Here the Gemara we have the sugya which is whether חשיד אממונא חשיד אשבועתא. Means if somebody is suspected that he's he went and he's ready to steal, so the Gemara has a discussion whether we also suspect that he's going to lie if he swears. It means can we ask a person who we suspect that he's stealing that he should swear, and then if he swears we'll accept his words? If he's suspected in stealing, is suspected also in swearing false? So here the Gemara comes and says, first hava amina, the beginning of the Gemara says that חשיד אממונא חשיד אשבועתא, so that's the first glance of the Gemara, that we should assume that if somebody is suspected for mamon, for money, he's also suspected that he will swear false and therefore you can't make him swear because there's no use. Which is considered worse? One second. Good. It's a good one second. And then the Gemara finishes off, \"No, the Gemara answers לא אמרינן, we do not say חשיד אממונא חשיד אשבועתא.\" But there is a hava amina, there is such a sevara. Not only is there a hava amina, but even that was the first hava amina meaning that at first glance that's what we thought. That's why the Gemara asks the kashya, I don't want to go into those details. So the Gemara assumed חשיד אממונא חשיד אשבועתא. The maskana here in this Gemara is no, we do not say it. Actually later on there's another part of the Gemara, and Abaye says חשיד אממונא חשיד אשבועתא, that he holds a maskana that if a person is suspected that he's stealing, we don't believe him when he swears. Now I want to make it clear, just to understand the inyan. Every time we make a person swear, obviously we suspect he's lying. Why make him swear? Guy said something, we don't know if he's saying the truth or not, make him swear, then you'll know he's saying the truth. That's only suspecting he's lying, but it doesn't mean suspect he's stealing. Because the Gemara says a lot of times a person would lie not because he wants to steal the money. He wants to give the money that he owes. אשתמוטי קא משתמיט, he just doesn't have it and he's looking to stall for time, so he says, \"I don't,\" in the meantime until he'll get it. So the Gemara says when do we, according to this opinion, when do we make a person swear? Only where there's a possibility to say that he's not stealing, so we don't accept assume he's stealing. What he what we're suspecting, which is a fifty-fifty percent chance, or he's saying the truth or he's lying, is maybe he's lying, but not because he wants to steal. But if a person wants to steal, so the hava amina of the Gemara was if we suspect that if he's lying, he's stealing, then we can't trust him with a shevuah. The maskana of this Gemara is that we do we don't say that. Abaye says we do. Now the

question is what would be the reason why if according to this sevara that if we suspect a person that he's stealing, וממילא we suspect also he's lying false? The Gemara says in... that if someone is חשוד על החמור, חשוד על הקל. If someone חשוד על הקל, אינו חשוד על החמור. That means when somebody is suspected in doing a certain aveirah, so any other aveirah which is not as strict as that one, he's definitely חשוד. If he doesn't care about this one, we suspect he's not going to care about that one. But any aveirah which is stricter than that one, why would we say he's only ready to do this aveirah, but doesn't mean he's going to do a worse aveirah? And so so suspected on a chamur, on something that's stricter, suspected on the kal. Chashud on the kal, not suspected on the chamur. So here the Kessef Yehoshua asks, which one is more chamur? Which one is more strict? Stealing money or swearing false? So we look in the Rambam in Hilchot Teshuvah, the Rambam says there considering the שעיר לעזאזל, it talks there about a different inyan, that in Kippur you take the שעיר and you throw him into לעזאזל, and it says that by doing that, certain aveirot are forgiven. So the Rambam says, taken from the Gemara, only עבירות קלות, light aveirot. But עבירות חמורות, strict aveirot, not. And he says, what's עבירות חמורות? Aveirah that the punishment is מיתת בית דין or the punishment is karet. But other aveirot where the punishment is like a lav only, like stealing, that's called from the kalot. And then he says שבועת שוא, to swear false, is from the chamurot. That's more chamur. Actually Tosafot here brings that the Gemara says in Yoma and in שבועות, העולם נזדעזע על לא תשא. That when Hashem said, \"לא תשא שם ה׳ לשוא,\" \"Do not swear false,\" the world shook. That means it was a terrible thing. So the Rambam says that this is called chamur. So the she'eilah he asks is if this is called chamur, why would we say חשיד אממונא, חשיד אשבועתא? If he's suspected in stealing, which is a kal, why would we suspect that he's steal he's also going to swear false, which is a chamur? What we have to do to answer the she'eilah is to find that in a from one way takeh it's it's chamur, but on the other hand stealing is more chamur, there is a certain chumra in stealing. Umemela we could say they even out, and Therefore, they're the same, and if you're suspected on one, you're suspected on the other. In which way can we explain that stealing is has a chumra over even swearing false? And memela it also is a חמור'דיקע פרט that we'll say that if you're stealing, you automatically will be suspected that you can't swear. In how in Jewish law, edut is is sworn at all? Like if you went to court, you have to take an oath? Not at all. All all testimony is sworn in, right? Yeah, right here? Not here, no. A shevuah... But this stuff is sworn in, right? How can you have... A shevuah is only by baal din. Actually, Tosafot says in Kiddushin that if the ed is only believed through a shevuah, he's not an ed. The whole concept of an ed is that he's ne'eman as an ed. The moment it's a shevuah, that's not his edut. I want to make this, I want to have that one point clear. He's suspected, they're not guilty? Well, that's it. This goes together, there's another case, a gazlan, who we know he stole. This gazlan cannot swear. Why not? Because we know he stole, so memela he can't swear. Here we have the same she'eilah. So he stole, so he did a lighter aveirah, so why does it mean that we he's going to do a worse aveirah, which is swearing? Because when you don't know such things on an ed, he's בחזקת כשרות. Right, exactly! But in this case... So he's בחזקת... Exactly! The only time... Guilty. ...the only, so still he's בחזקת כשרות for this aveirah. He's not בחזקת כשרות for stealing, but he's בחזקת כשרות for the other aveirah, but this made a she'eilah. So the only time if you're if you did a smaller aveirah or suspected in doing a smaller aveirah, so you lose the חזקת כשרות in that level, but you do not lose the חזקת כשרות in a stricter aveirah. So why is it that if you're חשוד על הממון, according to the hava amina and according to Abaye that's even the maskana, why is חשוד על הממון חשוד על השבועה? So what I'm saying, we have to find that there is some something that stricter in mamon, in stealing, than a shevuah, and therefore it's it comes also a chumra. Which way can we find? So one thing is, the

Rebbe brings in Likutei Sichos, in a different re'iyah, he brings the Rogatchover. And the Rogatchover says that גניבה וגזילה has a very big chumra. And that is, it's a פעולה נמשכת. That means that when you steal once, as long as you didn't give it back, you're stealing it every second again. Other aveirot you don't say it. By shevuah, if you swore false, it's one aveirah, you swore false, finished, but you don't say that every time you continue swearing false. But by גניבה וגזילה, you are continuously, you're doing the aveirah many many times. And I'll even explain why. Can you say that by swear? Okay, explain when, one second, why should we say you swore once? Why don't you say by Shabbos? מחלל שבת, you're מחלל שבת for a whole Shabbos? Because your lie is still is still... Yeah, good, the lie is still, does it? Yeah, but that's not something that you're doing, here you're holding it by you. Now I'll explain why we say פעולה נמשכת. When when do we say פעולה נמשכת? And I explained this many times before. When is the klal that we say פעולה נמשכת? Which again, it's the Rogatchover's big thing and he writes in many places, which other people other don't don't accept it. R'' Chaim Brisker did not accept it. You know the famous joke that's not a joke, it's a that that he once said that קידושין is a פעולה נמשכת and R'' Chaim saw him once, he gave him, \"mazal tov!\" \"What happened?\" So he says, \"You just got married according to you.\" So he answered him, so the \"mazal tov is also a פעולה נמשכת.\" So anyway, but they don't accept it. I once, did I tell you I once spoke to a ליטווישע ראש ישיבה? It didn't have to do with... Right. A ליטווישע ראש ישיבה, I once told him about something פעולה נמשכת, \"sevarot! Sevarot! S'iz gornisht!\" Because they don't have the understanding the abstract thinking and the Rogatchover did. But the logic behind it is, the Rebbe explains it in different places, when do we say, where's the whole makor of פעולה נמשכת? Not a makor, in תניא, בריאת העולם! It says המחדש בטובו בכל יום תמיד, the Eibershter creates the world every second. Why? When do we say it? When there is something that's done that is against the nature. In order for that to stay, you have to constantly hold it. And he brings a re'iyah from קריעת ים סוף. By קריעת ים סוף, what happened? There's a wind that blew all night and kept the water up. So you have to have the wind constantly blowing. Why? Had the nes of קריעת ים סוף turned the water into a solid thing, all you have to do do it once to make it solid. Now it's solid, now you don't have to have constantly. We're not talking the thing is there, we're talking the פעולה ain't there, you have that. But since the אייבערשטער did not change the water to become solid, so the water still remains in nature of falling and you want it to stand, so you have to constantly keep it up. The same thing the world, the Alter Rebbe says, the nature of עולם is not to be, כי באמת there is no וועלט, it's the אייבערשטער. So the fact that there is a וועלט, it has to be constantly המחדש בטובו, לעולם ה' דברך נצב בשמים, the אייבערשטער has to constantly... The same thing in everything else also. When it comes to steel, we find it's against the teva, which means there's a contradiction here, just like we said by the world. There's a contradiction: נישטא קיין וועלט and we're making a וועלט. Water is supposed to flow and that remains and it's standing, it's a contradiction, so it's a פעולה נמשכת. The same thing with stealing. We know that if I sell you something, it's not a פעולה נמשכת to say, \"Well, if I sold you once, so it's as if I'm selling you every day.\" Why? One shot. I sold you and that's it, now it's yours. By stealing, we have a contradiction, because I took it from you, so now I took it away from you, but it's still yours. Not that you sold it to me, it's still yours. So if it's still yours, so even though בשעת מעשה I took it, but now I stopped taking it, it's yours. So wherever it is, it should be considered yours, and I shouldn't be stealing. Nevertheless, we say you're still stealing. So it's yours, and a stealing, which means stealing means I'm taking it to me. So it's like a contradiction. Therefore, the Rogatchover, I would assume that's the—he doesn't say that pshat, but I would assume that's his reason why he would say גניבה וגזילה פעולה נמשכת. And because of that, he explains something which is not so clear, but I'll just say what he says. The Rebbe brings it. He says that the Rambam, when he says that if you steal, you don't get malkos, why? It's a לאו. For every לאו, you get malkos. So he says, because—so he says לאו שניתן לתשלומין, because any לאו you could pay for. And the Rogatchover asks, why doesn't he say לאו הניתק לעשה? We know a klal that if you have a לאו, and the Torah says there's an עשה that if you did the לאו, there's an עשה, a positive mitzvah to fix the לאו, then you don't get malkos. Like it says by שילוח הקן, it says שלח תשלח את—no, it says לא תקח האם על הבנים, you're not to take the mother. That's a לאו. But it says if you did take it, send away the children, so you don't get malkos. And send away the mother. So it says, so לאו—so here also—okay, we're not going to go into the דינים there. So it says if you can then, if you did something, if you can do the עשה, you're not חייב מלקות. No, it's an עשה. So by stealing, the Torah says לא תגזול, and then it says if you stole, והשיב את הגזילה, so it's an עשה, so it's a לאו הניתק לעשה. Why doesn't the Rambam say it? So he says, when is there a לאו הניתק לעשה? When there's a one-time thing. You did a לאו once. Now the Torah says there's an עשה. What's the עשה going to do? Obviously to fix up that לאו, correct the לאו. But if it's a פעולה נמשכת, when you do the עשה, it's not the pshat you're fixing the לאו, you're just not allowing it to continue. Like this, it's a פעולה נמשכת, and every second you're stealing. When you're now giving it back, all that's happening is you stop stealing it, but you're not fixing the לאו. Mimela the Rambam couldn't say it's a לאו הניתק לעשה. Not so clear, I don't want to go into the פרטים of this, but therefore the Rambam gives a different reason: because a לאו הניתן לתשלומין, since you could pay for it, so there's no מלקות. But so befeirush he said it's a—a פעולה נמשכת. So lichora according to this, the Rogatchover, which the Rebbe seems to accept, there's a chumra. So it's something special, something more chamur in stealing. When you steal something and as long as you don't give it back, you have stolen it, you are stealing every second. And you're stealing every second, that's more chamur than doing an עבירה which there's no reason to say פעולה נמשכת. You did it, and whatever accomplished accomplished. That's it. You don't do it every—there's no reason to say every second you're swearing again. Why would you say that? And mimela this is a chumra. Mimela like it's not to swear. That's why we say חשוד אממונא חשוד אשבועות. But what I want to really go into is that this whole concept that גזילה and גניבה is a פעולה נמשכת seems to be a machloket between the poskim, between the mefarshim. And mimela, not everyone will agree to this, and mimela according to them, we can't answer this. Where do we find—this is really where I'm going to get into, where do we find this machloket?

One place we find this machloket is there's a machloket between the Baal HaMaor and the Mordechai. The Ketzos brings this. We have a din: גזל, if someone steals something, שניהם אינם יכולים להקדיש. The din is like this: if a person owns something, I could be makdish it. If this is mine, I can say, \"This shall be hekdesh.\" And the moment I say hekdesh, it just becomes hekdesh, and I can't have hana'ah from it, and if I do, I'm מועל בהקדש, all kinds of dinim. But you could only be makdish something that's mine. There's another thing: I could only be makdish something if it's in my reshut. Even if it's mine, but if it's not in my reshut, I can't. And we learn it out from a pasuk. It says, \"איש כי יקדיש את ביתו קדש,\" a man will be makdish his house, and the גמרא דרש: מה ביתו ברשותו, a house is always in your reshut. There's no way a house cannot be—if it's your house, even if you don't live there, it's no one took it away, no one—it's always in your reshut. So just like a house is in your reshut, and the pasuk says, \"איש כי יקדיש את ביתו, מה ביתו ברשותו, אף כל ברשותו.\" Therefore the Gemara says, a stolen item that's in the reshut of the גנב, שניהם אינם יכולים להקדיש. Both can't be makdish. The one that owns it can't be makdish, because it's not in his reshut, and the one that stole it can't be makdish, it's not his. The one that stole it, it's not in his reshut—why is it not in his reshut? Because the guy is stealing it, the guy is holding it away. למשל a shomer, you give me to hold something for you, and it's in my house, you could be makdish it. It's in my house, but since I'm holding it on your behalf, that's called your reshut. But if I stole it, and I'm not planning to and not giving it to you, mimela I'm basically—it's not in your reshut, so you can't—that's the Gemara. Huh? Land is always in your— Yeah. Hold it. Comes the Ketzot and brings a Baal HaMaor. The Baal HaMaor says, what happens if a guy stole and decided he's giving it back, but he didn't manage yet, didn't give it back yet, can the בעל הבית מקדיש it now? So he

says yes, if he knows he's getting it back. But he doesn't know, but lefoal if the גזלן has a mind to give it back, so lefoal he says that's called birshuto already. The whole reason why it's not called birshuto is because he's not giving it, he's a גזלן. But no, the moment he decided to give it back, the owner could be מקדיש. Then he says, אבל הרמב״ן כותב that it doesn't work unless he gives it back, as long as he doesn't give it, it's not. So it seems that their מחלוקת is based on this: if גניבה וגזילה is a פעולה נמשכת or not. Because if it's a פעולה נמשכת, what's the pshat? The whole time why is it called stealing, stolen? Because you keep on stealing it. All you have to do is stop continuing to steal it. Give it back. The moment you stop continuing, be'etzem it's not stolen. What do we say? Be'etzem, object even if you take it, it's not stolen, so every second you're stealing it. The moment he decides, you're stopping the stealing from continuing, you don't have to do a פעולה to give it back. Mimela, that's the sevara of the Baal HaMaor. He's not stealing, but one time. The moment he stole it, He keeps continuing No, if he didn't steal, no. If you stop stealing it, it's not stolen. That's why we have to say he continues stealing it. So the moment he stops continuing it, it's back and mimela he could מקדיש it. On the other hand, the other one the

Ramban holds that if he stole it once and now it's a stolen item, so now you have to do something to give it back. I'll give you an example. How does he stop? By deciding he gives it back. That's it? He's done with it? Yeah, if he decides and he wants to give it back. I'll give you an example where we find, we find, and this is a a subject, a side subject, Making a change? Huh? No, you don't have to, just stop. He has to give it back to him. Yeah. על דרך like this, there is, in nissim, the Maharal of Prague talks about it and the Rebbe in different שיחות also talks about it. When the Eibershter makes a nes and something happens, there are two types of nissim. There's a nes that Eibershter changes a certain bederech nes, makes a certain change its its its characteristics. And sometimes the Eibershter doesn't make a change. He gives an example: when the Eibershter told Moshe Rabbeinu, when he spoke about the Yidden, that the Yidden are not going to listen to me, he says, \"Put your hand in here,\" and took it out מצורעת כשלג, it had צרעת. Then the Eibershter, wanting to take it back, he said, \"Put it back in again,\" and now he took it out, it's normal. Why did he have to put it in again? If the whole if be'emet his hand is a normal hand, there's that a special thing that's making it צרעת, so all the Aibershter has to want to stop making it צרעת, automatically should go back. So no, he had to do a peulah to make it go back. Why? Because this nes was a nes that the Aibershter changed his hand and now his hand became צרעת. So just like you have to do a peulah of a nes to change it from normal to צרעת, so now to change it from צרעת to normal, you had to do a peulah. Then he gives an example of מכת דם. Aibershter made the river the water became blood. The water didn't become be'etzem blood. פה ראיה, by a Yid, if he took the same water, it was water. Water. And if a Yid and if a a מצרי paid for it to the Yid, it was also water. But be'etzem, it was a nes constantly. So the Aibershter constant פעולה נמשכת to make it.

Therefore, when the nes, when the מכה was finished, they didn't need a nes the Aibershter should go do something now to make, like just like you make water into blood, make water into water. And it doesn't say that they had to empty the river for the blood and now new water will come in. Why? Because the Aibershter didn't change the nature of the thing. So automatic, all you had to do is stop continuing. That sounds like it changed the nature of the perception or something. Perception, but not the really. What's the language stuck in the pasuk when the Aibershter took away the the the the blood Yeah, yeah, he didn't have to do anything. He didn't have to do anything, didn't have to. Here he says do something to make a change. Right. Doesn't say it. And after a week the blood when the מכה was over, it's finished. But it was really water, was it? It just took the appearance of blood. What makes really really, but not be'etzem. I understand. Really, but not really. Yeah. So really, but not really, that's the Chassidus, that's why it's a פעולה נמשכת. It's really like when you steal, you're really stealing, but you're not stealing. It's a miracle It's a miracle that means that they didn't change the עצם הטבע, even though the chitzoniyus was like a blood. Looked like, yeah, it was blood, right? Yeah, chitzoniyus was blood, it's not only perceived, it was blood, but not be'etzem. The teva remained, but the Aibershter constantly kept on making it be blood. So the same, the same thing here also. When the the Baal HaMaor holds that גניבה וגזילה is a פעולה נמשכת, so what you have to do to stop it is not you have to do something to change it, mimela the moment you decide you're not doing it anymore, you're giving it back, that's enough. Mah she'ein kein the Ramban holds that it's a it's not a פעולה נמשכת, it's a one-time thing and it turned into גניבה, so now the same way just like you to steal it you had to do something, to return it and take away the גניבה you should be able to be מקדיש, you've got to return it. So therefore not. So we see there's a מחלוקת here. But

באמת there is even a better place where we find find that there is a מחלוקת, a מחלוקת between the Ketzos and the Nesivos, whether it's a פעולה נמשכת or not. In other words, what I'm saying now, that based on the סברא of פעולה נמשכת, that's the only way you could explain the Nesivos, וממילא the Ketzos argues, so that seems that this is a מחלוקת. What does it say? And this is a, you have to halt kop here exactly the דינים. There is a הגהת Rema in Choshen Mishpat סימן ל\"ד: החולק עם הגנב, כשר לעדות. A גנב, a גזלן is פסול לעדות, can't be a witness. But if you didn't steal, you just shared the loot, shared what he stole, you're כשר. Means the Ketzos, the Tumim, Tumim was it? R'' Yonatan Eibeshitz, asks a kasha. He says, \"I don't understand. Why shouldn't he also be פסול לעדות?\" And he gives an example: \"We know הכופר בפיקדון פסול לעדות. If I give you something to watch, and I come to say, 'You know, time is up. Give it back to me,' and you deny it, we find out that you're lying, this guy is פסול לעדות. Why? Because he stole. He had a שייכות to the גניבה. Even though,\" he says, \"אתא לידיה בהיתרא, when he got the object in his house, it was בהיתר, the guy gave it to him. But because now he decided, he's פסול. This חולק עם הגנב, it came לכתחילה גניבה, so why should he, the חולק עם הגנב, be כשר לעדות? He's participating in the גניבה. So if you're participating in the גניבה, you should be you should be פסול לעדות. You are part of it, because you're taking the גניבה.\" It's different. It's like It's one the first person... Of what? Comes the Ketzos and says, \"I don't The Tumim's kushya is no kushya. I'll tell you why,\" he says.

One big klal he makes, which is a very logical klal: there is no such thing as stealing something twice. If I stole it from the owner, finished, I can't steal it again now. And he brings a re'aya. הגונב מן הגנב, if you stole from a גנב, you're פטור מן הכפל. Why? Lichora, you're not, because there's no such thing as another גנב. You can't steal twice. U'meimela, if you can't steal twice, he says, therefore, a חולק עם הגנב, he's not a גנב. Even though you're taking the thing, but you're not a גנב. הכופר בפיקדון, he's altogether not a גנב. הכופר בפיקדון, someone denies the פיקדון, he is stealing it, because till now it was, you're right, it was other guy's. The moment he started he decided he's not, now he's stealing, for the first time. That's why you're pasul. But the second time you can't steal. And he even brings a re'aya. The Gemara in Bava Kamma says, in פרק הגוזל, it says like this: If someone stole something, and another guy came and took his thing, took it away from him and ate it up, so in this case, the owner wants to collect. Who does he collect from? So he collects from the first guy, he says. He collects from the first, not from the second. Why not? Why can't he come to the second guy? So Tosafot explains because the first guy stole it, the second guy didn't steal it, you can't steal it again. And then he continues, and even though that's only Rav v'Rav Huna, but there's another opinion which we pasken that רצה מזה גובה רצה, you could collect whichever one you want, he says, but that's only if the second guy ate it. If the second guy stole it from him, you can't collect. And he says why? Because you can't steal a second time. But if he ate it, he's a mazik. That's right, a mazik. A mazik, this guy, you could collect, so you could collect from the mazik. But גזילה, there is no such thing as a second time. And based on that, he explains a Gemara. An interesting Gemara. The

Gemara says like this: If someone stole חביתא, a jar of wine, when he stole it, it was worth one זוז. Later on, he broke it, or he drank it up. When he broke it or he drank it up, it was worth four זוז. How much does he pay? One. So the Gemara says no, he pays four. איברא, ממילא, if it broke by itself, he pays only one. And he says, \"What is the difference?\" He says, \"I'll tell you what the difference is. Lichora, that's the she'ela. When it broke, it was worth four. Why shouldn't he have to pay four?\" He says, \"pashut. You're chayav for stealing. When you stole, it was worth one. Later on, it wasn't stolen again. So you you it's pay for the stealing. Ai, how come if you broke it, you're chayav four? You're a mazik. Since you broke it, you're a mazik, so you're chayav for the hezek, and the hezek was worth four.\" So this is all following this this sevara. That's the פעולה נמשכת. No, no, no. Wait, no. No, I didn't say what the Ketzos says. The Ketzos doesn't use these words. Unless he pay four and one? He only pays... No, no. Only four. So he says the bottom line is that you cannot steal a second time, and that's why if it broke by itself, there's no, you can't be a geneivah again. You pay kefel on the on the four, or kefel on one for chayav? Yeah, if he's a ganav, he's kefel. No, whatever. On the hezek? Yeah, if he's a... So if it's only worth one and he damages it when it's worth four, and now he's come to according to everyone, So he pays, yeah. he pays eight or he pays two? He's a thief. No, if he's a ganav, he pays kefel on whatever the chiyuv of money is, he pays kefel on that. Should pay he pays kefel he pays Actually, here he's talking about a gazlan, not not a ganav. The lashon is גזל חביתא דחמרא. there was another person was a ganav and he stole something worth one and then he then he damaged it when it was worth four. So so for four, he doesn't pay double. Why not? Because it's a mazik, not a not a ganav. No, but if he was a ganav So okay, a ganav who who who's stolen, he's paying for the for the hezek. Can pay six for? Maybe. But he for the hezek, you're not forced. No, because for hezek, you don't pay. And I don't think you pay for the first geneivah because now you paid for the four, so you're This is the way and therefore he says that a chelek in a ganav if you if you're a ganav, you since there's no קונה, you can't steal twice. So a chelek in a ganav didn't do anything. A chelek in a you you you you you just you you shared it with the ganav, you didn't break it, so there's no hezek here. And you didn't steal it because you can't steal a second time. That's why you only go you you you you're not you're not פסול לשבועה because you're not not פסול לעדות, I mean, because you're not a ganav. Comes in the Netivot and he said, \"I disagree with the Ketzos.\" Why? He says, \"I think you could ganav a second time.\" The only thing he says like this, when did when is the second time also called a גניבה? Or a גזילה, let's say. The second time is called a גזילה if you made a change in the object. Made a change in the object, then it's it's a second גזילה. And that's what he says. He says therefore if the the case of of of the one and the four, he says if you broke by itself, you're chayav one, because you stole it when it was worth one. Now, there was no change, as far as you didn't make a change. If you broke it, you made a change. You're stealing a second time. So you're chayav four because you stole it then. You're a גזלן then, not like the Ketzot says you're not a גזלן, you're a מזיק. You're a גזלן. You're stealing opportunity cost. You can never return to the original. You can never return it back. You can never reverse from there anymore. Can't return it. One second. One second. That's speaking like a lawyer, taka. One second. So, you're right. Let me finish. So, he says you're chayav because you're stealing. The Gemara that he quoted from a גזלן, he says that if you stole it and somebody else ate it, the second guy who ate it, if you want, you could collect from him. So, he says because they're both גזלנים. It's the second time as I it's stolen once, you could steal it a second time. But the only condition he makes, when is it considered a second if there's a change. So, therefore, if the second guy stole it just stam and no change, you could go to the first. The second guy's not a גזלן. But if he made a change, the second guy's also a גזלן. That's how he learns. What's the change? That he ate it? Ah? What's the change? That he ate it? In the case that he ate it or in the case that he broke it, it's a change. Now, what what I'm trying to explain is the the the point that you touched upon. What is the פשט in the Netivot, the fact you could steal it a second time. Let's understand the עצם in halacha. Can you steal something a second time? If you say the word, \"You're a thief,\" that you could say, but the גדר of גזלן, the taytsh of גזילה means taking away from owner. No, no, taking it from an owner. After taking away from the owner, you can't call him that he's a גזלן of the פשט לכולם. Why is he called a גזלן? What's he stealing now? It could be other things, you can call him a מזיק, you can even call him a listim. Why I say the word listim? Because there's a שיחה, a מילה אחת, but the Rebbe asks on the first Rashi, the first famous שיחה on the first Rashi in Chumash, where Rashi says that the גוים say to the יידן, \"ליסטים אתם. You stole ארץ ישראל.\" So everyone understands that kind of יידן, so every nation stole from other nations. We talked all that time, it's the יידן, you're a listim. And another thing that the Rebbe says, there is there is It says all the nations of the world are claiming. What's their business? Maybe כנענים would claim it, but anyway. But, the bottom line the Rebbe says, that this is not like a regular conquering of a land. Conquering a land, the land is still this country and I will conquer it. That they all do. That's called כיבוש, and כיבוש is What the Yidden did when they conquered Eretz Yisrael, they made it that now no one else could get it. Even if a goy takes it, it's still not his. So, and that's the טענה of every nation. Every nation in the world in every country potentially can take it. Lose a war, and Lose a war, so there's another country over there. If I want, I'll go to war and I'll get it. Eretz Yisrael became, when the Yidden took it, they took away the the the potential, the opportunity of other nations to ever get it. So everyone is complaining. But what lashon does he call him? ליסטים אתם. Because it's a You're taking away an opportunity, but to call the הלכה'דיק גדר of a גזלן, a גזלן means taking away from the owner. So I want to say that the Netivot, the עומק הפשט in the Netivot could be, not could be, I think that is the pshat, is connected to פעולה נמשכת. Now say why. Let's stop for a second and think. The

Rogatchover said there's גניבה, גזילה, פעולה נמשכת. I have an אומורעדיקע קשיא on the Rogatchover from this Gemara. The Gemara says that if you stole it and it was worth one and it broke by itself, you pay one. Why? If a פעולה If גזילה is a פעולה נמשכת, then it means that you're stealing every second. So now that the last second, you stole it then and it was worth four, why do you pay one? So, I want to say like this, you might laugh at me, but I want to say like this It's not a new thief, it's the it's the first one we What happened before, when we say פעולה נמשכת, The whole thing is פעולה נמשכת, like I said the other day for the mazal tov. The stealing of one dollar is נמשך. What the פעולה נמשכת is, is that the גזילה that you did in the beginning, that you stole an object worth one zuz, that is נמשך. So every second that you're stealing this, it continues stealing one zuz. So, yeah. And therefore, if it broke by itself and you didn't do anything to it, you're chayav for stealing, stealing now, not for then. What are you stealing now? One zuz. If you broke it, you made a change in it, oh, so here we have to say this. I don't know if you'll agree with me or not. The stealing that you stole in the beginning, now that you make a change, takes a new ציור. That's why he says you have to have a change. So now, because there's a change, you're chayav. The question was, how could he steal again? You're not stealing again. You're stealing again because the original stealing is continuing. Ai, if it's the original kinyan, so why do you pay four, should be one, we said? Because if there is a change, so now that original stealing which you are stealing now takes a new shape, a shape of four. So, if nothing is changed in it and you don't change anything in it, then it's the original גזילה that's נמשך with one. But if you're making a change, so the reason why you call it גזילה is because you stole it before and that גזילה is פעולה נמשכת. And because now there's a change, so the פעולה נמשכת takes the shape of the way it's now, and now it's four. Yeah, but if it's a פעולה נמשכת, it gets renewed constantly. It's already worth four now. I'll tell you. If it's no new ציור, I'd say חידוש הישנות. We say by olam hazeh, the world, Eibershter creates every world, every second. So it says Eibershter doesn't It's a new world. So how come every second should be a new זמן? How do we say there's seven days in the week? Because Eibershter makes חידוש הישנות. Whatever was there before, he renews. So what's renewed is the way you did it before, that's renewed. So you're חייב now for גניבה because you're stealing now, because you stole before and it's נמשך, so what's נמשך? The גניבה with the cheshbon of one. So the action of one. But if you do a new פעולה, even if the פעולה on itself cannot be גניבה. Why can it not be גניבה? Because you can't steal a second time besides the first. But a new גניבה is Why is there a new But you can't have a new גניבה. Because the old גניבה is גניבה, but with a change of the way it's now. And that's the pshat according to the Netivot. Like the Yam Suf. Blowing the whole time. If he got tired of blowing, Let's say in one area he stopped blowing or he blew, yeah. Or not even that. He'll leave the water, but he'll blow stronger here. So this place will be the פעולה from before, but it'll be in a new shape. It'll be more. It's a superficial change. Huh? It's really not the עצם. Well, not the עצם. I'm not talking about the עצם, but the way it is a פועל. So the

Netivot works out with Oh, so I'm saying the Netivot works out with the פעולה נמשכת. Because otherwise, the Netivot is not understood. How do you steal a second time? You can't steal a second time. You can only steal once and that once is נמשך. And if there is a change, then now you are stealing and that original stealing is done in a different way and you're חייב for it. Now, לפי זה, we can understand why the Ketzot doesn't like the Netivot's pshat. Because the Ketzot doesn't learn it's פעולה נמשכת. So the Ketzot makes it very clear, you can't steal a second time. You stole once and it's stolen. Second time you can't steal. So how could you say you're חייב the second time for stealing? So you can't. But the Netivot holds that the stealing is נמשך all the time. אה, if there's a שינוי, it's a new thing, mimela he says it's still called stealing. איי, he agrees that normally you can't steal a second time, but it's not a second time, it's נמשך. So לפי זה, it comes out that the machloket, pshat in the Gemara over there, when you stole it, it was worth one and then when it broke, you pay one, if you broke it, you pay four. And there's a machloket pshat in the Netivot, the reason you're paying for four, is it because it's a mazik or you're still called stealing, machloket, it's all based on this, whether it's a פעולה נמשכת or not. So, if so, comes out like this that not everyone agrees it's a פעולה נמשכת. So we're back to the kashya in our Gemara. He answered, why is stealing more chamur than a shevuah? That's why if you're choshed a stealing, you're choshed a shevuah, because of פעולה נמשכת. What about those that don't hold it's a פעולה נמשכת? So you got to find a different terutz. So there are different terutzim. And there is a limud that I could say like this:

There is a chumra in stealing that's not so well-known, but maybe here you know it because I mentioned it quite a few times. Bichlal, we know the klal that אין לך דבר העומד בפני פיקוח נפש. If it's a question of a person's life, you could do all the aveirot, except the three aveirot. There's one more aveira that people don't know that is included, and that's stealing. The Alter Rebbe writes in the Shulchan Aruch, based on the Rosh, that if you steal, you're not allowed to steal even if it means giving up your life. But, only, he says, if you don't plan to pay. The עצם עבירה of stealing is an aveira you have to give up your life for it. But if you plan to pay, you don't have to give up your life. he says. Now, this this explains, I don't know if to go into this, though. This is only if somebody forces you to steal? Yeah. If someone comes over to you and says, \"Go steal this, if not I'll kill you,\" you're not allowed to steal, you have to get killed. The only thing is if you go steal and have in mind to pay, then you're allowed to. How come it's not known? Because you always have an etzah to pay. What if someone's starving hungry? Yeah. You're not allowed to. You're not allowed to. Unless you have in mind that if you're going to have money, you'll pay it back. If I don't have money, I won't pay, but if I'm going to have money, I'll pay. Halachah's different. You're allowed to steal from from No, what if they Anytime you want to steal, make yourself a bli neder. No, you're not allowed to. In other, you have to have in mind, which only means that if I'll be able to, when I get my money, I'll pay him. I'll find the guy and I'll find him. Anytime you want to steal, make a bli neder, then every thief in Brooklyn is doing it. What if you don't know who the person is? You're starving hungry בכלל טוב. So, it says צרכי רבים. Yeah, the way to return it, you give it to בית דין, you give צרכי רבים. There are always of על כל פנים that person stole, a regular case, he already stole, and then wants to do teshuvah, and he doesn't know who to give it to. So it says you give it צרכי רבים. So, no, explain, I want to

keep to the Gemara, this explains a Gemara. The Gemara says in Kesubos that if a person comes and two people signed a שטר that this guy owes somebody money, whatever, and then they come to בית דין later and they say, \"You know, we signed it by force. We're forced to sign it.\" So the Gemara says we don't believe them because אין אדם משים עצמו רשע. If a person says, \"I did something wrong,\" we don't believe him. And the Gemara says there, according to one opinion, even if it was מחמת נפשות, even if they come and say, \"They forced me, they'll kill me if I don't sign it,\" still we don't believe them. And the Gemara Because אין אדם משים עצמו רשע. Fregt di גמרא, why? Why is it? So the Gemara says because there's a sevara that if it tells you to sign, even if they mean to kill, you're not allowed to sign, which means you're going to ruin someone's money, you're not allowed to. Fregt di גמרא, what are you talking about? If the same people would come to בית דין and ask, \"Should I sign or get killed?\", בית דין would answer, \"Sign.\" So, because אין דבר עומד בפני פיקוח נפש. So how could you say that they're making themselves a rasha by saying they signed? So the

Gemara goes But the Ramban asks, what was the hava amina of the Gemara? How did the Gemara the Gemara didn't know the klal that only three aveirot that signing false is not Why is it a rasha? So he says like this. Because even those aveirot that you are allowed to be over in order to save your life, it's a hidur if you let yourself get killed. Yeah. In other words, if a person wants to give up his life for any other עבירה, Tosafot holds קידוש השם it is, it's great. So mimela the Gemara had a hava amina that if a guy says, \"I didn't do a mitzvah of hidur,\" we don't believe him. So that's why it's considered like a rasha. Okay? And then the Gemara asks, but it's not true, because how could you say for a hidur, על פי דין he's allowed to. But I have a she'eilah on this Ramban. This is all good according to Tosafot. According to the Rambam, not! The Rambam is the one that holds that when there's an aveirah that you don't have to give up your life, you're not allowed to give up your life. So how can you answer? So I want to say this. I have other ראיות that the Rambam admits that you're allowed to in a case where be'etzem the aveirah is in the category of ייהרג ואל יעבור, that you have to get killed, but in your instance, there's a reason for it you don't have to, there the Rambam will say you're allowed to. I'll give you an example.

One of the three aveirot is שפיכות דמים. Okay. Someone says, \"Kill him, if not, I'll kill you.\" You can't kill him, you have to get killed. The the Rosh talks about it in Ketubot. What happens if a goy comes over to a Yid, and there's a baby laying, and he says, \"Allow yourself to be thrown on top of the baby, which will crush the baby. You don't do anything, you're allowed. Do it, and if not, I'll kill you.\" So he says here you don't have to go on mesirat nefesh because your nefesh don't say they want you to do a ma'aseh, but here you're not doing a ma'aseh. Passive, so you're allowed to. I think the Rambam in this case would admit that since you don't have to give up your life, and the Rambam always holds if you don't have to, you're not allowed to, in this case he would admit you're allowed to. Because be'etzem the type aveirah this is is an aveirah that you have to go on mesirat nefesh, umimela, even in a case where you don't have to, at least you're allowed to. So I want to say that's the peshat. Even according to the Rambam, to sign false and steal someone's money is in the category of ייהרג ואל יעבור. Ela mai, if you have in mind to pay, you don't have to. The Rambam will admit that in this case you're allowed to. So the Rambam, I think, will admit that in a case of stealing from somebody money and a person wants to go on mesirat nefesh and not to do it, he's allowed to, even according to the Rambam. So the peshat of the Ramban, that the Gemara's hava amina is that you don't believe them because they said that they're not מהדר, fits even according to the Rambam, because we're talking here about stealing. But the bottom line is I'm trying to bring out that this is a special aveirah. So now we

could say that's also here. We're asking: what's more חמור, שבועה or stealing? So we said a shevuah is חמור, but there's a chumra in stealing also. Stealing is something that is in the category of יהרג ואל יעבור. And if it's in the category of יהרג ואל יעבור, it's a chumra. Mimela, that's also a chumra, and we understand why חשדא דממונא, חשדא דשבועה. And a shaliach is also a פעולה נמשכת, it's not a shaliach? Yeah. Someone's shtik once when a shaliach, I want to give a get to someone, so she will be Yeah, and he said that that's that's what his מחלוקת נפקא מינה is. If someone sends a shaliach to give a get, and he became a meshuga before the get was, can you give the get? Yeah. So if you hold it's not a פעולה נמשכת, it's okay. Why? Because the guy, when he made you a shaliach, was normal. So now you're a shaliach, you could give. But if פעולה נמשכת means that every second you're, so when you give the get, why are you able to give it? Not because he made you a shaliach before, because he made you now, and now he's he's crazy. In metziut, in metziut A different category of aveirot. If a guy is going to mechalel Shabbos, probably he's going to necessarily lie to you or steal from you? Oh, he will. Don't believe him. A guy who is mechalel Shabbos, it's איסור סקילה, he's going to do a איסור לאו. We're afraid. I mean, it doesn't mean everyone has to do it, but this guy is already not trusted. Just like in the thing itself, if a guy is mechalel Shabbos, can you trust him in an inyan of Shabbos? Obviously not. So the same thing in something that's less than that. Yeah, but if it's like what you're saying, if a guy does drive on Shabbos, but say you assume he's going to be a thief? Halacha Drive on Shabbos is less mechalel Shabbos No, mechalel Shabbos, but mechalel Shabbos is not yehareg ve'al ya'avor. No, adraba, but it had a chumra, each one has a chumra. Huh? No, listen. Nowadays we can't tell. Nowadays mechalel Shabbos is different. But if a guy is a real knowing and he's a real mechalel Shabbos Why is he פסול לעדות? Yeah, and he couldn't swear. A

guy who is mechalel Shabbos, if he'd come to beit din and there's a חיוב שבועה, he couldn't swear. And on the marriage, you can't stand on the marriage. Yeah, you can't. If you're talking about an עדות, yeah, he can't, because Now, what about a bracha when you make a beracha to eat? That's something else. That has nothing to do with פעולה נמשכת or nothing? No, you make a beracha and you eat. That's all what's happening. Not because he's eating all the time, because No, a beracha goes on, no. But a mitzvah of but a mitzvah of milah the Rogatchover says it's like that. He said if you do the mitzvah every second. Isn't there a Gemara that also everybody is נכשל in Everybody? Falls in אבק גזילה, stealing? That, yeah, people are not careful. וואו זאגט ער קידושין יבמות יא פעולה נמשכת? I think that that גימל דברים No, no, that's something else. No. That's also, but there it says also, it's גימל, גימל דברים. No, רובם, the לשון is not גימל דברים. רובם בגזילה, ומיעוט, no, רובם באבק עריות, ומיעוטן It says most people are not careful in גזילה, I think. Yeah, yeah. I think or maybe in אבק עריות and גזילה in מיעוט. Dacht zich mir,

there is a Gemara that says something that most people עבודה זרה, I think. I think in עבודה זרה. Are promises today of anything to do with a shevuah? Huh? Promises, that mean. Promises that you don't keep. You're not allowed to You're not allowed to make a I understand, but I mean as far as That's not a shevuah, it's a neder. וואו זאגט ער קידושין עריות? Huh? זאגט ער קידושין עריות איז א פעולה נמשכת. ניין, ס'איז ביידע ווייל ער איז געפארן קיין ירושלים וואס איז געווען, וואו איז ער געגאנגען דארט? דער טאטע מיט די invitation yishar koach! Yishar koach!