Here in בבא קמא דף ד עמוד ב, we're at ה עמוד א. We're going to really have to go through a whole bunch of Gemara in order to get to the inyan that we want to talk about. We know that in the Mishnah it said ארבעה אבות נזיקין. There are four אבות נזיקין, four categories of damages that Torah tells us they have to pay. So here the Gemara says תני רבי אושעיא יש שלש עשרה אבות נזיקין. Rabbi Oshaya says there are 13 categories. And then afterwards it says תני רבי חייא, Rabbi Chiya said there are עשרים וארבעה אבות נזיקין, there are 24 categories. And there are certain things that Rabbi Oshaya adds that the Tanna of the Mishnah did not say. Obviously the Tanna of the Mishnah only counts four, he counts 13, so there is nine more that he counts that the Tanna didn't count. And then comes Rabbi Chiya and counts 24, which means he counts another 11 that that Rabbi Oshaya didn't count. Did the Tanna of the Mishnah count these others as toladot? No, he agrees to the din, he just doesn't count them in the same category. You might call them toladot, they're chayav and they have the same din, but they're not in the same grouping. And the Gemara explains what is it that the Tanna does not why the Tanna does not count these things that Rabbi Oshaya does, and why is it that Rabbi Oshaya does not count these things that Rabbi Chiya does? And then the Gemara continues later on that there are certain things even Rabbi Chiya doesn't count. Now again, they agree to the din, and they just don't feel that they all belong to the same grouping. And not to go to the details of the Gemara because this is pretty much a whole דף גמרא here, but the Gemara basically what the Gemara says is like this, that one of the differences between the Tanna and Rabbi Oshaya, we'll go step by step here, is that that Rabbi Oshaya counts אדם, תרי גווני דאדם, אדם דאזיק אדם, אדם דאזיק שור. He counts amongst the אבות נזיקין is adam. If a person damages, he's also one of them. Now there are two categories of adam. There's a category of an אדם, a person, damaging another person, and there's a person damaging someone else's property. Now the Tanna of our Mishnah does not count them as two separate ones, and that's why he doesn't mention some of the things that Rabbi Oshaya does, while Rabbi Oshaya does count it. Yeah, and that's why he has more. Then the

Gemara says again, and I'm not even going to go through what they are, the Gemara says again another thing, the Tanna of the Mishnah only counts those damages that's done if you did an act to do the damage. But a damage that happens without an act, not an action, just passive I guess would be the word, then the Tanna doesn't count it and Rabbi Oshaya does. For instance, Rabbi Oshaya just to use as an example, Rabbi Oshaya counts a shomer. Someone watched someone's object and it got lost, and you have to pay. The Tanna doesn't count that. Why? Because even though it's like a it's a damage and you have to pay, but it's it's done mimeila, not b'yadayim if that's what you mean. And Rabbi Oshaya doesn't mind, he counts that, too. Then the Gemara continues that Rabbi Oshaya does not count also from Rabbi Chiya because the Gemara continues that Rabbi Chiya, there's some of the things that he counts is kenas, is only a fine, not mamon, it's not money that you pay. And Rabbi Oshaya only counts those things which are mamon, which you pay because you are obligated to pay because of the damage you did. But things which are only kenas, he doesn't count. And then the Gemara says another thing here, that Rabbi Oshaya doesn't count היזקא דלא מינכרא, if it's a damage that's not recognizable. Because amongst the things that Rabbi Chiya counts are המטמא והמדמע והמנסך. And this I'm going to mention because this is going to be נוגע to the ענין. If

someone makes someone else's תרומה טמא, there's a damage there. תרומה that's טמא is worthless. He had תרומה worth $100, he made it טמא. מדמע, someone takes someone's תרומה and mixes into my food, I have חולין, regular food. Now תרומה is much cheaper than regular because תרומה has much less people who can eat it. So there's much smaller demand for it, so you charge much less for it. So if someone mixed in תרומה into my חולין, now my and there's not enough to be מבטל it, so now all my food becomes terumah. So it goes down in value, so there's a damage. Menasech, menasech is someone who pours wine for avodah zarah. So someone takes my wine and pours it for avodah zarah. The wine is asur. But all of these three are היזקא דלא מינכרא. These are damages that you can't tell. Every other damage we talk about, you could see. He broke something, he ate something, he did This is a damage, you look at the thing, the food looks exactly like it did before, nothing, you made it tamei. You can't see. Same thing with medame'a. So Rabbi Chiya, he mentions even היזקא דלא מינכרא, a damage that you cannot see, while the tanna, while I mean Rabbi Oshaya, doesn't mention that. Which wine is asur? The wine that you poured or the one that you poured from? We'll see, we're gonna mainly we're gonna talk about menasech, so we're gonna get to that. Then the Gemara says that even Rabbi, even Rabbi Chiya who counts all twenty-four, there is something he doesn't count.

Two things he doesn't count which could have been mentioned and he doesn't: מוסר ומפגל. מוסר is a מוסר, somebody who who informs about a Yid's property to government, to to another goy, and because of that they came and took it away, so he caused the damage, and he doesn't mention it. It's not mentioned in his twenty-four. And another thing, מפגל. If someone makes, a kohen is makriv a korban that belongs to a Yid and makes it פיגול, and פיגול makes it pasul. I'll explain and we'll get to that also. So, he doesn't count that either. And the Gemara says why doesn't he count it? Because there are certain things even he doesn't count. The Gemara says מוסר, he doesn't count מוסר, an informer, because בדיבורא לא קא מיירי. He doesn't talk about things which the damage was done through dibur, through speaking, only if it's done through an act. And this is another category. And why doesn't he talk מפגל? Because בקדשים לא קא מיירי. We're not talking about kodashim. It's a different category. Things that have to do with kodashim with korbanot is a different thing, we're talking about This is basically mamash a synopsis so in short of the Gemara. I didn't even tell you what the Gemara which are the which are the cases, but because it's going to take too long, but I only mentioned these because that's what we need today. I mentioned the three that Rabbi Chiya mentions that Rabbi Oshaya doesn't, which is מטמא, מדמע, מנסך. Again, metamei means if you make his תרומה טמא, מדמע is you mix תרומה into חולין, and מנסך is יין נסך. That Rabbi Chiya mentions, Rabbi Oshaia doesn't, and then even Rabbi Chiya does not mention these two for the two reasons given in the Gemara. Now, when it comes to Rashi, what Rashi explains מנסך, מנסך. Now, this, these three cases of מטמא, מדמע, מנסך are mentioned in the Mishnah in Gittin, that if you do this to someone else you are חייב. And in the Gemara in Gittin, that's דף נ״ב עמוד ב or נ״ג, there's a machloket in the Gemara what מנסך means. There's two possibilities, the Gemara says. One possibility, one peshat is מנסך means the Gemara uses the לשון, מנסך ממש. Pashut, מנסך means to pour. You take someone's bottle of wine and you pour it for עבודה זרה, and the bottle the wine could come back into the bottle, so you still have the same bottle of wine, but now it's אסור בהנאה, it's עבודה זרה. That's the damage. Another מאן דאמר says that what is the case of מנסך? מערב, he mixes. If someone takes a little bit of יין נסך and pours it in into my bottle of kosher wine, now the whole bottle is טרפה. So, he also ruined my wine. That's what מנסך is. So, again, there is one מאן דאמר that says in the Gemara, מנסך is מנסך ממש, pashut simple taytsh, מנסך is pouring, and the other one is מערב. And the Gemara says what is the reason of the one that says מערב? Why doesn't he hold מנסך means no, reverse, why does he say מנסך ממש? What's wrong if it's מערב? Why do we have to come on to say he pours, why can't you say he mixes it? So, the Gemara says you know why? Cuz he claims if it would be מערב, mixing, then it's exactly the same thing as מדמע. What's מדמע? You mixed תרומה into חולין, וממילא now everything became תרומה. The same thing, you took someone's wine, the טרפה wine, you mixed it into my kosher, now the whole thing becomes טרפה. So, it's the same thing, why would there be two two separate דינים? That's why he claims it's a different category, it's מנסך ממש. This is the Gemara there. And actually Tosafot brings here very short on the words of the Gemara, מנסך, so Tosafot says that in פרק הניזקין, in Gittin, there's a machloket. חד אמר מנסך ממש, one says it means mamash pouring, וחד אמר מערב, one says it's mixing. Rashi, when he says במנסך, he says מנסך את היין, when it says in the in the Gemara here by Rabbi Chiya when he poured the wine, ליכא למימר שנשכו ביין נסך שזרק בו, you can't say it means that he poured יין נסך into it, he mixed יין נסך into my wine, you can't say that. Why? דהא לא קא מחסר ליה ולא מידי, because then he's not missing anything, there's no damage here. Why? דהא מזבין ליה לגוי בר מדמי יין נסך שבו, because you could sell it without charging for the value of the יין נסך. Let's give an example: If I had 10 gallons of kosher wine, someone else came and took a gallon of יין נסך, poured it into my bottle. Now, I can't drink it. Well, why can't I sell it to a goy? A goy is allowed to drink it. The only thing is I can't have hana'ah from it. But there's only one gallon of יין נסך here. So, what I have to do is I have to sell the 11 gallons now for the price of 10. But my 10, I'm getting my money back. Not in a separate bottle? What do you mean? No, in the same bottle. But some If my Now I have I had a big jar, I had 10 gallons, now he mixed in 1 gallon of יין נסך. It's all the same wine. It's all יין נסך. So, to drink it, I can't, because it's all יין נסך. What about selling it? I can't sell it because it's אסור בהנאה. But only one gallon of it is אסור בהנאה, but it's all mixed. Yeah. So we don't know, so therefore I sell a goy the eleven gallons, and charge him for ten. So I didn't gain anything from the value of the יין נסך, so I have no hana'ah from the יין נסך. Doesn't part wine and straight wine cost the same? What do you mean? One sec... we'll get into that in one second. You got the... but this is what Rashi says. So Rashi says that the reason we can't learn מנסך means mixing, so he says because there's no damage. Because if he mixed it in, you sell it, discounting the amount of money that extra יין נסך is worth, and you get your money back. That's the reason. Now the

Maharsha here asks a kashya on Rashi. He doesn't specify, but it seems like he's asking two kashyos, and then gives an answer. Two kashyos are like this, he doesn't even make it like one, two. One kashya is, why doesn't Rashi give the same reason that the Gemara gives in in Gittin? If Rashi wants to explain why it has to mean pouring mamash and not mixing, the Gemara over there gives a reason why, because then it would be the same thing as מדמע. Why does Rashi give his own reason? What's wrong with the reason the Gemara gives? Usually, if the Gemara says something, you don't give your own things, the Gemara says. So why does Rashi give that reason? Rashi should have said that מנסך means מנסך ממש, doesn't mean mixing. Why? Because if so, היינו מדמע, it's the same thing as מדמע. Rashi doesn't say, Rashi gives a different reason, because there is no damage. And then another she'elah: why bichlal does Rashi come here in this Gemara to pasken like one of the opinions? Why, where do we see from this Gemara that it goes according to that one opinion? In the Gemara in Gittin, it says two opinions. Rashi should have said the same thing here. What does מנסך mean? Look up in Gittin, and you'll see that there are two opinions, exactly what Tosafos did! Tosafos says מנסך, פליגי בה... Look, it's a machloket in the Gemara. One says מנסך ממש, one says מערב. He brings both! Why is Rashi only interested here, as if Rashi has some kind of re'ayah that our Gemara, for some reason, has to go according to one opinion? Why? So basically there are two kashyos here. One is, why does Rashi get involved with this bichlal, to pasken like one? Let him say both! The other one, even if for some reason he wants to say that it must mean מנסך ממש, why doesn't he prove it the same way the Gemara over there proves it? Why does he prove it differently? And the Maharsha answers that, I'll tell you that Rashi means exactly what the Gemara says over there. Rashi takeh means that. What, how does Rashi mean it? Because when you mix it, what happens is, Rashi says, it seems like Rashi says there's no loss, so he says, no, there is a loss. Why? Because you'll have to sell it cheaper. Like you said, treifah wine is cheaper. So you'll sell it cheaper, so there is a loss of lowering the price. And that is exactly like מדמע. By מדמע, when you mix it with terumah, it's not a loss, you don't have to throw it away, it's just cheaper. So when Rashi gives the reason why מנסך must cannot mean mixing, because there is no loss, he means what the Gemara says there: since there is no real loss, there's only a small loss, like מדמע, and that's why it can't mean, because it's מדמע. It's very hard to say that this is what Rashi said when Rashi skipped the main thing. Rashi just says there's no loss, he doesn't say the main thing. Besides, the second question is not answered. So why is it important to mention here the reason that this one is right? Why mention it? And besides, there's another kashya: who says he has to sell it cheaper? Meiri asks a kashya, not on the Maharsha obviously, because he was before the Maharsha, but he asks a kashya: why is it sold cheaper? Why does he have to tell the goy that there is יין נסך there? He

could come to a goy, and tell the goy, \"Here, I have eleven gallons of wine, I want to sell it to you. You know, I'll give you a sale. I charge you for ten. I'll give it to you for the price of ten.\" The goy will buy it! He could charge him the same price as he charges normal kasher wine, and the goy will still get a good deal. So why does Rashi, why does the Maharsha say that he'll lose not much, but it'll be lower in price? It won't be lower in price. Isn't that hana'ah? Huh? Isn't that hana'ah? No, it's not. Selling it for ten. Making the customer happy. No, but that's, you did not have to, but that's not... The guy is only ready to buy that wine, why? I don't know, that's not hana'ah. Well, he is in a way, because he would have never been able to sell it for full price. Why not? If he hadn't if he hadn't discounted No, but that's because of him. He could have sold it to the goy for full price. He could come to a goy, say, \"I have eleven gallons of wine, I'll charge you for eleven gallons.\" He didn't have to, he just had to do it because he's אסור בהנאה. Nobody is going to buy kasher wine, a גוי is not going to buy it. Why not? Wine they go and buy wine in liquor stores. No, no, why can't they, wouldn't they buy? And I'm just saying he happens to be giving him a good price because he's not allowed to charge him for eleven, but not because really. So why does the Maharsha say there is a loss? So we have this shaila on Rashi, and, look, and a lot of people talk about this, the Pnei Yehoshua, other people discuss it. The Shaar Hamelech happens to say an interesting peshat, that's why I'm just mentioning his peshat. He says, bichlal we learned the wrong peshat in Rashi. That's not what Rashi means. Let's look at the lashon of Rashi. He says, מנסך את היין, when you מנסך the wine, לית למימר, you cannot say that it means שניסכו ביין נסך שזרק בו, that he that he mixed, he was מנסך it with יין נסך that he poured in. Because in that case, there's nothing missing. So he says why does Rashi say such a funny lashon, you can't say it means that he was מנסך it with יין נסך that he poured in. Why doesn't he say it can't mean mixing? So he says an interesting peshat. He says when you mix יין נסך with the kosher wine, there are two ways to do it. I mean, you know, two ways it's possible to happen. You could, you take יין נסך and throw it into kosher, or you could take the kosher, throw into the יין נסך. And it's a din like this, if you pour the יין נסך into the kosher, there is a din that if you pour it in a little bit, that becomes batel right away. If there's lot a lot of kosher, and a little bit of treif, it becomes batel. Now the whole thing is kosher. Now you pour more, it becomes batel again. So you can pour a lot, but if the bottom this is the whole basis of how we used to mix, lehavdil, the Rebbe's wine. In the bottom, we have the Rebbe's wine and you pour in a little bit, so it becomes batel. So everything's Now you pour more. Same thing here. So the real way to make it to say that there is a היזק of being treif, is the other way: if you take the kosher wine and throw it into the יין נסך. And that's what Rashi says, וד״ה מנסך את היין, לית למימר שניסכו ביין נסך שזרק בו. It can't mean that he threw the יין נסך into the kosher, because then there is nothing you're not missing anything. And you could sell it. You just can't charge for that extra for the יין נסך, but you could sell it for full price. So Rashi needs to say that when you do talk about מערב, mixing, it means you mix the other way, that you threw the kosher into the יין נסך. Right, right. That's the דין ביין נסך. Kama kama batel. It's a special דין ביין נסך. Because then then because it can't it's not batel. You can't have a lot. Only a little bit is batel in a lot, a lot is not batel in a little. No, that Yeah, that could be, but that's not that's not The easier way to say is that if you pour it the other way, then it makes no difference how much. Here, you'd have to say, well, it depends on a lot or a little, you know. But this, the other way, is no matter what you do, you make it asur. So that's why he says it doesn't mean you pour it this way, it means you pour it the other way. But anyway, that's not the simple pshat in Rashi. That's not That's one thing that we have to worry about here. Now, there's another thing that we have to think about. We mentioned that one of the things that even Rabbi Chiya does not mention is מפגל. מוסר ומפגל, these two. Is מפגל.

What is מפגל? Someone will ask somebody, what is פיגול? So everyone knows, surely, if a person, a kohen or anyone who shachat a korban, and at the time when he's shachating the korban, he has in mind to do what? He has in mind to eat it חוץ לזמנו, he's going to eat it outside of its time. Lemashal, a korban, you're allowed to eat the meat only for a day and a night, he has in mind, 'I'm going to eat this in three days from now.' Just having that thought in mind, that makes the קרבן פיגול. Now, there are other things that you think in your mind that makes it pasul, but it's not פיגול, פיגול is a different in its pasul. Now let's see what Rashi taytshes here on מפגל. מפגל: כהן ששחט קרבנו של ישראל, a kohen שחט the korban of a ישראל, חטאת לשם שלמים. He shachat a chatat with the intentions of thinking, thinking that it's a shelamim. דאין הקרבן עולה לחובת בעליו, that the korban cannot be is does not is not valid it's a kosher it's not valid for the person who brought it, וצריך אחר, he needs another korban. So the guy who the Yisrael who brought the korban has a loss! Now he spent a hundred dollars on a behemah, now he has to spend another hundred dollars, he has a loss! The dead one? No. Well, depends on which case. Well, depends on which certain case, we'll see in a minute. Certain cases. Huh? No, it's a chatat. With his mind. He shachat a chatat, it was a חטאת, but he had in mind, 'Oh, it's שלמים.' What

sell what? It's a dead בהמה. You can't sell it. It's not regular meat. You can't sell it. One second. Let's go let's say this. So right away, everyone has the kashya, Rashi does something very funny here, strange. That's not the teitch of מפגל, that's not a normal teitch of פיגול. This is שלא לשמה, this is called שלא לשמה! Not פיגול. One second. I don't want to jump ahead. This is שלא לשמה. Now there are some that want to say that there is a Gemara in Menachot that the Gemara uses this expression. שחט a קרבן חטאת לשם שלמים, and the Gemara says that what it means is not שלא לשמה, it means פיגול. Why? Because חטאת you're allowed to eat for one day and one night. שלמים you're allowed to eat for two days and one night. So he meant חטאת, not that he שחט חטאת לשם שלמים, he meant he שחט to eat the חטאת which is to eat it the same amount of days as שלמים. Now, in the Gemara you can still say that the Gemara said this, it means in Rashi to say, why didn't Rashi say it normal? Very he wouldn't even he didn't save any words here. He should have said ששחט קרבן לאכול חוץ לזמנו, to eat it besides... But why does he have to pick an example of, not even an example, he doesn't say it as an example. He שחט a חטאת, so that expression normally means שלא לשמה. Not for the the same קרבן, different קרבן. So it's hard to say that Rashi means this. Comes the Pnei Yehoshua, and he says I have a teretz. He says like this: If the pshat would be regular פיגול, that means he שחט the קרבן which is פיגול, then he says it's the same thing as מנסך. מנסך is you took my wine, kosher wine, and you made it treif. You took my בהמה which is kosher, and you made it treif, made it pigul. That's why Rashi chose שלא לשמה.

What's the difference between pigul and שלא לשמה? Very simple. There's a Mishnah that the first Mishnah in Zevachim, very first משנה, it says like this: כל הזבחים שנשחטו שלא לשמן כשרים. All korbanot which you שחט שלא לשמה is kasher, except, but they are not עולה לבעלים לשם חובה. The owner doesn't get the the zechut of the korban. So if he is obligated to bring that korban, he'll have to bring another one, but the korban is kasher. So that's why Rashi picked this example, because if it would be regular pigul, then it's the same as menasech. The Gemara says he doesn't mention מפגל because he doesn't want to talk about kodashim. The Gemara could have said a different reason, you know why he doesn't mention מפגל? Because it's the same thing as menasech. Menasech is kosher wine making it treif, here it's kosher בהמה making it treif. So that's why Rashi, it must mean something else, it must mean a case of שלא לשמה. And שלא לשמה is a different category. It's a hezek but not not pasul, it's not like menasech. There is a hezek here. Sure, because he the the owner doesn't get the zechut of the korban. So he has to bring another korban. So he lost money. There's a difference. Even Rashi itself... Menasech if there's no loss of money, what's Rashi... Rashi says? No, farkert, that's why that's not the peshat of מנסך. Why? Because there's no loss. So what is מנסך? When you take wine and pour it, so you take kosher wine and make it treif. Here you took a korban and you made it treif. So that's why Rashi had to pick that the Gemara here means a different example, not regular פיגול, a case where שלא לשמה. And by שלא לשמה the korban is kasher, but there's a היזק also. That's not like מנסך. מנסך is I make something treif. I didn't make it treif, but nevertheless I caused I caused him a היזק. That's why Rashi picks the example of שלא לשמה, that's what he says. Not every person could be, could have that damage, could be damaging in that way, only the kohen. Okay. Well, any... Any פיגול only the kohen. That's a general category that a kohen So it's a היזק that a kohen could do. No, a kohen makes this Yeah, but only he could do that. So? Therefore it's not every person. So, but it's still called a היזק, isn't it? The other thing is how like... Actually anybody can shecht, Rashi says anybody can shecht. How could he make one, just what he had in mind? That's the din. That's the din of korbanot then. The whole Zevachim talks about this. Right. How, according to learning in Rashi that way, that that's what Rashi is talking about, is that פיגול? No, שלא לשמה is not פיגול. Not פיגול. It's not פיגול. Farkert, no! That's what Rashi said, that here the word מפגל cannot mean a classical case of פיגול, for that doesn't fit our Gemara. So Rashi is forced to say that it means a difference, which is, maybe the word פיגול would be It's not פיגול. It's not פיגול, but it's a general category, it's it's an expression that they use. So what's the, so according to that, what's the difference between מטמא and מפגל and מנסך? מטמא is mixing. Mixing? So actually he also he also had a Yeah, but which way? Everything is a damage, but they're done with a different type of damage. Here you mixed, here you took something kosher and made it treif, not by mixing, you made this itself treif. And מפגל is a different type. What is a different type? He shecht it שלא לשמה and the korban is gornisht treif. It's not treif, it's kasher. That's why it says כל הזבחים שנשחטו שלא לשמן, if you shecht not לשמה, כשרים. פיגול is פסול. Completely treif. This is kasher, but the baalim are not yotzei. So the baalim have to bring another korban, so there is a damage to the baalim, a damage to the owner. But that's a different category. That's what the

Pnei Yehoshua says. Who gets to eat it? It's a korban. Who gets to eat it? Well, the כהן, it depends what it is. שלמים, right? No, חטאת לשם שלמים. Only the כהן eats it? Only the כהן, yeah. But anyway, we'll see in one second the problem with this פשט. Look in that same first Mishnah. כל הזבחים שנזבחו שלא לשמן כשרים. All קרבנות שלא לשמה is כשר, אלא שלא עלו לבעלים לשם חובה, but the owner is not יוצא his חוב, חוץ מן החטאת. By a חטאת, the קרבן is פסול. It's only by an אשם, and by a שלמים, by an olah, but by a קרבן חטאת, if you shachat a chatat for another, which for שלא לשמה, the korban is pasul. So, then what did the Kli Chemdah gain here? See, he would have had a good sevara if Rashi would have given a different example. If Rashi would have said what does מפגל mean here, and he shachat the שלמים לשם עולה, would be fine. But בפוועל רש\"י picks the example of חטאת לשם שלמים, then you can't say that that's the reason. So, there must be a different reason. So, we're

back to the question, why does Rashi say pigul not the way it's normal, some new peshat, a new peshat, that pigul here means שלא לשמה, and he picks the example of חטאת לשם שלמים? What's the inyan here? Yeah, how can he Sounds like a pretty blatant Don't look at that. Truth is, he himself, בדוחק, says, it's very vague. He mentions it הגם, but still you could say it. Then, another שאלה הגמרא. The Gemara says, why doesn't he talk about מוסר, by a מוסר, by an informer, because בדיבורא לא קא מיירי, he doesn't talk about a hezek that's done through dibur. Why can't he say the same reason for pigul? It's even less, it's machshavah! It's even less than maaseh. Why does the Gemara have to give a different reason, that the reason is because בקדשים לא קא מיירי, we're not talking about קדשים. Why give two separate reasons? Listen. Anyway, to cut to get the the long story short, we said before that there are certain things that the the Tanna mentions doesn't mention that Rabbi Oshaya does, Rabbi Oshaya does, Rabbi Chiya does. Now, it seems like separate things. The Tanna, for instance, doesn't talk about אדם דאזיק אדם. If a man that was mazik another man, that's not what he's that's not his He only talks about an adam that mazik a שור. Then it says he also doesn't talk about a היזק that happened by itself. Only היזק דבידיה. Then Rabbi Oshaya doesn't talk about קנס, anything that's a fine. Rabbi Oshaya doesn't talk about anything by היזק דלא מינכרא, it's not ניכר. It seems like different everything is a different ענין. Doesn't talk about this, doesn't talk about that, and then Rabbi Oshaya and either Rabbi Chiya doesn't talk about דיבור, doesn't talk about קדשים. I really think that there must be a pattern here. It's not just that he picked Okay, he doesn't like to talk about this, he doesn't like to talk about that. I mean, it's just we just found some kind of classification. Oh, he doesn't like This is a different classification, a big big deal. I think there is a nekudah here that what he talks about, what he talks what he talks about, and that includes everything else. The nekudah, I would think, is that the the תנא talks about that Rabbi Oshaya doesn't, the תנא only talks about things where there is a clear היזק, from the side of the מזיק, the one that does it, from the side of the ניזק, the one that gets it, a very clear היזק. Anything that's not a clear היזק, whether it's because it's further, more than היזק, or anything that's not clearly less, he doesn't count. That's his כלל. And for that reason, he doesn't count these two. He doesn't count אדם דאזיק אדם, a man that damages another man. Because as much as it's a damage, but there is more to it. See, damage really means a damage of money. When you hurt another man, even though it's a damage of money, but you hurt a person. The Gemara even uses expression later מאי לי קטליה כוליה מאי לי קטליה פלגא, what's the difference if you killed him completely, you killed him half? Hitting a man, hurting a man, a person, is more than just damage. So the תנא says, I don't I only talk if it's damage. If it's a damage done by itself, also the damage you can't It's not really It's a damage, הלכה'דיק it's a damage, but it's not complete damage because you didn't do anything about it. So the תנא says, I am only counting when it's a damage, not more, and a full-fledged damage. Comes Rabbi Oshaya, says no, I count even if it's not I count even if it's more than that as long as it has some damage in it. I count even the damage memayla, but as long as it's a damage. קנס, I don't count, because the fact that we're paskening that this is only a fine, obviously it's not a real damage. If it would be a regular normal damage, he'd have to pay for it. Since it's just a קנס, so he says that I don't count. Also he says, I don't count היזק דלא מינכרא, I don't count a היזק that's not seen. Because a היזק that's not seen, even as far as the היזק is concerned, there is missing to the היזק. Like the היזק of מטמא, ומדמע, you make something טמא. So even though he counts more things than the תנא, but as long he says as it's a full-fledged damage at least that's done, but if it's not seen, you can't recognize the damage, that I don't count. Comes Rabbi Chiya, says no, I count קנס, because after all, you you did damage me, so I count it. I count היזק דלא מינכרא, but there's only thing that basically Rabbi Chiya says, what don't I count? There has to be a direct connection between the mazik and the היזק. That, yeah. היזק דלא מינכרא, a היזק that you can't see, as much as you can't see it, but still the mazik did a היזק. The mazik took a something that's טמא and touched that guy's תרומה. There is a clear, you just can't see the result, but there is a obvious connection between the mazik and the היזק. But something that's not even there, that you can't even see, I don't count. That's why by moser, an informer, you can't tell the connection between the mazik and the היזק. What did the mazik do? The mazik went to City Hall, spoke, that's all he did. And this guy over there lost his property. You can't see, not only the היזק, the היזק actually, you see the היזק. The guy, they took away his things, took away the guy's house. But you can't see the connection between the mazik and the היזק. So he says, that's what I don't count. Comes to מפגל, when the Gemara says R'' Chiya doesn't count, even R'' Chiya doesn't count מפגל, why not? Now we just said that R'' Chiya's גאנג, ר' Chiya's direction is is the only time he counts, he doesn't care as low as it is, but as long as there is a you see the connection. Now, the only way we could say that this, that R'' Chiya doesn't count מפגל, is if we're going to say מפגל means שלא לשמה, not פיגול. If we're going to say it means פיגול, then we have a problem, and I'll explain why. שלא לשמה, when you do something שלא לשמה, there is a famous chakirah, discussion. Let's even use the example by a גט. Also by a גט, you have to write the גט שלא, לשמה. לשמה, not לשם שמים, for the sake of the woman, you have to have it on the mind. If you write a גט, and the sofer did not have in right mind lishmah, the גט is pasul, you can't use the גט. The she'eilah is, what is the din of lishmah? Is it a din in the גט, or is it a din in the person? So that's the she'eilah. You could say that cause bikhlal by גט, for instance, there are two dinim. There's a din of a גט, and there's a din of גירושין. There's a din of divorce, and there's a din of גט. גט refers to all dinim concerning the document. גירושין is all dinim concerning the performance of the of the divorce. Lemashal, if someone will write a wrong name in the גט, obviously you can't use the גט. Is that a din in גירושין or a din in גט? Obviously in גט, cause the גט is not right. If a woman did not pick up the גט properly, she's supposed to take it and she instead of taking it, she picked it up, she's not divorced. It has to do with the גט? The גט's a fine, כשר גט. The גירושין was not done. The she'eilah is, lishmah, is it a din in the גט or is it a din in the גירושין? Is it a din that if you write shelo lishmah, then the get's pasul, it's as if you wrote the wrong name? If you write a name and you didn't have mind lishmah, that writing was a wrong writing, was false, was no good, the get is pasul. Or no, the get is kasher, everything's fine. There is just a din in הלכות גירושין that there are so many things that have to be done, one of the things is that when you write, the guy has to have in mind lishmah. But it doesn't affect the get. The get you can't use, but for what reason? That's the she'eilah by get. The same she'eilah we have by korbanot. When we say that you have a mind shelo lishmah by a korban, is it a din in the korban, when you shachat the קרבן שלא לשמה, then as if you shachat it pasul, so the korban is pasul. You shachat it wrong. Or no, shechitah's fine, there's a din, a din in kodashim. Not a din in the korban, a din in kodashim that kodashim are good only if you have in mind lishmah. Now, by korban, by get

there are re'ayot that it's a din in the get, not in the גירושין. It's in the get. Re'ayot, different Gemara, it's not נוגע to us. By korbanot, they bring a rayah, it's a din in the person, in קדשים, not in the korban. Korban's kasher. That's the thing, the best rayah is the korban discussion. So a siman that the din of שלא לשמה is a din in קדשים, not a din in the korban itself. Now, I just want to add that because, and the rayah is because the korban's kasher. Because the, but because of that, even in that specific case of שלא לשמה where the korban happens to be pasul, but it's in the category of שלא לשמה, it's still a din in the person, not in קדשים. It just that this is such a din that the korban becomes pasul, but it still remains klal a din in the person, in קדשים בכלל, how a person behaves by קדשים, not in the korban. פיגול, on the other hand, which is always pasul, is a din in the korban. That if you think פיגול, you shachat thinking פיגול, you have shachat-ed wrong. Okay. We just finished saying that what is R'' Chiya's gang? That what things doesn't he count? He counts everything. What the תנא doesn't count, he counts, what the רישא doesn't count. But he doesn't count in anything that you cannot see the connection between the mazik and the hezek. If it would be פיגול, and you שחט it, so there is a clear connection. So why takeh doesn't he רעכן מפגל? That's why Rashi based on the whole המשך הגמרא said that מפגל here doesn't mean that. What does it mean? It means שלא לשמה. And שלא לשמה, דין in the person, that's, and that's takeh you don't see the connection. So it comes out that when the Gemara says why doesn't he talk about מפגל, because בקדשים לא קמיירי, what the Gemara means, not because he doesn't talk about קרבנות, why not? It's a היזק. But the Gemara means he doesn't talk about something which is a דין in קדשים. If it would be a דין in the קרבן, he would talk about it, because that fits to his category. It's a דין in קדשים. Now, this is exactly the same reason as by מוסר. What's the reason by מוסר we said? Because בדיבורא לא קמיירי, he doesn't talk about speaking. What's the problem with speaking? So, you're מזיק through speaking, not because we care about speaking or doing, because you can't see the connection. So, here the Gemara says you can't see the connection either. How does the Gemara put it? By the by way of saying בקדשים לא קמיירי, but it's the same idea. So, this is the answer to the קשיא that we asked, that everyone asks on the on the on on Rashi, why he says מפגל different than normal, because otherwise it wouldn't fit to the whole המשך הגמרא, so he has to change that. Now, he picks the example of שלא לשמה where it's פסול, where the קרבן happens to be פסול, because he wants to give a חידוש that שלא לשמה is a דין always in קדשים, not in the קרבן. Even the specific one that happens to be פסול, it's still a דין in in the person, in the קדשים, not in in the and that's what what what Rabbi Chiya is talking about. Now, based on this גאנג, we'll understand the same thing with מנסך. Rabbi Chiya mentions מנסך. Now, we said that Rabbi Chiya, even though he mentions everything that the תנא doesn't, that Rabbi Oshaya doesn't, but anything where you don't see the connection, connection is not obvious between the מזיק and the ניזק, he doesn't count. Now, let's see like this: If it would be mixing, if the מנסך means you take יין נסך and you mix, what did the Maharshal say? That you only have a small loss. And we asked a kashya, what kind of loss? You have no loss at all, because you don't charge him for that extra gallon or whatever it is, and for this, you charge full price. Now, what happens if a goy happens to know that this is what happened to the wine, and he knows that no Jew is going to buy it? So, him you'll have to definitely sell it cheaper, right? But what happens if the goy doesn't know? You happen to find a goy who doesn't know, him you could sell it for at full price. So, it comes out, בשעת the מזיק is מנסך, בשעת he mixes it, it's a ספק whether there will be a היזק or not. We don't know what's going to happen, right? So, it comes out that the היזק that he's doing is a ספק היזק. Now, if it's a ספק היזק, it's definitely not obvious there is a connection between the מזיק and the היזק, because you're not even sure there is a היזק. So, the question is, how could Rabbi Chiya count מנסך in his category if even Rabbi Chiya himself, who counts everything, does not count if there is no direct and clear connection between the מזיק and the היזק, so how could he count מנסך? If you're going to say מנסך means he pashut pours it for avodah zarah, then here you see how he pours it for avodah zarah. That's what Rashi says. Rashi says here that מנסך can't mean that you mixed it. Why? Because there is no loss. What he means there's no, there's no definite loss. And that's probably what the Maharshal means also. He says there's a little bit of loss, there's no, but there's no definite loss. If there's no definite loss, then how could he count it? Therefore, we must say in a case where there's a definite loss. And what is a case of definite loss? Where he is מנסך ממש. So, this answers all the kashyot. One kashya was, why does Rashi epes here say that it means מנסך, not מערב, not mixing? In the Gemara later, there's a machloket, why here? Rashi has a raaya that this Gemara cannot learn, this Gemara cannot learn מנסך means mixing, because this Gemara, who says this? Rabbi Chiyya. And we know Rabbi Chiyya's klal. So,

according to the whole המשך of Rabbi Chiyya, here, over there, takeh ein hachi nami, you could say whichever way. Ai, it's only a safek, so we'll find out. If it's a hezek, he'll pay. If no hezek, he won't pay for him. Here, when he's talking, so even if there is a היזק בפועל, he can't count it. And that answers also why Rashi doesn't give the reason the Gemara gives there, because that reason is not enough, because the Gemara gives the reason there, still there's a machloket. So, there can be two דעות. Rashi gives a new reason why our Gemara for sure can't do it, because our Gemara is in the אבות נזיקין of Rabbi Chiyya. And Rabbi Chiyya doesn't even count, because the Gemara we see later doesn't count anything where where it's not obvious, the connection is not obvious. So, Rashi says here it must mean מנסך ממש, because the other way, it's לא מוכח, you're not making him lose anything, maybe, and if you're not not sure, Rabbi Chiyya wouldn't count it. Since Rabbi Chiyya counts it, it must mean מנסך ממש. The loss is only dependent on the sale, not on the quality of the wine. Certainly there is a loss of quality in the wine because Yeah, but the value of money doesn't go on quality. Value of money goes on sale. clearly consensus for the sale, all right. Right. But the value has gone down, though, because your number of potential buyers has gone down. Before you could sell to Jews or, but now you can only sell to goyim. Yeah, but right. Yeah, but that's not a problem. That's not that's not a problem. So, you

sell it to goyim. There's enough goyim in the world to sell it. The problem is the goy might know or might not know. And that's the b'sha'at so b'sha'at you do the hezek, it's not even a clear hezek. Right. Well, even if even that in and of itself, because now you have wine where maybe the goy will know, maybe he won't, so that wine is worth less. No, that's not worth less. That's not called worth less. If you'll sell it, if you'll catch a good goy, it was not worth less. You don't know if it's worth less or not. Let's say you're not going to go out and sell it. You're going to you're going to give it to somebody, you're going to have somebody else, you have an agent sell it for you. Obviously, he's going to take he's going to want he's going to say it's worth this much. Well, that's not how you evaluate it. You evaluate how to sell the sell the resale value. He pays for Yeah, because it's only you didn't have the right thoughts in mind. It's not it's not it's not doesn't have the zechut of having atonement for the sin, but the korban itself is is that Question, who does that belong to? That belongs to בית המקדש. Doesn't belong to the person who brought it. Maybe it belongs to him, but he doesn't but he still has to spend more money. He can sell it and there's no more damage. Oh no, he can sell it? Why sell? What could he sell? You can't sell, how do you sell an animal? How could you sell it? It's a korban. How could you sell it? You made a korban, you can't sell it. A korban, if it's not, is it's not a But that's a כשר קרבן. You have to sprinkle the blood, and you bring it on the mizbeach, and the kohanim eat the meat like a regular korban. for what? It's the korban is kasher. Except by chatat, but the other ones, the korban is kasher. Kasher, it just didn't kasher! He didn't fulfill his obligation, but the korban is a כשר קרבן like a regular korban. Nothing you can So that belongs to the kohen, and it's a כשר קרבן, but it's not It's a כשר קרבן! All the dinim of the korban have to be done. It does not go back to the owner. He has No, he has to bring another one, so he'll have to spend more money, so there's a damage there. It belongs to the kohanim? Huh? It belongs to the kohanim? I don't know. Goes to אנשי משמר. Nedavah No, no, no. There is no Only by יין נסך. יין נסך. Yeah, but if the marketplace is a certain you know, has a certain value for the wine, you know, business in the marketplace. So if it shouldn't be losing the value of the quality of the wine, is it losing quality of the wine? What he calls quality. The resale, that's how you estimate these things. What you Are you able to resell it, or not? Are you able to sell it for a price, or not? That's the That's how you That's how you evaluate damage.

How much will you get for it? Before, if you can get for $10, now you get $5, you lost $5. I damaged $5. But if you can get the same money, you didn't damage anything. Tihyeh bari. Okay. Yeah. Give this to my son, please. Make a kiddush in shul? Yeah, maybe. Yeah, my birthday. What kiddush in shul? You have to kiddush in shul because the [Non-speech audio]