Okay, the Gemara here in קידושין דף ז עמוד ב. The Gemara says like this, ההוא גברא דאקדיש בשיראי, there was a man who was mekadesh a woman with silk. Now we know from the Gemara before that when you're mekadesh a woman, you could use or kesef or shaveh kesef. You could use or actual money or things which have a value of money as long as it has the value of one perutah, that you could use. Here, he was mekadesh her with silk. רבה אמר לא צריכה שומא, רבה says you don't have to evaluate it before, and רב יוסף אמר צריכה שומא, רב יוסף says you do have to evaluate it. In other words, if you didn't evaluate it before to know how much it's worth, the kiddushin is not kiddushin. And the Gemara goes on to explain what is the reason for the two sides. Why would you have to evaluate, why not before? And the Gemara has two two leshonot, two ways. We're not going to talk about this because mainly this is just a beginning to the later Gemara. We're going to go into the second way the Gemara explains. The Gemara explains that the second way is that the machloket is like this: that even if he said to her, \"I'm giving it to you, I'm not giving you a price.\" You see, if he would say to her, \"I'm giving you this, you know this is worth $50,\" then you could always think maybe she's not sure, maybe it's not worth 50, so she's not really סמכא דעתה, that means her mind is not really maskim, agrees to the kiddushin. That's like the first way. But the Gemara says, no, even he says to her בכל דהו, whichever way it's worth, in other words, he's not giving a price, whatever it is, I'm mekadesh you with it. And it's definitely worth a perutah. Nevertheless, there's a machloket here whether it's good or not if it wasn't evaluated before the kiddushin. רב יוסף אמר שוה כסף הרי הוא ככסף. He gave her shaveh kesef, he gave her didn't give her kesef, didn't give her money, but he gave her something which is worth money. Now we know from before, like I said, shaveh kesef harei hu kakesef, that if you give shaveh kesef, something has the value of money, it's like money. But since we compare shaveh kesef to kesef, so it has to be similar in all ways: מה כסף דקייץ אף שוה כסף נמי דקייץ. Just like when you give money, it has a specific value, a clear specific value, so when you give shaveh kesef, the only time it's good, he says, Rav Yosef, is if before she gets it, there is a specific value put on it like by kesef. And therefore, if you give it to her, it has to be a predetermined value before predetermined value. Just like kesef, when you give kesef there's a predetermined amount, a dollar is a dollar, yeah. So too the No, she has to know. We don't pasken like here. We don't pasken like Rav Yosef. It's a machloket, you know. But we have this din, again, he was mekadesh her with silk. Rav Yosef says if he wouldn't be evaluated before, she would not be mekudeshet. And Rabbah says she is mekudeshet. The Gemara says later on the halacha is לא צריכה שומא, you don't have to evaluate it. But the Gemara is trying to explain what are the two sides of this argument, why would there be an opinion that you do have to? So the Gemara says Rav Yosef says that when you and this again, I'm saying this is not the whole Gemara, this is just the end of the this Gemara because there's other ways to explain it, the Gemara says. But this way is that he gave her the the קידושין and he didn't even say how much it's worth, which is, then there is a sevara to think, in other words, he didn't say, maybe she doesn't trust him. He didn't say, he gave it whatever it is. But since the whole idea that שוה כסף takes effect and that she becomes mekudeshet is learned out from כסף, שוה כסף is like כסף, so we compare it to כסף. Just like כסף has, like we said, a predetermined value before she gets it, you give a dollar is a dollar or whatever, it has a value, so too Rav Yosef holds that when you give שוה כסף, it has to have a clear קייץ. קייץ means established, a clear value. And therefore, Rav Yosef says in this case, when he gave her the שיראי and the silk and he didn't pre-evaluate didn't evaluate before, it wasn't predetermined, she is not mekudeshet, and Rabbah says she is mekudeshet. שוה means value, worth. שוה כסף means it has worth money, but it's not money itself. Amen. שיהא בעזרת השם הלימוד לעילוי נשמת זכי יצחק בן נסים. Amen. Okay.

זאגט די גמרא ווייטער. אמר רב יוסף, רב יוסף says, מנא אמינא לה? Where do I get this idea that in order for שוה כסף to have the din of כסף, it has to be predetermined? Where do I Where do I see it from? So he brings a baraita. Again, this is Rav Yosef. The baraita is like this: דתניא, it says in a ברייתא, מכסף מקנתו, it says by an eved Ivri, when you buy an eved Ivri, you could buy him with kesef, you could buy him with שוה כסף. So he says בכסף הוא נקנה, you could be koneh an eved Ivri with כסף, ואינו נקנה בתבואה וכלים. With tevuah, with grain, or with vessels you cannot be koneh him, that's what it says. Now we don't know what that means. So, the Gemara asks what does it mean? Does it mean you can't be koneh, you can't buy an eved Ivri with with kelim or with tevuah? Didn't we say always שוה כסף is like kesef? If you give a kli, and a kli has the value, so what's wrong with it? It can't mean that. So, the Gemara has different pshat, another pshat. At the end, the Gemara said this pshat like this: אלא לעולם, the pshat what the beraita meant, again, that you could use you you could be koneh with kesef and not with tevuah and kelim, it means like this: להילם דלית בה שוה פרוטה. When that it says that you cannot be koneh with tevuah or kelim, it's a case where the tevuah and kelim don't have a שוה פרוטה, they don't have the value of a perutah. But that doesn't make sense either. What's it got to do with tevuah and kelim? מאי אריא תבואה וכלים? כסף נמי לא. And if you give kesef and it doesn't have a perutah, also doesn't work. So what do we mean that if you you could use kesef, but you can't use tevuah and kelim if it doesn't have a perutah? Can't use kesef either. So, the Gemara says, \"No, he's coming to tell you a din.\" So, kesef that doesn't have a perutah obviously you can't be koneh. What he's trying to tell you is תבואה וכלים which doesn't have a perutah, אימא I would think מידי דמקרבא הנייתה הנייתייהו. Since the benefit that you could get from תבואה וכלים is very close, tevuah you could make bread out of it, money you've got to use to buy something, tevuah you have, and the same thing kelim something you could use, גמר ומקני נפשיה. So mimela here, even if it doesn't have a perutah it still should work, because it has a maalah that the the benefit is very available right there. That's why ka mashma lan, that's what the beraita has to tell you, that still it doesn't work if. So we're saying here that it doesn't work because it doesn't have a perutah. Now if kesef doesn't have a perutah, obviously it doesn't work. A chidush is that if other things, שוה כסף, which is something that even if it's something that you could use right away, doesn't have a perutah, you might think, but because you can use it right away, it is the kinyan like a perutah, that's why it tells you it's not. Let's understand this thing here. This תבואה וכלים which doesn't have a perutah, which we know less than a perutah doesn't work, that's obvious. We would think it would work. Why would we think it would work? It's less than a perutah. Obviously, because it's מקרבא הנייתייהו, because you could use it, it has the value of a perutah. So if it has the value of a perutah, why take it doesn't work? So why take it doesn't work? And if we're saying even together with the fact that it's used right away, it's still not worth a perutah, so what's the hava amina it does work? We don't understand. What is the meaning in the Gemara? The Gemara says this is a case where we it has no perutah, but because you could use it right away, we would think it could work, and it tells you it can't. Why would you think it'd work? Yes, so right, exactly. There is a דין הנאה could have a value. Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. But that that's the whole kashya. The kashya is that if you say because there's a hanaah there, it makes it worth a perutah, so why take it doesn't work? We're saying ka mashma lan it doesn't work, so it's ממה נפשך. If you're going to say that hanaah does not add it to a perutah, then what's the hava amina? What was the sevara to begin with that it should work? It should work if the hana'ah doesn't make it into a perutah. It's either or. It has hana'ah No, it's you have to have a sevara, usually, when you have a hava amina and a maskana, you have a sevara, you have a sevara like this, what like this. Here, we're talking about a technical thing. It has to have a perutah, without a perutah it doesn't work. This thing doesn't have a perutah. So we had a hava amina that it works. Why? Because it's close to hana'ah, it has a perutah. Fine, that's why. Ka mashma lan, that it doesn't work. Why תקי does not work? And if it doesn't have a perutah, then it's certainly hana'ah הוה אמינא. There must be some reason here, what there must be something behind this הוה אמינא לכתחילה that it does work, and we tell you, \"No, at the end is it doesn't work.\" It has to be specific to כלים and תבואה. And no, things which are מקרבא הנייתא, that the hana'ah is there. You can have enjoyment out of it right away, so that adds to its value. But if it adds to its value, so it has a perutah, and if it doesn't add enough to make it a perutah, so there's no hava amina.

What's the hava amina? So you must say like this: The pshat is that the hava amina is that we have here two things: the object and hana'ah. The object is not worth a perutah, we say דלית בה שוה פרוטה we're talking. The hana'ah itself is not worth a perutah, because if the hana'ah itself is worth a perutah, then you're mekadesh with hana'ah. There's a din you could be mekadesh a person with hana'ah. Lemashal if a man goes to a woman and says, \"You know, I'm going to dance in front of you, and this is a I'm a good dancer, and you would definitely have paid a dollar to go to the concert to watch me dance. I'll dance in front of you and be mekadesh.\" She's mekudeshet, because he gave her hana'ah, and hana'ah has a value of a perutah. Here the case, obviously the hana'ah doesn't have to The fact that she has a hana'ah is not worth a perutah. So, it's kesef basically. We have here like this: we have an object, a chefetz, an object which is not worth a perutah, let's say half a perutah, and there's hana'ah, and hana'ah itself is also not worth a perutah, but צירוף, if you're going to combine the two, it'll be worth a perutah. That's, that must be the case. And therefore, this is the hava amina and maskana. The hava amina is that you could combine the two. You're מצרף the value of the chefetz, of the object which is a half a perutah, together with the hana'ah, which is also let's say a half a perutah, and mimela you have it together, you have a perutah. And that's why we would think that she's מקודשת. I think hana'ah is not the same for everybody. I can get an hana'ah and he doesn't get an hana'ah. Well, okay, so you have to evaluate if it does. So, so how can you be מקדש with הנאה בכלל? Huh? So how could you be מקדש with hana'ah? So, the Beit Din every time and when you give an object which has a safek It's not a go, no, but talk about if it has a perutah, if it's לפועל it has a certain value. Make an objective evaluation. Again, you evaluate it. Just like a person says, \"I'll dance,\" maybe she says, \"I don't like dancing.\" Okay, so Beit Din will have to evaluate, just like when you give an object, maybe it's worth not less than a perutah, so you have to evaluate in case there's a safek. So, that's not a question. It's like anything you have to evaluate it. But לפועל, I'm saying the case is where there's a צירוף, that's the whole point here, that's not a normal thing. You're combining two halves. You're combining the half of the hana'ah to half of the chefetz. That's how I think would be the peshat. And that's where the hava amina is that it's good, if you have a half of hana'ah half a perutah of one thing and half of the together together becomes a perutah, it's good. Is everybody the same men? So, the answer, ka mashma lan, it says that it's no good. Why? That you cannot combine the two. And if you can't combine the two, what you're giving really is two halves, and you're not combining them. Now, why would you not, what's the sevara not to combine? למשל, if I give a person, a woman two cups, each cup is worth a half a perutah, and I give her two cups, so, שאלה if it's good. Are you combining two things? But that's combinable! It's not really combining. It's the same thing. I give I'm giving her a perutah. It's not combining. Here, when one is a גשמיותדיקע חפץ, and one is the hana'ah, that the Gemara tells us, that's not combinable. That's ka mashma lan. Machloket. No, no, the maskana of the Gemara is ka mashma lan that it doesn't work, that we can't combine. It doesn't add up. It doesn't add up, so it's basically half a perutah And why? and a half a perutah. Okay, we'll get in a second to why. But I'm saying we could understand lechatchila there is such a thing that this is different than two objects. Two objects, they're both one one nekudah. Here, they don't, basically they say they don't mix. I'll explain it much more. They don't mix. They're two things that are each one is an entity in itself, and you can Two cups mix. They I gave you a dollar, I gave you a perutah. But here each one is an inyan for itself, and ka mashma lan, the Gemara tells us, the beraita that it doesn't mix. What if you see she is starving, and the grain right now is so important for her to eat it? Very Very good. Then why is she not מקודשת? That's what we're wondering! What's the maskana? If each of grains value is less than a perutah. So what's the problem? To her, it's so important. So, it's worth a perutah. So, why wouldn't she be מקודשת? Because of hana'ah. Hana'ah. So, oh, so it could, so that the hana'ah worth half of that hana'ah worth a half a perutah, and and the חפץ worth half a perutah, so that's what we that's what we need here is a hava amina and maskana to understand why there's a possibility that this should be considered a perutah or not. What's Or it's a perutah or it's not. If it's a perutah, then what's the hava amina, what's the maskana? Why is it no good? If it's not, then what's the hava amina it is good? So, I'm trying to say that this must be a case like this, that this is a צירוף of two things, which you could look at it two ways. On one hand, you could say sof kol sof, you gave her two half perutot. Two half perutot is worth a perutah. On the other hand, you can't call it two half. They're two separate halves, which don't become into one perutah. Now, what is the sevara behind this? That's what you I'm trying to get to. Whether we could combine and What is the basis of a sevara to say that you could combine the hana'ah with the חפץ, or you can't combine? How I can combine this two things? The whole thing from the perutah, if it's less than a perutah, right, from from the חפץ, either the whole thing what they you've got to have an hana'ah. It's the same thing! If you cannot have hana'ah, it's it's כוס, we have no No, no, that has a value. You could sell it! You could sell it. Here is a different type of hana'ah. Here is הנאה הנאה מקרבת נכסים לעיסה, so it's a different type of hana'ah. There's hana'ah the חפץ. When I give you something, that hana'ah... Ashkenazic... Yeah. That's That's That's called I gave you something. Everything is hana'ah, right. But that's called one type of hana'ah, let's call it. It's a different category. It's a different category, this is everything, and if each one is a half a perutah, they don't go together. But to explain that you could say yesodot behind it, what would be the sevara for you or the sevara for not. This goes back to a different sugya that we once spoke about before. I'm saying the whole difference between if you talk about having the grain and hana'ah of eating, cuz you're so she's so hungry or starving, cuz there the hana'ah is directly related to So here that grain is worth to her more. So, the grain is worth more. Here it's not the grain is worth more. Here's מקרב לה הנאת עיסה. Right, this חפץ it's not related. Right, they're two different things. When you, when you do value, does the value differ for different people? Is that a value, or we call an appraiser, and this is how much the value is? Is it... Yeah, but it's all based on the appraiser. No, the appraiser could tell you that for a person who needs it, it's more worth, he'll pay you more for it. That's not value. No, that's called, that's well, that's how you Supply and demand. Yeah. Take a matzah before Pesach, it's worth 16 bucks a pound. After Pesach, you get $2 a... Yeah, a guy who eats machine, machine matzah will not pay for it for hand matzah so much money. If he wants matzah the whole year and then the value is more, I mean, is it the value of the matzah? It's like a stock! There is. But I don't care how you value it. Mah nafka minah? It's not נוגע to this sugya. However you evaluate, you evaluate. Just one day something is worth a dollar of soybeans, the next day... It's like a stock market, in that case. It's not. Depends on a loss, it depends on an item. Sure, why not? Enjoyment. That's not the same thing. It's different everywhere for each person. What's the... There's an objective way to value this though. Not every... There's an objective way to value... We're taking up the topic. That has nothing to do here whether how you evaluate. It's however you evaluate, you evaluate.

This goes back to something that we have learned earlier on דף ג. We'll go back into a different sugya altogether, but it's going to come out that it's nafka minah to this. The Gemara says on דף ג that we know you can mekadesh a woman with כסף, שטר, ביאה. With silk? הא? With silk? Silk is כסף. כסף or שוה כסף. Can I ask you something else? If you give a woman a little piece of cloth which is nothing, worth nothing, you can throw it out, but you can make a handkerchief out of it, and a handkerchief can be worth a few dollars. So? So it becomes of value... All right, so it is. So that's כסף or שוה כסף. If it's worth a few dollars, it's worth a few dollars. Yeah, but when you give it, it's worth nothing. No, but that's what, so there was a value to it when you give it. Then you inject the price. You inject the price because you can make a handkerchief, and you charge this much, that's that's that. That's all. Then the Gemara says, can you מקדש an אשה with חליפין? חליפין means the handkerchief that you give. Like קנין חמץ, you give the handkerchief, that's a קנין סודר. So if you... Take it back! Take it back, here also. If you would give her a handkerchief and she would take it and she would and you would say, הרי את מקודשת לי. Other places, you could מקדש an אשה, if you could קונה something with קנין סודר, okay, that's the best קנין that you could make. If I want to קונה you your house, so just make it I'm giving you the handkerchief and you pick it up, and you say I'm selling I'm giving you my house, my house is not, the house becomes mine. So the Gemara asks, can you be קונה with חליפין? And the Gemara says, הא? Whose handkerchief stay with? With the owner of the handkerchief. She gives it back. She gives it She buys it, gives it back. So the Gemara says, the Mishnah said that you can מקדש a woman in three ways. Why does it say three? You could count. It says כסף, שטר, ביאה. If you only have three things, you could already count it. Why do you need to say three ways? To be ממעט, to tell you only these three and not חליפין. So then the Gemara asks, why take not? Why can't you not be קונה with חליפין? And the Gemara says because l'kulei alma, you should be קונה with חליפין. Why? How do we know you could be קונה with כסף? The Gemara said, because we learn out a גזירה שוה. Here it says כי יקח, by קידושין. By שדה עפרון, when Avraham Avinu bought the מערת המכפלה, it says כסף, נתתי כסף השדה קח ממני, it says the same word. So just like over there you could be do it through כסף, buy a field, you could do here also. So the same thing which should make here too, you could be קונה a field with חליפין, so you should be קונה an אשה with חליפין. The Gemara says, that's why it tells you, you can't. Then the Gemara asks, why takeh not? There's a pasuk by חליפין by a field. And there's no pasuk כסף either. A pasuk! Take, take the money. Take the money. Take the money. Anyway, but lefoal, there's no clear pasuk. But if we compare this to a field, it should be like a field. And the Gemara answers like this: חליפין איתנהו בפחות משוה פרוטה. חליפין, there is such a thing as חליפין if the object that you're giving is less than a perutah. There is such a thing. And אשה בפחות משוה פרוטה לא מקניא נפשה. A woman would never agree to give herself up for such a small amount, less than a perutah. So since חליפין is shayach less than a perutah, so you can't be קונה with חליפין, even if the חליפין happens to have a perutah. Even if you gave a perutah, but since the חליפין is שייך בעצם less than a perutah, you can't. And the reason why can't you, because an אשה לא מקניא נפשה, a person would not let. Tosafos comes and asks kashiyot on Rashi. Tosafos has a different pshat. Tosafos says, we take out the word נפשה. Not because a woman doesn't give herself. פחות משוה פרוטה לא מקניא. You cannot be קונה less than a perutah. And Tosafos explains what is the Gemara's pshat. The Gemara was a hava amina and maskana. What's the hava amina was that you should be קונה with חליפין, and how would we know you could where would you get it from? From learning out from the field. Just like you can קונה a field with חליפין here also. Just like we learn and not כסף. And the maskana is, since it has less than the פרוטה, you can't. So Tosafos says what the Gemara went to meant to us. We know one thing that from the field we only can learn out כסף. We don't learn out anything you could be קונה a field you should be קונה an אשה, only כסף. The Gemara's hava amina was that you should do חליפין because חליפין is included in the קנין כסף. It's like a קנין כסף. And the maskana is since you could be קונה you could use חליפין less than a פרוטה, obviously it's not כסף. So if it's not כסף, there's no place to learn because you could only learn out כסף. So, as long as we think it's part of קנין כסף, we thought you could learn out. Maskana is not. So the meforshim ask a she'eilah here. Also, what's the hava amina, what's the maskana? Everyone knew, this is not a chiddush and no big deal, that you could use חליפין less than a פרוטה. The handkerchief does not have to be worth a פרוטה. Nevertheless, the Gemara thought that you this is called כסף. And you could learn it out from the field, from קנין כסף. And the maskana is that because you could use less than a פרוטה mimeila it's not called כסף. What What changed all of a sudden? You knew lechatchilah that you could use less than a פרוטה for חליפין. Nevertheless, we thought that it's called קנין כסף. And we say, no, you know you can't use Sometimes it could be less than a perutah, mimeila it's not called kesef. What did you Usually, a kashya and a teirutz is, we have a hava amina, and then we come up with something new. We have a kashya, this and so, oh, you know, this and this is there. Oh, now I understand why. There's nothing new that happened here. It's not that we figured out a new thing that you could use less than a perutah. Everyone knows. That's a clear Mishnah, a clear din that you could use less than a perutah for חליפין. And we thought, nevertheless, even though you could use less than a perutah, but if you happen to give a perutah, it's called kinyan kesef. Fine. And then we answer, no, since you could use less than a perutah, mimeila it's not kesef. What's the hava amina, what's the maskana? So the hava maskana is like this: We find a machloket I think in one of the לקוטים when we learned this Gemara, I mentioned it to them. Maybe I didn't. Did you say that for חליפין it's it's half a perutah, it's not no relation to to kesef? That's the maskana of Tosafot. Since it's possible less than a perutah, so it's not kesef. And in the hava amina, we knew that it's not it's shayach less than a perutah and we still thought it's kesef. So, what made you change? We find a machloket between the rabim, many Rishonim, and the Rashba when it is a certain din.

The Alter Rebbe says in Hilchot Geneivah that you're not allowed to steal even less than a perutah from anybody, even from a goy, but from anybody. You don't have to pay. Less than a perutah, there's no tashlumin, no payment, there's nothing there, but you're not allowed to steal. And he says why? A goy is worse. Yeah. That's not that's why, but that's not נוגע there. There's a hava amina, there's a she'eilah whether you can even take half a perutah. You can't take half a perutah from a Yid, either. You can't steal a half a perutah either. That's what he says. You can't steal. Shaila if you're chayav. By a goy could be you're chayav more than by a Yid. Because by a goy there's no din of a shiur. Whatever. There's no punishment, nothing to return, but you're not supposed to But you're not allowed to, you did an aveirah. What And if you're a ganav. Huh? And if you're a ganav. Throw him out of shul. Don't give him an aliyah. A ganav gets an aliyah? Yeah, he's called a ganav. The Alter Rebbe gives a reason: why can't you steal less than a perutah? Because it's chatzi shiur. חצי שיעור אסור מן התורה. We know that all the things, all the aveirot that you're over when you eat something, you're only chayav, you only get punished by the Beit Din if you eat a shiur. If you eat חזיר, chas veshalom, you're only chayav malkot, you're only chayav the lashes that the Beit Din has to give you, if you eat a kezayit. Less than a kezayit, you're not chayav. Yom Kippur has a different shiur. Everything has a shiur. So the the halachah is like Rabbi Yochanan, I'll explain in a second, that חצי שיעור אסור מן התורה. I'll explain the machloket. The machloket in the Gemara: The fact that you're not allowed to eat even half of a shiur, is this a issur de'oraita or a issur de'rabbanan? Reish Lakish says, mide'oraisa not only you don't get punished for less than a shiur, mide'oraisa you're allowed to, there is no aveirah. You could eat a like, up to a kezayis of חזיר you could eat. The fact that you're not allowed to, derabbanan made such a din. And Rabbi Yochanan says חצי שיעור אסור מן התורה. You're not allowed to, the Torah says it's assur, and he learns it out, and he gives a reason for it, we'll explain in a second, but that's not noge'a this second. So there is a inyan of chatzi shiur. Beside by eating, what should the Alter Rebbe says, chatzi shiur by Shabbos. The shiur is that you're chayav for כתיבה, if someone writes on Shabbos, which is one of the 39 מלאכות, you get killed, if there was a witness, yeah? But the shiur is two letters. What about writing one letter? So he says it's assur. חצי שיעור אסור מן התורה, it's half of the shiur. Okay. He says גזיזה, you're not allowed to cut your hair off. Hair from an animal or from yourself, that's one of the ל״ט melachos. And the shiur is two hairs. If you cut one hair, it's assur מן התורה. You're not chayav. Beis Din won't punish you down here, the Beis Din. Aibershter will punish, but it's also assur. So the Alter Rebbe says the same thing. If you steal less than a prutah, it's חצי שיעור אסור מן התורה, it's chatzi shiur. And that's what many of the Rishonim learn. The Rashba gives a different reason why you can't steal less than a prutah. The Rashba says the reason is because you make tza'ar to the Yid, to the person. When you steal, whatever you steal, you're metza'er, and now you're not allowed to metza'er a Yid. So it is not not אל תגנובו. Is mashma from the Rashba that he doesn't hold that the reason why you can't steal less than a prutah is because chatzi shiur. Because if it would be chatzi shiur, what do you mean it's tza'ar? Of course it's an איסור, חצי שיעור אסור מן התורה, he doesn't hold it. And takeh the mefarshim say that there's a machloket here between the Rashba and the others, that the Rashba holds that there's no chatzi shiur by stealing, less than a prutah, and the Alter Rebbe, the other Rishonim hold that there is. What's the sevara of the machloket? So there are all kinds of ways you can learn it. But one of the ways to learn, which is the main way to learn is, the machloket is: is less than a prutah in the category of kesef or it's not in the category of kesef at all? Now I'll explain what I mean. By the regular case of chatzi shiur, what was the reason of Rabbi Yochanan that he says that it's אסור מן התורה? So he has a pasuk, but besides that he has a sevara. He gives a reason why even half a shiur is asur. The reason he gives is like this: because חזי לאיצטרופי, it could be combined. And in this itself, we have the big machloket between the Acharonim. We have the Shach's peshat, that what it means is, that it's like gezeirah. Like the Torah made a gezeirah, if you're going to the Torah if you're allowed to eat half a shiur, let's say, so you eat half a shiur. You cut a piece of chelev and you eat it, you know what might happen? What happens if you decide to eat another little bit? It'll be a shiur! You'll come to eat a shiur and then and then it'll be asur. So the Torah said, don't eat even half. It has to be in this zman, all right? Something like that. The Torah said we that that even half you can't. But that's the way he learns.

The way the Rogatchover learns, the way the Pri Megadim learns, the way the Rebbe learns, is not like that. Chazi l'itztarufi is not the פשט because you might actually come to be mitztaref and eat another half. It's a re'ayah! The fact that a whole shiur is asur, and a whole shiur is made up of what? Of half, two halves, four quarters. So how could you say that the half is mutar? If the whole thing is asur, and the whole thing is a tziruf of two halves, so obviously the half is also asur. So it's a re'ayah. The nafka minah between these two ways is this: according to the first way, what happens if you eat half a shiur the last second of Pesach, a half a shiur of chametz, would it be asur or mutar? What? Should be mutar because it's not possible to combine to another half, it's the last second! Or the last minute of Yom Kippur you're going to eat. מה שאין כן if you learn the other way, it's that it's just a re'ayah that it's asur. It's not it's not that, it's a re'ayah that every little bit is asur because מצטרופי. It's destroying the concept of the shiur. Huh? It's destroying the concept No! The shiur is for punishment only! That's what you're saying. So when the Torah says that it's a הלכה למשה מסיני, it says there's a inyan of a shiur, that's only for beit din to punish you. You're חייב מלקות, you're חייב כרת, whatever, mitah, only by a shiur. But less than a shiur is also asur. So you still have the concept of a shiur, but the shiur is only for the punishment, not for the issur. Don't you have a zman of 72 minutes or something? The same thing like the end of Pesach. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. You have to you can't if you if you wait too long you can't have Not combining Yeah, here it's not 72 minutes, it's Whatever it is, six minutes, yeah. Right, obviously the חשש you might eat within the six minutes כדי אכילת פרס, if not it's not it's not a שאלה בכלל. This is noge'a the regular case of chatzi shiur. Now the שאלה is, just like we have over there that if you hold chatzi shiur is asur is because even less than a shiur has, we call it the איכות of the issur. The food is the same! A piece of חלב is the same, it's the same. What's missing is the size! So since the big piece is is asur, and the big piece is nothing more it's not more איכות, not more quality than the small piece, more quantity, so this is also, because the little bit also has the quality of what that is. The question is, what do we do by כסף? By כסף we could say like this: by money, if it's less than a פרוטה, it doesn't have the quality of כסף בכלל, it doesn't fall in the category of כסף. If it doesn't fall in the category of כסף, there's no such thing as chatzi shiur. Because the way we're explaining, the whole concept, why is chatzi shiur asur? Because the less than the shiur has the same quality. But by money money, there is a sevara to say that the whole money taytsh value and this doesn't have the value of anything, mimela less than a shiur is nothing. It's not כסף בכלל. Or you could say, \"No, that by money it's the same thing like by everything else, that when you have the shiur of a פרוטה, it has the whole shiur, but even less than that is made up of two half a פרוטות, and two half No, we don't look at two half פרוטות as zero plus zero. If you say half a פרוטה is zero, you could have a half a פרוטה with a half a פרוטה, zero and zero. So then you But if you say no, the half פרוטה is half of a פרוטה, so it also has the איכות, or maybe it doesn't.\" This is the machloket between the Rashba and the rest, whether we say by the case of stealing a chatzi shiur if it falls into the category of חצי שיעור אסור מן התורה. The other Rishonim and the Alter Rebbe hold that it does fall in the category. Why? Because they hold that the גדר of less than a shiur is also כסף. אלא מאי, what's the shiur? Like in any food. Less than a שיעור חזיר is also חזיר. אלא מאי, you don't have the shiur, so you're not chayav. The same thing here also. Less than a פרוטה is also כסף, it has falls under the category of כסף, and just missing a shiur. And the Rashba who learns that there is no חצי שיעור by stealing, because he holds that כסף is only from a shiur. Less than a shiur is not a peshat you're missing the shiur, it's nothing! It's missing the whole איכות. And we find that concept also, that when you're missing the whole quality of the thing, it's not חצי שיעור. I don't want to go through the whole thing we once went through בנוגע carrying on Shabbos. עקירה without an הנחה, if you pick up and you do a מלאכה, עקירה without an הנחה, it's not חצי שיעור. In order to be chayav on Shabbos carrying, you have to pick up in one place, in a רשות היחיד, take it to a רשות הרבים, put it down. What happens if you made an עקירה without an הנחה, or הנחה without an עקירה? It's only אסור מדרבנן. And the Rebbe asks the שאלה, why is it only אסור מדרבנן? It's חצי שיעור! So, it's not חצי שיעור, it's חצי מלאכה! It doesn't have the מלאכה at all! The מלאכה is made up of this whole thing, but the רבנן made it אסור anyway. So, there is such a thing as חצי שיעור, and there is such, it means it has the whole איכות, missing the שיעור. And there is such a thing as not having the איכות at all. So, this is a מחלוקת between the Rashba and the others, whether less than a פרוטה is in the גדר of כסף or not. If it's in the גדר of כסף, then there's a גדר of חצי שיעור. It's missing the שיעור, פטור.

The same thing when we come to קידושין, it's the same thing here. When you give קידושין less than a שיעור, less than a פרוטה, she's not מקודש. There's no question about it, she's not מקודש. The question is why. Is it because you didn't give her כסף? Or you gave her כסף, you just didn't give her the שיעור? להלכה makes no difference, בפועל she's not מקודש. What makes the difference is here: the hava amina and the מסקנא of this of the way Tosafos learns the Gemara. The hava amina was that חליפין should work. Why? Because חליפין the Gemara thought is in the category of כסף, so you could learn it out from the שדה עפרון. Ay the Gemara knew that you could sometimes use less than a פרוטה? So? So the hava amina of the Gemara was that less than a פרוטה is also כסף, so you can learn it out from there! So ein hachi nami, if you give less than a פרוטה to a woman, it won't work, because it's missing the שיעור. So, if you use חליפין and you give her a פרוטה by the חליפין, it should work! How would you know the דין חליפין? From the שדה! Ai we said we only learn out from שדה עפרון only kesef, we learn out this is kesef! Ai it's שייך less than a perutah, it's still kesef! That's the hava amina. Comes the maskana, Tosafot says, the maskana of the Gemara is that because it's שייך less than a perutah, ודאי it's not kesef! Why? Because the maskana Tosafot says, \"No, we change, we have what changed in that? We change saying that less than a perutah is not kesef at all.\" It's not kesef. And if less than a perutah is not kesef, and here we have a קנין חליפין which works less than a perutah, shows that the קנין חליפין is not a קנין כסף, because if the קנין חליפין would fall in the category of קנין כסף, you couldn't be less than a perutah. It's not kesef at all! But you're still You're still not allowed to steal. According for a different reason, by stealing, because of tzaar. Yeah, that's the Rashba's peshat, yeah. Not because of חצי שיעור, for that reason, yeah. But at least we have here, we understand here that there is an hava amina and maskana of the Gemara. This hava amina and maskana is whether kesef less than a shiur is still kesef or not. If you hold less than a shiur, less than a perutah is kesef, then we could learn out the קנין חליפין from שדה, because it falls in the category of כסף and you could learn out כסף. אלא מאי by kidushin you'll have to give a perutah? Good, because you need a shiur there, so you'll give the perutah. But the kinyan itself is a קנין כסף! But if you're going to say maskana is that כסף is only a perutah, less than a perutah is no כסף, and since it's possible less than a perutah, I mean chalipin So we have here, according to Tosafot, the maskana and hava amina of the Gemara, that the maskana and hava amina is based the הוה אמינא מסקנא is based on this nekudah. The hava amina was that less than a perutah is כסף, and the maskana it's not כסף. Now we could take this and apply it to our Gemara. We said here that there was a hava amina and maskana in the Gemara, and the hava amina was that if you have a half a perutah of an object and then a half a perutah of hana'ah, so the hava amina was that you mitztaref them together and they become a perutah. And ka mashma lan, so he said, \"No, you can't be mitztaref them.\" You could say that the הוה אמינא מסקנא is exactly like the הוה אמינא מסקנא there. The hava amina was that less than a perutah is כסף, and the maskana is, no, so what do I mean? If less than a perutah is also kesef, then the difference between the value of an object and the value of hana'ah, if you're saying that you're giving less than a perutah of hana'ah, if you're saying it's called kesef and it's called kesef, so essentially they're both the same. They're both the same category. Why to give mekadesh with hana'ah of less than a perutah, because it's kesef. And this is also kesef. If this is also kesef, so it's like taking two things of kesef. Two let's say you give her a perutah, two half a let's say there's a coin half a perutah, you give her two coins half a perutah, no problem, she's mekudeshet, you got a perutah. They're no longer two different categories. They're no longer two different categories, boils down to that. It's kesef, that's right. So why can't you say you could mix anything? You boil No, the maskana is if no, if it's not kesef, you boil it down If less than a perutah is not kesef, right? So then you can't mix two zeroes. There's nothing to boil So, if you have two objects and you're not mitztaref, then you you'll have a perutah. Right. But here when they're definitely two separate things and they're two half a perutot, which they're not the same category, and each one is nothing, so you have two nothings. So if two nothings, you can't be mitztaref. If you mitztaref it, you have zero plus zero, it will equal zero. So when you have two objects, you're not mitztaref two things. We don't look at it as two things. Halacha and gashmiyut is they're two things, but it's all the same category, so you have So you could say the hava amina of the Gemara was that you could be mitztaref the half a perutah of the chefetz with the half a perutah of the of the hana'ah, because bottom line is they're both kesef. Ela mai, they're missing the shiur. So when you have two half כספס together, they become a shiur, so the kiddushin is good. And the maskana of the Gemara is that it's not kesef. If it's not kesef, then then each one is half, so you can't combine two halves. The only time you can combine them is if they're in one category, then they're not combined. But when they're two separate categories, you can't combine. That's how you could learn peshat in the Gemara with the הוה and the maskana. If they're the same מין, then you can't combine It's not called it's not called combined. different מין. It's not combined. Then what is it? It's one It's one entity. basket of wheat A basket of wheat, yeah. A little wheat is nothing. You give her the whole basket, right, it's all one thing. Same thing, and what happens if there's not enough wheat? A little bit of wheat, a little of barley, I'm saying. Wait, when it's physical objects, they're not combined. They are, you're giving her one thing. But if you're giving הנאה and this, these are two separate things. So, and since less than a perutah is not called kesef, so you're giving her two not כספס. Two not kesef together makes no kesef. What? Now, you also have to say when you give two cups, two half cups that are each the they're two separate entities and each has its own independent value point. And what we're talking about is one entity with two different ways to evaluate it. One is, you evaluate the piece itself is worth half a perutah, and the enjoyment she'll get is worth half a perutah, that's what you can't combine. Right, correct. You can combine two separate entities. Right, but I want to say because it's not even called combine, because it's not it's it's not combine. Like you, if you give a guy five dollars instead of a five dollar bill. Right. You combined five dollars? No, you gave $5. That's right. That's what it is. Two separate cups. Here it's one And here it's one, yeah. with two value points. Two things and and the really you you're trying to combine it רוחניות. It could be רוחניות. Whatever, רוחניות, yeah, but that's what it is. It's it's an abstract thing which doesn't combine with the physical. But two physical things, they go together. So that's the hava amina. Right. Should we go further? Okay. Ah. People that always easy for us to understand those two penny, penny like cost more to make a penny. Make a penny. So penny's really not worth a penny. You give it to the soul. Yeah. Yeah. If you want to reduce it, it will cost more than Okay, that's something else. That's why they want to get rid of it. We have no kashya with this Tosafot. We have no problem with this Tosafot. Huh? No. But you could explain it in a different way. What's the What was the problem? What was the problem? What did we have? I just brought the Tosafot because the Gemara brings, he says, machloket is whether if you have to be קיץ or not. He brought a re'aya that you have to be קיץ from one Gemara. He thought to bring a re'aya, and the Gemara said that's not a re'aya from there because the peshat is different. I didn't even go to the whole Gemara there. But according to Tosafot here, the way the Tosafot learns, the the Rashba is right. Yeah. Because why did he say that all that the Rogatchover and the Rav and all the Rogatchover and the פשט Tosafot, you could have all kinds of פשט׳ים. According to this peshat, okay, it doesn't fit. You can say another vort, you're right. דאס ממש בקיצור, another vort to explain what the difference in the hava amina and the maskana is. Along the same line, but a little bit different.

We have a machloket in the beginning, in דף ב׳, שוה כסף. The Gemara says you could be mekadesh with a perutah or שוה פרוטה, which is כסף or שוה כסף. פרעגט Tosafot a kasha, it asks: Where do we know שוה כסף is כסף by Kiddushin? How do you know? Where do we learn out שוה כסף? Tosafot answers we have a pasuk. Just like they have a pasuk, ישיב. The pasuk there, fine. The Ran says you don't need a re'ayah from a pasuk. It's a sevarah. שכל. שוה כסף is like כסף. Why do we need a re'ayah, we don't need re'ayot. איי, other places the Gemara brings pesukim, because like those things I would have thought not because of whatever reason, but באמת it's a sevarah. Other details here, but that's the נקודה of the ענין here. What is the machloket whether על פי סברא you have שוה כסף is כסף or you need a pasuk for it? So this one of the ways to explain it is like this: When the Torah says כסף, is there such a concept as כסף, that כסף means the money, or the whole concept of money is only its value? That's fungible. Okay, that's the שאלה. If the concept of כסף is if there is such a thing as כסף as an entity in itself, כסף, not only its value, then when the Torah says you have to use kesef, how do you know you could use shavah kesef? Kesef is kesef, shavah kesef is something else. Two different nouns. So you need a re'iyah, you need a pasuk. If you hold that the Torah, there's no such thing as kesef as kesef, the whole metziut of kesef is it has a value, so everything is having a value, so you don't even need a pasuk for it. Right. Now, according to the sevara, and this machloket Tosafot and the Ran, Tosafot says we need a pasuk, because Tosafot holds, we'll say, that kesef means kesef, there is such a thing as kesef, so we need a pasuk to tell you that shavah kesef. And the Ran says, no, kesef never meant kesef, kesef is value, what else is kesef? Right. According to Tosafot, now we said that kesef is such things as kesef, and the pasuk teaches you that nevertheless שוה כסף, איי, it's against this? It says kesef, that means דווקא כסף. So here's a pasuk against it. So we can say that sof kol sof what the pasuk teaches you is that who says that it has to be כסף בפועל? Potential kesef is also good, that's what it... בפועל it is kesef. Every shavah kesef you could sell and get kesef for it, so the Torah teaches you that it doesn't have to be... באמת כסף means kesef, and then we have the extra pasuk to teach you it doesn't have to be כסף בפועל, it could be כסף בכח, potential. How do you get potential? How do you get... Sell. Everything is כסף בכח. Sell it, everything is כסף בכח. Every שוה כסף is, taytsh you could sell it and get the money for it. Like the corn, you take the... Nu, yeah, you sell it, so you have money. משא״כ according to the Ran, why is שוה כסף good? Ah, because you could sell it and make money? You get sold. No, here the Torah never meant anything else. So we have this שאלה: מאי נפקא מינה? The נפקא מינהs will be by Shavuos, but we're not going to go into it. In the Gemara in the סוגיא. No, back to this. Because, eh, I'm not going to go back to the סוגיא now, because that's what the מחלוקת Rashi Tosafos, Rashi is, but just for one nekudah. So you could say like this: This is the difference in the hava amina and the maskana, whether there is such a thing as כסף, or there is no such thing as כסף, the whole thing of כסף is שוה כסף. If there is such a thing as כסף, and the whole thing of of of הנאה of of שוה כסף is because you could turn it into כסף, so the whole thing is כסף, ממילא there's a חילוק between הנאה and and something that's tangible. They're two different categories. I'll start the other way: If the whole thing is value, there's no such thing as an entity of כסף, it's value, הנאה has a value, the חפץ has a value. The whole idea of why can I be מקדש with this חפץ is because this has a value, הנאה also has a value. Value and value are the same category, so why can't you be מצטרף them? If you're saying, no, value בעצם isn't, there's no such thing as value. The whole reason why wealth value is worth, works, because value can turn into כסף. So it's only the כסף בכח. So it's not the value in itself. If it's not the value in itself, then we're looking at two separate entities. We're looking at הנאה, that could come into כסף, but that's a, we say a רוחניות׳דיקע thing that could turn into כסף, and this is a גשמיות׳דיקע thing One step removed. Right, and therefore you can't combine. One you have to do an action. So the same logic as before, but from a different angle. The hova amina of the Gemara was that you could combine the חפץ worth of a perutah with a hana'ah, because the hava amina was that the whole thing is only value. There's no such thing as kesef, the whole thing is value. This is value. If you're measuring value, this has a value of a perutah, this is a value, this is a value. So just like I can combine this value with this value, I can combine anything because value comes out is is one thing. But if the value is not what counts, it's kesef, and this whole thing why shaveh kesef works, because this is kesef. So, if it's not the value, then it's the kesef, then we have two separate things. Like you said, one's removed, and therefore you can't combine. And that's the maskana of the Gemara. The hava amina was that you could combine, the maskana of the Gemara that you cannot combine the two. I don't I don't see why it's lower, higher on the hierarchy of it. What? I'd say that's two different approaches. On a on an external level. Okay. Right, so you can see that they're It's like you combine. That's No, that's the whole Whatever you Is it something that's shayach? It's external, like green socks. Because which is more important? You got shaveh kesef or No, it's not. It's just what it's called. I don't know that there's a value of what's more important. I think it's just making a differentiation. Right, exactly. Okay, so you But it's perspective anyway. So there is money by a