Gemara quotes it beyachas in connection to something else, but we're going to discuss it only as it is, not בנגיעה to what the Gemara brings it in our place here. But לפועל שמואל's statement is this: כל פטורי דשבת every time it says in Maseches Shabbos by a certain din that it's patur, if you do this and this, you're patur, it means patur aval asur. It means that even though you're patur, but you're not allowed to do it. So, patur means you're not punished for it, but you're still not allowed to do it. Or in other words, patur means that you're not chayav mide'oraita. From the Torah, it's not an aveirah. Aval asur, but you're not allowed to do it miderabbanan. So, every time it says in the Gemara Shabbos פטור, it means that even though you're patur, you're still not allowed to do it. Levar, except מהני תלת, there are three cases where it says the word patur, and it means patur umutar, that you're lechatchilah allowed to do it. Which are the three? צידת צבי, a certain case of when you capture a deer, צידת נחש, a certain case when you capture a snake, and מפיס מורסא, when you pop a pus pimple. That these cases are patur umutar. You're allowed to do it lechatchilah. What's the peshat in these three cases? So, let's just go through the cases. One is if you catch a deer. Now, we know tzeidah, trapping an animal on Shabbos, is one of the 39 מלאכות, which means if you do it in the way it is, you are asur mide'oraita, you're chayav karet, mitah, sekilah, the worst things. But when we mean here that you're allowed to cast capture a deer, doesn't mean a regular way of capturing a deer. You're not allowed to. It's a specific case: if one guy sat down by the door where there was a deer inside and blocked the door and then somebody else came down and sat and the first guy left. Whole case. This is not נגיעה to our discussion, so I'm not going to go into the details. So, there is a certain case where whatever this guy did, even though he is seemingly trapping the deer, it's not it's not chayav and it's not even asur. It's mutar. Okay, that's not מגיע to us. The other two: צידת נחש, to trap a snake. And that is a case where there is a snake and it might bite you and it'll be mazik you. And we're not talking here where it's Sakanat nefashot like Tosafot says that pashut it's dangerous, it might kill you, cuz if it's a safek of a possibility it'll kill you, the din is פיקוח נפש דוחה כל התורה כולה, that if it's a safek of you might die, you can do every aveirah except the famous three aveirot. That's not what we mean. It's a case it might bite you, it'll be mazik you, it'll hurt you, but it will not kill you. Nevertheless, you're allowed to trap it. You're allowed to trap it, and mimela it won't bite you. Even though, normally, tzidah, trapping, is an issur d'oraita, but in this this is a case where you're allowed. And מפיס מורסא, to to pop a pimple. And here also, they you're popping a pimple for the pus to come out. So even though making a פתח, making an opening in the body, is a melacha. Some learn it's like Rashi on דף ק\"ז brings what is the melacha? The melacha is building. When you do that, you're building. I What are you building? You're building yourself. And we find that there is such a thing as binyan by a body. The re'ayah is, the Gemara brings a re'ayah from חומש ב פרשה פרשת בראשית, where it says by Adam v'Chava when He made Chava it says, \"ויבן את הצלע.\" It says the word \"ויבן\", He built. But then the other pshat, which many learn and the Rambam learns as we're going to say, that the issur of making a פתח of making a hole is the issur of תיקון כלי. תיקון כלי means you're fixing you're making a kli which is a melacha of makeh b'patish. In the list of the 39 melachot, one of the melachot is makeh b'patish. What's makeh b'patish? Makeh b'patish is hitting with a hammer. Now, there is no melacha taking a hammer and banging it on the table and banging on and here. The melacha is to say the used to be that when you make a kli, so you do all kinds of work. After you finished, the person who did it, the seder would be, would take a hammer and, you know, he's knocking out, fixing it. After it's all done, you give the last kenak, the last bang. When you do that, you finished. Doing that is a מלאכה דאורייתא. That's called a מלאכה of גמר כלי, תיקון כלי. Now you're making a כלי. Making a כלי is a מלאכה. So when you open the פתח, it's תיקון כלי, which is under the category of מכה בפטיש. So normally you're not allowed. So the Gemara says if you're doing it just to take out the פת, you are allowed to do it. Why? Because it's tzaar. The previous one, the capturing the snake, you're allowed, why? Because it might be mazik you. And here you're allowed because of tzaar. Okay. We're going to get a little bit later into the details of this, but let's first go to a side thing, the גליון הש״ס here, Rabbi Akiva Eiger here. Rabbi Akiva Eiger here brings, says a few words on this דין. צדת נחש, it says you're allowed to capture the snake if it's doing it in order it shouldn't be mazik you. So he says, עיין סנהדרין דף ק״א עמוד א׳, ורש״י דיבור המתחיל לוחשין, ובבאר שבע שם. Let me explain what it says there. The Gemara in סנהדרין דף ק״א says, לוחשין על הנחש. You're allowed to say a lachash. A lachash is a certain things, words that you say, and that could stop the snake from biting you. I don't know how it works, but it's like a lachash that you're allowed to say. And the Gemara says לוחשין על הנחש, you're allowed on Shabbos to do it. So Rashi says, what's the חידוש? Why would you think you're not allowed? ואין בה משום צידה. Because normally what would happen, it seems from פשט פשט, that when you say the lachash, the snake would be trapped. The snake can't move. It won't bite you. So it looks like you're trapping. So since it's a שאלה you might be called צידה, so the Gemara tells you, לוחשין על על הנחש, you are allowed to do it, and it's not in the category of ואין בזה משום צידה, you're not חייב for the מלאכה of צידה. That's what Rashi learns. Comes the Be'er Sheva on this Rashi, and the ספר Be'er Sheva asks a she'eilah: why would the Gemara have to tell us that you're allowed to say a לחש and to stop the snake from biting you, and there's no melachah of צידה, when here Shmuel said that you're even allowed to capture it physically and there's no issur of צידה? It's a kal vachomer! If you know that you're allowed to physically capture, למשל, if you see a snake, you're allowed to take a bucket and cover the snake, you're trapping it, and in order it shouldn't be mazik you, you're allowed to do it, certainly you're allowed to say a לחש that will stop the snake! So what's the chidush? So he's asking, according to Rashi, that Rashi learns that the chidush of the Gemara that you're allowed to say the לחש on the snake is to tell you that אין בזה משום צידה, it has no צידה, it's extra Gemara! You don't have to say it, we know! It's a kal vachomer. מה ד- if you're allowed to actually trap the נחש, you're certainly allowed to say a לחש, which is much less than actually doing צידה! Putting the bucket on the נחש is real מלאכת צידה, it sounds like. Nevertheless, you're allowed. And we'll see later what the sevara is, but you're allowed. So certainly on like לחש. Therefore, the Be'er Sheva has a different peshat than Rashi. He says the Gemara did not mean to tell you that you're allowed to do it and it doesn't have צידה. That's not it. אין בזה משום רפואה! There's no refuah here. You might think there's an issur of refuah, which could be the peshat, a bachur asked me, could be I looked up the, I haven't seen it for a long time, I looked up, someone showed me inside in the sefer, in the Etz HaChachmah, the actual Be'er Sheva, could be, he takeh means that according to his peshat that it's talking about after it bit you already, and say a לחש so it should cure you. Or the peshat could be preventive medicine, that the lachash is nothing to do with tzeidah, the lachash has to do with the refuah. And now there is a, we know there's an איסור רפואה on Shabbos. The Rabbanan made an issur, you're not allowed to take medicine on Shabbos. Cuz if the snake bit you and you say this lachash, it'll help it cure, or it'll stop it from from from biting, it might That's like preventive medicine, it's like You're not allowed to take medicine on שבת, דרבנן. There's an איסור דרבנן on medicine on Shabbos. And the reason the Gemara says is that if you're going to take medicine over a גזירה, שמא ישחוק סממנים, you might come and grind herbs to make a medicine, so the Rabbanan said you can't take a refuah on Shabbos. So you might think that when you say this lachash, it's a problem, you can't do it because it's refuah. So that's what the Gemara tells you: לוחשין על הנחש, you are allowed to, it's not called refuah. Not like Rashi. Again, Rashi learns that it's telling you that it's not אסור מצד צידה, of capturing, trapping, and the Be'er Sheva learns the chidush of the Gemara is it's not אסור מצד רפואה. And then he says, \"I'll tell you. This is the reason why the Tur, when he brings this Gemara that you're allowed to say a lachash on the snake, brings it in סימן שכז.\" In Shulchan Aruch, there are two places. סימן He says the Tur, the שולחן ערוך, סימן שכח is a סימן that deals with the halachot of refuah. Now, we all know the סימנים of how the Shulchan Aruch is divided all started with the Tur. The Tur made up the different סימנים, different halachot and different סימנים. The Beit Yosef is a פירוש on the Tur, and Beit Yosef wrote his own Shulchan Aruch, but he followed the same סימנים and סדר of the of the Tur. And then, the Alter Rebbe also wrote his Shulchan Aruch following the same סימנים. So, you have סימן שכח. There, it deals with רפואה, הלכות of רפואה. סימן שטז, I'm saying it slow so you should keep, because it might get confusing, so you have to keep this in mind, סימן שכח deals with רפואה, the capitols. The סימן is a דין חולה בשבת. The הלכות of a חולה, of a sick person, רפואה. סימן שטז has all kinds of הלכות. The הלכות of צידה, the הלכות of not being able to trap on שבת is in סימן שטז. So, the דין that you're allowed to trap, like Shmuel says, by us there are three דינים which is patur u'mutar, you're allowed to trap the snake to prevent him from biting you, that you're allowed to do it, that's written in סימן שטז, because there he talks about צידה. There he talks about capturing, so he says, there's no problem. You're allowed to capture, because it might bite you, you're allowed to capture it. The הלכה that you're allowed to say the לחש on the snake, the Tur is the Be'er Sheva brings, says it in סימן שכח. Why does he say it in סימן שכח? סימן שכח deals with רפואה. So he says, because the Tur learns like I learn. That the whole דין is you might think that you're not allowed to do it, you're not allowed to say the לחש, because it's a רפואה. So, it tells you it's not a רפואה. Don't worry. There's no problem. So, where does this belong? It belongs to סימן שכח. So he says, this is a ראיה, like he brings for his פשט, that the Tur he says learns like me, not like Rashi. It has nothing to do Because if it were the דין to tell you that it's not צידה, there's no problem of צידה, like Rashi, it would have been a סימן in סימן שטז, because there it talks about the דינים of צידה. The other דין that you can you're allowed to capture, that's in סימן שטז. So, this is a סימן שכח. אגב he says, \"I have a problem with the Beit Yosef.\" The Beit Yosef, who's the פירוש on the Tur, who later wrote the Shulchan Aruch, but when he wrote the פירוש on the Tur, in סימן, and keep in mind the names numbers of the סימנים, סימן שכח, where the Tur brings this דין that you're allowed to say a לחש, the Beit Yosef brings what Rashi says, ואין בזה משום צידה. The Beit Yosef explains the Tur, that the Tur tells you the דין that you're allowed to say the לחש, zogt the Beit Yosef, you know what the Tur means to tell you? What's the חידוש? Like Rashi says, because there's no צידה. So the the Be'er Sheva says, \"I don't understand the Beit Yosef. If the Tur learns like Rashi, then he would have written it in שטז שטז. The fact is the Tur writes it in סימן שכח, is a So, the chiddush is that it's not refuah. So, how could the Beit Yosef bring in Rashi that\" the Be'er Sheva says. So, he says that the Beit Yosef, like he has a kashya on the Beit Yosef, why would the Beit Yosef bring in Rashi, that the chiddush of the din of the לחש is that it has no צידה, he says it on the Tur, when the Tur brings this din in סימן שכח? Which is a din of the הלכות of refuah. Okay. The bottom line what we have here is if we want to analyze what the Be'er Sheva said, he has two kashyot. That's two she'elot he has. Number one, two she'elot, that's two she'elot, on Rashi, if you're going to learn that the chiddush of the לחש is צידה, that you it has no din of, no issur of צידה, so the first she'elah he asks, why would he have to tell us that din? If the din we know already that you're allowed to capture it shouldn't bite you, obviously you're allowed to say the לחש. So, how could you tell me that it's telling you a chiddush that it's not צידה? And the second she'elah is, that if it is צידה, why does it written in סימן שכח? Also, if you're going to learn that's the צידה, it should have been in סימן שטז. Huh? I know. We know. We're going to get to that. So, I'm just saying what the Be'er Sheva said. So, the Be'er Sheva is asking these two she'elot: number one, why is it צידה? What Why you have to tell me that it's not צידה? Must be something else, because it can't be telling you it's not צידה. It's obvious it's not צידה. You're allowed to capture it כפשוטו. And the second shailah is that if it is צידה, what is it doing in סימן שכ״ח? Why isn't it not in סימן שט״ז where it deals with הלכות צידה? Now this שאלה, באמת, we transfer on the Beit Yosef and on the Shulchan Aruch. The Beit Yosef when he wrote the Shulchan Aruch, in סימן שכ״ח he writes the same thing that he wrote in the Beit Yosef of the Tur, he writes: You're allowed to say a לחש on the snake it shouldn't bite you, and the reason you're allowed to because it doesn't have the issur of צידה. Why did he write it in סימן שכ״ח? So the kashya is, obviously the Beit Yosef the, the מחבר in Shulchan Aruch learns like Rashi, because he says אין בזה משום צידה. So he's learning that the chiddush is it's not צידה. So why did he put it in סימן שכ״ח? Why didn't he put it in סימן שט״ז? And באמת the same shailah is on the Alter Rebbe. The Alter Rebbe brings the same din, and the Alter Rebbe also says like Rashi, and he says it in סימן שכ״ח. Let's read the Alter Rebbe, it's noge'a to know these דינים. It's noge'a to know what the Alter Rebbe says. סימן נ׳, סעיף נ׳, סימן שכ״ח סעיף נ׳: לוחשין על נחשים ועקרבים. You're allowed to say the לחש on the snakes, on the scorpions, בשביל שלא יזיקו so they shouldn't harm you, אף על פי שאינן רצים, it's not, even if they're not chasing you, but it's possible they're not chasing you now, but they might chase, ואין בכך משום צידה. The chiddush is and don't worry, it's not a issur of צידה. ואפילו למחייבין במלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, even those that hold מלאכה שאינה צריכה, and I'll explain that that's noge'a to the further. But lefoal the Alter Rebbe says the lashon the reason the chiddush of that you're allowed to say the לחש because it's not צידה. Where does he put it? In סימן שכ״ח, which the Be'er Sheva's kashya is a good kashya. See, the Be'er Sheva doesn't ask it as a kashya. He viewed it as a re'ayah. He said, a re'ayah that I'm right that it's not צידה, but it's the a different thing, refuah, the fact it's in סימן שכ״ח in by the Tur. And he says, and therefore, you can't add the words אין בזה משום צידה. If you write it in סימן שכ״ח, you can't add the words צידה, because it has nothing to do with צידה. But lefoal we see the mechaber does it, the Alter Rebbe does it. So we have a kashya now on the mechaber and on the Alter Rebbe. First of all, what's the chiddush that it's not צידה when you're allowed to actually trap itself? And that din that you're allowed to trap the Alter Rebbe says also, and that's in סימן שט״ז. Let's go back to סימן שט״ז סעיף י״ז. In סימן שט״ז there it talks about צידה. I'll read you there: ואפילו לכתחילה מותר לצוד, לכתחילה you're allowed to capture כל מיני רחשים ורמשים, all these creepy-crawlers שדרכן להזיק that could be mazik you. You're allowed to trap it. כגון נחשים ועקרבים, snakes, וכיוצא בהן. And even if they don't kill, even if they're not chasing you, you're afraid maybe it'll chase you and might bite you. Or it might bite somebody else, whatever. And he says that you're allowed to do it, and he goes on the reason why, which is not I don't want to confuse now, but he says you're allowed. That he says in סימן ש- שט״ז. And in סימן שכ״ח, there he says that you're allowed to be לוחש, say the לחש on the מכה, and there he says because it's not צידה. So what's it doing is, why is it not in סימן שט״ז? And what's the chiddush? The second kashya of the Beis, Be'er Sheva. If you If he says in סימן שט״ז you're allowed to capture them actually, so certainly you're allowed to say the לחש. Lichora, so to answer Rashi, and to answer the she'eilah on the Alter Rebbe and the she'eilah on the מחבר, but lichora you could say that this is the pshat in Rashi, and this is the way that they all learn. What is the reason why are you allowed to capture an animal, you know, a snake it shouldn't bite you? Lichora it's capturing, it's an איסור דאורייתא from צידה, why takeh are you allowed? So, the Gemara says, Tosafot brings it, and Tosafot brings it here, because it goes according to Rabbi Shimon who holds מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is not אסור מדאורייתא, is פטור מדאורייתא. What's a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה? So we know there is a machloket between Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon. When you do a מלאכה, but the purpose of the מלאכה is not for what such a מלאכה is intended. And the classical example, there are a lot of things, but the classical example: one of the מלאכות is digging a hole in the ground. It's a מלאכת חורש. You can't plow, you can't dig in the ground. The normal intentions of this מלאכה, and the way it was in the in the משכן was in order to make a hole. If you need a hole, that's the מלאכה of חורש. What happens if a person digs a hole, but he needs the sand, doesn't need a hole, he needs the sand? He means to dig the hole, he doesn't not that it's a mistake, he wants to dig the hole, but the purpose, the tzorech, the need is for something else than what the melachah really is. That's called a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה. So you did a melachah, but not legufah. There's a מחלוקת התנאים, Rabbi Yehudah says מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה חייב. If you dig a hole in order to get the sand, even though the tzorech of the melachah normally is to make a hole, it's אסור מדאורייתא, and you're חייב מיתה, of course, b'shogeg you're חייב חטאת, אסור מדאורייתא. Rabbi Shimon says מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is פטור מדאורייתא, patur aval assur. When you catch the snake, the melachah, the regular melachah of צידה is if you want the animal. Coming back. If you catch an animal because you want the animal, if you trap a snake because you want the snake, that's a מלאכה צריכה לגופה, so you're doing the melachah 100% because you want it. If you're catching the snake, you don't need the snake, you just don't want him to bite you, so you trap him here so he won't get there, you put him a box over him so he can't get out, so he won't bite you. So you're doing the melachah of trapping, you actually did the melachah of trapping, but it's not צורך גופו, it's not for the purpose of what the melachah is. So, in a case like this, according to Rabbi Shimon, it's not אסור מדאורייתא, but it's אסור מדרבנן. But because you might get hurt, so the Rabbanan were meikil so much and they said it's mutar. That's a pshat in Shmuel.

Since it's only a issur, if it would be an איסור דאורייתא, there's no such thing because you might have tza'ar and you might get hurt, you're allowed to do a מלאכה דאורייתא, you ever heard of such a thing? The conservatives say that. If it's not so convenient, and it will bother you, then you're allowed to do חילול שבת. We know you can't מחלל שבת in order to prevent you from tza'ar. But if it's an איסור דרבנן, the Rabbanan in their issur could put in whatever clause they want. So they put in a clause in this din that since it's only assur because we made it אסור, משום היזק we said it's mutar. That's the reason why it's mutar. Then there is a further case which we'll get into a second, but this is the original the way the Gemara says it, the way Tosafot brings it. So it comes out like this: צידת נחש is a melachah. It's a melachah of צידה. The reason that it's mutar is why? Because it's a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה. That it's a melachah that's not done in the intentions where the melachah is. And nevertheless it's and it's mutar, not only patur, but it's also mutar because of tzaar, because of hezek.

What Rashi is telling us peshat in the גמרא לוחשין על הנחש, that you can do a lachash. So Rashi says אין בזה משום צידה, that this is not even in the category of צידה. It's not the peshat that this is צידה, but צידה which because of the circumstances you're allowed to do, it's לכתחילה not צידה. The kushya of the Be'er Sheva was, what's the chidush that you're allowed to do it? It's no צידה? You're mamash allowed to trap and there's no צידה? No, this is a different geder. This is even better. When you say you're allowed to trap in order it shouldn't bite you, well the peshat is it's a melachah of צידה with a heter. It's like there's a hole and it's patched up. And this is the chidush, this is much better, אין בזה משום צידה. It doesn't it has no צידה. Why? Because the way it seems that when you say the lachash, you're not capturing it, you're not trapping it, you're saying a certain lachash. If you say a certain lachash, what's going to be the result? The snake will stop. I don't know, I guess that's how it works, I don't know nowadays we don't know what this means, but those days the snake would stop in its place. But you are not doing something to trap it. That's the chidush. So the Be'er Sheva's she'eilah was l'chorah why is it, what's the חידוש אין בזה משום צידה if you're allowed to trap it mamash? Trapping mamash you're taka allowed because this this type of צידה is allowed, and here אין בזה משום צידה. It's a chiddush. And that could be what the Alter Rebbe learns also. That's what the Beis Yosef learns. And because of that they didn't put it into סימן שט''ז. סימן שט''ז deals with צידה, or things which are מותר משום צידה. But

things which are not in the category of צידה, that's a different chiddush. So, b'davka he didn't put it they didn't put it in there to tell you this: אין בזה משום צידה, that it has nothing to do with צידה בכלל. So where does it belong? Farkert, not in הלכות צידה. It could have been there, too. But in order to stress the point that you should not think that it's in the category of צידה, so he says אין בו משום צידה, and he put it someplace else, which fits to refuah because after all it's protecting you from getting hurt. So it fits into refuah to put it in there. But the main thing is not where he put it, where he did not put it. Huh? No, the פסק הלכה is אין בו משום צידה. And he says you're allowed, obviously it's not refuah. He says clearly you're allowed לוחשין. No, but he says he says you're allowed to. No no, he says אין בו משום צידה. Refuah is לכתחילה איסור דרבנן. צידה is איסור דאורייתא. He said, but this is not בכלל, it has nothing to do with with צידה, and that's the chiddush. Now, v'lichorah, even though it would seem that it's not so, why? We have this what I'm trying to say is to lechalek between the two dinim. The dinim that you're allowed to trap the snake, that's mutar even though it's צידה, but it's a צידה that's mutar. This he's trying to say אין בזה משום צידה at all, the case of a לוחש. But if you look at the two סימנים at two places in the Alter Rebbe, one might think that they're really saying the same thing. Let's go back to that סעיף where we said before, סימן שט״ז, סעיף י״ז, where it talks about trapping it. So the Alter Rebbe, I'm not going to read the whole thing, I see it's getting late, this is going to take too long. He says, why are you allowed to trap? So first he says the reason is

because כיון שאין צדן אלא בשביל שלא יזיק, you're capturing it not because you need the snake, because you want to protect yourself from getting bitten, it's a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, and מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is only a איסור דרבנן. We pasken like that, and in the case of היזק, the rabbanan said mutar. Then the Alter Rebbe comes and asks a שאלה, and he continues: ואף שכל מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה פטור אבל אסור מדברי סופרים, here they were מתיר מפני חשש היזק הגוף. Then he asks a שאלה: what about those people who pasken that מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is אסור מדאורייתא? Who is that? Who? No, that's that's in Gemara. Who in the פוסקים? Rambam! Yesterday in the שיעור we spoke about it. The Rambam is the only one that פסקנס מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה like רבי יהודה, that that's חייב מדאורייתא. So according to him, there shouldn't be a היתר of צידת נחש, because the whole היתר of צידת נחש is because it's a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, which is only אסור מדרבנן, because we pasken like רבי שמעון, ובמילא the rabbanan were מקיל by היזק. Ah? So according to the Rambam that it's מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is also אסור מדאורייתא, so according to him what's the reason that צידה is mutar? And למעשה the Rambam פסקנס that this צידה is mutar. So the Alter Rebbe continues: ואף לאומרים שמלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה חייב עליה, even according to those, meaning the Rambam, that מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is חייב, ואין מחללין שבת במלאכה גמורה של תורה בשביל היזק הגוף, and since it's אסור מדאורייתא, there's no heter to say because you might get hurt you're allowed to do a מלאכה דאורייתא, no such thing, אלא בסכנת נפשות, if it's a danger of your life, but otherwise not, מכל מקום כאן, so the Alter Rebbe says like this: כאן כיון שאין צדן כדרכו, here since you're not doing the צידה in a normal way of trapping, אלא מתעסק בהם שלא יוכלו להזיק, you should you're doing it in a way just to stop it from being מזיק, how? כגון שכפה עליהם כלי, you put a כלי over it, או מקיף עליהם, or you make a circle around them, או קושרן, or you tie them שלא יזיקו, so that's a different sevara, so it's not doing the melachah in a normal way. Ah, when you do a melachah not in a normal way it's never אסור מדאורייתא. So here if you're doing it trapping him not in a normal way, it's also only אסור מדרבנן, ובמילא לפיכך התירו לעשות כן, they were מתיר אפילו באותן שאין ממיתין אלא מזיקין, even those who don't kill you, mimela it's no סכנת נפשות, you're allowed. So the Alter Rebbe goes through a whole thing, gives a reason why normally you're allowed to do צידת נחש, because it's a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה and therefore it's mutar because of the hezek. Then he continues, and even if you hold מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is chayav, here it's also mutar. That's how he says be'arichut, as you read as you heard me read. סימן שכ״ח, where he talks about a לוחש, he goes very bekitzur, but seemingly it's almost like telling us what he said before: לוחשין על הנחשים ועקרבים בשביל שלא יזיקו, you're allowed to, ואין בכך משום צידה, and there is no צידה, And אפילו להמחייבים במלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, even according to those hold מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is chayav, you're still allowed to do it. What would you normally assume? What's the Rambam, the Alter Rebbe saying? He's repeating what he said over there, but very, very בקיצור. He doesn't have to repeat the whole thing twice. What did he say over there by capture, actually trapping the נחש? He said clearly, you're allowed to do it, and even if you hold מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is חייב, you're still allowed to do it, and he explains why. Here he does the same thing. He says you're allowed to do the לחש and that it's not צידה, even if you hold מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה חייב. So lechora you would think that it's exactly like over there. So what I'm trying to say, seems like what I said, that if it's a different din altogether, is wrong. I tried to say over there, it's צידה, צידה which is mutar. Here it's not צידה at all. But if you look superficially, that this really is basically the same thing like over there, just בקיצור. And it seems like, it seems, it's not, I don't know if that's what they meant, the new Shulchan Aruch, and they made the new הערות and everything, it looks like that's how they learned. That they're combining, connecting both דינים. Here he says, in the beginning he speaks about trapping the נחש and he says the whole arichus, and over here he's just repeating it בקיצור, and really it means the same thing like over there, that the reason is because of whatever he said over there, and also if you hold that מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, etc., etc. The only she'eilah is the Alter Rebbe usually when he does such a thing, if he refers back to a different place where he went into arichus, he usually says כמו שנתבאר. Sometimes he says where, sometimes he doesn't. It would only be normal that the Alter Rebbe should have said here, after he says the small line here that you're allowed to do the לחש, and it's no צידה, and even if you hold מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה חייב, כמו שנתבאר, he should have given the reason. איי, he doesn't have to repeat the reason, at least say that I explained the reason over there, כמו שנתבאר בסימן שט״ז. The Alter Rebbe doesn't do that. It's a פלא. Not only that, if you look at the mareh mekomos, not the new mareh mekomos, the original mareh mekomos printed on the side, who wrote the mareh mekomos? So the Rebbe said more than once, maybe the Alter Rebbe himself, but we're not sure, maybe not, but the לשון that the Rebbe used: על כל פנים, א בעל סמכא. The one that wrote it knew what he was talking about. So the side says one vort here at the end of this סימן: עיין סימן שי״ו, שט״ז. עיין is: look into סימן שט״ז. שי״ו, שי״ו, the same thing שט״ז. What's there to be מעיין there? The way it seems, it's exactly the same thing as over there. So all the side should have said, ראה, see, meaning look there, you'll see the reason. עיין means look into it. Look some- what's there to look in? It's very pashut. I think that it's if if that's what they meant when they wrote the הערות that it's the same thing, I think it's a mistake. I think they're two different דינים, and that's why it's not written כמו שנתבאר. Over there the Alter Rebbe goes into אריכות that you know why you're allowed to do it, because it's a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה. And even if you hold it's מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is chayav, but here you do it not a normal way, that's why it's mutar. Here the Alter Rebbe is a different din. He's not referring back to there. He says to do the לחש, אין בזה משום צידה. It's nothing! And you don't have to give a different reason if it's מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה חייב or not. See, over there he gives two reasons: if you hold מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is patur, then the reason is because היזק הגוף, מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה you're allowed. If you hold like the Rambam מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is chayav, you give a different reason, because it's not כדרכו. Here the Alter Rebbe doesn't give reasons. He just makes a statement: it's not צידה, and therefore according to everybody you're allowed to do it. Why? Because it's not צידה! It's nothing! And that's what maybe he means: עיין, look back there, you'll see the difference! Not עיין, look back there, because if it's just to look back there to figure to know the reason, you don't say עיין, you don't have to be- עיין, עיין means זיי מעיין. Like everything else he says, ראה or should have- he says, look, and I'm try- I think it's farkert. עיין, meaning look there, you'll see what it is, here it's not like that. And here it's a din that it has nothing to do with צידה בכלל. That's the chiddush. Don't think it's צידה, it's not צידה. Why? Because you're not doing anything, you're saying a לחש. Saying, you know the לחש sometimes don't even make any sense. You learn the Gemara, all these לחשים, you have words that don't klep, a vort to a vort. When you say a לחש against a שד, against this, it's nothing. So it's not צידה. That's why you might think it maybe צידה because after all he's trapped, and he says, no, it's nothing! Over there it's not nothing. Over there it's בפירוש צידה. Ela mai? If you מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה פטור, it's mutar because it's דרבנן משום היזק, and if not, not. If it's מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה חייב, it's for a different reason. Here you don't and doesn't say כמעשה איסורו because that's not כמעשה איסורו. Fine. So lichora you could learn like that peshat in the Alter Rebbe, and you could learn like that peshat in Rashi, that when Rashi said אין משום צידה, that's what he means. So it comes out according to this that when the Gemara says by... you're allowed to capture, trap the נחש, it's צידה, צידה המותרת. But it's a מלאכת צידה. But נפל, that's mutar, and over there it's nothing. Lichora, it's not like that lichora you would say. Lichora I have a problem with this whole peshat. Because lichora I'm going to try to show that even the צידה that you do trap is also not a מלאכת צידה at all. You're trying to say that by the trapping of the נחש, when you trap it, it's a מלאכת צידה, and דהכא של הנחש is not צידה. I'll show you lichora, and obviously I'm going to try to show that it's not true, but lichora it'll come out that trapping it by putting down something on the נחש is also not מלאכת צידה at all. Why? So here we have to go to another thing. It goes like, in the Gemara, the two things go together: צידת נחש and מפיס מורסא, opening the pimple. And normally, peshat in the Gemara, the reason why they're both mutar, because it's a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה. מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה we pask like Rabbi Shimon, and therefore it's only miderabbanan, and the רבנן were מתיר because of tza'ar. צידת נחש, צידת מורסא. Be'emet, what's the melachah? It's מכה בפטיש. If you open a hole in your body, you make a tikun, and it's a איסור דאורייתא. But since it's not with the kavanah, not for the intentions of what the melachah is, it's a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, and it's only we pask like Rabbi Shimon, that it's only miderabbanan, so if you have tza'ar, you're allowed to do it. The kashya is according to the Rambam, just like we said the Alter Rebbe asks by צידת נחש, who holds מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה חייב, why are you allowed to? The same thing by מפיס מורסא. The Rambam pask by מפיס מורסא also that you're allowed to do it. But if the whole reason you're allowed to do it by מפיס מורסא is because it's a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, mimela it's only derabbanan, so the רבנן were מתיר משום צער, but the Rambam holds מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is דאורייתא, so why does the Rambam say מותר? So the Maggid Mishnah asked that she'eilah. And this is actually what the Alter Rebbe said, what he said before is referring there, okay? In פרק י׳, הלכה י״ז, המפיס שחין, he calls it שחין, if you open up a a pimple בשבת, if it's in order to open the the opening like the doctors do, you mean then it's חייב, מכה בפטיש, שזו היא מלאכת הרופא, that's the מלאכה. ואם הפיסו להוציא ממנו ליחה שבו, if you open it up in order to take the pus out, הרי זה מותר. The Rambam says מותר. Comes the Maggid Mishneh, said, don't understand, a long Maggid Mishneh, and he says, what how could you say it's mutar? According to the גמרא, וראיתי מי שהקשה על רבינו שפסק בשני אלו, the רמב״ם פסק סתם by צידת נחש and סתם by מפיס מורסא that it's מותר, שניהם בסוף פרק זה, שהרי if the Gemara it says clearly that the reason it's mutar because מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is פטור, ואחר שרבינו פסק, since the Rambam פסק like Rabbi Yehuda מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה חייב, why aren't you חייב by these two? Okay, so the Rambam, so the Maggid Mishneh says like this. So he says, let's read the words, ונראה לי בתירוץ זה שרבינו ז״ל, that the Rambam סבר, yeah, what's the reason? Says he brings a ראיה from the Gemara. כשהוא הוציא, כשהוא, when you do it להוציא ממנו ליחה, if you open the hole in order to take the pus out, אין זה גמר מלאכה. It's not a מלאכה בכלל, ואי אפשר לומר בו חיוב מכה בפטיש או גמר מלאכה בשום פנים. You can't consider it a מלאכה. What does he mean? So what he really means is, he explains himself later in הלכה כ״ה. And he says an interesting vort here, so you have to listen to this very carefully. Let's see. No, not כ״ה, פרק ב׳, הלכה ב׳. You have to be very careful here. You have to listen, mamash, it's a very געשמאקע ענין. But the

Maggid Mishneh is going to tell us a klal like this: when it comes to the melachah of מכה בפטיש, if you don't have the kavanah to do the melachah of מכה בפטיש, of fixing, finishing the kli, it's not that pshat it's a melachah without kavanah. It's not a מלאכה בכלל. He writes here, נראה שכל שאין מתכוון by מכה, by fixing kli, if you're not mitkaven to do it, אין ראוי לומר בפסיק רישא. If one agreed to the פרטים, it's a nafka mina maybe l'halacha l'maaseh. The point is, and then I'll explain what he means. By every melachah, and I'll explain this, you have the pshat, the היגיון of it. Every melachah, when someone, you're going to ask you, what's the melachah? You're able to describe exactly what the ציור of the melachah is. Someone ask you: How, describe to me מלאכת כתיבה. Take a pen and you write. מלאכת בישול, you take a pot of food and you put it on the fire. מלאכת הבערה, making the fire, we know what it is. And someone asks you: Describe to me the melachah of fixing כלי. What is the ציור of, what is the melachah of fixing כלי? There is no answer to this question. There is no ציור to fixing כלי. Fixing כלי, כלי could be anything in the world! Any פעולה that you do that with this פעולה you're finishing the object, the כלי, it's a melachah. Take time מכה בפטיש, you take a hammer and you give a bang. What's wrong with banging with a hammer? I mean, muktzeh, something else, but you give a bang on the table. If you take the hammer and you bang it on the כלי because through this you intend to finish the כלי, then it's an איסור of מכה בפטיש. So

what makes the banging of the hammer into a melachah? The kavanah. It's not that pshat it's a melachah by itself, if you're מתכוון could be you have intentions for the melachah or you don't have intentions. It's not a melachah! I can tell you, you know what? מכה, fixing כלי could be blowing like this! If the way things are done that the last finishing touch to the object is making a blow, if you give that blow for that purpose, you are חייב מיתה! So you have two people: one guy is tired and goes, blows, another guy blows the same blow, this guy is חייב מיתה and this guy did nothing! What's the pshat? Because תיקון כלי is such an exceptional melachah that there is no ציור. What makes the פעולה you did into a melachah? Your kavanah. If you didn't intend to do it, then it's not תיקון כלי. Not that peshat it's a תיקון כלי that's mutar, it's not תיקון כלי! This is what the Maggid Mishneh says בנוגע תיקון כלי בכלל. And therefore he says, ואינו מתכוון, okay, it'll take too long. So now let's go back to מפיס מורסא. This is what the Maggid Mishneh is telling us. Why does the Rambam hold מפיס מורסא is mutar? Not because it's a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה and there it's mutar, because the Rambam פסק שאינה צריכה לגופה is chayav. He holds it's mutar because if you didn't intend to open the hole for the purpose of making the thing which is fixing, the moment you didn't think it's, it's not a melachah! The Rambam holds a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is asur mid'oraita, but in this case, the Rambam holds it's not even a מלאכה בכלל. That's what the Rambam says. That's what the Maggid Mishneh says. Let's go back again, the words he says, now we'll understand. וטעם מפיס

מורסא גמר מלאכה להרחיב הפה. וכשהוציא ממנה ליחה, if the purpose is to not to finish it, but to take out the ליחה, אינו גמר מלאכה. Not that it's a גמר מלאכה without kavanah, there's no גמר מלאכה! אי אפשר לומר בו לחייב מכה בפטיש. You can't say it's מכה בפטיש, which is גמר מלאכה. No way! It's not מכה בפטיש. That's מפיס מורסא. Then the Maggid Mishneh adds, וכן צידת נחש. The same thing, when you capture the other din, when you capture nachash is the same thing, שאינו צד כדרכו אלא מתעסק בו. Since you're not doing it כדרכו, you're mit'asek, it's also mutar according to the Rambam. Now what does that mean? Comes the the Kesef Mishneh and the Machatzis HaShekel on the to on the the Magen Avraham, and he says what the Maggid Mishneh means is the exact same thing, that צד נחש is the same thing, that when you capture a נחש without the intention of capturing it, it's not a מלאכת צידה בכלל, because we see that the Maggid Mishneh puts the two together. By תיקון כלי, by מפיס מורסא which is תיקון כלי, he says clearly that if you don't have kavana for תיקון כלי, it's not a מלאכה תיקון כלי, and he finishes, וכן צידת נחש, so the Merkavat HaMishneh learns that that's the pshat in the Maggid Mishneh which explains the Rambam, that צידת נחש that you're allowed to capture in order not to get a היזק, if you didn't intend for it, it's not מלאכת צידה. There is, which means that the Maggid Mishneh learns that מלאכת צידה and מלאכת תיקון כלי, מפיס מורסא have the same idea. That's how they learn. The

Rebbe in Likutei Sichos in חלק י\"ד, which I'll mention again like I mentioned the other time that this is a שיחה before you learn הלכות שבת, שבת you have to learn through this whole שיחה, and the Rebbe goes on to say that there is another melacha which is similar to תיקון כלי, that if you're not mechaven it's not a מלאכה בכלל, not a מלאכה כוונה, and he talks about קשר. You're not allowed to make a knot, but the knot mid'oraita is only if you intend that it should stay לעולם. So the Rebbe learns that if you don't have that intention, it's not a pshat, so it's a it's a מלאכת קשירה without kavana, it's not מלאכת קשירה, and he says here, על דרך בנוגע, Where is it? Yeah, before, ובדוגמת מה שכתב המגיד משנה, which the Magen Avraham brings, בנוגע למלאכת תיקון כלי, שאם לא נתכוון לתקן הרי זו אינה בגדר מלאכה כלל, and in the שולי הגיליון, at the bottom, the Rebbe says that יש מי שרוצה לומר, someone to say the same thing, בנוגע צידה. And who is that? The Merkevet HaMishneh. שבלא כוונה לצוד, אין זה בגדר צידה כלל. Why not? Because צידה means you're trapping it to get. So the Rebbe brings that. Now,

let's stop for a second. If we're going to learn like this, why am I bringing this in before we go further? It comes out that מלאכת צידה that you're allowed to, I mean, the fact that you're allowed to capture this animal not to be mazik you, the snake, why are you allowed to? Because it's not a מלאכה בכלל according to this. Al pi zeh, what I said before is wrong. I tried to say before that if you are capturing, you're covering up the נחש, you're allowed to do it. Why? Because it's טאקע צידה, but צידה which is mutar. Mah she'ein kein, in the case of לחש, that's a different גדר, that's not מלאכת צידה at all. And therefore, they're two separate things. But now it seems I'm wrong! Because now it seems that צידה is also not בגדר מלאכה. So צידה, even the capturing is in a way which is not a מלאכה, which is similar to the לחש. So how can I say that the whole thing is different that this is no אין זה בגדר צידה כלל, because it's only a לחש, there's no צידה, אינה צידה כלל. Mah she'ein kein, this if yes, and that's why the Alter Rebbe and the Mechaber makes it into two separate סימנים, etc., etc. But here we see it's not like that. Here we see that it's בפועל צידה, even by צידה it's also no מלאכה. That's what the Merkevet HaMishneh says pshat in Maggid Mishneh. So I'm trying to tell you that the Rebbe argues on the Merkevet HaMishneh. And the Rebbe writes, he brings the Merkevet HaMishneh that צידה is also the pshat that if you don't have kavana to capture, to trap, it's not צידה, so the רבי, אבל אינו כן. Doesn't say וצריך עיון, doesn't say, a lot of times the Rebbe writes on somebody like לא זכיתי להבין, I don't understand, he says, you are wrong! Okay, maybe just because it's a Merkavat HaMishneh. Merkavat HaMishneh lived in the time of the Baal Shem Tov, a big, big מתנגד. The Alter Rebbe never wanted to look into the Merkavat HaMishneh. Didn't want to hold it in his hand. Once he needed to see what he says on the Rambam on the Rambam, so he asked the shamash to open it up and read it for him. He didn't want to look in. So maybe on the Merkavat HaMishneh. But I

think in this case it's more than that, because I'll show soon that according to the Alter Rebbe it's בפירוש not true what he says. But the Rebbe says it's not true and he brings a ra'ayah, and not take too long to bring this ra'ayah, so he says clearly that by צידה it's not like that. If you don't have kavanah to trap, it's still trapping, because the fact is you trapped. Ela mai, you're not having the kavanah. So mimela by צידה it's not like מפיס מורסא. By מפיס מורסא, takeh the reason why you're allowed, because it's not a It's no melachah, it's not בגדר. צידה, if you trap it, it is בגדר מלאכה. Ela mai, you're allowed. If you say צידה is בגדר מלאכה, now my chiluk makes sense. By regular trapping it's בגדר מלאכה, but you're allowed, and by ליחה it's not בגדר מלאכה at all. And it's clear the Alter Rebbe holds like that. Because if you're going to look at the two places, what the Alter Rebbe writes by מפיס מורסא and what the Alter Rebbe writes by צידה. So I'll read you what he writes on מפיס מורסא. מפיס מורסא in סימן שכ״ח סעיף ל״ב: המפיס מורסא בשבת, he says here, I guess you're not allowed because of תיקון כלי, yeah, okay. But why are you allowed in the case of this? Because since you're only doing it for the ליחה, so it's a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, and מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is only אסור מדרבנן, you're allowed. ואף לאומרים מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה חייב עליה מדאורייתא, מכל מקום כאן, and the Alter Rebbe says what the Maggid Mishneh says. The Alter Rebbe says, כיון שחיובו הוא משום תיקון המכה, since it's תיקון כלי, אם כן כיוון שאין צריך לתיקון זה, when you don't need it, ואינו מתכוין לו, you don't have כוונה, even though it happens by itself, אין זה חשוב תיקון כלל. Not a peshat that it's a תיקון without kavanah. If you don't have in mind, it's not תיקון כלי. והרי זה כאילו לא עשה ולא כלום. Ela mai, there might be a גזירה, מדרבנן there might be a גזירה, but because of the צער, they took it off. So by מפיס מורסא the Alter Rebbe, when he explains the Rambam, he says that those that hold melachah is still chayav and מפיס מורסא is still mutar, so he quotes the same thing that the Maggid Mishneh says, because it's not תיקון כלי. Let's see what he says by צד נחש. By צד נחש, when we quoted that you're allowed to, then he says, what about those that hold מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is chayav? מכל מקום כאן, by צד נחש you're allowed, why? If he would hold like the Merkavat HaMishneh, what would you expect the Alter Rebbe to say, why? Because since it's not מתכוון to capture, it's not the מלאכה of צידה. He says something else: כאן כיון שאין צדן כדרכן, since you're not doing it a normal way, אלא מתעסק בהן, you're only getting involved they shouldn't bite you by putting a כלי etc., לפיכך התירו לעשות כן. See? So the Alter

Rebbe says clearly that by צידת נחש it's a different reason. So, obviously, he doesn't learn like the Merkavat HaMishneh learns. And that's probably why the Rebbe says, aval iyen! The פלא is why the Rebbe doesn't bring that the Alter Rebbe says a different פשט, and doesn't בכלל bring that the Alter Rebbe quotes the Maggid Mishneh. Doesn't say his name, but that's the Maggid Mishneh. So we see according to the Alter Rebbe, that's not the פשט, that צידה is not like that. And the Rebbe has a clear ראיה from an open... The Rebbe, it's ממש I can't see how the Merkavat HaMishneh makes a mistake. All of it is, the Rebbe does bring the Machatzit HaShekel says the same thing as the Merkavat HaMishneh, that by צידה if not, because he brings an open ראיה that it's not like that. So what's the reason by צידה not like that? Either the Maggid Mishneh explains the Rambam, so he says first that by מפיס מורסא the reason is because it's not תיקון בכלל, it's not a מלאכה. Then he continues, וכן צידת נחש שאינו צד כדרכו אלא מתעסק בו. So normally you would learn of what he means is, the same explanation I gave by מפיס מורסא, the same by צידת נחש. And then the Alter Rebbe definitely learns not like that. It can't be. וכן also says it's also מותר for a different reason. Why is it מותר for a different reason? Because you're not doing it כדרך, not because it's not a מלאכה at all, you're just not doing it כדרך. So this is

how we will have to learn in the Alter Rebbe the פשט in the Maggid Mishneh. And the Rebbe says clearly that by צידה you can't say it. One of the ראיות the Machatzit HaShekel brings to his פשט that צידה is the same thing, that it's also because it's not a מלאכה בכלל, because if the reason would be not because it's not a melachah, because like I said, because you're doing it שלא כדרכו, he says there, Shulchan Aruch should have said that you're allowed to do this צידה if you do it not a normal way. Since the Shulchan Aruch doesn't say that, a siman that it's not a מלאכה בכלל. The Alter Rebbe we just read, just befeirush does say this. So befeirush the Alter Rebbe learns that צידת נחש is a melachah even if you're not מתכוון, and the reason according to the Rambam it is allowed to do it because it's שלא כדרכו. So according to the way the Rebbe learns, and the way it's clear, I can't see any other way, clearly the Alter Rebbe learns like that, it comes out that צידת נחש that you're allowed to trap נחש, why is it mutar? שלא כדרכו. Because you're doing it differently. Do we say that it's not a melachah at all? No. Oh, so memeila צידת נחש is a melachah. Ela mai, a melachah that it's mutar. So now it

makes sense what I said before, that you could be mechalek. צידת נחש the Alter Rebbe says it's mutar, and he says it in הלכות צידה, because it is צידה, and he tells you all kinds of sevarot why it's mutar, this sevara, that sevara. By לחש, אין זה משום צידה כלל, בכלל not צידה. And that's why the Alter Rebbe doesn't go into פרטים that you have to do שלא כדרכו or whatever, he makes a clear din, and it's according to everybody, afilu if you hold נחשים ועקרבים חייב. So my she'eilah was, I tried to make lechatchila in the beginning of the shiur to make a chiluk between these two דינים, but I have the sheilah, how could you make that chiluk that לחש is no melacha at all, מה שאין כן צידת נחש is a melacha, but it's mutar, when צידת נחש according to the the Maggid Mishneh, the the peshat in the Maggid Mishneh, it's also no melacha, they're both no melacha. So I'm saying now, דאס איז ווי ער לערנט. What what we're learning, what we're bringing the Maggid Mishneh peshat, the way the Alter Rebbe says and the way the Rebbe says, and again, I'm wondering why the Rebbe in the sicha here the הערה when he says clearly, doesn't bring that the Alter Rebbe, and it's clearly the Alter Rebbe לערנט, I can't see any other way, the Alter Rebbe says clearly a different reason by מפיס מורסא. By מפיס מורסא he says because it's not a מלאכה בכלל. If you're not mitkaven by תיקון כלי, אין זה תיקון כלי כלל, לא עשה שום מעשה. But צידת נחש he says because you're doing it שלא כדרכו. It's a different לשון. So according to that, צידת נחש is a melacha of צידה, אלא מאי it's mutar, or because it's מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, or according to the Rambam because you do it שלא כדרכו. מה שאין כן לחש אין בו צידה כלל, and that's why this is put in סימן שח, this answers the kushya of the Be'er Sheva, the din of צידת נחש is put in סימן שטז, because there talks about צידה, because it's צידה. And this is put בפירוש not in שטז, to tell you it's not צידה, and he says אין בו משום צידה. Where did he put it? He had to put it someplace, so he put it in the הלכות where it talks about רפואה, because after all it's in the same category, because you're trying to prevent a היזק, so you're trying that he shouldn't bite you, you shouldn't get hurt, so he put it there. But it fits, because this is no melachah at all, and this is a melachah. No, that he says it's mutar because it's שלא כדרכו. He says, I'll read you the words: וכן צידת נחש שאינו צד כדרכו אלא מתעסק בו. So the the Maggid Mishneh learns pshat, that's what he means. Since it's not כדרכו, that means you're not mitkaven, m'meila it's no melachah. But he didn't say it. But in here you could never know. In the in the Maggid Mishneh itself, you can learn both ways. But you see from the Alter Rebbe clearly, he says a different thing. He says it's שלא כדרכו. And again, the Machatzit HaShekel's re'iyah, that that's what he doesn't mean that, that the Maggid Mishneh doesn't mean because you're doing it שלא כדרכו, because then the Shulchan Aruch should have said. So I don't know, maybe the Beit Yosef thinks different, but the Alter Rebbe clearly says that it has to be שלא כדרכו. So m'meila according to the Alter Rebbe, it's a difference here, it's בפירוש like, but the Rebbe's re'iyah, if you look, learn the sichah, learn this he'arah, learn the Shulchan Aruch and see the re'iyah. It's a mamash a strong re'iyah that I can't see how anybody can learn differently, it's so pashut. So m'meila you can explain the difference between these two הלכות.