Well, that's nothing to do with the שיעור. Okay. The גמרא here in גיטין דף ה עמוד ב, this is all in the סוגיא where you say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם. If a person brings a גט from מדינת הים, from חוץ לארץ, brings a גט to ארץ ישראל, he has to say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם. He has to testify that it was written in front of him, and it was signed in front of him. The whole סוגיא the גמרא goes in what is the reason for it, as we learned. So רבה says the reason is because שאין בקיאין לשמה, because we're afraid that the people in מדינת הים, people in חוץ לארץ are not so familiar with the דינים of לשמה, so we're afraid maybe it wasn't written לשמה. Maybe it wasn't written, signed לשמה. So he has to testify that I saw it written, I saw it signed, which means, or you ask him or it means it was לשמה. רבא says the reason is because we need, if the husband will ever, he'll send a גט and later on, 10 years, who knows, the husband will come and be מערער, the husband is going to claim that the גט was never written by him. So what do you do in a שטר, that you have a שטר, you have a document with signatures and the other person claims, \"Well, I never wrote it.\" Let's say you have a שטר that you owe me money, now I have a שטר and it has signatures, and you claim the שטר, it's false, forged, so you have to be מקיים it. If the husband will come later and say that the שטר, the גט is forged, they'll have to verify it. How do you מקיים it? You have to find עדים, people that recognize the signatures. Since מדינת הים is far, the communication is pretty שוואך, ממילא you might not find witnesses. So the חכמים said לכתחילה, when you bring the גט, let him be מקיים it. How is he מקיים it? By saying בפני נכתב, \"I saw it written, I saw it signed\", that is מקיים it. אי, he's only one, usually you need two people, so חכמים made a special קולא, עגונה, and that's like that's why you're supposed to say it. The

גמרא came to the end that רבה אית ליה דרבא, רבה agrees to רבא. That was when רבה said that the reason is because we're afraid they don't know לשמה, it's not that he's disagreeing with רבא. He says, \"I agree with your reason, but I'm telling you there's another reason also.\" It's like a one-way מחלוקת. רבא disagrees with רבה, but רבה doesn't disagree with רבא. רבא says it's only because of קיום, we're not worried about לשמה. רבה says we're also worried about לשמה, but קיום also. Here the סוגיא on דף ה עמוד ב, the גמרא starts off by saying בפני כמה נותנו לו. \"רבה was earlier, wasn't he?\" \"Yeah. רבה is his רבי.\" \"No, it doesn't mean the word רבה because it means the שיטה. רבה said it, but he also agrees it's the reason for קיום. In short, we say רבה אית ליה דרבא.\" \"Is the same דין between country to country, not ארץ ישראל?\" \"That's part of the whole סוגיא in the גמרא, ממדינה למדינה במדינת הים. And that's yeah, this is all the דפים here.\" The גמרא asks בפני כמה נותנו לו, in front of how many people, when he brings the גט and he gives the גט to her, and he has to say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם, in front of how many people do you do it? So there is a מחלוקת between רבי יוחנן and רבי חנינא. One says in front of two, one says you have to have in front of three. And the גמרא goes into the whole discussion, what's the reason for each side? At one point, the גמרא says, this is the reason here, כולי עלמא בעינן בעינן עדים וצריכים לקיימו. Everyone agrees that the reason is because the reason you say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם is because we need עדים. Since we're going to have to be מקיים it and you might not find, so what he's doing is being מקיים the שטר, he is verifying, certifying the שטר. The דין is by קיום שטרות, when you come to be מקיים any document, has to be in front of a בית דין, has to be in front of three people. Fine. So what should be the דין? Obviously, the דין should be that you have to say it in front of three people, because when you're saying it, you are testifying basically for the signatures. But what is the מחלוקת? Why does one hold two is enough? והכא בשליח נעשה עד ועד נעשה דיין קמיפלגי. Here they're arguing, and that's a מחלוקת. We know

there's a concept, and I'll explain it soon, שליח נעשה עד. A שליח could become the witness himself. למשל, take a regular case, when you send a שליח to give קידושין to marry a woman, you have to give קידושין in front of two עדים. Can the שליח himself be one of the two עדים? So we say שליח נעשה עד, the שליח could become the עד. But that's not the מחלוקת. ועד נעשה דיין קמיפלגי. The שאלה, the מחלוקת is can the עד become a דיין? Can he be one of the three judges that you need to have? So מאן דאמר בפני שנים, the one that says that it's two is enough, that he brings it and says it in front of two holds, קסבר שליח נעשה עד ועד נעשה דיין, the שליח could become a witness and the witness could become a judge, and ממילא you don't need three. You בעצם need three, but he is one of the three. And מאן דאמר. Does that mean that he comes as as an עד and and thereby becomes a דיין? Not thereby, no, no. Two separate things. And the one that says בפני ג' that you need three, קסבר holds שליח נעשה עד, true, a שליח could become an עד, אבער אין עד נעשה דיין. A עד can't become a דיין. So ממילא since you have to have three and he, as witness, cannot become a judge, so you have to have three separate people. Then the גמרא asks, how could there be a מחלוקת? והא קיימא לן don't we פסקן, we know the הלכה is, בדרבנן עד נעשה דיין. When it comes to a דין דרבנן, the עד could become a דיין. ביה דין דאורייתא not, למשל, where is the דין דאורייתא? בקידוש החודש, when you have to have two witnesses to see the new moon in order to decide when ראש חודש will be. So you have to have the בית דין decide. You can't have the same person who was the witness who saw, he should become one of the דיינים because that's a דין דאורייתא. But by a דין דרבנן, a עד becomes a דיין. למשל קיום שטרות, the fact that you have to verify a signature, that's only a דין דרבנן. מדאורייתא, as we learned before, עדים החתומים על השטר נעשה כמי שנחקרה עדותן בבית דין. עדים who sign a document, it's as if it's verified. So if someone comes with a document and says, I have two witnesses signed that you owe me money, and the guy says it's forged, we don't believe, מדאורייתא we don't believe the guy. It's a חזקה, רש\"י says, חזקה לא חציף איניש כולי האי. No one has this חוצפה of forging a document. דרבנן later years came and said, ירידת הדורות, people, yeah yeah, nowadays people could do it, so it's a דין דרבנן that you have to מקיים a שטר. So by a דין דרבנן, we always פסקן, עד נעשה דיין. So why would there be one מאן דאמר, why would there be one opinion here that you need three because the עד, the witness, cannot become a דיין? Why not? הלכה is, עד נעשה דיין. He is holding he's holding this is דאורייתא? No, that's for sure not. קיום שטרות is not דאורייתא. And this is קיום שטר? No, גט is דאורייתא, but the fact that you're afraid that the signatures are forged and you have to מקיים, that's a דין דרבנן. אלא the גמרא says, you're right, really you should two should be enough. Why? Because the עד becomes a דיין. It's a גזירה. What happens if the שליח is a woman? She can't become a דיין. In that case, you will definitely need three. So we're afraid if you're going to say that you only need two, if a woman will come, they'll also allow two and count her as a דיין, that's no good. So the חכמים made a דין כללי, you have to have three. And the other one says, we don't make a גזירה because how often does a woman bring a גט to say that because of that, we should change the דין? Okay, this is the close of the גמרא. Now, when the גמרא said that the מחלוקת is whether עד נעשה דיין, whether the עד could become a דיין or not, the גמרא started off by saying, they argue שליח נעשה עד, the שליח becomes an עד, can the עד become a דיין? What's נוגע שליח נעשה עד here? What is נוגע here that the שליח could that the שליח could become an עד? And רש\"י even stresses it three times that do we say, I'll read you the רש\"י. כלומר, שליח נעשה עד ועד נעשה דיין קמיפלגי, כלומר אי אמרינן do we say כי היכי דשליח נעשה עד just like the שליח becomes an עד, הכא נמי עד נעשה דיין קמיפלגי, that's where they argue. האי שליח נעשה עד there's no מחלוקת. שליח could become an עד. Do we say just like the שליח becomes an עד, the עד becomes a דיין? And then hier רש\"י טייטשט it with: מאן דאמר בפני שנים, the one that says בפני שנים קסבר holds כי היכי דשליח נעשה עד, הכא נמי עד נעשה דיין. Just like a שליח could become an עד, the עד could become a דיין. הלכך מצטרף בהדייהו, so he becomes a דיין, he's

one of the three. ומאן דאמר בפני שלשה the one that's קסבר he holds אף על פי ששליח נעשה עד אין עד נעשה דיין. Even though שליח becomes an עד, an עד can't become a דיין. What's נוגע to the עיקר here שליח נעשה עד? We're not talking מחלוקת here is not whether שליח נעשה עד. מחלוקת here is whether עד נעשה דיין. So the גמרא should have said, what is the מחלוקת? עד נעשה דיין קמיפלגי. מאן דאמר בפני שנים, one holds two, holds עד נעשה דיין, and the one that holds three holds אין עד נעשה דיין. What is this שליח נעשה עד? So תירוץ is like this: we find in the ראשונים the תוספות הרא\"ש says like this, that the פשט in the גמרא is we find this concept of שליח נעשה עד, whether the שליח becomes an עד, is a clear מחלוקת in גמרא in קידושין. It's one of the famous מחלוקת'ן. Here. Should be right here, the second עמוד here. Here, yeah, the second עמוד, I missed it, too. Here it says like this: איתמר, רב אמר שליח נעשה עד. רב holds שליח could become an עד. And רש\"י טייטשט this actually what it means. Let's learn the רש״י here. בין לקדושין, whether it's קדושין, like the example I gave before, if you sent a שליח to give the קדושין, and קדושין has to be given in front of two witnesses, he could become an עד. בין ששלח ממון לבעל חובו, or you sent a שליח to pay a debt for you. Later on, the guy denies it, \"I never got your money.\" מצטרף שליח עם עד להיות שנים. He could be with himself, he gave the money, he could be a witness. דבי רב שילא, דבי רב שילא אמרי אין שליח נעשה. The ישיבה דבי רב שילא said not. A שליח can't become an עד. The גמרא asks the שאלה, what is the סברא of the מחלוקת? אלא the גמרא says like this: רב אמר שליח נעשה עד, אלומי קא אלים למילתיה. So a שליח could become an עד. Not only is he a good עד, he's the best עד! An עד testifies what he saw somebody do. Here, he's not only testifying what somebody did, he himself did it! So he's the best עד. And לפועל ממש, he's only a שליח for that guy. So, obviously he's not looking he's not testifying on himself, because he was a שליח of that person, and he would happen to be involved, אלומי למילתיה, it's even better! דבי רב שילא אמרי אין שליח נעשה עד. רב שילא says not. כיוון דאמר מר שלוחו של אדם כמותו, הוו ליה כגופיה. Since a שליח is like the משלח, שליח is like the guy who sent, so it's himself. How could you testify on yourself? So אין שליח נעשה עד. We're going to go into this details of this גמרא soon, but just for the So the רא״ש, תוספות הרא״ש, the רא״ש says, when the גמרא mentions here שליח נעשה עד, he's not referring to this גמרא. Because in our case, no matter what, according to everybody שליח could become an עד. This שליח could become an עד. The שליח of the גט, who testifies about the the חתימות, is not connected to this מחלוקת. He says, why? Because the גמרא says No, could be כמותו, why not? Because he's not married to the woman. Doesn't matter. Every שליח is כמותו by גט. We're talking about בפני נכתב, not there. It's כשאר כמותו. But the גמרא says later earlier on דף ג that the reason we trust the שליח, לכאורה how do we trust him? Always need two people to testify. How do we So one of the things the גמרא says that since מיקרי מידק דייק ולאוסורי עליו נפשיה, since a person knows that he has to testify before a בית דין, the חכמים felt that he's not going to lie. So here, this שליח has a special דין that the חכמים gave him that we trust him that when he says, \"I saw it written, signed,\" we believe him. So this had a special דין. Even if you hold over there a regular case אין שליח נעשה, שליח can't, but here it is. So he טייטשט like this: what the גמרא is saying is since in our case the חכמים were מיקל and allowed the שליח to become an עד, maybe in our case the עד could become a דיין also. It's like an המשך. Since there's a special דין by this case of בפני נכתב, you see, the חכמים made a special, that's what the גמרא means. כהא דשליח נעשה עד, why? Because the רבנן felt by the גט we should give him, we should be מיקל, משום עיגונא, all the things we said before, maybe עד נעשה דיין. And the other one says, \"No! The חכמים were only מיקל by שליח נעשה עד, but not by עד נעשה דיין.\"

According to the תוספות הרא״ש, we see the connection. פארקערט, the גמרא is trying to connect it that just like over here שליח נעשה עד, oh, makes sense. Yep. The ריטב״א argues. The ריטב״א says that the גמרא here שליח, it means the same שליח נעשה עד from there. And he says a different ווארט. He says that the גמרא gives the הקדמה because the only time there could be a מחלוקת whether עד נעשה דיין is only if we פסקן שליח נעשה עד. If we פסקן the שליח can't become an עד, why can't he become an עד? Because he is testifying on himself. That means we're looking at he's the same person. So the same thing, how could he become a דיין? He can't be a דיין on himself! So that's why, so that's why the גמרא gives the הקדמה, it says, since, that's what the גמרא, \"Since we פסקן לפועל שליח can, oh the שאלה is how does it work by an עד? Maybe by an עד also, maybe not.\" So again we see a סברא. He's not saying כולי עלמא לא פליגי that the עד that that the עד נעשה דיין שליח נעשה עד? No, he wasn't like פליגי, להלכה, since, he says clearly, since קיימא לן שליח נעשה עד, oh, so now we could say, so ממילא you could say עד נעשה דיין, or לאו דווקא, but it has to come after the שליח נעשה עד. Fine, I've no problems. I just want to say that according to the ריטב״א, in the גאנג of the ריטב״א, we could add אפשר a more פשט, maybe this אריינהאקן in the ריטב״א's words, or a טיפער פשט, or a different גאנג altogether. In this מחלוקת in the גמרא on דף מ״ג in קידושין, what's the סברא of the מחלוקת whether שליח נעשה עד or not? So we have the famous רב יוסף ענגיל. רב יוסף ענגיל has the famous חקירה which we all know, that the רבי brings it hundreds of times in the שיחות, בנוגע the three ways of שליחות, we're not going to go into all three, the main two sides. The שאלה is, when you say שלוחו של אדם כמותו, and the שליח is like the משלח, do we say that he becomes כמותו ממש, the שליח becomes the משלח? ראובן sends a שליח to be מקדש a woman, and שמעון is מקדש, it's really ראובן מקדש. אה, it's a חידוש of the תורה, makes no sense. שמעון is not ראובן. So a דין, a שליחות, the תורה made a חידוש דין that כגופו ממש. The שמעון becomes ראובן, the שליח becomes the משלח. The other extreme, there's a middle one, but that's not נוגע. The other extreme is בפירוש not. שמעון remains שמעון. ראובן is ראובן. The תורה made a דין that in spite the fact that ראובן is the one that's מקדש and he's supposed to give it, לפועל שמעון is doing it. The תורה said that if you appoint him as a שליח, what he will do, she will become מקודשת to you. But he doesn't become, we don't say that a שליח becomes the משלח. That's his first חקירה that he has in לקח טוב. לקח טוב is one of the ספרים which has different סימנים, and there he goes and he brings ראיות from different places in ש״ס, ראיות for this way, ראיות for this way. לקח טוב? No, no, no, it's the לקח טוב of ר' יוסף ענגל. And the first ראיה, I think he brings, if I remember correctly now, the first one is this גמרא. That this גמרא, he said, this is the מחלוקת between רב and דבי ר' שילא. And he טייטשט it like this: רב says שליח נעשה עד. Why? אלמוה, כמאן דאמר אלמוה למילתא, the שליח becomes an עד because it makes it stronger. וואס הייסט? The שליח is not ממש the משלח. The שליח is somebody else! So if he's somebody else, he could be an עד. Not only that, since, like I said before, he's the one that actually did it even though it's not the other guy, he did the מעשה, but לפועל it happened for that guy, and he is not involved, so why can't he be an עד? And דבי ר' שילא אמרי אין שליח נעשה עד. Why? כיון דאמר מר שלוחו של אדם כמותו, הוה ליה כגופיה. It's כגופיה, which means דבי ר' שילא learns that שלוחו של אדם כמותו ממש. Also, he is the same guy. If he is the same guy, then how could he be an עד? That's what he learns the מחלוקת. Fine. It makes sense? To me, not really. Tell you why. I really have a hard time understanding this. My שכל says פאַרקערט. My שכל is opposite. Why? Which one? Wait, no, listen. I'll tell you. It says... why? לכאורה it's a פאַרקערט. If the שליח becomes the משלח, then, no, no, the שליח is כמותו. Who did the פעולה? The משלח! Who's the עד? The שליח! The שליח! So why can't he be מעיד on somebody else? No, it's כמותו. It's כמותו by the, by the מעשה שליחות, yeah! פאַרקערט, it merged. So when he gives the קידושין or he does the שליחות, it's not him, משלח! And then, afterwards, when he comes to be מעיד, when you come to testify, that's already later. So שמעון is testifying about ראובן. If you say he's not כמותו ממש, that means that who did the שליח, who did the פעולה? The שליח did. Not ראובן did, שמעון did. Who's going to be the עד? שמעון. How could שמעון be מעיד on himself? I would say the סברא פאַרקערט. Interesting. So I think the פשט is a little bit a little bit, what he means to say is a little bit further, a little bit different. The שאלה is like this: if it's כגופו ממש, yeah, I have a שאלה. When a person is a שליח and he does his שליחות, after he finished doing his שליחות, is he still a שליח? לפועל, it makes no difference, call him what you want, but is he still a שליח? Either you could say a שליח till the מעשה, then he's not a שליח. He is the person that was the שליח before, but now he's not. Or you could say he made him the שליח, the title שליח remains that he's the שליח. היינו, מאי נפקא מינה? He finished the job. In reference to that מעשה, he will always be Always, he's called a שליח. I use this, the רבי always said his שלוחים, אפילו when they finished with the שליחות, איינמאל a שליח is אלעמאל a שליח, he said קדושה לא זזה ממקומה. Yeah. What's finished? What, like, no, למשל the בחורים who he sent to Australia, remember that's what he said at an התוועדות, by public, and they came back when they finished their שליחות, the רבי, when they went, the רבי said they should be the first one to say לחיים because they're שלוחים. When they came back, they finished, so the רבי said they should say לחיים first again. Everyone was wondering, they finished! He said, קדושה לא זזה ממקומה. A שליח is a שליח, so he's still, the title שליח. Okay, okay, yeah, because They were. So no, not because they were, so now they're still. I'm, no, I'm saying, I'm using this as an example cuz you can't bring a ראיה from there, because there it's an ענין שבקדושה, it's it's it's קדושה לא זזה ממקומה. I'm just bringing a a דוגמא that there is such a possibility in שכל to say that even if you finish your job, but because you were שליח, so you're considered a שליח in this ענין. You're still called a שליח. Now, whether it is like that or not, I think depends on the חקירה. If it's כגופיה, what's the פשט? You make the שליח, the שליח becomes the משלח. Even before he does it. He becomes the משלח. There is a certain תואר, a certain title on him, a certain status. That doesn't change. If you're saying that it's not כגופיה ממש, all it is you are you have the right to perform an act which will help him. There's no status on you. You're never you're not a שליח. I mean we call it שליח, but שמא בעלמא, it's not a שליח. You have a right to do. You finish doing, אפגעמעקט, there's nothing there. But if we say כגופיה ממש, then you are the שליח and you stay and that's the פשט here. If he's not כגופיה ממש, then he's only his שליחות is only connected to the time he does the שליחות. When you come to testify, who's testifying? He. Best witness. And it's the best testimony. But he's testifying cuz he's not a שליח anymore. If he still

remains the שליח, and he's an עד, he can't be an עד. That's what he says. That's what the בית שמואל really means, that שלוחו של אדם כמותו, that the the השל\"ה says you can't, שלוחו של אדם כמותו, הוה ליה כגופיה. Always כגופיה! He becomes a שליח. He He transformed! Only לגבי this ענין obviously, he doesn't become the guy. In this ענין he transformed. So now that's his title forever, he is a שליח in this ענין. How could he come and be an עד? He's He's the שליח and he's the עד. But if you say it's not כגופיה, if it's not כגופיה, then he never became a שליח, the title. At least לגבי the מעשה he's called a שליח, but when it's over, it's over. So now it's not He's somebody else, the שליחות was somebody else, or it was for that guy, and that's why he could be an עד. That's where you want to say the din's from? So, I want We'll get back to that in just a sec. I want to say the same ענין in other words, another סגנון, in a different way. There's another חקירה בנוגע לשליחות, which I think is probably connected to this חקירה, even though it's not מוכרח, but it's connected, another חקירה. And that's definitely a ראגאטשאווער type of חקירה, because because others other people, in other ישיבות they don't like this this whole concept of פעולה ונמשכת. The ראגאטשאווער has his שיטה, and the רבי brings it many times, that there are certain things that the act that you do is not a one-time act that you did it and automatically it happened. It has to continue constantly that it's as if the act repeats itself again and again and again. So In perpetuity or just until the point of...? No, that's going to be the שאלה. Now we'll see where they get. That's it repeats itself. And there are other thing a lot of things which we find such an example. For example, what does he say by קידושין? Says you מקדש is an אשה, every second it's a re- the קידושין repeats itself. He gives his reasons why and his ראיות.

Famous story with the with the רב חיים בריסקער. He once met רב חיים by an אסיפה and he told him this סברא. רב חיים didn't agree. this the בריסקער can't take this. Well, I once spoke to a מתנגדישע ראש ישיבה from from from Lakewood, and I mentioned this, \"דאס איז א וויץ!\" A what? A וויץ, a joke. A וויץ, it's a joke, it's a joke. Yeah, יידיש. A וויץ. It's a joke, such a סברא. But anyway, the the the ראגאטשאווער said this to רב חיים. The next day, he met רב חיים. רב חיים goes over to him, says, \"מזל טוב!\" Says, \"What happened?\" Says, \"Well, according to you, you just got married.\" So the רבי told this story in a פארברענגען, but the רבי didn't say the end. I heard from somebody who knows the end that the ראגאטשאווער answered him, \"The מזל טוב you gave me then was also also פעולה ונמשכת. So you don't have to give me another מזל טוב now.\" Yeah, yeah. It's all Anyway, but he says in many things. Okay, but the סברא of it is that The סברא We'll get to I don't know if we'll get because I don't know how long we'll go. There is a סברא why it should be פעולה ונמשכת. At the The נקודה of the סברא is anything that's two opposites, anything anything that's היפך הטבע has to be פעולה ונמשכת. It's It's כסדר, like the אלטער רבי says בשער היחוד והאמונה, that בריאת העולם, the בעל שם טוב says, every second השם recreates the world. Why? Because anything that stay that you you're doing the opposite of its טבע, you have to He says קריעת ים סוף, the אלטער רבי says, the water the wind blew the had to blow all night, keep on blowing.

קידושין is היפך הטבע? You say קידושין is היפך הטבע? Yeah. Two people to come together? Yeah, yeah, two people, that's what he says. Yeah, no, no. He says קידושין is היפך הטבע. A man and a woman, yeah, yeah, he says that. He says that. It's נוגע להלכה. He says that נוגע להלכה. What's נוגע by קידושין הלכה? He says that הלכה is that if you marry one wife, you have to give her support, you have to give שאר, כסות, ועונה. And then if you marry a second one, and you don't have enough for both, The first one has the first שיעבוד, you have to give her first, and whatever is left over you give the second. But פארקערט, so he says, if it's פעולה נמשכת, you don't. Then they're both equal because they're... Yeah, yeah, yeah, he says like that. The שאלה is בנוגע שליחות. Is מינוי השליחות, when you appoint a שליח, is it a פעולה נמשכת or not? Wait a second. It's not... I'll tell you. פשטות, it's a מחלוקת between the רמב״ם and the טור. But listen, if you make a שליח, it's a מאדנע זאך, שליח, right? ראובן tells שמעון, \"I have to do something, you could do it for me.\" We see some things you can't do it, מצוה שבגופו. Put on תפילין for me, please! Okay, there are reasons why you can't, but I'm saying it's a מאדנע זאך. So could be it's a פעולה נמשכת. If I make you a שליח that next week you should מקדש an אשה, it's not the פשט I made you a שליח and now you're my שליח and you can be מקדש. Every second the מינוי repeats itself. Repeats itself again and again and again till the moment that you do the שליחות. So really, when am I appointing you to do the שליחות? The second that you're doing it. Or you could say, \"No, that at one point I make you a שליח, now you're my שליח, and that's it! Now you've became a שליח, now you could do it.\" לכאורה, this is a מחלוקת in the רמב״ם and the טור. If a

שליח... the משלח sends a גט with somebody to his wife, and נשתטה המשלח, and the משלח becomes crazy, can the שליח still give the גט? The רמב״ם says that מדאורייתא you could, because when he made him into a שליח, he was normal, so you could give the גט. דרבנן you can't. The The קצות explains the מחלוקת, it's not clear in the רמב״ם, but the טור says מדאורייתא you can't. לכאורה, this is a מחלוקת. If you learn that it's a one-time thing, then he gave him a שליחות when he was normal, now he has the שליחות and he could do it. If you hold that שליחות is a פעולה נמשכת, you can't, because the מינוי... the מינוי that he made before, it continue, but now it can't continue because he's not normal, so he can't give. According to the other סברא you could ask a שאלה, it's a stupid שאלה, but you can ask a שאלה: so if the guy died, he should also be able to give? If a guy gives a שליחות and the guy died, you should be able to give a גט? No, no. Why? No, there's nobody to divorce her from! There's no husband left, that's all. Not because the... You have no husband to divorce her from. There, the husband's still alive, אלא מאי he cannot be ממנה a שליח. Right, right. But like this is an ענין she's a widow, she has to have a יבום, חליצה, like this, she would save her, but you can't, that's different, אין גט לאחר מיתה because there is no husband. So the bottom line is that we have... so it seems like there's a מחלוקת in the רמב״ם and the טור, that the רמב״ם says that it's a one-time thing, that's why מדאורייתא it's good, and the טור says no. So we have these two things. Is it a... is it a מינוי שליחות, is it a פעולה נמשכת or not? It's נוגע לגבי other things also. They're going to be נוגע till later in פרק.

When you're מבטל a גט... you're מבטל the שליחות, when you send a שליח and you decide before he gets it, you decide, what... what happens then? If you hold it's a פעולה נמשכת, you know what the פשט is? You're not... it doesn't... you stop continuing to be ממנה. You don't have to do something to take it back. If it's a one-time thing, you made him a שליח, you've got to work on taking him back! Undo! Could be that's a מחלוקת between רבה and רבא, גילוי דעת בגיטא, it says. When you're מבטל the שליחות, you've got to say, \"I'm מבטל,\" all all the דינים. What happens a guy didn't say it clearly? He's just מגלה דעת! למשל, the גמרא tells a story, the guy sent a גט, and he couldn't find the wife. And when he come back to the husband, he says, \"I couldn't find her.\" \"Oh,\" he said, \"ברוך השם!\" He didn't say, \"I I want to be מבטל שליחות.\" It's a מחלוקת if that's good enough. So לכאורה you could say if you have to undo something, you need a strong כח, you need for that... If it's not undoing, it's just holding back, it's enough... I'm I'm not going into that, that's נוגע when we'll get to that גמרא... We'll learn that גמרא after פסח, so we'll see, talk of this ענין. But the bottom line, so that's one נפקא מינה. There's another נפקא מינה. נפקא מינה would be like this: if it's a פעולה נמשכת, after you finished doing it, you're not a שליח anymore! Because all I'm doing, I'm being ממנה you should do, because you're not בעצם a שליח. So afterwards, it's over. If it's not a פעולה נמשכת, it's a one-time thing, then it makes sense to say that I made you into a שליח, that's, so the גוף of this דין, you're still a שליח. Right, doesn't matter, but the פועל of this, I made you into a מהות person. This this חקירה has to do with the previous חקירה, לכאורה, I'm saying it's not מוכרח, but you could say. Why? If it's כגופו, if he becomes ממש, what's the פשט? You transformed him. If you transformed him, then it doesn't have to be a פעולה נמשכת, you don't have to continue. If you say it's not trans- not כגופו ממש, אלא מאי you give him a כח, so then you have to have every second to go on. This is similar to what I said before. So we have these two פשטים. One פשט in the מחלוקת between שליח נעשה עד or אין שליח נעשה עד, the first way, whether the שליח if he's כגופו ממש, he continues even afterwards. If he's not, then שליח cannot be an עד, because if he stays a שליח, how could you You're still the שליח, how could you be an עד? If it's not כגופו ממש, then he's not doesn't continue to be a שליח. So why can't you be an עד? Now, or this novel because of the second חקירה which is connected the same as if connected. If you hold that it's a פעולה נמשכת, it's not כגופו, but it stops. It's not that you become a שליח. He continues till you did the פעולה, he continues making you. When you did the פעולה, he doesn't Why should he continue making you? So you could be an עד. If you hold that it's not a פעולה נמשכת, and we say ממילא it's כגופו, what happens? That when you make the שליח, the שליח is a שליח, and he stays a שליח always, and ממילא אין שליח נעשה עד. And that's the מחלוקת here. The same way we said that the שאלה whether שליח נעשה עד or not in this גמרא, which is the גמרא that the ריטב״א holds is the same שליח נעשה עד there, this is totally The whole מחלוקת is it depends, is the שליח a שליח after the מעשה is over? That's the שאלה. If the שליח still Whichever way we're going to explain, is the שליח a שליח after the מעשה is over, can be an עד. If the שליח is not a שליח after the מעשה is over, he could be an עד, huh? דיין. I mean an עד against No, no, I'm talking about an עד. The גמרא says, just the same logic we have over there, that after the שליחות is done, is it still I can have the same שאלה by an עד. If an עד comes and testifies, is he not an עד anymore? Now he's not an עד, he finished his עדות, or the פשט is, and ממילא, he he's the guy that was the עד before, or he's always in the title עד. So you could say on one hand, and there's no מינוי Once No, that would be Why is this a little bit a שאלה לכאורה? Like the ריטב״א says, if the שליח becomes an עד, that means he's not, so the עד also should not be. But the עד is different. See, an עד, not only there's no מינוי, there's no מעשה specific to do, your עדות could always be. They could call you to be an עד ten years from now. So עדות doesn't finish. A שליחות, you could say there's a סברא it finishes now. But שליחות has more סברא to be שליח נעשה עד. The עד to be a דיין would be the same שאלה. If the עד remains, then he can't be a דיין. If the עד So here there's So you could say no, you could say it's the same thing, or you could say it's לאו דוקא the same thing. In a קיום, once it's קיום, then you're not an עד anymore. They're never going to need you again. בפועל. But doesn't that קיום I'm saying, in theory, by every עד, you never know what happens if they lost the קיום. I'm just I'm just trying They want to catch Your עדות makes sense to continue. It's hard to be a technical part that it's going to be, but in ענין, עדות is something that doesn't stop. Or maybe yeah, maybe if finished, it stops. And that's the גמרא שאלה here. The גמרא שאלה is, do we say just like שליח נעשה עד, and like he says, and since we פסק׳ן שליח נעשה עד over there, ממילא if we hold that the שליחות does not continue afterwards, if it doesn't continue after, maybe the עד also doesn't continue. And that's one one סברא. And the other סברא says, no, that the עד שליח תאקע נעשה עד, אבל the עד cannot, because the עד does continue and he Forever, and as long as he's an עד, he cannot be a דיין. So there's no situation according to the second opinion where an עד can ever be a דיין. Right, right. There's no opinion where an עד could be a דיין. So it comes out like this, that if the עד Still he he can never be impartial. He has Yeah, he has his תנועה. Yeah, but that's a fact a practical fact, which is nothing against the למדות. Wherever למדות the guy how he feels. Yeah. So it comes out that if you say שליח נעשה עד is because he doesn't continue. Now, okay. Say I could take this whole thing and מהפך קערה על פיה, and say a סברא opposite, but let's stick with this. I just want to explain based on this, not so much based on what I was going to say, but I want to finish now, to explain based on this, some סברא why תאקע by a דין דרבנן we say for sure עד נעשה דיין. The

גמרא says, קיימא לן by דרבננ׳דיקע דין, עד נעשה דיין, for sure. I'll tell you why, according to this. We know clearly, this is an אנגענומענע זאך, even though not everyone agrees to this, it's an אנגענומענע זאך that every דין דרבנן is a דין on the גברא, not on the חפצא. It's a famous thing that a דין דאורייתא is on the object. The תורה says something is טרפה, the object is טרפה. If the רבנן say something is טרפה, the person can't eat it, but the object is not טרפה. The the basis is based on there is נתיבות who says that if you do an עבירה דרבנן בשוגג, you don't need a כפרה. תורת חסד explains why, because by דאורייתא, if you did an עבירה בשוגג, you ate חזיר חס ושלום, רחמנא ליצלן בשוגג, you ate חזיר, like a guy will say, \"I ate poison, but I I didn't know it was poison, so it shouldn't hurt me.\" Makes no sense, you ate poison. This is also. That's why you need a כפרה. Not that גברא, חפצא. The object, yeah, yeah. Check by דרבנן, there's the the תורה said you can you're not allowed to fight the רבנן. I didn't mean to fight the רבנן. I didn't need any This thing itself is not is not poison, it's not nothing wrong. They can't put an איסור on the חפצא. ר' איסר זלמן also talks by נאסר מדאורייתא actually, talks about this. אגב, from תניא is משמע a little different, because in תניא פרק ח, in תניא פרק ח he says that if a person eats something that's טרף, אפילו this אסור מדרבנן, it says even if he דאוונט with כח אכילה, he דאוונט with the כח he got, it's קליפה, שלש קליפות הטמאות לגמרי, and this it. According to the that פשט, איסור דרבנן is not שלש קליפות הטמאות, it's not it's not קליפה, it's not bad. You just have to listen to רבנן, you can't. Anyway, whatever, the רבי writes about it. It's a spiritual thing because it's No, there's no no, he brings an הלכה. In תניא it's הלכה. תניא is not a ספר הלכה, but he says, if you eat something that's no good, it's קליפה and it you cannot be מעלה it, you can't elevate it. But it's not According to this, it's not קליפה. What was קליפה for you, so you can't No, whatever it's קליפה. Yeah, but if you didn't know, you did it בשוגג, then what's Yeah, בשוגג you don't need a כפרה. He says it You don't need a כפרה, but No, you didn't do anything wrong! No, no, you had nothing to elevate, you didn't do anything wrong. You did something wrong, the question is whether you're going to get punished. No, the נתיבות says you didn't do anything wrong. That's not what That's not what אלטער רבי says. Exactly! Exactly, that's what I'm saying. See? No, אלטער רבי says you did something wrong, you won't get punished, that's the whole point of בשוגג. No, first of all, בשוגג you do get not not punished, but it has a פגם. It has a פגם. No, he says that you ate and it became part of you. No, you have קליפה within you. According to the נתיבות you have nothing, there's no poison, it's not poison, it's not it's not spiritual poison. But anyway, a דרבנן is is on the גברא. אנגענומען, that's that's אנגענומען. By איסורים the same thing, by מצות that you have a מצוה, there is a חפצא on the on the thing, whatever it is. The חפצא, which really means is, that a דין דרבנן doesn't make the מציאות into a מציאות. It's only the תורה could give you guidelines what you could do, what The רבנן could give you a guide what you could do, but they can't change the object to make the object a a certain status. They could tell you, and you have a חיוב to listen, it says לא תסור, you have to listen to חכמים, that's איסור דאורייתא, but they have no they have no right, or no כח, or they didn't want to, whatever words we're going to use, to change the status, but בפועל it didn't change the status. This whole thing, we said, why אין עד נעשה דיין? Because, since he became an עד, he has the status of an עד, even afterwards. By דרבנן, he never had a status of an עד. So אלא מאי he had to do it. So, he did it, he did it afterwards. So, that's why וקיימא לן by דרבנן, it's for sure אין עד נעשה דיין, עד נעשה דיין. עד נעשה דיין, ah. Yeah, because he's not a status of an עד. Does does isn't this עדות have a פעולת המשך, so therefore also has a שייכות to being an עד? The עדות is not not the עד. First of all Yeah, but, okay, but it's a description of something that he did, therefore it makes him connected to the action, and therefore in some way he's always an עד. The You said if they lost it, then they had to come back to him The fact that his name is on that piece of paper makes that piece of paper valid for as long as it's Exactly what I said, that's the reason for the other side, but that side holds that you can. Exactly. Okay. I said harder than I can. You have views that fight definitely.