Talking about a different guy. It has to be yours. Has to? Has to be yours. What do you mean yours? Mamon is a... Right, look. Oh, so the difference between the two ways is, when I said the חקירה before, is is it a שלילה or a chiyuv? In other words, does it have to be yours? Or it doesn't have to be yours, but it's just, if it's not yours it's no good. What was my sevara to say that it doesn't have to be yours? Issur. Because it's issur, by issur, I can be mekayem an issur, mamon I can't if it's not mine. But that's only the way if we hold that it's בעצם איסור. If be'etzem it's mamon, the issur comes from the mamon, then this is like like selling. I can't sell if it, it has to be mine in order to give it away to hekdesh. And then I don't have a problem with the lashon, אין אדם מקדיש דבר שאינו שלו. What's the chidush? Okay. But the pilpul is the din is it has to be yours. Now, it comes out like this: according to one way, the fact that it has to be yours is a chiyuv. According to another way, so if it's mamon it has to be a chiyuv. If it's issur it's not. The difference is, can we say ba'in k'achat? If you say it starts with issur, we could say ba'in k'achat. Why? Because if it starts with איסור, באמת, you could do it be'etzem without being yours. So the fact that it has to be yours is only a מניעה. When there is only a מניעה that you have to take away, you could say ba'in k'achat, and in ba'in k'achat it could be hekdesh. If you say it starts from mamon, then it's not a מניעה, that it's pashut you need it to be yours, so you can't say ba'in k'achat. So I want to say, these are the two sides of Tosafos.

When Tosafos says there is a two, a shayla here, whether you could be makdish it without grabbing or not, this is the shayla. The first sevara says you could do it, because the first sevara says you could say ba'in k'achat. Why could you say ba'in k'achat? Because it's only a מניעה. So the first part holds that it's, again, an issur, by issur it doesn't really have to be yours, and it's just a מניעה, therefore you could say באין כאחת. Comes the second צד of Tosafot, אי נמי or maybe not. What's the p'shat of the second צד? Maybe it's not issur, maybe it's mamon. And if it's mamon, that they have to be שלו. So there is no beginning, there's no באין כאחת, if there's no באין כאחת it can't be חל, there's no הקדש. That's the shaila according to the second Tosafot. So I want to say, the yesod of this second Tosafot is the yesod of the first shaila also, and it's all the same. What was the first shaila? First shaila was, if the guy was quiet by הקדש, do we also say if he's quiet that de facto if he's quiet, he's modeh or not? So I want to look at the p'shat like this. A little דריי. The p'shat's like this: The two sides there, whether we consider by הקדש if the guy was modeh or not, is based on this shaila whether it's, הקדש is issur or mamon. Why? Say like this: If הקדש is issur, then everyone knows הקדש, הקדש is issur. By mamon, in order to to take away, you got to grab. By issur, you don't have to grab, by איסור, אמירתו לגבוה כמסירתו להדיוט. So everyone knows that this is mamon, this is issur. So just like by mamon grabbing is grabbing, by issur taking, saying is grabbing. So just like we said before that if you grab it, we consider it that you're modeh, because who would be quiet if the guy grabs? So by issur the guy thinks the same thing. He knows by issur saying is like grabbing. So the guy is also normal, and he would scream. You can't say he didn't scream because what should I care what he says? Everyone knows that when you say, that's hekdesh. Mamila you got to scream. So that's the first side. So the first side, when we say הקדש בלא תפסו is considered being modeh, based on what? Because this is issur, and if it's issur, everyone knows by issur this works. The second way says it's mamon. By mamon, everyone knows in order to take it, you got to grab it. So even though this case it's an exception, but in the eyes of people, since be'etzem this is mamon, so people think that sof kol sof you have to grab it. So people, that's comes out that that's what Tosafos says, למה יצעק בשביל קולו? Why would he scream? אי, his words mean something, but since be'etzem it's mamon, so then he would think, so it's like every mamon. Mamila, if he knows it's issur, he knows this is different. So this is equivalent to grabbing. But if you hold it's mamon, then people don't know that. People think that grabbing, that hekdesh, since it's also mamon, so really should have to grab. אי, maybe he knows the din that screaming, that saying is, but it's definitely not the same in his eyes, mamila, so it's no re'ayah from being quiet. So it comes out like this, that the yesod of the she'eilah whether by, if he was מקדיש it without, in the first case, and the guy was quiet, whether we say that it's called הודאה or not, is based on one nekudah: is hekdesh issur or mamon? What Tosafos says in the next Tosafos, that the she'eilah whether the hekdesh should חל by תפסו is also based whether issur or mamon. So mamila what Tosafos says later and Tosafos did before is the same thing. It's all based on the same thing. The she'eilah and the nekudah is here: is it איסורא or ממונא, ממילא if he's מודה or not. And the Gemara brings a ראיה from the מסוסא that over there, whatever we'll say there whether the הקדש works or not, will prove whether it's איסורא or ממונא, ממילא it'll prove here whether it's איסורא or ממונא. What do you mean the same שאלה? The same שאלה over there. Yeah, the יסוד of the שאלה. If it's איסורא or ממונא. If it's איסורא or ממונא.

Somebody says, what do you do with that טלית if it's a טלית? You have half a טלית, you cut half the טלית. What can you do with half? The Gemara asks. The Gemara asks and the Gemara תירץ he uses it for a סמרטוט. No, he uses a טלית קטן. The Gemara answered he uses a פסקנין, what the Gemara asks? Here, the Gemara asks, שנים אוחזין בטלית ואי משום דהא לית בה פלגא, יחתוך, ליתני תרווייהו יחלקו? לא קשיא, דחזיא לקטנים. It's only got three corners. Oh, if you cut it, it doesn't have four corners. Four corners. Huh? By by קידושין though, it happens at the same time. Right, but you can't say which came first, right? We say it happens at the same time, why do you have to say Here, we don't mean first or later in time. What's the cause and what's the result? What's the cause and what's the result, what are you doing which causes something? But if it happens at the same time, there is no cause and effect implies a first and a second. And there is a first and a second. There is a third way to say that they come together. You're doing two separate things, you're becoming Would you say the same thing by by by by this too? That doesn't answer the question. You could say, you could say that too. Yeah, Yishar koach, yishar koach. It's only that when I hear it by the it's only the רוח, maybe sometimes the נשמה, so I might ask the question, but I didn't really like I don't hear it the same way here. A whole new thing. It's going to have to get cleared. So Yishar koach, yishar koach. Helps a lot.

All right, chavrah. Gute nacht. Gute nacht, gute nacht. You were so careful to put the cans in that you spilled it all over the table. What? You're so careful to put the cans into it, then you dumped it like that and all the cans fell on the table. Did you hear what he said to you? You hear what I said? No. No, I didn't hear what you said. Hi, everybody. Gute nacht. Gut Shabbos. Oh, Shabbos, right. Are the tables cleaned up already? No? I don't think it is. It's okay, leave it, leave it. I forgot. All right, brother. Yishar koach. No problem. You're leaving the mess for me to clean up, huh? Yeah, if you don't mind. Sorry. Oh, yeah? Okay. Can't help you. No, no, but I understand. You've got to go to work. Got to go to work.