here on the Gemara in Bava Metzia דף י' עמוד א', so the Gemara quotes a, בנגיעה to a different din, but the Gemara brings a din of התופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחרים לא קנה, that if a person grabs, a בעל חוב grabs, well, a person grabs for a בעל חוב when it's hurting others, he's not koneh. The case is like this: Reuven owes money to many people. Reuven owes money to Shimon, Levi... And the din is, one of these three, and let's say Reuven only has enough money to pay one of them, so whoever gets it first, he'll get paid, the other guys might not get their money. So if one of the three guys comes and חאפס and grabs the money to get paid, it's his. What happens if somebody else comes and does it on his behalf? So we say that's called התופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחרים, he's grabbing for a בעל חוב, but at the time when he's ruining it for others, other people now can't take, other people who are also בעלי חובות, so לא קנה, you're not koneh.

Comes Rashi and Rashi says לא קנה, כדאמר בכתובות, like the Gemara says in כתובות, דלאו כל כמיניה, a person doesn't have this right, להיות קופץ מאיליו, to jump by himself, וחב, to hurt, לאלו, to hurt others. And Rashi says the reason why it doesn't work is מאחר שלא עשאו הנושה שליח לתפוס, because the נושה, the נושה means the one that's claiming the money, didn't make him into a shaliach to go grab for him. Therefore, what he did doesn't count, because he's hurting others. Or he just does it on his own. He does it on his own. From Rashi it comes out that what would have been if the malveh would have made him into a shaliach? Let's say you said Reuven owes Shimon, Levi, and Yehudah, so Shimon asks this guy, \"Go and grab for me.\" From Rashi it's mashma it would work. Could it be that is there a way to learn that you can say that it's not necessarily mashma that it would work, it's just Rashi is saying, \"Look, this is an extreme case. This might be an argument, but this for sure not.\" That's not an argument. That's not the system. That's not the style of Rashi anyway. So

Tosafos brings מה שפירש רש\"י משום דלא עשאו שליח, this what Rashi says that the reason it doesn't work is because he didn't make him into a שליח, אינו נראה. I don't like it. דבפרק הכותב משמע, Tosafos quotes from Kesubos, Perek HaKosev it comes out כההוא עובדא דיימר בר חשו, a story there with יימר בר חשו, דתפיס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחרים לא קנה אפילו עשאו שליח. In that Gemara we see that even if he made him a shaliach it won't work. What's the case over there? The case was that somebody who was claiming money from somebody else sent Yemar bar Chashu, a guy called Yemar bar Chashu, to go and grab that guy's ship on behalf of him for payment of his loan. A few chachamim saw him do it, they told him, \"Listen here, it doesn't work. You can't grab for him, because you're תופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחרים, there are other people that this guy owes money.\" And they said, \"You're not קונה.\" And he let go of it, and these chachamim took it. Because that guy owed them money. Really? שפיצלאך, ha? Anyway, and that the Gemara goes on with the story what they did, why, but Tosafos says from there we see that this rule of התופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחרים לא קנה applies even if you make a shaliach. Because the story over there was the story of a shaliach. The story was that he made him into a shaliach, he sent him, this בעל חוב sent Yemar bar Chashu to go and grab for him. He went and grabbed, and they told him it doesn't work. Did you hear what you said? The chachamim took it for themselves. Because that guy, that same guy owed them. They were owed that as well. Yeah, Kesubos. In other words, you can't send a bill collector, you go get it yourself. Huh? You can't send a bill collector, you go get it yourself. If it's... right, yeah. But here this is according to Tosafos, Tosafos brings a raaya from this Gemara, while Rashi said clearly that if you send a shaliach, it is good. So Tosafos asks a kashya on Rashi. The the Rosh asks a similar kashya from our own Gemara. In this

Gemara, the Mishnah that this Gemara is on, says like this: היה רוכב על גבי בהמה, someone was riding a בהמה, וראה את המציאה, and he sees a מציאה, he sees some object laying there הפקר, ואמר לחבירו, he says to his friend, תנה לי, could you give it to me? נטלה, the guy went, picked it up, ואמר, and he says, אני זכיתי בה. He says, \"Sorry, I'm not giving it to you, I'm keeping it.\" זכה בה. That's it. And the Gemara and the whole sugya here wants to connect this to this klal, that this guy was a תופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחרים. He claimed for himself. Because, no no no. This is המגביה מציאה לחבירו לא קנה חבירו. This is a guy, from here we see from, one of the ways the Gemara learns is, that even though he when he picked it up his intentions were to give it to that guy guy, but as long as he didn't give it to him, that guy was not koneh and therefore he could keep it. Is mashma from this Gemara that המגביה מציאה לחבירו, that if you pick up something for your friend, let's say you see a metziah in the street, and you pick it up on behalf of somebody else, that other person is not koneh. It doesn't even have to be that other people are getting hurt. No, because other people are getting hurt. How, in this case? Because all other people could come and grab it. So everybody else... Right. And the

Gemara says the reason this is the din, because התופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחרים לא קנה, because you can't grab for somebody else if you're a תופס לבעל חוב. And the Gemara connects it to this Mishnah. Now, this Mishnah, it's clear Mishnah that he made him a shaliach. But he No. Sure, האומר לחבירו, רוכב על גבי בהמה וראה את המציאה, But he wasn't an honest shaliach. No, the Gemara learns that he comes back to him and he says, \"Yes, I picked it up for you, but I'm not giving it to you.\" If the din would be that if you pick it up for somebody else, that guy is koneh, so he can't change his mind. The moment you picked it up, it's his. Now it's his, you got to give it to him. So from here we see that if you pick up a metziah for somebody else, You have to give it No, you don't. The case is he said to him, \"Pick it up for me.\" Okay. The guy goes and picks it up and doesn't give it to him. Okay. So, what would be if the guy would say, \"When I picked it up, I had you in mind, but till from when I picked it up till I walked over to you, I changed my mind, I kept it.\" And the din is he's allowed to keep it. Okay. How is he allowed to keep it? It belongs to that guy already. If he picked it up for that person, it belongs to him. It's a re'ayah that when you pick up a metziah for somebody else, it does not work. So, it never became that guy's. If it didn't become his, I can keep it. Now why would we hold that if you pick up a metziah for somebody else, it doesn't work? So the Gemara says, because every time you pick up for somebody else, you are a תופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחרים. You're picking, taking something for somebody else, hurting others, and it doesn't work. And the Gemara says that that's the pshat in this Mishnah. Like in a marriage where you make somebody, it's an assur to everybody else in the world, here you're affecting everybody else. Right, right, right, right. Does that change the status of the shelichut? What? Does that mean he never was really a shaliach in the first place? Why not? He sent him. Yeah, but Did it ever end? Or does it No, he sent him and he did it. He had to fulfill his purpose. He fulfilled it. He said, \"תנה לי, give it to me.\" He didn't give it to him. What? What you mean he didn't give it to him? What what does he mean? He said give this to me, and he didn't give it to him, so so he's not a shaliach. No, no. Okay, you're medayek in the wording. The Gemara isn't medayek. Chiluk Okay, the Gemara gets into that, we will, but let's just The Rosh brings a ראיה from this Mishnah, we'll mention that later. The

Rosh brings a ראיה from this Mishnah: since this Mishnah is a case where he sent him to get it, and it says that he doesn't get it, and the reason is because he's a תופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחרים, and this is a case where he made him a shaliach, is another ראיה, he says, in addition to Tosafot ראיה against Rashi, that if you make a shaliach, it also doesn't work. Then there's a third kashya that Tosafot asks in Gittin. Over there Tosafot also talks about this inyan, and Tosafot also quotes Rashi, that Rashi holds that if you make a shaliach, it's okay, you could be קונה. And Tosafot says, \"I don't understand. When the guy picks up by himself without the other person making him a shaliach, that falls under the category of zechiyah: זכין לאדם שלא בפניו. That you could be zocheh for somebody, the din is you could make a zechut, something good for somebody else without the other person even telling you to do it and without the other person even knowing. So when you run, and you're grabbing for the other person, you're doing zechiyah. We have a rule, Tosafot learns and many, many Rishonim learn, including Rashi, that זכיה מטעם שליחות. That the reason why you could be zocheh for somebody else, that's an extension of the din of shlichut. And the way Rashi puts it, I'll read you Rashi here on י״א ע״ב, where the Gemara says is זכין לאדם שלא בפניו, you could have a zechut for somebody without him knowing, שלא בפניו, שלא מדעתו, because אנן סהדי, we are witnesses, דניחא ליה דליהוי שלוחיה, that he definitely is happy he should be a shaliach. In other words, we're saying if you would come to the guy and ask him, \"Would you want him to be your שליח?\" \"Definitely. If it's a good thing, guy's going to get you a million dollars, surely, if you'd asked me, I sure would have told him.\" So the reason why זכין לאדם שלא בפניו is because of שליחות, because he's a שליח. So Tosafos asks the שאלה, so what is the difference if the guy goes on himself and grabs it, or he makes him the שליח? If the guy goes by himself and grabs it, he's also a שליח. That's זכיה מטעם שליחות! And nevertheless we say it doesn't work. So what will help if the guy makes him a שליח? How could Rashi make this חילוק, say that if you go by yourself when you grab, it doesn't work, but if the guy made you a שליח, it does work? If the guy grabbed by himself, he's also a שליח. That's זכיה מטעם שליחות. Does everyone hold זכיה מטעם שליחות? Well, Tosafos holds, Rashi holds. It's a big מחלוקת. We're going to We might get into it, I don't know, we'll see. What other way is there? זכיה מטעם יד. It's an extension of your hand. It's not שליחות. No, it's not שליחות. But Rashi and Tosafos holds זכייה מטעם שליחות. There's a big difference whether it's זכייה מטעם שליחות or not. נאר בפשטות is whether you could be זוכה for a קטן. You can't be a שליח of a קטן. אין שליחות לקטן. You can't be a שליח of a קטן. How about a יד? How come? What's that? But יד, yes. Yeah, yeah, you could be a יד of a קטן, yeah. Well, the Gemara, there's a whole sugya in next פרק קמא דגיטין. And if זכייה is מטעם שליחות, that means that if you're זוכה for somebody, you are really that person's שליח, so you couldn't do זכייה for a קטן. That means you're a שליח of the katan. But if you hold zechiyah is not מטעם שליחות, and it's a separate din, so you could zechiyah, you can't be a shaliach for a katan, but you could be zocheh for a katan. But Rashi and Tosafot both hold zechiyah is מטעם שליחות. So if you are going to be zocheh for somebody, it's the same thing as becoming a shaliach for somebody. So the kashya is how does Rashi say that to be zocheh for him in this case you can't, and to become a shaliach he could? If you're a shaliach, it does work. That's the kashya. Now the

Ketzos, in one place, wants to say that really Rashi never meant what we think he meant, what Tosafot thinks he meant. He never meant that if the מלוה, the בעל חוב, made him into a shaliach, you could go grab. Why not? What are the words of Rashi? Rashi says you can't go grab מאחר שלא עשה אותו הנושה שליח לתפוס, because the נושה didn't make you into a shaliach. What's נושה? The word נושה is the one with money, the one that's claiming. Huh? The תובע. The תובע, the one that's claiming. So he says, I want to tell you that the word נושה could mean either the תובע or the נתבע. The נושה is a word that interchanges. Sometimes נושה means the person who claims, sometimes נושה means the person who has to give. And he says quotes from Rabbeinu Menachem HaBavli, who writes clearly that the word נושה is also sometimes like someone like this, he gives an example. What's a סוחר? A סוחר. Is it the buyer or the seller? Both. It can be both. Sometimes it's the buyer, sometimes it's the seller. Even though really the word סוחר should mean the seller, because the word סוחר doesn't Why it's called a merchant? סוחר because the word סחור סחור means round. Someone who goes around, peddler, is called a סוחר. That's the guy who goes out, sells merchandise. But the buyer is not a סוחר. Nevertheless, because there are two parts of the deal, the buyer and seller, a seller, sometimes the buyer is called a סוחר. Same thing he says, נושה, even though נושה means the one that's claiming He's borrowing you. Huh? The נושה is the מלוה, the one that lent the money, who's asking for the money, but sometimes נושה could go on the לוה, on the one that lent the money. And that's what Rashi means: because the one that's paying didn't make you a shaliach. Imagine if the one that's paying the debt, he could have paid five people, and he decides to pay one, and he makes you a shaliach, certainly, it's good. That's what Rashi means, that if you learn that נושה means the claimer, so Rashi says because the one that's claiming the money didn't make you a shaliach. A סימן that if the one that's claiming the money would make you a shaliach, would be good. Says, no, he means to say the לוה didn't make you a shaliach. Memila, the whole thing that Tosafot says, that Rashi hold that if the guy with the מלוה would make him a shaliach, it would work, is not true, he says. It's a very hard pshat. Who says this? The Ketzot. Because Rashi says the לשון מאחר שלא עשה אותו הנושה שליח לתפוס. The נושה did not make him into a shaliach to grab. If the word נושה would mean the payer, should have said it: מאחר שלא עשה אותו הנושה שליח לשלם, לפרוע, since the guy didn't make him a shaliach to pay, or to take the payment and bring him. Says, a סימן that Rashi doesn't mean this. So bifshut Who is sending the shaliach here? Who is sending him, according to the Ketzot? No one is sending him. Rashi says because no one is sending him. But who would have been different if he would send? Not the מלוה, not the one that's claiming the money. If the לוה, the one that's supposed to pay, would have sent him, then it would have been good, that's what Rashi means. If the לוה makes him into a shaliach, say, \"Take the money and go bring it to the guy,\" certainly, it would work. So he's turning around, he's saying, but we have no Rashi, no place where Rashi says it, but it doesn't fit to the words. What Rashi says, the נושה didn't make him a שליח לתפוס, to grab. If that means that the לוה didn't make him a shaliach to send, to give, to pay, but not It might be that he he grabbed so the other people couldn't get first. He's not grabbing. He has the money. out of his own pocket. Yeah, he's grabbing it. And Rashi also a few places here says that the reason is because a person on his own can't go and shlep He has Let's look at the Rashi before. He says, כי אדם הבא מאיליו ותופס ממון חבירו בשביל חוב שיש לאחר עליו. Someone goes on his own to grab it. So Rashi keeps on מברר זיין that the problem is because you're going on your on your own, and the guy didn't send you. It's mashma from Rashi that Rashi holds that if you sent the מלוה sent a shaliach he would be good. That's right. The

Shach has a different pshat, also trying to avoid this whole thing. And he says Rashi doesn't mean a regular shaliach. Rashi means if he would have hired him. מן הדין. If the מלוה would have hired the person to go and take for him, then there's a special din called יד פועל כיד בעל הבית. A worker's hand is like the worker, the owner. Had he made him a a a had he hired him, then Rashi holds it would have worked. But just making his plain shaliach doesn't work. And then all the three kushiyot fall off: from Yemar bar Chasu, from the zechiyah, because Rashi also holds like Tosafot that making a shaliach doesn't help. Hiring helps. But the Tumim says that doesn't make, doesn't make sense, but Rashi would have written מאחר שלא שכרו. Why would Rashi write the word he didn't make him a shaliach? He should have since he didn't hire him. See, sometimes you write בקיצור a word, even though you mean, in order to avoid writing a long sentence. Here's the opposite! Rashi could have written it shorter. Could have written מאחר שלא שכרו, didn't hire him. So the Tumim says that the Shach's pshat is hard to say in Rashi, and we're back to square one, that what Rashi means is that if you made him a shaliach it works. The she'eilah is, so we have three kushyos on Rashi. One is from the story of the ship with Yemar bar Chasho, one is from our Mishnah, and then זכיה מטעם שליחות. Now the

first two kushyos, from this from Yemar bar Chasho and here, there are people who answer it. The Pnei Yehoshua answers the kushya. And based a little bit like what you were saying before. He says, if you look at the story of bar Chasho, the guy who sent Yemar bar Chasho to get the ship for him didn't tell him go and be zocheh for me. You go grab it and you should be koneh for me. He said go bring it to me. So I'll be koneh, he never made him into a shaliach. That's not called a shaliach. And in the Mishnah also, it says in the משנה הרוכב על גבי בהמה וראה את המציאה ואמר לחבירו תנה לי. Give it to me. He didn't say, you go pick it up for me and as soon as you pick up you be zocheh for me. He didn't make him a shaliach to be zocheh for him, he just said bring it to me, clearly. And the Gemara is מדייק טאקע: תנה לי ולא אמר זכה לי. And therefore, it's no re'ayah from here against Rashi. But the third kushya, which is how could Rashi make a difference between making a shaliach and not making a shaliach, when even not making a shaliach is zechiyah, and זכיה מטעם שליחות is because of זכין, so even if you don't send a shaliach it's as if you sent a shaliach, so what's the difference if he sent or not when both are the same thing? Because when you go by yourself to be zocheh for somebody, it's זכיה מטעם שליחות. Here comes the Ketzos in another place, and he says I'll explain it.

Rashi does not hold zechiyah is מטעם שליחות. He says it's impossible zechiyah should be מטעם שליחות. Impossible. Yeah, Rashi to Tosafos, he says that it can't be that it should be that way. He's מסביר. He brings a re'aya from the Gemara in דף כ״א ע״ב, from Bava Metzia דף כ״א ע״ב. In Bava Metzia דף כ״א ע״ב is the sugya of יאוש שלא מדעת. Famous sugya that everyone learns when you start learning when you're a child, Gemara, you start יאוש שלא מדעת. What's the case? We know that when a person loses something and he gives up hope, he's mitya'esh, gives up hope, anybody who finds it, it's for him. What happens if you find it before the person realized that he lost it, but he wasn't mitya'esh yet, so he wasn't mitya'esh yet because he doesn't know he lost it? It's a case, let's say, where when he finds out he lost it, he will be mitya'esh. למשל, something that has no siman, and we have a rule, something that has no siman we assume the moment the person realizes he lost it he gives up hope because he knows he'll never get it back, he has no siman. So it's something that has no siman, but when the guy found it, he had never known, he didn't know he lost it yet. Later he found out he lost it and he was mitya'esh. But the guy who found it, at the time when he found it he hadn't given up hope yet. Can he keep it or not? Machloket Abaye veRava.

Abaye says יאוש שלא מדעת לא הוי יאוש. It doesn't work. And Rava says יאוש שלא מדעת הוי יאוש, because when he it's something that had he known he would have been mitya'esh, and the fact is later when he finds he is mitya'esh, so the fact that he when you picked it up he didn't know yet doesn't matter, and it is ye'ush. Comes Rava, or somebody asks a kushya on Abaye. Kushya on Abaye is from a beraita. It says in the beraita that it's possible that if a person takes off terumah for somebody else, I come take off terumah from your produce for somebody else, the terumah is terumah. And the beraita continues, but that's only in a case like this: if the owner comes home and notices that you took off terumah, and he turns around to you and says, \"Took off terumah? Why did you took this? Should have taken the better fruit and give it for terumah.\" Now you go and check. If there are, is the takeh better fruit, then you know he's serious. Then a siman he agrees to what you did, the terumah is terumah. If you go and you see there's no better fruit, so what he meant was he was sarcastic. Yeah, what did you do? You couldn't take better?! Then the terumah is not terumah. That's the beraisa. So the Gemara says over here like this: The פועל who see that even though when he took off the terumah, the guy didn't know yet, yeah? Nevertheless, when he, the owner didn't know, when he finds out and he agrees, the terumah is terumah. So

why shouldn't the same thing be by ye'ush? That when you find out, now that you picked it up and the guy later finds out that he that he lost it, he will be meya'esh, so then it should work just like it works by the terumah, like terumah. Does it work lemafre'a? Huh? Yeah, yeah, sure. So by a terumah you just pashut don't know if he's if he's happy or not, but here we know for sure. Does it work lemafre'a? Yeah, yeah, yeah. But this is what the Gemara brings that re'ayah, just like by terumah, that because had he known at the time he would have agreed. How do you know? Because you see he agrees now. He would have agreed, it would have been terumah, so now that he didn't know it's still good, just as good, and it's terumah. So ye'ush, same thing. So Rava asks, the Gemara asks on Abaye, why, how could you say יאוש שלא מדעת לא הוי יאוש? Comes Rava, who is Abaye's opponent, and he says, I could answer the kashya on Abaye, it's not a kashya. The case in the beraisa there is where he made him a shaliach. The only problem was that he didn't tell him which fruit to take off from, and then we're afraid maybe when he took off the better fruit, maybe that guy, that's not what he meant. And that's why we have to test him out to see. But the case over there is the only way it's terumah is because he asked him beforehand to make him a shaliach. And the Gemara continues, it says, הכא נמי מסתברא, that's the only way it'll work, because by a shaliach there's a din, we learn it off from a פסוק, מה אתם גם אתם, that just like you, when you do something, you have your da'at, you know it, so too your shaliach has to be that you should know it. And if you didn't, if the case would be that you didn't make a shaliach, it's impossible the terumah should work. There's no such thing as somebody doing something for you without you knowing, he cannot be your shaliach without your da'at. That's the Gemara. So

what do we see from that Gemara clearly? You cannot be a shaliach without someone's daat. So how in the world can we say zechiyah mi-taam shelichut? That why does zechiyah work? Because had he asked him he would have definitely said yes, so mimela shaliach. There we see clearly that shelichut you have you can't be a shaliach without daat. This is zechiyah is if you're going to say it's shelichut, it's shelichut without daat. So comes therefore the Ketzot says, it's impossible שיהיה זכיה מטעם שליחות. Zechiyah, he says, is really mi-taam yad. What does it mean mi-taam yad? It's kind of an extension of the person's hand. Well, but what does that how does that work? Because we have a pasuk where it says your hand works, so somebody is doing it for you, it's not that he is becoming your shaliach, it's as if you're doing it yourself, whatever, it's nothing to get here. It's a very small nuance, I guess. And he says even if you hold zechiyah mi-taam shelichut, it's not a regular type of shelichut. It's a gezeirat hakatuv, it's not a peshat that we it's not because anan sahadi we are anan sahadi means that pashut we are so sure that you would have said yes that it's as if you said already yes. That's not the reason. It's a Torah'dike din that zechiyah works. Mimela he says, if it's a Torah'dike din that it's not a regular din in shelichut, we could understand Rashi why Rashi makes a difference between zechiyah and shelichut. If he sent the guy as a shaliach to grab the money, it works. But zechiyah, which is not like the guy not a real shelichut, so therefore there it doesn't work.

What was Tosafot whole kashya? That why could Rashi make a difference between sending a shaliach and not sending a shaliach? When you don't send a shaliach and it's zechiyah, it's as if you sent a shaliach. Says, no. It's not as if you sent a shaliach. It's a special din of zechiyah, and therefore zechiyah takeh does not work, Rashi holds, shlichut will work. The problem with this pshat of the Ketzot is that Rashi does say clearly in two places that the ta'am, concept of zechiyah is because anan sahadi. I quoted the Rashi before here. Anan sahadi, we are edim. Anan sahadi means we are edim, we basically testify, we are sure דניחא ליה דליהוי שלוחיה, that he's sure he wants him to be a shaliach. So obviously, we can't say Rashi doesn't hold, that holds that zechiyah is not because of shlichut. So we're back to the point that Rashi holds zechiyah is מטעם שליחות. So then we're back to Tosafot kashya. So what's the chiluk between making a shaliach and not? Ay, the Ketzot has a re'ayah from the case of יאוש שלא מדעת, that you can't be a shaliach if the guy doesn't know, so how could you say זכיה מטעם שליחות? So the Chatam Sofer answers that kashya very simply: anan sahadi is stronger than regular. If it's a case where we are so sure, then it takeh works. Even by ye'ush we find such a din. Even Abaye who holds יאוש שלא מדעת לא הוי יאוש, if it's anan sahadi, if we're so sure that you would have been me'ya'esh, not just like there is no siman, the Gemara says clearly זוטו של ים, the Gemara says if the yam overflows and the guy doesn't even know that it ever happened, he's someplace other world, side of the world, and things are swept away and you find it, you're allowed to keep it, because we're sure he's me'ya'esh. Ai, the Gemara says that it's יאוש שלא מדעת? This case is different. Why is it different? Because we're so sure, אנן סהדי, for sure he'd be מייאש. Oh, so we see that even by יאוש we find the concept of אנן סהדי. So that's exactly by זכיה also. Since it's אנן סהדי, we are so sure, so you could be a שליח. without the guy knowing. So we're back to the point that זכיה is מטעם שליחות, and it's a regular case of שליחות, seemingly. And nevertheless, Rashi says that by the case of זכיה then if you say if you come to rent it doesn't help, mah she'ein kein the case of שליחות it does. And the קשיא on Rashi is off. No. Oh, the קשיא on Rashi, how could you talk about זכיה where you don't מטעם שליחות? Yeah, the קשיא, how that's what from Yerushalmi, that's his answer. But then this קשיא comes. So זכיה, שליחות is the same, so how come...? How come here שליחות works and זכיה doesn't? בכלל we have to understand what is the יסוד or what is the מחלוקת Rashi and Tosafos? You see here, see Tosafos has a ראיה from the word זכיה. But what is the logic why Tosafos holds that שליחות does not help, and Rashi holds that שליחות does help? Besides, there's another שאלה here, on Tosafos this time. According to Tosafos, if you send a guy to be a שליח to take away the thing, it doesn't help. Why doesn't it work? Because you're חב לאחריני, because you're ruining it for others. Where do we find that ruining it for others is a contradiction to becoming a שליח? On some level, you're always ruining it for others. Not always, but I'll give you an example. The classical case of שליחות is when you send a שליח to be mekadesh an ishah. Isn't it חב לאחריני? He ruins it for the rest of the world. When you send an ishah a shaliach to be megareish an ishah, to divorce a woman, it's hurting the other hand. No, not to him, he could marry her back, but to kohanim. Tell you even, in any case, in any case. Now, tell you even more. If you send a shaliach to steal for you, why doesn't it work? אין שליח לדבר עבירה. Yes. You can't make a שליח לדבר עבירה. Why אין שליח לדבר עבירה? So it says because דברי הרב ודברי התלמיד, דברי מי שומעין? Hashem said, \"Don't do it.\" How could you be a shaliach? That's the reason. Why do we need that reason? Why can't you say, very simple, it's חב לאחריני, you're making a shaliach to steal from him. If shelichus doesn't work when you're hurting somebody else, so by geneivah shelichus shouldn't work. Not because it's אין שליח לדבר עבירה, because you're hurting somebody else. Tell you even more. The Gemara says in Kiddushin that there are exceptions to the rule of אין שליח לדבר עבירה. Certain cases you could make a שליח לדבר עבירה, like טביחה ומכירה, the Gemara has a pasuk. טביחה ומכירה means when someone steals an ox or a sheep, and he shochets it, or he sells it, you don't pay double, you pay four times as much and five times as much. There we have a special pasuk that if you don't do it yourself, but you send a shaliach, you are responsible because he is your shaliach and he did it for you, and shelichus works even though it's an aveirah. How could shelichus work? It's חב לאחריני! You're hurting, you're you're selling that guy's thing, you're you're shocheting it! So we see shelichus works with חב לאחריני! Yeah, that's sort of like it's a different type of shelichus. No, it's not. Clearly not. It's a real din of shelichus. It is a real din of shelichus, but the reason why is for a different reason, because you're having a guy... Otherwise anytime I wanted to do something bad, I have somebody else do it and I'd be patur. But the guy doesn't know that it's stolen. He doesn't know it's stolen. He's a תם. I'm saying that if making a shaliach, which affects others, hurts others, that shelichus doesn't work, how could you make a shaliach to steal, and the shlichut would work? The psak, it doesn't work, but we're giving a different reason, not because shlichut doesn't work, because we learn out from a limud of אין שליח לדבר עבירה. And by the case of טביחה ומכירה, it דקא works! The pshat is you're making a shaliach to shochet somebody's thing. Can't we say that the Torah puts it puts it on you like we said? No, we say that's not an exception. We say it's an exception to the rule of אין שליח לדבר עבירה. Right, why? Because it's a pasuk. Yeah. So the aveirah part doesn't matter. But we should worry about the other part, it's חב לאחריני, it wouldn't be an aveirah. It's חב לאחריני, you're hurting somebody else, and shlichut doesn't work. Obviously it's not true! If if you do something yourself, and you send a shaliach, שלוחו של אדם כמותו, it works! So even if it's חב לאחריני it works! Over there it doesn't work because it's it's an aveirah. But חב לאחריני, hurting somebody, there's no problem. So why would Tosafot say that if you send a shaliach to grab, because it's hurting somebody else, it doesn't work? Now, at first glance, some people want to say that the machloket between Rashi and Tosafot is based on the chakirah by shlichut. You know there's a chakirah by shlichut, the famous, famous chakirah that the Rebbe has in many, many sichot, brings from Rabbi Yosef Engel, the three ways you're able to learn shlichut. The rule is שלוחו של אדם כמותו, a shaliach is like you. So one way to learn, he's mamash like you, the shaliach becomes you. Therefore, when he does it, really you did it. Another way is shlichut, the pshat, he's not you, but his action is as if you did it. All right, nafka mina's, all kind of nafka mina's. But the third way is that it's be'emet not even the ma'aseh that you did it for him. You did it, shaliach did it, but not the meshaleach. The Torah was mechadesh that when the shaliach does it, it works for the meshaleach. And he brings all kinds of... So lichorah you could say, and some people say think to say this, that Rashi learned שלוחו של אדם כמותו means mamash. So just like he himself, if he would come and grab, he could take it. So if he makes a shaliach, it works. מה שאין כן תוספות learns shelucho is not mamash. So he himself could do it, but to send a shaliach, that you can't, because it's not really like him. But it doesn't make any sense, because why over here it wouldn't work, but every case it work, it would work. By by kiddushin, don't you have to be mekadesh an אשה yourself? And nevertheless shelichus works? Even according to those that hold that shelichus is not ממש כמותו? And by gerushin it works, so why wouldn't it work here? Whatever it is, whichever way we say shelichus, but there is a din that the shelichus works. So why shouldn't it work? That ביאור doesn't make sense to say it. But I want to say a different ביאור, connected to this chakirah. There's another חקירה בנוגע שליחות, which is be'emes connected to this chakirah. We'll see, it's not made up, it doesn't have to be, but it's mistaber, it makes sense. And that is whether when you make a shaliach, is the מינוי השליחות, the establishment of the the setting him up as a shaliach, is that a פעולה נמשכת or not? Does Is the pshat that every second, it's as if you know, I'm making you a shaliach and it renews itself every second till finally it comes the last second when you're about to do it, it renews itself again and then you do it, or it's a one time thing? I make you a shaliach, now you're like me. How you going to do the ma'aseh two weeks from now? Now you became like me or whatever, so now you go ahead and do it, and it's not a פעולה נמשכת. The reason why there would even be a sevara for it to be a פעולה נמשכת, so I explained a few times, when do we bichlal say that something is a פעולה נמשכת? When the thing that's happening is against nature. So then you have to constantly hold it up. Now for you to become me, or you should what you do should work for me is, I'm supposed to do it, you're doing it, so the Torah is mechadesh. So you can say it's a פעולה נמשכת. On the other hand, you don't have to say it, maybe the Torah made a din in it. So there are two ways to learn. I want to say that these two sides are connected, these two these two sides are connected to the previous chakirah. Cuz if you hold that when I make you a shaliach, the shaliach becomes mamash the משלח, it makes sense to say, I made you into a shaliach, now you're me. Why do I have to renew it? Now you're me. Now when you go ahead and do it, I did it. If you hold that it's not mamash like me, ela mai your maaseh will be related to me, so till it gets to the maaseh is a while. So then it's constantly has to happen. So when it comes, then you I'm making you a shaliach. But if I learn if you say it's mamash you become like me, it should not be a פעולה נמשכת. Where do we see like a difference if it's a פעולה נמשכת or not? So, the famous machloket between the Rambam and the Tur, this I mentioned many times. When a a shaliach sends a person to give a get to his wife, and before the shaliach managed to get to give the גט, נשתטה המשלח, and the משלח became abnormal, you're not normal. Can he still give the get? So the din is you can't give the get, but if he gave the get is she מגורשת? So the Rambam says mid'rabbanan she's not, but mid'oraita she is. He's still a shaliach, and the get is a get. The Tur says, no, she's not מגורשת at all. What's their machloket? The machloket is very pashut. According to the Rambam, we'll say it's not a פעולה נמשכת. When he made him a shaliach, that's when he became him. At that time, he was normal. Now, Shimon is Reuven. So, and Shimon is normal, so Shimon could go and give the get. Ai Reuven became abnormal? Who cares, Shimon became Reuven. If you hold it's a פעולה נמשכת, that means that the reason Shimon is able to give the get is not because of what he did two weeks ago, every second he makes him again into a shaliach. When he became a שוטה, now a שוטה can't make a shaliach. So since a week later he became a שוטה, he can't be a shaliach. But if you hold it's not a פעולה נמשכת, it's no problem. Then one could ask a sheilah, so how come this din should be, what happens if the משלח died in the middle? Could you still give the get? According to the first one, you should. But then there's no possibility. Why? Because it's not a it's not There's nothing there's no person Oh, there's nobody from whom to divorce! Divorce, it's not There's no person, there's no husband. Not because the shlichut is not. There are two things, there is really a shaliach and then from whom you divorce. If the shaliach the משלח becomes a שוטה, he's still the husband. The problem would be is the shlichut possible to be? So well, since when he made you the shaliach he was normal, so the shlichut is possible, so he's he's מגרש from the husband. To sell something, in that way. Yeah, but then there's an estate. Yeah, for that. What? In terms of the shaliach, that's what I'm saying. If the guy dies by When he's trying to sell something. If you make an agreement, you're bound. The estate is bound. The estate is bound, the children are bound by the agreement that the father makes. Even if he died right after he signed the contract or before it was delivered, the contract is bound in halacha, too. Yeah. It's not the same. מטלטלי דיתמי לא משתעבדי. But the estate that continues. But the קרקע, yeah... מטלטלי maybe, מטלטלי בתקנת. Why? Why not? except that he was already dead? He can say, if it's if it's him, then if the if the shaliach was made and and he's now the the בעל, the fact that the other, the real בעל dies He's not the בעל. He's the one that's doing the מעשה. But that's one of the No, the word if the בעל he's the משלח, meaning לגבי the מעשה the the משלח is doing the מעשה. But he doesn't become the husband. Same thing he doesn't become the seller. He's not the seller. He when the sale takes place, it's as if the guy himself is doing it from who? From himself, from the original guy, but if the guy is not there so there's no seller anymore. Same way there is no husband. He he doesn't accomplish the מעשה, it's just and goes and does do something else. The shlichut is not shlichut anymore. He doesn't he doesn't represent It's only in the קנין, doesn't it? In everything. In everything? No. No, only the מעשה. In the מעשה has to be accomplished. Right. If the maaseh is not done there's no shlichus here. Sure. So it comes out, I just want to bring this as an example, that we find two ways of looking at making a shaliach. Okay? Now what I want to say is like this: that these two ways, whether it's a פעולה נמשכת or not, is a this this is the machlokes between Rashi and Tosafos. Because if מינוי, if making a shaliach is not a פעולה נמשכת, there is a big difference between zechiyah and shlichus. Now, what do I mean? When you make a shaliach a week before the maaseh and the guy a week later does it, when did the shlichus take place? A week before. By zechiyah, when, let's say זכייה מטעם שליחות When he grabs it. Only when he does the maaseh. There was no מינוי, he didn't appoint him to do anything, there's no shlichus before, so the whole shlichus starts only at the time when you are doing the maaseh, while if you make a real shaliach, it starts from before. So as much as we could learn זכייה מטעם שליחות, there is still a difference in peshat where it starts. Therefore, when you make when he makes him the shaliach to go grab, he doesn't care whether it hurt somebody or not, that's not part of shlichus. The

fact that somebody else will get hurt, that's not a reality now. Making him into a shaliach is a reality. So therefore it will come out like this: when you make the guy into a shaliach, what's actually taking place here if it's not a פעולה נמשכת? You're making him into a shaliach to do this maaseh. There is no חב לאחרינא, there's no חב hurting somebody else now. So therefore you can make him into a shaliach and finished. Now when it comes later to do the maaseh, since you became the משלח, in this case had the משלח come himself and take it, would we care if it hurt somebody else? No, because that's the din. So now that you are like him from before, it doesn't make a difference here either. But when you are going to do zechiyah, what's the peshat? When you're going to be זוכה for him, the shlichus is going to start at the moment you're doing the maaseh. When you're doing the maaseh, the חב לאחרים is a reality. So the חב לאחרים pushes away the ability for you to do it. What does Tosafos kashya? What's the difference between zechiya and shlichus? Why is it that if you come and grab we say you can't do it. Rashi said, \"But if you make a shaliach before, you could do it.\" What's the difference?

When you're grabbing, it's also like a shaliach. Because there he's tofes like a shaliach, but the shlichus starts at that same time when there is a חב לאחרים. So the חב לאחרים does not allow the shlichus to be chal. But if you do it before, then the shlichus is chal before and now the חב לאחרים is no problem. But that's only how Rashi learns. That's only if you hold that it's not a That's not a פעולה נמשכת. Tosafos is going to learn that it is a פעולה נמשכת. And therefore according to Tosafos, what's the difference between being making a shaliach and zechiya? When you make a shaliach, when does the shlichus start really? Could not from when he made him, because that didn't do it. The next second again, this still didn't do it. The last second when he's going to grab, that's when this shlichus really is taking effect. And by zechiya, they both take effect the same time. So he says, \"So what's the difference between zechiya and shlichus?\" And if you say that you can't do it by zechiya, you can't do it by shlichus either. And the reason makes sense, because it's חב לאחרינא, it's hurting others and therefore you can't do it. Ee, we ask the she'eilah, where do we find that hurting others is a stirah to shlichus? So, hurting others, there's two things.

When you go to hurt somebody else, you have to become also the shaliach of that person. Not hurt, not the word hurt, I'm sorry. If you're going to take away something from somebody else, besides you being a shaliach of this person, you have to be a shaliach of that person, too. The person you're taking it from? Yeah, because you're doing something for him, bad thing. So if he makes you a shaliach, it's good, but you can't do it on your own because אין חבין לאדם שלא בפניו. You can't hurt somebody without being his shaliach. And therefore over there, חב לאחרינא is a stirah to be shlichus. But that's only if the shlichus starts with the חב לאחרינא same time. And that's the difference between these two cases. By... What does it mean he tofes for someone else? He was supposed to give it to this guy, and instead he gave it to this guy? How about if... Avadai? Exactly. No, he won't. Obviously he won't, and therefore you can't do it. You can't do something for somebody else unless he tells you to do it. By good you could, by bad not. So here there is somebody else here is involved that you are taking away from him. Since you're taking it away from him, you can only take away something from somebody else if he made you a shaliach to take it away. He didn't make you This guy made you a shaliach to be zocheh. So if he made you a shaliach before when there was no חב לאחריני in place yet, and the din is that this guy himself could do it, so the shaliach could also do it because he became this guy became that guy. But if the shlichut is l'chatchilah happening, starting to happen when there is somebody else there, you have to be a shaliach from both people. And since the other guy didn't make you a shaliach, it doesn't work. And if it doesn't work, that's why here חב לאחריני is a setirah. That answers the other kashya: where do we find חב לאחריני is a setirah to shlichut? In the case of דרמינהו, those cases are different. Here it would be a setirah, but it's only a setirah to the time when the shlichut starts. And when you make a shaliach, the shlichut started before. And that's the difference between Rashi and Tosafot. The guy that you're taking away from would be hurting himself if he he's doing the best like the Baal Chov that he could not pay. No, he could make. Because it's he hurts himself. Now I'm hurting You could make a aveirah to to take my thing and throw make a shaliach throw it in the garbage. But on your own you can't do it. But al kol panim from here it comes out so here we see the difference between Rashi and Tosafot. The other kashyot of Tosafot asks from the איבעיא בגיטין we answered already. The kashya from דרמינהו is answered. The whole kashya was only from zechiyah. So, and we asked it, the whole kashya was based on the fact that Rashi holds zechiyah and shlichut is the same thing. So as

much as Rashi holds zechiyah and shlichut are the same thing, but there is one difference in where it starts, whether it starts at the time of the maaseh or before. And based on that will be the chiluk. Does Rashi Well, about this about Does everybody hold that you need to have shlichus to take away from somebody, or is that just specific to cases? Is everybody Is that a universal law? That you're not shlichus cuz you have to you need to do something bad to hurt you, I have to be your shaliach? Well, what right do you have to do it? But what does that have to do with having to be a shaliach? Just using as I'm I'm saying to be shaliach you can't do it, that's all. If there's somebody else involved, you can't do it. Unless the guy would have made you a shaliach. That's what I'm saying, I don't mean shaliach. You can't do to somebody I could do something for you, but if it means taking it away from him, you can't do it for him. Now had he made you a shaliach, good. He said, okay take I don't care, take away from me, or pay him. And what about like מקדש אשה? Here, you're you're you're making her asur to everybody. No. Depends according to Rashi According to Rashi, there's no problem. Because when you make the shaliach, there's no חב לאחריני in place yet. Right, so according to that, but according Yeah, according to Tosefos, I'll tell you why. Because there the other people you're not taking away from them, all you're doing is taking away their ability their possibility, but they're not involved. They're not part of it. Mah she'ein kein over here this case, the other בעלי חובות have a שעבוד here. They have money here, and you're taking away their money. And the same thing in our Mishnah with the מציאה, the other people according to a sevara al kol panim if הפקר belongs to everybody, it actually belongs to everybody, and you are taking it away. Taking away, you can't take away from somebody. But in the case of there, they're not involved. They have to have a stake. Yeah, you have to have something there like in this case it would be a שעבוד. So what is the what is the distinction for that? If you say it's בשעת מעשה? Yeah. Right, everybody agrees it's שעת מעשה. So what if the shlichus's done? You're stuck in that. Whichever way you learn, lemaaseh there's no difference. And if he becomes like you now only לגבי that maaseh, he doesn't become like you. He becomes only to do a maaseh, that maaseh is not being done yet. So lefoel makes no difference. It's still not נוגע till the last minute. The difference will be in this case: can you do it if it's חב לאחריני? Give two differences between the הלכות of a שור תם and a שור מועד. So, what's a שור מועד?