The Gemara here on דף ג' in Shabbos, דף ג', the Gemara asks a שאלה בנוגע the Mishnah where it says that if one person does an akirah and the other person does the hanachah, they're both patur. So the Gemara asks, שניהם פטורין, why are they both patur? והא עבידא מלאכה מבינייהו? But after all, between the two a melachah was done. This guy did the akirah and this guy did the הנחה, זה עוקר וזה מניח, so between the two a melachah was done. So why are they both patur? And the Gemara answers, cuz it says in a ברייתא, רבי אומר, there's a pasuk that says מעם הארץ בעשותה. So we darsh'en from the word בעשותה, בעשותה means you do it, that means you're doing the whole melachah. So we darsh'en from here: העושה את כולה ולא העושה מקצתה. If one person does the melachah, he's chayav, but if two people do the melachah, you're patur. Which means if one person does an akirah and one person does the hanachah, so ein hachi nami the melachah was done, but it's done by two people. Between the two, a melachah was done. So from the pasuk בעשותה we learn you're only chayav if you do the whole melachah, not you an akirah, the other guy the hanachah. And then the beraita adds another expression: יחיד ועשה אותה חייב, if one person does it, the melachah is chayav; שנים ועשו אותה פטורין, if two people do the melachah, they're patur. And Tosafos says that these two לשונות really mean the same thing, even though the beraita tells us two things, because you would have thought it's possible, if not for Tosafos, so one would have thought that the beraita is telling us two things.

There are two possible ways a melacha should be done between two people. One could be Reuven does first half and Shimon does the second half, like in our case, Reuven does the עקירה, Shimon does the הנחה. So the melacha was done between the two, but one did the first half, one did the other half. Then there's another way it's possible for two people together to do, and that is they both together do the whole melacha. They're both holding on to the same thing, they're both holding on to the to the object, and together they both pick it up in the רשות היחיד, both together take it out and make an הנחה in רשות הרבים. So here also you have a case where the melacha was done between two. So normally we could have learned that this is the peshat in the beraita. The first expression when it says העושה את כולה ולא העושה מקצתה, like you're only chayav if you do the whole thing, not if you do part, that's the first case. You're not chayav if you only did the עקירה and the other guy did the הנחה. Same thing, the other guy is not chayav cuz he did only the הנחה and not the עקירה. And the second peshat, the second ענין, יחיד ועשה אותה חייב, שנים ועשו אותה פטורין would be the opposite, would be the second case, that if one person does the whole thing you're chayav, but if two people together do it, you're patur. Zogt Tosafos, it's not true, both mean the same thing. The second לשון, which says יחיד ועשה אותה חייב, if one person does it he's chayav, if two people do it you're patur, does not mean to tell you that if two people together do the whole melacha you're patur, that's not what it means. It also means the same thing, that only if one person does the whole thing, but if two people do the melacha, meaning one does the first half and one does the other half, you're patur. איי, and the re'ayah is because if it would be the other thing it would need another לימוד, whatever, it's not נוגע the re'ayah. Then Tosafos says, but then why does the Gemara, the beraita tell us, say the same thing again in a different lashon? Zogt Tosafos, the lashon is: דאינו אלא כפול מילה. He's repeating himself, that's all, he's saying the same thing twice. So we obviously have to understand, what is the purpose in כפול מילה? Why does he repeat himself? Tosafos has a re'ayah that it's a rep- repetition and it's not a new case, because if it would be a new case he would need another pasuk. And here we only have one לימוד, דתריסר. But the question is, why takeh does the Gemara do this, why does the Gemara repeat it? That's one thing. Then there's another thing. The

Avnei Nezer in, in I didn't write it on the מראה מקומות, in חלק אורח חיים סימן פ\"ה סעיף קטן ד', and the Gilyon Maharsha here, who's the Gilyon Maharsha? It's not the Maharsha. Huh? What? It's not a student. What's the ראשי תיבות מהרש\"א? The first, the regular Maharsha, what's the ראשי תיבות? Shmuel Eidels. Who was Eidel? Who was Eidel? His mother-in-law. Mother-in-law. Why is he called by his mother-in-law's name? She supported him, yeah, she gave him a lot of money. The Rebbe once compared him, same thing why they call Pinchas Reizes. Chasid of the Alter Rebbe, Pinchas Reizes. Reize was not his mother, it was his mother-in-law, but she was rich. She supported him. She gave him a lot of money, that's why he became rich. Anyway, but that's not the Gilyon Maharsha. The Gilyon Maharsha is, okay, it's not R'' Shmuel Eidels. It's the א' is not Eidels, R'' Shlomo Eiger, R'' Akiva Eiger's son. And that's also מהרש\"א, מורנו הרב שלמה. So they both, the Avnei Nezer and the Gilyon Maharsha, ask a stira in Tosafos, in the further part of Tosafos. Tosafos says that when the Gemara asks that because the melachah was done between the two, so there's a full melachah, so why are they both patur, so the shaila is, so who do we want to be חייב? If one guy does the עקירה, another guy does הנחה, and the Gemara says why are they פטור, obviously the Gemara wants you should be חייב. So who should be חייב? So

Tosafos says there's for sure no hava amina that the one that made the עקירה should be חייב, because the one that made the עקירה did the עקירה, let's say he did the עקירה, he took it out, but didn't do the הנחה. He never finished the מלאכה. He did that part and he walked away. Why would he be חייב? There was no מלאכה done in his part. The shaila of the Gemara is maybe the one that did the הנחה should be חייב, because he finished the מלאכה. Tosafos says: דלא פריך שיתחייב הראשון, דאין סברא דעל ידי השני שעשה הנחה וגמר המלאכה יתחייב הראשון. The second guy finished the מלאכה, and the first guy will be חייב? What the first guy did is not complete מלאכה yet. אלא השני קא פריך, on the second one, שיתחייב, דעל ידו נגמרה המלאכה. So Tosafos says that the shaila is not שייך as a shaila on the first guy, because why would he be - what סברא to be חייב? The second guy, that's where we have a shaila, maybe he should be חייב. So they ask a shaila that this is a סתירה to Tosafos בדף צ\"ג עמוד א'. Actually, I noticed in the Oz Vehadar Gemara's, I don't know if other Gemara's, they have on the side it says הערה on this, עיין לקמן דף צ\"ג עמוד א' Tosafos דיבור המתחיל חד. So they write so that they're being me'ir this she'eilah. Tosafos here says like this, a small Tosafos: the Gemara says like we have a pasuk to teach you that זה עוקר וזה מניח, you're patur, because you didn't do the whole melachah. So

Tosafos asks a she'eilah: why is it that only by זה עוקר וזה מניח we need to tell you, we need a special pasuk to tell you you're patur, which means that if not the pasuk, you would think it's chayav? How come by other melachot we don't have that? למשל, Tosafos says, זה כותב אות אחת ובא חבירו וכותב אות שנייה. Ketivah is writing. What's the shiur of writing, ketivah? Two otiyot. So what happens if one person writes one אות, he didn't do the complete melachah, and the second guy writes the second אות? We don't have a special pasuk to tell you you're patur. Why not? If by זה עוקר וזה מניח we need a special pasuk to tell you you're patur because we would have thought you're chayav, so then why by writing we don't need such a thing? We should also have a pasuk to tell you. Obviously we don't need a pasuk. So Tosafos says that זה כותב אות אחת ובא חבירו וכותב אות שנייה לא איצטריך קרא, אלא הוצאה. Only by hotza'ah, where one guy does the akirah and one the hanachah, you need a pasuk to tell you, because we would have thought that you're chayav. Because by hotza'ah, the הוה אמינא, אהכנסה והוצאה הוא דקפיד רחמנא. By hotza'ah, I would think that the main thing is the transfer of reshut, the taking out and taking in, ולחייב אפילו בלא הנחה. And therefore, I would think you're chayav even if you didn't make the hanachah. As long as you made the akirah and you took it out, you should be chayav, because you did the main part. So lichorah, from here it comes out, Tosafos, not comes out, Tosafos says it clear, that there is a hava amina that a person only did the hanachah and did not do the akirah, you should be chayav. Tosafos by us seems to be very clear that there is no such hava amina. Tosafos says it makes no sense, דאין סברא, דעל ידי השני שעשה הנחה וכולי יתחייב הראשון, that the first guy, because he didn't do the hanachah, there's no sevara you should be chayav. Because he didn't finish the melachah. Because the melachah is through through hanachah. And over there Tosafos says very pashut that there is a hava amina, if not for the pasuk, I would have said that a guy that did akirah is chayav, even though he didn't do the hanachah. So they ask this setirah. So we have these actually these two she'elot here. Now what we're going to do is, to get to this, we're really going to go through again and be mosif more peratim into things we've been speaking before. You're coming back? Good. You want to get a chair? Good. No chairs there? There're chairs there, you can get there. Okay. So, we're going to get back to this inyan of hotza'ah being a melachah geru'ah. I told you at the beginning of the year, you're going to hear you're going to עד שיצא מאפכם, you're going to hear this constantly. This is one of the famous the the major inyanim in first perek and later on in haMotzi, in that perek where we talk about hotza'ah, the inyan of hotza'ah being a melachah geru'ah. And what did what is and based on that we're going to come back to this sugya. But let's start with a she'eilah. Tosafos on דף ב עמוד ב, דיבור המתחיל מי לא עסקינן, Tosafos learns, you also don't have a chair? Okay. Tosafos says that when the Mishnah in later on in כלל גדול lists, when the Mishnah lists the list of the ל\"ט מלאכות, it only lists the אבות, even though all the מלאכות have תולדות also, only lists the אבות. One מלאכה Tosafos says means the תולדות also. The

Mishnah says המוציא מרשות לרשות. What did the מלאכה say if you take out from רשות to רשות? The Mishnah does not say המוציא מרשות היחיד לרשות הרבים. Doesn't say you're taking out from רשות היחיד to רשות הרבים. It says from one רשות to another, which automatically Tosafos said includes both, הוצאה and הכנסה, because both of them are taking from one רשות to another. So Tosafos ask the she'eilah, why אפס דווקא by this מלאכה of הוצאה the Mishnah in the list of the ל\"ט מלאכות writes it in such a way that it should include the תולדה also? הכנסה we learned is a תולדה, and we went through that shiur once that Tosafos על כל פנים שיטה is that הכנסה is a תולדה. And Tosafos and and the Mishnah which says המוציא מרשות לרשות includes הכנסה also. So the Mishnah is telling us the אבות מלאכות, one of the אבות מלאכות the Mishnah writes it in such a way that it should include the תולדה of הכנסה. Why? Why by other אבות מלאכות the Mishnah does not say anything about the תולדות, and by הוצאה it does? So Tosafot's answers is very simple, ותירץ ריב\"א, דבכל שאר תולדות, אם היה רוצה לשנותם, היה צריך להאריך ולשנות. Imagine if we want to write a תולדה of something else. Let's give an example. Even extra words: הזורע, one of the תולדות is one of the אבות is planting, planting a seed. Then there's another מלאכה, which is like by pruning, if you cut the trees in order for it to grow better. So in order to include the מלא the תולדה of זומר, which is pruning, he had to add a word. He had to say הזורע and then הזומר. So there he had to add words, so he didn't want to, he's only talking about the אבות. By הוצאה he didn't have have to add any words in order to include הכנסה. By just writing the לשון המוציא מרשות לרשות, which automatically includes הכנסה, so why doesn't he do it? That's why he said אבל הכנסה, because it's called הוצאה, תני לה בקיצור, it goes בקיצור. This is Tosafot's תירוץ. The Rashba gives a different תירוץ. The

Rashba says that because הוצאה is a מלאכה גרועה, this is the only מלאכה I would have had a hava amina has no תולדות. I would think it has no תולדות. Davka only by this מלאכה, because there would have been a sevara by some people it has no תולדות because it's a מלאכה גרועה, so the Mishnah have to tell you they are this תולדה is a תולדה, there are תולדות. But by other מלאכות, we know there are תולדות, what's the reason there shouldn't be? So, why doesn't Tosafot answer this? Lichorah you would say, lichorah Tosafot also holds that הוצאה is a מלאכה גרועה, that's what we've been learning the whole time. So why doesn't Tosafos answer? Hapshat as we've seen that Tosafos holds, when we say it's a מלאכה גרועה means that's why I wouldn't know it's a melacha. מלאכה גרועה is only I would not know it's a melacha, so the Torah had to tell us. Fine, so now that Torah told us, so we know it's a melacha. Every melacha has a תולדה, why shouldn't this have a תולדה? So you can't tell me because it's a מלאכה גרועה I would think it has no תולדות. So what's the Rashba's svara? He says, I would have thought it has no תולדות because it's a מלאכה גרועה. But likhora it should be that after we know it's a melacha, we shouldn't care and it shouldn't need, it shouldn't, it should be no hava amina. And bichlal, what is the difference between Tosafos and the Rashba, why Tosafos feels that this is not a good teirutz and the Rashba says this is a good teirutz? And also obviously we have to, not a kashya, but just to understand, what is the svara that because it's a מלאכה גרועה it shouldn't have תולדות? What's the pshat? I would think it's a melacha, and because it's a מלאכה גרועה, so the Rashba, I would have a hava amina it has no תולדות, and that's why the Mishnah has to tell us that there is a תולדה. The Gemara says so it's a מלאכה גרועה, but b'foal it's a melacha. What what's the svara of being a מלאכה גרועה it shouldn't have toldot? So let's get back back to the inyan of מלאכה גרועה. And I don't want to sound like a broken record, but I will, if you know what records are. I'm sure you don't even know if you ever saw a record, I'm sure you don't know. Now now they didn't even see a tape. Now it's But it used to be a metziut of our kinder yorn, years ago, at least so long ago, at least 20 years ago. Cuz now every month is a שנה נהיה like a tekufah, so at least 20 years ago they still used to be records. Anyway, a broken record used to come, the needle would come and it would repeat again the same thing again and again and again and never finish. So I'm trying to repeat again. What the geder of a מלאכה גרועה we explained? A מלאכה גרועה is because the melachah A melachah means that you're creating something, well not real creating, but you're changing the maaseh. The only melachah that there is no change is מלאכת הוצאה. All you're doing is taking from one reshut to another, there's nothing that's happening in this object. It's not like you're cooking, it changes the object, now it Before it was raw, now it's cooked. You're writing, before it was not written, now it's written. Here it's only a change of reshut. Then I said also, lechora, so if it's takke a מלאכה גרועה, if it's takke no change, why is it a melachah? So we said that that's the reason why we have to have akirah and hanachah. And akirah and hanachah is what makes it into a change. Because like I said, in higayon, in in in abstract thinking, when something lays down on the floor, it's not only laying there. It's like batel, it becomes מושרש, it becomes like rooted into this place, so it becomes part of it. When I take it up, I'm as if I'm tearing it out from its place, and when I put it down, I'm like putting it back and like planting it back in. So in higayon, it's a מלאכה גרועה. In higayon, in in in it's it's a מלאכה גרועה. But I want to add more to this inyan of this being a מלאכה גרועה, what the meaning of מלאכה גרועה is, based on the sichah in Vaetchanan חלק י״ד. Hopefully you all learned the sichah and you know, the Rebbe there explains that there are three I mean make it bekitzur, three madregot.

There is such a thing as a חצי שיעור, that you do the full, full melachah, but you just חצי שיעור, like the example we said before of writing. There's a din that you're chayav only if you write two letters. If you write one letter, it is a chatzi shiur. You did the whole איכות of the melachah. The melachah was done completely, not a part of the melachah. The melachah is writing, and you wrote. There's a shiur, a quantity, how much you have to write in order to be chayav. That's chatzi shiur. What's the din by chatzi shiur? חצי שיעור אסור מן התורה, it's de'oraita. Then you have akirah without hanachah, or hanachah without akirah, is not chatzi shiur, chatzi melachah. You didn't do the complete melachah. It's not that you did the whole melachah, but you missed in the quantity of how much, you didn't do the full melachah. The full melachah is akirah and hanachah. And then the Rebbe is mechadesh another case of keshirah. The whole The whole sichah that talks about keshirah, the Hadran on Shabbos about keshirah, the melachah of making a knot. And the din is that mid'oraita, you're only chayav if you make a double knot if you have in mind it should stay forever. If you make a knot and you have in mind to take it apart later, mid'oraita it's not chayav. Mid'rabbanan it's asur. Nevertheless, the Gemara says that if it's l'tzorech mitzvah, if you need to make a knot for a mitzvah, if it's a קשר שאינו של קיימא, you didn't have in mind to stay forever, which is only asur mid'rabbanan, l'tzorech mitzvah you're allowed. Well, this is the chidush of the Rebbe that this is another melachah that depends on kavanah. This a chiddush. And the Rebbe in a הערה on this ענין said על דרך, like מכה בפטיש, then he brings the Merkavat HaMishnah and says the same thing by צידה, and the Rebbe says that he's wrong. So the Rebbe adds, to מכה בפטיש he adds the melachah of צידה. So actually, yeah, yeah. So let me explain. So the, so the chiluk, so the din is that if you make a קשר שאינו של קיימא, that's not to stay forever, which is only asur miderabbanan, if it's tzorech mitzvah you're allowed. So the Rebbe asks, why is that different than עקירה without הנחה? עקירה without הנחה, which is only asur miderabbanan also, but if it's tzorech mitzvah it's still asur. What's the re'ayah it's still asur? The mefarshim say that why did the Mishnah give an example of a עני and a בעל הבית? Because why would the בעל הבית give something to the עני? Because it's for tzedakah. You would think that in order to fulfill the mitzvah of tzedakah you're allowed to make an עקירה without הנחה. That's why the Mishnah says that even if you make עקירה without הנחה in that case, it's patur aval asur, asur miderabbanan. So why is it that by קשירה, if you're not mechuvan for a קשר של קיימא, which is also asur miderabbanan, but לצורך מצוה it's מותר? So the Rebbe says that there is קשירה is even less than עקירה without הנחה. So you have חצי שיעור, which is not חייב, אסור מדאורייתא. Let's go even a step before. If you do a full thing, a full מלאכה with a full שיעור, you're חייב. If you do a full מלאכה with a חצי שיעור, you're פטור, but it's אסור מדאורייתא. If you do a חצי מלאכה like עקירה without הנחה, it's אסור מדרבנן, פטור אבל אסור, because it's not חצי שיעור. If you do a קשר שאינו של קיימא, within דרבנן גופא it's even a lesser level. Why is it a lesser level? So the Rebbe is מסביר there that by עקירה without הנחה, so you did part of the מלאכה. You didn't do the whole מלאכה, so it's not אסור מדאורייתא. If you do the whole מלאכה, you're just lacking the שיעור, it's דאורייתא. You didn't do the whole מלאכה, but still, part of the מלאכה you

did, you did an עקירה. The מלאכה is עקירה, הוצאה, and הנחה. You did עקירה, so you did part. By קשירה, if it's not מכוון to have a קשר של קיימא, it's בכלל not a מלאכה. It's not even part of the מלאכה, because he says like this: what's the מלאכה? The מלאכה is to tie two things together. If you tie two things together without wanting to keep it forever, it's not called tied. Even while it's tied it's not tied. And in the הערות he brings ראיות. So mimela you didn't even do part of the melachah. Ela mai, you took two threads and you put them together. So let's imagine you take two threads and you go like this, you just touch them together. That's nothing. Same thing even if you tied them together, but if you didn't have in mind to have it forever, then it's not a melachah at all. This what the Rebbe says. Lichorah, I just want to understand, it's not so pashut, this chiluk that the Rebbe makes. If you do an עקירה without הנחה, is there any, is the melachah done? No. So why would we say it's a half a melachah? It's not half a melachah either. Why can't you say the same thing? The melachah is if you do עקירה, הוצאה, and הנחה. If you only did an עקירה, so you didn't do the melachah. Why is that a חצי מלאכה? I'm not asking a kashya, this is not a she'eilah, I'm just trying to get to something. I'll tell you why it's called a חצי מלאכה.

Because בגשמיות the melachah is made up of different steps. Of course the melachah doesn't happen till you finish the melachah. Till then it's not a melachah. When it finishes, then the whole thing is a melachah. But בגשמיות, when you make an עקירה you are doing part of what it takes to make a melachah. That's why it's called חצי מלאכה. That's why the רבנן אסר it as חצי מלאכה. So why is it by קשר not like that? Even though you need כוונה to make the melachah, but how does the melachah happen בגשמיות? You take two strings and you tie them together, that's part of what בגשמיות is the melachah. And you have in mind that it should stay forever, you got a full melachah. So pashut, putting it together, why is that not part of the melachah at all? Why is it less than עקירה without הנחה? Because without hotzaah it's not a melacha, without hanacha it's also not a melacha. Ela mai, it's part of the מלאכה בגשמיות, even though in in הלכה, מצד דאורייתא, you didn't do it the melacha yet. But because this is the seder, this is part of a melacha, we call it חצי מלאכה and דרבנן אסר it. So the same thing by קשר שאינו של קיימא, when you tie the two knots the two things together, it's part of the gashmiyus of how the melacha is done. So I want to say the pshat a little bit deeper, a pshat in the sicha, which could be that this is pshat in one of the הערות in the sicha. And the pshat in the sicha has to be like this: the difference between akirah without הנחה לגבי קשר שאינו של קיימא, the chiluk is, akirah and hanacha are completely connected. Based on what I said before, what is the inyan of the melacha of hotzaah? It's a מלאכה גרועה. It doesn't have any shinui. What makes it into a shinui, at least בהגיון not in gashmiyus, is the fact that you're oker it from one place and you're putting it down in another place. So the akirah and the hanacha make the shinui. So I want to say that lichorah this could be the pshat. They're not two separate ענינים. The hanacha is a פרט in the akirah, and the akirah is a פרט in the hanachah. What's טייטש עקירה? You're taking it away from here, and you're changing it from here. When is it considered that you really took it away from here? When you put it down someplace else. If you didn't put it down someplace else, what's the peshat? You didn't really oker it completely. See, if it's talking about a gashmiyusdike thing, so picking up is picking up. But here be'etzem picking up means nothing. You picked it up, so? Didn't change. Ela mai? In higayon there's a change in the reshut by taking it. So I want to say that if you pick it up, and this is a change, it's not a change yet. When is it considered a change? When not only did you take it away from here, but you put it down someplace else. So now it's a real akirah. And the same thing farkert. When is it a real hanachah? That means that you put it down to a new reshut. If it didn't come from an akirah, which means it didn't come from another reshut, you just put it down, let's say it came from the air and you put it down, that's not really a change. From nothing, from no status to becoming a hanachah is not a real change. If originally it was in one reshut, you took it away from the one reshut and you put it down the other reshut, that hanachah is a real hanachah. So akirah and hanachah are really

intertwined, they really go together. Mah she'ein kein the kavanah by kesher and the maaseh as two separate, of course one is noge'a to the other. And therefore, so by the akirah without an hanachah, when you did an akirah, you already started doing the hanachah, because an akirah is the beginning of the hanachah. When you did the hanachah you are continuing the akirah. So because it already has in it a prat, a part in the whole melachah, that's why it's called חצי מלאכה. Ha? No, but it's not a, here it's not a shiur. It's not shiur. Yeah, I'm not saying it's a shiur, I'm saying what the תוכן המלאכה is. It's not an amount. The whole melachah of shinui is a eichusdike zach, it's not a gashmi, not a כמותדיקע זאך. It's איכות of what makes the איכות of the מלאכה. U'meilei, so again, this is what I'm saying. So the Rebbe says by קשירה, it's nothing. Without the כוונה, it's nothing. אי, it's beginning, you can't have a מלאכת קשירה without having that part, so it's also a חלק. So it's a חצי מלאכה? No. It's a חצי מלאכה that has nothing to do with the second half. This is the גשמי, this is the שכל, this is the כוונה. U'meilei, since it's two separate things, and we know that part is nothing, part of איכות. You ever hear a part of an איכות? כמות you could see this is part of. In איכות, or you do the whole איכות or no איכות. That was the חילוק, remember, someone asked what's the

חילוק between חצי שיעור and בשר בחלב? Mentioned that the other day in the שיעור. Why isn't eating בשר should be asur of חצי שיעור? Because there's an issur of בשר בחלב, this is half. אלא מאי, it's not a שיעור. But it's part of, but it's part of something, no? If the בשר בחלב together go together, together it's asur, so part of it should also be asur. It's a joke, why? Because it's a new איכות. בשר בחלב is a new, I don't want to get into Yoreh De'ah here, but in Yoreh De'ah we learn the only case where everyone agrees that חתיכה נעשית נבלה is at בשר בחלב. Rabbeinu Ephraim says everything not, this is I'm not going to explain what it means. But by בשר בחלב, it's not like that you have בשר and חלב and together it's asur. It becomes a new metzius. So you can't say בשר is half of the איכות. If you don't have the second half you don't have anything. Not the pshat בשר is a shtikel part of בשר בחלב, because that's what it is, בשר בחלב it has בשר and חלב. Because בשר בחלב has a new איכות, it's nothing. So the same thing here, by the קשר, making the קשר without the כוונה, because it's a separate ענין, and it's nothing to do with the second half, so it's part of the איכות. Part of the איכות is nothing. But by עקירה and הנחה, עקירה and הנחה go together. עקירה is part of the הנחה, and הנחה is part of the עקירה. וממילא when you have it you have part of the whole מלאכה, בהגיון, not בפועל. And in fact it's not חצי שיעור either, but at least there is more, that's what the Rebbe, you could say means, and could be this is pshat in one of the הערות, so. Which הערה number there? Someone has a חלק י״ז? I'll tell you which הערה it is. הערה 19. הערה 19. So no, that's 19, this is the other הערה. Oh here, הערה 33. Okay, I didn't want to read it now. הנה אף שהיכא שיש בדעתו לגלגלם נחשבת פעולת הקשירה עצמה גם כן חלק מהמלאכה הרי הפירוש בזה בחוסר הדעת גם כולו אינו כלום. Look at הערה 33, it's possible. I don't know if it means this, but it's possible. הערה 33. So al kol panim, what we're really getting into is this ענין of what it means מלאכה גרועה, but מלאכה גרועה is that it's missing the שינוי, but the fact that it has an עקירה and a הנחה adds, at least בהגיון במחשבה, that there is a גדר שינוי in the person, it's a mental שינוי. And as I mentioned last time we find, I don't know if I mentioned it in this shiur or not, we find sometimes even in halacha that a mental thing is considered as if it's a גשמיותדיקע thing, לגבי קנינים. So we find על כל פנים, ממילא this could be here too, that this is the peshat in מלאכה גרועה and that's why בסוף כל סוף it is a melacha. This will give a little understanding why פשט Rashba, why if it's a מלאכה גרועה we have a hava amina that there is no תולדות. And according to Tosafos there's no such hava amina, Tosafos gives a different תירוץ. Tosafos doesn't say there's no hava amina because it's a מלאכה גרועה you should think it's no תולדות, he gives a different תירוץ because it's בקיצור. This goes back to something else I said once before. We said that there is a שאלה whether the אבות and תולדות is בבחינת טעם or סימן, if you remember. Meaning to say that the reason why the תולדה is חייב because of the אב, is the אב a סימן to the תולדה because this אב is חייב, ממילא anything similar is, it's a סימן which kinds of things are חייב, and this is similar so it's חייב. Or it's a reason why it's חייב. And what I explained, it means like this: when you say an אב is חייב, why is the אב חייב? Is it because of the תכונה that it has, because of the quality of the of the of the melacha? If that's the pshat, then the toldah which has the same quality is also chayav. So that's a geder of taam. The reason why the toldah is chayav, because the av is chayav. The av is not a siman to know which one is chayav, it's the reason, because the whole av is there for a reason. What's the reason? The reason is because it has a תכונה מלאכה. And I'll say it again, because if you look stam in the מלאכות המשכן, and you say we took out ל\"ט מלאכות from the מלאכות המשכן, this is the only things they did by the משכן? They did a million things when they built the משכן. Why did they pick out these 39? They looked into the משכן and they said, not everything that they did when they built the משכן is a melachah. They walked from one place to another, should be a melachah? Anything that they did which we understand has the quality of what a melachah is, which is a quality of of shinui, that they took out. Mimela it comes out that the reason for these ל\"ט מלאכות is the תוכן of what it is. Mimela when something else is similar, so it's also it's also asur. And you can't say it's a siman that it's not because of the תוכן. There's no such thing. If it wouldn't be because of the תוכן, these מלאכות wouldn't be asur. The only melachah I explained last time that is lav davka because of the תוכן is מלאכת הוצאה, which is not learned out from the משכן. Remember the teshuvah of Rabbi Betzalel Ashkenazi? Who was he? Whose rebbi was he? The HaAri zal's rebbi. What did he write? Shita Mekubetzet, okay. So, the Rabbi Betzalel Ashkenazi says the chiluk between it's the the the the Tosafot Chaim, Rabbi Chaim Zonnenfeld based on Rabbi Betzalel Ashkenazi's teshuvah, says that הוצאה is different. הוצאה is not learned out from from the Mishkan. הוצאה is learned from a pasuk. So, הוצאה is the only melacha where you could say it's not because of the תכונה. The reason it's asur is the Torah אסור it. אל יצא איש ממקומו. It's not that the chachamim figured out a melacha. The Torah said a melacha is asur. So, mimela it's lav davka because of the תכונה. So, if we're going to say that this is not because of the תכונה, because it doesn't have the תכונה. Why doesn't have the תכונה? Because it's a מלאכה גרועה. So, if it doesn't have the תכונה, so, it could be that the Torah just אסר it, not because of that. Ela mai? L'poel, we learned out that it is a melacha. But sof kol sof it doesn't have the real תכונה of the melacha. If it doesn't have the real תכונה of the melacha, what could be the result? That there are no toldot. The only reason it's a toldah is because we look into this melacha of זריעה, let's say, and we think, \"What's זריעה? You're taking and you're making something grow. You're changing.\" Nu, farshteyt men aleyn that anything which is also making grow, not זריעה, but נטיעה, you plant a branch rather than a seed, or you prune it in order to make it grow. It has the same תכונה, so it's asur. מה שאין כן, if something is not there because of the תכונה, it's also because the תורה אסר it. Who says it has תולדות? Either something that has similar, like הכנסה, similar to הוצאה. Who cares what's similar? It's not because of what the תכונה of the מלאכה is. That's not why it's אסור. Because it doesn't have the תכונה. It doesn't have a תכונה. So, ממילא, it's אסור, why? Because a פסוק said. So, the פסוק So, the כלל is אין לו בו אלא חידושו. If the Torah said הוצאה, so why would you think הכנסה? לפועל, אבער, we said it does have a תכונה. It's not a תכונה enough to be able on our own to figure it out, we need a פסוק. But לאחר הפסוק, we said it does have a תכונה. איי, what is the תכונה? So, we said the תכונה is עקירה and הנחה. And that is כאילו you did make a שינוי. But it's not a real תכונה. It's a תכונה בהגיון. בגשמיות no one sees a שינוי. You pick this up from here to there, no שינוי. It's only a שינוי בהגיון. The שאלה is, is that fact that it it does have the תכונה, enough reason to be sure that it has a תולדה? If it wouldn't have a תכונה in any form or shape, it wouldn't have a תולדה. If it has a תכונה, 100%, a regular תכונה of a מלאכה, then it has a תכונה, anything It has a תולדה. Here we have something that's in-between. It has a תכונה It doesn't have the תכונה בעצם. It does have a תכונה, a bisel. Some a מחשבה'דיקע תכונה. But it's a תכונה. So Tosafot says, sof kol sof, since we know that it has a עקירה and הנחה, ממילא it does have a תכונה. It has a תכונה, it has a תולדה. So, there is no סברא to say it shouldn't have תולדות because it is like every other מלאכה. Till we got to it took us time, because we did couldn't see it, we had to find a פסוק. But לאחר we have the פסוק, and we have now like I said in the beginning, what happens? We figure out that it has a תכונה. And if it has a תכונה of מלאכה, and anything that has a תכונה of מלאכה has a תולדה, so then why does the You can't say that because it's a מלאכה גרועה it shouldn't have תולדות. What did the Rambam say? Why does the Mishnah have to tell us a תולדה of הוצאה? Because we would have thought since it's a מלאכה גרועה, it doesn't have a תולדה. So, Tosafot says it's not true, because לפועל it does have a תכונה. איי, טאקע לכתחילה we would not have known it because the תכונה is a bit shvache. But לאחר we have a פסוק, and it tells you and it has עקירה והנחה, which is a הגיונ'דיקע שינוי, ממילא, now it's like every מלאכה and there's no need for the Mishnah to tell us that there is a תולדה. We understand. מה שאין כן the

Rashba will say, that sof kol sof, it's not a real תכונה. Because it's עקירה והנחה is not really really a change. What is it? It's a הגיונ'דיקע change. So, אינמי הכי, לאחר we have a pasuk, it's enough to teach us that this is a melachah. But to say עד כדי כך that there should be a toldah, I have an havah amina not. So the Rashba doesn't say that that it doesn't have toldot. אודאי it has toldot, because it is that תכונה. But the sheilah is, is that at least a sevara why we would think somebody could make a mistake and think there is no no toldot? So, that's what the Rashba says. Just that, that why does the Mishnah have to tell us הכנסה by הוצאה, the toldah of הוצאה? Because this is a מלאכה גרועה. We on our own would not know it. Because it does have Because he says it doesn't have a תכונה. It has, it's a הגיונ'דיקע. And again, if since it's a weak תכונה and it's not not weak, it's בפועל, בגשמיות it's not at all, it's no shinui. It's a shinui in in in your mind, it's a mental shinui, the way we look at things, the way it's תפיסה. So, that is in-between. So, automatically, as Or you could say, \"But חלק כסבור it is, so why so we don't have to tell you.\" So right away we could see to understand the difference between the Tosafot and the Rashba in that ענין. The bottom line what we're getting to here is that it's a מלאכה גרועה and it doesn't have the real תכונה. Doesn't have the real תכונה in other words would mean it's missing in the איכות המלאכה. That's what it is. It's missing in the איכות המלאכה. Where do we have an example of somebody doing a melachah and not being chayav because he is missing in the איכות המלאכה that he should could have done? שנים שעשוה. What's the reason when two people together do a melachah they're both patur? Why? Because the melachah is one and they both together did it. The fact that the other guy helped me do the melachah took away from me doing the full melachah. I took away from him. And it took away from mimela what the melachah stands for cannot be contributed to me attributed to me completely, because he took away part, I took away other part. That's why there's an interesting din which if you don't understand it would seem the opposite, it's like a ipcha mistabra. Later on we're going to learn in Bava Metzia the case of שנים שעשוה. So the din is like this: if זה יכול וזה יכול, they're both patur. Which means like this: they did the melachah together, each one himself could have done it, b'foal they did it together, then they're both patur. If זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול, if each one could not do the whole thing together, the whole melachah, and together they could, they're both chayav. Lemashal, you have this a big a big piece of wood, כבדה, משא כבד, and they both held it and made akirah, walked out with it and put it down. If each one could have picked it up himself, then they're both patur. If both each it's so big that no one could have picked it up himself and only between the two you could do it, they're both chayav. Now, at

first glance, people would think the opposite: if each one could do it himself, then he did it, because he could have done it himself, so when he did it, it should be attributed to him, and the other guy also. If he couldn't do it, why is he chayav? He couldn't do it himself, so he b'foal didn't do it by himself, so he should be patur. The din is opposite. If זה יכול וזה יכול, they both could do it, they're both patur. If זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול, they're both chayav. What's the sevara? The sevara is like this: if we both could do it, that means that the fact that the other guy helped you, he took away from your connection to the melachah, because if not for him, you would have done the whole thing. Mimela, he took away from things you could have done. So mimela he made that your connection to the complete melachah is missing. Mah she'ein ken if זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול, he didn't take any thing away from you. L'foal, you did the whole melachah together, and you did your best. It's not like that you could have done more, if not for him, you would have done more. You couldn't do more. זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול. So he didn't take away from your connection to the איכות המלאכה, and mimela you're both chayav, because b'foal the melachah was done, and you were involved in the whole melacha, and you did your best. The guy didn't make you miss. In other words, what I'm trying to say is that the שנים שעשוה, the reason you're patur is because you have no you don't have a connection to the whole complete melacha. זה עקר וזה הניח is the same thing, the way I'm saying. What's the problem זה עקר וזה הניח? That you're missing in the איכות of what the melacha is. So mimela you could say like this: the kashya what

Tosafos says that the Mishnah the braisa means both expressions mean the same thing, זה עקר וזה הניח. כפל מלה, just repeats itself. And the she'eilah is why does it repeat itself? So you could say the second lashon, in this case it means זה עקר וזה הניח, but that lashon really is used in other places for both together doing the whole melacha. What's the lashon? The second lashon: יחיד ועשה כן חייב, שנים שעשו פטורין. שנים When is what's the lashon usually? שנים שעשוה פטורין. Two people together do it, they're patur. Here, Tosafos doesn't mean that. But why does the Gemara use that lashon? Because the Gemara wants to give you to understand not only the halacha, to tell you the halacha that if זה עקר וזה הניח you're patur. We learn out from בעשותה, if you עשה כולה you're chayav, but עשתה מקצתה, you do only part, you're patur. It wants to tell you what's the pshat behind it. It's על דרך like you have in the case of שנים שעשוה. So use it for this din a lashon of שנים שעשוה. So? Why they say it's על דרך like שנים שעשוה? Why are you patur? Because that person took away your connection to the איכות המלאכה. So the same thing by זה עוקר וזה מניח, because you're missing in the whole eichut of the melacha. Why? Because the eichut of the melacha is, since it's a מלאכה גרועה, what is the eichut of the melacha? Picking up and putting down. And especially where I said before that each part is a chelek in the other. So you're missing, you started off and you made the עקירה, which is part of the הנחה, and you didn't finish it. So you're missing in the איכות המלאכה. So how does the Gemara explain that you're missing in the איכות המלאכה? Because the Gemara is telling you like this: We're going with this sevara, we already, כאילו נימא הכי, we know that שנים שעשוה פטורים, we're not dealing with that here. We want to tell you that not only שנים together doing it are פטור, זה עוקר וזה מניח is also patur. And he's telling you why? Because it's the same idea as שנים שעשוה. So memela, this answers why the Gemara mentions this psak. Now, if

we're going to say that the Gemara here knows the din, goes with, taking for granted the din of שנים שעשוה פטורים, and all we're doing is trying to say that that זה עוקר וזה מניח is a בחינה, כאילו like it's שנים שעשוה, we can understand that there's no setira between this Tosafos and that Tosafos. Tosafos on דף צג עמוד א, that Gemara is learning out two dinim: זה עוקר וזה מניח is patur, and שנים שעשוה פטורים. That means the Gemara there doesn't know yet that שנים שעשוה פטורים, we're learning it just out. Our Gemara, we said, goes, לפי האמת, that שנים שעשוה פטורים. So if you know already שנים שעשוה פטורים, Tosafos says there is an hava amina that the guy with the עקירה should be, because the guy with the עקירה has no שייכות to the whole איכות of the מלאכה to begin with. In other words, where is there a chiddush that you're missing in the איכות המלאכה? By the הנחה, the guy does the הנחה alone, or the guy does the עקירה alone? The guy who does the עקירה alone is less chiddush. Why? Because the מלאכה was never finished. Ma she'ein ken, the guy does the הנחה, you're finishing. So here we're telling you that af al pi ken, you still don't have the whole איכות המלאכה because he didn't do the עקירה. So here, when we already know שנים שעשוה פטורים, we knew that that if you're missing in the איכות המלאכה, you're patur. So here, there is no hava amina for the guy of עקירה, because he's pashut that he's missing the איכות המלאכה. The chiddush is that even the guy who does the הנחה is also missing the איכות המלאכה, and it's also similar to שנים שעשוה פטורים. Ma she'ein ken over there, where the Gemara doesn't know yet the whole דין of שנים שעשוה פטורים, so maybe if you're missing the איכות of the מלאכה, you still should be chayav. So Tosafos says over there, over there there's a hava amina, afilu that the guy does the עקירה without the הנחה, maybe should be chayav. Because over there, we don't know this whole יסוד yet, 100%, that missing the איכות המלאכה is patur. We don't know yet the דין of שנים שעשוה. Mah she'ein kein here, if we're talking that we know שנים שעשוה, and that's why the Gemara brings it in to make it as an example, to teach you זה עוקר וזה מניח is like שנים שעשוה, so we know שנים שעשוה. So here the Gemara can't have a hava amina for the עקירה. Here the Gemara has a hava amina for the הנחה. Mah she'ein kein over there, where we don't know yet שנים שעשוה פטורים, could be a hava amina for the הנחה also. Ah? Could be the הנחה? It's דווקא הנחה. Because the עקירה is it at all had no has בכלל the מלאכה wasn't even done, so certainly you don't have the איכות המלאכה. But the הנחה, there the מלאכה was done, and you did the הנחה, and the הנחה is a המשך to the עקירה, so maybe this is still good. So he says, \"No, you're still missing the הנחה. As long as it's not fully, you're still missing the איכות המלאכה.\" דאס פרעגט די גמרא? דאס פרעגט די גמרא. די Gemara over there because we don't know שנים שעשוה פטורים, so it could be that even if you don't have the איכות, is נישט געפערליך. So mimela could be the עקירה also. The whole Tosafos is דווקא the עקירה. Doesn't mean דווקא the עקירה. That doesn't mean דווקא. No, you mean even the עקירה, but could be הנחה also, yeah. But this is all connected to the fact that by a מלאכה, הוצאה is a מלאכה גרועה. And what's the pshat of מלאכה גרועה, that it's missing the איכות המלאכה, missing the שינוי. But there is a שינוי on the other hand, the שינוי is the fact that in היגיון it has to do with your brain. This is a מלאכה that has to do with your brain that you're in your brain, in your men- because sometimes it's something that's mentally this way, it is בפועל, but it's not, it's only in היגיון. So based on that, you could say like this: you could explain, based on this whole nekudah, few two things just for just bekitzur. Tosafot on דף ה עמוד א, and Tosafot brings, okay, if we had more time I'd explain the whole Gemara, but it's too late. But Tosafot says from the Rach a דין like this: If a

person is standing in רשות הרבים, and he picks something up from the floor, and he carries ד' אמות in רשות הרבים, standing in one place, doesn't walk, takes his hand and makes, takes ד' אמות and he puts it into his other hand, Puts another hand, he made a הנחה. So the Rach says, דהוי כמי שנתנה מימינו לשמאלו, דאף על פי שהעבירה ד׳ אמות, פטור. Why? To put it into the hand is a הנחה. He did some he did a regular מלאכה, why didn't he? He carried ד׳ אמות, he made an עקירה, he made a הנחה, and it went ד׳ אמות. And if he would put it into someone else's hand, let's say, he's chayav! Somebody is standing there, he picks it up, carries ד׳ אמות, puts in someone's hand, he's חייב ד׳ אמות! No, walking, he didn't walk, no. No, walking you have to make עקירה and הנחה. Like if it's like העברה... אה? If he does he stops, then that's ... A guy picks up something, and walks and then puts it down, and carries it ד׳ אמות, he's chayav. A guy picks up something and doesn't walk, just takes it ד׳ אמות, and puts it in someone else's hand. Why, you could, I guess. Or you're holding with a stick, I don't know. Well, it could it could be a קשיא on the מציאות. And you took it, and you put it down in someone else's hand, you're chayav. But if you take it, and you put it in your own hand, you're patur. What's the difference? Because there's no shinui here. If the whole thing is that the akirah and hanachah makes the shinui, it's from you to you. Al derech, if you remember the other time I explained,

why does the Yerushalmi learn that by מושיט מרשות היחיד לרשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים, you're only chayav if someone receives it from you? And there is another shittah in Yerushalmi, you're only chayav if you exchange it. What what's the logic behind it? Why? Why? So I said the reason is pashut: If the whole reason, if the melachah, why is it a melachah? Because there's a change from רשויות by akirah and hanachah, and that's the akirah, you're going to get changed. So Yerushalmi says if it's מרשות היחיד to רשות הרבים, נו, at least there is an akirah to get changed. But from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד, where's the change? At least you have to have somebody else, at least another person. Same thing the other that's the shittah in Yerushalmi, you have to exchange it, to make the shinui more practical, that's all. Same thing here: If you take it, and you take it over to someone else's hand, it's ד׳ אמות, and there's a change. What's the change? It came from you to him. And from you to him, and there's akirah and hanachah, with all the zachen together, nu, is efes faran a melachah. But if you're picking it up and putting it into your own, and you're back to yourself, then the change is much less. So that's why it's like a patur. That's how you can learn pshat in the Rach and what the Rach says. But it's all based on this nekudah that it's מלאכה גרועה, and that's a change, but only a change in היגיון. Now based on this sevara that it's only a change in היגיון, it's a it's a machshavadike zach, so you could explain another thing. Bichlal,

it's angenumen, Pischei Teshuva and acharonim everyone talks about it, that the שיטת Rashbam is on Shabbos there is no חצי שיעור. Because the Rashbam in Bava Basra דף נ״ה עמוד ב׳ says that if you carry out less than a כגרוגרת, less than the שיעור of something that you're carrying, he says it's not אסור it seems like it's not אסור מדאורייתא. It's not a מלאכה, because by Shabbos there is a דין of מלאכת מחשבת. It has to be a חשוב׳ע מלאכה, less than the שיעור is not חשוב. So it comes out that even though חצי שיעור is by other things, by אכילה, and maybe even חצי שיעור by other by by by other things, but by Shabbos there isn't. Because by Shabbos there is a special דין of מלאכת מחשבת. That's what seems from the Rashbam over there in Bava Basra. Then they bring that Rashi seems to be arguing, because Rashi on דף ע״ד, when the Gemara says that you're not allowed to bake less than a שיעור, there's a certain amount that you're חייב if you bake. And then the Gemara says, וכי מותר לאפות פחות מכשיעור? Can you bake less than a שיעור? So if not for Rashi, you could learn, what did the Gemara mean? מותר you can't, but maybe it's דרבנן. According to the Rashbam, the way they learn, he says by Shabbos there's no דין חצי שיעור אסור מדאורייתא, but דרבנן אסור. So when the Gemara says are you allowed to bake פחות מכשיעור, could be דרבנן. But Rashi doesn't say that. Rashi says like this: וכי מותר לאפות פחות מכשיעור, נהי דחיוב חטאת ליכא, you're not chayav a chatat, איסורא מיהא איכא. There's an issur, and he says the issur de'oraita. How do we know? דקיימא לן חצי שיעור אסור מן התורה. And he brings back to Yoma. So it seems like there's a machloket between the Rashbam and Rashi. That's what they all seem to learn. But be'emet it's possible, I don't know if it's good or not, I mean just as a as a thought, to throw in a thought, adraba, shlog es op, so don't say it's right, there's just It could be it's not. The Rashbam didn't mean that bikhlal by Shabbos there's no chatzi shiur. He meant davka by carrying, davka by הוצאה. Because he was talking about הוצאה. Rashi, could be admits to the Rashbam that by הוצאה there is no chatzi shiur. Rashi is talking about baking, it's a different melachah. So the reason why there's a din, why the Rashbam holds there's no chatzi shiur by by by הוצאה, because מלאכת מחשבת. הוצאה is the one that needs a מלאכת מחשבת, because the gantze melachah of הוצאה is a melachah of machshavah. Be'etzem, it's not a melachah. What makes it into a melachah, because in machshavah, in your mind, in higayon, it's a melachah. So here, since it's a whole melachah, but the מלאכת מחשבת, if it's only half of what you have, and by by in this case the מלאכת מחשבת is noga to the melachah of הוצאה, because the whole machshava, the whole melacha is a מחשבה'דיקע מלאכה, so then the Rambam says, then there is no חצי שיעור, because it's missing in the machshava. Ma she'ein kein other melachot, which have nothing to do with the שכל, with the הגיון, so there takeh, maybe there is no מלאכת מחשבת, just איסור מלאכה, and mimela there there could be חצי שיעור. So it's lav davka, you don't have to say that there is a machloket between Rashi and the Rambam. Could be the Rambam and Rashi hold the same thing. They both agree that there is חצי שיעור by שבת, מן התורה, but by הוצאה it's different. But it's all based on this nekuda that הוצאה is a מלאכה גרועה. In other words, what I'm trying to say, you'll hear it from me again and again and again, the one of the יסודות in whole all the a lot of ענינים here which will be נוגע later to the Gemara, בנוגע the melacha of הוצאה, סיי in this פרק, סיי in פרק המוציא and פרק הזורק, a lot of things are בנוגע their outcome of the fact that it's not a real melacha, and the whole melacha is based on the fact that a person it it it's in in הגיון, which means in machshava, this is something that changed because I took it away, and mimela a lot of דינים will change. But the same thing לגבי this din, that it's really a חצי שיעור, but by הוצאה there is no דין חצי שיעור. Rabbi, even if it's totally you don't you're not aware of it, completely