חבריא, we're starting the Mishnah in the beginning of Shabbos, and the nekudah of the Mishnah is, without going into the general, into the details of every detailed case, which is not going to be the discussion today, the main nekudah that we see in this Mishnah is one thing: that when it comes to the issur of הוצאה, when it comes to the issur of carrying on Shabbos, carrying out from רשות היחיד to רשות הרבים, or carrying from רשות הרבים to רשות היחיד, which is הכנסה, and the same is with the תולדות of הוצאה, besides הכנסה, like carrying ד' אמות ברשות הרבים, if you carry four אמות in רשות הרבים, which is within the same רשות, but if you're carrying four אמות ברשות הרבים, it's one of the תולדות, it's asur, chayav, or משיט, or all the other מלאכות that are in the category of הוצאה, we see one thing here: you're only chayav if you do an עקירה and an הנחה. You're only chayav if you pick it up from a resting place, let's say הוצאה, you're picking up, you make an עקירה in the רשות היחיד, you take it out into the רשות הרבים, and you put it down, there has to be an הנחה. If you didn't do the full עקירה and הנחה, you are not חייב מדאורייתא, which means מדאורייתא, that's not asur. The Rabanan made it an issur. So if a person does only an עקירה, or the one that does only the hanachah, is mid'oraita not asur, only the Rabbanan made it asur. The reason they made it asur is because it's a gezeirah that you might come to do a full melachah. If you do only an akirah, we're afraid you'll finish it off. If you do only an hanachah, what are we afraid? You can't finish it off, this is the end. But next time, you might do a full melachah. That's derabbanan only. But mid'oraita, it's only if there's an akirah and an hanachah. The

question is really, what is the reason behind it? This is what we're going to discuss today. What is the sevara, the reason behind why in order to be chayav mid'oraita you need an akirah and an hanachah? What's the reason? How we know that הוצאה בכלל is there, so that we go through the whole thing here in the Gemara, Rashi, Tosafos, that on one hand it was in the Mishkan, like all other melachot, but that's not good enough because it's a מלאכה גרועה, as we discussed and we'll discuss again today even more at length, but there are pesukim. Rashi brings one pasuk, Tosafos brings another pasuk, and then Tosafos says we have both pesukim, so we know where there is an issur of hotzaah. But what's the nekudah of why you have to have an akirah and an hanachah? If the melachah is hotzaah, the melachah is you're not allowed to carry out from רשות היחיד to רשות הרבים, or you're not allowed to bring from רשות הרבים to רשות היחיד, what is the reason why it is that you have to have, you're only chayav if there is an akirah and an hanachah? Where do we know בכלל that there has to be an akirah and an hanachah? Where do we see it? From the פסוקים that Rashi and Tosafot bring, from those two פסוקים, it just says you're not allowed to carry out, you're not allowed to carry from one רשות to another. Where does it say, what's the מקור, where does it say that you have to have an עקירה and an הנחה and then the איסור is there מדאורייתא, otherwise it's not אסור מדאורייתא? Where is the מקור for this? So,

Rashi on דף ג' עמוד א', almost the end of the עמוד, when the Gemara says that a יד is not called הנחה, whatever, so therefore Rashi says, since it's not in a resting place, הילכך כי אפקה לא עקר מידי, if it's not resting and when you took it out, it's not called an עקירה, because an עקירה means you're picking it up from a resting place, and Rashi adds these few words: ואין דרך הוצאה בלא עקירה והנחה. Without an עקירה and הנחה is not the דרך of taking things out, of carrying out. It comes out from Rashi that Rashi gives us here like a little insight, where is the source of, what's the reason why in order to be חייב you have to have an עקירה and הנחה? So, Rashi says why: because otherwise it's not the דרך of the מלאכה. It's not the דרך of carrying something out unless you pick it up from something and you put it down in the first רשות and you put it down in the second רשות. Now, in this Rashi, there are two ways we can learn פשט in Rashi, based on a similar thing in Tosafot.

Tosafot דף ד׳, when the Gemara says another thing, that besides the fact that you have to have an עקירה and an הנחה to be חייב, there's another detail here: the akirah and the hanachah have to be on a מקום ד׳ על ד׳. The akirah has to be, you have to pick it up from an area which is four by four, four tefachim by four tefachim. And when is it called a hanachah? If you put it down on an area which is four by four. Where do we get that from? What's the makor for such a thing? So here, Tosafos on דף ד׳, דיבור המתחיל והא בעינן עקירה והנחה מעל מקום ד׳, תוספות, אומר רבינו תם, דאין רגילות להניח חפץ בפחות מד׳. It's not common to put something down on an area which is less than ד׳ טפחים. וכן היה מסתמא במשכן. So probably it was in the Mishkan like that. So here Tosafos also says this vort, that how do you know it has to be akirah and hanachah from a place of ד׳? So he says two points: because that's the derech, you don't usually put down something on a place which is less than ד׳, and probably that's how it was in the Mishkan. Now, that Tosafos we can learn two ways: we can learn Tosafos gives you two reasons, two separate reasons why how do we know that you have to have akirah and hanachah on a מקום ד׳. One reason is because that's the derech. If that's the derech of what you usually do, so that's how the melachah is, because every melachah, anything you're only chayav if you do it k'derech. That's bichlal a klal. Every melachah, you're only chayav mid'oraita if you do it the normal way. If you do something shelo k'derech, not the normal way, if you learn הלכות שבת, you do it with a shinui, you do it with a change, you do it what the Gemara calls sometimes k'le'achar yad, with the back of your hand, you're not chayav mid'oraita. So every melachah you're only chayav if you do it k'derech. Since it's the derech to do it on ד׳ על ד׳, so if you did it less than ד׳ על ד׳, you're not chayav. So m'deoraita you're only chayav ד׳ על ד׳. That's one reason, and a second reason Tosafos says, probably it was like that in the Mishkan, and if it was like that in the Mishkan, obviously that's the way the melachah is, because the melachot we know from the Mishkan. That's one way to learn Tosafos, that Tosafos is telling us two separate sevarot how we know that it has to be ד׳ על ד׳. Or you could learn that Tosafos means one thing: the עיקר קוועטש is that it was like that in the Mishkan, and since that's how it was in the Mishkan, that's how the melachah is. How do you know it was like that in the Mishkan? Where does it say that in the Torah? Where does it say in Gemara? Where does it say it was like that in the Mishkan? That's why Tosafos gives an introduction: since it is the derech, it's not רגיל otherwise, so mistama this is how it was in the Mishkan, because in the Mishkan they did everything normal, they didn't do it crazy, they did it normal. But the main thing is the vort it was in the Mishkan. So there you can learn two ways, whether it's two two two reasons or one. The same thing we could go back to our din. We said that Rashi says how do we know b'klal that you need an an akirah and an hanachah? So Rashi says, because אין דרך הוצאה בלא עקירה והנחה, that's not the derech. So you could learn Rashi, what Rashi means is like this: it's not the derech, and since it's not the derech to pick up, to carry without akirah and hanachah, mistama it was in the Mishkan like that. Rashi doesn't say it, but it's only normal. And what Rashi means is that's how it was in the Mishkan. And since in the משכן it was an עקירה and an הנחה, so that's how we know that it has to have an עקירה and an הנחה. Or you could learn, Rashi doesn't mean the משכן, Rashi means כדרך, פשוט. It's a derech to have an עקירה והנחה, and therefore you're only חייב if you do the מלאכה כדרך, if you do the מלאכה like a normal derech. And there's nothing to do with the משכן, Rashi doesn't mention the משכן. Whichever way we're going to learn is not understood, and it still needs ביאור. If you're going to learn that Rashi means that it was in the משכן, that how do we know that you need an עקירה והנחה for the מלאכה of הוצאה is because that's how it was in the משכן, it's also not understood. Not every detail that was in the משכן we learn out to the מלאכות. We only take from the משכן those details that we understand play a role in what the מלאכה is all about. Things which don't play a role in what the מלאכה is all about, we don't learn out. I'll give you an example: where do we find in the משכן that they did הוצאה? So we learn, you learn Tosafot a little bit of pshat, because the לוים, when they carried from the wagons, they took it from רשות היחיד to רשות הרבים whatever, they carried. Nu, in the משכן, it was from a wagon. Oh, let's learn out: you're only חייב הוצאה if you carried from a wagon. We don't do that. Why not? Ai it was in the משכן! You think every little detail in the משכן, Ai I think you should only be חייב if you're a לוי! Cuz the לויים carried! Makes no sense! Why doesn't it make sense? Cuz it has to make it has to make sense. It has to make sense that you're learning out. What are you learning out from the משכן? Things which are part of a מלאכה, but סתם זייטיגע זאכן, side things, have nothing to do. The fact that it was a wagon, what's that to do with what the מלאכה is? So the same thing here. Why is an עקירה והנחה? There must be something in עקירה והנחה which the חכמים understood is part of the melachah and therefore they compared it to the Mishkan. So we gotta find, but if you're not gonna find any sevara of what's עקירה והנחה, then you can't say, \"Well, it was in the Mishkan.\" Big deal it was in the Mishkan. A melachah we learn from the Mishkan, but זייטיגע details, we don't. So we still need a ביאור: what is behind עקירה והנחה to say that we learn it from the Mishkan? Even if we'll say the other way, that Rashi doesn't even mean the Mishkan, Rashi means stam, it's not the derech to do to carry things out without עקירה and then not putting it down, הנחה. Umemila, this is the derech. If you don't do it with עקירה והנחה, you did the מלאכה שלא כדרך. It's also not understood. Then it has nothing to do with this melachah. That's a side thing, that any melachah you have to do kederech. But from the Gemara is משמע, from the whole Shas, whenever we talk about עקירה והנחה, this is one of the qualities of מלאכת הוצאה. It's not stam a זייטיגע דין that that you didn't do it just the proper way. L'mai nafka mina? ל- למשל, what would happen if the derech changes? People stop doing stop carrying, they'd stop doing עקירה והנחה, then he won't have to do an עקירה והנחה to be chayav? If it's stam a זייטיגע זאך that you're only chayav if you do it kederech, then as long as this is a derech, you're chayav. If it's not a דרך, then it doesn't matter. It's not like that. עקירה והנחה is part of the מלאכה. But the shaylah is what is behind עקירה והנחה that this is part of the מלאכה? Why? So we must we must start thinking, areintrakhtn in what the מלאכה of הוצאה is. And then when we think about it, we'll understand what the geder of עקירה והנחה is, וממילא we'll see how it's essential to be able to be עובר on the מלאכה of הוצאה, it's essential to have an עקירה והנחה. So let's understand.

Well, obviously, before to get to עקירה והנחה, we have to understand what's הוצאה, and then we could go further. In הוצאה גופא, when will הוצאה have the quality of הוצאה, if you have an עקירה והנחה? So I already mentioned other shiur, now we're going to go into it at length, Tosafot and all the Rishonim they all call הוצאה a מלאכה גרועה. מלאכה גרועה means a bad מלאכה. גרועה means missing מלאכה, מלאכה a shvache melachah, it's not a real מלאכה. Or as I mentioned that the Rambam says that it's a מלאכה שאינה נראית מלאכה. So מלאכה doesn't look like a מלאכה. What's the real point? Why is it not look like a מלאכה? So the Or Zarua uses a lashon and he says like this: What's the מלאכה here? הכי לא חפץ? והשתא חפץ? What did you do here? And I explained it the last shiur, so I'll just explain it again, that a מלאכה doesn't mean hard labor, like the you carry pick up a heavy weight is not a מלאכה, and מלאכה means if you're doing creative work, you're doing something that makes a shinui in the cheftz, a change in the חפץ that you're doing. That's what a melachah is. Like the Rashba says, the Rashba uses a לשון when he explains it's a מלאכה גרועה, he says that what's the difference if you pick something up and you take it from one corner to another corner in the house, or you just go outside and you take it out? What difference does it make? It's all the same. Tosafot uses a different לשון, but the באמת it also means that. He says, מלאכה גרועה היא, מאי לי מייתי מרשות היחיד לרשות הרבים, מאי לי מייתי מרשות היחיד לרשות היחיד? What's the difference if you take it from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד, it's okay, רשות היחיד to רשות הרבים is no good? Basically there's no, the nekudah, the bottom line is there is nothing that changed in the חפץ. Every other melachah, there is a change. There's a change in the חפץ. When you cook, before it was raw, now it's cooked. You make a fire, there was no fire, now there is a fire. You wrote, before there were no words, now you're writing. Every melachah has a change. The only melachah that doesn't have a change is carrying out. The חפץ is the same. וממילא, that's why all the ראשונים refer to this as a מלאכה גרועה, and Tosafot says because of that, it's not enough that carrying was in the Mishkan וממילא this becomes a melachah like every other melachah. Every other melachah, how do you know it's a melachah? From the Mishkan. This is not enough because it doesn't have a quality. There are many things they did in the Mishkan. They walked in the, the מחנה of the Mishkan also. Shouldn't be able to walk? You have to find if it's a melachah, and this has no melachah. So You have to have פסוקים for it, that's why you have to have a special פסוק. Not only that, Tosafot even ask, why do we need two פסוקים? One for the עני, one for the עשיר, one פסוק for if you're doing the melachah standing in and that's how you're carrying out, and there's another that if you're standing out and you're sticking your hand in, taking out. Ai, why do we need a special פסוק for that? It's all the same, no? Because it's a מלאכה גרועה, we can't learn out one from the other, so we need a פסוק. But it's all because of this, because it doesn't have the real תכונה, the real characteristic of what a real melacha is all about. So the Torah says it. After the Torah says it, we know it's asur. The she'eilah is, however, like this. Now that the Torah said it, why is it a melacha? It still is not a melacha. It should be asur, from the Torah we see that it's asur to carry. Rashi quotes the pasuk that Moshe Rabbeinu by the מלאכת המשכן made an announcement: Don't carry your נדבות, the donations you're bringing for the Mishkan, don't bring in on Shabbos. Okay, it's a pasuk, you can't carry on Shabbos. Who says it's one of the ל״ט מלאכות? It could be an issur and not one of the ל״ט מלאכות. We find that, too. תחומין, to walk more than a תחום שבת? Machloket. Some say that that even walking more than 2,000 אמה is an איסור דאורייתא, some say walking more than 12 מיל is an איסור דאורייתא. But it's an issur on Shabbos, but it's not one of the אבות מלאכות, it's not a melacha. There's a separate issur. So we have pesukim, or this pasuk of the מלאכת המשכן by the נדבות, or the pasuk that Tosafot brings which is by the מן, that Moshe said don't carry a כלי outside on Shabbos to pick up the מן. So we know you're not allowed to carry. So if we would say that it has the תכונה of melacha, okay, so it's a melacha. We're saying the תכונה of the melacha doesn't have it, it doesn't have the melacha. So why is it takeh a melacha? איי we have a pasuk? Good, the pasuk tells us that it's asur, so let it be another isur on Shabbos. But why is it called a melacha? Why is it one of the melachot? It doesn't have the תכונה of melacha. And again, the תכונה of melacha is when you make a change. So the pshat, if you could say is, could be like this. I'll ask you a sheilah the opposite way: Why isn't the change of one רשות to another called a change? Actually last time when I mentioned, one bachur asked that, it's still a change. It's not a change in the חפץ, but it's a change in the רשות. It's a change in what רשות it is. Here it's now this רשות, and there it's another רשות. Because remember, when we say it's only creative work, no one creates anything. The Eibershter creates, we can't create. Ela mai, within our framework, within our teva, changes. So who says it's So they say also, it's a small change. It's from one רשות to another. רשות היחיד? No, that's because that's the same category. I could see a difference. Two רשות היחיד's is, even though could be from one from this room to that room, but it's all one רשות. And this is a different type of רשות, so it's a change from one רשות to another. The answer is it's not a real change. It's not what we call, if you want to use the חסידישע שפראך, not a פנימיות'דיקע change. It's not an אמת'ע change. It's a חיצוניות'דיקע change, it's just some, but it's not a real change. And to that nekudah that it has to be a real פנימיות'דיקע change, that's where I want to bring in the sicha that I wrote down the title that you should look at the sicha, so I want to go through the nekudah of what the Rebbe says in the sicha in חלק י״ד, which is a yesod in the inyanim of מלאכת שבת.

There the Rebbe brings it's really a hadran, a siyum on Masechet Shabbat. And at the end of Masechet Shabbat, it talks about the melachah of קשירה, the melachah of making a knot. And the din is that you're not allowed to make a knot mid'Oraita if it's a קשר של קיימא. If it's a knot that when you made the knot you had in mind for it to stay forever, not to untie it, that's the issur d'Oraita. If you made a knot without those intentions, you made a knot planning to take it off tomorrow, or, what, whatever, it's not asur mid'Oraita, but it's asur mid'rabbanan. Then it says in the Gemara there that if it's tzorech mitzvah, if you need to make this knot for a mitzvah, like there it speaks about a mikveh, then the issur d'rabbanan falls off, it's not asur even mid'rabbanan. To make a קשר של קיימא, to make a knot that's forever, that's asur d'Oraita, so even for a mitzvah you can't do a you can't do a melachah. But if you're doing it only קשר שאינו של קיימא, so you're not intending, so it's not asur mid'Oraita, so mid'rabbanan it's asur, but tzorech mitzvah it's mutar. Our Mishnah talks about הוצאה. What does the Mishnah tell us? That if you do an עקירה and an הנחה, it's asur mid'Oraita. An עקירה itself or הנחה itself is asur mid'rabbanan. But tzorech mitzvah it's also asur. What's the difference? Adraba, it says in the, in the מפרשים that why did the Mishnah pick the case with an עני and a בעל הבית? לכאורה, it's to save words. Instead of saying the guy who's standing inside, and here we use the word a guy who's standing outside, we use the word עני and בעל הבית. But they say no, it comes to teach you that even if the guy who's standing there is collecting צדקה, and you're giving him צדקה, the בעל הבית is giving him צדקה, and צדקה is a mitzvah. Even צורך מצוה it's אסור, not only מדאורייתא, even the דין דרבנן that to make just an עקירה or just an הנחה is also אסור even for צורך מצוה. So the Rebbe asks the שאלה, what's the difference, and usually you can connect the beginning and the

end of a masechta, why if it's over there which also there's an איסור דרבנן, by קשר שאינו של קיימא, צורך מצוה the רבנן were מתיר? עקירה without an הנחה, which is also איסור דרבנן, the רבנן were not מתיר צורך מצוה. What's the difference? So the Rebbe goes into a whole אריכות to explain בכלל. Let's ask another שאלה: Why isn't עקירה without an הנחה or הנחה without עקירה not אסור מדאורייתא of חצי שיעור? There's a דין that you're only חייב, let's say when you eat something טרף, you're חייב מלקות, כרת, if you eat a שיעור, כזית. Less than that, you don't get punished. Nevertheless, we פסקן that chatzi shiur, it's if a half a part of the shiur, it's also אסור מדאורייתא. It's assur. You just don't get punished, but it's אסור מדאורייתא. It's actually machloket in Yoma between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish. Reish Lakish that חצי שיעור אסור מדרבנן. מדאורייתא it's takeh you're allowed to eat חזיר as long as it's not a kezayit. The Rabbanan said you can't eat if it's less than a kezayit. And Rabbi Yochanan says חצי שיעור אסור מן התורה. And we pasken like Rabbi Yochanan. That means that if you don't do the full thing, but you do half, you won't get punished, but it'll be אסור מדאורייתא.

What does our Mishnah say? Our Mishnah says that if you do an עקירה without an הנחה, which is half of the melachah, it's מותר מדאורייתא. It's patur and מותר מדאורייתא, it's פטור אבל אסור מדרבנן. Why is it not אסור מדאורייתא of chatzi shiur? So the Rabbi answers that chatzi shiur is assur if you do the whole thing, but the whole איכות of the thing that you're doing is there, the shiur is missing. When you eat חזיר, when you eat a little piece of חזיר, you have the whole concept of חזיר here. What you're missing is the quantity, not the quality. The חזיר is the exact same חזיר if you eat a small piece or a big piece. So you did the whole thing. Ela mai, you're missing the shiur. That's called chatzi shiur. This in our Mishnah is not chatzi shiur, it's חצי מלאכה. It's not the pshat you did the whole melacha, but you did half of the shiur. I'll give you an example by מלאכת שבת חצי שיעור. There's a shiur that you're not allowed, there's a din you're not allowed to write on Shabbos. The shiur is two אותיות. If you write one אות, what's the din? It's אסור מדאורייתא. You won't get punished, because that's חצי שיעור, because one אות is the same melacha as two אותיות. It's just the how much. That's where we say חצי שיעור is אסור מן התורה. But here, the melacha is made up of עקירה והנחה, and if you did עקירה without הנחה, you have חצי מלאכה, not חצי שיעור. And the same thing is, lichorah you can ask a שאלה by the קשר also. מדאורייתא, you're חייב on a קשר if it's קשר with a kavanah it should stay forever. If you didn't have the kavanah, it should be חצי שיעור. You didn't do the whole melacha. The melacha of קשירה is made up of a few parts: you have to tie it; if you don't tie it, it's not קשירה. In addition to that, in order to be חייב, you have to have an intention בשעת you tie that it's going to be forever. If you're missing that intention, so you're missing part of it, but you did part of it, you did part of the melacha, so why isn't it חצי שיעור? The same answer: the melacha, it completely make is made up of both. Half of that, if you're missing that part, it's not חצי שיעור, it's חצי מלאכה. And in the הערה the Rebbe even asks that lichorah if you have it for a long time, have in mind forever, that's the shiur, and if you have in mind for two days, it should be chatzi shiur. Why do we say you're missing the melachah? So the answer he gives is that having it forever means this is a knot without a change, and if you have it for a zman, it's with a change. And actually I want to tell you, this is just not noge'a or just make it more interesting, I want to read to you, here I have a copy of the original שיחה with the Rebbe's handwriting. Not the original, it's a copy of it, but the הגהה that the Rebbe made on the שיחה. And lechatchilah it was written a little bit differently. Now I'll read you the difference just just to know that even things that the Rebbe changed, this is what the Rebbe this is what it said before. The שאלה was that even though if you have a certain amount of time, it's not אסור מדאורייתא, if you have it forever, it's אסור. So why isn't וכולי, יש לומר that's חצי שיעור. The דעת שישאר כן לעולם forever is the שיעור, וכשחושב בדעתו to take it off after a certain amount, you have the whole thing, but it's only missing the שיעור. So originally it said like this: זה אינו, it's not a קשיא, כי זה שצריך להיות בדעתו שישאר כן לעולם, the fact it's supposed to stay forever, אינו בגדר זמן לומר שאם חושב שישאר כן לאיזה זמן, הוא חלק מהשיעור של זמן. It's not the פשט there is a גדר זמן and if you have in mind for a few days, it's part of that. כי אם לעולם הוא סוג אחר לגמרי, different סוג. וממילא, אם אין בדעתו שישאר כן לעולם, if you don't plan forever, חסר כל הדעת שצריך להיות, and it's called חצי מלאכה. The

Rebbe crossed this all out, and the Rebbe wrote different words. The Rebbe wrote that if a קשר שישאר כן לעולם, עניינו הוא קשר שאין בו שינוי, which is a גדר מחודש, it's a גדר different גדר, ולא קשר שיתקיים ריבוי זמן עד אין סוף. In other words, if you keep it forever, it's not the פשט it's a longer time than keeping it for a day, that you can say a day is part of the a longer time is a shiur, a big shiur and this a small shiur. So before it said לעולם it's a different סוג. So here the Rebbe changed the words, different סוג he says, it's not in the zman that we're talking about, it's the עניין: אין בו שינוי. And this is a different so a different thing has יש בו שינוי. This is the second first haga'ah, and then the second haga'ah, the Rebbe added a whole bunch of words here, and he wrote להעיר from where it says the גדר of נצחיות that even יש לומר לכתחילה there's a גדר of נצחיות, להעיר Teshuvos Rashba, a whole אריכות. You look at the sichah, you look at the he'arah, I think it's he'arah 19 there, you look at it. But the bottom line is that the Rebbe explains that it's not chatzi shiur, it's חצי מלאכה. But then the

Rebbe goes on further and he says that between the two that by שבת עקירה without an הנחה is חצי מלאכה and a קשר שאינו של קיימא is also חצי מלאכה, between the two it's also a difference. עקירה without an הנחה is חצי מלאכה, it's not chatzi shiur. You don't have the whole shiur, you don't have the whole מלאכה there, it's half of the מלאכה. קשר שאינו של קיימא is not the פשט that you have half of the מלאכה, you don't even have half of the מלאכה. He's making it into three categories: you have something which you have the whole thing, like if you write one ot you have the whole מלאכה, half of the shiur. Then there is a certain thing like עקירה בלא הנחה, you have half of the מלאכה. Then you have a third category that you have nothing of the מלאכה. If you don't have in mind for the קשר to be forever, it doesn't have any part of the מלאכה whatsoever, not even half of the מלאכה.

Why? And the Rebbe explains a very הגיונ'דיקע עניין that what's טייטש קשר? A keshirah means two things to be tied together. If you don't have in mind for that to stay, you plan to take it apart, it's not tied. You have two pieces of of thread that you put together. If you take two pieces of thread you put put them like this, close to each other, so the peshat you have a shtikel kesher? You have nothing. If you tie it, it's the same thing, because the real meaning of a knot is if it's going to stay without a change. And mimela the Rebbe is mechadesh that's why the aveirah of a kesher miderabbanan of a קשר שאינו של קיימא is a lesser than akirah without an hanachah. They're both miderabbanan. But akirah without an hanachah, it's at least a chatzi melachah. So mid'oraita it's not chatzi shiur, it's not asur, but it's chatzi melachah. קשר שאינו של קיימא is also asur miderabbanan, but that's not even a chatzi melachah, it's less than chatzi melachah. Rabbanan made it stam because it looks like a kesher, but it's not even chatzi melachah. And that's the reason why when it came to צורך מצוה by קשר שאינו של קיימא, דאס איז א שוואכע לכתחילה, so shavach that they allowed it צורך מצוה. מה שאין כן עקירה without an hanachah didn't even allow it צורך מצוה, because after all, it has part of the melachah, even though mid'oraita it's not asur. What am I bringing all this in? First of all, to chazor over the sichah. But not לצורך פשוט the inyan to learn the Rebbe's sichot, that's that we have our own time. That's separate shiur. This is pashut because the sichah is kedai to learn the sichah anyway, go through with the he'arot, as a הקדמה to מסכת שבת, to the beginning of עקירה and הנחה, all this because it goes into a lot of פרטים there with the הערות. It's it's כדאי to learn that, so it's כדאי to know it. But I'm bringing it in to show that from the way the Rebbe explains there the geder of קשר, why is it not a melachah at all? Because it's not a real קשר, which means it's all follows the logic that what's a melachah if you do a שינוי פנימי ואמיתי. What's called a melachah? A melachah is called a shinui. So if you put it together and you tie it even, but because it's not a פנימי'דיקע קשר, והא ראיה you're planning to take it apart, so the Rebbe says it's not even part of the melachah. Why? So this all follows this nekudah that what's called a מלאכת שבת is what's a melachah if there is a shinui. And since הוצאה doesn't do a shinui, איי, I said before it doesn't do a shinui, it does, you take it from this רשות to that רשות. So it's also a change! But it's not a שינוי פנימי, it's not a real change, not a change in the thing. Every other melachah there's a change in the thing: it got cooked, you made a fire, there's a change in the thing. Here, it's a superficial change. So if the melachot would not need epes a פנימי'דיק, a real change, so they say, okay, as long as there is some change it's a melachah. But now we see from here the Rebbe's zugang, it has to be a real change, and in this case the kavanah to keep it forever makes it a real change, and it's the kavanah that makes it, because the whole thing is epes א הגיונ'דיקע זאך, א זאך אין קאפ, ממילא that's why this is a מלאכה גרועה. Okay. So now we know that מלאכת הוצאה is a מלאכה גרועה, it's missing גדר מלאכה. Then the she'eilah I ask, if it's missing the גדר מלאכה, טאקע now I'm explaining because it doesn't have a שינוי פנימי, just like by a קשר, if it doesn't have a real shinui, it's nothing, it's not even part of the melachah. So why is it takeh a melachah? I'm going back to the question I asked before. So why is it a melachah? Ai, we have pesukim? Okay, if you have a pasuk, so it's asur! Let it be asur on Shabbos because we have pesukim that it's asur, but why is it a melachah if it's missing the גדר of melachah? Where do you have the גדר of שינוי in it? Therefore, what we have to say is, well we have to say, what we could say is, that's where עקירה and הנחה come in. If you do the הוצאה through an עקירה and then a הנחה in the other רשות, that makes it into a change, and that's why you have to have an עקירה and a הנחה. Why does that make it into a change? Why did the חכמים call it עקירה? I always had a question. You know what עקירה means? To tear out, to uproot. Uproot? The דין is you have to pick it up and you have to put it down. Should have been called הגבהה! You מגביה, you have to pick it up and you have to be מניח. When we talk about קנינים there's a קנין הגבהה, you have to pick it up. Why עקירה? The חכמים understand this here, that in גשמיות טאקע it's not a real, it doesn't look like a real melachah. In הגיון, when something lays on a place, it becomes as if, in abstract thinking, it becomes מושרש in that place. It's as if it becomes part of that place. When you pick it up, you know what you're doing? You're uprooting it from the place! And when you put it down, you're כאילו נימא replanting in the place. There is a דין on Shabbos we find to be קונה שביתה. If you're in a place, you're קונה this becomes your place. By תחומין, you make an עירוב תחומין, you put down your food there, that becomes your place and now you can walk another 2,000 אמה on Shabbos. You're koneh. You learned last year in Bava Metzia, we learned the קנין ד' אמות. And what does it say קנין ד' אמות? I'm sure wherever you learned last year, when you learned the din of ד' אמות, you learned this the ענין של תורת החסידות where the Rebbe brings the מחלוקת הראשונים, the Ramban and the Ran, Avnei Miluim brings there. What's the גדר of קנין ד' אמות? Is the pshat that the תיקנו חכמים made a din that an object that falls into your ד' אמות בכך you're koneh it, or they made your ד' אמות like your chatzer? It becomes your chatzer. Becomes yours. Basically that there's a nekudah, there is a possibility inyan of wherever you are that's your place and כאילו נאמר כאן נמצא כאן היה. This is it. I mentioned the other day the Baal HaMaor where he writes what's the inyan of not carrying ד' אמות ברשות הרבים. He says because every person has his ד' אמות and that that's like your רשות. When you carry out of ד' אמות, it's similar to מרשות לרשות. It's taka הלכה למשה מסיני, otherwise we wouldn't know it, but lefoal, אף על גב דהלכה למשה מסיני, der Baal HaMaor gives this reason, it's taka shein, but all I'm trying to say is that when something is laying someplace, in theory, this is its place, it's קונה שביתה, it's this. When you pick it up, you're כאילו uprooting it. And then when you put something down, you're putting it down, you're putting it back into as if you're you're you're planting it in. Ah? Because it's not זריעה. Akirah fits זריעה? It's not planting, obviously. So it comes out like this. No one will ask how come there's a melachah. One of the מלאכות is קצירה. You're not allowed to cut something off from the ground. It's a real change. Why is it a change? Before it was here, now it's not. Everyone understands, before it was connected, it was part of the ground, so to speak, and now you picked it out. Same thing with זריעה, you're planting. So here it's not like that obviously, בגשמיות, because if someone will ask me, but בגשמיות it's not, I have nothing to answer. So don't bother asking. Because we're trying to go a little bit beyond the גשמיות. It's not chassidus, nigleh, but So, b'poel mamash you're not doing anything, but just like over there when you're uprooting something it's a שינוי אמיתי, it's a שינוי פנימי, so too here, when you do an עקירה, it's called עקירה. That makes the מלאכה into a מלאכה. So whether we say that's how it's found in the משכן or if we say that's the דרך, it's not a זייטיגע זאך. This is what makes the מלאכה into a מלאכה. Otherwise, the מלאכה of of הוצאה wouldn't be a מלאכה. Because we need a פנימי, we need a real שינוי. Now, to

go back for a second, this that we need a real שינוי makes sense, because like we said, the whole inyan of Shabbos is the Eibershter rested from creating the world, so he wants us to rest also from creating anything. So it has to be a real שינוי. This din, inyan of real שינוי some people might have think is connected to the other chakira, what the גדר of מלאכת שבת is. And I want to say it's not noga. We have a chakira in מלאכת שבת: Is the ikar the נפעל or is the ikar the פועל or the פעולה? What is it that the Torah didn't want? It shouldn't happen? The נפעל shouldn't happen? When you write, what happens? When you write, the words are the Torah doesn't want you to make words written? Or the Torah doesn't want you to do the פעולה, the act of writing? And that's a big shaila. There's actually a letter from the Rebbe printed in Likkutei Sichos, printed in in Igros, we even know who he wrote it to, he wrote it to Rabbi Reichport, where he wanted to say, especially by מלאכת כתיבה that the עיקר is the נפעל, the עיקר is the פעולה, the עיקר is the writing. And the Rebbe says, not so sure bichlal by מלאכת שבת whether the עיקר is the פעולה or the נפעל, by כתיבה, for sure it's not the פעולה, the נפעל. He writes to him, he wanted to write, I think that the עיקר is the the פעולה. Where do we see? The Rebbe brings, open a din: נוטל גגו של ח' חייב משום כותב. You know how a ח' is written in the Torah? There's a ו' and a ז' and there's a little roof connects the ו' and the ז' and turns into a ח'. If you didn't write anything, you took off, you erased that little roof of the ח', and what turned out? A ו' and a ז', you're חייב for כותב שתי אותיות. You didn't write two אותיות. You didn't even write bichlal! You erased, you didn't write! But you caused two אותיות to be written. So the Rebbe says, from this din we see that by כתיבה, for sure the עיקר is the נפעל. But bichlal there's a שאלה which one it is. I

once heard from Rabbi Piekarski, the ראש ישיבה of 770, he always used to iberchazern a vort from his Rebbe, he says, \"Ikh hob gehert fun mayn Rebbe'n\", his Rebbe was the Kozhiglover Rav, who was a תלמיד of the Avnei Nezer. Always chazar, every shiur, there wasn't one shiur, just like we try to have every shiur should have a Likutei Sichos, every shiur by him had or the Kozhiglover Rav or the Avnei Nezer, every shiur. So he once said a good vort, I don't know his own or he said an interesting thing: If you look in the Mishnah on דף ע\"ג, which tells us all the אבות מלאכות, I'll read you. אבות מלאכות ארבעים חסר אחת: הזורע, the one that plants, החורש, the one that plows, הקוצר, the one that cuts, האופה, the one that bakes. The Rambam also has the same list of אבות מלאכות. You know what he does? He writes like this: avot melachot are what? הזריעה והחרישה והקצירה והאפייה. The planting, the plowing, the cutting, the baking. The Mishnah says the planter, the one that plows, the one that plants, the one that bakes, and the Rambam changes. What does he do it for? החרישה. So he says the Rambam wants to tell us that it's not the pe'ulah, it's not the one the baking that is the issur, the the one that bakes, it's the baking, the afiyah, the one that that's what happening. So in order to tell us that, the Rambam changed his lashon. It's a good vort. Huh? Right. Let me tell you a klal. There are certain, and this is noga to know, it's noga to know bichlal, there are certain diyukim that you can't ask a she'eilah, if you write one way, why didn't you write the other way, why is it better the other way? If you write הזורע, doesn't mean that it's not the נפעל, I mean you could write either way. When are we medayek such diyukim? If there's a change. If the Gemara says one way, the Mishnah says one way, which you can't, and comes the Rambam and he tries to follow the לשונות of the Gemara and the Mishnah and he changes, then you got to find a reason. You don't need a reason for the Mishnah. In other words, if the Mishnah would have written הזריעה והחרישה, I wouldn't say that it's a ראיה that it's נפעל. It could be either way. You just write. But the Rambam went and he came and he chose bedavka now to write, he's telling us something. Oh, here he's telling us you should know. So he is basically telling us a pshat in the Mishnah. He's not different than the Mishnah. He's telling us a pshat in the Mishnah. When the Mishnah said הזורע, I'm telling you it means הזריעה. In the Mishnah, so we don't know which way, but when you change it, you know. And this is noge'a a lot of times, a lot of times people ask a she'eilah when you make a you say the ט\"ז, how come he doesn't write like that, is cuz he wrote it first time, there's no no no no deal, but when you're changing, he doesn't say a word, he just says instead of the one that plants, it's the planting. Instead of saying the one that plows, it's the plowing. The plowing is the נפעל, the one that plows is doing the ma'aseh. So by changing it, he's trying to hint to us that the ikar of Shabbos is a נפעל. What I'm trying to say, that lichorah you could think, milah if the עיקר שבת is a נפעל, then you need a real shinui. נפעל means something should be done, and if not a real shinui, then it's not something that's really done, nothing was really

done. But if you're saying the פועל, לכאורה you might think who says it has to be a real shinui? The answer is, but that's, it's not true, I'm just פראוואנינג. Even that you can say, when are you chayav for the פועל, when is the פעולה חייב? If you did a real פעולה, a real shinui. If it's נפעל, it's better, it's stronger, it makes more, you know, has more to it because there's nothing that really happened. Which, by the way, when we're talking about פועל and נפעל, there are some who want to learn that this, whether it's פועל or נפעל, is a machloket between the Alter Rebbe and the Chatam Sofer. In סימן רמ\"ג, the Alter Rebbe says you're not allowed to tell a goy to do a melachah. Why? Because יש שליחות לעכו\"ם לחומרא מדרבנן. Because if you tell a goy to do a melachah for you, he is your shaliach. And the din is שלוחו של אדם כמותו. So when he does the melachah on Shabbos and he's your shaliach, it's like you did it. That's why you're not allowed. What does that mean? I have a few problems.

Number one, אין שליחות לעכו\"ם. You can't make a goy a shaliach. Number two, אין שליח לדבר עבירה. Even if you make a you ask a Yid to do a melachah on Shabbos, you're not chayav, it's not you, nothing to do with you, cuz if you're doing an דברי הרב ודברי התלמיד... So what's the פשט שליחות? But so the Alter Rebbe says, it's only mid'rabbanan, and it's only lechumra. Forget about it, b'etzem real דין שליחות doesn't apply, not for a goy, not for Shabbos, but יש שליחות לעכו\"ם לחומרא מדרבנן. Mid'rabbanan made a din. Then there are more reasons for אמירה לעכו\"ם why you can't tell to do a melachah. The Chatam Sofer argues and he said there is no דין שליחות by a goy. It's not because of shlichut, there's other reasons. Now we have to know why are there so many reasons for אמירה לעכו\"ם, but that's a, but he doesn't agree. What's the machloket? Why doesn't he agree? Why doesn't the Chatam Sofer hold that there is a דין שליחות by אמירה לעכו\"ם? So, some want to learn, I don't know if it's really so, some want to learn that the reason is, מחלוקת is whether the מלאכת שבת is the פועל, פועל or the פועל or the נפעל. If the עיקר of מלאכת שבת it shouldn't happen, then even though you didn't do it, but it's through you that it happened, you told the גוי to do the melachah and he did the melachah, so you are the cause for the melachah to be done. And if עיקר מלאכת שבת is the נפעל, the מלאכת שבת was done through you. Okay, mid'oraita it's not שליחות, so you're not at fault, but the רבנן said it. But if the din of מלאכת שבת is the פועל, you shouldn't work, so the lashon of the Chasam Sofer is, והרי גופיה נח, the Torah says ינוח, you have to rest. You rested. The goy did it. So the Chasam Sofer holds that you can't even say לחומרא שליחות there, because it doesn't, it's not מתייחס to you, it has nothing to do with you. So it's possible that this is the מחלוקת, that he holds that it's the פועל, and therefore there's not שייך יש שליחות לעכו\"ם by שבת לחומרא, and the Alter Rebbe says עיקר is the נפעל, and ממילא since you are the cause, so it's it's שייכות to make this דין of the melachah. So al kol panim, but whatever way we learn, I'm trying to say, we understand that in

order to be a real melachah, it has to be a real שינוי. In order to be a real שינוי by הוצאה, there is no real שינוי because you only change רשויות, you didn't make a real change. If you didn't make a real change, it's not a מלאכה. So the only way it could be a מלאכה is עקירה והנחה. איי it's not a real גשמיותדיקע עקירה והנחה, it's a הגיונדיקע עקירה. But that's enough by Shabbos. And by Shabbos we find, and especially by the מלאכה of הוצאה, we find that this נקודה of your מחשבהדיקע זאכן should do it. כדרך like Tosafos brings in דף ד' עמוד ב', quotes, לגבי the Gemara there, Tosafos quotes the Gemara, that it says in Eruvin: מחשבתו משויה ליה מקום. A place which doesn't have a גדר of מקום, whatever the case is, but your מחשבה by הוצאה he's talking about, you put it down and you have in mind to put it down, he says, דקאמר התם, I'll read you the whole thing, it says: קאמר רב יוסף: הישתין ורק, if a person spit, הישתין or רק, spit out from רשות היחיד to רשות הרבים, חייב חטאת.

Tosafos brings this, yeah, אבל אמר רב יוסף, right in the beginning. So the Gemara asked, ובאינן מקום ד' וליכא, has to be, come from a מקום ד', it's not, as we said before, the עקירה has to come from a מקום ד'. משני, the Gemara answers: מחשבתו משויה ליה מקום. The fact that your מחשבה wanted it to be that way, that makes into a מקום. What do you mean it makes into a מקום? It's it's only a machshavah, it's Because by, it comes to מלאכת הוצאה, it all fits to what I'm saying, that מלאכת הוצאה, the whole מלאכת הוצאה is purely in your machshavah that it's you, it's a it's a הגיונדיקע זאך. So therefore, just like the akirah is not a real akirah, but it's enough because it's has it's a a a הגיונדיקע עקירה, so the machshavah could also make it into a מקום לגבי the עקירה ולגבי the hanachah. Why do you ever need ד' על ד'? הא? Why do you ever need ד' על ד'? Your machshavah... That's Tosafos' kashya, no, that's what, that's the Tosafos. It's exactly what Tosafos is talking about. Likh'orah according to this, you'd never need ד' על ד', cause מחשבתו משויה ליה מקום. This is exactly the It's all because the geder of machshavah is important here because the whole thing, let's call it, is a מחשבהדיקע type of of melachah. And that's why it remains a מלאכה גרועה. Likh'orah, according to what I'm saying is right, that because there's akirah that makes it into a שינוי, so it's not a מלאכה גרועה. Farkert, so why is that a מלאכה גרועה? It's still a מלאכה גרועה, because technically speaking, it's not. But it's a מחשבהדיקע זאך, so it's a geder, it has, we understand the גדר מלאכה. And if not for the pasuk, we taka wouldn't accept this היגיון. But after the pasuk tells us and that and and we see it was in the Mishkan, we could understand that this should be a melachah, because the machshavah was what counts here. This is also connected to something else, where we want to show that here the machshavah is what counts because of this reason. Tosafos says on דף ב', we said that why do we need two pesukim for הוצאה? So he said, because it's a מלאכה גרועה, you needed one for the עני and one for the עשיר, one for the guy who's standing inside, one for the guy who's standing outside. So the Penei Yehoshua has a whole אריכות, says, \"I don't understand, why why would we think there's a difference? What... M'meila you say it's a מלאכה גרועה, so you wouldn't know something...\" other מלאכות, other types, cause you can't compare, it's a מלאכה גרועה. But they're both הוצאה, what's the difference? The difference is like this: if you're standing outside and you stuck your hands in and you took out, or you're standing inside and you took it out, why would I think What's the sevara behind it to say that a We'll say one pasuk, we would only know one, we wouldn't know the other. Because it's a מלאכה גרועה. It's the same thing. Like a דרך, if the pasuk speaks about wood No, wait, to say gold, that they would bring נדבות of gold, and it says, \"Don't carry.\" So we need another pasuk to tell you you can't carry wood either. And how do you know you can't carry copper? Or clay, or something? You can't carry food. Makes no sense. So the same thing: either it happens to be over there, this is not something that's part of the melachah to say. So why would the fact that you're holding you're standing inside, you're standing outside, and you wouldn't know the difference? Why would you know the difference? So he goes and explains why there would be a sevara for the עני and the and the עשיר. So he says both sides: why if it would say only with the עני, I would think by the עני it's more and I wouldn't know the עשיר, and it say by the עשיר. So I'm just going to bring one, which is נוגע to what I'm trying to bring out. He says by the עשיר, I would think like this: if it would say only one, I would say it's only by the עשיר who is standing inside. And I wouldn't know if the guy's standing outside. Why? Cause the guy is standing inside, and he does the הוצאה, נעשית מחשבתו. Whatever he wanted to do is done. His machshavah was done. Shabbos, we need מחשבה, מלאכת מחשבת, it's done. And let's use a practical case: he wanted to give something to the poor man. When he gives it to him, finished. His whole job is done. It's all he wanted to do, and it's finished, so he did a full melachah. On the other hand, the עני, from his side, what did the עני do? He stuck his hand in, and he took out. And what's he going to do now with it? He has to take it home. He's not finished yet. This is all the beginning of what he's intending to do. The guy gave him something, and he's going to take it. So he calls it לא נעשית מחשבתו. He doesn't have a full machshavah that this is something that he really wants. This is not finished yet. And since it's not I would think m'meila in that case, it's not it's not chayav, it's not asur. Why, lichora, what's נוגע what he thinks? The פעולה is the same, and there was an עקירה and a הנחה. Because I was saying the whole עקירה and a הנחה is a גדר of changing, starting off someplace, taking it out, and then putting it down, and now it's set here. So I would think if as far as you're concerned it's set there and it's over, that's called a שינוי הגיון at least. All שינוי is הגיון, but it's a שינוי הגיון because you're putting it down, and as far as you you don't care, you walk away, it's finished. But in a case where you took it and you're not finished yet, so maybe that's not called קבע שביתה. The Pnei Yehoshua doesn't say it. If he would say it, then I would have nothing to say. But I'm saying it fits to what he's saying. That over there, you would think that it's not called a הנחה, לכאורה why not? So he plans to take it home. Cause the whole thing of the הנחה is that you're finished and you put it down, you planted it in. In שכל, in הגיון. But if you're planning, I would think maybe that's not called planted in, so it's not finished yet. If it's not finished yet, you're not חייב. So we need a פסוק there, too. Then he says the other way, also. This explains another thing. And not to go into the details, there's a Gemara on דף ד' with the Tosafot on דף ד'. But anyway, what Tosafot does in דף ד' here, Tosafot brings from a Yerushalmi בנוגע the מלאכה of מושיט. And I mentioned מושיט the other shiur. מושיט is a תולדה of הוצאה. What's

מושיט? מושיט means to hand over, but it's not סתם to hand over. To hand over from רשות היחיד to that's not מושיט. I mean it's in the word is מושיט is handing over, but that's the מלאכה of הוצאה, that's not מושיט. מושיט is מרשות היחיד לרשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים. If you take something and you pick it up in רשות היחיד, and you pass over a רשות הרבים, and you put it down in the next רשות היחיד, that's מושיט. And that was in the Mishkan. The Mishkan, they had the wagons standing next to each other, and then Leviim would take from one wagon to another. But what was in between the wagons? Each wagon is a רשות היחיד, in between the wagons a רשות הרבים, and we learn out מלאכת מושיט. So it says in Yerushalmi that you're only חייב מושיט if you put it into the into someone's hand, someone who is מקבל it. And the Yerushalmi asks a she'eilah: here, Where is that? Oh, I looked at the wrong page. Here. The Yerushalmi פרק הזורק, דהא אמר, it says: By מושיט, it says: אמר רב חמא: דווקא על ידי ב', someone else has to take it. פרעגט די ירושלמי: בכל אתר, the whole תורה we say, שנים שעשו, פטורין, וכאן אמרת חייבין? Here דווקא if someone else got it, you're חייב? ומשני: שכך היתה עבודת הלויים במשכן. That's how the Leviim did it. And Tosafos has she'elot to what's take the sevara? Why do you need two? Because the whole inyan is a change of רשויות, and a real change, and a real change from picking up and putting it down. מושיט has a little problem of that change. What do they say is מושיט? רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים. So even though it went דרך רשות הרבים, but basically it started off in רשות היחיד. It finished off in רשות היחיד. And since we just finished saying that עקירה and הנחה, the beginning and the end, is what makes it, so there is missing really a real change because it's not even a שינוי רשות. Ela mai, it went through the רשות הרבים, good, but its עקירה הנחה is missing. So that's why Yerushalmi says that in order to make the הנחה considered in something else, if you have a second person, that adds to it. So if you just put it down, you're putting it down in another רשות היחיד. But if you have it על ידי ב', so then in addition to the different רשויות, it's a different person also. So here Yerushalmi says at least we understand that it compensates, it compensates for the lack of the fact that it's a different רשות completely because it's only passing. So what instead of that is, there's another person. But it's all based on this nekudah that the hanachah, the akirah is important, the hanachah, because that basically makes this melachah into a melachah. So by מושיט, the way it is is already changed.