say, שלשה שישבו לקיים את השטר, three people sat down as a beit din to certify a שטר, which we know that we have a שטר, and it has the witness, a signature of two witnesses, and the other person claims it's forged, you got to be מקיים it. So you have three people sitting down and they are a beit din to מקיים the שטר. שנים מכירים חתימת ידי עדים ואחד אינו מכיר, two of the three dayanim, judges themselves recognized the signatures. Normally, to מקיים a שטר, two people come and say to the dayanim, to the judges, you know, we recognize the חתימה. Based on their testimony, the dayanim will certify the שטר. But here, two dayanim themselves, they recognize the שטר, and one doesn't. So the din is, עד שלא חתמו מעידים בפניו וחותם. So what they do is, if they hadn't signed theirs yet, whatever, they could testify in front of the third one. So now the third one also heard that the signatures are known to be their, to real people, and then all three are able to sign the certification, to sign the הנפק, sign the the קיום. So the Gemara says from this דין, שמע מינה תלת, we learn out three דינים. But what's נוגע here is, שמע מינה עד נעשה דיין. That's one thing that's נוגע and that's what we're going to talk about. From here we know that a עד, a witness could become a judge, because that's exactly what's happening here. Two of these people are the witnesses saying that they recognize the signatures, so they're the witnesses, and then they are one of the three judges. So a witness could become a judge. איתיביה רב ספרא לרב אבא. Rav Safra asked a question to Rav Abba: It

says in the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah, one of the things that a בית דין would have to do is מקדש את החדש. Every month, in order to know whether the month had 29 days or 30 days, meaning when Rosh Chodesh is, so beit din would accept witnesses who came, and if they would say we saw the new moon on the 30th day, then that 30th day was not really the 30th day, that turned out to be day number one of the next month. If witnesses did not come, then that day was from the old month, and automatically, you don't need witnesses now, the next day, because it can't be more than 30 days, so automatically the next day is Rosh Chodesh. What happens if ראוהו שלשה והן בית דין, three people of the, who are a בית דין, themselves happened to see the moon. יעמדו שנים, so it says like this: Two of them have to move, remove, move away from them being a בית דין. So you have one דיין left, one judge left. ויושיבו מחבריהם אצל היחיד, bring two other people to join this one that's left, now there are three. ויעידו בפניהם, those two who removed themselves will testify to these three, ויאמרו, and then they will say, מקודש החדש מקודש, or מקדש. And the reason why you have to add two more to this third, שאין היחיד נאמן על ידי עצמו, because one person cannot be an only judge, you have to have three people. But in the meantime, what do we see here? That the two people who are going to testify they saw the לבנה cannot be the judges! That's why you have to find other two.

אי סלקא דעתך דעד נעשה דיין, if the halacha is that the, a witness could himself become a judge, למה לי כולי האי? Why do we have to do all this? ליסבו בדוכתייהו, let all three who saw stay where they are, וליקדשו, let them מקדש! Because what do we care that they'll be the same people who saw it? But we just said עד נעשה דיין, the עד could become a דיין. אמר ליה, this Rav Safra asked to Rav Abba, so it's like a kashya on the דין that you said before. Before we said when it comes to קיום שטרות, it comes to certify the שטר, the same people who are the עדים could be the דיינים, and here we see by the לבנה, by the קידוש החודש, that you cannot have the same people who testify to become the דיינים. So Rav Abba said to him, אף לדידי קשיא לי, I had the same kashya. ושאלתיה Rabbi Yitzchak bar Shmuel bar Marta, I asked the kashya by Rabbi Yitzchak bar Shmuel bar Marta. Now, Rabbi Yitzchak asked the kashya to Rav Huna, Rav Huna asked the kashya to Rabbi Chiya bar Rav, Rabbi Chiya bar Rav asked the קשיא, רב, ואמר לו, and this is what Rav answered: הנח לעדות החדש דדאורייתא. Let let go of עדות החדש. When it comes to קידוש החודש, that testimony is concerning a דין, דין דאורייתא. It's from the Torah that this is supposed to happen. By דין דאורייתא we say: אין עד נעשה דיין, the עד cannot become a דיין. But where before was קיום שטרות, קיום שטרות דרבנן. קיום שטרות is to begin with all דין דרבנן, because as we learned already many times lately, that מדאורייתא עדים החתומים על השטר נעשה כמי שנחקרה עדותן בבית דין. Any עדים signed on the שטר, we don't have to verify it, automatically the שטר is כשר. רבנן הוא דאצריך קיום, and the whole קיום is only that After you know the fact, you could explain it. But it's not so pashut either, but you have to know the halacha. He knew the halacha. Okay, so comes out like this: that sof kol sof, when it comes to עדות דאורייתא, עדות that has to do to a דין דאורייתא, the דין is אין עד נעשה דיין. The עד cannot become a דיין. When it comes to דין דרבנן, you could. That means that essentially an עד cannot become a דיין. The רבנן were מקיל by their דינים that you could. What is the reason why an עד cannot become a דיין? Comes Tosafos, and Tosafos says like this: מדאורייתא אין עד נעשה דיין. מדאורייתא not, וטעמא, the reason is, דאין עד

נעשה דיין, משום דבעינן שיעידו בפני הדיינים. Because we need that the עדים should testify in front of the דיינים. כמו שמפרש רשב\"ם, like the Rashbam said, דכתיב, it says, there's a פסוק that says, ועמדו שני האנשים לפני ה', that the two people should stand in front of ה'. So, one peshat is that these two people goes on the litigants, that's the word? The two בעלי דין. But there's another peshat that the Gemara says that ועמדו שני האנשים, אלו העדים. These are the witnesses. לפני ה', אלו הדיינים. So the פסוק, ah? No, but he quotes לפני ה' it says. Could be that. So, since the pasuk says they should stand in front of ה', that means the dayanim, so that's why the ed cannot be a dayan, because if he is himself the dayan, he is not standing, there is not edim standing in front of the dayanim. Then Tosafot in about a pshat is a whole discussion. The question, it's not a question, just stam to understand, if we have this pasuk that an ed cannot become a dayan, so how come by a דין דרבנן the edim could become? Now, simply we learn why? Because derabbanan is always more kuladik, it's more lenient. So when it comes to derabbanan, the rabbanan want to be lenient, make it easier. They have a right to make any dinim they want when it comes to their own halachot. The lashon in the Gemara always is: הם אמרו והם אמרו. They said this din, and they said this din. It could be if they made up the din, they could make whatever they want. And since it's so lenient, that's bepashtut. But what I want to say is that be'emet to go a little bit deeper, and go like a deeper reason, what is the chiluk, the difference between a עדות דאורייתא, עדות that has to do with a דין דאורייתא, where we say אין עד נעשה דיין, because we have to have two separate people, we have to have the ed and the dayan, or by a derabbanan, where עד נעשה דיין, the same person as an ed could become a dayan. In order to get to that, to see the difference, we have to understand the whole philosophy behind the idea of אין עד נעשה דיין. Why cannot an ed become a dayan? So we have a pasuk, but there must be some, pasuk we don't say gezeirat hakatuv. Sometimes if we have no explanation, so well the Torah says so, גזירת הכתוב! But usually we don't try to do that. We only do that if we have no choice, we don't know any peshat, but you have always try look for a sevara. So we have to try to find a sevara why אין עד נעשה דיין. To understand that, let's go to another Gemara. Oh, I think the other Gemara is here. Yeah, here. You see in this that set here. Number one was this Gemara I just read and the Tosafot what I just quoted. Number two is a Gemara in Gittin

דף ה' עמוד ב'. There it goes like this: the Gemara in Gittin talks about כל the first פרק of Gittin says: המביא גט ממדינת הים, if someone sets a sends a get with a shaliach to Eretz Yisrael from chutz la'aretz, the shaliach has to say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם. He has to come to beit din, and he has to say: in front of me this get was written, in front of me this get was signed. And the Gemara gives reason, because they want to know לשמה, there's another reason because this is like a קיום. We want that get to be certified in case later on, when the woman has the get, the husband will come and say it's forged, and you won't be able to find witnesses to recognize the signatures because they're different countries, so the חכמים said לכתחילה let the shaliach come and say בפני נכתב. אי he is only one, the Gemara could have, become, believe, whatever. What's that? So the Gemara here says, איתמר, בפני כמה נותנו לה? When this shaliach brings the get, in front of how many people does he have to give her the get, and say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם? Rabbi Yochanan veRabbi Chanina, there's an argument between Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Chanina. חד אמר בפני שנים, one says you have to give it in front of two, וחד אמר, one says בפני שלשה, in front of three. The Gemara wants to understand what is the reason behind the machloket. The Gemara gives different sevarot. At one point, the next piece, the Gemara gives a reason like this: דהכא בשליח נעשה עד ועד נעשה דיין קמיפלגי. They're

arguing basically whether the עד could become a דיין. Dehaynu, everyone agrees that they have to say the שליח has to say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם in front of a בית דין. The question is: can he himself be part of that בית דין? So if you hold עד נעשה דיין, מאן דאמר בפני בפני שנים, the one that says two is enough, holds קסבר שליח נעשה עד ועד נעשה דיין. He says a שליח could become an עד. In this case, the שליח becomes an עד. He's the שליח, he also testifies that it was בפני נכתב, and he can become a דיין. Umemeila, if he's the דיין, all you need is two more, so you could give it in front of two. מאן דאמר בפני ג', the one that says that you need three, קסבר, he holds שליח נעשה עד, אין עד נעשה דיין. A שליח could become an עד, but the עד can't become a דיין. But then the Gemara asks questions. Comes Rashi, and Rashi explains it. Do you have the Rashi here in small words? דעד נעשה דיין, ובשליח נעשה עד ועד נעשה דיין קמיפלגי. Klomar, means to say, אי אמרינן, do we say כי היכי דשליח נעשה עד הכא נמי עד נעשה דיין. The she'eilah, machloket is do we say that just like a שליח could become an עד, that an עד could become a דיין? Or the other מאן דאמר says (okay, I can't read it in here) that no, taka a שליח could become an עד, but the עד cannot become a דיין. Could become an עד, he is an עד. No, but we say that he's allowed to. He is a שליח, and he we'd consider him an עד. Lichorah, we should have to have two people. One is a שליח, one should be an עד. So we say no, the שליח could be an עד. Now, the question is Well, he has to be able to say this. Well, you could send them You could send two people. You could send one שליח. If the שליח did not stand there while it was written, he cannot say בפני נכתב. So he could be a שליח, but someone else will have to say it. But if we say שליח נעשה עד, it comes out from here from Rashi, but it's not Rashi, Rashi just explains in the Gemara, that we're connecting these two things: שליח נעשה עד, עד נעשה דיין. Lichorah, there are two separate inyanim. There's one discussion whether שליח נעשה עד, and that the Gemara doesn't have a problem with. The Gemara accepts clearly the שליח becomes an עד. The machloket is whether the עד could become a דיין. Why mix in here the שליח נעשה עד? Why say just like the שליח נעשה עד could become an עד, so too the עד could become a דיין? The other מאן דאמר says, \"No! Takeh the שליח could become an עד, the עד can't become a דיין.\" Forget about the שליח Who's talking about שליח נעשה עד? That's not a question! The Gemara should have said very simple, whether you have to give it in front of two or in front of three is a machloket whether this עד can become a דיין. If the עד could become a דיין, then you need two, not three. If the עד cannot become a דיין, you can't. Why הא כראי the שליח נעשה עד? א סימן that the Gemara is trying to tell us that they're connected. And I think, as we'll explain, the Gemara is trying to give us some logic behind the שאלה whether עד נעשה דיין or not. How does the Gemara give us that explanation? By showing, saying, \"You see, there's a שליח נעשה עד. Is the same thing here or not?\" So in order to understand the logic behind עד נעשה דיין or not, it seems like the Gemara wants us to look into the idea of שליח נעשה עד. Now we'll see שליח נעשה עד, then we'll see, well, maybe the same thing by עד נעשה דיין or not. But otherwise, the whole שליח נעשה עד has nothing to do here. Here we're not dealing with שליח נעשה עד, that's already a set thing. So, let's look into שליח נעשה עד. So we have another Gemara where the Gemara talks about שליח נעשה עד. That's in the Gemara in

Kiddushin דף מ\"ג עמוד א', the next piece of Gemara here. Let's read the Gemara: איתמר, רב אמר שליח נעשה עד, דבי רבי שילא אמרי אין שליח נעשה עד. There it talks, למשל, by Kiddushin. The guy makes a a person a שליח to be מקדש his wife. And we know that Kiddushin you only could do in front of witnesses. Can he, the שליח, become the עד himself? You'll need one more guy, and he'll be a second עד. So Rav says, \"Yes, the שליח himself could become an עד.\" דבי רבי שילא אמרי אין שליח נעשה עד. By the yeshiva of Rabbi Sheila, they said a שליח cannot become an עד. And the Gemara asks מאי טעמא דרבי שילא? What's Rabbi Shila's reason? The Gemara has first an hava amina, something they don't think. אלא, the Gemara says, I'll tell you what the reason for the machloket is, why Rav holds שליח can become an עד, and Rabbi Shila holds שליח cannot become an עד. רב אמר שליח נעשה עד. He says, what's the logic? Why can the שליח become an עד? אלומי קא מלימנא למילתיה. He says, \"The שליח is the best עד!\" מה דאך if you're an עד on something that someone else did, you say, \"Oh, you witness this thing is good.\" If he's an עד on what he himself did, מאכט זיך נאך שטארקער. If somebody sends a שליח, he wants him to be an עד as well? Well, why? Usually a שליח was not ... First of all, who cares what he wants? The she'elah if al pi din is good, is good. It's not like it doesn't depend on him. Huh? He gives the kiddushin. For him? Yeah, he makes a שליח, and he tells him, \"Be מקדש for me.\" הרי את? No, you don't need not to say for anybody, but you need עדות בשעת מעשה. There's a din by kiddushin that kiddushin has to be done in front of two עדים. Yeah, he's the שליח. Can he be one of the two people to be עדים on the on the kiddushin? Reuven told Shimon, Reuven told Shimon, \"Here's a dollar, be מקדש this אשה.\" He went and is מקדש the אשה for Reuven. She's now מקודשת to Reuven, but it has to be done in front of two people. The shaila is can he be one of the two? He's the one that gave the קידושין. Oh, so Rav

says, \"Yes, not only he can, he's the best! He's the best עד!\" An עד is a person from the side that's watching you. If you are involved in it, it's even better. He also gave דבי רב שילא אמרי, in דבי רב שילא they said, אין שליח נעשה עד. And they say why? כיוון דאמר מר שלוחו של אדם כמותו, since we know that שליח becomes like the משלח, like the guy, הוה ליה כגופיה. So he's like the guy himself. So basically he's trying to testify on himself. נוגע בדבר. So that's why דבי רב שילא says that שליח cannot become an עד, because he's like the גוף of the, הוה ליה כגופיה. I was thinking it's also a נוגע בדבר on a different level because he wants to say he did the right thing. He has a self-interest. He doesn't have to, and if he could come because he's embarrassed to tell the guy he messed up That's nothing. When is it the קידושין become valid? At the exact moment, the same moment that Yeah, when you give it. Yeah, but in ענין, it's one after another. It's one after another, therefore In theory. We have to get to this, let's What's the פשט in this מחלוקת between Rav and Rav Shila the way the Gemara explains it? Again, the Gemara explained that one, Rav holds שליח נעשה עד because it's even better than a regular עד. Rav Shila says it can't because הוה ליה כגופיה, because he's like, שלוחו של אדם כמותו. Comes Rabbi Yosef Engel in Lekach Tov, see the next piece is Lekach Tov, it's hard to read, mamash the first, Lekach Tov is an interesting sefer by Rabbi Yosef Engel with all kinds of כללים, סימנים. He has a shaila, חקירה, and then he tries to bring ראיות from Shas, from one place like this, one place like that. The first shaila he has here, נסתפקתי, he has a shaila. And this is a שאלה that the Rebbe brought literally hundreds of times by the farbrengens, this chakirah. בנוגע לשליחות, when we say שלוחו של אדם כמותו, so there are three ways, but it's not noge'a all three, two, mainly two ways. Do we say שלוחו של אדם כמותו means כמותו ממש, that when Reuven makes Shimon a shaliach, Shimon now became Reuven, and therefore when Shimon gives the Kiddushin, she's מקודשת to Reuven because really not Shimon gave the Kiddushin, that's really Reuven gave the Kiddushin because when Reuven Reuven, Reuven He's at home, he sent him as a shaliach. Yeah. No, we're learning Reuven sent the shaliach, yeah. What are you doing here, mister? Right. So that's the שאלה, is when Reuven makes, is ממנה, appoints Shimon as a shaliach, Shimon is כמותו ממש? Or, let's go to the third, there's a middle way, but that's the third, the other extreme is, when Reuven makes Shimon a shaliach, Shimon remains Shimon and he does not become like him. The Torah was mechadesh, the Torah made a din that if you ask somebody to be your shaliach, even though you are not him, whatever you will do will affect him. What's the middle? What's the middle? That you are not him, but what you do is as if he did it. The third way is no, it's not like Reuven did it, it's mamash Shimon did it. איי, how's she מקודשת to Reuven? The Torah made a chidush that even though Shimon did it, if you had in mind Reuven, it works for Reuven. The middle way is you stay who you are, but whatever you did is as if he did it, that means that's it. But there's a difference between starting out to make him a shaliach or when he finishes his We'll have to get to it, we're getting soon. So this is a chakirah. The first Gemara that he brings to bring out where we find this, he has a whole bunch, the first Gemara is our Gemara from קידושין דף מ״ג. You see here he says, והראיתי בזה מאיזה מקום, okay, and I have he'arot, number א׳, Mishas de-Kiddushin דף מ״ג עמוד א׳. He quotes the גמרא, איתמר רב אמר שליח נעשה עד, whole Gemara. רב אמר שליח נעשה עד אלמו קא אלים ליה למילתיה, it's stronger, דבי רב שילא אמרי אין שליח נעשה עד כיוון דאמר מר שלוחו של אדם כמותו הוה ליה כגופיה. So he taytsh like this. He taytsh, what is the machloket? Rav Shila who says that shaliach cannot become an eid, yeah, and the reason he says is because הוה ליה כגופיה, because he is like him, he says that's the machloket. Rav Shila holds שלוחו של אדם כמותו ממש. So since you became him, how could you be an eid? It's like an eid on yourself. Rav who says that you could, because Rav holds it's not כמותו ממש. If it's not כמותו ממש, then you're not really him, so סוף כל סוף you remain separate from him, so then you are able to testify about the ma'aseh that happened to him. That's what he says. I have to say that if not for what he says, and if not that the Rebbe quotes him and goes along with his lines, I would have thought to say the opposite. Yeah? I would think to say the opposite, that if you say כגופיה, that he's ממש like him, in which part do we say like in the shlichut. When he's an eid, on the eidut we don't say he's like him. So he is saying he, Shimon, is saying eidut about Reuven. Why not? If you say he's not כגופיה, so who did the ma'aseh? Shimon. And Shimon is going to be the eid, how could he be eid on what he did? How could he be an עד? If he's כגופיה, that means that who did the מעשה, not שמעון, ראובן. The עד part is not ראובן, the עד part is שמעון, so why can't he say? בשלמא if you say it's not כמעשיו, then it's כמעשיו it's the same person, it's fakert, he could. It's fakert what he says here, but obviously what I'm saying is wrong, because he is a little smarter than me, and certainly the Rabbi brings that, and follow, goes on Good, by saying

פשט in the Gemara. I'm saying so he's No, the here is opposite. If his סברא is correct and the Gemara would, and you couldn't say this פשט. No, no, no. I'm talking about the two extremes, we're not talking about the middle. Talking about the two extremes and the שאלה who is the סברא to be a could be a סברא is the סברא on both צדדים. But the שאלה, which one is fits more that you should be an עד, which one is fits not? We're not finished with the complete yet. Once that I'll finish, I'll get to it. The truth is, there is a מעלה in saying this פשט in the Rabbi's פשט, in R'' Yosef Engel's פשט, because if you go with this פשט, then you could go a little deeper. If you say my פשט, I'm stuck. If you say this פשט, you go a little bit deeper. And what is the deeper part? And this is something that we spoke many times already. When it comes to שליחות, which we said this is the major חקירה in שליחות, that every סוגיא has its חקירה, in this There is another חקירה in שליחות, which we know already, and probably guessed it already by now, which is connected to these two. Basically these two have a שייכות to another חקירה. There's another חקירה in שליחות. When ראובן makes Shimon a shaliach, memaneh him as a shaliach, appoints him as a shaliach, do we say it's a פעולה נמשכת, or not? That means, do we say that every second it's as if the minui, the appointment has to renew itself, or do we say you make him once, and now Shimon in this inyan became like Reuven? Or you say no, you made him, then every second it stops, and stops, it starts again, and starts again. Just to bring an example, where would there be a difference if פעולה נמשכת or not? So, I

once mentioned a machloket between the Rambam and the Tur. It's when a person makes a shaliach to send to give a get to his wife. And before the shaliach managed to give the get to his wife, became a meshuga. Can the shaliach go ahead and give the get? So, the Rambam says, it comes out, he doesn't say clearly, it comes out mide'oraita he could, derabbanan said you can't. The Tur says, sorry, mide'oraita you can't. What's the sevara of the כוס speaks about it. What's this sevara behind this machloket? I'll tell you what, very simple. If shelichut is a פעולה נמשכת or not. Do you make every second renewed the the shelichut, or it's a one-time thing? Now, if it's a one-time thing, when he made him a shaliach, he was normal. Now Shimon became Reuven, so why can't Shimon go and give the get? If it's a פעולה נמשכת, that means why bichlal can Shimon give the get? Because not because he made him a shaliach a month ago. Because he made him a shaliach a second ago, because every second renews it. Now when he goes to renew it, and he becomes meshuga, a meshuga cannot give shelichut, so he lost the shelichut. Mimeila you can't give. So, the Rambam will hold that shlichus is not a פעולה נמשכת, that's why mi'deOraisa you could, deRabbanan said you shouldn't, but mi'deOraisa you could, and the Tur holds it is a פעולה נמשכת, that's why you can't give it. Ай, so It doesn't matter. He doesn't have to do it. The moment when you say be a shaliach to give, till you give, it's as if every second, I'll explain in a second why you have to do it. I'll explain in a second. By telling him the first time. When he tells him it's and this pe'ulah that he did continuously gets that's See, this is for those who are not familiar with this sugya. This is in Lubavitch this about the Rebbe, there was always this inyan, the Rogatchover goes into פעולה נמשכת. The the the R'' Chaim Brisker laughed at it. I

once spoke to somebody, who was a Brisker Rosh Yeshiva in Lakewood years ago, and I mentioned פעולה נמשכת, he said, \"Dos iz a vits.\" A vits, a joke. How could you say? Ma'aseh with R'' Chaim when he said mazal tov to him. R'' Chaim was by an asifah. The Rogatchover was talking to him, and he told him that kiddushin is a פעולה נמשכת. You give kiddushin once, and every second it's renewed. The next, and he couldn't understand it. The next day he met him in the hall, because the hallway of the hotel, he walked towards the Rogatchover, \"mazal tov, mazal tov! Vos iz geshen?\" So, his whole פעולה נמשכת. He had this kavanah to get he has chazakah gehabt. He wanted to make fun of it. But he held that in many things, by milah, is in the pe'ulah. I'll explain it soon why, and I'll explain it to even better. But, so the Rambam will say, we say holds it's not a פעולה נמשכת, ממילא, he made him a shaliach, and he's a shaliach, and that's it. And the Tur holds it's a פעולה נמשכת. One might ask, if so, even if the husband died before he gave the get, he should be able to give the גט. No, but he's a שליח for the גט. Yeah, but she didn't get it yet. Good, that's better. Why? Because there is no husband from whom to divorce. That for sure, she's divorced from the husband. It's not because the שליחות is no good, 'ס נישט אף אופן צו געבן. The husband died already. You divorce from the husband, that's all. But as far as the שליחות maybe טאקע. Yeah, yeah, that's what he is, a second. Yeah, that's exactly what it is. When and why would we say פעולה נמשכת? So here you see, you see a few things here. Derech agav you see number six is the הערה of the Rebbe where he brings the Likkutei Torah. Here, הערה seven, is the Rambam. That if he said it when he's normal, healthy, and then if they gave it in the middle הרי זה פסול. Now the Rambam whenever he says a גט is פסול it means מדרבנן, he gave a כלל. He doesn't say a גט בטל. So the Rambam holds a גט. Now you have the Ketzos here. You see, the Ketzos here brings לדעת Rambam, if he was a בריא בשעת מינוי השליחות ואחר כך אחזו חולי, שטות, so then it's a גט מן התורה only פסול מדרבנן. ולדעת הטור, כהאי גוונא גט פסול מן התורה, and this is the reason. Now

look at the second page, I'll explain what the inyan of a פעולה נמשכת. In the second page we have bring also from Likkutei Sichos where the Rebbe goes into all the אריכות, when is it that we say פעולה נמשכת? And the reason he says when is it? When there is a chibur, a combination of two opposites, when you have to have two opposites together. And the best re'aya is what he said, from yesh me'ayin. The Alter Rebbe in Tanya this is already I'm going into Chassidus, but in Tanya he says that Hashem, לעולם ה׳ דברך נצב בשמים, the world is recreated every second. And the reason why? So he says, because be'etzem the world is not there. So the be'etzem the teva, the word teva, I'm using the word טבע, of existence there should not be a world. Now that there is a world, you're fighting against what the nature is, so you have to every second do it. And he gives an example of Keriat Yam Suf. When they crossed the Yam Suf how did the water stand up? So the pasuk says, רוח קדים עזה כל הלילה, there was a wind blowing constantly it had to hold it up. Why? Because the nature of water is to fall down. Here you were making something against the nature so you had to constantly do it. So anything which is a חיבור, a combination of two opposites you had to do it. Look here on this page here, הערה 38. וכן גם החיבור דב׳ הפכים שנעשה, in the second page, שנעשה על ידי פעולת אדם, it's through a person, דכשתפסק הפעולה if a case that you'll stop the פעולה, it'll be נתבטל. So you have to have a פעולה נמשכת, like when you throw a rock, a rock's nature is to fall. You have to have your koach in it constantly to push it. And he brings, דגם בדיני התורה כן הוא, הקדש, he says why when you're מקדיש something you could be שואל the הקדש, you could come to a rav and you could take it away, why? Because every rega it's הקדש חדש. Then he says, וכן בנישואין, כמה שיטות דבכל יום ויום קנין חדש, it's like a צ׳אבע. And the reason is why? שיחוד זכר ונקבה is a חיבור דב׳ הפכים. Whenever you have two הפכים it's a פעולה נמשכת. So therefore, by שליחות If uh? So, we come here by שליחות, it's also a חיבור of two הפכים. By שליחות it's opposite, two opposites. Shimon is Reuven. Now I want to say that this sevara would be connected to the other שאלה whether it's כמותו ממש. If it's כמותו ממש, if it's ממש he becomes Shimon becomes Reuven then then it doesn't need a פעולה נמשכת. If he doesn't become Reuven it's a פעולה נמשכת. If he doesn't become Reuven, here you have two opposites. Shimon is Shimon and nevertheless he's a shaliach of Reuven and he can do for Reuven. The other way where it's a one time thing and Shimon becomes Reuven, at that moment it's an opposite, פשטא, but that's a one time thing and now that's it. It's a דרך, to change the nature of one time thing is not a פעולה נמשכת, it's a פעולה. This פעולה can accomplish this change, but it doesn't have to be constant because after it's changed no nothing wrong with it. This guy is not Shimon anymore, he's Reuven. But if you want to keep him being Shimon and you want him to be Reuven, that's a פעולה נמשכת. So it comes out like this. That if you hold that כמותו ממש, it's not a פעולה נמשכת. If it's ממש like him it's fine, it doesn't have to redo itself. If it's not כמעשהו ממש, then it's a פעולה נמשכת. Based on this we could explain another way whether whether שליח נעשה עד or not. It depends on this. If it's a פעולה נמשכת נמשכת. There is no reason why this person who is a shaliach should remain with the title shaliach after he finished his shelichut. Be'emet, he is not a shaliach, אלא מאי? Every second the guy renews it. Ke'ilu, he renews it. The moment it's done, there is no reason to renew it. So a shaliach is a shaliach till he finishes doing, but after, it is finished. If you hold it's not a פעולה נמשכת, you have kedusha, once said קדושה לא זזה ממקומה. I'm saying in halacha, if you learn like this, that it's not a פעולה נמשכת, there is no reason to say that he finishes his shelichut. For this... No, no, no, no. For this... No, we're talking halacha. For this thing, vadai Shimon didn't become Reuven, that Reuven is a big למדן and Shimon became a למדן. No, that doesn't work, halvai. What about a third way that he's not a shaliach until he actually does the, finishes his shelichut? He's not, it's not a... So, I'm saying... He says he's he's only a shaliach when he does what he has to do. No, no, that can't be. He was ממנה him before, it's impossible. He made him a shaliach before, what's in between? He is shaliach. In between he has to be, he has to continue, otherwise he's not making him. After he fulfilled the shlichut, what point is there for him? There is no point, but he's still, since he has the title, לגבי this, he's a shaliach. You could look at it two ways. You could say, this is the man that did the shlichut last week, so he's not a shaliach anymore. You're saying he is the shaliach, or you could say, this is a shaliach, now it's not נוגע anymore because he did it. But לפועל, there was nothing that took it away. At least that's a possibility to learn that way. While the other way, if it were a פעולה נמשכת, it's impossible to learn because it makes no sense that it should continue. And this is the machloket. Basically, everyone agrees that if he remains a shaliach when he's going to become an ed, he cannot. A shaliach cannot be the ed. The machloket whether shaliach could be an ed is, is he a shaliach when it comes to be an ed? If you learn it's a פעולה נמשכת, then shaliach could become an ed. The shlichut is over, he is not a shaliach anymore. Now he is going to be מעיד on the shlichut. But if he remains a shaliach even later, if it was not a פעולה נמשכת, then אין שליח נעשה עד. So this fits to the way that Rabbi Yosef Engel learns, that the one that says שליח נעשה עד is not כמותו. Why? And since he is not כמותו, that means a פעולה נמשכת. A פעולה נמשכת, then he finishes with the shlichut, so he could become an ed. If you hold אין שליח נעשה עד, he is כמותו ממש. And if it's כמותו ממש, not only like Rabbi Yosef Engel says, since he is כמותו, how could he do it, I'm saying deeper. Since he is כמותו ממש, it's not a פעולה נמשכת. It's not a פעולה נמשכת, he remains shaliach forever. So the שליח... שליח cannot be an עד. Okay. Now that we know what

it means שליח נעשה עד, and that the nekudah here is whether he remains a שליח forever, and that will be dependent therefore... and that will depend whether he could be an עד. No. No. Why should it be נמשך? If he if he has to make him again, why should he make him again if he finished? Constantly do making him a שליח till till the maaseh is done, then why should he make him a שליח? אינה פעולה נמשכת. No. פעולה חד פעמית. A one-time thing. He finished his job, why should he... Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's a פעולה נמשכת. According to everybody, according to both ways, no. According to any way, that's what has to... Whatever is responsible, I don't know which case, but whatever is responsible... There is a middle way, yeah, but that's a... Middle way leans this way, leans that way, it's not so simple. Now that we know that the concept of שליח נעשה עד is whether the שליח remains a שליח, the same logic, not for the same reason, but the same direction will be if עד נעשה דיין. An עד cannot become a דיין, that is clear, if he is an עד. The question is an עד, when he finishes with his עדות, is he still called an עד? Well, I didn't finish yet. Obviously. So the sheilah here is, what do we say by by שליח? If we פסקן שליח נעשה עד, we're saying clearly that the שליח does not remain a שליח later. The question is, בנוגע עד, what does the דין by עד, does an עד become? Before an עד comes to testify, there is a sheilah whether he's called an עד or not. But let's not... That's one thing. But when he finishes being an עד, he finished his testimony, do we still say that he is the עד or he is the guy that he was an עד last time? A week ago he came to בית דין. Or do we say that title remains? And that'll be the same result. If the עד remains an עד always, so when he becomes the דיין, he's the same guy. The עד and the דיין, the same guy, that can't be. But if you're gonna say the עד, when he finishes his עדות, then he's not an עד anymore, now he could be a dayan on the edut that he that was done before. This is the she'elah here. This is why the Gemara in Gittin that we said says, when the Gemara wants the machloket is whether עד נעשה דיין, the Gemara starts off: machloket is שליח נעשה Do we say, just like שליח נעשה עד, עד נעשה דיין, or do we say, even though שליח נעשה עד, אין עד נעשה דיין? But why, we ask the question, why connect it? The Gemara wants to give us an understanding that when you understand שליח נעשה עד, then the question will be, is this the same? Not that it depends one on the other. See, don't make I'm not saying that if שליח נעשה עד, then automatically עד נעשה דיין. It's just the logic is the same. It's the same sevara, just like over here, here by shaliach we had a sevara why. The sevara was whether it's a פולע שייכות or not, we had a sevara. Here, not that sevara. Here you have to think bichlal, is the eid that was made, does he did he become does he stay an eid? If he stays an eid, then he cannot become a dayan. If he doesn't stay an eid, then he could become a dayan. So לפי זה, everything we're saying now, that now we know what is the pshat why אין עד נעשה דיין. We just said the Gemara, the maskana comes out that by de'oraita, עד cannot become a dayan. And Tosafot say because we have a pasuk: ועמדו שני האנשים. What I'm saying now is the depth of the pasuk. What does the pasuk mean, ועמדו שני האנשים לפני ה׳? That there has to be that the dayanim have to be different people than the than the than the They have to stand in front of them, at the same time. So that's What does it really mean? That you can't have the dayan being the eid. But if he's not an eid anymore, so before he was an eid, so they're two separate people. The dayan? No. It could be at the same time, but at the same time, one is like a result of the other. A dayan The concept of a dayan is listens to what the eid says and then decides. So the concept of a dayan is after the eid. It's like there's an eid. In gashmiyut simultaneously, yes. In gashmiyut In gashmiyut simultaneously, but that's not his דיינות. His דיינות, his being the dayan, is when he hears the eid and decides, what should we Do we accept the eid? Should we not accept the eid? הגם he has to sit there and listen, פשוט מעשה, but the point here is that it has to be if he remains eid, he can't be a dayan. The pasuk says you have to stand in front of Yes, I'm saying it doesn't mean that he pashut have to stand in front. I say what it means is there has to be he cannot be the same person. That's why we say, standing in front means he has to be a different person. So, if the eid remains an eid, so while he is a dayan, he's still an eid, the same person. But if an eid is finished, so the דיינות, which is a another step, at least not בגשמיות בזמן, but in theory, so then he could be a dayan. Okay, so this is the reason. Yeah, that It makes It makes, right. They put on different hats, right. Now, if this is the peshat, we could understand what is the difference in de'oraita and de'rabbanan. And And again, don't make a mistake, it's not מדאורייתא, מדרבנן. That's not what it's saying here. It's in a case of de'oraita or in a case of de'rabbanan. Is this testimony concerning a din of de'oraita, or is this testimony concerning a דין דרבנן? What's the difference? We have another thing here. Here's Okay, here it's 12, but it's missing, I didn't put it in, it's just the מראה מקומות, so what. Famous thing that one of the differences between דאורייתא, דרבנן, what what Rabbi Yosef Engel says, the Rogatchover says, and so on, they bring it all, is that a דין דאורייתא is a din in the cheftza, and a דין דרבנן is on the גברא. That means, when דאורייתא said something is asur, this is treif. When דרבנן said something is asur, this is not treif. We are not allowed to eat it. It's all based on the famous Netivot. The Netivot says that if a person does an איסור דרבנן בשוגג, does not have to do teshuvah. And the Torat Chesed explains why. He says like this: when you do an איסור דאורייתא בשוגג, you ate treifah food b'shogeg, you still need kaparah. Like a person who'll eat poison b'shogeg. And the guy will say, \"This poison won't harm me. Why? Because I didn't know it was poison.\" So, you didn't know it was poison. But דרבנן, it's not poison. It didn't become asur. No, by דרבנן, not. We're saying to you, you have to listen to דרבנן, you can't you can't But if you didn't mean to do it, so you never meant to go against the רבנן, so there was nothing wrong. So, m'meila, you don't have to do teshuvah. Now, the she'eilah is, I always mention this, whether the Alter Rebbe in Tanya holds like that, because the Alter Rebbe in Tanya, when he speaks speaks about eating non-kosher food, שלש קליפות הטמאות, he says that if you eat food that's treif, even if later on you daven and learn בכח ההוא, it's קליפה, and he says whether you ate דאורייתא, דרבנן, huh? Yeah, wait a little. Yeah, just wait till Mashiach. And he says even if you ate דרבנן בשוגג. משמע not like that. בפועל, see in this הערה the Rabbi brings the Alter Rebbe, Tanya פרק ח. It doesn't say Remember once at the Rebbe, the Rebbe answered: כדמוכח, as he buy a farbrengen is father's. Like he once answered us by a farbrengen, and the Tanya does fit. He looked for it and couldn't find it. Anyway, but this is angenumen in the Rebbe's שיחות גופא, that this is the difference between דאורייתא and דרבנן. The difference is whether, whether דאורייתא, if like דאורייתא is on the גברא, is on the חפצא and דרבנן is on the גברא. What's noge'a here? Here the חפצא is the person. We're talking when a person becomes an עד. By a דין דאורייתא, the גדר עד is חל on the person. He is a גדר עד. That like every דאורייתא is חל on on the חפץ. We're talking about a person here, so you think, \"Oh, that's the גברא.\" In this case, the person is the object that we're talking about. By a דין דרבנן, the person is never an עד. There's no such thing as he becomes an עד. There's nothing חל on the חפצא. It's only a דין that the בית דין has to listen to him. When you're an עד is by דין דאורייתא, the pshat is you're an עד, because the דין's on the חפצא. By a דין דרבנן, you're not There's no such thing as an עד. Ela mai? The רבנן said, \"You could say and we'll listen and we'll do according to what you said.\" But the you as a חפצא doesn't become. And

therefore, since we said the whole reason why אין עד נעשה דיין because he remains he's an עד, and he remains an עד, that's only by דין דאורייתא. By דין דרבנן, he's never an עד. So, it's only the testimony that he's saying, but not that he becomes an עד. If he doesn't become an עד, so then why can't he be a דיין? Because automatically afterwards he's a different person. That's the דומק, that's the pshat, that this is עד נעשה By דאורייתא, אין עד נעשה דיין, but דרבנן, עד נעשה דיין. Okay. Where's the gavra in all this? The gavra is the beit din. Try. The whole question whether עד נעשה דיין or not. Yeah, but we pask'en over there No, we're talking about first of all about de'oraita. No, But the shaliach can't be an עד because בשעת he's going to be an עד, he's a shaliach. He is a shaliach. The shelichut stays, that's for sure. And then the she'eilah is when he becomes an עד, what is the pshat he becomes an עד? By a דין דרבנן he doesn't become an עד. He becomes a person that we have to listen to what he says. By a de'oraita, he becomes an עד. Why do we have to listen to him? Because the Torah says so. The Torah says, and listening to what he says is taking edut. It's taking taking edut, but not He's not an עד. And you could go further here. There is something similar you I don't know, you want to spend more time? Because that's not a... Yes. Yes. See, there's more to it here. What's the testimony called, then? That's the edut. There is עדים and edut. See, this chiluk between de'oraita and derabbanan is also there to be explained here, you see. You think the edut could be the chefetza? Here the Reshimot. There is here a copy of the Reshimot. This is one of the Reshimot where the Rebbe talks the difference about עדי קיום and עדי בירור. Yeah. That by

stam There's two types of edut. Or עדים come to be מברר, to clarify. Like עדים by a loan, they don't do anything. They don't make you חייב. You're חייב because you borrowed the money. Why do they need them? In case you're going to lie, so you'll have to have עדים. The Gemara says, לא איברי סהדי אלא לשקרי. The reason there are עדים for שיקרא. By גט or by קידושין, they're עדי קיום. You must have them not because of a lie, they're part of the part of the whole procedure. Okay. So, that's the רבי מחלק. So here, the Rebbe says here, ובזה מובן by the שבועת העדות פטורין פסולי עדות דרבנן. מה שאין כן בקידושין, פסקינן המקדש בפסולי עדות דרבנן צריכה גט מספק. If you have עדים which are פסול only מדרבנן, yeah, and you gave קידושין, the עדים were פסול. Now, if you have real פסולי עדים, and a guy gives קידושין in front of two פסולי עדים, the קידושין is not קידושין. What happens if these עדים are only פסול מדרבנן? Maybe they're not עדים. So, you have She needs a גט. Huh? You have two עדים who needs a גט. She needs a גט מספק, but she needs a גט. By שבועת העדות, there's a דין if עדים testify and they and they and they said, and they said false, and they made a whole thing, so then there's a דין they have to bring the קרבנות. So, if you're פסול עדות even מדרבנן, you're פטור from שבועת העדות. Why? Because you're not an עד. The Rebbe says, what's the difference? If פסולי דרבנן are not עדים, so by by Kiddushin they shouldn't be an עד either. If they are are an עד, they should be חייב בשבועת העדות. And he says the Tzemach Tzedek has a she'eilah. Okay. So, the Rebbe is מסביר, he says like this. By Gittin, by Kiddushin, it's עדי קיום. There being makes the Kiddushin, their being there. שבועת העדות, כל ענינם של עדים is birur. So, even if they're פסול מדרבנן, לפועל, could you get a birur through them? Could you get some kind of verification, if they're פסול מדרבנן? No! They're מדרבנן, לפועל they're pasul! They are not birur. They cannot be מברר, because they're פסול מדרבנן. No. No, no, no, no, no. If they're פסול מדרבנן in anything, but קיין בירור

they cannot be.