עמוד ב goes on to דף ו עמוד א. The Gemara brings here תנו רבנן, המוציא מחנות לפלטיא דרך סתו חייב, ובן עזאי פוטר. If someone walks out from a רשות היחיד and carries something, and carries it into the רשות הרבים, but he walks through a כרמלית in the middle, so Ben Azai, so the Chachamim first say you're chayav because the bottom line is that you made an עקירה in רשות היחיד, and you carried it into the רשות הרבים, and you made a הנחה in רשות הרבים. So, if a person makes an עקירה in רשות היחיד and a הנחה in רשות הרבים, you're chayav. And Ben Azai says since you walked through the מקום פטור, you are patur. And the Gemara explains what the מחלוקת is between Ben Azai and the Chachamim. So the Gemara says בן עזאי קסבר מהלך כעומד דמי.

Ben Azai holds that when you walk, every step you take is as if it stopped. So basically, when you took started off from רשות היחיד and you walked through the כרמלית, every step that you took in the כרמלית is as if you stopped. So he looks at it as if you made an עקירה in רשות היחיד and a הנחה in the כרמלית. And then when you continued walking into the רשות הרבים, you made a new עקירה in the כרמלית and a הנחה in the רשות הרבים, so you're patur. You're only chayav if you make an עקירה in רשות היחיד, and without stopping in the middle, you make a הנחה in רשות הרבים. But since מהלך כעומד, walking is like standing, which means every time you take a step, we look at it as if you stopped and continued, and stopped and continued, Mimela, it's as if you stopped in the middle in the in the כרמלית. The Rabbanan disagree, and the Rabbanan say מהלך לאו כעומד דמי. So therefore, it's not considered as if you stopped in the כרמלית. So the Rabbanan look at it that you walked straight from the רשות היחיד to the רשות הרבים, and that's why you're חייב. If you make an עקירה in רשות היחיד and a הנחה in רשות הרבים, you are חייב.

What we're going to discuss is what is the Sevara behind the Machloket whether we say מהלך כעומד דמי or not. On a first glance, the Machloket is whether we say this Sevara that when you walk, every step you take is you stop. Ben Azai holds that every step is considered that you stopped, and Beit Hillel says it's not, and the Rabbanan say it's not considered as if you stopped. So you have a Machloket whether we say מהלך כעומד. But there must be some Sevara behind it. This is not some Machloket punkt like this. I mean, you could say that way. Not you could say, that's the Peshitut, but it seems like it's Pashut a מחלוקת במציאות whether it's called stopping or not. So there are others that want to explain the Machloket a little differently. There's a ספר they bring down, I didn't see it inside actually, called Chafetz Hashem, I don't even know who wrote it. Some, a late guy, or And he wants to say the Machloket is like this. Lichora, we have a major She'eila on Ben Azai. Ben Azai says that it's as if you stopped in the middle. Why? Because מהלך כעומד.

Don't we know that even when you really really stop, it's only called stopping, Mimela it's called a הנחה, and then from there on it's a new עקירה, if you did it לנופש, not לכתף. Even when a guy Pashut walks and he actually stops, but he stops only לכתף, לכתף means, as we learn in the Gemara, only to fix the package on the shoulder, but he didn't really mean to stop, that's not called stopping. Even though physically he stopped. He's walking, and he stops because it's bothering him, and he stopped for a minute and he's fixing his package, and he continues walking, that's not called stopping. When is it called stopping? If he stops לנופש, if he stops to rest. So the she'elah is, it's a moradikeh she'elah, how does Ben Azai say that because מהלך כעומד it's as if you stopped? Naniach, let's say it's as if you stopped, but it definitely didn't stop לנופש, you didn't stop to rest. So מה דלך if you mamash physically stop and it's not made to rest, it's not called stopping and it's not called a hanachah. So let's say even according to the Rabbanan, if somebody walks ד׳ אמות ברשות הרבים, and in middle he stopped, or someone, and do we say he stopped only because he wants to fix his package, physically stopped. Nevertheless, it's not called stopping. So how could the Ben Azai say that when you walk, מהלך כעומד דמי, you're really walking, but because every step that you take is like you stopped? But definitely it's not you stopped lifush, you didn't stop to rest. U'vikhlal, you didn't stop, it's we look at it as if you stopped. So how could Ben Azai say that that's a called stopping, when stop, we know from the Gemara that stopping לכתף, even stopping if it's not for the purpose of fixing your package and continuing to walk, it's not called stopping? So they want to say that Ben Azai takeh argues on this דין. Ben Azai holds that it doesn't have to be lifush, that even if you stopped לכתף, if you stopped to fix your fix your package, as long as it is a stop, it's called stopping, and it's called a hanachah. He disagrees with this דין. Even though the Gemara said, what did the Gemara say here? אמר אביי, והוא שעמד אמר אביי, והוא שעמד לפוש. He disagrees. So now we have a way to learn the machloket between Ben Azai and the Chachamim, very simple. They both agree that מהלך כעומד. Yeah, that the whole machloket what the מציאות is, everyone agrees that every step that you take is stopping. But Ben Azai says that stopping is is enough halachah called stopping. And mimela if it's called stopping, it's called that you stopped in the כרמלית. So you started in רשות היחיד, stopped in the כרמלית, ah you didn't stop to rest, but it's not it's enough, as long as there is an ענין of stopping, it's called hanachah. Then you continued again, it's a new akirah, so you stopped in the כרמלית, and then you started in the כרמלית, you stopped or something, you're patur. And the Chachamim say no, we agree with you that it's like you stopped. The problem is, the Rabbanan say that stopping doesn't count, because if you'd really stop it wouldn't count. So certainly if you stopped with which is not a physical stopping, and definitely you didn't stop to rest, and that's what the Rabbanan say, we don't consider it stopped, and therefore you are chayav. Ah? No, when you name it לפוש means that he is... Farkert, no, so then it shouldn't be called stopping. But Ben Azai holds we don't care. Ben Azai says even if you're מגלה דעת that you didn't mean to stop, but if you physical this is what he learns: if you physically stopped we don't If it's If there is a stop, we don't care what your intentions are. That's what he holds. He disagrees with this klal that we said that it has to be with the intentions of resting. משא״כ the Rabbanan say no, this is the way we hold, and this taka we pasken. We pasken like Abaye that it has to be when is it called stopping, if you stopped to rest, and therefore the Rabbanan say this is not called stopping. So again, according to this, they both agree that מהלך כעומד. The she'eilah is is that an עומד which is enough to call stopping as a hanachah? No. If you would hold like this. Yeah, yeah, yeah, right, good, yeah. The problem with this pshat is that most mefarshim don't learn like that. Most mefarshim learn that Ben Azai does agree, Ben Azai also, everyone agrees to this din that when you stop לכתף only to fix your package, it's not called stopping, and you're only chayav if you stopped for the purpose of stopping. How to answer the kashya, but לפועל he didn't, we'll say that in a second, but לפועל if Ben Azai holds like that too, אלא מאי Ben Azai holds that when you מהלך כעומד is considered stopping for the sake of stopping. So you can't say this is the machloket. We got to find a different way to say the machloket. I'll I'll explain what taka the pshat. Why is it considered stopping if a Ben Azai would hold and if we say everyone agrees that stopping is only called stopping if he stopped למען stopping, he stopped to rest, but not if you stopped for purpose of continuing to walk, then how could a Ben Azai say that because מהלך כעומד it's called he stopped in the כרמלית? He didn't stop, he walked, so he certainly didn't stop לפוש. The pshat is like this. Call me right back. The pshat is like this. It doesn't go in time. When we say there's a difference between לפוש and לכתף doesn't go in time. It's not time. It's not the pshat that לכתף is a short time, you only stop to fix your package, it takes 30 seconds, but if you stopped to rest, you'll stop for 5 minutes, so it's a longer time that's That's not the pshat. It's possible to stop to rest to be shorter than stopping לכתף if you have a big package. And it's, well, it takes to the, a whole ganze gesheft till you fix your shoulders, and you fix the straps, and could be it takes 5 minutes, and it's not called stopping. And sometimes you can stop to rest, and you stop just for 1 minute, and you catch your breath, oh, it's enough, and you continue. So it doesn't go on time. What is the pshat? We use the terms, stopping to rest or stopping to fix your package. It's only a the term we, but that's not what we mean. We mean, is it a stop לשם stopping, or is it a stop not לשם stopping? You're trying to be able to to, not because you want to stop. See, the emet is like this. It's not even because stopping to fix your package is al menat to walk. When you rest it's also al menat. What happens if a guy stops to rest because he's tired, and he can't continue walking? So he says, \"You know what? Let me rest for 5 minutes.\" One one second, mister, I didn't finish it. So, even that doesn't mean that it's not This is for the sake of continuing, this is not for the sake of continuing. The vort is, did you mean to stop, or you didn't mean to stop? When you stop to rest, what it means is you meant to stop. If you mean to stop, that's called stopping. If you mean to stop because, not because you want to stop, that's not called stopping. That's not called resting. That's the vort. Now, if מהלך כעומד, and every and that's the fact, so whenever you walk, and walking means stopping, so, this is what you mean to do. You mean to walk, which walking means to stop every second, and that's what the your intentions are. Your intentions to walk in the way walking is, and walking is stopping, so you're intending to stop, whatever stopping means. It's not a vort in time, how long it goes, or intentions is to continue walking. You can have in mind to continue walking, and it's still called, much like I said, רוב לפוש is to continue walking. You stop to rest so you should be able to continue, because otherwise you can't continue. So that's not called resting? Bekitzur, usually stopping in the middle of a trip to rest is because otherwise, if you wouldn't If you'd be able to continue, you wouldn't stop. You want to continue, and you can't because you're tired, so you stop. So what it means is, is this לשם stopping or not? So Ben Azai holds that because you're stopping, you're you're it's מהלך כעומד, so automatically that עומד is part of your intentions. You're intending to do what you're doing. So if מהלך כעומד, you're intending to stop, whatever the stopping is, even though if it's a short sec it's a split second, that stop. Every time, doesn't go in time. Now, you could say maybe that that's the machloket. That Ben Azai says that this is called, that is called עומד לפוש, and not that Ben Azai holds that it doesn't have to be עומד לפוש. He holds this is considered עומד לפוש, and the Rabbanan not. It's a possibility to say that this is the machloket. But really what I want to get is to say So, right now we had two ways of learning the machloket. The first way doesn't sound right, the second way sounds more. Actually, we

have three ways already. First way is, is it considered stopping or not? מהלך כעומד or not? The second way we said is, they both agree with מהלך כעומד, but whether it has to be לפוש or not. Ben Azai says it doesn't have to be לפוש, and he says it does, second way. Now we're saying a third way, that and saying it's a shvere way. The third way is that they that they both hold that it's מהלך כעומד. They both hold that it has to be לפוש, but what's the pshat in לפוש? So Ben Azai holds לפוש does not mean resting, physically resting. לפוש means you're intending to do what, but you're intending to stop. And in this case, if walking means stopping, and that's what you're intending to do, so you're intending to stop. And and I keep on saying, and the the Rabbanan will argue, the Rabbanan hold that this is not called, it has to be mamash a physical stop. But you could go a step further and say the pshat is a little bit more. And that is, as I noticed, that a lot of the בחורים who looked up some of the mareh mekomot, looked at the sichot, figured it out right away what I was trying to say. And I'm happy, so you got the שניט. And this is based on the sicha in חלק ט״ז. You know, if someone wants to would give me it, it must be around a lot because guys were looking at it. Pinchas. חלק ט״ז, עמוד 312. So here, the Rebbe brings a machloket between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. Not a machloket, a לשיטתיה of their machloket. Now usually, we know the לשיטתיה מחלוקת בית שמאי בית הלל is בכח ובפועל. This is not it. It's a different לשיטתיה. Actually, I remember when the Rebbe said this sicha by the farbrengen, and the Rebbe started off with the whole thing and comes here with the מזבח, and then he said that this is going to depend on the לשיטתיה. You're coming back? Keep in mind, don't forget. This is 120. The 104 walked out, 115. Back? Oh, you're back. Oh, okay. Oh, good, I'm sorry. He's walking so fast. Okay, so I remember when the Rebbe said that this will be dependent on the מחלוקת, בית שמאי לשיטתיה, בית שמאי בית הלל, I remember sitting by the farbrengen and assuming, expecting to come, as we know that בית שמאי בית הלל בכח ובפועל, that's one of the Rebbe's things that he kacht zich many times, all of a sudden עפעס a new biur. If you think about it, probably they're connected, בכח ובפועל, to this machloket. The Rebbe here brings a מחלוקת בית שמאי בית הלל, and he brings, he says, אלו לשיטתייהו אזלי, they hold, and he brings six examples. And he says he's going to bring an example of, one example of each סדר in משניות, in Shas, which is ששה סדרי משנה. And

I'm going to just bring two because these first two bring the, show this sevara. And this is the nekudah the Rebbe said: The machloket is whether you look at things the way it is באופן כללי, or you look at things and you go on באופן פרטי. And the first example is the one that gives out the best, that's a סדר מועד, he said, Seder Zeraim I mean, and that's in Maseches Berachos. When it comes to make a ברכה מוצאי שבת on havdalah, on the candle, what brachah do you make? So, Beis Shammai says you make a brachah: ברוך מאור האש. And Beis Hillel says you make a brachah: בורא מאורי האש. The difference is מאור is לשון יחיד, מאורי is לשון רבים. So, read inside, he says, בית שמאי אומרים שברא מאור האש, ובית הלל אומרים בורא מאורי האש. And the Gemara is מסביר the machlokes. בית שמאי סברי חדא נהורא איכא בנורא. Beis Shammai says there's one fire. When you have a fire, it's one fire. אינעם אש איז דא בלויז איין אש, איין גוון, one color, one fire. And therefore, דארף מען זאגן מאור בלשון יחיד. You thank Hashem for making the מאור. מאור is the fire, מאור האש. ובית הלל סברי טובא נהורא איכא בנורא. Beis Hillel holds that there are a lot of colors in the fire, a lot of fires. And the Gemara says: תניא נמי הכי אמרו להם בית הלל לבית שמאי, הרבה מאורות יש באש. And he gives them an example, you have a שלהבת אדומה, you have a red fire, you have the white fire, you have the blue fire. ירקרק is something we טייטש usually green, but sometimes it means blue. Therefore, דארף מען זאגן מאורי, לשון רבים. So, the Rebbe asks a she'eilah, it's pashut that Beis Shammai and בית הלל קריגן נישט on a metzius, they're not arguing in a fact. Because the מציאות, זעט מען אז עס זענען דא אייניקע גוונים in the fire. Everyone know, you look at a fire, you'll see more than one color. ווי זאגן בית שמאי אז חדא נהורא איכא בנורא, how do they say there's only one color, one fire? No, the hesber davon is like this: בית שמאי האלטן אז על פי תורה, ווערן ענינים בעיקר באשטימט מיט די יסוד פון זייער תוכן הכללי. When it comes על פי תורה to decide different things, you look at the general, klal. ווי עס ווערט גענומען ביים ערשטן כללות'דיקן בליק, the first look you had of what the klal is. And he gives examples. The shittah of Beit Hillel is, אבער מ'דארף בעיקר רעכענען מיט די ענינים wie werden פאנאנדערגעגלידערט ביז זייערע פרטים. You have to go in the details. הגם די פרטים זענען נישט ניכר גלייך אין דעם ערשטן בליק, as you look at it at first glance, you don't see the pratim, you have to look into it. Nevertheless, that דאס דאקעגן, is מכריע on the הנהגה. When it comes to Torah the ikar is the pratim. דערמיט איז מובן the ta'am for their machloket. That explains the machloket. The din by berachot, he says, because by berachah is you have to have hana'ah from it, so when you see it, so he says a sevara like this: דעריבער האלטן בית שמאי אז אויך די ברכה דארף זיין אויף די בריאה פון כללות האש. בכללות, there's one fire, מאור האש. דאקעגן בית הלל נעמען אן די שיטה אז וויבאלד מ'איז מתבונן אינעם אש, דא זעט מען כמה מאורות. When you look at it and you look into it, you'll see many colors. דארף דערפאר די נוסח הברכה זיין, בורא מאורי האש. So, here we see that when you have two possibilities, not always do they argue because not always do you have two possibilities. Sometimes, no such thing as בכללות it's one way and בפרטיות it's another way. Here's an example where we do have: בכללות, so fire is one, בפרטיות, there are many different pratim. So, Beit Shammai says you have to look at the klal, Beit Hillel the pratim. Okay, then he had

another example which makes it also clearer to understand, in Seder Nashim, Ketubot. כיצד מרקדין לפני הכלה? What do you sing in front of a kallah? So, Beit Hillel says כלה נאה וחסודה, כלה that's nice and and kind. And Beit Hillel, uBeit Shammai say, what are you talking about? And what happens if if she's she's not nice and she's not kind? How do you say such a thing? So, what do you have to say? כלה כמות שהיא. Whatever she is, fine. What's the machloket here? Now, the machloket just could be that Beit Shammai holds you have to say the truth and Beit Hillel says you should lie? Actually, the Gemara asks, מדבר שקר תרחק. Beit Hillel says no, even if she's not kind, you're not to say that she's kind. Say she's nice, not true. So, the Rebbe explains like this. And I'll say it by heart. The truth is that she's takeh they say what happens if she's she's limping, and she's blind, and she's all kinds of chesronot, how could you say she's a kallah? The guy married her! Why did he marry her? He didn't see that all these things? Sure he saw. But he found other ma'alot in her, obviously. He found that there's something that fits for him, and he finds that she's good, and she's in certain things. You don't see that at first glance, but if you look into it and you think about it, you see that he probably did. So Beit Shammai says you have to look at it at the first glance. First glance, what you see bichlalot, bichlalot she's not. Bifratyut you could look into the details, you'll see. And Beit Hillel says no, you look into the details. And if you look at, that's the way you judge it, and in the details it becomes there is, yes, whichever way she is נאה וחסודה, in his eyes she's נאה, and there are things in which way she is נאה וחסודה. And then the Rebbe brings more examples from different, four more places in Shas, in different סדרים in Shas. Lichora, so

what the, at lichora, trying to say that maybe this is a machloket between Ben Azai and the chachamim. Not that they hold like Beit Shammai Beit Hillel, but the same logic that we find by the שיטות even Beit Shammai Beit Hillel you could apply here, too. When a person walks, bichlalot, he's walking, he's not standing. That's if you look at bichlalot. Bifratyut, if you look into, you mamash, you judge at the details, each step is a stop and a go, a stop and a go. So I want to say the machloket is not פשוט בגשמיות whether we say מהלך כעומד, that each step is called stopping. Everyone agrees each step is called stopping, but that's only when you look at the details. But if you look at the klal, the klal is it's not stopping. And that's the machloket. Just like over here, we have cases where if you look at the klal it'll be one way, and you look at the pratim it'll be one way, and the machloket is, what does the Torah want you to do? What does the Torah accept as the the thing to judge and pasken the halacha according? Should we pasken the halacha according to the klal or according to the prat? Same thing here. Ben Azai holds that you look at everything according to the prat, similar to what Beit Hillel says there. And therefore he says, yes, since if you look into the פרטים it is stopping, and he tells the Chachamim, you agree with me that it's stopping. Ela mai? You claim you don't look at it, and I'm telling you we have to look at the פרטים. And the and the Chachamim say no, we say you have to look at the כלל, and at the כלל you're walking. Now,

someone before, when someone once asked me, so it comes out that Ben Azai holds like Beit Hillel, so we should pasken like Ben Azai. In truth is, maybe that's the pshat of the Rif. Maybe takeh, maybe that's why the Rif says that in this case we pasken like Beit Hillel, like like like Ben Azai, because he holds like Beit Hillel. But it's not a kashya on the others, okay, so according to the Rif you could say this pshat, but according to the others you can't? Not true, because it doesn't mean that we find Beit Shammai Beit Hillel over there, it means in every case will be exactly the same. I'm just bringing a general way of looking at things. And you could say that in this case, because of whatever reason, we could pasken that you go after the after the כלל, even though by Beit Hillel we go after the פרטים. Yeah? That I said lechatchila is no problem. I explained why it's no problem. I guess you walked out. The לנופש is no problem, because it's called עומד לנופש. Because לנופש means if you're intending to stop. If you know that מהלך כעומד, that that's what you're intending to do, that's that's for sure. Ben Azai says, since מהלך כעומד and we judge the פרטים, so we judge a person when he goes, he's going according to what what going is, and going means stopping, so you meant to stop. I'll repeat again: לנופש doesn't mean davka to rest or not, or you had intention to go further. You meant to stop, and he meant to stop. No, there you didn't mean to stop. There the whole, no, there the whole stop, I know בגשמיות he meant to stop, but it's stopping not for the purpose of stopping. And here, if walking means stopping, you have to stop. It's like in a place you have to stop, that's what walking is, you can't, unless you jump! But otherwise you, so this is what you're intending, you're intending to walk, which walking contains stopping. That's called, that's like לנופש, that's what you have to taytsh. So al kol panim, we are able to explain the machloket. They both agree מהלך כעומד, the she'elah is do we look at the פרט of the עומד or do we look at the כלל of the מהלך? No, Beis Shammai says you go with the kelal, yeah. So here it doesn't fit if you pasken like the רבנן. It pasken if it's like Ben Azai, it fits, because here Ben Azai holds like like Beis Hillel. But that's, what I'm saying, if you want to say pshat in the Rif, I think takeh in the Rif you could say that. But I'm saying it's no kashya, so how did the others learn? And since it doesn't fit, so assuming the pshat is not a good pshat, I'm saying lav davka, because we're talking about a general logic, yeah? I wanted to say different, no, that's what I said before, that's one way to learn. I explained that, that's I said three ways before you could learn. Now I'm saying a fourth way, and the fourth way means not that there's a machlokes whether this is called לנופש or not. Everyone would agree this is called לנופש. The she'eilah, do we look at the lechat'chilah stopping So now we have four ways of explaining the basis of the machlokes between Ben Azai and the chachamim. If you walk slower than, okay, still walking. It's stopping even if you walk fast. It doesn't go on time, like I said before. It does not if they're not stopping, and then how long did you stop? What do you want to ask, nu? Well, that doesn't say, be-feirush says it, I mean. If if you say that, like the Rif. Lich'orah, this should be also a be'ur in the machlokes of Rabbi Akiva and the chachamim whether we say קלוטה כמי שהונחה. It could be the same thing. קלוטה כמי שהונחה means, when it's flying, we say it's as if it's stopping, and and Rabbi Akiva holds like and the רבנן say not. So, if you remember from one of the shiurim before, quite a few shiurim ago, I explained what is the sevara of the machlokes קלוטה כמי שהונחה between the Rabbi Akiva and the chachamim. So, if you remember, I explained it based on how the Tosafos Yeshanim learns over there in דף ג׳ עמוד ב׳, and how Tosafos learns, and what did I say then? Just in short, not going to go through the peratim, just in the נקודה כללות, that according to Tosafos Yeshanim, why קלוטה כמי שהונחה? Not because it's like it stopped. We don't need it to stop, because I explained, what do they hold? Why do we at all need עקירה and הנחה by הוצאה? Because otherwise it's not a real שינוי שינוי. So, I asked a שאלה, why is the עקירה itself not enough? When you make an עקירה, you're uprooting from one רשות, and you're taking it to the other רשות, why is that not enough to make a שינוי?

Why do we need דווקא הנחה? So, I said why do we need דווקא הנחה? Ein hachi nami, you takeh don't need. You only need it because you picked it up with a hand, and the same hand is going into the other רשות, so it really never left the original spot. So, you have to put it down because it's taken in by hand. But if you, that's a שינוי, but if you throw it, so it left your hand, you don't need an הנחה! So, it's not that פשט קלוטה כמי שהונחה when it's flying in the air it's like it landed. No! B'feirush it didn't land, but it doesn't have to land, because the עקירה is good enough, because the עקירה makes a שינוי רשות. That's how I said Tosafot Yeshanim will learn pshat in Rabbi Akiva. And what did I say the Rabbanan learned pshat in Rabbi Akiva? קלוטה כמי שהונחה that no, b'feirush you have to have an הנחה, and this is an הנחה, because as it goes, every time it stops. What do the Rabbanan hold? So, how did I explain according to Tosafot Yeshanim the Rabbanan hold we don't say קלוטה כמי שהונחה, why? Because either pshat is they say that you need an הנחה, not like you said that you don't need an הנחה, the only reason you need is to take away the problem of your hand. You need an הנחה, so therefore you can't, it can't be קלוטה כמי שהונחה. Or, they hold that even though when it's flying it also, just like if you take it with your hand it never left the original hand, flying in the air also never left, because why is it flying? Because of your כח הזריקה, so it's still you. Therefore, they say you have to land. All right, so that's according to Tosafot Yeshanim. According to Tosafot, they hold that we do not say it goes every נקודה ונקודה, so it doesn't say it stops. So, I gave a different biur in what is the מחלוקת between Rabbi Akiva and the חכמים, קלוטה כמי שהונחה. Likhora,

why can't I say what I said now? You could say the same thing. Be'emet, everyone agrees that it stops! Everyone agrees קלוטה כמי שהונחה! Just like we're saying here, everyone agrees מהלך כעומד. אלא מאי, רבי עקיבא says that we look at the peratim, because bichlalot it's not stopping, even more than walking. Walking we said is called bichlalot walking not stopping, flying in the air certainly. But בכללות, בפרטיות, everyone agrees that we look at it as if it's going נקודה לנקודה, so it's stopping. So, Rabbi Akiva says we look at the peratim, and and the chachamim say we look at, we don't look at the peratim. Taka no, I said let's not say that. That yeah, that they all agree that you have to have an hanacha. The she'eila, is this called an hanacha? And everyone agrees it did stop! It's like it stopped. The she'eila, do we consider this in in halacha because it's only if you look at the peratim, but if you look at the klal, it's not. So, the chachamim say we don't look at the peratim, we look at the klal, just like the chachamim say here. And Ben Azzai holds here that you look at the peratim, so over there Rabbi Akiva holds you look at the peratim. I'm saying maybe. Yeah. Nobody, it's קלוטה כמי שהונחה, they had an hanacha. That's what we we'll probably we'll get into that into soon. But the problem, there are more problems, but one problem that I'm going to say, if we say this peshat, it would come out that whoever holds מהלך כעומד has to hold קלוטה כמו שהונחה. Because we're saying it's exactly the same thing, the same reasoning, that everyone agrees in both cases that it's stopping, it's called stopping. There's no machloket in that. Machloket is whether we And everyone agrees that bichlalot it's not stopping in both cases. So it would seem that everyone who holds מהלך כעומד has to hold קלוטה כמו שהונחה. Whoever doesn't hold מהלך כעומד cannot hold קלוטה כמו שהונחה. Or whoever holds קלוטה כמו שהונחה has to hold מהלך כעומד, because it's basically the same thing. But is it true that Ben Azzai who holds מהלך כעומד holds קלוטה כמו שהונחה? Pshita not! Where do we see pshita not? I mean where do we see it? What? Yeah! מודה רבי עקיבא בזורק. If Rabbi Akiva is modeh that if you threw it, you're chayav. אי, it went through the כרמלית? If you hold קלוטה כמו שהונחה, it probably it, and you look at the pratim, it stopped there! So אלא מאי, we assume that Ben Azzai holds מהלך כעומד and he does not hold קלוטה כמו שהונחה. So therefore, it's hard to say that the machloket is in both. So either you say the machloket is in this one, not in the other, or in one, not the other, but it's hard to say the machloket is in both. הגם שבשעת הדחק you could bidchak say that they argue whether you look at the pratim, the she'elah what are the pratim. In פרטים גופא there are דרגות. The walking is more a prat that you could consider it, because after all, because you do see you put your foot down. קלוטה כמו שהונחה is far-fetched. Even though we say everyone would agree קלוטה כמו שהונחה, but such pratim that everyone will agree don't. Maybe. It's a dochak. Normally, it would not be like that, and therefore it's hard to say that that's the machloket. Therefore, I said last time that the machloket there is other reasons as I explained. No, but why does Ben Azzai not hold like that? That would be the she'elah. If Ben Azzai says that when you walk and be'etzem it's stopping and we look at the pratim, why would he not hold קלוטה כמו שהונחה? That's the she'elah, why would he? So I said that the sevara is not the same. But now I'm saying maybe he says there it's too far. And you could say it, but אבן מעופפת it wouldn't be. So therefore, I'm not saying a hundred percent that this option is not good, because you could bish'at hadchak, bidchak make a chiluk between that here he holds we go after the pratim, but not the pratim over there, because it's too far-fetched, you don't see the pratim at all. You could make for the dochak. But I'd rather say that that's not the machloket, and over there the machloket is a different reason. The machloket is, like I said before, a different reason. Okay. But over here, we're saying the machloket is, based on the שיחה in Chelek ט״ז, whether you look at the klal, or you look at the peratim. What I want to say is, further, based on this that this is the machloket, we could go a step further and explain another נקודה. Tosafot, huh? Okay, our case is the machloket whether it's klal or perat. Over there it's not. I'm saying the option over there I said is not, and we'll stick to here, and here the reason is because of klal or perat. And over there, the reason is other reasons

that I gave. Now, based on this, we could explain something else. Tosafot brings the kushya that the Yerushalmi asks: According to בן עזאי מהלך כעומד, how do you have ד׳ אמות ברשות הרבים? How could you ever, if you carry four, you walk with something and you carry ד׳ אמות and you're chayav, but in the middle you stopped according to Ben Azai! Yerushalmi answers: דוקא if, only if you jump! But you're not walking. If you jump ד׳ אמות, then you're chayav. Comes Tosafot and says that, huh? No. לא פלוג. קופץ, but not Right, our Gemara, Tosafot says, ש״ס דידן doesn't have the she'eilah because it's no problem to begin with. Why? Because הלכה למשה מסיני. The whole din of ד׳ אמות ברשות הרבים is a הלכה למשה מסיני, and therefore, since it's a הלכה למשה מסיני, we don't care, הלכה מסיני basically, that it doesn't have to make sense. That means that even though מהלך כעומד and normally when you walk it's called stopping, but not by ד׳ אמות ברשות הרבים, and that's why Tosafot has it. It would simplify the whole thing. Which means Tosafot is basically saying it makes no sense, it's a גזירת הכתוב. Even though it's against the rule, The rule is מהלך כעומד, ד׳ אמות is a different din, it's a גזירת הכתוב. Why would the ש״ס דילן, according to Tosafot, not accept the terutz of jumping? חודא is an easy, usually, when do we answer when we have a kashya and we say, \"Well, we don't make a... when a kashya doesn't make sense, gezeirat hakatuv\"? When do we say that? We have no choice. We try not to answer that. All over the Gemara and the mefarshim, they don't answer, \"Well, אזוי איז דאס, תורה says so, we don't know.\" If we have no other breira, then we answer that. Same thing halacha l'Moshe miSinai. When we say halacha l'Moshe miSinai, it doesn't fit... what Tosafot is saying, it doesn't fit with the rule. The rule is מהלך כעומד, so the rule is you stopped in the middle of ד׳ אמות. Halacha l'Moshe miSinai says we disregard it, we don't care. Why wouldn't Tosafot, why wouldn't the Gemara accept the terutz of jumping? What's the inyan of, why stick with jumping? Ela mai? The sevara would be to say that the whole din of ד׳ אמות ברשות הרבים is only if you jump, which is not a common thing, that's what doesn't fit. So the shaila is why does the Yerushalmi hold like that? It's a good shaila, if you... since it's a very not common thing to say that the whole halacha l'Moshe miSinai of ד׳ אמות ברשות הרבים is only if you jumped. Okay, so what we're going to say is that the sevara of the machloket is how uncommon is it? Very בעלבתישע סברא maybe. Yerushalmi learns that it's not so bad, it is some common, you could learn. ש״ס דילן learns it's very not common, and memeila, if it's not common at all, we can't say it, we have to say it's halacha l'Moshe miSinai. So again, it's a machloket במציאות. Go find out, take a statistic, take a poll, see how common is it to jump, I don't know. That's by mitzvot. We're not talking about mitzvot, but... Yeah, a Yid only... when does a Yid walk? Only to do mitzvot. For a mitzvah, you jump, so... Anyway. So there's another way to answer the machloket between Yerushalmi and and Tosafot. And the peshat is based on what it says in Sdei Chemed. The

Shdei Chemed brings the She'elot u-Teshuvot Chesed la-Avraham. And he brings a chakirah what's noga to another ענין there, לגבי Yom Kippur, a שאלה whether there's a דין of carrying, issur of carrying ד׳ אמות on Yom Kippur. Bichlal we know any of any issur of Shabbos, any issur that the Torah tells us about Shabbos also applies to Yom Kippur. So the שאלה is the ענין of carrying ד׳ אמות ברשות הרבים is not written in the Torah nowhere. It's not taken from the משכן. It's not like a regular thing, it's a special הלכה למשה מסיני. Does that also apply to Yom Kippur? And he says it depends on a chakirah. The chakirah is when the הלכה, we say הלכה למשה מסיני said that you're not allowed to carry ד׳ אמות ברשות הרבים, what did it say? Did הלכה למשה מסיני say that this is asur, you're not allowed to carry ד׳ אמות, that's what הלכה למשה מסיני said, we on our own, he doesn't taytsh it like this, but that's what we have to say, we on our own, the chachamim decided it must be a toldah of hotza'ah, because after all, it's in the category of carrying, and we have one melachah of carrying called hotza'ah, and here the הלכה למשה מסיני said you can't carry ד׳ אמות, so we put it into the, into hotza'ah and put it in the category of hotza'ah? Or he says the other way is הלכה למשה מסיני לכתחילה said, \"You should know that carrying ד׳ אמות is a toldah of hotza'ah.\" And mimela we know it's assur. It never said it's assur, it's a toldah of hotzaah, and a toldah of hotzaah, it means it's assur. What's the nafka mina? The way he brings over there is noge'a, if you hold the first way, הלכה למשה said just that it's an issur, so who says it applies to Yom Kippur? Yom Kippur, we know, learn out from לימודים that all the issurim that the Torah made for Shabbos automatically apply to Yom Kippur. The Torah never made an issur of carrying ד׳ אמות, it's a הלכה למשה מסיני which is a separate din, set for Shabbos. Why would we say that it goes for Yom Kippur, too? And mimela it could be for Yom Kippur, so it doesn't. If you hold that הלכה למשה did not tell us it's assur, הלכה למשה מסיני said that carrying ד׳ אמות is a toldah of hotzaah, and hotzaah does apply to Shabbos, we know that, that's part of of of what we of does apply to Yom Kippur, and all the dinim of hotzaah apply to Yom Kippur, הלכה למשה מסיני was just megaleh that hotzaah that ד׳ אמות is also part of hotzaah. If it's part of hotzaah, whatever the din of hotzaah is by Yom Kippur, so it would be the same din with ד׳ אמות. So the bottom line is, even though he claims this חקירה בנוגע יום כיפור, a different thing, the same thing could apply to here also. If you hold that הלכה למשה מסיני said that this is a תולדה of הוצאה, then it should have to fit all the גדרים of הוצאה. If by הוצאה we say מהלך כעומד, so what would be by ד׳ אמות? We should also have to say מהלך כעומד. Ai, how could you have a ד׳ אמות if you say מהלך כעומד? There is no ברירה, we have to say it's by what? We have to say that the דין of מהלך כעומד applies to, to ד׳ אמות also. Ai, how could it be? Must be jumping! Must be it's a case where there is no walking! If you say that like הלכה למשה מסיני said that this ד׳ אמות is a תולדה of הוצאה, so it has all the גדרים of הוצאה. By הוצאה, there is a גדר according to Ben Azai מהלך כעומד, so by ד׳ אמות has to be a גדר מהלך כעומד. So we have to say מהלך כעומד by הוצאה, by ד׳ אמות. But then we have a קושיא, how could you say? It's a contradiction. If you say מהלך כעומד by ד׳ אמות, then you can't be chayav ever! Must be in a case where there is no מהלך כעומד. Where is that? קפיצות, jumping. So Yerushalmi will learn that the pshat in the הלכה למשה מסיני is that הלכה למשה מסיני said that it's a תולדה of הוצאה. So even though jumping is not a common thing, but we have to say that's what the הלכה למשה מסיני meant. There's no other choice, because it said it's the same as הוצאה. If you learn הלכה למשה never said that, הלכה למשה מסיני just said that carrying ד׳ אמות is assur, so who says it has all the גדרים of הוצאה? So maybe here there is no גדר of מהלך כעומד. That's exactly what Tosafos says. הלכה למשה מסיני meant that there is no גדר, we don't say מהלך כעומד here. That could make, that could be, because it doesn't have to have the גדרים of הוצאה, because איי, we know it's a תולדה of הוצאה, that we did. Basically we could, I'm I'm using the words basically maybe for convenience's sake, so we put it, because you're chayav mitah, so you put it into category of הוצאה, it's not a new מלאכה. But not because it's that בעצם has to be like הוצאה, so here takkeh it could be

not like הוצאה. By הוצאה מהלך כעומד, and here it's not מהלך כעומד. That could be the machlokes. Well, you could say that's the machlokes we can say between the Yerushalmi and the Bavli. Yeah? If you learn, that's the sevara. But what I want to say really is that there's another way to explain the machlokes between the Yerushalmi and the Bavli the way Tosafos brings. Because like I mentioned, this Yerushalmi is not written in Yerushalmi. In our Yerushalmi we don't have it. Tosafos had a girsa like that in Yerushalmi. Whatever, but we're calling it, Tosafos writes Yerushalmi. This is not the only Yerushalmi that Tosafos brings that we don't have. There are quite a few places where Tosafos says איתא בירושלמי, and in our Yerushalmi we don't have it. Because we know Yerushalmi is missing a lot and got lost, that's why this guy had an ability to come up with a fake Yerushalmi, because we know that it's lost and and. Anyway, so I want to say there is a different way to explain based, not based, connected to what I said before in the general מחלוקת between Ben Azzai and the חכמים whether we look at the כלל or we look at the פרט. There's another thing here. Let's get into the Rif. We all know that most Rishonim learn that the Rif paskens like Ben Azzai. What's the Rif's ra'ayah?

What, why does, where does the Rif get that he paskens like Ben Azzai? So he says, because Rabbi Yochanan in the Gemara explains that Ben Azzai is מודה by זורק, by throwing. If the הלכה is not like Ben Azzai, what difference does it make? Why would Rabbi Yochanan go to tell us according to Ben Azzai is מודה if we don't pasken like him anyway? So the Rif learns this ra'ayah that we pasken like that we pasken like Ben Azzai, because the מסקנא Rabbi Yochanan says this because Rabbi Yochanan holds like Ben Azzai, so he tried to explain Ben Azzai's שיטה. And since Rabbi Yochanan paskens like Ben Azzai, we pasken like Ben Azzai. Even though it's against the rule יחיד ורבים הלכה כרבים, usually if it's one against many we pasken like like the רבים, in this case the Rif says obviously from the Gemara it's different, because the Gemara brings Rabbi Yochanan, and Rabbi Yochanan holds like Ben Azzai. Come all the Rishonim, many Rishonim: the Ran, the Rosh, Rabbeinu Yonah, they all ask a kushya on the Rif, and they say, how in the world can you say that Rabbi Yochanan holds like Ben Azai? Because he said peshat in Ben Azai? We have a clear re'aya that Rabbi Yochanan does not hold like Ben Azai! What Tosafot brings from the Rashba: Rabbi Yochanan himself is the one that said that if a person picked something up in רשות היחיד and walks around inside, and he plans just to walk around, and then he without stopping decides to walk out, and makes an הנחה outside, he's patur. Why? Because he never made an עקירה for הוצאה. He

made an He picked this up because he wanted to take it to another corner, that's not called an עקירה of הוצאה. But at when he tried to did go out, when he decided to go out, he didn't make an עקירה to הוצאה. But according to Ben Azai, מהלך כעומד, so he did make an עקירה to הוצאה! Because the last step, when he decided to go out and he walked out, That last step was a was a stop, even though physically he didn't stop. But every every step you take is a stop, so according to Ben Azai, he should be chayav, even if you picked it up in order to carry it around, is another הנחה and another עקירה. That's what they say. That's what comes out. מהלך כעומד, what מהלך כעומד means? Every step you stopped and you started again. Starting again is an עקירה. Why is an עקירה? What kind of עקירה? עקירת גופיה. He didn't pick it up, but we learn עקירת גופיה כעקירת חפץ. So that's an עקירה. So he should be chayav, even if he didn't stop. And since Rav Yochanan says you're patur, and according to Ben Azai he should be chayav, obviously Rav Yochanan does not agree to Ben Azai. So how could the Rif say that Rav Yochanan holds like Ben Azai? No, if there's a threshold, there's no threshold, we didn't say davka, saying if it's another רשות in the middle, we're talking there's no other רשות in the middle. Regular case, רשות היחיד to רשות הרבים. So it has to be in you have to stop in the רשות היחיד. Before he walked out, there was a No, that's a כרמלית, and we're talking on a regular case, רשות היחיד to רשות הרבים, you have to stop right before you go out. He did stop, because when he decided to go out, as he's walking, there's a stop there. So it's a kushya on the Rif. How could the Rif say that Rav Yochanan holds? Actually, the Rif never said it, but the way the מפרשים learned that that's what the Rif means, so it's a kushya on the Rif. So there is one answer to answer peshat in the Rif, and I'm not going to go through it late because we went through in the shiur, that the Rif holds like the Meiri, and the Meiri holds that the whole thing is מהלך כעומד is only because you stopped, because it's a different רשות, whatever, and the Rif could learn that Rav Yochanan agrees to Ben Azai. But there's another way some מפרשים learn. Now, the Rambam There's another way the מפרשים learn that the Rif learns a new peshat in Ben Azai, that when Ben Azai says מהלך כעומד, it's only לגבי הנחה, not לגבי עקירה afterwards, which you would marvel at. That מהלך כעומד, when we say what what what what example does Ben Azai give to מהלך כעומד? You made an עקירה in רשות היחיד, you walked through the כרמלית, and then you came to the רשות הרבים, so he says you're פטור. Why? Because in the middle you stopped. So, re'iyah you hold that when you continue walking, after every step you stop, and you continue, that לגבי the next step it's also called an עקירה. Usually, if something is a הנחה, something is מונח, and you pick it up from there, it's an עקירה. עקירה is if it's עוקר from a מקום מונח, that's normal. Could Ben Azai hold, and that's the Rif's new peshat in Ben Azai, that when you walk, every step you're stopping, but the next step is not called a new עקירה? You're כאילו making הנחות without עקירות. So, לפי זה, no סתירה to Rav Yochanan. Why did Tosafot say Tosafot say Rav Yochanan cannot hold like Ben Azai? Because according to Ben Azai, the last step you took before you walked out, you made a every step is a stop and then you started again, so you made a new עקירה, so you have an עקירה of הוצאה, even if you didn't actually stop. But if you learn this way, it's only good לגבי הנחה, and the reason would be because הנחה, as we learned many times before, is easier to make than עקירה. Like the Gemara says, דילמא הנחה הוא דלא בעי, עקירה בעי. What did the Gemara say? When the Gemara asked on דף ג' עמוד ב' that you need ד' על ד' for עקירה and הנחה, the Gemara proved it from Rabbi Akiva, and the Gemara said you only have a proof that הנחה doesn't need ד' על ד', maybe עקירה does. And we said why? Because to make an עקירה is always harder. הנחה is taking from something that's not to yes, whatever it is, sevara we gave. So, maybe what Ben Azzai says is מהלך כעומד is enough called עומד for הנחה, but not enough for making עקירה. It's not called an עקירה, no. It's not enough stopping. Like I said, so it's like many הנחות without עקירות. The first עקירה you made, but later on you could make a הנחה, but you can't make an עקירה, it doesn't make an עקירה. הא? No, a הנחה for the first עקירה. There was an עקירה in the beginning, and each time there's a new הנחה. It's a strange thing, but that's what you can say. And if you learn like that, Ben Azzai and Rav Yochanan don't don't contradict. And that's how the Rif learns. Okay. If you learn that's how the Rif learns, so it comes out, the bottom line,

that there are three opinions. There's the opinion of Ben Azzai, the way most Rishonim learn, that what? מהלך כעומד ממש. Right? לגבי עקירה, לגבי הנחה, ממש. Then we have the רבנן, who according to everybody holds what? No מהלך כעומד, in no situation, opposite. extreme. And then you have the Rif פשט in Ben Azzai that what? That מהלך כעומד is not full, is not 100%. We only say מהלך כעומד a a bissel. We only say מהלך כעומד לגבי finishing off something, but not לגבי starting. That's what comes out. So, we have three things. Okay, yeah? Okay. Basically, we have three things here in what? In מהלך כעומד. Should have expected it. Just like קלוטה כמי שהונחה, you have מהלך כעומד. Every time you're going to have in Shas כעומד, you'll always have this, at least in maaseh. And as we said that when it comes to these things of this is כ- something else, there is always two main things, and there's a third, really. Like by שליחות, you have the one on one side that it's ממש, the other hand that it's ממש not, and then you have the middle one where it's a little bit and therefore to a certain degree yeah and to a certain degree not. That's always by the things. And we have that in the מראה מקומות, actually, to the different places. The שיחות that I wrote down are all in this inyan, trying to bring this nekudah that you have these three things in different places. But since it's late, I won't go through all the places, especially I mentioned them many times. I just want to bring one more thing which I didn't mention in all the times, and that is that you have to say legabei another inyan, and I'll say it ממש בקיצור, hopefully you'll understand it. We know by

חצי שיעור, חצי שיעור, Rabbi Yochanan says is אסור מן התורה. Reish Lakish says מותר מן התורה. We know that the Rogatchover learns that the pshat is, it's a ראיה that since חזי לאצטרופי, since this is part of a shiur, and if you'd have the whole thing it would be אסור, it's חצי has the same איכות. And Reish Lakish argues. The פל״ח, they learn different, that what a pshat by חצי שיעור, why is it אסור, חזי לאצטרופי, it's like a גזירה. The Torah said that if we're going to allow you a half a shiur, you might come and finish it off. That's one thing. So one she'eilah in חצי שיעור. Then you have a that, and the Rebbe explains this in חלק ז׳. חלק ל׳ says the Rebbe says something that seems to contradict. The Rebbe goes according to the first pshat, like the Rogatchover says, that it's not the pshat it's a technical thing, farkert, the fact is that it's חצי ש- that the whole shiur is אסור is a ראיה that half a shiur is also אסור, because it's half of the whole has the whole איכות. The Rebbe there has another חקירה by חצי שיעור: is חצי שיעור a איסור in every פרט, in every דין, or is it a כללי׳דיקע איסור? If someone eats חצי שיעור חזיר, did he עובר with a, and it's אסור מדאורייתא according to Rabbi Yochanan, is he עובר the איסור חזיר? Which איסור חזיר? חצי שיעור of חזיר. He eats חצי שיעור of חמץ, he is עובר the איסור חמץ חצי שיעור, or it's a איסור כללי? There's a general in the Torah, a general דין that you can't eat חצי שיעור of a איסור. Just like we have the shaila about לפני עור, and that we went through more than once at the beginning of the masechta. If you're עובר you're מכשיל somebody to עובר on a איסור שבת, is this part of איסור שבת or there's a special דין כללי of לפני עור לא תתן מכשול? Same thing here. What I don't understand, how do these two חקירות fit? If we're learning that חצי שיעור is אסור why? Because it has the איכות of the איסור, so how could you say it's a איסור כללי? How could it say it's a איסור כללי? Then it's a ודאי a איסור פרטי. If the reason why חצי שיעור חזיר is חצי is אסור, because it has the איכות of חזיר, then it's obviously a איסור פרטי! How could you say? Mila according to the other shita you could ask a shaila. Other shita which says it's only like a gezeira, so what does it mean? Is it a איסור כללי or פרטי? But the Rogatchover, the Rebbe brings both from the Rogatchover, and the Rebbe himself has both chakirot. So, on one side, yes, says clearly

that it's not it's איכות has a whole full איכות. And on the other side he says maybe it's a איסור כללי. How could that be? So, I just want to say there are three inyanim in every issur. Every issur has a נקודה that it's asur. Then you have the idea that it has פרטים of what kind of issur. Just like in every mitzvah you have a ברוך אתה ה׳ אלקינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו, there's a general thing it's a mitzvah. Then you have which mitzvah. You have a general thing it's asur, what does asur mean? Against the רצון of the Eibershter. Then you have a פרט. And then you have the עונש that you're going to get. Now, the three inyanim that you said, that's the shaila here. If you learn that חצי שיעור is mamash the same as the issur, it has the איכות of issur and the איכות of the פרט, that's the shaila if maybe it's a איסור פרטי. You could say it's the other extreme, it's not part of the issur at all, so it's only merely a gezeira, that's like the פל״ח learns. Then you could learn there's a middle way, that it's part of the issur, but not part of the whole issur, it's part only of the כללות׳דיקע part of the issur. So you could learn it has the איכות of issur, but what איכות? Not the איכות of chazir, the איכות of what chazir has in the נקודה of issur against, against the aibershter. Okay, like I said, I'm going to say it in short. So, going back here, we could come back to the three opinions that we have here, which is the way the Rif learns pshat in Ben Azzai, and the way everyone learns Ben Azzai, and the Rabbanan, it's like this: when we say מהלך כעומד, if you learn that we follow, the way we said before, that we follow the פרטים, that we follow, pashut, we look at not the כלל of walking, but we follow the פרטים, so מהלך כעומד means כעומד ממש. And if it's כעומד ממש, what should be the din according to Ben Azzai? Should be patur. Patur, completely! And this goes in every case. It's patur, because מהלך כעומד is real עומד, and if it's real עומד, it's whether for עקירה, for הנחה, for everything. If you hold that you look at the כלל and do not look at the פרטים at all, so then that's like the Rabbanan hold. We don't say מהלך כעומד in any case. Then you could say that כעומד is like a middle דרגה. And as a middle דרגה, it's not really כעומד. So when it's only to finish off a melacha, like the inyan of הנחה, there we would say מהלך כעומד. But since it's not ממש עומד, it only works in a certain area where it's not so hard to accomplish it. And therefore, that would be the shita of the Rif. What does the Rif hold according to those mefarshim I said before? He holds that Ben Azzai, we pask like Ben Azzai, but when did Ben Azzai say his din? Only בנוגע הנחה, not עקירה, where it's easier. Why? That fits if it's not כעומד מ— if it's כעומד ממש, you don't make chilukim. You don't make chilukim because it's not כעומד ממש. But what what does this all follow? When can you say כעומד ממש? If we said that we're looking at the pratim. And we said a prat is takeh standing. So you could say כעומד ממש. That's the way the Rishonim learn in Ben Azzai. And then the Rif learns Ben Azzai it's a middle דרגה. And the and the Rabbanan, they learn the other extreme.