only thing is that this inyan that we say that it's a פעולה נמשכת is not so pashut. So now I was saying it's so pashut, it says in Likutei Sichos, mimela it's pashut, and every Yid knows it, and mimela it's lichora this could be seems like this is a machloket in the Rishonim, על כל פנים you could say that. The Ketzos in סימן רי״א סעיף קטן ג׳, in the beginning, brings a machloket between the Baal HaMaor and the Ramban. We have a klal like this. The klal is that if someone is a כופר בפקדון, if someone no, that's not even כופר בפקדון, if someone steals, a gazlan, someone steals something, שניהם אינם יכולים להקדיש. You have two people here, you have the owner and you have the gazlan. Not neither Neither one of the two, the Gemara says, is able to make it hekdesh. The Gemara learns out from a פסוק, איש כי יקדיש את ביתו קדש, מה ביתו ברשותו אף כל ברשותו. You only can be makdish something that's in your reshut. And therefore, the owner can't be makdish it, because אינו ברשותו. So if the guy, let's say, I'm a shomer, I'm holding something for you, even

though it's not in your house, but I'm holding it on your behalf, that's called ברשותו. So you could be makdish, an object that you gave me to watch for you, you can be makdish it, it's called ברשותו. But if I stole something and I'm not giving it back, so it's not in your רשות, I'm holding it away from your רשות, so the בעל הבית can't be makdish it, because אינו ברשותו. הגזלן אינו יכול להקדיש, פשיטא, אינו שלו, because it's not his, he can't be makdish somebody else's thing, it has to be yours. The chidush of the pasuk of ביתו is that afilu it's yours, but it has to be ברשותו, but if it's not yours, certainly you can't. This is the din. Same thing a כופר בפקדון. If I'm a shomer, but I'm denying it, you come and say, \"Give me back my object.\" \"No, you never gave me.\" Both can't, I can't be makdish, the shomer, because אינו שלו, and the בעל הבית can't because אינו ברשותו. Since I'm denying the פקדון, so it's not ברשותו, fine. Comes the Ketzos and asks, what's the din if the guy, the gazlan stole it and decided he's returning it, but didn't give it back yet? רוצה להחזיר, wants to do teshuvah, wants to give it back, and he's techaf planning to give back, just didn't get a chance to do it. Can the בעל הבית now be makdish it? So he brings the Baal HaMaor. The Baal HaMaor says that you could be makdish it, because since he's planning to give it back, so memeila the בעל הבית could be makdish it, because now it's called ברשותו. And he brings that the Ramban says that you can't, because as long as he didn't give it back, it's still not called ברשותו, and the בעל הבית can't be makdish. Now lichora, what is the sevara of the machloket here? The sevara of the machloket is as follows: is

גניבה or גזילה a פעולה נמשכת? Coming back. Is it a פעולה נמשכת? Because if it's a פעולה נמשכת, in order to get rid of what you did, all you have to do is stop the פעולה from continuing. You don't have to go and do something to change it. If it's not a פעולה נמשכת, basically what we're saying is that when you stole it, now the object is a stolen object. In order to change that being a stolen object, you got to give it back. If we say פעולה נמשכת, what does פעולה נמשכת mean? It's not a stolen object, there's no such thing as a stolen object. Be'etzem the object is not stolen, it's in the רשות of the baal habayit. Ela mai? Every second I'm fighting it: it's his, I'm stealing it again. When I'm taking it, I'm taking it away. Then I stop, it's again back his. I'm taking it again. So the moment I decide to give it back, it's enough to stop the פעולה of the גזילה from being נמשך. I don't have to do something to change it. Mimela as soon as you want to give it back, you're not holding it as a גזילה, so the גזילה is not being נמשך. Mimela you now already, you can be מקדיש it. If you hold it's not a פעולה נמשכת, so what's the pshat? The pshat is that the object now after it's stolen, it now be'etzem is a stolen object. A stolen object the baal habayit can't be, can't be מקדיש, unless you do a פעולה to change it, now you got to give it back. As long as you didn't give back, it didn't help. Al derech, I don't want to get into חסידות or other things, where we find the Rebbe explains there are two types of nissim: There's a nes that change the teva, and there's a nes that be'etzem it remained the same way. The משל gives an example:

when the Eibershter changed the water of the Mitzrayim into blood, and then the מכה was over, did there have to be anything done to change it back into water? Doesn't say anywhere that Moshe Rabbeinu had to knock the Nilos with the stick again, or Aharon, and make it back into water. Doesn't say anywhere that the Mitzrayim had to empty the Nilos from the blood, and then new water would come in. Why? Because when he made it into blood, be'etzem it remained water. What re'ayah the Rebbe says? If a Yid would drink the same, it would be water, because be'etzem it was water. Not only that, if a Mitzri and a Yid drank from the same cup, he had a straw this way and he had a straw this way, the Mitzri was drinking blood and he was drinking water, because be'etzem it remained water. So ela mai? Must be a פעולה נמשכת, the Eibershter constantly made the water, which is still water, be blood. So what did the Eibershter have to do to change that? Just take away, not take away, stop! Stop doing, be'etzem it's back into water. Then he brings an example of a different, actually the

Maharal miPrague in Netzach Yisrael talks about it, that when Moshe Rabbeinu, the Eibershter told Moshe by the סנה to go to Pharaoh, he didn't want to go. So the Eibershter said to him, \"Put your hand into your bosom,\" and he took it out, מצורעת כשלג. The nes, it became מצורע. Then the Eibershter said to him, \"Put it back in.\" He put it back in, and he took it out, back normal. Why did he have to put it in? That means like this: because when the Eibershter made his hand become מצורע, it became בעצם מצורע. It takeh became צרעת. Now to get rid of the צרעת, you have to do a new פעולה. Just like to make from regular בשר to become צרעת you have to do a פעולה, to change from צרעת to regular, you also have to do something. But if this would be a nes that it remained בעצם בשר and it's just fighting it and making it צרעת, then all the Eibershter would do: stop the ענין of צרעת, it would become בשר again. Same thing here: if you hold it's a פעולה נמשכת, גניבה וגזילה, so that means that be'etzem it's not גזילה, be'etzem it's not taken away from the baal habayit. Every second you're taking it away. The moment you're stopping that, you don't have to do anything, you're stopping that, automatically it's back. But if you say it's not a פעולה נמשכת, what's the pshat? Said be'etzem it is like that. When you stole it, it became stolen. So now now to get it back, you got to do something to get it back, just like when you got to do something to steal it. So as long as you didn't give it back, you didn't do it, memeila it's not it it you can't be מקדיש it. So לכאורה, לפי זה it comes out if we learn like this, then we have a machloket between the Baal HaMaor and the Ramban. That the Baal HaMaor says that it's a פעולה נמשכת and the and the Ramban seems to be holding it's not a פעולה נמשכת. This is not the only place where it seems that this is a machloket between the mefarshim, this was a machloket rishonim. We have a different place, and this is already a little bit complicated inyan, so men darf halten kop, where we see a different sugya, sugya Bava Kamma, sugya in Ketzot, where we see that there is machloket, this case between the Ketzot and the Netivot, whether we say גניבה וגזילה is a פעולה נמשכת. ולכאורה, this is the machloket. The The

Rama says in סימן ל\"ד, see here, Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat סימן ל\"ד, סעיף ז' בהגהה, הגהה is the Rama. The Rama says like this: החולק עם הגנב, if someone steals and you share the the the the the the part the thing that he stole, he's כשר לעדות. Still כשר לעדות, cuz you're not a גנב, you didn't steal. Comes the Ketzot, and the Ketzot brings the Tumim. And the Tumim asks a kashya: why should the din be that החולק עם הגנב he should be כשר לעדות? He says, \"Why is this different than הכופר בפקדון?\" If someone denies a פקדון, we learned a Gemara, כופר בפקדון, here we learn here, הכופר בפקדון, we learned before, הכופר בפקדון, הכופר במלוה כשר לעדות, הכופר בפקדון פסול לעדות. If you deny a פקדון, why are you פסול לעדות? Because when you deny the פקדון, למעשה you are stealing it from the guy. So you're a גנב and you're a גזלן, and a גזלן is פסול לעדות. So he says why is this different? החולק עם הגנב also, you're now taking it from the גנב. So Lichorah you should be פסול לעדות because you have a שייכות. See, by פקדון he says even more, by פקדון it started off בהיתר. How did the guy get it? עס איז לידו בהיתר. He got it because he gave it to him. Nevertheless, because he's holding on to it and not willing to give it back, he becomes פסול לעדות, he's a גנב. So why is this guy a חולק עם הגנב, אדרבה, he's also taking it away and holding it, not giving it back? So he should also be פסול לעדות. So therefore the Tumim says that the Pshat is different. The Rama takes it from the Rivash, he says that the Rama that the Rivash didn't mean that, the Rivash has a different Pshat, and he has a different Pshat in the Rivash. Because he said it can't be simple פשט החולק עם הגנב, if a guy shares the גניבה of the גנב, he's כשר לעדות. Why? He's part of the גניבה. Why should he be כשר לעדות? Comes the Ketzos, and the Ketzos says, \"I'll tell you. The Tumim's Kashya is no Kashya.\" And he makes a Klal like this, I'm I'm not not quoting his words, but this is the way explaining it the way it comes out: there's no such thing of something that's stolen to be stolen again. You can steal once, can't steal twice. If it's stolen once, it's stolen already. How could you steal again? One second, that's one of his ראיות. You can't steal again. There's no such thing as stealing again. Stolen means He doesn't taytsh like that, but I'm taytshing it. Stealing means I come to the owner and I take it away from the owner. You took it away, finished. Now it's stolen already. You can't be a a גנב again, you can't steal again. And therefore he says, why is הכופר בפקדון פסול לעדות? Because it wasn't stolen yet. You got it b'heter, so it wasn't stolen. Now when you deny it, you are stealing. Oh, so you're stealing. That could be. But החולק מן הגנב, החולק מן הגנב, it's stolen already. You can't steal again. And he says, הגונב מן הגנב, if a person steals from another גנב, פטור from כפל, you're not called a גנב. Why? Why not? If the גנב stole it and he stole it again, because you can't steal again, so there's no two times גניבה. And he brings another re'ayah, the Gemara says also בבא קמא, גזל, the Gemara says like this, אמר רבה בר חמא, that if someone stole something, ובא אחר ואכלו, if someone else came and ate up what I stole, the baal habayit doesn't can't come to the second guy and collect, he comes to the first guy. Why can't he come to the second guy? So he says Tosafot explains because the second guy is not a גנב, because and he says what does that mean? Because you can't be a גנב a second time. So the first guy is a גנב, and the second guy not. But then he says, but the Gemara says that another מאן דאמר, and that's the halacha, says not true, רצה מזה גובה רצה מזה גובה, if you want you could collect from the first guy or the guy could come and collect from the second guy. So he says you know why he could collect from the second guy? Not because the second guy is a גנב, because the second guy is a מזיק! He destroyed it, but not of גנב. And that's why when can you collect from the second guy? If the second guy אכלו, ate it up! What happens if he stole it, if a guy stole it and the second guy comes and stole it from the first, everyone agrees you can't come and collect from the second guy. Why not? Just like when the guy ate it up, if you want you can come to the second guy, and so the same thing should be if he didn't eat it up, only he stole it from the first guy, why shouldn't you be able to take from the second? So he says there that must be the difference. Because if you if he ate it up, you're a מזיק. You're a מזיק the object. So this guy if you could come to the first guy because he's the גנב, you can come to the second because he's a מזיק. You could be a מזיק, yeah, that's true, you could be מזיק something that someone else stole. But if the second guy stole it, you can't be a גזלן a second time. גזלה, גניבה means you took it from the owner. So the Ketzos says וממילא it makes a lot of sense. The Tumim's kashya was, how come החולק מן הגנב, you share with the גניבה with the גנב, you're כשר לעדות? But you're you're part of the of of the גניבה! He says you're not. This guy stole it, you're not stealing. Ai the re'ayah from the Tummim הכופר בפקדון, even if it came בהיתר, הכופר בפקדון you are pasul l'eidut? So adrabah! Because it came to him בהיתר, וממילא till now it wasn't stolen. When is it stolen? When you deny it. Oh, so you're a ganav! A ganav is pasul l'eidut. A ganav, a gazlan, whatever name we'll give him, you're pasul l'eidut. But not החולק עם הגנב. This is the Ketzot. Comes the Netivot, and the Netivot argues with the Ketzot. And the Netivot says, you're wrong. You could steal a second time. There is such a thing. The only time when the second time is called a geneivah if you made a change in the object, then you're a ganav. So the Ketzot says you're a mazik, and he says no, you're a ganav. But stam taking from the first guy without making any changes, then nothing happened here, there's no real second גניבה. But if you did something to it, it's a second גניבה. And he says that's the reason why if one guy stole it, and the other guy ate it up, we פסקן רצה מזה גובה רצה מזה גובה, you could collect from whichever one you want. Why? Because the first guy is a ganav and the second guy is a ganav. He's a ganav, because he did something to it, changed it. If the second guy just stole it from him, no, then he's not! Then you can't collect from the second guy. Why? Because if you didn't make a change, then he says you're right, you can't steal it twice. But if you made a change in it, a shinui, then it's called a second stealing. And therefore he says החולק עם הגנב, what is the din of החולק עם הגנב? If you did something to it, you should be called a second ganav, and you should be pasul l'eidut. הכופר בפקדון, why are you pasul l'eidut? Because that's the first time, so the first time you're a ganav no matter what. This machloket is noge'a to the Gemara in Bava Kamma דף ס\"ה. The Gemara in Bava Kamma ס\"ה says this din, and it's a machloket the way the Ketzos learns pshat and the way the Nesivos learns. The Gemara says a דין there, this you're going to have to halt kop, it's a little complicated. If a person גזל חביתא דחמרא, if a person stole a jar of wine, when he stole worth one זוז, one dollar. תברה ושתיה, if he broke it later on, and when he broke it, it was worth that same bottle was worth four dollars. How much does he have to pay the owner? So the Gemara says, אמר רבא: תברה ושתיה משלם ד׳, have to pay four. איתבר ממילא, if it broke by itself, משלם זוזא, you pay how much it was worth before, how much it was in the beginning. What's the difference? So the

Ketzos said, \"I'll tell you what the difference is.\" He goes with his shita, you can't steal twice. So if a guy stole it, it was worth one dollar, that's it. So now you're chayav one dollar. If it broke eventually later, who cares what happened to it? I'm not chayav it broke. I didn't do anything, I didn't break it. So what, so I'm chayav for stealing. When did I steal it? In the beginning I stole it and that's what I'm chayav. If I תברה ושתיה, if I drank it or I broke it, why am I chayav four? Nu, could you tell me based on what I said? אלס מזיק! Takeh not חייב אלס גנב. And a מזיק, when are you a מזיק? When you broke it. Oh, אלס מזיק you're chayav four. That's pshat in the Gemara. So if you, if it איתבר ממילא, broke by itself, you're חייב זוזא because you stole it and there's only one stealing, and ממילא when you stole it you're chayav one, and that's what your חיוב is. משא״כ תברה ושתיה, you're חייב אלס מזיק. The Nesivos says that's not the pshat in the Gemara. The pshat in the Gemara, why if you broke it you're chayav, not אלס מזיק, you're חייב אלס גנב, because you stole it now again, because you could steal it. Why? Because he holds that stealing again you can't, but if you do something to it, if you do something to it, then it's called stealing again. Even the same person? Yeah, even the same person. Even the same person, exactly. Even the same person. And that's what he said, that's the pshat in the Gemara. If you stole it when it's worth a zuz, you're chayav one. If it broke by itself, there's nothing that you did or anybody did to it, you're still chayav one, because you didn't steal it again. But if תברה ושתיה, then you stole it again. So now you have a new geneivah, a new geneivah worth ד׳, where now you have to pay ד׳. This is the machloket between the Ketzos and the Nesivos. The she'eilah, not a she'eilah, not a kushya, but we need a little bit bi'ur, what's the pshat in the Nesivos? What's the pshat that you can steal it again because you did something to it you stole again? Let's, let's try to understand. Stealing is a pshat taking away from somebody. You can't take away from somebody if it, you took it away already. You can't take away twice, even if you, lich'orah, even if you did something to it. You did something to it, but לפועל it's not stealing. You can say you did something bad, you're a mazik, ikh veys, alles fayn, but not stealing. הגם you did something, yeah, you took away from the guy the potential of getting it back. If you, if you break it, till now he had a chance to get it back, and now you took away the potential of getting back. But is that called a geneivah? בדוחק to say that it's called a geneivah because you took away the potential. So lich'orah, how can we consider this guy a ganav according to the Nesivos? Lich'orah, the Ketzos makes sense. He should be considered a mazik, yeah, but a ganav when you stole it once already, and a גנב מן הגנב טאקע פטור? Okay, he says because you didn't make any change, and if you did... What's the... In other words, I'm looking for not asking a kushya, I can see what he says, but I'm looking for extra bi'ur in really understanding, what does it mean that you stole, you can steal it once if you made a change? So, I'll tell you what I think is the pshat, and based on what I'm going to say now, we'll understand what is the nekudah of the machloket between the Ketzos and the Nesivos, that is based on the inyan whether גניבה וגזילה is a פעולה נמשכת or not. And this is what I'd like to explain. If we say גניבה וגזילה is a פעולה נמשכת, like the Rogatchover says, I have a kashya, a kashya on this sevara from the Gemara, the Gemara I just mentioned. Lichora, I can ask a kashya on the Rogatchover. I don't want to say a kashya on the Rabbi, but a kashya on the Rogatchover. How could the

Rogatchover say that it's a פעולה נמשכת, that means every second you're stealing, when the Gemara says the opposite? What does the Gemara say here? If you stole it, it was worth a dollar, by the time it got broken, not when you broke it, let's say it broke by itself, it's worth four, you only pay a dollar. Why? Because when you stole it, then you became chayav, and it was worth a dollar. But if גניבה וגזילה פעולה נמשכת, that means you keep constantly stealing it, so the last second before it broke you stole it then, and then it was worth four! So why are you chayav only a dollar? So lichora, it's an אפענע גמרא against the Rogatchover! How could they say that that it's a פעולה נמשכת? So I think this is the pshat. Al derech the story with the Rogatchover with the, when Reb Chaim gave him over, gave him mazal tov. He said, \"Why?\" \"Because you just got married...\" married. What did he answer him? The mazal tov is also a פעולה נמשכת. So I want to say this is the pshat. If you stole it when it's worth a dollar, the פעולה נמשכת is on the whole thing. It's as if every second you're stealing worth a dollar. Not only is the stealing נמשך, the whole thing, the whole גניבה with all the trimmings is נמשך. Whatever happened in the beginning is happening again. That's what you have to say, otherwise you can't answer the kashya. So it comes out like this, that when you stole it lechatchila, what happened was that's נמשך every second. Now, I want to explain what happens if תבריה ושתיא, if you broke it or you drank it up. This is a nekuda, and this, again, take it or leave it, I'm not saying it's תורת משה. Being that stealing is a פעולה נמשכת, every second you are stealing again, but, we said, you're stealing the same thing you stole before, you're stealing the dollar's worth. So mimela, if you have to pay for it, you

have to pay a dollar, because even though you stole it now, but now you stole a dollar's worth. If something happens to it, then the stealing that you're doing now takes a new ציור. In other words, to say that you stole it again if you wouldn't say פעולה נמשכת, you can't say. You stole it once, how could you steal something twice? It's already stolen. But we're saying be'etzem you're stealing it every second. If the way you're stealing it now, it has certain other, you're doing something to it, so the stealing that's נמשך anyway gets a ציור of what you're doing now, and mimela, if now it's worth four, you're chayav four for what it's worth now. You get what I'm saying? Let's say, even though the פעולה נמשכת from before, but as long as nothing changed, there was nothing else that's happening, so the פעולה נמשכת is with the with the with the dollar. But if you're doing something, even though be'etzem it's not גניבה, why is it be'etzem not גניבה? Because you can't steal again be'etzem. But because you're stealing every second anyway, then this turns into גניבה, and it's a גניבה of a new thing. So the old גניבה, the גניבה that you stole in the beginning is נצטייר now, gets now a form of the new thing. So now it's a new גניבה, that's what the Nesivos means. He doesn't mean that if it changed all of a sudden, because you changed it it's a גניבה. If you wouldn't say פעולה נמשכת, that's my whole vort here, if you wouldn't say פעולה נמשכת you couldn't say it. I want a, you know, how could you say a גניבה again? That's like the Ketzos. But if you hold it's פעולה נמשכת, you could say it. Because the גניבה is there anyway now, every second there's a גניבה. But the גניבה now, because you made a change, takes the ציור of what it's now, because now it's a different form of the גניבה. Why is it גניבה? Because of the פעולה נמשכת. The form is happening now, תבריה ושתיא, you pay four. That's why you pay four, because of the גניבה. Which גניבה? The גניבה of now, which how could you be a גניבה now, only because of the פעולה נמשכת from before. I want to bring a dugma, a far, far-fetched dugma of this nekudah, that if it's a פעולה נמשכת and it's נמשך from before, nevertheless if it has a new ציור, that old פעולה נמשכת gets the ציור. It's a stupid dugma, it just... In חלק י״ז, you see עמוד 68, sicha talks about a different inyan complete, it's going to sound like mamash like פוילישע תורה that you mix א בוידעם מיט א קלאץ, but b'poal the Rebbe there speaks about a she'eilah.

When Erev Pesach comes out on Shabbos, when do you when is תענית בכורים? Thursday. If you don't fast and you hear a siyum, fine, you're yotzei. פרעגט דער רבי a she'eilah: Why? There's a din by Ta'anis Esther, I mean it sounds complete different sugya, but it just makes it more interesting, by Ta'anis Esther there's a din that if Purim is Sunday, when do you fast? Thursday. And the din is that if for some reason you didn't fast, you forgot and you didn't fast, or for another reason there was a se'udat mitzvah that you had to partake and you didn't fast, you have to fast Friday. Because b'poal Thursday is not the day of the fast. The day of the fast is really Shabbos, but you can't fast on Shabbos, so it fell out on Thursday. If you didn't fast on Thursday, you fast on Friday. So lechatchilah they push it off for Thursday, but if you don't, you fast on Friday. So why shouldn't the same din be here? תענית בכורים, ערב פסח has to be, let's say, Pesach has to be on שבת, ערב פסח has to be on Shabbos. They push it off to Thursday. If you're going to hear a siyum on Thursday, so you didn't fast on Thursday, so why shouldn't you have to fast on on Friday, or at least have to hear another siyum on Friday because you're now mechuyav on on Friday? What's the difference? So the Rebbe answers like this: The difference is, Ta'anis Esther the real day of fasting is on on on, if if Purim is Shabbos, the day is Sunday. They were doche it to Thursday. Okay. You have to fast if Purim is Sunday, b'etzem you have to fast the day before, so Shabbos. Since you can't fast on Shabbos, the Chachamim pushed it off to Thursday. So now Thursday became the day? No, farkert, saying b'etzem you have to fast on Shabbos, right? And what happened when they changed it over to Thursday? It's a nidche. It's a נדחה, the opposite of what I said. It's a נדחה. It's not the real day, it's a נדחה. If it's a נדחה, לפועל, if you didn't fast then, when they made it a נדחה, you're not yotzei, because be'etzem the fast day you were not yotzei, so you have to fast on a Friday. Erev Pesach when you fast, that's not the real day that you have to fast, be'etzem. Why do you fast תענית בכורים? Because of מכת בכורות. When was מכת בכורות? On Pesach. So really you should have to fast on Pesach. The fact that you fast Erev Pesach, always the day is Erev Pesach, is a נדחה in itself. So when the if it's a נדחה in itself, and in a case like this, we're דוחה it to Thursday, that becomes the day. So over there, Thursday is not the real day. That's why you have to do it. But by תענית בכורים, when it comes to Thursday, that becomes the day, and therefore if you didn't fast, it's not What's the pshat? But wait what I think the pshat is: תענית בכורים is a נדחה always, every year. The Rebbe uses a לשון, שם דחייה אחת הוא. So, every year we're דוחה it again. Not the pshat that once the חכמים decided because you can't fast on Pesach, so we're going to fast on the day before Pesach. That's not what happens. That's why you have to learn pshat in the שיחה. It's a פעולה נמשכת. Every year the day is Pesach and the חכמים are דוחה it. And they're דוחה it to which day normally? To Erev Pesach. When Erev Pesach is Shabbos, they're דוחה that same דחייה that they're doing now, they're דוחה it to Thursday. So Thursday, just like every year the day is Shabbos because of the דחייה, now lechatchilah that same דחייה that from the beginning on they're דוחה it to Thursday. So what happened on Thursday? Thursday is the day. Mah she'ein kein over there, it's not a דחייה. The real day is always there, the day before Purim, that's the day. This is the first year it's a דחייה. When you're דוחה, this is not the real day. In other words, what comes out from here, what I'm trying to bring out, when it's a פעולה נמשכת, and it comes a time פעולה נמשכת from the beginning, but if that same פעולה נמשכת comes to a point where there is a change, that דחייה takes the takes the ציור of the new change. The change that they changed to Thursday is the דחייה, the first דחייה that they did normally, they were דוחה it from Pesach to Erev Pesach. And that every year is נמשך. When it comes to be changed to Thursday, that דחייה now is Thursday. We don't say it's a double דחייה, always we changed it from sorry, from Pesach to Erev Pesach, and now we're changing it from Erev Pesach to Thursday. If we're doing that, then we got a problem. If we're changing it to to Thursday, really the day is really before. The din of דחייה that they change it lechatchilah takes a new ציור now. That דחייה is for Thursday. So just like every year the day is Erev Pesach because of the דחייה, this year the day is on Thursday. So Thursday is the day when you have to fast. So if you didn't fast because you heard a siyum, finished, so you're yotzei. Mah she'ein kein in the case of of Ta'anit Esther, then this is this year it's a דחייה. A דחייה means that this is not the real day. So what I'm trying to bring out from here is that the pshat in the

Nesivos will be like this: that be'emet you can't steal twice, like the Ketzos says. What is happening is there's a פעולה נמשכת that the first continues and therefore every time you do something, that גניבה that you did in the beginning which is נמשך now takes a new ציור and that's why we call it a new גניבה, and you have to pay four now. And that's the pshat in all the ענינים that the Nesivos says, I'm not changing anything, he said, just adding this one vort, that what he says that you're able to steal again is because it's a פעולה נמשכת. So the ציור of this גניבה that's now is happening in a new way, and therefore you're chayav four or whatever other דינים he says. And now we understand the machloket in the Ketzot and the Netivot: If you hold a פעולה נמשכת, then you're able to say that you're stealing again, and the fact that you have to pay four now when you broke it, because the breaking makes that the גניבה that you're doing is a גניבה now, too, and a גניבה in a ציור of four. Mah she'ein kein if you hold that it's not a פעולה נמשכת, then automatically what remains that you can't steal again. If you can't steal again, that's a kashya. What's the pshat in the Gemara that if you broke it, he stole it when it was worth one, he broke it it was worth four, you're chayav four? Why are you chayav four? Must be because A מזיק. And that's come, it's a new דין, it's a גדר of a מזיק. So the קסבר is that it's a גדר of מזיק because there's no such shaychut as stealing again. Why? Because he does not learn פעולה נמשכת. And not פעולה נמשכת, there's no such thing as stealing again. Mah she'ein kein the Netivot learns that it is פעולה נמשכת, so there's shaychut to steal again because be'etzem the פעולה נמשכת, and it takes a new ציור. This פרט, I really think this is the pshat, cuz otherwise it's hard to understand the Netivot. And I'll tell you another thing: this pshat answers the she'eilah on the Da'at Kedoshim, which is a shtarke she'eilah. If it's a פעולה נמשכת, you're chayav four right away! So we must say that it's a פעולה נמשכת, but everything before is nimshach, unless there's a change, there's a new tzeyur to that גניבה that's taking place. But al kol panim, now that we're saying that it's a, that it's a machloket, so at first you said that there's a מחלוקת בעל המאור and the Ramban, you could say. I think this is more clear that it's a machloket than even the בעל המאור and Ramban, which is the previous machloket, which is what? If the guy decided to give it back and didn't give it back yet. And this seems more because that's the only way, I think, you could explain the Netivot and understand that it's a real thing, is based on the sevara that it's פעולה נמשכת. So now the terutz that we gave: why is גניבה וגזילה more chamur than shevuah, and that's how we say חשוד אממונא חשוד אשבועתא, is because it's a פעולה נמשכת and it has a certain chumra, but that doesn't fit according to everybody, that doesn't fit according to, only if you hold that it's a פעולה נמשכת. The one that holds it's not a פעולה נמשכת, how will he answer the kushya? So you could say he'll answer the kushya לכאורה why חשוד אממונא חשוד אשבועתא? We'll answer what the Rashba says, that because the reason he swears is because of money, so of course it falls in the same category. Or like the, no, Maayan Hachochmah says, because חציף כולי האי. But I say I think there's another terutz you could give also, in the sevara why חשוד אממונא חשוד אשבועתא, even though it seems like shevuah is more chamur than mamon, because there is something more chamur in shevuah also. On one hand, it's more chamur this, but there's, something more chamur in shevuah is mamon also. Where do we find that it's more chamur ממון? So here you see, some mareh makom: Shulchan Aruch, Admor Hazaken, הלכות גזילה וגניבה, סעיף ב'. The

Alter Rebbe says an interesting din, it's taken from the Rosh, it's from Bava Metzia, but it's a strange din that people are not familiar with. If you ask anybody who knows anything, \"On which aveirah do you have to be mesirat nefesh? יהרג ואל יעבור? And you can't do the aveirah, even if it means to get killed?\" So everyone will answer, \"Three aveirot: עבודה זרה, גילוי עריות, שפיכות דמים.\" זאגט דער Alter Rebbe in Shulchan Aruch, stealing is one of those aveirot that you have to get killed for not to steal. I'm giving you time to sink in. That's how, it's pretty, how big stealing is. Now good, that means that every time someone tells you to steal and if not, I'll kill you, you have to let yourself get killed, no. The Alter Rebbe says that if you steal שלא על מנת לשלם, then you can't, even if it means to get killed, cuz you don't plan to pay. So if someone says, \"Steal, or I'll kill you,\" so you could steal with the intentions of paying, then you're allowed to. But be'etzem, the איסור גזילה is a issur that is יהרג ואל יעבור. Mamash it's, it's a strange thing, but it's just good for in, in, in yirah and mussar. People, you know, not so careful, someone else's thing, you know, you're borrowing, this and that. Because it's יהרג ואל יעבור עד כדי כך! A shtikel re'ayah to this, I think I once mentioned in the shiur before, I don't think this year, that the Gemara in Ketubot says, בנוגע in the second perek, if they force you to sign a shtar falsely that a guy owes money, so the Gemara says that if they tell you, \"If not, we'll kill you,\" then you have to do it. But the Gemara has a hava amina that you shouldn't, you shouldn't be believed because אין אדם משים עצמו רשע. If a person comes and says, \"I signed a shtar, but I signed by force,\" so if they say, \"I signed because they forced me by mamon, they came to me and said, 'If you're not going to sign, we're going to burn down your house,'\" then you still have to, you can't sign false, you can't save your money because of someone else's money. And if the guy says, \"I did it,\" we don't believe him. אין אדם משים עצמו רשע, we don't believe the guy, can't trust him. But if he says, \"מחמת נפשות,\" then we believe him. And the Gemara says it was a hava amina that even there you don't believe him. Why don't you believe him? So the Gemara said, because we thought, maybe even if they tell him, \"If not, we'll kill you,\" you're not allowed to sign.

פֿרעגט די Gemara: what? If they would come and ask a she'eilah by a rav, what would we tell him? Sign or don't sign? Of course we tell him to sign, אין לך דבר העומד בפני פיקוח נפש, אלא עבודה זרה, גילוי עריות, ושפיכות דמים בלבד. So the Gemara changed. פֿרעגט דער Ramban: what was the hava amina of the Gemara? What was the hava amina of the Gemara that you have to sign even if it means to be killed? A פלאדיגע זאך! So the Ramban answers that we know there's a שיטת Rambam The machloket between the Rambam and the other rishonim, besides the three aveirot, by other aveirot if they force you to do it, if not I'll kill you, are you allowed to go on mesirut nefesh? The Rambam holds you're not allowed to. יעבור ואל יהרג, you must be over. Most rishonim hold you're allowed to. Not only you're allowed to, it's a hiddur, it's a good thing to do. That's what the Gemara meant. The Gemara meant we don't believe the guy that he signed even though he was forced by his life, that means he's saying, \"I didn't do the hiddur.\" \"I didn't do the hiddur,\" so אין אדם משים עצמו רשע. פרעגט די Gemara, that's what the Gemara asked, \"How could you say that? If he would ask a she'eilah, we'd tell him go sign. You could say that?\" That's the Gemara. But I don't understand, what about according to the Rambam? How would we ask that peshat according to the Rambam? The Rambam says that you're not allowed to. So there's a big chidush, I would think the peshat is like this: When the Rambam says you're not allowed to give up your life for other aveirot, that's only those aveirot which are in the category of יעבור ואל יהרג. Those aveirot which is in the category of ייהרג ואל יעבור, even if you're in a situation where in your specific situation you're allowed to be over, the Rambam will be modeh that it's a hiddur to be over, to not to be over. Lemashal, the din is like this: One of the things that you're not allowed to be over is shefichut damim. If someone says, \"Kill that guy, if not I'll kill you,\" you can't kill the guy. Then the Rosh says, \"What a case like this? Someone says like this: You stand, there's a little baby laying on the floor, let yourself be pushed on the baby, and by doing that you'll fall, and you'll crush the baby, you'll kill the baby. If not, we'll kill you. Do you have to go on mesirut nefesh?\" No, because it's not doing a ma'aseh. So I want to say in this case where you don't have to go, the Rambam will be modeh that you're allowed to, because the עבירה בעצם is an aveirah of ייהרג ואל יעבור. So even if your situation happens to be an aveirah which you're allowed to be over, the Rambam will be modeh. So I want to say that in the case of stealing, signing false שטר, stealing money, the Rambam will be modeh to all the Rishonim that you're allowed to be over. And the Gemara's hava amina that because of that, you don't believe you would be even according to the Rambam, because stealing is ייהרג ואל יעבור. Even though the situation is that you're not, because you have in mind to pay, let's say, but it's in the category of ייהרג ואל יעבור. According to this, as we're saying it's in the category of ייהרג ואל יעבור, you could say like this: That's why חושד בממון חושד בשבועה. שבועה, false שבועה is not ייהרג ואל יעבור. And stealing money is ייהרג ואל יעבור. אגם the פועל יוצא never comes out, because you always could have in mind to pay, so mimela you're not. But because it's in the category of ייהרג ואל יעבור, that's why it's more chamur, and a חושד בממון is חושד בשבועה. אגם the Rambam says that in Hilchot Teshuvah that this is not, that שבועה is worse, because from mamon there's an easy way to get out of ייהרג ואל יעבור, you plan to pay, but the category of the עבירה, תשובה is easier there, or kaparah, the category is worse, and that's the sevara of חושד בממון חושד בשבועה.