Gemara here on in בבא מציעא דף ח. Gemara says like this, אמר רב נחמן, רב נחמן said זאת אומרת, this tells us, meaning the Mishnah of שנים אוחזין בטלית teaches us המגביה מציאה לחבירו, המגביה מציאה לחבירו קנה חבירו. If somebody picks up a metziah, a lost object, but when he picks it up he has intentions that someone else should get it, he's picking it up on someone else's behalf. That person didn't ask him to do it, the person he just on his own he sees it, and he picks it up, he picks it up on his לכתחילה in mind for the other guy. So he says the din is that the other person is koneh. Automatically at that moment he picks it up, that guy is koneh. He sees it from the Mishnah. What do you see from the Mishnah? So he says like this: אי סלקא דעתך לא קנה חבירו, if you're going to hold that if I pick up something for somebody else that person is not koneh, then the Mishnah doesn't make sense. What did it say in the Mishnah? שנים אוחזין בטלית, two people come holding a טלית. And what do we say? Yachloku. And we say yachloku based on the on the logic that could be they picked it up together. Now, because they picked it up together, we say they both own it, so they're partners, like a shutaf and each one gets half. But the question is תהא זו כמי שמונחת על גבי קרקע וזו כמי שמונחת על גבי קרקע ולא יקנו לא זה ולא זה. Let's,

when you pick something up, okay, let's use this as an example, when you pick something up, in order to be koneh with hagbahah, with picking up, you've got to pick up the whole thing. If a person would pick it up half, like this, he's not koneh anything. In this case, where they both picked up together, I picked up half, the other half, as far as I'm concerned, I didn't pick it up. So I didn't pick up anything. I picked up like this. The גשמיות is the whole thing got picked up, but not for me. I picked up half, so I should only have the half, the other half not. The other guy did the same thing, he picked up his half, this half, which I picked up, as far as he's concerned, it wasn't picked up. So no one picked up anything, so no one should get anything, and it's mamash a third person from the street could come and get it. What's the answer? The answer must be, because if I pick up something for somebody else, it works for that guy. So we assume that when I pick this up together with this guy, the other guy picked it up having me in mind for this also. When I picked up together with him, so I pick up this for me, at the same time I know he's picking up the other side, so I have in mind that my picking up should be on my behalf and on his behalf. So mimela he picked up this half, this half is also considered as if he picked it up. Okay, ask a kashya on the mefarshim. So the she'eilah... I'll say in a second, let me just finish this, I'll explain. You see, here he says כולה שלי, should be be-feirush that they didn't have in mind. I'll explain in a second, the simple peshat on the mefarshim, all kinds of peshatim, but but again, so mimela he says, the only way the case of the Mishnah fits that if they both picked up together, they both get it, is if the halachah is that if I pick up for somebody else, it works for him. Mimela even though I picked up only half, but the other half works for me, too. So I get, right, picked it up. My half works for him, too. You just asked a question, but in the Mishnah is the opposite. In the Mishnah, each one comes and says, \"כולה שלי\" means, \"I be-feirush did not have in mind.\" That's what some of the mefarshim say like this, it doesn't mean when he says כולה שלי, it doesn't mean כפשוטו, \"I picked up and I didn't have you in mind.\" You think the guy who picked it up has תלמיד חכם knows how he has to have in mind? He picked it up with general sevara, that's how a person, \"I'm picking it up to get the most that I can get the way על פי הלכה it is.\" If you tell him על פי הלכה the only way you could get anything is if you're considered for him, let it be. I'd rather not, I'd rather get the whole thing, but if you tell me that my thing doesn't go for him, his doesn't go for me, I get nothing, so let it be for him, too. So the bottom line is that from the Mishnah we see that, like Rav Nachman says, המגביה מציאה לחבירו, that if I pick up something for somebody else, he gets it. Veha-re'ayah is, otherwise, he says, this half is only half, and the other half is not mine, I didn't pick it up, so it's nothing, and the same thing the opposite. This is Rav Nachman.

אמר Rava, Rava says, \"No, it's no re'ayah from the Mishnah. לעולם אימא לך המגביה מציאה לחבירו לא קנה חבירו. Be'emet, it could be that if you pick something up for somebody else, he's not koneh. Ai, how come in the Mishnah it works? I'll tell you why, והכא היינו טעמא here it works: מיגו דזכי לנפשיה זכי נמי לחבריה. Here in the Mishnah the guy is picking up for himself, too. We're talking about a case where a guy picks up lechatchilah only for him: המגביה מציאה לחבירו, I pick up something for you. So he says, \"No, that doesn't work.\" If I pick up for you, it doesn't work. In the Mishnah it worked because I picked it up and we're saying I had in mind you, too, so it works for you, but I meant myself, also. So here we have the concept which we call migo says, דזכי לנפשיה, זכי נמי לחבריה. Since I'm getting already, so my kinyan is working, and I'm zocheh for me, so mimela it works for the other guy, also. But, in the case where I'm not having in mind for myself, I'm מגביה מציאה for the other guy, so Rami bar Chama says it doesn't works. Teda, he has a re'ayah. He wants to prove that you see a difference if a guy does something just for the other guy versus if he does it if he just, or if he does it also for himself. A re'ayah like this, שאילו אומר לשלוחו צא וגנוב לי. Someone tells to a shaliach, \"Go steal for me.\" Veganav, and he stole, patur. The meshalach, the one that sent him, is patur. Why? אין שליח לדבר עבירה. So, the shlichut doesn't work, so the guy who sent him is patur. ושותפין שגנבו, but if two partners steal, chayavin, they're chayav. Mai ta'ama, what's the reason? Lav, isn't it משום דאמרינן, מיגו דזכי לנפשיה, זכי נמי לחבריה. That if he's, since he's doing it already for himself, works for the other guy. And we have the way Rashi explains here that the case is, let's read the Rashi. שותפין שגנבו, והאחד הוציאה מרשות בעלים לדעתו ולדעת חבירו, if a guy steals only for the other guy, the other guy has nothing to do with it. But, if he steals for himself and the other guy, which means he goes and you ask me to steal this. And I myself would like to steal it, too. So, I'm stealing it on behalf of me and you. We make a deal together, you're standing watching outside the cops shouldn't come, and I'm stealing it for them, for us. So, then you're, the משלח is also chayav. And he calls it the re'iyah from Gemara Bava Kama. So, he's, what is the difference? How come if I steal for you it doesn't work, but if I steal for me and for you, it works for you? המסביר, because in this, it's first case where it's only for you, I'm not zocheh for myself. The second case where I'm zocheh for myself, so we have this rule, מיגו דזכי לנפשיה, זכי נמי לחבריה. Are you still, this is the Gemara. חיים וברכה. Lechaim. Bava Yosef.Comes Tosafos, Tosafos asks a kashya on Rashi. Actually, the words of Tosafos are a little different than how I'm going to say, but it's okay, the details. The bottom line in Tosafos is the way most mefarshim learn, some argue with pshat in Tosafos, but most mefarshim learn pshat like this. Tosafos is asking on Rashi's case, what are you saying? That if a guy steals for himself and for the other guy, the other guy is chayav? But it's still אין שליח לדבר עבירה. How is he chayav? Tosafos says, the pshat in the Gemara is different. When the Gemara said that the shutfim, two shutfim steal, they're both chayav, that's a case where they both stole together. They both Huh? They themselves stole? Yeah. Tosafos says, שותפין שגנבו, two guys together steal, they're both chayav. So here it's not on shlichut. And why are you chayav? Lechorah, the same she'eilah, each one only took half, and the other half he didn't really take. Because, let's say they both picked this up to steal, you're only chayav when you koneh it, when you pick it up. But, if they did it together, one guy picked up only half, the other guy picked only, they both shouldn't be chayav. How are they both chayav? So, we're saying migo d'zachi l'nafshei, zachi nami l'chavrei. Since you get it for yourself, you get it for him, too. That's the re'aya that Rami bar Chama brings according to Tosafot. If a guy is outside waiting, he's an accomplice. The accomplice is, it's He's not half, so So, that's what Tosafot says, well, totally, he didn't do anything. אלא מאי, you're doing on his behalf, he helped you He helped you in a way. That's אין שליח לדבר עבירה. You're not allowed to be a shaliach. So, we have to understand Rashi. According to Rashi, how does that work? According to Rashi, why did the din be, because he did it for himself and for the other guy, but the other guy didn't do anything, we disregard the fact that אין שליח לדבר עבירה, and we're saying basically that the migo d'zachi l'nafshei is stronger. Because I was taking it for myself, it overpowers the אין שליח לדבר עבירה. Why? סוף כל סוף, there's אין שליח לדבר עבירה. How does it work for him? Basically, what Tosafot is asking, even though Tosafot used different words, but that's the kashya. That's one thing. Then, we have to also understand Rami bar Chama's opinion. Rami bar Chama brings a re'aya from the Mishnah that if someone picks up for somebody else, that person is koneh. What's the re'aya? Our Mishnah is actually talking in a case where he's picking for himself, also. Like Rava is asking him. Rava seems to be right. How could you bring a re'aya from a case that when they both picked up together, we say each one works for himself and the other guy, so what's the re'aya from there that if you pick it up only for the other guy, it also works? That's what Rava is saying. Rava says you have no re'aya from the Mishnah. The Mishnah is a case where they're picking up for themselves, cuz migo d'zachi l'nafshei, zachi l'chavrei. But the case that we're trying to bring out is המגביה מציאה לחבירו, you're picking it up only for him, we don't see that from the Mishnah. Obviously, according to Rava bar Chama, he says there is no difference. Adraba, if we see in the Mishnah that if you pick it up for yourself and the other guy, it works, the same idea works even if you didn't pick it up for yourself. It's the same thing, and therefore I could bring a re'aya. But why? Lichora it's different. Why would it be the same thing? So we have to understand what is the To understand this, let's understand Rava's Rava's shittah, Rava's opinion. What does Rava say? That if you pick up something for yourself and for the other guy, מיגו דזכי לנפשיה זכי נמי לחבריה. Why if you pick it up only for the other guy it doesn't work? What's taka the reason? Rava's, obviously, Rava bar Chama Rava bar Chama says המגביה מציאה לחבירו קנה חבירו, so here it works. Rava says it doesn't work. It only works if you take it for yourself. Why taka doesn't it work? Why if you pick it up for him it doesn't work? So Rashi says, take it from the Gemara later, cuz there's a problem of התופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחרים. What? I'll explain it. It means like this: if there's a man that owes five people money, five people he owes a hundred dollars, he only has a hundred dollars worth. Who gets first? Well, there's dinim, whoever. If one of these five creditors come and grab the hundred dollars, he got it. What happens if a stranger, not the one of the five creditors, as the other guy goes and grabs the hundred on behalf of somebody else? So he's, on behalf of one of the fives, on behalf of one of the five. So this guy's a תופס לבעל חוב, he's grabbing for the בעל חוב, but במקום שחב לאחרים, he's ruining for others, cuz like this, everyone others had a right to get it. So if you are one of those, it works, but for somebody else it doesn't work, the din: התופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחרים לא קנה. You have to give the money back, it doesn't work. So he

says every time you pick up something from the street, a מציאה, הפקר, for somebody else, you are a תופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחרים. Till now, everybody who wants could get it, and now, what happens? Now you took it away from them. And you didn't take it for yourself, and you're not a shaliach, and you didn't take it for yourself, no one sent you. So just like in the other case, התופס, if you grab for one of them, it doesn't work. So this case also: you're חב לאחרים, you're ruining for others, and you're and you're not taking it for yourself. For yourself you could, like like in that case, if one of the five creditors comes and grabs the money for himself, he can do it. But if you're grabbing it for somebody else, you're a תופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחרים, לא קנה. Mimela he says, I argue with you, Rava bar Chama, I hold המגביה מציאה לחבירו לא קנה. Nevertheless, if you pick it up for yourself and for the other guy, then there's the din of מיגו דזכי לנפשיה זכי נמי לחבריה. You have to understand that also. I'm not asking a kashya, but you have to understand: if there's a problem of התופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחרים that if you grab for somebody else, it doesn't work, so what do we gain by the fact that if you grab it for yourself also? The part that's for yourself is fine, but the part that you're grabbing for him should still be תופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחרים. Sof kol sof, the only way the other guy is koneh because of you. So how does this work? What's the difference? In other words, he's saying that the מיגו דזכי לנפשיה, because you take for yourself, overpowers the problem of תופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחרים. Why? Why does it overpower? Now to explain the emet, what I'm asking in more detail, more deeper in the Gemara. Pshat, pshat in the Gemara we learn like this, that's how it seems: Rava holds of the סברא מיגו דזכי לנפשיה זכי נמי לחבריה. Rava holds that there's a sevara: you get for yourself, you get for the other guy. Rava bar Chama doesn't agree with that sevara, I don't hold of such a sevara. There's nothing, no difference: you get for yourself, you get for the other guy, or you could take for the other guy or can't. If you tell me you could, then you could take it in any case. In other words, he disagrees, it seems, with the sevara of since you can get for yourself, you can get for the other guy. That's how we learned it, Pshat pshat, but it's not true, that's not the pshat. Rava agrees to the סברא מיגו דזכי לנפשיה. The machloket is like this: Rava holds when do we say this sevara? Only if you actually were zocheh for yourself, so we say מיגו דזכי לנפשיה זכי נמי לחבריה. Rava bar Chama holds we say this sevara in another step: we say this sevara since you're able to get it for yourself, מיגו דיכול למיזכי לנפשיה, it also is because of you. In other words, why does Rava Rava bar Chama hold that if you pick it up for somebody else it works? Because I could pick it up for myself, I have the koach or the power to pick it myself, mimela I could pick it up for the other guy also. When would you not? Of course you can always pick it up. Right, right! And since you could pick it up for yourself, you can work for the other guy. And Rava says no, we only say this sevara of מיגו דזכי לנפשיה, not מיגו דיכול לזכות, מיגו because you could. If you actually do it, then it works, but if not, not. Okay, so that's what he thinks the machloket is. So Rabbah bar Chanah says, yeah, yeah, Rabbah bar Chanah says that even bekoach, when you have it bekoach, potentially it's enough to give you the koach to pick it up for to be zocheh for him. And Rava holds only if it's בפועל. The she'elah would be like this: Comes out that Rava does not agree with the bekoach. He says if it's only potential that you could pick it up, that's not enough to give you the koach to pick up. We see in the Gemara later on that it's not true. A clear din in Gemara later that bekoach works for מיגו דזכי לנפשיה, and I'll tell you where it is.

Gemara here דף ט' עמוד ב' brings a Mishnah in Peah. תנן, תנן התם: מי שליקט את הפאה, פאה is when you cut the field, you have to leave over the corner for the עניים, for the poor people. Someone, comes a guy, and collects some פאה, ואמר, הרי זו לפלוני עני, I'm collecting it for this and this guy. רבי אליעזר אומר: זכה לו. Huh? See in a second. רבי אלעזר says that, oh, he gets it. The moment he picked it up for him, he gets it. וחכמים אומרים: no, יתננו לעני הנמצא ראשון. Yeah, it belongs to, give it to the first guy, the first poor man you see. You're not זוכה for him. And the Gemara explains what's the machloket. אמר עולא, Ulla says, I'll bring this issue later, מחלוקת בעשיר לאני. The machloket is that the guy who picked it up is not an עני. דרבי אלעזר סבר, רבי Rabbi Elazar holds like this: Why does Rabbi Elazar hold you could pick it up for him? So listen: מיגו דאי בעי מפקר נכסיה והוה עני וחזי ליה, השתא נמי חזי ליה. There is a, he has a potential of becoming an עני. In a second, you mafkir all your property, in a second you're an עני. So since, then what would be? If you do that, you're ראוי to take to take this פאה, so now you're also considered ראוי. And then he says, ומיגו דזכי לנפשיה, זכי נמי לחבריה. And since you could take for yourself, you could take for him. רבנן סברי: חד מיגו אמרינן, תרי מיגו לא אמרינן. One migo, since, in other words, if it would be a poor man picking up for another poor man, even the Rabbanan holds. Why? Since you had the ability, the right to take it for yourself, mimela to the other guy. But two migos, you take, be'emet he's not even an עני, he has no right to take even for himself. He has a migo to take to become an עני, so two migos, two say we don't say. But if you say one migo, everyone agrees, even the Rabbanan. So from this Gemara we see clearly that we do say מיגו דזכי לנפשיה זכי נמי לחבריה even from potential, and this is a Mishnah. This is not Gemara, it's a Mishnah. So we see that and it's according to everybody, Rabbi Elazar and the Rabbanan, so we see here in a clear Mishnah that we say since you have the potential of taking it for yourself, mimela you could take it for the other guy. So how could Rava argue here? How could Rava say that why can't you pick it up for somebody else? If you actually take it up, pick it up, since you took it up בפועל, you could take it for somebody else, but just because you were able to, oh, such a migo we don't say. And Rabbah bar Chana says you do. But we see in that Gemara later we do say such a migo. Why would Rava not say it? That's what Rava holds, not what Rabbah bar Chana. Rava holds that. That you only if you, that you take it for yourself, and then you give it to him. But Rabbah Rabbah bar Chana says no, you pick it up straight from hefker for him. Not here, no. Here, not here. You don't get it. Wait, listen to me. So we

have to understand what's on Rava. Why, how could Rava hold if you do not say migo that you could have been zocheh for yourself, we don't say that memeila you could be zocheh for somebody else. Why not? If the Gemara says later on that you could say that. Now I want to explain bichlal what's the sevara of the Chachamim that they say we don't say two migos? Okay, it's not a kashya, it makes sense, too far removed. But I want to say it's a biur what the idea behind it is, and then we'll get back to our Gemara. This whole concept that because you could do something, memeila we look at the בכח, the potential, as if it's there, we find it in the Gemara in different places. למשל, Rabbi Eliezer in עניין סוכה ושבת holds that even a hachana to a mitzvah is דוחה שבת. By all the mitzvot. Except he says making tzitzit, making tzitzit is a melachah. You can't do that on Shabbos. איי, if I don't do it, I won't have tzitzit? So he says because if you want, you could be mafkir the tallit. If you want, you could be mafkir the tallit. If

it's not yours, it's not yours, it's patur from tzitzit. So memeila you're not even chayav. Somebody else could wear it. No one could wear it. Anyone. No, if it's not yours, you're not chayav in tzitzit. A tallit is only חייב if it's yours. A tallit or a tallit katan is only חייב if it's yours. If it's not yours, it's not חייב. If you made the tzitzit, then it's not, then you're going to make it הפקר, or it's not No, you can't make the tzitzit because באמת you're not really מחוייב to do it. When you're מחוייב to do it Well, aren't you מחוייב if the tallit is yours? Potentially, you could make it shouldn't be מחוייב. And the Gemara said such a סברא. And not that he has a כלל so no one argues? כל המצות דוחה שבת? Yeah, that's not We don't פסקן like that. Eliezer, R' Eliezer דמילה, he holds like that, מכשירי מילה דוחה שבת. So what kind of mitzvah would that be, besides for like like with a, what kind of Like milah, he says, if you don't have a knife, you could make a knife on Shabbos. You could chop off a tree if you have to. Are you have to, are you allowed to leave Shabbos, can you walk, could be Yeah, you could walk, you could carry. If you're wearing, you know, the garment with tzitzit, and the tzitzit broke, but now it's not כשר anymore, you can't הפקר it to the whole world to wear it? You must take it off? מדרבנן you can't. You can't because גזירה. What's the גזירה? You might not be מפקר it to wear it. What if you are מפקר? No, if you're מפקר, it's not yours and you're not חייב. You're not So you could, you could Not חייב of what? Tzitzit. Is there an איסור? No איסור. So there's no איסור to wear somebody else's בגד? It's not דאורייתא. Tefillin, you've got to, tefillin, tallit, \"לך\". וכן Gemara דרש, \"משלך\". I understand, but you need, you need someone, you need a Even if yours, or one that you're allowed to use, or if it's No, someone gives it to you.

No, you can't make a brachah on a talit that somebody else's. It's only No, you can't. Can you wear it, no? You can't make a brachah, cuz normally you would borrow it in the shul, see? Because we assume that the person doesn't mind if you take it, so he's giving it to you. But otherwise, it's not You're not poter the mitzvah if it's not yours. No, to own enough that you should What kind You should use of it. Yeah, but it's still enough yours that you should be able to make a brachah. If it passed a person, right? You should make a brachah on it. Yeah, that's why they say you can't make a brachah. And a person, a garment without You're not chayav anything? You're not, you're not Right. Yeah, yeah. If you're not חייב בציצית, ממילא means that that Cuz it's not yours. Cuz it's not yours. You're You're not poter the mitzvah? Huh? You're not metaken a mitzvah, but you're not over on an issur, because it's not chayav. When we pass the talit by by a brit, you can make a brachah. You don't have to, but you can, right? If somebody else gives you their their talit, Yeah. you you don't have to make a, but as if they're giving it to you and as a gift, and you're you borrow it. We don't make a brachah. When you take someone else's, you don't make a brachah. By a brit, you don't make a brachah. But you can. The she'eilah, if you take your own, you can make a brachah. But, but, can you? No, you can't. But if you take your own If you're using it, it's as if they're giving it to you. So the, the Rebbe told the Frierdiker Rebbe once was sandak and he used his own talit and didn't make a brachah. Because could be he had a mind before the davenen and then he's going to wear it, whatever. It could be. But lulav and etrog,

first first day of Sukkot, Yeah. you you couldn't make a brachah on it if it's not yours, that's for sure. But you're not poter the mitzvah. Yeah, but there there's a chiyuv. Here there's no chiyuv. You don't have to wear tzitzit. It's only if you have ד' כנפות you have to wear ציצית. Like sukkah, by lulav, it's a mitzvah you have to do it. There's a Gemara like this in Eruvin: When you want to make an עירוב תחומין with food, you put it down 2,000 אמות to be able to walk further. Has to be food that's edible. So it says, what about a נזיר? Can he make the eruv with wine? He can't drink wine, but the Gemara, yes. Why? Because if he wants, he could be שואל on his נדר, he could go to a Beis Din and be מתיר his נדר and then he can be able to drink wine. He's not doing it! Potential. If he breaks his נזירות, isn't that an איסור? What? Break his נזירות? He can't ever, he's not allowed to break his נזירות. You have to go to Beis Din. Beis Din can break his נזירות. A guy who is a נזיר drinks wine, he's חייב מלקות. If he makes that נדר, yes, he will get... No, you could be מתיר נדר, that's something else. It says there's a איסור to So you're allowed to make an eruv with דמאי. What's דמאי? דמאי is when an עם הארץ tells you he took off מעשר, so the חכמים, we don't believe him. We have to take off again מדרבנן. מדאורייתא, you could believe him, but דרבנן said not. So we're not allowed to eat it. So take a מעשר. You could make a eruv with מעשר. Why? Cuz it says a poor man who doesn't have food, חכמים were מתיר him to eat דמאי. But you can take off מעשר. Shabbos, you can't. Besides, if it's not yours, you can't take off מעשר for somebody else. You only need one food, you don't need two types of food? No, עירוב, עירוב תחומין, it's different. But the Gemara says why? Because if you want, you can be mafkir all your nechasim, and you'll be a poor man, and you'll be able to eat demai. Is that realistic? If everything was realistic, that's not very religious and you want to eat it, so you're going to do it. That's a five o'clock question. Can you be mafkir on Shabbos? What? Can you be mafkir on Shabbos? Can't make a kinyan, but you can be mafkir. Yeah. Good question. You're mafkir chametz on Shabbos? Yes. Sure, also you have to. On ערב פסח שחל בשבת, when did you do the hefker? When did you do the bitul? No, when you find it on Shabbos. Oh, like that. So here we see from the Gemara that we use this concept that when something is there b'koach, we're able to use it and consider it as if it's b'foal, u'me'meila to follow the dinim as if it's b'foal. And there's no machloket here. On the other hand, we find sometimes we do have a machloket. The famous case of האופה מיום טוב לחול. If

someone bakes on Yom Tov for the usage of after Yom Tov, you're only allowed to bake on Yom Tov for Yom Tov, if it's for later or not. So the machloket here. One opinion says in the Gemara חייב מלקות. You're over on the issur of melachah on Yom Tov. And the other one says you're not. Why? הואיל וחזי ליה לאורחים. Since it's possible that guests will come, and you'll use it still for today. Now, that's in the last minute of Yom Tov, but like this, it's to use it, so me'meila we look at it as if b'foal they came, and and it's okay. But that's a machloket. Not everyone agrees, there's a machloket in Gemara. The question is why is there here a machloket? Why in some other places we say clearly migo that you could have done it, we say it's as if you did it, and here we find it's a machloket? Same thing: הואיל it's possible for orchim to come, so as if orchim came and me'meila you shouldn't be chayav. Everyone should agree to it. Why is there a machloket? The answer is what? Huh? Maybe because he had in mind not for orchim. Who cares what he had in mind? But the po'el, the other one says, ho'il, but the po'el is you might use it today. The answer is like this. We're saying that b'koach works as if it's bafo'al. You know when it works definitely? I'll use the words: when it's a koach hakarov el hapo'al. When it's close. All you have to do is lama'aseh, you know, to leh hotzi. Obviously it's only b'koach, but it's close. And a koach which is not close, there we don't, then it's a machloket, then some say yes, some say not. In the case of the baking, it's far. Why is it far? Because it's not in your hands. The other things, something that you could do. Here maybe orchim will come, it's not up to you. So even though it's a potential, but we would call that a koach harachok min hapo'al. It's far from the po'al. And here there's a machloket, some say yes, some say not. Now, I

want to add another vort here. When we say this b'koach word, this migo that you could, you know what it means? It means that it's mitpashet, it spreads from the koach to the po'al. From the koach, it spreads to the other case. And where does it spread? Only if it's close. Where do we find an example of it really It's another type of migo. By Sukkah, there's a din that the walls have to have a certain din of mechitzot. By Shabbos, there's also a din of רשות היחיד, you have to have a din of mechitzot. There are different dinim, not all the same. There are certain dinim that for Sukkah the wall is considered a wall, but for Shabbos, it's not. So the Gemara says that שבת סוכות, if it's a wall for סוכה, מיגו דהוי דופן לסוכה הוי דופן לשבת. That wall of the Sukkah, which לגבי סוכה is considered a wall, only that Shabbos, even though it doesn't fit to the halachot of a wall of Shabbos, here it fits. Migo. Same idea. What's the peshat? Here, definitely, since it's a mechitzah in one way, it's mitpashet from the dinim of Sukkah to the dinim of Shabbos, it's mitpashet. So I want to say the same thing here is also, when every time we say migo, since you could have done it, it's mitpashet, it spreads from the b'koach to the b'poal. That's the pshat. And therefore, if it's not close, it doesn't spread. Why doesn't it spread? Because spreading is only close. I'll give an example what we find. The

example will be like this. It says in in Bechoros that you have maaser behemah. Every tenth is maaser behemah. You go, you let them go out: one, two, three, four, five, the tenth is maaser, kadesh laHashem'. What happens, it says, if by mistake on the ninth you said the word maaser? It's also maaser. The tenth is maaser whether you said it or not. The eleventh, if you said the word maaser, it becomes maaser. What about the eighth? Not. What about the twelfth? No, not. And the Gemara says, why? Because it's not samuch. And the Rabbi explains in a sichah that what's the pshat? Because the whole idea is b'emet maaser is the tenth, it's mitpashet from the tenth to the one next to it, to the one next to it. But if it's further, it's not mitpashet. So I want to use the same logic here, that that when there is a b'koach that's karov el hapoal, it's mitpashet, and we use that as if it's b'poal. A b'koach that's rachok min hapoal, that's far, is not mitpashet. And therefore, not everyone agrees, some say it could still work, but there's a she'eilah here, will it work or not? So, in the case of the baking from Shabbos, Yom Tov to the chol, it's a b'koach harachok min hapoal. It's far because it's not up to you, so who knows if it'll happen? The other b'koach, there's no machloket, everyone agrees. But this one has a machloket. So in fact, the same thing, even the Rabbanan say two migos we don't say. Migo is a whole other, not so, we covered the fact if the guy who collects the peah for the other guy is an ani. Thank you. He's not taking for himself, but he's an ani. So there's one migo we say. Since bekoach he could take for himself, it works for the other guy. Two bekochot, he's a rich guy. He bekoach could become poor, and if he's poor, bekoach he could take it. We don't say. Why? Because it's two over one? No, because then it becomes רחוק מן הפועל. Since it's far, it becomes far from the פועל. If it becomes far from the פועל, then we don't, then there's a machloket. Rabbi Elazar says you do say the migo anyway, but the other one not, it's not so pashut. Giving up on your property is pretty far. Pretty? Pretty distant. Not talking about רחוק מן הפועל if the guy will do it or not. Talking, I mean, that's his own field, it's all abstract, it's all הלכות, it's not So when you come into these practical questions, it's just a bit. I want to say the same thing here. We ask, what's the machloket between Rabbah bar Chanah and Rava? Rabbah bar Chanah says that if you pick it up only for the other guy, it works. And why, we said? Because migo you could have picked it up for yourself. Rava says no, it doesn't work. It only works if you actually picked it up for yourself. And we said, what's the difference if you actually The fact that you could have picked it up for yourself should work, and ממילא it should work for that you should pick it for the other guy, is רחוק מן הפועל. What? It's far from the פועל. Why? What What's blocking it? Far means there's something blocking it. You know what's blocking it? התופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחרים. There's a דין if you're grabbing for somebody else, it doesn't work. So here, we want to use this bekoach so you should be able to grab for somebody else. So there is some מניעה, something holding back here that makes it far. And Rabbah bar Chanah says, \"I still I I still say it works, because there is a שיטה that even if it's far.\" Rava says no, it doesn't work. Why? Because it's far. If I'm actually taking it, then it's not from כח to פועל, it's from פועל to פועל. It's from actually, so that's מתפשט if I actually have a קנין. So I'm picking up, I have a קנין already, for myself, so the קנין is there, the קנין is מתפשט. Even though there's a problem, תופס לבעל חוב. We asked the she'elah

before: Rava says why can't you pick it up for somebody else? Because you're harming other people. And if we pick it up together, you're still harming. The harming is not a problem. The problem, the fact that you're harming, doesn't allow, according to Rava, to say the migo. Because it makes the migo far. Where is there a חסרון if the if it's far? Only in a case of bekoach. So it's בכח הרחוק מן הפועל. But if it's the case where he actually picked it up for himself, so it's a פועל ממש. If it's a פועל ממש, here we say that even if it's far, it still works. And the so the machloket of Rava and of Rabbah bar Chana is similar to the machloket over here. Whether by the case of a בכח where we say it's מתפשט further and it's רחוק מן הפועל, do we still say it? So Rabbah bar Chana says, \"Yes.\" So even though you didn't pick it up for yourself, it's only בכח, and there's a problem, it's far. Why is it far? Because התופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחרים, you're taking it away from somebody else. It still works, it's still a migo. And and Rava says, \"I'm sorry, there's a big difference. If it's a regular migo, just one, and there's nothing blocking it, or even if there is blocking, but it's from a פועל to a פועל, that works. But from a כח to a פועל, it doesn't work.\" So now we

understand pshat in here. This will also explain pshat in Rashi. We ask the she'eilah in Rashi, בנוגע the re'ayah he brings by a גנב. We asked, a גנב, if he picks steals for somebody else, it doesn't work for that guy. If he picks it up for himself and the other guy, the other guy is חייב. But Tosafot asks, אין שליח לדבר עבירה. Who cares that you picked it up for yourself? How's it get Based on this logic, that'll be answered. We'll understand Rashi, and I'll say why. Let's start with shlichut. What's the reason why אין שליח לדבר עבירה? Forget the sevara, I shouldn't get into the sevara. But the Gemara gives a reason: דברי הרב ודברי התלמיד, דברי מי שומעין? If the master says to do one thing and the תלמיד says to do a thing, who do you have to listen to? So if the Eibershter says one thing and this guy asks them, then who do you listen to? So it doesn't so there's no שליחות לדבר עבירה. You know that that statement, logic makes no sense. What does it say? If the Eibershter said don't do it, they say like you're not allowed to listen to him. But I did listen to him! How about if he said, \"No, you're not allowed to listen to him.\" How about if the Eibershter said do one thing, and this my friend tells do something against the Eibershter, I shouldn't listen to him! Fine, I takeh shouldn't, but the fact is, he asked me to do it and I did it. So why shouldn't there be shlichut? So there is a sevara why there's there's a is because since the Eibershter said don't do it, and we don't listen to him, so mistama the guy who sent me didn't really mean to make me a shaliach, because he knows that I really wouldn't He thinks I really wouldn't listen. When a guy says to you something, \"Do please something for me,\" which I assume you're not going to do anyway, I don't know, it's a joke. So that's that's the reason why אין שליח לדבר עבירה. That's what it means. Because he knows that you're doing an aveirah, and if he's telling me to do an aveirah, mistama the guy is not going to listen to me anyway. So mimela it's just a joke. Or you could say step further: the guy who is told to do it, the shaliach, So אין משלח לדבר עבירה. Huh? Yeah, basically. Meshaleiach. You're you're making a very good point, because according to this, what happens if the meshaleiach didn't know it's an aveirah? Then there would be יש שליח לדבר עבירה. Now there's another way to learn, that the shaliach, knowing that it's an aveirah, definitely is not doing it for the guy. אין אדם חוטא ולא לו. The Eibershter said don't do it, he asked me to do it, so I'm going to do an aveirah for him? So if I'm doing it, I'm probably doing it for myself! What if he gets paid? Huh? What if he gets paid? Yeah. He gets paid then he really means it, and the other guy is getting a benefit from it. Who really means it? The shaliach? The meshaleiach really means it if he's giving him a lot of money to go do something wrong. Yeah. Yeah, but we can't make chilukim only if he gives him money or not. I'm saying, in that case, what... he knows what he's doing, and he's doing it, it needs to be done, and the other guy is getting a benefit. And the truth is, the truth is, I'll tell you another It'll takeh work that way. There's another example some say: what happens if the meshaleiach is a mumer? A פרייע ייד who doesn't We know he's constantly... Right. So you think So there takeh, according to this שיטה, יש שליח לדבר עבירה, because he meant it. Yeah. But there is another shita, the Rabbi Akiva Eiger's shita, this is the Sma. The Rabbi Akiva Eiger writes that it's a halacha: by aveirah there is no דין שליחות. And that's the פשט, דברי הרב ודברי התלמיד, דברי מי שומעים? Who do you listen to? That means you're not allowed to listen to the guy, and because that's something you're not allowed to do, there is no דין שליחות. What's takeh the sevara? Why is there no... So you're not allowed to do it, but the Eibershter made a דין שליחות, and and you're doing it. So lichora you could say like this: you know why שליחות בכלל works? You could say מיגו דזכי לנפשיה זכי נמי לחבריה. If you asked me to do something and I could do it for myself, so if I could do it to myself, so I could do it for you, too. That's the whole yesod of shlichut. This is the reason why אין שליח לדבר עבירה, because we said when you when you have something in potential, because I can potentially find time to do it for you, but if it's rachok, it doesn't work. In this case of an aveirah, it's רחוק. Why is it רחוק? Because you're not allowed to do it! So it's a So normal shlichut is based It doesn't say this anywhere, I'm just saying a sevara. Normal shlichut could be based on מיגו דזכי לנפשיה זכי נמי לחבריה. Since you could do it for... A guy asked me to mekadesh a woman, I could mekadesh myself. So mimela I could do it for him, potentially. And that everyone agrees. What about And if you can't? What if you're already married? Then takeh there could be a sevara that it that it wouldn't work, shlichut. Like for example, a sister. It could be he asked Yeah, maybe. This sevara could takeh We'll get into the Gemara later later. An aveirah, why is there no shlichut? Because you want The whole reason why there is shlichut is because I could do it

myself, so first it's התפשטות from the בכח to the בפועל, but here it's an aveirah, so there's a רחוק. But we said this problem of an of if it's רחוק מן ה מן כח, כח רחוק מן הפועל, we don't Some people don't say we don't say it, that's only from כח to פועל. But from פועל to פועל, everyone agrees we don't care if it's רחוק. And that's the chiluk. If I'm stealing only for him, then in order to be shlichut, it has to be מיגו, מיגו דזכי. In other words, if it's only for him, migo I could do it for myself, I'm doing it for him. But since it's an aveirah, so we don't say the migo because it's far. But if I'm stealing myself, so I'm trying so it's not מן הכח אל הפועל, I want that my stealing, my קנין, should be נתפשט. That's from a פועל. From a פועל, we don't care if it's far. It's still an aveirah. It's still an aveirah, what does aveirah do? Makes it רחוק, makes it רחוק. Makes it So we're saying from a פועל, we don't care if it's רחוק. That's the whole yesod! If it's from a כח to a פועל, then we say if it's רחוק, it's a machloket. Some say it works, some say it doesn't. But if it's from a פועל, everyone agrees that it works! So here by this, if the whole reason why אין שליח לדבר עבירה is because שליחות is based on migo, and the reason by aveira it doesn't work is because it makes it רחוק, and רחוק you don't say this migo, but when don't you say the migo by רחוק? If it's from a כח. So that's if I'm doing it only for you, so I'm not doing it the פועל, it's only for you. On what basis should it work? Because migo I could have done it for myself, I'm doing it for you, but it's an aveira, so that blocks it. But if I'm doing it myself too, what do I want? That my פעולה, בפועל, should be מתפשט also for you, so that we takeh say migo. Everyone agrees.

Even the ones that hold we don't say מיגו דיכול, but by a פועל we do, why? Because from a פועל to a פועל, we don't care if it's רחוק, because it's from פועל to פועל. And that's why Rashi says, if he steals for himself and the other guy, does it work? איי, what do we do with, kashya is, what do we do with אין שליח לדבר עבירה? There is no problem of אין שליח לדבר עבירה. When is it a problem of אין שליח לדבר עבירה? When it's בכח, and then שליחות works, by an aveira it doesn't work. But it's my פועל, it works no matter what. That's why Rashi holds that if I steal for myself and you, it does work. So it cancels this out, that that's the רחוק can and it, I mean the פועל, the פועל, yes, the פועל pushes it out, takes that out, so it pushes out the רחוק. Right. Yeah, it's because it does say that you could you could take a talit, you can put on the talit, you can make the beracha. Not to argue, it said that there was also he has the option of reciting the blessing, however it's stated. It was talking about borrowing a talis. Depends how the guy depends how the guy gives it to you. Yeah, if he gives it to you in a way of borrowing, so in a No, if he gives it in order to do the mitzvah. Right. It says, it however, not even in mind or not to wear it with the The lender does not have in mind that the borrower will wear it with intent to fulfill the mitzvah, then he can't make a berachah. So he's wearing, only it said was that it's not appropriate. It said it's considered to be given to him as a gift, and so it's not required of, but he has the option הואיל ואם היה נותנו לו מתנה על מנת להחזיר היה אפשר לו לברך מברך נמי השתא. Yeah, but he has that Why why why is What's his kashya? Ho'il! What does it say in סעיף, yeah? I have to look I have to look back again, because it's, you know, this way. No, that's backwards. Yeah. Yeah. Rabbi, when are you saying hefker? הואיל ואי בעי מפקיר ליה לנכסיה והוה חזי ליה. In the Siddur, it says, a gift for your use. In brackets, מתנה על מנת להחזיר שמה מתנה. So if he decides to recite the blessing, he's taking it as a gift. Ah, because then he's taking it then it turned it into if he's giving it Right, for that moment. Something else, yeah. Right, so he said when No, but by a bris, it's definitely not for a mitzvah. No, b'koach. Yeah, definitely. I mean, he could, for כבוד הציבור. For כבוד הציבור, well, that's what is, it's because everybody has a has a a share in כבוד הציבור. The whole congregation has a share. I borrowed Yeah, but it's not a mitzvah, it's not a mitzvah of tzitzis. He's not giving it, it's clearly not for tzitzis. Right. He's clearly not giving it to you to fulfill the mitzvah of tzitzis. Right, so that's I thought to fulfill the No, that's if you give you borrow to davenen! Borrow to davenen or then you say we don't know if he needed it, but then because it's for you want to do the mitzvah, but when he does it for for כבוד הציבור So, Rabbi, but you don't have the options if it's like that? And you don't have the options if it's like that? No, if it's if it's clearly not yours, then you have no option. If it's a safek maybe, then you have an option. Oh, okay. But if it's clearly not given for the mitzvah So that sounds like, because the it could go either way. Right, because maybe he is giving it to you for the mitzvah, we assume so. Okay, sure.

Rabbi, when you say you make it hefker, so owner leaves a חפץ הפקר, then somebody can take it? Everybody, anybody, yeah. Yeah. And when he's going to bring it back to himself He can take it himself, too, because he can take it like anybody