all these guys from North Bay Beach are coming? So they are? When did they say, today? Give it a few minutes. Hm? Come in. Everybody from here are here? That's who you have to wait for. Oh, there's a list. What are you having? Soup. Soup, what soup? Okay. Yep, have to wait for them to come back with the soup. Okay. You're waiting, okay. Okay, the

Gemara on דף ח. We're on ח עמוד א, the Gemara starts, says אמר רבא בר חמא, Rava bar Chama said, זאת אומרת: the Mishnah teaches us a דין המגביה מציאה לחבירו קנה חבירו. That if somebody picks up a מציאה for another person, only for the other person, he doesn't have in mind for himself, he sees a מציאה and he decides, I know a friend who needs it, I'll pick it up, and he had in mind to be to pick it up l'chatchilah for that guy. So from our Mishnah we see that קנה חבירו, that the other guy is קונה it. And we see that from our Mishnah. What is the ראיה from our Mishnah? Our Mishnah says שנים אוחזין בטלית, two people holding a טלית, and we say יחלוקו, each one says it's mine and we say יחלוקו, we divide it. Now, why would we divide it? Dividing means that they both have it, and אי סלקא דעתך לא קנה חבירו, if the דין is that when you had in mind for somebody else the other person is not קונה, תהא זו כמי שמונחת על גבי קרקע וזו כמי שמונחת על גבי קרקע ולא יקנו לא זה ולא זה. Each person who picks up only half, לגבי him the other side is not picked up, he only picked up half. When a person only picks up half of an object, he's not קונה at all. So this guy picked up half, he should not be קונה. The other guy picked up half, and לגבי him the second half is not picked up because he didn't pick it up. So he he picked up half, so they're both not קונה. So

why does the Mishnah say they're both קונה? לכאורה that none of them is קונה, and if a third person will come from the street and grab it away from them, he should keep it because they're both not קונה. Why are they both קונה? So we have to say that the other guy who picked up the other side worked for me. So I picked up half, the other guy who picked the other half works for me as if I picked it up. But I didn't. Well, he picked it up having in mind for himself, but for me also. So, therefore, I'm קונה because I picked up כאילו I have the whole thing. I picked up this half myself, the other half he picked up, which worked for me. The same thing the other way: he picked up half for himself, so he has half, and the other side I picked up, and it worked for him. But if the דין would be that if I pick up for somebody else it doesn't work, then each one only picked up half. If, so the fact of the Mishnah that we say they're both קונה קונה it, is a ראיה that המגביה מציאה לחבירו, if you pick up for somebody else you're קונה. Okay, so that's the קשיא also מפורש, Maharsha, or the Pnei Yehoshua, he's asking a שאלה, but in our Mishnah, for sure the guy says, \"I didn't pick up for the other guy.\" He says, \"כולה שלי.\" So he says that this is a l'maskana we understand it, l'maskana the raya is from the Mishnah, the end of the Mishnah where it says שנים אדוקים. So they both agreed that I picked up for me and for him. And there, takeh, he had in mind, whatever it is, but this is the Gemara here. Comes Rava bar Chama, comes Rava, I mean, אמר Rava: it's no raya from the Mishnah. In the Mishnah, definitely it's true that the only way I'm koneh because the other guy's picking up, the other half works for me. But he says it's no raya that this is also the din if he picks it up only for me. You know why the Mishnah works? Because מיגו דזכי לנפשיה זכי נמי לחבריה. Because the other guy is picking up, he's picking up for himself and for me. So when you pick up for yourself, and for yourself it works because it's for yourself, מיגו דזכי לנפשיה זכי נמי לחבריה. So it works for you, it works for the other guy. But it's no raya from here that if he picks up only for the other guy, it should also work. So we have here a machloket between Rava bar Chama and Rava.

Rava bar Chama says we don't make that difference. Rava bar Chama says that in the Mishnah, even though the Mishnah is talking that he picked up for himself and the other guy, we still have a raya that if you pick up only for the other guy, it works. And Rava says no, the Mishnah is no raya. Why? Because the Mishnah is מיגו דזכי לנפשיה זכי נמי לחבריה. So we have to understand, why is Rava's pshat not good? In other words, how does Rava bar Chama have a raya, takeh, from the Mishnah when there's a very easy way to show that the Mishnah is a different case? A raya always means that from that case, you must say the din is so-and-so. That's called a raya, a hechreach. But if I have a way to divide it, if I have a way to say that it's not the same, if I'm able to show maybe there it's different, like Rava says, מיגו דזכי לנפשיה זכי נמי לחבריה, how do you know that the same din would be if you pick it up only for the other guy? In other words, how does Rava bar Chama have a ra'ayah from the Mishnah? לכאורה, Rava has a good chiluk, and the moment you're able to say, make a chiluk, you have no ra'ayah. Maybe that's only that case. Then Rava brings a ra'ayah to his din. What does Rava say? מיגו דזכי לנפשיה זכי נמי לחבריה. Why in the Mishnah are you koneh, and it works for the other guy? Because since it works for you, it works for the other guy also. A ra'ayah, what's

Rava's ra'ayah? שאם תדע, the ra'ayah is this, שאם אמר לשלוחו צא וגנוב לי, if someone says to a shaliach, \"Go and steal for me,\" וגנב, and the guy went and stole for him, patur. The meshale'ach, the one that sent him, is patur. Why is he patur? אין שליח לדבר עבירה. I send the other guy to steal, he stole, אין שליח לדבר עבירה. And Rashi gives the reason why אין שליח לדבר עבירה, because דברי הרב ודברי התלמיד, דברי מי שומעין? The Gemara says that if the Eibershter told you to do one thing and the person told you another thing, you have to listen to the Eibershter, so אין שליח לדבר עבירה. Nevertheless, שותפין שגנבו חייבין. Mai ta'ama? למה? משום דמיגו דזכי לנפשיה זכי נמי לחבריה. If two partners steal, then they're both chayav. And Rashi says what's the case that he means two partners stole? That if two guys make a deal, \"Let's go steal something,\" but only one guy actually does the actual geneivah. This guy breaks in, Reuven veShimon, or let's call him no, not Reuven veShimon, John and Jack. So John, your job in the stealing is you break into the house and you take it out. And Jack stands outside, makes sure the police doesn't come. So only one guy stole it. So what does Rashi say? האחד הוציאה מרשות בעלים לדעתו ולדעת חבירו. One guy takes it out, but he has in mind that I'm stealing it for me and on him. The other guy who didn't steal is chayav. And that's what Rava is saying. Rava wants to prove that there is a difference between a guy doing it only for the other guy or doing it for himself and the other guy. Here we see a clear difference. If a guy himself steals only for the other guy, the stealing doesn't the גניבה is the shaliach is chayav, the other guy is not chayav. It doesn't work for the other guy. But if he steals having in mind himself and the other guy, then the other guy is also chayav, it works for the other guy. Why? We must say, because מיגו דזכי לנפשיה זכי נמי לחבריה. So Rava has this re'iyah. Mimela, Rava says the same thing with the Mishnah. When they both pick up, so each one is picking up for the other guy and for himself, then it works for the other guy. But if Only picking up for the other guy doesn't work, not like Rabbah bar Chana. Comes Tosafot, and

Tosafot says on Rashi, where does Rashi get this דין? Rashi says we find in Bava Kamma that if one guy steals and he has in mind for himself and for the other guy, the other guy is also chayav. But Tosafot is תמה on Rashi from the Gemara Bava Kamma, cuz there we're talking about טביחה, not stealing, where the guy שחט's. What's the דין by טביחה ומכירה? If a guy שחט's a שה or a שור, you don't only, you steal it and then you שחט it, you don't only pay double, you pay four or five times as much. So there, the דין is if you שחט it having in mind the other guy, the other guy is also chayav. But over there it's a special דין, Tosafot says, because by טביחה there's a special פסוק that יש שליח לדבר עבירה. But by regular גניבה it doesn't work. So what does Tosafot say is the peshat in the גמרא שותפין שגנבו, that they're both chayav? If they both together stole. But what we have to understand is Rashi. Tosafot has a good kashya on Rashi, because most of the mefarshim learn that Tosafos argues on Rashi's case. Some mefarshim learn that Tosafos is not arguing, Tosafos agrees with Rashi that if one guy steals for himself and the other guy, the other guy is chayav. All Tosafos is asking that your re'aya from the Gemara in Bava Kamma is no re'aya, cuz there it's טביחה. But Tosafos agrees to the shita. But most mefarshim learn not, Tosafos argues, and Tosafos holds very clearly that if you steal, one guy steals for himself and the other guy, the other guy is patur. For what reason? Cuz אין שליח לדבר עבירה. So who cares if I have in mind for myself also? But my having in mind for the other guy doesn't work. Whether I do it for myself too or not, אין שליח לדבר עבירה. I can't do an aveirah and it should work for the other guy. So how does Rashi say this? So we have to understand how does Rashi say it. Some want to answer on Rashi that Rashi is talking, holds it's talking only where they are partners be'etzem. Not the peshat this time they became partners, he says, \"You know what? Let's make a geneivah together.\" They are partners in all their businesses. They are partners from before, in their legal business and in their illegal business. Mimela, if they're be'etzem partners, that's why it works, even if the other guy didn't actually do it. And they're even medayek the lashon of the Gemara: שותפין שגנבו, that means that they're partners from before. It's not the peshat two people decide to steal together. But again, this is a dochak to say, because Rashi would have said, if it's davka in a case where they're partners originally, Rashi would have said it. Anyway, the bottom line is, it's mashma that Rashi holds clearly that if a guy steals for himself, having in mind for himself and the other guy, you are chayav. And Tosafos's kashya the way most mefarshim learn is it's not true, you're not chayav. And the she'eilah is

how would Rashi answer the kashya? It's a very good kashya. Isn't the כלל אין שליח לדבר עבירה? So who cares that I stole it for me too? Why would we say migo d'zachi l'nafsheih zachi nami l'chavreih לחבריה when אין שליח לדבר עבירה? So mimela, the she'eilah is how would Rashi answer the kashya of Tosafot? Why would in this case Rashi hold you steal for yourself and the other guy, the other guy is chayav also, because it's as if he stole, but אין שליח לדבר עבירה? So we have two she'eilot here. One she'eilah is what would Rashi do with Tosafot's kashya? And the other she'eilah is why doesn't Rabbah bar Chana learn like Rava, like we said before? Even though Rava says that there is a chiluk between stealing, picking it up for yourself and the other guy, there we say that the other guy is koneh also because migo d'zachi l'nafsheih, since he's zocheh for himself, he's zocheh for his friend. מה שאין כן when he picks it up only for his friend, there is no migo d'zachi l'nafsheih. So the she'eilah is why, what does, why can't Rabbah bar Chana make that chiluk? So, okay, so אינה נמי, that's what we're going to go into. Is Rava's sevara so pashut? We're saying, my she'eilah is why doesn't Rabbah bar Chana learn like, lichorah it's a chiluk. So the she'eilah is if what's, obviously Rabbah bar Chana learned that Rava's sevara is not pashut. To say this sevara of migo d'zachi l'nafshei is not a good sevara. Now I have, I'll tell you, yeah, it seems that way, that I could understand why Rabbah bar Chana does not learn Rava's sevara. What does Rava do? Rava makes a chiluk between if he's koneh for himself also, then it works for the other guy. מה שאין כן if he's only koneh for the other guy, it doesn't work. Likhora, what's the chiluk? Likhora, al pi sechel, there should be no chiluk. What's the reason why Rava holds אדם מגביה מציאה לחבירו לא קנה חבירו? Rava holds that if you pick up only for the other guy, you're not koneh. Why not? So Rashi says why: טעמא דאמר לקמן דהוי תופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחרים. The Gemara on דף י׳ says there's a din that if a person owes a few people money, only has enough money to pay one, so The guy himself, one of the creditors will come and grab that money, he got it. If a stranger will come and grab it on his behalf, במקום שחב לאחריני, when other people will lose, like this if you grab money, Reuven owes Shimon money, and a stranger comes and grabs it and gives it to Reuven, arayngachapt, but by doing that he is going to ruin for others, so we say a תופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחריני, if you grab money for one guy on behalf of a baal chov, but at the same time you're making it bad for others, it doesn't work. Same thing here: when you have a metziah on the floor, every person in the world could grab it. So if I go, me too, I could grab it too, if I grab it myself, gut, I grabbed it. I, other people are going to lose? No problem, just like by the chov, if the creditor himself, one of the people that's owed the money grabs it, he keeps it. But if I'm going to grab it for somebody else, and making it worse for others, cuz no one else could take it, that's a תופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחריני לא קנה. So the reason why Rava holds that המגביה מציאה לחבירו לא קנה חבירו is because of this reason. And the Gemara on דף י׳ says it clearly. The Gemara says here, clearly, דרב נחמן ורב חסדא דאמרי תרווייהו: המגביה מציאה לחבירו לא קנה חבירו. מאי טעמא? הוה תופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחריני, ותופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחריני לא קנה. The question is, if so, if that's the reason, what's the difference if you grabbed it for yourself also? You're still a תופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחריני. So you grabbed it for yourself also, so you grab it for yourself, and you have in mind for the other guy. So the part that's for yourself is fine, but the part that you're grabbing for the other guy and you wanted to help the other guy, that part is תופס לבעל חוב. You're תופס for a different baal chov, and you're ruining it for the other people in the street, so why does that work? In other words, according to Rava, Reuven is saying like this: we have a sevara that you cannot pick up a מציאה for somebody else, you can't, and the reason is because you're a תופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחריני. Nevertheless, if you're doing it for yourself also, מיגו דזכי לנפשיה זכי לחבריה, which means the fact that it's a מיגו דזכי overruns the inyan of תופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחריני, why? Ein hachi nami, I'm זוכה for myself too, so that's a fine thing, gezunterheit, you're allowed to do it. So that, and therefore I could be זוכה for the other guy too. When there's a problem of תופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחריני, what's the difference? See, someone might say I'll tell you what the difference is: תופס לבעל חוב means a stranger comes who has nothing to do with this loan, and he grabs it for another guy. In this case, he's not a stranger, because he's doing it for himself too. Yeah, but we're saying לגבי the other half, he is a stranger, cuz the other half he's not he's not getting it, so it's not for himself, so he's doing it for somebody else. Let's say let's say the guy who picks it up for his friend, he's one of the בעלי חובות, and he's forgoing his payment. That's what he's doing, he himself No, that's when we got so he's מוחל the חוב, there's nothing No, so he can't pick up. If he's מוחל his חוב, he can't pick up for somebody else. In other words, he's giving a good example, he's helping me out now. If you have a guy owes three people money, and one of the three בעלי חובות comes and grabs, but not for himself, for the other guy, it won't work, unless he's מוחל his חוב, it's something else. So then he's paying the other guy, he's grabbing for himself and giving it to the other guy, that's no problem, he could grab for himself. But if he says clearly, \"I'm not מוחל the חוב, the guy still owes me, but I want to help the other guy better, I know he's poor, he needs the money, so I'll go and grab for him, and I'm not מוחל my חוב,\" it won't work, because you're a תופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחריני. So in this case also, even though he's grabbing for himself also of certain parts, but the fact that he has in mind for the other guy, there he is a stranger, and a תופס במקום שחב לאחריני לא קנה. In other words, what is the geder of why is מיגו דזכי לנפשיה help you out? So, dos farshtei nisht in Rava. Isn't it because of a מציאה other people in the world are not losing out, it's not a So, that's But the Gemara doesn't say that obviously. We're not talking about what I'm saying, the Gemara says that this is called תופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחריני. If other people have a right to get it, it's called תופס לבעל חוב, the Gemara says it. That's not a fact when it came to No, right, no, definitely, the Gemara makes it clear that it's called a תופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחריני. Yeah, the Gemara says this is a din of הוה תופס לבעל חוב. No, he is! Oh, my she'eilah is, but lichorah if it, Rashi here says clearly that why does Rava hold that המגביה המגביה מציאה לחבירו לא קנה חבירו. Cuz it's תופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחרים. אלא מאי? If you do it for yourself, how does that work? In other words, we want to understand what is Rava's idea? How does that work? That because your your מיגו דזכי לנפשיה זכי ממילא we don't care that your say that that your תופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחרים. Why don't we care? What is What is the change? Sof kol sof, you're still תופס לבעל חוב? That what? I don't know, see. Could be that he'll say different. It's funny by a talit. The guy is grabbing but what he asks, he's grabbing for himself or not like he said, but grabbing for himself and for the other guy. Grabbing two. Two parts. Basically, he asked a good she'elah. If a guy, if you owe three people and one guy comes and and he has enough to pay for two, and he grabs for himself and for the other guy. Yeah, but I think that the money is different. Each each dollar he grabs is a different dollar. If he grabs his and he grabs, it probably wouldn't work. המגביה לחבירו is only for your friend. Our Mishnah is for both. So Rava says, \"For only for your friend doesn't work, and for yourself and your friend does work cuz it's all one talit.\" But we'll see. When we get to the whole thing, we'll see. I want to explain what I'm asking more בפרטיות. Normally, you learn peshat in this This negated to peshat in the Gemara de-Rami bar Chama and and Rava. Normally, we learn that Rava holds of the סברא מיגו דזכי לנפשיה זכי נמי לחבריה. And Rami bar Chama does not hold of that sevara. And therefore Rava's and Rami bar Chama says, \"We don't accept I don't accept such a sevara that because you could do it for yourself, you'll do it for the other guy. Or it works for the other guy, or it doesn't work for the other guy. And since in the Mishnah we see that it does work for the other guy, is a re'ayah that המגביה מציאה לחבירו קנה חבירו.\" Comes Rava, and Rava says, \"No, I come up with a sevara. I hold of a סברא מיגו דזכי לנפשיה.\" Oh, if you hold of the סברא מיגו דזכי לנפשיה, then you can be מחלק between picking up only for the other guy or for both. You understand what I'm saying? That's how you learn peshat in the Gemara. That's how normally people who would learn. Why does Why does Rami bar Chama not make a חילוק between picking up both for himself and the other guy לגבי picking up only for the other guy? Pashut. Because Rava said Rami bar Chama says, \"There's no difference.\" \"I don't hold of the סברא מיגו דזכי לנפשיה זכי נמי לחבריה. I don't hold of such a sevara. That because you קונה like I

said, and I understand why, because I said before. I don't hold of such a sevara. Or yeah, or not. Mimela, that's why he says, \"רישא מתרץ could be a sevara you couldn't do it for the other guy at all. But if I see in the Mishnah that you could and I don't hold of the סברא מיגו דזכי לנפשיה, so if you could do it in the Mishnah obviously the din is that you could do it for the other guy. Because I don't hold of a chiluk between doing it for yourself also, because I don't hold of a מיגו דזכי לנפשיה.\" Comes Rava, and Rava says, \"Not true! There is a סברא מיגו דזכי לנפשיה. Memayla, there is a chiluk between picking it up only for him or for yourself and him. Because if yourself and him there is a new sevara,\" he says, \"מיגו דזכי לנפשיה. So if I have a sevara, I could make a chiluk between this din and the Mishnah's din. But Rami bar Chama says, \"I don't hold of the sevara. Memayla, I don't see a chiluk between the Mishnah and the big two picking up and one because what's the difference? They're both picking up for the other guy. I hear you're picking for yourself also. So, big deal. So what is it that you're picking up for the other guy? It's still a problem. If it's a problem, it's a problem, if not, not.\" The

truth is this is not the real this is not the right pshat. Rami bar Chama agrees with the סברא מיגו דזכי לנפשיה זכי נמי לחבריה. He agrees that if your migo since you pick up for yourself, it works for the other guy. The difference between Rava and and Rami bar Chama is this. Have to listen. Rava says we only say מיגו דזכי לנפשיה since you are בפועל קונה for yourself, you are also קונה for the other guy. And Rami bar Chama says, \"I hold of מיגו דזכי לנפשיה, but I hold it a step further. מיגו דזכי not only since you're קונה for yourself, since you're able to be קונה for yourself. מיגו דאי בעי זכי לנפשיה. Every time I pick up for somebody else only, I could have picked this up for myself. So I have the power of being קונה it. So I say מיגו דזכי לנפשיה זכי נמי לחבריה. So memayla Rava and Rami bar Chama there is no difference if I pick it up only for him or I pick it up for me and for him. The reason you want to tell me why if I pick it up for me and for him works, because מיגו דזכי לנפשיה זכי נמי לחבריה. I'm telling you it's a step further. מיגו דזכי לנפשיה means לדעתיה Rav Acha bar Chama says מיגו דיכול ליזכי, 'cause since I could be זוכה, that's how far I go. And mimela they're both the same. So you can't be mechalek that the Mishnah is different because the Mishnah he's קונה for himself and you have the logic of מיגו דזכי לנפשיה. In the case where you pick up only for him, you also have the sevara of מיגו דזכי לנפשיה, מיגו דיכול ליזכי. משא״כ Rava says, \"No, no, I don't say that. I don't say מיגו דיכול ליזכי, מיגו דזכי not בפועל, but מיגו since he was זוכה, since he could have been זוכה for himself, or mimela since he could have been זוכה, this power also goes on being זוכה for him. I don't say that. But if you are זוכה בפועל, you do.\" The question is on Rava, that means according to this that Rava holds we do not say the sevara of מיגו דיכול ליזכי. That's what comes out. Rava says, \"I only say מיגו דזכי לנפשיה if I'm בפועל זוכה for myself. But the fact that I have a power, an ability to be זוכה בכח, that's not enough.\" That's what Rava says. But lichora,

why shouldn't we say it? Don't we have a clear Gemara later דף ט ע״ב that we should? What's the Gemara in דף ט עמוד ב? The Gemara says like this. It says it quotes a Mishnah by Peah: מי שליקט את הפאה... We know the din is that you leave over Peah at the end of the field. Who does Who does the Peah go to? To? To the poor people, to the aniyim. The question is if one person picks it up not for himself and he says, \"I'm taking it לפלוני עני,\" מי שליקט את הפאה ואמר, \"הרי זו לפלוני עני,\" \"I'm taking it for somebody else.\" רבי אליעזר אומר: \"זכה לו.\" Yeah, the other guy is זוכה. וחכמים אומרים: \"יתננה לעני הנמצא ראשון.\" Too bad, you can't take it for him. You got to the first עני you find you got to give it. אמר עולא, אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי: What's the machloket? Machloket is מעשיר לעני. The one that picked it up is not an עני. And רבי אלעזר סבר: מיגו דאי בעי מפקר נכסיה והוי עני וחזי ליה, השתא נמי חזי ליה. This עשיר could become an עני. B'koach he's an עני. He could in one second become an עני. Not only because the stock market could drop in a second and he loses all his money. He could be mafkir his נכסים any second and doesn't have anything, so he's an עני. Then, if he's an עני, מיגו דזכי לנפשיה זכי נמי לחבריה. Now that he's an עני, he could take for himself. If he could take for himself, he could already take Since he could take for himself, he could take the other guy. ורבנן סברי You're coming back, right? And the rabbanan

holds: חד מיגו אמרינן, תרי מיגו לא אמרינן. Chachamim says, \"It's no good. You can't.\" Why? Because we don't say two migos. First of all, migo he could become an עני. He's not an עני. In theory, he's like an עני, because he wants, he could become an עני. And even after he's an עני, how should it work? 'Cause migo he could take it for himself, so he could take it for so it's two migos. אבל מעני לעני, דברי הכל זכה לו. But let's say the one that's picking it up is himself an עני, everyone agrees that he could work it, and he's not taking for himself, because מיגו דזכי לנפשיה זכי נמי לחבריה. Since I could pick it up for me, because I'm an עני, I could be zocheh for him. And that's no machloket, that every tana agrees with it. The machloket is that the rabbanan holds if it's not an עני, you want to say two מיגוס, תרי מיגו לא אמרינן. So we see from this Gemara that we do say the sevara of migo that you could have been zocheh for yourself, m'meila you're zoche for the other guy. So how did we say that Rava holds we don't say such a migo? What did we say? Rav Acha bar Chama holds why המגביה מציאה לחבירו קנה חבירו? Because of migo takeh, also migo. Migo that you could have zoche for yourself, so מיגו דזכי לנפשיה, but the taytsh here זכי means you could have been זוכה, זכי נמי לחבריה. Rava says, \"No, we only say מיגו דזכי לנפשיה בפועל, not בכח.\" But why would Rava say we don't say it when the Gemara later on says beferush we do say it? Chachamim also say it. Chachamim just don't say two migos. But one migo, here it's one migo. Here this guy could have picked it up the way he is now, he could have picked it up for himself. And we say מיגו דזכי, מיגו he could have picked it himself, זכי לחבריה. That's what the Rabbanan also agree. When don't the Rabbanan agree? When he himself, the way he is now, couldn't pick it up, he's an ashir. So you got to go two steps: he could become an ani, so we look at him בכח he could be an ani, then if he'd be an ani, he could take it for himself, so בכח he could take it, so he could take the other guy. So it's two מיגוס, תרי מיגו לא אמרינן. Huh? Yeah, but this is two בכח'ס, this is one בכח. This is two steps. So that's the kashya on Rava, that here it's בכח and and Everyone agrees that we say it, so how come by זכה לנפשיה זכי נמי לחבריה, by המגביה מציאה לחבירו רבא doesn't say it? The Gemara? No, the Gemara later changes, the Gemara says המגביה. רב נחמן ורב חסדא דאמרי תרווייהו המגביה מציאה לחבירו לא קנה חבירו. מאי טעמא? דהוי תופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחרים. Let's, let's understand what I'm saying. So lichorah my she'eilah is: why does not Rava hold that if he picks it up for the other guy he should be קונה because מיגו דזכי לנפשיה זכי נמי לחבריה? איי, he's not doing it for himself? But he could have done it for himself, so the Gemara says we still say מיגו דזכי לנפשיה in that case. The answer is very pashut lichorah, it's not pashut. The answer is because here we have a problem, is that תופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחרים, which for some reason by this פאה we don't say that, it's not even though you're taking it for other עניים, but we don't say it. We see it from the Gemara later. So here Rava says we have a problem. אוודאי you could say מיגו דזכי לנפשיה, you could be זוכה, זכי נמי לחבריה, but here we have a problem, the problem is because you have a you're תופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחרים, which for some reason מפורש we talk about by פאה the, and we see it in the Gemara דף י\"ב, after this whole Gemara that we just said now from over there, that everyone agrees you could take the פאה for another guy, after that comes the Gemara: רב נחמן ורב חסדא דאמרי תרווייהו המגביה מציאה לחבירו לא קנה חבירו. The Gemara goes בהמשך to before. Before we said by פאה if you pick it up for the other guy and he's not two מיגוס, one מיגו, you pick it up only if we say מיגו דזכי לנפשיה זכי נמי לחבריה. So after, but by המגביה מציאה לחבירו, then we don't do it. מאי טעמא? Because תופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחרים. So Rava will say: when do we say המגביה אה מיגו דיכול למיזכי לנפשיה זכי נמי לחבריה? If there is no problem of המג- of תופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחרים. מה שאין כן in the case of where there is, by the case of our case of picking it up for somebody else where there's a תופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחרים, then it doesn't work, because you got a problem. That's how we'll say peshat in Rava. But now I'm going back to my original she'eilah: so how come when you pick it up for yourself it does work? If a תופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחרים overpowers the מיגו דזכי לנפשיה, that's what we're saying, even though b'etzem there is a דין מיגו דזכי לנפשיה אפילו if the other, if you pick it up only for him, there is a מיגו דזכי לנפשיה, מיגו דיכול למיזכי. Nevertheless we say Rava says: but it doesn't work in our case, it only works by the case of Peah, in our case it doesn't work, why? Because a תופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחרים. Oib azoi, how does Rava continue and say: but if מיגו דזכי לנפשיה בפועל, oh, then it does work? Ay, you're still תופס לבעל חוב? So be'emet what I'm doing now, I'm going back to the kashya as before, I just explained it better. But the kashya on Rava is: why is it there is a difference between picking up only for him or picking up for both? If picking up only for him doesn't work because you're a תופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחרים, וממילא we do not say the sevara of מיגו דזכי לנפשיה, why if you pick it up for yourself, and then we do say the sevara of מיגו דזכי לנפשיה? They're both migo דזכי, אלא מאי? Here it's מיגו דזכי לנפשיה, I could have been zoche, not that I am, here I am זוכה בפועל, but sof kol sof it's all based on the מיגו דזכי לנפשיה, and if you can't say it by picking up only for him, how do you say it by picking up for both? Okay. To explain all this, let's get into this sugya. We said that the machloket in the Rabbanan and Rabbi Elazar, they both agree you say מיגו דזכי, מיגו you could have been zoche for yourself, if it's only picking up, you could have been zoche for yourself, you're zoche for him also. Nevertheless the Rabbanan say תרי מיגו לא אמרינן, if it's two migos we don't. What's the pshat? What's the chiluk? So it's not a kashya, because we, everyone could understand there's a difference if it's one step or two steps, it's too far. But be'emet I want to give a little bit deeper bi'ur in what's the pshat that the Rabbanan hold there's a machloket between the Rabbanan and Rabbi Elazar if you say the two migos or not. So come like this: this whole inyan of the migo, it's not only here. What's the taytsh of the migo? It's not a migo looking. Migo, דער פירוש פון migo איז מתוך, migo means since this and this happens, this happens also. And we find that in many places in Shas where we say in other things, sometimes we call it הואיל, sometimes we call it migo. Let's give an example: the Gemara in Shabbos דף קל\"א עמוד א'. The Gemara says that Rabbi Elazar holds מכשירי מצוה דוחה את השבת. Anything that you do for a mitzvah is דוחה שבת. Nevertheless he says you can't put tzitzit into your בגד on Shabbos. Ayei, it's a mitzvah? So the Gemara says: you know why? Because you're only חייב בציצית if it's your בגד. Migo or הואיל you could have been מפקיר it! In one second I could say: this בגד, it's not mine. The moment it's not mine, I'm not חייב to put in tzitzit. Huh? No, take it off. Or could be even if you're wearing it, but al kol panim you don't have to wear it. Even if באמת, even if you're wearing it, it's not חייב בציצית. A בגד, the Torah says גדילים תעשה לך, but not של חבירך. And a borrowed בגד, you're not you're not חייב בציצית. So so that's the zogt Rabbi Elazar that's not called that you're דוחה שבת. Why? Because of this סברא. היות, היות, since migo we don't say that, since you could have been מפקיר it, וממילא it wouldn't be yours, so now it's like it's not yours and you can't do it. So we say that migo. Gemara in Eruvin דף כ\"ו עמוד ב', when you make an עירוב תחומין let's say, you put down food, has to be food that's ראוי to eat. What about a נזיר putting down wine? מערבין לנזיר ביין. And the Gemara says later, because a person a נזיר is a נדר. You could be שואל on your נדר, מתיר נדר, and you won't be a נזיר anymore, and you'll be able to drink it. איי, now you're not מתיר? Migo! הואיל, אי בעי שאיל. Gemara דף ל\"א עמוד א' in Eruvin it says מערבין בדמאי. We all know what דמאי is. It's food that an am ha'aretz sold you, he took off maaser, and we don't trust him, and you have to take off again without a bracha. That's called דמאי. As long as you didn't take off the second time, it's דמאי, you can't eat it. So you still could make an עירוב with דמאי. איי, you can't eat it? So the Gemara says there, מיגו דאי בעי מפקר לנכסיה. An ani it says is allowed to eat דמאי. Poor man. You could become a poor man in a second. איי, you're not? Migo! What's the taytsh? This is the taytsh. So we

see the inyan of migo. And there is no she'eilah, no machloket here. Everyone agrees we say such a sevara that היות you could have done this, so it works even if you didn't do it since you could have done it. There's another place where we find where there's a machloket. The Gemara in Pesachim, האופה מיום טוב לחול. If someone bakes on Yom Tov, but he bakes for the weekdays. You're not allowed to do a melacha on Yom Tov for after Yom Tov. He he bakes bechavana. Middle of the day of Yom Tov, he bakes for tomorrow. Tomorrow is already after Yom Tov. There's a machloket there in Gemara whether he's chayav or not, whether he gets makot. One sevara is he gets makot because you know if you bake it's a melacha and it's not for today. And the other one says, no, הואיל ואי מיקלעו ליה אורחים, you bake it might guests might still come. You never know, someone might come in from out of town, some out of town from a from a from a guy and and you'll be able to feed them today. So even though befoal you're not intending to do it for, but you never know. It's possible. And there's a machloket. One says you do say ho'il, since you could have mimela we look at it now you're not chayav. And one says you don't. What's the sevara? How come here there's a machloket? The other cases we brought regarding migo or ho'il, no machloket. Everyone says ho'il you could be מפקיר your נכסים. Ay, you didn't? But you could! In the other one by demay, all the cases. Huh? On Pesachim we find a machloket. The rest there's no machloket? Why why is there no machloket? Why is this a machloket? It's based on someone else. So what's the difference? Okay. That must be the vort. The vort must be like this. And I'll explain it. He's saying very good. It's based on someone else, but it's not just the word someone else. And this is but I'll tell you what it means. What's the taitch of of ho'il? It's bekoach. Bekoach. It's potential. And we look at this potential, and we take that in consideration. The potential is as good as the befoal. In that bekoach which we consider as befoal, there are two levels of bekoach. There is bekoach I want to call it this, הקרוב אל הפועל, and there is בכח הרחוק מן הפועל. There is bekoach which is close to poal. To be מפקיר your נכסים takes a second, and you could do it. It's very it's פשוט בכח only cuz in fact I didn't do it. But it's close to poal. B'koach the b'koach of הואיל ומיקלעו אורחים, it's רחוק מן הפועל because it's not in your control. You never know. האורחים it's not up to you. Here it's up to you, so in theory I could do it in a second, and if I want I could do it. By the by the case of the the baking, you could want from today till tomorrow. It's not up to you. So that's called a בכח הרחוק מן הפועל. And a בכח הרחוק מן הפועל is a machloket. One says you still say it, and one says you don't. I want to hear the same thing by the two migos. Is that a machloket whether we say two migos or not? The fact that it becomes it's two migos, the the b'koach is a far b'koach. B'koach of a person who's an עני, מיגו that he could be b'koach schlep it for himself. He could. The fact that he could make himself into an עני, עשיר makes himself into, and then the עני himself, that's a far b'koach. That's why here there's a machloket. Since a machloket is over there, so I

want to make a klal: that wherever it's a בכח הקרוב אל הפועל, we say that this is the b'koach; wherever it's בכח הרחוק מן הפועל, which is far, is a machloket. And I want to say here more: the inyan of the migo or the הועיל that we're saying is not just we follow the b'koach. I want to say it in a little different words, which will give it more understanding. The teitch of saying migo, I would call is the התפשטות of this to that. Because he could do it b'koach, that b'koach is מתפשט, spreads out to the next step. It spreads out to the poal. Whatever you could have done b'koach is considered as if poal, because since you could do it b'koach, it's מתפשט to the poal. When do you say something is מתפשט? And I'll tell you: I find a case of migo, where the Gemara uses the word migo, and there it's definitely a hitpashtut. And mimela that gives us an understanding of all the case of migo. The case in the Gemara Sukkah: מיגו דהוי דופן לענין סוכה הוי דופן לענין שבת. There is a דין מחיצה by Sukkah, a whole דין how you have to have walls to the Sukkah, all kinds of דינים what's considered a wall, what's not. Shabbos there's also a דין of walls, what's called a רשות היחיד, what's not. In certain details there are different דינים. Certain details that by Sukkah this is considered a מחיצה, and for Shabbos it's not. זאגט די גמרא that if you have a מחיצה of a Sukkah on Sukkos, the Shabbos of Sukkos, that works for Shabbos too. That if you have a wall of a Sukkah, which that wall לגבי שבת is not considered a wall, mimela it doesn't make it into רשות היחיד, שבת סוכות it will. And the Gemara uses this לשון, the לשון, the same לשון מיגו: מיגו דהוי דופן לענין סוכה, since already it's a wall לגבי סוכה, הוי דופן also לגבי שבת also. What's the peshat? Here is definitely hitpashtut. The דין דופן from Sukkah is mitpashet, spreads out to the דין דופן of Shabbos. So it's hitpashtut one to the other. So I want to say that the same לשון that we find that migo that you could נשאל on a נדר and you become אינו נזיר, you could be מפקיר נכסים, מיגו דזכי לנפשיה, it's all a התפשטות from the bekoach to the bepoel. That even though it's not bepoel, but it's מתפשט from the bekoach to the bepoel. Which by the way, if we say that, then this migo is basically like a regular migo. We use the same לשון, but like I said before, it's complete, has nothing to do with it, migo you could have taanah'd this, but if you say התפשטות, it's the same. What's the pshat a regular migo? If you learn that it's a בירור, it has nothing to do, you could have taanah'd this. But if you learn זכות הטענה, the other one, what is the pshat? Since you could have taanah'd the other taanah, and you're not taanah'ing, the right of the other taanah is מתפשט to this taanah, that's the טייטש זכות הטענה. That you could have taanah'd let's say מזוייף, and you would have won the case. You didn't טענה מזוייף, but you could have. So now that you're taanah'ing פרוע, you're winning the case because of that טענה מזוייף. איי, you didn't taanah it, so we're saying the fact that that taanah

exists, it's מתפשט to this taanah. So the גדר of a migo by a regular migo is a התפשטות of one taanah to the other. The מיגו דהוי דופן לסוכה הוי דופן לשבת is a התפשטות of מחיצה from sukkah to Shabbos. So I want to say the other migo is the same: it's the התפשטות of the בכח to the בפועל. It's the התפשטות of the way you could have done to the בפועל. Now, since it's a גדר of התפשטות, where is it מתפשט? Only to close. If it's a בכח הרחוק, then it's far. It's not מתפשט that far. In other words, I said before that if בכח and if it's התפשטות if it's far, we don't say that not everyone agrees that it's a בכח. But if you use the word התפשטות, it makes it even more sense, because מתפשט means it spreads, and obviously when it spreads, it gets weaker as it spreads, and goes only a certain level, it doesn't go too far. Al derech like you find in Likkutei Sichos, חלק י״ב, there I quote it סוף עמוד 121, there the Gemara, the Rebbe brings about the, it's talked about the Gemara of מעשר בהמה. מעשר בהמה is the tenth. You let the ten בהמות into the, all the בהמות into the stable and they go out, every tenth, you count 1, 2, 3 and tenth is מעשר, מעשר בהמה. The Gemara says, but what happens if you made a mistake? קרא לתשיעי עשירי, and by mistake you said on the ninth that 10, the number 10, it becomes קדוש. עשירי is also קדוש, because the tenth is automatically קדוש. The ninth is also קדוש. What happens קרא לי״א עשירי, you called the 11th עשירי? It's also קדוש. And then the Gemara: what happens What happens if you called the eighth one עשירי, or the twelfth? Not קדוש. And the Rebbe, and the Gemara says, we learn out for מה דסמוך ליה, it's only works if he called קדוש to the one that's close. And the Rebbe learns the pshat, because the reason why the ninth one could be קדוש, cuz there's a התפשטות from the tenth. And the התפשטות only works to the סמוך. The התפשטות from the tenth only goes close to it is מתפשט. From the tenth to the eighth, it does not מתפשט. From the tenth to the twelfth, it's not מתפשט. So I want to use the same logic here, too. That if we're going to say that the גדר of migo—what do you mean, speak by the tenth and the eleventh? The ninth, you mean. It's מתפשט both ways, no? They're both סמוך, yeah. The middle one is there, so it's מתפשט to the one before, so to the one after. Yeah, the קדושה is מתפשט. That's מה דסמוך ליה, it goes to a סמוך. So this is the גדר of this, you could say this migo also. מיגו דזכי לנפשיה is a התפשטות from the fact that you could from your בכח to the בפועל. Fine. What did we say? If it's a התפשטות that's close, everyone agrees. If

it's a התפשטות that's far, then it's a machloket. That's the machloket of Rabbanan and Rabbi Elazar. If it's two מיגוס, so the התפשטות of the actual being able to take the מעשר, the the פאה for the guy has to go two steps. So it's a התפשטות from the fact that you're able to take in two steps, that's called a that's רחוק. Then the then there's a machloket. Some say yes, some say not. So Rabbanan say not, and Rabbi Elazar says yes. I could see a machloket. I want to apply the same thing in נוגע מיגו דזכי לנפשיה זכי נמי לחבריה in our case. The machloket between Rami bar Chama and the and the Rava is this: Rava says, if it's only for the other guy, so it's a migo that you could be זוכה for him, that Rava calls a התפשטות of a דבר הרחוק. Why is it רחוק? רחוק doesn't mean far in space. רחוק means there is something blocking it. There is something blocking it. What's blocking the fact that I pick up for him should work? You tell me what's blocking it? תופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחרים. So Rava says it's blocking, it doesn't work. Ah, you have a she'eilah, what about if you pick I'm saying if you pick up בפועל you're picking up for yourself also, then it does work, because then it's not bringing a התפשטות from כח to פועל. It's from פועל to פועל. From פועל to פועל, it works. When do we say that the התפשטות doesn't work if it's far? If you're trying to make a התפשטות from the בכח. So the case when I pick up for him, so how will we say מיגו דזכי לנפשיה? Migo that you could have been זוכה, that we want to be מתפשט to the בפועל. So we're saying we got a problem, there's a מניעה in the middle. You can't do it, because מיגו דזכי לנפשיה has a problem, because it has a problem of תופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחרים. Mah she'ein kein, if we're going to pick it up בפועל, then there is no problem, because you're not being מתפשט מן הכח אל הפועל, which you say it's a כח רחוק. It's מן הפועל אל הפועל. And the she'eilah we asked on Rava before: if תופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחרים doesn't make can't do it, so who cares if you're picking it up for yourself also? So I'm answering now, because if the whole thing is the problem a התפשטות from כח cannot come to פועל if it's far, but from the פועל, it could work, and you're picking it up בפועל. Mah she'ein kein, if it's only one if it's pick only for him, he holds it's it's a כח הרחוק, it doesn't work. But we said before whenever there's a כח הרחוק, it's not that it doesn't work, it's a מחלוקת. The Rabbanan hold doesn't work, and Rabbi Elazar holds it works. By an אפייה, where there is it's a רחוק. Why is it רחוק? For a different reason, because it's not up to you, someone else, the orchim, if they come or not. It's a machloket there, too. So there's a machloket here, too. Rami bar Chama says no, I don't care if it's רחוק, I still say it works. Migo d'zachi lenafshei from כח works to פועל. Ah, there is a מניעה in the middle, תופס לבעל חוב? But the מיגו works anyway. Ah, it makes it into a כח הרחוק? He holds of the opinion that a כח הרחוק still works. And if he holds it still works, in the in the eyes of Rami bar Chama, there is no difference between picking it up only for your for him or for both. In both cases, you could say migo d'zachi lenafshei. So that's what that's Rami bar Chama says, look at our Mishnah. Our Mishnah says if they pick, so for both works. You cannot tell me that it only works because of migo d'zachi lenafshei, because if you're going to say it's only migo d'zachi lenafshei, it should work there, too. So ein hachi nami, this must work, because they're both the same. Comes Rava and says they're not the same, because I hold migo d'zachi lenafshei, which means the התפשטות of the כח to the פועל only works if it's not anything blocking, if it's קרוב, not רחוק. So that's in my eyes, there's a difference, Rava says. The case where you pick it up only for him, there's a problem, תופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחרים, ממילא makes it a כח הרחוק. So כח הרחוק, we do not say it. Mah she'ein kein if he picks it up for himself, too, even though we said there's still a problem תופס לבעל חוב, but there's בכח and the בכח works. And not בכח, there is a פועל. At the פועל, it works. So from פועל to פועל, it works. From כח to פועל, it doesn't work if it's a כח הרחוק. But from פועל to פועל, it works. So Rava says, if I pick it up for myself, it's from פועל to פועל. And פועל to פועל, it works. Based on this, we'll see what Rashi learns. If you learn like this, we'll answer the kashya of Tosafos on Rashi. What was the kashya of Tosafos?

Rashi learns that Rava's re'ayah, that by two, if he picks it up for himself and the other guy, it works, although the regular doesn't work, the re'ayah is, if a guy steals for the other guy, for the other guy only, it doesn't work, אין שליח לדבר עבירה. But if he picks it up for himself also and the other guy, you're chayav, the other guy is chayav. And Tosafos's she'eilah is, it doesn't say these words, wait a minute, what's the chiluk if you pick it up for your- if he steals for yourself and the other guy? The פועל for the other guy, it shouldn't work. So let me explain it בקיצור נמרץ. Rashi here says, why doesn't it work if you steal only for him? קיימא לן אין שליח לדבר עבירה. The משלח is not chayav, just the shaliach. And Rashi gives the reason: דברי הרב ודברי התלמיד, דברי מי שומעין? That if Gemara says that in many places, in Gittin, Kiddushin, because if the Eibershter, the master tells you to do a thing, and the talmid, you have to listen to him? What's the pshat? Why does Rashi have to bring the reason? Rashi should say that קיימא לן אין שליח לדבר עבירה. Let's go in. What's the פשט דברי הרב ודברי התלמיד, דברי מי שומעין? You know, you ever thought of it? That's the reason why אין שליח לדבר עבירה. At first, that makes no sense. דברי הרב ודברי התלמיד, דברי מי שומעין means you shouldn't have listened to him, you should listen to the Eibershter. This guy asked you to steal, or asked you to to to do another עבירה, מחלל שבת. He asked you, big deal he asked you, the Eibershter said no. Surely you should've listened, מי שומעין, you should've listened to the Eibershter. So? But he didn't listen to the Eibershter. You don't have to be telling me it's it's an aveirah. Why that a reason that shouldn't be שליחות? Because you shouldn't have listened to him, good. And I'm a rasha, I shouldn't, and I'm wrong, but I did listen and I took the שליחות. So the Sma, the famous Sma says the fact that you shouldn't listen to him means that the guy who asked you to do the shlichus really knows you're not going to listen, assumes you're not going to listen, so he never meant it to make you a shaliach. That's the peshat. Since דברי הרב ודברי התלמיד, דברי מי שומעין, we assume that he thought that you're not going to listen. So when he said, 'Become my shaliach to to to מחלל שבת,' he never meant it really to make you a shaliach, because it was a joke. So mimela if you did it, it's not for him.

Rabbi' Akiva Eiger says not like that. Rabbi' Akiva Eiger says the peshat is, by a דבר איסור, שליחות doesn't work. Why? What's the peshat? What's the peshat for by the דברי הרב ודברי התלמיד, by a דבר איסור, since the Eibershter said don't do it, it doesn't work. Why not? There's a דין שליחות. Okay, so someone wants to say the peshat is because the גאנץ שליחות is a chidush, so in order to work for an aveirah, you have to find that Torah should tell it to you, because otherwise we would assume it doesn't work, because we don't have a pasuk for it. But I'll tell you what I think the peshat is. How does טאקע שליחות work? וואס איז די זאך? I have to do something, a regular case, מקדש אשה. I have to מקדש an אשה, I'm asking you to do it, and it works for me. How does it work? There is a parashah, we have a pasuk. After the pasuk, do you know what I think it works? I'll tell you what I think. It's based on migo. The shaliach, migo he could do it for himself and it would work, he could do it for the other guy, too. על דרך מיגו דזכי לנפשיה. פועל, just like we're saying migo you could have, by the עני he could have taken this for himself, the פועל, it works for the other guy. That's the גדר of shlichus. I wouldn't say it myself that it applies here, but the I mean the Gemara wouldn't say it. If we have a pasuk that it teaches us it teaches us that there is a דין שליחות, so what are we learning? So it has to have some hasbara. The hasbara is, a guy who's able to do it for himself, he was able to mekadesh the אשה, מיגו דזכי לנפשיה, זכי נמי לחבריה. But the she'eilah is what happens if it's for him an issur? So we have a whole sugya later in Bava Metzia. If he can't do it, or the meshale'ach can't and the shaliach could do it, what happens if it's a a relative of his? His sister, can he be mekadesh for somebody else? He couldn't do So we'll go that's a she'eilah that goes in, but the the nekudah of שליחות could be, migo that you could do it for yourself. A guy asks me to do a שליחות for him to take off terumah, that's one of the places we learn שליחות out from. So, since I could do it, I could take off תרומה בפועל, בפועל, that's his mis- he's doing it for him, but migo I could do it, I do it for him also. That's the the din of שליחות. If you learn that's the din of שליחות, I understand why אין שליח לדבר עבירה. Because if the whole din is since you could do it for yourself, you could do it for him, you can't do it for yourself either. It's an issur. But what's the peshat you can't do it? I could do it! A guy could do an issur, a guy has bechirah chofshit. But it's a meni'ah. A person, you could do it bafo'al, but it definitely turns it into a בכח הרחוק. Bafo'al, the fact that there's an issur, that removes the ability of my doing it because it's, because I'm not allowed to do it. Just like I said over here, why is it called a rachok? Because תופס לבעל חוב דחב לאחריני. Here it's a different reason. That's the peshat in Rabbi Akiva Eiger that בעצם שליחות doesn't work by a דבר איסור for this reason. Because if the whole שליחות is because I could do it and it's a התפשטות, בכח, a mitpashet from my being able to do it, it's mitpashet to doing it for him, you learn it like that, then I can understand that in the case where there is a rachok, it doesn't work. Why doesn't it work? Because of בכח הרחוק, it doesn't work because of the מניעה that it's a דבר איסור. That's why אין שליח לדבר עבירה. That's the pshat in דברי הרב ודברי התלמיד, דברי מי שומעין. Since the Rav said, \"Don't do it,\" you shouldn't listen to him. And mimeila that's a מניעה for the fact that you could do it, because you're not allowed to. That's why Rashi brings it here, because this will explain Rashi's case, the case of the גנב. If you steal for somebody else, it doesn't work. Why not? אין שליח לדבר עבירה. What did we say אין שליח לדבר עבירה means? You can't do it yourself! If you can't do it yourself, there's a מניעה from that migo to take place that because I could do it for myself, I'll do it for him. But what did we say? Where is there a problem of being a כח הרחוק? From כח to פועל. From פועל to פועל, what does Rami bar Chama say? From פועל to פועל, it works. So even though he doesn't hold migo, you could have been זוכה for yourself, you could be זוכה for the guy. So if you pick it up only for him, it doesn't work because it's far, because... But if you're doing it for yourself, then it's a פועל. From a פועל to פועל, it works no matter what. If the גדר of אין שליח לדבר עבירה is based on the same logic, so what happens if a guy steals for himself also? Then you say יש שליח לדבר עבירה, because the whole reason why my shlichus to him doesn't work, why my stealing doesn't work for him, because the migo I could do it for myself, mimeila I could do it for him doesn't work here, because there is a הפסק of the issur. But that הפסק, the problem of the כח הרחוק is only if it's a כח. From a פועל, it works even if it's far. So

that's what Rashi says according to Rava. That if one guy steals for the other guy, it taki doesn't work, and he has אין שליח לדבר עבירה. And what does that got to do with us? That means אין שליח לדבר עבירה, so you don't say the מיגו, מיגו דיוכל למעבד לנפשיה, יוכל למעבד לחבריה. Why not? Because דברי הרב ודברי התלמיד, there's a hefsek. But from a po'el, Rava says, just like Rava says by picking up a metziah for somebody else, it doesn't work, because it's rachok. Why is it rachok? תופס לבעל חוב דחב לאחריני. I, how come if you do it for yourself with him it does work? Then we don't care that it's rachok. Why don't we care? Because it's from po'el to po'el. Exact same thing here: why does the genivah for the other guy not work? Because we don't say the migo, because it's a rachok. But if you're doing it for yourself, it's not migo from a koach, it's migo from a po'el. From a po'el, it works no matter what. And mimila, according to Rashi, we understand that it's exactly the two cases of stealing for somebody else and stealing for me and somebody else. And here it doesn't, here it does, it's exactly the same logic as מגביה מציאה לחבירו or picking up both, because they're both based on the vort of migo. Why the shlichut works because of migo. Migo harachok from a koach harachok doesn't work, from a po'el to a po'el it does work, and that's why it works in this case according to Rava. According to Rami bar Chama, even a migo from a koach if it's a rachok works, just like we find it by Rabbi Elazar, we find it by the case of an eifah, so he holds the same way here, and that's the machloket between Rava and Rami bar Chama. How is it best for someone to get up off the floor? Give up. That's a question.