עמוד ב׳, שבת עמוד ב׳. The גמרא quotes a מגילת סתרים of רב חייא. מגילת סתרים was like a parchment document that was hidden, that רב חייא had, because before the משניות was written down and made as official משניות, תורה שבעל פה was not written down. But some of the, some תלמידי חכמים, when they would hear a דין, they would write down notes for themselves. But that wasn't publicized because תורה שבעל פה was not allowed to be written, so it was just notes to remember. So רב חייא had one of these notes, and in this note it said, איסי בן יהודה אומר, איסי בן יהודה said, אבות מלאכות מ״ם חסר אחת, there are 39 אבות מלאכות, ואינו חייב אלא אחת. Couldn't remember? Huh? Couldn't remember. No, he says and they, you're only חייב one, he says. Which means, פשט the way the גמרא understands it, that if a person will do two of these מלאכות, five of these, whatever it is, בהעלם אחד, with one forgetting, he has to bring only one קרבן. In other words, if a person, a gets you for a for for doing בשוגג a מלאכה on שבת, you have to bring a קרבן חטאת. So what happens if a person forgot it that you're not allowed to write on שבת, and he wrote, and he didn't remember yet, and then he forgot that you're not allowed to cook on שבת, and he cooked? So it's like one העלם, how many קרבנות he has to bring? So it seems from איסי בן יהודה, It's not that he forgot it's שבת? Well, that's, the easy example if he forgot it's שבת and did two things, but then there's big שאלות in the גמרא then you have to take and bring two, this is like best example. So איסי בן יהודה said, seemingly, that there are 39 מלאכות, but you're only חייב one, even if you did all 39 with one forgetting, without remembering in between, you bring one קרבן. And the גמרא says איני? That's not true, ותנן, because it says in the משנה, דף ע״ג it says, אבות מלאכות מ״ם חסר אחת, there are 39 minus one מלאכות, and that's what, and then the משנה lists every מלאכה, all 39. והוינן בה, so the גמרא says מיר האבן איינגעקלערט, we thought about it, מנינא למה לי, why does it say a number?

אמר רבי יוחנן, רבי יוחנן said, שאם עשאן כולם בהעלם אחד חייב על כל אחת ואחת, to teach you that if a person forgot and did many מלאכות with one העלם, you're חייב all. In other words, you could be חייב 39 קרבנות if you forgot all 39. So it seems from this משנה that if a person did a few מלאכות, we call it בהעלם אחד, with one forgetting, you're חייב for each one. So how could you say that איסי בן יהודה said that you're only חייב one? So the גמרא changed what he said, אלא אימא, he meant something else, אינו חייב על אחת מהן, that he says like this, there are 39 מלאכות, one of the 39 you're not חייב for. And we don't even know which one that is. One you're not חייב. That's what he meant and the גמרא brings it in in connection to the ברייתא here. נוגע to our discussion. Could it be the מלאכה גרועה we always talk about? What's the significance No, forget it, the גמרא is telling us that הוצאה is not that one. הוצאה for sure you're חייב. Oh, yeah? That's what the ברייתא is telling you. What's the significance of not being חייב on one of them? The one, he has the קבלה that one of, you're not חייב and and which one we don't, he knew, but we don't know which one it is. But that's not נוגע to us. The ברייתא is telling us that carrying is not the one. The other ones we don't know, whatever. But what we're going to discuss is this, that we thought that that איסי בן יהודה said that if you do more than one מלאכה בהעלם אחד, you're חייב only one. We bring a ראיה that it's not true because in the משנה it says the number 39, it says he says also 40 minus 1, 39, and רבי יוחנן explained why does it say the number 39, to teach us that you could be חייב 39 חטאות. ממילא from there we see that you're חייב on each one, it's not like you're חייב only one for a few. This is the גמרא. Let's read the רש״י.

רש״י says like this: First, when he said when we thought he said that you're only חייב one, so רש״י says השתא משמע, now it seems, שאם עשאם בהעלם אחד, if he did it with one forgetting, שלא נודע לו בין כל אחת ואחת שחטא, and in between he did one and didn't remember that he sinned, because if you did one and you remember and then you did forgot it's the other one, then for sure you're חייב for each one, but you didn't remember, אינו חייב אלא אחת, he's only חייב one, דכל חילול דשבת גוף אחד של עבירה הוא, because all חילול שבת is one type of עבירה. One גוף, one body of an עבירה, so you're חייב one for all the עבירות. Then the גמרא that can't be because in the משנה it says a מנין, מנינא למה לי, why does it say a מנין, a number? So רש״י explains, ליתני, it should have said אבות מלאכות, you shouldn't say a number, 39. It should have started off like this: there are אבות מלאכות, and who are they? הזורע והחורש, and go through the list. למה לי לאשמועינן מנינא, why does he have to tell us a number? תמני להו ואזלי, isn't he mentioning them? Count them, he's mentioning them all, count 1 2 3, you'll get to 39, so why do you have to Teach us. Came רבי יוחנן and they said, the reason is to teach us חייב על כל אחת ואחת, comes to teach you that you're חייב for each one. Isn't that רש״י? ובאו להודיענו סכום החטאות, so the משנה comes to teach us the amount of קרבנות שאדם חייב באיסורי שבת בהעלם אחד, that a person could be חייב on שבת for one העלם. How much can he be חייב? והשמיענו, so it teaches that you could be חייב מ״ם חסר אחת. You could be חייב for one forgetting, you could be חייב forty minus one. וסולא, and not more than forty, not more than 39. שאפילו עשאן כולן, still they say, anymore, even if you did did a תולדה, because these אבות מלאכות have תולדות, אינו מביא על התולדה היכא דאייתי אאבות. If you do, let's say a אב מלאכה, and you do a תולדה also, you don't bring for the תולדה. דהוה ליה כעושה וחוזר ועושה, like you're doing and you're doing the same thing over again. If you do twice the same עבירה, well naturally for sure you don't. The whole discussion here is if you do another עבירה, but if you do the same מלאכה and you do it, same thing. Even if you remember in between? I'm not talking between the same מלאכה, right. דכולה חדא עבירה היא, he says, because all the תולדות are the same עבירה as the אב. This is רש״י. Now what's שווער in this רש״י is, why does רש״י mix in here the fact that you're not חייב on the תולדות? All we need to know is, we thought that איסא בן יהודה said that if you do a few מלאכות בהעלם אחד you're חייב only one. But the משנה, because it says a number, we know that you're חייב on each one. That's it, that's all he has to say. So it can't be that איסא בן יהודה meant that. Why does רש״י come meaning, you know, and you're only חייב 39, you can't be חייב more, וסולא, not more, because even if you did the תולדות, you're not חייב more. And it's a פלא, the main place of this גמרא is on דף ע״ג. That's where the משנה is, and that's what רבי יוחנן said. So on דף ע״ג, where it's more important to explain what רבי יוחנן meant, here it's brought as a קושיא, there רש״י doesn't even say this. The גמרא goes there: מניינא למה לי? After this this of the משנה. The משנה says אבות מלאכות ארבעים חסר אחת, 39 minus one מלאכות, goes through the whole list. Comes the גמרא and asks the קושיא: מניינא למה לי? Why does it say a number? אמר רבי יוחנן, רבי יוחנן said: שאם עשאן כולן בהעלם אחד חייב על כל אחת ואחת, to teach you that if you did them all with one העלם you're חייב on each one. Look at רש״י: שאם עשאן, he did, so what does the משנה try to tell you? ובא להודיעך, the משנה is teaching you, שאם נתעלמו כל הלכות שבת הימנו, if you forgot all the הלכות of שבת, כמה חטאות חייב, on how much חטאות you can be חייב. רש״י doesn't mention here that you won't be חייב on the תולדה. Now it's included probably in what רש״י says: It teaches you how many חטאות you could be חייב. So it's both, that you could be חייב 39 and not more. But רש״י doesn't go into the details to tell you you're not חייב on the תולדה. If it's not important over there, why is it important here? Even though over there he probably means it also, but why does רש״י stress it here to put in the point that the the גמרא is trying to show that איסא בן יהודה cannot hold that you're חייב only one, because from the משנה רבי יוחנן explained means you're חייב on each one, and you're not חייב on the תולדות? What who cares about the תולדה here? This is not the point that you're trying to make here. I want to say this is connected to how we learn פשט in the גמרא, and then I won't explain, then I'll try to explain it. The גמרא said that איסא בן יהודה could not have meant it. He could not have meant that you're חייב only one. Why not? Because in the משנה, we see רבי יוחנן claim you're חייב for each one. So who cares? Maybe איסא בן יהודה argues? איסא בן יהודה is a תנא! He shlugged on the משנה, so what's a קושיא on the משנה? So

תוספות says, you know how we know that the גמרא's ראיה is? Because איסא בן יהודה did the same thing, he also gave a number! If the number shows, what did רבי יוחנן say? How do we see from the משנה that if you do two together you're חייב on both? Because he gave a number: מניינא למה לי! The same דיוק that we have in the משנה, we have in איסא בן יהודה himself! Let's read the words of איסא בן יהודה: אבות מלאכות מ״ם חסר אחת. So if he says a number, obviously the number is a ראיה that you're חייב for. How could you say איסא בן יהודה meant that you're only חייב one, when the number indicates you're חייב on each one? Could say they have a different interpretation of what that number, the significance is. Nu, but that's also that could solve, you know, but listen. So תוספות: that אין צריך לפרש, we don't have to say that the גמרא's קושיא that איסא בן יהודה could not have meant it is because מסתמא לא פליג איסא עליה, that probably איסא doesn't argue on the משנה. That's not the ראיה. אלא מדברי איסא נמי יש לדקדק כן, from the words himself we can be מדייק. So תוספות learns clearly that it's not because since the משנה says you're חייב on each one, מסתמא איסא doesn't argue. He said, \"No, we see it from here.\" From רש״י is משמע, רש״י learns the other way. רש״י says it's no ראיה from איסא's words. Because when we look in רש״י, and I'll repeat again, רש״י says what's the ראיה from... the number, not because there's a number. The ראיה from the number is because הא מונה להו ואזיל, since he gives a list of all the מלאכות. Since he gives a list of the מלאכות, all you have to do, you have to go one, two, three, four, five, you can see you have 39. So that's when we have a קשיא what's the number for, and we have a תירץ to teach you that you're חייב for each one. איסי בן יהודה did not mention the list of the מלאכות, so in his words you can't prove that. רש״י says the whole ראיה is says that the whole ראיה of רבי יוחנן that you're חייב for each one is not just because he gave the number. סיי here, סיי over there. On דף ע״ג, look, רש״י on דף ע״ג says the same thing. רש״י, when the גמרא has the מנינא למה לי, so רש״י, it should have just said אבות מלאכות, הזורע והחורש, והנך חזינא that it's 39. I would see it's 39. But if you don't give the list, so therefore רש״י must learn like תוספות says not to learn. תוספות says don't learn that the גמרא's קשיא is because probably he doesn't argue. No, no, we know. רש״י can't learn like that. So according to רש״י, how does the גמרא ask, how does the גמרא say that איסי בן יהודה cannot have meant it because the משנה says so, maybe he's arguing? Probably, like תוספות says, מסתמא. That's how the גמרא Probably, the סברא is that why should As long as we don't find someone arguing, then this is מסתמא, he doesn't argue. Now that we came to this conclusion, that רש״י learns that the whole ראיה that איסי doesn't learn that way is from מסתמא, it would make sense that רש״י would try to put in more of a סברא. It's only a סברא, right? We don't have a a הכרח. הכרח and all force. According to תוספות, it's an הכרח. The number is a ראיה, and he says a number, all right? According to רש״י, it's not an הכרח, not you must say, but the גמרא assumes the סברא. If it's a סברא, you got to find the more the the more you can figure out in the סברא, the more reasons you could feel that איסי doesn't argue, we'll find this further. So תוס- so I'm gonna say, and saying soon I'll say how, that by רש״י adding that in the משנה is included the fact that you're not חייב for תולדה will add to the סברא why probably איסי doesn't argue on the משנה. I'll explain why. So let's go back to the whole concept here. When we thought that איסי meant that if you do more than one מלאכה בהעלם אחד, you're חייב one, what would be the reason? Why would you think you're חייב one? So רש״י says, I'll repeat that רש״י again, because כל חילול דשבת גוף אחד של עבירה הוא, because all the חילול, all מלאכות of שבת is like one thing. What does רש״י mean? So I'll explain what רש״י means, very simple. Where do we know that you can't do a מלאכה on שבת? The פסוק says, לא תעשה כל מלאכה. The פסוק doesn't mention this מלאכה, that מלאכה, doesn't mention 39. It's It's one פסוק for all the מלאכות. That פסוק. The thing is so simple though, because punishment is not because you did this or did this or did that. The punishment is for חילול שבת. Yes! Exactly, exactly, yeah yeah yeah, exactly. That what you're saying, but I want to elaborate on it. Since the פסוק says don't be מחלל שבת, every מלאכה that you do is the same חילול שבת. In other words, let me פשוט put it in simple words, in every time a person חס ושלום does a מלאכה on שבת, there are two things that happening here.

There is the עצם of the מלאכה, and then there is the צורה of the מלאכה. The עצם of the מלאכה The עצם of the מלאכה is that you did something to desecrate the שבת. That's עצם of the מלאכה. Then, in which form did you do it? Well, you could've done it through grinding, you could've done it through cooking, you could've done it through baking, and through all kinds of things. So there is the עצם of the מלאכה and the ציור of the מלאכה. The שאלה is, which one do we look at as the cause of your of your of the חילול? You could say you could look at the עצם. That the צורה just happens to be you have to do something to do this, so the תורה said these ways will do it. But it's the חילול. Or you could say that the ציור, the form, is also part of what makes you חייב. It's not for You're חייב for the form also. And and like I'll I'll explain it even more. Many times we explain that what is the concept of a מלאכת שבת? מלאכת שבת is not hard work. מלאכת שבת we said is creative work. Makes sense. The אייבערשטער rested from creating the world. Wasn't hard for Him to make the world, but it was creative. So we have to rest from creative work. So every מלאכה that we have has this concept. It changes, does some creative work. Every מלאכה, except carrying, which is a מלאכה גרועה, תוספות says, and that's what we said because it doesn't you can't even see really how it makes the change, and that's why we need עקירה והנחה, I explain, whatever. So every מלאכה has one this every this is the same. Every מלאכה you're creating something, so you're accomplishing the same חילול. On the other hand, there's a different צורה. There's a צורה like this, there's this form, that form. This is basically the מחלוקת between the two סברות whether if you do a few מלאכות בהעלם אחד, are you חייב one קרבן or חייב for each one? If you look at the עיקר is The עצם, so it's like doing twice the same thing, because the main thing is the עצם and you did just like if a person would cook meat and בהעלם אחד he would cook fish. So, well, he did two two things, who cares? The מלאכה is the same. Same thing here: אי he wrote and here he cooked, the נקודה is the same, and that's the נקודה that עצם is what counts. If you hold that you're חייב for each one, so you know, we look the צורה is part of it. So you're חייב for not only for cook for for for doing a creative work, you did a creative work in the form of writing. That's part of what the problem is. Here you did it some other way. So you look at the צורה also. If you look at the צורה, then you're חייב for each one. But that's include the תולדות? אה? תולדות, if you look at the צורה. One second, we'll get to that. This is the מחלוקת. So this way, when the גמרא had a הוה אמינא that איסי בן יהודה held that you're only חייב one, so רש״י explains why, because he held that you look at it כל חילול, שבת די שבת גופא אחת. You look at the עצם, you're not looking at the צורה. But if open the משנה, we see differently. But in the משנה, you see you're חייב for each one, that's in that you're looking at the צורה, fine. When we're looking at the צורה גופא, there גופא גופא there is a different point. Now,

let's go into another פרט here. A lot of times, the אבות, how do you know תולדות? The תורה only gave us the חכמים learned out thirty-nine categories. Each one, when you see certain things similar to this one, you know that's also a מלאכה, that's called תולדות. So, there is a חקירה which actually it's it's תורת חיים, רבי מנחם זמבא, talks about, not in the same words, but maybe: Are the אבות a סימן to the תולדות, or are they a סיבה to the תולדות? Are they only a סימן which are אסור, or are they a סיבה, a cause, why it's אסור? And we find it a lot of times. Certain things are a סימן, certain things are a סיבה. Where do we find this? כשרות. כשרות, it's a סימן the two סימנים of a בהמה. We find it לגבי I explained once the רבי explains בנוגע מלאכת אוכל נפש ביום טוב. I'll give another example of קניינים. If you want to give me something, I have to make a קנין. The קנין is, let's say, משיכה. I pull it, you give it to me, I make a משיכה. So, there's a שאלה, is this only a סימן? In other words, באמת, you know what makes it mine? If you decide to give it to me and I decide to take it, then that's what makes it mine. גמירת דעת! How do you know what you decided? So, the מעשה is a סימן for the for the דעת! Or some say no, the מעשה is what causes this this is a סיבה, a cause, that makes it happen. טבילה and a סתירה. So, a lot of So, the שאלה here is: Are the אבות a סימן to the תולדות, or are they the סיבה, the cause to the תולדות? In other words, what's it dependent on? It depends on if you look at In other words, what makes the תולדה of an אב? Because the תולדה is similar to the אב. Let's use the the the אב of of cooking. So the אב, actually, is baking. Okay? So we say cooking is the same. Cooking is also it's a תולדה. Let's say we call it as a תולדה. Some say it's it's the same as אב, but let's use it as an example of a תולדה, because it has So, why is it a תולדה of cooking not a תולדה of writing? Because this is close, it looks like cooking. So, it's a תולדה of it. Now, if we look at the צורה, we're saying the צורה of cooking, if we look at let me put it I'll put it in in this way: the עצם of the צורה, or the צורה of the צורה? See, because באמת the תולדה is not exactly the same. So, לגבי the it has the עצם of the מלאכה, and even has a similarity to the צורה. So, if you look at the general idea of the צורה, this is exactly the same like it. It's like the אב, yeah. It has exactly this. But if you look at the real צורה of the צורה, the specific צורה, then it's not. That's a סימן and a סיבה. Oh, that's the סימן and the סיבה. If you're looking at the at the עצם of the צורה, then it's a סיבה. It's a סיבה, פארקערט it has because it has the same thing. סיבה means it's because. Yeah, but it's only an allusion, it's No, no. This is the same thing. סיבה means that just like this this causes this to be, because cooking and baking is exactly the same. If you look at the צורה of the צורה, it's not exactly the same. And you could say, because it has certain things similar, you're also אסור. And this is נוגע to the גמרא in, actually, בבא קמא. The גמרא in בבא קמא starts off, oops, okay. Never mind. I looked for the small, I couldn't find it. No, I looked just because I didn't want the big one, not because I knew it was missing. No, it's not there, I looked. The גמרא says: ארבעה אבות נזיקין. There are four אבות of the damages. Then the גמרא says, so there are תולדות. תולדותיהן כיוצא בהן, אינן כיוצא בהן. Are the

תולדות like the like the אבות, the same דין? And the גמרא brings, we find תולדות and אבות other places, by שבת, by טומאה, by נגעים. By By שבת it's כיוצא בהן. By שבת it is like it. And the גמרא says, what do we see by שבת like it? Just like on the אב you're חייב, whatever you're חייב חטאת, whatever you're חייב on the תולדה also. So then the גמרא asks, if you're חייב on the אב and חייב on the תולדה, so why is this called an אב and why is this called a תולדה? The גמרא says, לגבי if you do the אב and the תולדה, it's all considered like one מלאכה and you're not חייב two. Now, why does the גמרא over there go into this question? What's the חילוק between an אב and a תולדה? It's not נוגע there! The עיקר what we want to know, by שבת the אב and the תולדה are the same דין, fine. The גמרא goes into asking, so then if that's the case, so why is it called a תולדה? Big deal! When we learn מסכת שבת we'll talk about it. So just the תירוץ I want to say, when the גמרא asked the שאלה is that is the תולדה the same כיוצא בהן or not, is the תולדה like the אב, the main שאלה is not that. The main שאלה is, is it a סימן or a סיבה? If it's only a סימן, it could have a different דין. It's only a סימן that it's also a a היזק. But if it's a סיבה, cause, which means it has the same characteristics, so it should have the same דין. And the גמרא wants to prove that the תולדות by שבת are the same, so what does the גמרא show? Not only that it has the same דין, you're חייב this, חייב this, a ראיה that it's a סיבה, the fact that if you do both together, you're פטור on the תולדה. The fact that you're פטור on the תולדה shows that what are we looking at? Not the עצם not the צורה of the צורה, but the עצם of the צורה. Why? 'Cause if we'd look at the צורה of the צורה, you'd be חייב two. 'Cause the צורה of the צורה, the the real, real actual act is different. אלא מאי? The עצם of the act is the same. And that's what the גמרא wants to show. The גמרא wants to show by שבת it's כיוצא בהן. What does כיוצא בהן mean? That the the the reasoning, the תוכן of the אב and the תולדה are the same. So how do we see it's the same? Not only from the fact that you're חייב on both. How do you see it's the same? That if you do it together, you're חייב only one, ממש like if you do the same thing twice. If you do the same thing twice, you cooked and you cooked, that's only חייב one. If you do the אב and the תולדה, you're also חייב one. What does that show? That shows that the connection between the אב and the תולדה is a סיבה, which means the connection is because we look at the עצם of the צורה. So it comes out like this, that after all is said and done, we

have three מדרגות. Like by מלאכות שבת, three ענינים. We have the עצם of the מלאכה, which like רש״י says, all all חילול שבת is one thing, the עיקר the עצם of it that you are creating something new. Then we have another thing, you have the צורה. The צורה is is the form. Then you have a third thing: in the צורה itself we divide into two: the עצם of the צורה and the צורה of the צורה. This דין whether you're חייב for a תולדה together with an אב חייב two or one, that depends on this מחלוקת. If you look at the עיקר at the עצם of the צורה, you're חייב one for both. If you look at the צורה of the צורה, you're חייב 'cause they're two separate ones. The צורה of the צורה, לפועל this is a different צורה. So we have two מחלוקות dependent, one מחלוקת is depends on the first חקירה, whether if you do two מלאכות בהעלם אחד, if you're חייב one or two depends whether we look at the עצם of the מלאכה. If you look at the עצם of the מלאכה, you're חייב one. If you look at the צורה of the מלאכה, you're חייב two. That's one מחלוקת. Then we have another מחלוקת: when you do the אב and the תולדה together, you're חייב one or two. That's the second thing. Even if we פסקן that we look at the צורה, which one of the צורה? Do you look at the עצם of the צורה? If you look at the עצם of the צורה, if you do the אב and the תולדה, you're חייב one. If you look at the צורה of the צורה, then you're חייב two. The עצם of the צורה is different than the עצם of the אב. Right, right, it's a different thing, it's not The עצם of the צורה is is an אב. ניין, that צורה is the same of the אב. Exactly! It's exactly the same עצם of the, not the real not the real form, but the the צורה of cooking is in בישול and אפיה the same. The form of this form, cooking versus eating or versus writing, is a חילוק in the צורה. It's a different type. In cooking גופא, cooking and baking is a in the צורה of cooking versus writing they're the same, but in the פרטיותדיגע צורה exactly how you're doing it, it's different. So if you look at the צורה of the צורה, what would be the דין? You'd be חייב two because if the עיקר is the צורה of the צורה, each one has a different צורה. If the עיקר is the עצם of the צורה, then they're both ממש the same. What is ever the עצם of the צורה, and if it's just עצם? No, then you then you'd be even more, a ודאי. But then you'd have even more, that means you could do two separate מלאכות בהעלם אחד, you'd be חייב one. Then there's no נפקא מינה That's no נפקא מינה! Why? Because you have two, you have you have two, you're looking at the עצם. But if you look at the עצם, you're חייב even for two אבות you're חייב, two separate אבות you're חייב one. No, I'm talking about אב, a אב and a תולדה. אבל I would be also, I'm saying even more, we'd be חייב even on the two אבות. Why? Because the עצם of the מלאכה is the same. Yeah, so why should we be חייב on two? You'd be Okay, you'd be חייב one. One. Right, even the אבות, not only אב and a תולדה. But if you learn as a צורה, you're חייב two, because the two Now I'm saying, even if you learn as the צורה, Right. it's still possible that You're חייב two. you're חייב two, but the אב and the תולדה because we look at the עצם of the צורה. So we're still going back to one. To one. Right. There is no difference. No, but that wouldn't be the נפקא מינה, אדרבה. You're saying it's a צורה, but I'm showing you it's still one. That's true, that's true. But the נפקא מינה would be the two אבות. Exactly. Even an אב and תולדה there's no נפקא מינה. Yeah, if you turn it the other way, אדרבה. There's always a way to throw it back. You don't have to go on the word צורה. If you learn that for two אבות you're חייב one, so for an אב and a תולדה you're חייב one for sure without all this whole explanation. That's a fact, right? No, but only No. Only when you're learning אב two אבות, You learn two אבות, you're חייב. Yeah, so פשיטא! Forget about the word עצם. Forget whatever I said. If you know the הלכה is that if you do for two אבות בהעלם אחד you're חייב one, if you do an אב and a תולדה, how much are you חייב? One. For sure one. For sure, but Yeah, nothing to do with עצם. This is not a generality. We're only saying you're only חייב one for two אבות if you hold עצם. Right, that's what I'm saying. So But for a תולדה you'd be חייב even if you don't That's exactly what I want to say. If But for אב and a תולדה, even if you hold צורה, you can be you're חייב one. Right. Why? Because in the צורה עצמה, because the עצם of the צורה. But it comes out from here that we have these three מדרגות. Now, it seems like like this. If you hold that you're חייב for two אבות you're חייב two, for an אב and a תולדה you're חייב one, this is like a middle a middle שיטה, right? It's the middle. The two extremes: one is that you're going after the עצם. The other extreme, let's say if you hold that even by two תולדות you're חייב two, you're going after the complete צורה. Right. Here it's like in the middle. You're going after the עצם, but not the real עצם, only the עצם of the צורה. So it's it's like a it's like a דרגה in between. Now, we

have a כלל: הלכה כדברי המכריע. If you have a מחלוקת, like it says, שני כתובים הבאים כאחד, יבוא הכתוב השלישי ויכריע ביניהם. If you have two פסוקים that contradict and then you have a third פסוק which is מכריע. The same thing, we have a מחלוקת many times, and you have three שיטות. One שיטה says one way, the other says another way, and then you have a middle שיטה. The הלכה is always כדברי המכריע, like the middle one. And it says in ספרים, it says in actually, חסידות even brings it down, that the third שיטה, it's not a פשט that he says, \"I hold like one.\" He's a שיטה that contains both, and therefore that's the one that's most מסתבר. That's the one that's most acceptable, that it's it's more because it's like תפארת. חסידות brings So חסידות, מאמרים, it brings this, a דוגמה to תפארת, it brings this ענין, that we're הלכה כדברי המכריע. The רבי brings it in different places, what does this mean. What is the תרגום of it? Huh? What does מכריע mean exactly? מכריע means Who will weigh? Forces? Forces? No, yeah, not מכריח. No, מכריע means Decides. comes to this a decision. The one that decides between the two. So what's So implied in that is that it actually does take both into consideration. It takes both Right. It takes both into consideration and like תפארת! תפארת If you get into the analogy, something else takes Something Yeah, yeah, that's what it is. So I want to say that the באמת the משנה should what רש״י learns, we just

said, we said before, that how do we know, we asked the קשיא on איסי בן יהודה. איסי בן יהודה said that if you do more than one מלאכה you're חייב only one. So the גמרא asked the קשיא, but the משנה it says differently. The משנה says a number and the number shows that you're חייב on each one, so how can he learn? So we said that according to רש״י, what's the ראיה? Maybe he argues with the משנה. So he said, \"No, מסתמא, השכל that he doesn't.\" The more you can add to the סברא why the משנה is right, the more it will be מסתבר, more שכל that איסי בן יהודה doesn't argue. Where do we see that more that he's right? The moment that we're going to show that he is that the סברא of the משנה is a סברא in between, it's more reason to say that no one else that he shouldn't argue. How do we see that it's in between? Had רש״י just said, \"From the משנה you see against what he says. He says that you're חייב one if you do two מלאכות, the משנה tells you you're חייב for each one.\" Okay, so מסתמא he doesn't argue, but maybe he does argue. Comes רש״י and adds, from the משנה we see another point. What do we see from the משנה? That if you do an אב and a תולדה, you're only חייב for the אב. What does that show? If you learn like him, you learn that it's עצם, you see? But if you're going to learn, want to say maybe he argues, what does he argue on? We hold that it goes on the צורה, he argues. So רש״י wants to say, \"We also hold it goes on the עצם.\" עצם of צורה. And with the עצם of the צורה. So ממילא, this is like a דעת המכריע, so it's a רש״י is not מכריח, doesn't prove anything, the whole thing doesn't prove. But since רש״י learns that the whole גמרא is because of whatever מסתבר, מסתמא, so רש״י wants to add here that not only do we see this, but it's also מסתבר that even though we hold you look at the צורה, he still holds you look at the עצם. And if we still hold you look at the עצם, so we would more מסתבר that if רבי יהודה who looked, you're trying to say looks at the עצם, and he argues on this, but this if you learn like this, he would partially agree with the עצם, so it wouldn't be really against what he's saying completely. So that's what the גמרא asked, מסתבר it is like that. So from that we understand a סברא why רש״י would feel important here to bring it in. But this whole idea of מכריח, it makes sense, but what you're doing is you're having a whole שקלא וטריא in what he meant, what his הוה אמינא was in his סברא? But our הוה אמינא in what he meant. Yeah, and if that you can't say that, because he either says he either argued or he didn't. Okay. If he didn't argue, then you can't say it's מכריח us anything, because then he never had an opinion that was different than We thought he argued. We thought he argued. He thought he Logically speaking. Nothing, yeah, we thought that's what he said. Right. But we're trying to say that it doesn't make sense. We assume it doesn't. There's a third way. Because there's a middle way, so it's פשוט that as long as we don't have a proof that he argued, we should assume he didn't. Why? First of all, why should we argue? That's פשוט. מסתמא, like תוספות says, מסתמא לא פליגי. מסתמא he's not arguing. But רש״י wants to add that this מסתמא he's not arguing is because trying to back up how good this פשט is, this הלכה, this שיטה is. And the more we back up the שיטה, the more reason is why we think he doesn't argue. But then the problem is, if he does not argue, there was never a that that our שיטה was never making No, but there is a שיטה like that. There is a שיטה like that! אדרבה! It did happen. It's not like a new thing. Yeah, there is a שיטה like that. The שאלה is does he hold like that? Right. We say as long Then that means that there is no שיטה anymore. You're right. No, no. There is a שיטה like that. There is a שיטה that there is no חילוק מלאכות. I just want to add that this whole thing that we're saying the עצם of the מלאכה and the צורה of the מלאכה, we should not confuse with a different ענין of עצם and צורה. חלק ז׳. In חלק ז׳, the רבי talks also about מלאכות שבת, and there he refers to the עצם of the מלאכה and the צורה in a different in a different פשט. But that's not it's different it's a different עצם and different צורה, but what is it here? It's also an interesting thing. The רבי explains פשט in the מחלוקת of רבי יהודה and רבי שמעון, מלאכה שאינה מתכוונת and מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה. We know that if you do a מלאכה and you don't intend to do the מלאכה. למשל, classical example, take a chair, that the floor is with sand, and if you pull a chair it might make a חריץ, it might make an indentation. That's a מלאכה דאורייתא, but you don't intend. You want the chair from here to there. Finished. אינה מתכוונת. So רבי יהודה says, too bad. If you do it, you're חייב. It's אסור. And רבי שמעון says it's מותר, אינה מתכוונת. מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, similar thing is that if you do the מלאכה, but not with the intentions of doing it for what the purpose of the מלאכה is. למשל, you dig a hole, that's a מלאכה דאורייתא. If you dug the hole, not because you want a hole, you want sand. That's אינה צריכה לגופה. So again, רבי יהודה says חייב. And רבי שמעון says you're not חייב. So the רבי explains like what's the מחלוקת. The מחלוקת is whether we go after the עצם of the מלאכה or the צורה of the מלאכה. And he quotes this he quotes Just give me one second. Hello? Yes. Yes. I'm not home now, I'll be home a little later, and I'll do it and I'll send it back. Like this. So, the רבי explains like this. And he wants to say that this is a לשיטתו of רבי יהודה and רבי שמעון. All starts from the ראגאטשאווער. There's a פסוק that says in פרשת בחקתי, והשבתי חיה רעה מן הארץ. The אייבערשטער said משיח will come, I will destroy wild animals. So רבי יהודה says, what does it mean I'll destroy? They won't exist anymore. There'll be no more wild animals. And רבי שמעון says, no, they'll exist, but they won't be wild. Change their nature. Change their nature. So the So the

ראגאטשאווער says this רבי יהודה, רבי שמעון is the same שיטה as by חמץ. Says by חמץ the same. Here it says, והשבתי. By חמץ it says תשביתו. You should destroy. רבי יהודה says, how do you destroy חמץ? You must burn it. And the רבנן say, which רבי שמעון among the רבנן, no, you could just take it, break it up, throw it in the air, throw it in the garbage, throw it I mean throw it away, make it not edible, not usable, and you're מקיים. So the ראגאטשאווער says, you know what the מחלוקת is? When the תורה says destroy, רבי יהודה says it means destroy the עצם. When you break it up, you can't use it, but it the עצם is still there. So he says you've got to burn it. And the and the חכמים say no, when it says destroy, it means the צורה only. If you destroy the צורה, it's enough. And the ראגאטשאווער says the same thing when the תורה says והשבתי, so רבי יהודה says it means the עצם. The animal won't be there anymore. And רבי שמעון says, no, the צורה won't be there. The The destruct but the wild part, but So the רבי came up with a חידוש and he said And where do we find a similar לשון? By מלאכת שבת it says a similar לשון. It says תשבות, you shall rest, which is from the same שורש as תשביתו. So here we have a מחלוקת, what is פשט? In a מלאכה we also have two parts: we have the עצם of the מלאכה and the צורה of the מלאכה. The עצם of the מלאכה it says is when I do the I do the מלאכה. A person does that's the מלאכה. The כוונה, because the תורה says by שבת you have to have מלאכת מחשבת, you have to have a כוונה, that's the צורה. So when the תורה says תשבות, what does it mean? תשבות means rest from. Rest from the עצם or it's enough if you rest from the צורה? So if a person does the מלאכה without כוונה, the עצם he has, but the צורה he doesn't. So comes רב שמעון, and רב שמעון says it's מותר, because it's not called a מלאכה, because he rested from the the צורה. And רב יהודה says no, just like by חמץ he said, you got to get you got to get to the to the עצם. How would you know? Huh? How do you know? What is מחשבת? No, but that by itself, no, we're not talking about punishing. He himself knows, he knows what he is. So here the רבי calls עצם and צורה a different thing.

I'm saying עצם and צורה, עצם is the מלאכה is is the the the fact that you're creating. The צורה is how you're creating, the form. And here the רבי calls the עצם that the whole מלאכה the way it is, he calls עצם. And the כוונה is is the is they call the צורה. But it's not a problem, because it's it's a different עצם and a different צורה, we're talking from different angles. Far as the angle versus the פעולה, the act versus כוונה, you could call this עצם and this called פעולה. But in the פעולה itself, in the act itself, so here you have what the עצם, what it accomplishes, and then, which is the creative work, and then you have the form, how you do it. So really what what comes out from here, you have many levels of עצם. You have But are there in fact many levels? Sure, everything בערך, חב״ד is, everything is עצם. But are they, fine, so there could be many levels, but does is there a הלכה significance? Well, you see it, that's what we're saying. Yes. Regard with the עצם, the פעולה versus the כוונה is a מחלוקת according to רב שמעון. Whether you have the עצם versus the צורה of the other thing, we said is a מחלוקת whether you're חייב בהעלם אחד, one or two. Then you have the עצם of the צורה is another מחלוקת whether you're חייב תולדה במקום אב. It could be using all the same or could it be The same words, because it's No, you have גשמיות of No, it's גשמיות like that. No, you can, because everything you can break down. I'll give an example. The עצם, you have a table and you have a chair, both made of wood. The צורה is this is a table, this is a chair, the עצם is wood. You think wood is the עצם? There is a deeper level of עצם. You have wood and plastic. The עצם of it that they're both matter. The the fact that this is plastic and this is wood is a צורה. So there are levels, everything בערך to what. But how many levels do you give significance to? Well, we see it, we we look in the הלכה and here we see they give significance to the מחלוקת. At some point we stop. Like like the like in in by the magicians in in מצרים. They were able to copy, but at some some point we stopped this this their ability to do that. So here, but here you see this is נוגע להלכה. The שאלה is what the תורה means, so we can go as far as we go. Okay. What did תוספות do with the idea that he didn't give He just gave a number, but he didn't He didn't call the number as עצם. The number itself is If you count the עצם of the צורה, you can't even You could take different You could say then this whole thing goes that in this real ברייתא, it sets a list. The גמרא just didn't bring it. Then the whole פירוש that means רש״י can learn the same way. So then you don't need a עבודה then it's a הפקר, then we

don't need the whole פירוש. I'd rather not say Is it true, though? We don't know. No, I know. It doesn't We don't know, we don't have the ברייתא beside what the גמרא brings. You count the עצם of the תולדות then you have to count you'll have an infinite number of There is there is a number. Has anybody ever I don't know. Not mentioned anywhere? I think each אב probably has five or six תולדות. 577, you know, each one has 103 Almost. Now I understand the רש״ב... the difference between ... of the רש״ב, so when he used to say when he in ע״ב, understand it better now. talking about ... different levels in מדריגות and stuff Sure, it helps, yeah. It says that once a לשון someplace, it's like the layers of the onion. Right. And each is another layer, so it's a That's a whole עיגולים. That's a ספר עיגול- that's a סדר עיגולים. Yeah. It's a מקיף. That's correct. Correct. Always a Tuesday, factory day. Again, like a