after that piece of Gemara that we spoke about in the previous shiur, this is what the Gemara says here: אמר רבא אמר רב נחמן, we're going to learn a whole piece of Gemara. Rava said in the name of Rav Nachman: הוציא כגרוגרת לאכילה ונמלך עליה לזריעה, אי נמי לזריעה ונמלך עליה לאכילה. We learned before like this, that when you carry something out there's a shiur, and if you carry out food the shiur that you're chayav is if it's כגרוגרת, like a dried fig, that's a shiur. If you carry out less than a גרוגרת, less than that, you're not chayav. But if you put it away before, ומצניע, and you had in mind to plant it, that means let's say you took one seed, one seed, and you put it away in order to plant it, and to plant one seed you made it chashuv, so then if you carry out that one seed you are chayav. So we have to remember that לאכילה the shiur is a גרוגרת. לזריעה, if you carry לזריעה, the shiur is כל שהוא, whatever it is. So Rav Nachman, Rava says in the name of Rav Nachman, if you carried out a גרוגרת לאכילה, that's how you started, you took out, when you made the עקירה you took out a food, seeds, but it had the shiur of אכילה, and it was a גרוגרת, but you had in mind לאכילה, ונמלך עליה לזריעה, but in the middle as you were carrying you changed your mind and you're going to use it for planting. אי נמי לזריעה ונמלך עליה לאכילה, or you had in mind לכתחילה לזריעה to plant it, and then in the middle you changed your mind לאכילה, חייב, you are still chayav. The shiur of גרוגרת is bigger than the shiur for זריעה. In this case, it had the bigger shiur. So the

Gemara asks: peshita. Well, obviously, why would we think you're not chayav? זיל הכא איכא שיעורא וזיל הכא איכא שיעורא. What you took out was a שיעור, שיעור לאכילה, and לזריעה is a smaller shiur, but if you have a big piece like גרוגרת, it is good for everything, so it was peshita. What's the chiddush? Why does it have to tell us a din? We know, it's pashut. So the Gemara answers: מהו דתימא, I would have thought בעינן עקירה והנחה בחדא מחשבה, that you have to have an עקירה and הנחה with one machshavah, with one thought, and here with different machshavot, first it was מחשבה לאכילה then לזריעה, מחשבה לזריעה then לאכילה. Hold on, and here you don't have it. קא משמע לן, and that's why Rava said in the name of Rav Nachman that even though you change your machshavah, still chayav. Zogt di Gemara vaiter: בעי רבא, Rava asked a question: הוציא חצי גרוגרת, you have to hold the kap here for the question, the question goes one into the other, it's like הוציא חצי גרוגרת לזריעה, if a person took out a half a גרוגרת לזריעה, now for זריעה half a גרוגרת is enough, ותפחה, it blew up, it became big, expanded in middle of walking, and it became a גרוגרת, ונמלך עליה לאכילה, and then he changed his mind and he's לאכילה, but now, after it swelled up, it expanded, so that now he changed his mind לאכילה, מהו, what's the din? What's the she'eilah, he explains: אם תמצי לומר התם, מילא in the first case where he took out a גרוגרת for both, that's why you're חייב, התם הוא דמחייב, you're chayav because זיל הכא איכא שיעורא וזיל הכא איכא שיעורא, there's a shiur for both. אבל הכא, here, כיון דבעידן דאפקיה לא הוה ביה שיעור אכילה, לא מיחייב, when you took it out it didn't have a שיעור אכילה. The truth is you didn't have in mind לאכילה, but לפועל, סוף כל סוף, the end of this melachah ended up with achilah, with your mind of achilah, and that's why I said we have to hold the kop. I was. And you let go. You said we have to talk with a half of, he took it out a half a gerogeret with a mind לזריעה, which is which is a shiur. He didn't do anything yet, he didn't finish the melachah yet, that's about עקירה. Then it blew up and became a gerogeret, and then he changed his mind la'achilah. So he says, are you chayav or not? Now he explains what the reason for the question is. In the previous case, in the previous case it was the whole time a gerogeret for both. Here, לכתחילה it didn't have a שיעור לאכילה. Now the truth is he didn't have in mind la'achilah, he had in mind לזריעה, but if you're going to look at the beginning in relationship to the end, it didn't have a shiur, cuz the end ended up la'achilah, and what he had before was only a חצי גרוגרת. Now, at that moment he had in mind לזריעה, but the she'eilah is maybe he's not chayav, o dilma, or maybe, כיון דאילו אישתיק, had he been quiet, ולא חשיב עליה, had he not changed his mind, let it continue, מיחייב, he would be חייב, המחשבה דזריעה, even though it blew up, doesn't matter, he had a מחשבה דזריעה, he carried it, and grew up. Had he continued לזריעה, he would have been chayav. השתא נמי מחייב, is also chayav, because what he did before was 100% fine. At the end when he changed his mind, it was again fine. I mean, it has a shiur, because now it blew up. So maybe he's chayav. Then he goes vayter. אם תמצי לומר, now if you're going to tell me that in this case כיון דאישתיק ולא חשיב עליה מיחייב אמחשבה דזריעה, השתא נמי מיחייב, if you're going to say that we accept in this case that he is chayav, because we look at it that since the first shiur, had he started and continued that way, the first machshavah, he would have been chayav, therefore we don't care that later he changed la'achilah, which לגבי אכילה before was no shiur, but we don't care. If you say that, I have another she'eilah, he says. הוציא כגרוגרת לאכילה וצמקה, פונקט the opposite: he took out a whole

gerogeret, and he had in mind la'achilah, fine, וצמקה, then it shrunk, ונמלך עליה לזריעה. After it shrunk he changed his mind and now it's לזריעה. מאי, what's the din? דהכא ודאי כי שתיק ממחשבה קמייתא לא מיחייב. Here you can't say the סברא from before. Had he continued with his original machshavah and not changed, he wouldn't be chayav, because originally his machshavah was achilah, but it had a גרוגרת, then it shrunk. Had he continued after it shrunk with a machshavah of achilah, he wouldn't have been chayav. Wouldn't have been chayav, because for achilah, had it shrunk to half a גרוגרת, you wouldn't be chayav. So mimela you're not chayav? Between an עקירה and הנחה that are both by the both you're chayav. Now בפועל, they both או דילמא בתר השתא אזלינן ומיחייב. בפועל, they had a shiur both times. It had a shiur before as a גרוגרת, but he had achilah in mind. Later when it became smaller, he had a shiur also because he had לזריעה. But look at it the other way: that had he continued with his original machshavah, he would have been patur, because had he continued with achilah and then it shrunk, I mean, sorry, had he continued with with with זריעה and then it no, the case was he took out a גרוגרת. Had he continued לאכילה and it shrunk, he would have been patur. His machshavah at the time at the same at the time he's the way he's time he's putting it down? No, it's machshavah before he put it down. Before, this happens before. It's after. It's after, but that's that's If it would be a small shiur, the whole time is, you understand? No, the עקירה is Yeah, so okay, the same thing, yeah. You have to have the shiur. Any time somebody walks out with something, they should right away just to change their mind. And if they realize they made a mistake. Change their mind to what? If they thought if they walked out with something that was That's still a shiur. a seed That's still a shiur! This way, the other way, no. If you walk out with a a piece that's small You walk out with a seed, you should right away half of a yeah, vadai. Yeah, ein hachi nami! See, right away should say, \"Oh, I want to eat it.\" Yeah, eat it, true! You'll be patur, ein hachi nami. That's that's the sh'eilah, all these cases are sh'eilot: are you patur or chayav? And if you change your mind if you're patur, then it's a good idea to change your mind, exactly. Is it a true machshavah or is he just trying to get out No, no, he is really want it for zeriah nein, כגרוגרת לאכילה, וצמקה, יעצט איז לזריעה. איז יעצט דא א שיעור. אבער דער אלטער שיעור, ווען ער וואלט ממשיך געווען מיט די מחשבה לאכילה, וואלט ער געווען פטור. און אין מיטן געווארן אין מיטן געווארן חצי שיעור. Kei. ואם תמצי לומר, the Gemara continues, if you're going to tell me בתר השתא אזלינן ומיחייב, that we go after now, and he's chayav, because at the time of the hotza'ah, it had a שיעור לאכילה, then when it came smaller it had a שיעור and it was had לזריעה, so you're chayav. I have another question: הוציא כגרוגרת לאכילה וצמקה וחזרה ותפחה. He took out a gerogoret, and he had in mind לאכילה, and it shrunk in the middle, and it became again a שיעור, and he never changed his mind. So what's the שאלה, מאי? יש דחוי אצל שבת או אין דחוי אצל שבת?

Here, he had the whole mind whole time the mind לאכילה. In middle, there was a moment He didn't change his mind. It changed. So there was a moment when it lost the שיעור. So do we say דחוי? דחוי means, nu, since it lost the שיעור, so now you don't have a full מלאכה with a שיעור. Or do we say no, in the beginning, by the עקירה it had a שיעור, by the הנחה again it had a שיעור, we don't care in middle if it stopped, but the the מלאכה is there, so you're chayav. And the Gemara says, teiku. We don't have an answer. Here we know always that the machloket in the ראשונים בכלל whenever the Gemara has a a case like this where you have one question and then you continue if you're going to pasken like this I have another if you have another question, and then the Gemara finishes with teiku, so the Rambam פסקנ'ס that the teiku only goes on the last case. All the other cases, since the Gemara said אם תמצי לומר, if you'll pasken, that means the Gemara פסקנ'ס like that. Other ראשונים don't pasken. So in this case the Rambam פסקנ'ס like all the cases, that you're chayav in all the cases, besides the last one is a safek. Okay. Is it possible for anybody to pasken on that last case? Huh? Is it teiku? Yeah, the Gemara says teiku. You can come up with some sevara so that Actually the Gemara didn't like it. Everybody holds against the Rambam? Everybody, I mean there A lot of ראשונים. I don't. I I hold with the Rambam. Good. Well, write We'll quit We'll write you down. Write you down please. There's no room for you over there. It's among the קטנים. Okay. Comes Tosafos and Tosafos asks an interesting kushya. The last question the Gemara had, why the Gemara had the last question on the next, last case? Why wasn't the same question good on the previous case? That's a kashya. The previous case was he took out a כגרוגרת לאכילה, it became smaller, and then he changed his mind לזריעה. So even if you could tell me you're chayav, but I have another question: דיחוי! What come, what's that case? Afilu if you'll say you're chayav, why? Because when he took it out it had a שיעור לאכילה. When he put it down, it takeh was small, but he had a שיעור לזריעה and his mind was לזריעה. But that, from that perspective you should be chayav. But the Gemara should continue! But lefoal there was a moment when it was דיחוי. It was צמק, it became smaller, before he changed his mind לזריעה. So that moment there was דיחוי! So the Gemara should ask, in that case, is there דיחוי or not? Why did the Gemara say over there for sure you're chayav? דיחוי is the last case: if he didn't change his mind, it just was לאכילה, in middle it became smaller, then became bigger again. Why the Gemara asks that? It's a good kushya, very. A gevaldige kushya, yeah. Deep question. Comes Tosafot and Tosafot answers. Tosafot answers with a fact. It doesn't give the sevara. And the fact is also very, sounds a little pashut, it's pashut, but it's very emet, clear. You could, I mean, everything is emet, but you could see it clearly. Tosafot says there's a difference: דדוקא הדר צמק חשיב ליה דיחוי. The last case is where the Gemara feels that it might be דיחוי, שנדחה בין משיעור ראשון בין משיעור אחרון. The שיעור ראשון, the first shiur was לאכילה. The end was also לאכילה. So in middle when it became smaller for a moment, it was a דיחוי from beginning and end. אבל הכא, by the previous שיעור, דמשיעור אחרון לא נדחה. When it became צמק, when it became smaller, it was a דיחוי לגבי the first shiur, and at that time it didn't have the next shiur yet, but sof kol sof later he changed his mind לזריעה, so לגבי the שיעור אחרון לא נדחה. לא חשיב ליה דיחוי, that the Gemara this is not דיחוי. It covered. It was always, there was always a cover. It wasn't. No, it wasn't. Just at the end there was. At the end there was, after צמק. But the moment of צמק, the moment when it shrunk, In the case right before? Before, it didn't have a shiur. Why? Why can't you say at that moment the same time as No, the case is not like that. The Gemara's case was that at first it had a shiur of כגרוגרת, he had the mind לאכילה, then it became smaller, then he changed his mind לזריעה and he put it down. So there was a moment when there was a no shiur for the moment, for the kavanah of that moment. Says Tosafot, but that shiur fit with the end. In the last case, it doesn't fit the end either. So Tosafot makes a good chiluk. If the question would have been what is the chiluk between this case and this case, we have a very the chiluk is very clear. But it doesn't give a hasbarah. What's the sevara? Why takeh not? Sof kol sof, this is also dichuy! לפועל ממש, when he when it shrunk, he haven't changed his mind yet, mimeila what happened was, it was at that time לאכילה, and לאכילה you need a shiur, and it didn't have a shiur, so that moment it's dichuy! It's not as bad as dichuy as over there, true, but the Gemara could have asked here also. What do you mean it's bad? You mean it's there. Because over there, it's dichuy that never came back, never came back to a shiur. Legabei this legabei this, because when he since he didn't change his machshavah, so the end was לאכילה and that, the machshavah of the end doesn't fit to that צמק, to that small shiur. So that small shiur doesn't fit at all, for that moment when it didn't fit anything. In this case, at least afterwards you changed your mind לזריעה, so that small shiur fits to that. But לפועל there was dichuy. So we have to After it צמק, if he wouldn't have changed his mind to He would have been patur. Patur. For sure! Because now his mind לאכילה, and it's less than a shiur. The shiur has to be from beginning to end, there's no question about it. The whole she'eilah of the Gemara is, all these cases it had a shiur at the beginning and the end. The question is, but this legabei this didn't, but לפועל ממש it had it at the beginning and end. To the beginning to the end, or And, yeah. There's a good reason why it's teiku, because takeh it doesn't make sense. What doesn't make sense? The the the reasoning. Because if you want to say there's a at any point in time that when the when the shiur shrinks, and there's a time where it's just in middle it's nothing, it's the second the case before the last one, you should say that takeh, how does the Gemara come and say that that that therefore it's still chayav? It's chayav, for sure. No, but why didn't the Gemara ask You're right, I'm saying so. But that's not teiku. Okay, that on that case the Gemara didn't have a teiku. On this one it does. And this one it does. But the question is why didn't the Gemara ask the question before? Tosafot' kushya. And Tosafot answers the difference is because the case before the middle צמק is not a דיחוי לגבי the end. So, but there was a דיחוי לפועל. לפועל it was a moment when there was, it didn't fit to the chiyuv. So maybe דיחוי isn't isn't the יסוד? So we have to, no, the Gemara You have to say it is the central issue as the last You're right. So we have to understand what is the דיחוי. Okay. That's one question that we have to understand. Then we have another question. Here, ah? You could come, but the Gemara is not talking about those cases, we're talking about the cases the Gemara is talking about. Then the Gemara then has another series of she'elot. Ah? Then when the Gemara right in the beginning says הוציא, the first case, אמר רבא אמר רב נחמן, the very first case where there wasn't a question, Rava said in the name of רב נחמן, הוציא כגרוגרת לאכילה ונמלך עליה לזריעה, he took out לאכילה and it was a גרוגרת, and he changed his mind or changed his mind back, and the reason he said because we would think maybe you need the same machshava from the beginning and end, so Rashi says כגרוגרת, if you have a גרוגרת, איכא שיעורא לאכילה, if you have a גרוגרת you have a שיעור לאכילה, ולהוצאה, וכל שכן לזריעה. You have אכילה, הוצאה and certainly לזריעה because the shiur of כל שהוא, by זריעה כל שהוא. Now

what in the world does Rashi mean לאכילה? Who is talking about eating here? Who's talking about eating? We're talking about carrying out to eat. So what does Rashi, I'm reading the Rashi again: איכא שיעורא לאכילה ולהוצאה וכל שכן לזריעה. What? Either he should have said הוצאה, or left out the הוצאה, and לאכילה would have meant carrying לאכילה, or he should have said there is a שיעור להוצאה דאכילה and הוצאה דזריעה. What's פשט שיעורא לאכילה ולהוצאה? Well הוצאה is a separate thing, it's a שיעור לאכילה? We're not talking about eating it. It's a שיעור, גרוגרת has a shiur, right, if you carry it out לאכילה, certainly if you carry it out לזריעה which is a smaller shiur. So Rashi should have said איכא שיעורא להוצאה לאכילה, וכל שכן לזריעה. Rashi says איכא שיעורא לאכילה ולהוצאה. Comes the Shabbat Shel Mi Who? The Shabbat Shel Mi, a ספר called Shabbat Shel Mi, and he says that Rashi takeh means אכילה, that a גרוגרת has a שיעור לאכילה. Whenever there are things which you're not allowed to eat, the shiur is a כזית. A גרוגרת is more than a כזית, so he says a shiur a גרוגרת has a lot has the shiur for everything, has a שיעור לאכילה and for הוצאה, normal הוצאה, and לזריעה, because otherwise he says Rashi should have said להוצאה לאכילה. The problem with this peshat is, why in the world is it important here to mention that גרוגרת certainly has a שיעור לאכילה? That if you're going to eat חזיר, you'll be חייב for a גרוגרת because it's certainly חייב because it has a כזית. Why nafka mina here אכילה? Why does that have to bring in אכילה? Normally you have to learn that it means הוצאה לאכילה, but why doesn't Rashi say it? Or, but something Rashi wants to tell us, the word לאכילה, to teach us that it's נוגע here to know the שיעור of אכילה. Then there's another thing here. The Rashba asks a שאלה: when the Gemara brings the first case, אמר רבא אמר רב נחמן, he took out a גרוגרת לאכילה, and you change your mind לזריעה, farkert, you're חייב. So what? Peshita. Why why not? הכא איכא שיעורא והכא איכא שיעורא. And we answer what we would have thought. He says, what's the Gemara's kashya? This is the the סדר הגמרא all over, that when the Gemara plans to ask questions, first the Gemara starts off with a fact. A lot of times the Gemara says, peshita, this is for sure, this this is this is for sure חייב, but now I have a question, what about another case? The same thing would be here. So what's the Gemara's kashya? Adraba, he's telling us a poshute zach: you take out a גרוגרת לאכילה, and you change your mind לזריעה, or לזריעה לאכילה is pashut. You have the Gemara's simple פשט. But it's a הקדמה to the question that Rava is going to ask. And he answers, the poshute din Rava said in the name of Rav Nachman. The questions later, Rava asked himself. So if Rava would have done it himself, it would be pashut. Rava says like this: \"This in this case is clear, I have a שאלה.\" Here, Rav Nachman said it, and Rav Nachman didn't ask any questions. Rava asked questions, and Rava this didn't say Rav Nachman, so that's why the Gemara asked peshita. So we understand why the Gemara asked peshita. But still, it does seem from the Gemara that in this case, this is like a הקדמה, even though the Gemara asked the kashya peshita, but this is a הקדמה to the next. And the question is, it's not a it's not a kashya, why would we need this הקדמה to follow up in the next questions? I mean if this is a poshute zach, so I'm not asking a kashya, I'm just saying what I'm going to try to explain is that the הקדמה is a yesod in the ענין here, and based on that, there are details that the Gemara is going to continue asking in these שאלות. Then there's another thing here. And also, I'm not going to ask a שאלה, I'm just going to bring what the Rashba says, this is like a like a beginning, a הקדמה to the teretz. The the the the Ramban, the Rashba brings the

Ramban, and he asks a question here. The Ramban asks a question: there is a Gemara in Menachot, דף נ״ד, where the Gemara says like this. It's talking about korbanot, by, by maaser, and there's a shiur when you're chayav. And then the Gemara talks there a case where there was first no shiur, and then it got into a shiur. So the Gemara says there like this: if it was no shiur before, לא הוה ביה, מעיקרא לא הוה ביה, first it didn't have a שיעור, והשתא אית ביה, and now it has a shiur, it only is considered a shiur mid'rabbanan. Mid'oraita it's not considered a shiur. If it didn't have a shiur from beginning to end, it's not a shiur. So he says, what's the Gemara שאלה here? Gemara שאלה here is a case where it didn't have before. If it didn't have before, למשל the case where he took it out חצי גרוגרת, the first case, חצי גרוגרת לזריעה, and it became bigger, and now you change your mind לאכילה, so it for sure shouldn't be good, sure you should be chayav, shouldn't be considered a shiur. It should not, because at the end was אכילה, so לגבי the end, the beginning is not considered. The beginning didn't have a shiur. And לגבי the end, everything at the end that has a shiur has to have a shiur in the beginning, and, huh? לזריעה, but not לגבי אכילה. And since, yeah, but לגבי the סוף, that's his קשיא, לגבי the סוף which was אכילה, and לגבי אכילה there was no shiur, and the Gemara says there, that's not called a shiur. And the Ramban answers a חידוש

תירוץ, he says that the Gemara here is talking in a case where originally it had a shiur, the חצי גרוגרת means it became a חצי גרוגרת. Originally it had a shiur. Then it became a חצי גרוגרת, and then he took it out לזריעה, and then it went back to a גרוגרת, and now he had לאכילה. So here the Gemara says maybe it's okay, because it had a shiur in the beginning. Didn't change his mind, no. It had a shiur, he had a שיעור גרוגרת, matter of fact. Then it became smaller. Then he took it to take out when it's smaller, לזריעה. Then he changes his mind, in middle לאכילה, and it became bigger and he changed mind לאכילה. So he says here, that Gemara in Menachot doesn't have a connection, because there it says lechatchilah it didn't have, and then it had, but here lechatchilah it had. What was his machshavah in the first? Was it גרוגרת? No, there was no machshavah. There's no machshavah, it was laying on the table. It wasn't taken anywhere. So, there's all this all this talk about when the machshavah is after the change or before the change? In this case, the machshavah was after the change. So, but it would make a difference if machshavah, sure, it's, huh? Yeah. It's raining, and it got wet, and it got bigger. I don't know. Half, chatzi doesn't mean half, chatzi could mean 99%. The

Rashba comes and says, there's no kashya to begin with. Why? Because over there, where there's a דין of a shiur, so if it didn't have a shiur in the beginning, so the fact that it had a shiur at the end doesn't count. Here there is no דין of a shiur. The whole shiur is a דין of חשיבות. So when you took it out in the beginning לזריעה, by Shabbos, here by Shabbos, when you took it out a חצי גרוגרת לזריעה, it had a shiur even לגבי the end, because as far as חשיבות is concerned, it had a חשיבות before. Mimaila over there it worked as a shiur, that's what he answers. We're going to follow along that sevara and we're going to see to explain the other ענינים also. Let's go to explain the sugya. The main thing, what is the guide here? We have one she'eilah, and another she'eilah, and another she'eilah. I'm going to say like this: בכלל, we have a chakirah in many things. When you have one thing is less than the other, there are different levels, the smaller and the bigger. So we have a she'eilah: is the smaller and the bigger the same category, one is just more than the other, that means that the more is only you have the smaller one with an addition of more, or they're considered two separate categories at all, completely? Lemashal, you find לגבי כתובה. An אלמנה's כתובה is a hundred. A כתובה of a בתולה is two hundred. What's the peshat? Is the כתובה of אלמנה, of of a בתולה the hundred of the אלמנה plus another hundred? Or the peshat is not like that, there's two different categories, this is a hundred and this is another hundred. In other words, does it fall into the category of יש בכלל מאתים מנה? You have מאתים, if you have two hundred it includes a hundred, so when you have a hundred and you have two hundred, this is the pshat that the hundred is the same in both, this is an additional hundred, or we say in this din it's different things. One of the differences will be, it says כנסה בחזקת בתולה ונמצאת בעולה, if he married a woman thinking she's a בתולה, and turned out she was not a בתולה, so he thought that the כתובה is going to be two hundred, but really it turned out a hundred. So there's a sheilah in Gemara whether it's a מקח טעות. Pashut, it's called it, you you you marry something else, you thought it was something else. So, a lot of פשטים, ענינים there, but one of the things is נוגע to the כתובה, and it says it's תולה in this sheilah: if a כתובה of אלמנה, of of a בתולה is 100 plus 100, so really it's the same category. So, when he married her thinking she's a בתולה, turned out to be an אלמנה, it's not a מקח טעות, because it's like in the same category, just a little bit more. If you hold that it's two separate categories, then it's two separate categories. Take another example. Well, I didn't get that, I'm talking about a כתובה. We'll get back to that. But wait a minute. Here's another example we find something like that. Usually, all all the עניני אכילה, it turns, all the עניני אכילה the shiur is kezayit. All

issurim, anything that you're not allowed to eat the shiur is a kezayit. With one exception: Yom Kippur. Yom Kippur the shiur is a ככותבת. ככותבת is almost two כזיתים. Now, is the pshat that the shiur of Yom Kippur a ככותבת is a kezayit, it's be'emet the same גדר of a kezayit, but plus, or it's two separate דברים? On Yom Kippur a kezayit is not part that's not part of the shiur. Just like a חצי כזית is not part of the shiur, kezayit is also not. But the other way is, no, kezayit is the shiur, this is you need a little bit more to it. What would be the nafka mina? You find in Yerushalmi an interesting thing. We know usually there's a מחלוקת of Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish whether a חצי שיעור is אסור מן התורה or not. If you eat something, for instance, which needs a shiur to be חייב, and you ate a half a shiur, is it אסור מדאורייתא or not? Miderabbanan certainly אסור. Rabbi Yochanan says חצי שיעור אסור מן התורה, you can't eat. So, what's the idea of a shiur? לגבי punishment. You don't get punished חצי שיעור. Reish Lakish says, no, חצי שיעור מותר מן התורה, it's allowed. Then it says in Yerushalmi that on Yom Kippur, Reish Lakish is מודה that a kezayit, which is a חצי שיעור on Yom Kippur, is אסור מן התורה. Seems like the Bavli doesn't agree with it, it's not clear. What's the What is the מחלוקת here? If you hold a kezayit is half of a ככותבת, ממילא it has a גדר of a Since a kezayit is a shiur always, so Reish Lakish says, every חצי שיעור is nothing, but a חצי שיעור of a kezayit on Yom Kippur, because the whole ככותבת is the kezayit plus, so a kezayit is something. But if you hold that a ככותבת is a different category altogether, so לגבי the shiur of ככותבת on Yom Kippur, a kezayit or half a kezayit, it's all the same thing, because it's not related, it's a different category. So, obviously the Yerushalmi holds that a ככותבת is a kezayit plus. Give another example. We know that in

order to make someone pay money, you have to have two עדים. על פי שנים עדים יקום דבר. And an עד אחד is not מחייב, can't make you pay. And an עד אחד is מחייב שבועה, only shevuah. What is the pshat? Is two עדים an עד plus another עד, or is two עדים a new category of of עדים? It's not like an עד אחד is half of two עדים. One of the differences would be לגבי the דין of שבועה. We know an עד אחד makes you swear. There's a famous There's a דין, what happens if a person is מחוייב שבועה ואינו יכול לישבע? A person is מחוייב to swear, but the fact is he can't swear. The situation is he can't swear. What's that? למשל, the Gemara brings נסכא דרבי אבא. The case was that somebody grabbed a piece of silver out of the hand of somebody else. Let's say Reuven grabbed a piece of silver out of the hand of Shimon, and there was one עדות. The guy called him to beit din, he says, you grabbed my piece of silver. So, he says, you're right, that's true I grabbed, but that's mine, אין חטפי, דידי חטפי. And there was one עדות here that came he says he doesn't know whose it is, but he saw him grab. Comes the Gemara there and calls it we don't know what to do in this thing, this is a very strange case. Why? What should we make him do? Make him pay we can't, because you have to have two עדים to make. Had two עדים seen him do it, he'd have to pay. Sure. Why does he pay? He'd have to pay back, he'd have to give it back. Why? Because he says it's his. How do you know it's not? Because chazakah, he's the מוחזק, that guy is the מוחזק, he held it, and two עדים say that he grabbed it. You can't go grab someone else's thing and claim it's yours. Give it back, you want to show it's yours, go and bring a ראיה, bring עדים it's yours, but you have to give it back. In this case, you can't make him give it back, because there are no two edim, only one eid. So, what should we do? What does one eid usually do? Makes you swear. Le-mashal, if you come and say, I owe you you owe me $100, you say no, and I have an eid, you have to swear that you don't. So, let the eid make him swear. You can't make him swear here, because what's he going to swear? He's going to swear that he took it, that that it's his? Yes. There is no eid against that. When you swear, you have to be מכחיש את העד. You have to swear that what the eid says, you have to say that the eid is it's not true. In this case, all the eid said that you grabbed it, that I know. So to make him swear, you can't, because swearing has to be against the eid, and the eid doesn't say it. So what do you do here? So the

Gemara didn't know what to do, till Rav Abba came and he said, \"This is a case of מחוייב שבועה ואינו יכול לישבע. You have to swear