So, why you have to pay depends on a chakirah, what the geder of an עד אחד is. What is an עד אחד? An עד אחד can't make you pay, can make you pay, but can make you swear. And the question is which way does it work? You could learn like this: you could learn that an עד אחד does not have the power of making you pay, an עד אחד only has the power of making you swear. It's one thing. Obviously, if you don't swear, if they make you swear, what does making swear mean? What if a guy says, \"I don't want to swear\"? Then you have to pay, that's the whole idea of swearing. But he can't tell you you must pay he's pay, makes you swear. Or you could say not like that. An עד אחד has the power of making you pay. What's the difference between an עד אחד and two? But an עד אחד, because it's only one, the Torah said you have an option of swearing. By two עדים, you have no option of swearing. A guy, the עדים say A guy says, \"I'll swear that I that I don't owe to you.\" Too bad, you can't. By עד אחד, there's an option of swearing, that's what it says. So we tell a guy, you could swear. You don't want to swear, then obviously you have to pay. What's the nafka mina? The nafka mina is if you're ready to swear, but the beit din, the halacha doesn't let you. If an עד אחד can't make you pay, so you can't pay you don't have to pay here. You say, \"I'm ready to swear, you don't want to let me swear, too bad.\" There's no one that's מחייב you to pay. But if you learn the other way, that an עד אחד really has the koach to make you pay with an option, here, for some reason, there is no option. There is no option, you have to pay. מתוך שאינו יכול להשבע משלם. What is this based on? Whether we say whether an עד אחד makes you pay with an option of swearing or an עד אחד just makes you swear, so some sefarim say it depends on this: If עד אחד is part is two עדים is really double of עד אחד, so עד אחד has the koach of two עדים, not enough, so they have an option. But if an עד אחד is a separate category altogether, so two עדים make you pay, an עד אחד is a different category, can't make you pay, so you wouldn't say מתוך שאינו יכול להשבע משלם. So here again we see that there is a question of bigger and smaller, and the she'eilah is, is this part of it or not? There are so many other cases we could bring as examples of this. So, same thing we could say here also. We

have two shiurim here: the shiur of a כגרוגרת for אכילה, כגרוגרת for אכילה, and a shiur of כל שהוא or whatever less, which is a shiur for זריעה. And the question is, are these two shiurim the same idea, the same category, ela mai one is bigger, one is smaller? Or we say no, they're not two categories, they're they're One is They're together, there is a שיעור of a כל שהוא, and on top of that, when if it's לאכילה, you have to have more. If it's לזריעה, it's less, but it's all the same category. Drink Drink is a different category. Yeah, but not לגבי this ענין, not לגבי carrying. You can't compare a drink, size of a drink to a size of a לגבי drinking, but לגבי this it's probably food, אוכלין and משקין is the same thing. No, no, משקה depends what. No, you're right, right, they're talking different שיעורים here. Wouldn't it be easier answered by saying if it has a different purpose, then it would be a separate thing, to do, not We're talking here about the about the about the שיעור. Yeah, I'm saying, because they have a שיעור with all the examples that we could plant it as a seed, yeah, that's a different purpose than by eating. Right, right, but that's the שאלה. Even though they have a different purpose, but is it considered part of this thing, and this for that other purpose you have to have more, or not? And could that could be determined Okay, maybe yeah, maybe not. Maybe it's a סברא like that, but a סברא not. Yeah, yeah, that's a סברא. Or or not, it's a concept in its own, or is it Few people Is it a כמות or איכות? That's really the word. Is it a כמות, a big כמות, a lot, or is it an איכות? It's a separate thing.

Here, there is a very strong סברא for both sides to think one way or the other: that it is the same just a difference in כמות, this is just more than that, or it's a different איכות. Why? Since we're saying, and that's why I explained in the last שיעור even more, but that the whole idea of the שיעור בשבת is חשיבות, when a שיעור is a שיעור, so you could say then this שיעור and this שיעור is bigger and smaller, so the bigger one is made up of the smaller one. Because כמות, what's כמות? You have 100, and you have 200, you add another 100, you have 200. But here the whole שיעור, whatever the שיעור is, is not כמות. The שיעור is an איכות, and since it's an איכות, they're two separate ענינים. Or I would say punkt farkert for the same reason: Because they're both חשיבות, they're both the same idea. The חשיבות of a small piece לזרע is the same concept as the big שיעור for for achilah. Why? Because this is only chashivus. If we're talking you need a שיעור מצד השיעור, well, this is a different shiur than that, so maybe it's a different thing. But if the whole thing this is not even a shiur, so in essence, they're the same thing, even though technically this is bigger, because this is not a shiur, this is a Or you could say for the same reason punkt farkert. So there are two sevarot to say. Now, Doing 100 and one times changes the eichut. When you do 100 and one No, that has that has nothing to do with this. We're talking about physical objects. Now, this is the yesod of the whole inyan. The

whole yesod is Rava said in the name of Rav Nachman that if he took out כגרוגרת לאכילה and he changed his mind לזריעה and he or he took out לזריעה he changed his mind לאכילה. And the Gemara says, \"I would have thought that you need עקירה והנחה בחדא מחשבה.\" What's the sevara whether we need it with one machshavah and therefore you'd be patur or you don't? The sevara is if the two are two separate shiurim, two separate inyanim, then you can't combine them. Then even though you made an עקירה and an הנחה and each one had the shiur, but being that you had here in mind לזריעה and here you had in mind לאכילה, they're two separate inyanim. And even though you made an עקירה and an הנחה, but if they're two separate inyanim they don't combine. Just like imagine if a person would take one thing and make an עקירה not an הנחה, then he would take something else and make an הנחה without an עקירה. Lichorah he made עקירה and an הנחה? Doesn't count, because the עקירה has to be and the הנחה together. Same object. In this case, the mashal I'm giving is the same object. Not only the same object, what happens if I make an עקירה without an הנחה, and I take the same object, I make an הנחה without an akirah? Say again? Cuz I make on the same object an akirah without an hanachah, then an hanachah without an akirah. Same object. Same time? No, no, afterwards. I pick this up and I take it out, and someone takes it from my hand and puts it down. Yeah, not chayav. Not chayav. Then someone else picks it up, gives it to me, and I put it down. So now on the same object we made an akirah and an hanachah. You're chayav? No. Because why? Because they're not combined, they're not mitztaref. They're two separate things. So the same thing here, if we say that the two shiurim are two separate, they're not mitztaref. If they're not mitztaref, that's the Gemara says מהו דתימא, I think we need the same machshavah because they're not mitztaref, because they're two separate things. So

what does he come to tell you? No, that you don't need it. Why? Because it is mitztaref. In other words, he's trying to tell us that the shiur is not two separate איכות, but they're be'emet the same idea, אלא מאי, one is bigger or smaller. This is why Rashi hackt do arayn here, איכא שיעור לאכילה ולהוצאה. Rashi mentions אכילה. What Rashi wants to say, this is a כגרוגרת is a shiur of אכילה and הוצאה and זריעה. And אכילה, like the Shabbos shel Mi says, it means טאקע אכילה, regular אכילה. Ay, we ask, what's noge'a here אכילה, why is that אכילה? Farkert, Rashi wants to say that the shiur of גרוגרת, that all the shiurim when it comes to things of kamusdik, how much you have, whether it's אכילה or carrying or whatever it is, shiurim are all one category, whether it's bigger or smaller. So רש״י האקט דא אריין אכילה to teach us that אכילה, even though we're not talking about chashivus. Huh? But אכילה is not chashivus, when you a case of אכילה, a regular case of אכילה is not chashivus. A kezayit is a kezayit, it has nothing to do with chashivus. But למאי דלא, anytime, even when we're dealing with chashivus, the definition of a shiur is the pshat is more or less and the smaller one is

the bigger one is made up of the smaller one plus, and all the shiurim like that. So Rashi by telling us this whole concept mentions אכילה, הוצאה, זריעה, and it means טאקע אכילה, אכילה from something else, not אכילה, not Shabbos. הוצאה means אכילה, הוצאה לאכילה, then זריעה. But the word אכילה beforehand means אכילה. But to teach us this nekudah that all shiurim are the same. Then the Gemara says, okay, in this case you're chayav. Then the Gemara continues, \"I have a she'eilah. הוציא חצי גרוגרת לזריעה, you took out a half a גרוגרת to זריעה and it became bigger and you changed your mind לאכילה, maybe over here it's no good.\" What's the sevara? All place I say maybe you're not chayav because we don't combine the two things. איי, we just finished saying that we do combine? Before we only combined the machshavah, not the actual physical shiur. The case before, what was the case? The shiur had a שיעור כגרוגרת all along. What were the two sides that we didn't know if they're combined or not? Because here you had in mind לאכילה, here you had in mind לזריעה. So there we פסקן that that's not called two separate things and they are combined. So it's possible to say that when we're talking about the machshavah which is noga to the shiur that you can combine both machshavot. But when we're dealing with the actual physical object, the physical object maybe takke it's not combined. That's what the Gemara asks. Since it was a חצי גרוגרת לזריעה, so they only had a חצי גרוגרת. So maybe this חצי גרוגרת לגבי later on with לאכילה you had a whole shiur, so the חצי גרוגרת לזריעה is not from the same category as the that full גרוגרת לאכילה. So the Gemara answers, nope, you're also chayav. Why? Because the Gemara wants to say that not only is the machshavah of the two considered the same איכות, no even the מציאות גשמי the shiur is considered this is part of this and this is. Then the Gemara continues, this is only said till now when he took out a חצי גרוגרת. Huh? Shabbos is different, yeah? The first case was only the machshavah was different. The first, first case. There, only the machshavah. There we said אף על פי they're different, we consider it combined, because it's only a theoretical thing, a machshavah. Now we're dealing with a real thing. So the Gemara says you're still chayav. Then the Gemara continues, even if you're chayav here, maybe only in a case where you started with the small shiur and then it went to the big one. So, it continued to, so the big one contains the small one. But if you started with this, with, that, so m'meila it continued, but the third question is if you started with the big and then it became small. So then you lost that maybe then the smaller one, because the bigger one is not part of the smaller one. The smaller one is part of the bigger one, but the bigger one is not part of the smaller one. If the bigger one is not part of the smaller one, maybe takke they'd call, call too? And the answer is you're chayav here also. Why? Because it is part. Since it's the same concept, the same איכות we don't care that it started with bigger and turned into smaller. That's the Gemara answer. Now

according to this, the Gemara cannot ask, one second, cannot ask in this case דיחוי. Because according to this the whole time, the whole time it was, we're saying it had the same shiur. Let's go to the next case. The next case that he never changed his mind. So what was it? He had in mind לאכילה, became smaller, became bigger, and continued לאכילה. Here, what does Tosafot say? Here, why is this called דיחוי? Because it's דיחוי from the beginning and דיחוי from the end. What I'm trying to say here is, here you could say that the smaller shiur is considered a separate thing because the גילוי it never turned out any type of smaller shiur. Since he never changed his mind לזריעה, since he never changed his mind לזריעה, so לפועל the whole time in his mind was for the bigger shiur, so the fact that it became a smaller shiur without your מחשבה לזריעה, maybe that's called dichuy. Mimela in the previous case where this, after if it was צומק, you changed your mind לזריעה, it became smaller, you changed your mind לזריעה, so here the smaller shiur was נתגלה as a shiur, because he changed his mind לזריעה. But when you never change your mind לזריעה, so even though we're saying the two shiurim are really the same, but that's only when you have in mind לזריעה, so then the shiur, the smaller shiur is the same as the big one. But if you never had in mind לזריעה, so maybe there's a shiur without, without a real shiur. That צומק doesn't have anything in this case which makes it into a shiur. Why? Because there was no mind לזריעה. So in the previous case you had in mind later לזריעה. I will say it was dichuy from before, but we said the smaller shiur and the big shiur are not, is the same thing. So right, so potential לזריעה. There the potential remained potential, here the potential came into גילוי. So that's why, that's what Tosafos means here there is no she'eilah of dichuy. And this is the pshat in the Rashba that the Rashba answered the Ramban's kashya. The Ramban's kashya was that over there in the Gemara Menachos as it says if lechatchila it didn't have a shiur and then it had a shiur, so it's considered as if it didn't have a shiur. How come in our Gemara we don't say that? So the Ramban answered it, it did have a shiur, but the Rashba answers that here it is called a shiur. Why? He says because it's all talui in chashivut. So I want to say the vort is since it's all talui in chashivut the peshat is that both shiurim are considered the same shiur. And therefore it's over there there is a shiur, so there if you have a smaller shiur it's missing something. Here, since the whole thing is only chashivut, so the smaller shiur and the bigger shiur here are more one than over there. As we said, what was the sevara we said in the beginning, why do we think over here that the smaller one and the big one are the same? So we said because of chashivut. And that's what the Rashba says, because of chashivut. And that's why in this Gemara that even though it was, it was small before the Rashba says, who cares if it was small? But when it was small you took it לזריעה. If you took it לזריעה, it had a, it had a chashivut, so it's not considered small. Based on all what we're saying now that the smaller shiur and the big shiur in our Gemara are all the same, so you can't say that one is, is different than the other. Because it's the same איכות, right. It seems to be from the, from the question that the Gemara asks right before the teiku, it seems to be from that question that you can't say it doesn't matter what shiur it is, meaning it seems to be from that question it negates the, this reasoning in the question before. This is only because it never turned into a shiur. This whole thing of small is a shiur the same. If you say in halacha this is a geder of a shiur, then it's the same as that. It never became in halacha a geder of a shiur. But over there in the previous case it did become in halacha a geder of a shiur because he changed his mind לזריעה and became part of a shiur. That's why the teiku. So there, the teiku, there we have a question of דיחוי, but in the previous one there's no question of דיחוי. But the one before the תיקו and the one one before, the first question and the second question, they're also very different. So how can you use the same? So I'm saying, no, that's the, it's a gang. The questions go deeper and deeper and deeper. Right. The first question was, now, the first statement was that we would have thought that they're two בכלל separate. Right. And we're saying, no, they're the same, they're both the מחשבה. They're the same. So then the Gemara continues, okay, maybe they're only the same because the מחשבה is the same, but the מעשה בפועל is not the same. So we answered, it is the same. Then we continued, maybe it's only the same if it starts with the small and goes to the big, but if it starts with the big and goes to the small, maybe that's not the same. We said that same, too. Why not the same? Because the big didn't contain the small. So, I mean the big when it goes further, it's losing, so to speak. Right. We say that also. All by כותבת. Then we come to, there we say that in all cases it's the same איכות. Then we come and say, you're right, there's the same איכות, but what happens if in the middle it became smaller in a situation where it never turned into a שיעור? Right. So maybe that's not part of it. So there came to a point in middle of the מלאכה where should have something happened to it which is not part of this שיעור. So the previous case, it can't say that because it turned into a שיעור. So isn't that, of course, that's the Rashba? That's the that's the This is the Tosafot. And therefore it's a תיקו? But I'm saying the Rashba... And therefore it's תיקו? Not not why it's תיקו, no, that's why the only שאלה is here, not in the case before. Tosafot has a different תירוץ, because in this case it's דיחוי even from the end, and in the case before it's not. What's the difference? Saying because it's not דיחוי to the end and then it's the same thing, and here it's not. So what are you trying to... Now I'm saying the Rashba answered the other קושיא. Tosafot... the Ramban asked a קושיא that in the Gemara Menachot it says that if anything בגין קרבנות there, like נותר, פיגול, whatever it is, if was something that originally didn't have a שיעור, then it had a and at the end it got a שיעור, it's not considered a שיעור. Right. So he says, how come here he took out a חצי גרוגרת לזריעה, and then it got bigger in each size לאכילה, Gemara says you're חייב. Because it's considered a שיעור. Why is it considered a שיעור? In the beginning, it didn't have a שיעור. Right. So the Ramban answered, because it had a שיעור originally, but the Rashba says no. What do you mean it didn't have a שיעור? It did have a שיעור. Why did it have a shiur in the beginning? Because in the beginning, it was לזריעה, and that's a שיעור לזריעה, and what does that mean? Because the whole shiur he says is chashivut. So לגבי זריעה, a חצי גרוגרת is equivalent, the same, as a whole שיעור לגבי אכילה. So even לגבי אכילה, he says it had a shiur. I didn't touch the kushya, but lichorah what's the pshat in the Rashba? I mean, the the the Ramban knew this Gemara. Yeah. The Ramban felt... Rashba's saying the same the same in the Gemara, why... Lichorah, yes. So the Ramban the so the Ramban looked and said, ein hachi nami, it לגבי its own time, it had a shiur, but if you're going to relate this to what happened at the end, which is לאכילה, it didn't have a shiur, because it had a חצי שיעור in the beginning, חצי גרוגרת. What I'm saying, the pshat in the Rashba is like this, because the two shiurim are the same in the same category, and that's why it had a shiur. And only in here, but there, where it's not a ענין of chashivut, so there you could say that a half a shiur is not the same category as a whole shiur. Why can't you say that the same way we answered in our Gemara that a half a shiur and the whole shiur in in it encompasses You could. Yeah. But you don't have to. I'm saying you cannot ask a kushya from that Gemara, because that Gemara talked about other things where there it's not not chashivut, so there you could say a half a shiur is separate and a whole shiur is separate. Right. You say the other So here, adrabah, what did I say in the beginning? Why is there a sevara here to say more than other cases that they're one? Because of חשיבות. Since it's חשיבות, what's the חילוק between... So that's exactly what the Rashba says. Since this is a case of חשיבות, so they're really one. So the case before is not a different שיעור, it's part of this שיעור. So it's all one איכות, one category. So what's this expanding, contracting fig? Is that that

the תיקו is יש יש עין? תיקו? Does תיקו not mean היכא דאיכא דאיכא? No, not not תיקו. ניחו. ניחו. ניחו. Or it's nothing. Right now he has a small שיעור. It's no שיעור. No שיעור. עין, יש, עין, יש. Exactly. But the יש is different from one depending, from the other. No, in this case they are both the same. Well, if it's big or small, depending on where you... No, the big one, before it was לאכילה and then it's לאכילה, both יש לאכילה, and then in the middle it's... שיעור for water? The Mishnah says... I don't know if it says water, but in other drinks it says. It says with wine. Where does it start? המוציא יין המוציא יין כדי מזיגת הכוס, חלב כדי גמיעה, גמיעה, דבש כדי ליתן על הכתית, שמן כדי לסוך אבר קטן, מים כדי לשוף בהם את הקילור. כדי לשוף, how much is a קילור? לשוף means to to rub. To rub, yeah. ולשפשף לימוח בהן קילור שניתן לעין. Something that you put like on a bandage, something you put on the eye, and you put water on it, yeah? Right, right. That's not for drinking, that's water rubbed up against

the thing. Food, you'll take to eat. You don't take food for other earth and sand fill anything else to change the solid to a liquid, water and ice or it's like an ice cube melts, you got to share and turns to water, you know how much is it? Freeze it again. Where do you go? Which one you look at? It's the opposite. If you look at the earth then like enough to to moisten it to this size. Wait, what is this then? No, I mean expand. Isn't that those at the beginning and the end? Everything else, I don't know. So what's the, what did the Rambam, why is the Rambam is the Rashba trying to explain away the Rambam or Ramban? No, he's, so he's saying that the Ramban's קשיא is no קשיא. So there was no, we talked about the Rambam earlier? I just mentioned that the Rambam in these questions, he פסקנ'ס that each one is חייב, that טיט only goes on the end. Right. But other ראשונים say that טיט goes on the whole thing. That's something else.