Says, בעי רב ביבי בר אביי, רב ביבי בר אביי asked a question, הדביק פת בתנור התירו לרדותה קודם שיבוא לידי חיוב חטאת או לא התירו? If a person puts in dough into an oven on שבת, like you're not allowed to, you're not allowed to bake or cook on שבת, so he put it in, and then he realized what he did. If he takes it out right away before it starts baking, there will be no עבירה. The עבירה of baking is only if it bakes. If he takes it out before. But there's a problem: there's a איסור called רדיית הפת. The רבנן, not from the תורה, but the רבנן said that you are not allowed to take out bread from the oven on שבת. Doesn't mean nowadays, nowadays it's not the same way. They used to put it in a such a way that to take it out you had to have a חכמה, a special skill to take it out. So the רבנן said on שבת you're not allowed to do it. So this guy is now stuck. What should he do? If he's going to leave it in, that means that the עבירה of baking on שבת will have to happen. And the

way the גמרא uses the לשון, he will be חייב חטאת, he will have to bring a קרבן חטאת if he did it בשוגג. So the עצה is, what's the advice? Take it out right away! But you're not allowed to take out, the רבנן said you're not allowed to take out bread. The question is, did the רבנן allow you to take it out or not? So the גמרא wanted to know what's the case here. And it's not נוגע to our שיעור, I'll just say with the end of the גמרא, not the end, but in the middle the גמרא came and said that really the question was not if he did it unintentionally and he would have to, בשוגג and have to bring a חטאת, but it's talking about במזיד. He stuck it in במזיד. He knew it's שבת and he didn't care. And obviously it means that they warned him and he didn't care. But after he stuck it in, a minute later he regret, he had חרטה. So the question is now, can he take it out קודם שיבוא לידי איסור סקילה? Before he will leave it in, rather than leaving it in and then doing the עבירה that he'll be חייב to get killed by בית דין, in the time when we had the בית דין he would get killed for this, for baking on שבת, so is he allowed to, did the חכמים say you're allowed to take it out? That means we allow you to do a small עבירה of the איסור דרבנן of רדיית הפת of taking out the bread in order to protect you from איסור סקילה, from an עבירה where you will get killed for. Are you

allowed to put things into the oven if the oven is off, but it's hot? And it's going to bake? No, the oven is still hot. But is it hot enough that it'll make it bake? No, but it's heating it up. Warming up. Warm, no problem. But is it possible that it'll make it bake? No, but when you put it in the oven is hot, so. So again, that the שאלה is if it's hot enough that it'll make it bake, then you're not allowed to. If it's not, if it's hot, but it's not going to make it bake, then you know it's no problem. Anyway, this is the גמרא שאלה. So it comes out from here, from the גמרא, that if he will leave it in, he will get killed. Question is, do we allow him to take it out in order to prevent him from getting killed? לחם הפנים, did they take in on שבת? No. They bake it on ערב שבת. But anyway, in the בית המקדש there was no דרבננ'ס. So one קשיא that תוספות asks is, how, ואם תאמר היכא אתי לידי חיוב סקילה? Even if we leave it in, how is it possible to get killed for this? In order to get killed, you have to warn the guy. So not only in this case, in any case that you if a person does certain any עבירה where he gets punished by בית דין, an עבירה where you get killed for, an עבירה that you get מלקות for, whatever it is, it only happens if you give him a warning. And the

warning has to be done right a minute before right as he's doing it. And it has to be what we call התראת ודאי. If you warn the guy, say don't do this because if you do this you might get killed, maybe for this you get killed, even if he does it in a way which he deserves to get killed, he will not get killed, because the warning wasn't the proper warning. So he said here, really the question is not in this case only, the question is anytime a person bakes on שבת, which is one of the thirty-nine מלאכות that you're חייב מיתה for, that you get killed for, how is it ever שייך to kill a person for baking? Why not? דבשעה שהדביק פת בתנור, when he put, what's the מעשה that a person does in order to be חייב? You put into the oven, at that moment, שמא היה בדעתו לרדותה קודם שיבוא לידי איסור סקילה? Maybe he meant to take it out? Maybe he's going to take it out. And I see he didn't take it out, maybe he forgot. But the bottom line is that you're warning him before he puts it in. Before he puts it in, you can't tell him putting it in you're going to get killed, because maybe he'll take it out! So even if he doesn't take it out, but the warning was a ספק, and the דין is התראת ספק לא שמיה התראה. If you warn him it's a ספק התראה, תוספות has the שאלה. The תירוץ ריב״ש, so the ריב״ש answers, דכיון שהדביק תהא כדי בישולו, since the case is that he put it in right after he was warned, ובודאי תאפה אם לא ירדנה, and by putting it in, it will definitely get baked if he doesn't do anything, if he doesn't take it out, לאו התראת ספק הוא. It's not called a warning that's a ספק because if you put it in as is, and you wouldn't do anything, it'll bake. So basically, you are חייב for baking because they what they warned you, don't put it in because you'll get killed. It's not called an התראת ספק. And he goes in later on, תוספות explains what's called a התראת ספק. When is it an example of a ספק? If you warn somebody that in order to be חייב he has to do something else. For instance, just to use an easier example, I don't want to confuse. If a person makes a נדר, a שבועה, I'm not going to eat this if I eat this. Now this is the איסור. Now if he eats it, if let's say he eats the other one and he eats this one, he's חייב מלקות for eating and not keeping his שבועה. What happens if he ate this one first? He didn't eat that. What are you going to warn him? Don't eat it, because if you're going to eat the other one, you'll be חייב מיתה, you'll be חייב מלקות for this. That's called a, obviously, and that's something else. We'll get to that soon. But don't take, so this is not, this is called התראת ספק, cuz you don't know if he's going to eat the other one. Cuz whether this is אסור or not depends on another thing you have to do. So the meantime, you're not חייב. If you ate the other one first, and now he's going to eat this, you tell, warn him. If you're going to eat this, you'll be חייב מלקות. That's all. Because you're not allowed to eat it. But the other way, that's התראת ספק because there is still something else you have to do. But over here, there's nothing you have to do. All it is, you put it in, if you sit back and do nothing, you will be חייב. So that's not called התראת ספק. So it comes out that the the תירוץ of תוספות of the ריב״ש is of the תירוץ ריב״ש is that because by baking, when you put it in, that's finished and there's nothing else you have to do, it's called that the the the whole מעשה of baking, the whole act of baking is done, so therefore this is called this is called התראת this is called ודאי. The question is in a previous תוספות, the question on תוספות is, this is תוספות here on דף ד׳ דיבור המתחיל קודם. There's a previous תוספות that starts off with a speaks about a different thing, and תוספות already there says, ואומר ריב״ש, and he says that in this case of the bread, המעשה של איסור כבר נעשה. When you put in the bread, the act of the איסור is done already. וממילא יגמר, and automatically it'll be finished. So תוספות already before had come with this idea that by baking, when you put it in, we assume that you have you have to do nothing for it to finish. So then what was תוספות קשיא here? תוספות already knows, already written that by baking when you put it in it's over, and the מעשה of the מלאכה of אפיה of baking is done. So what did תוספות add add here? What what did תוספות not know?

תוספות asked the קשיא here, how could you warn the guy when you never know what's going to happen later? And תוספות answered, but you should know that when you put it in, that's the end. Well, תוספות said that already before! So what did תוספות here ask? What was the הוה אמינא of תוספות? תוספות already knew this idea that when you put it in, as far as you're concerned, it's done. You could do something to take it out, but if you don't do anything, it's done. So תוספות asked and nevertheless, תוספות asked the question, it's still a warning of a ספק. So what and then what the answer? So what's the question and what's the answer? So לכאורה you can explain it like this: the question and the answer, which is the הוה אמינא and the מסקנא of תוספות, is similar to a different הוה אמינא ומסקנא, a הוה אמינא ומסקנא that's in the נימוקי יוסף in בבא קמא, in a different ענין. But first let to get to this, let's see this. I have a שאלה בכלל on the מעשה on the מלאכה of baking: how could you בכלל, forget about the warning, how could you kill a person for doing the מלאכה of baking? What he did didn't it didn't bake yet. When he put it in, the מעשה that he did, the מעשה מלאכה, the מעשה עבירה is putting into an oven. At that moment, nothing happened yet. Later, it bakes by itself. נו, if it bakes by itself, he didn't do it! So what are you מחייב him? What are you killing him for? Because he put it in! Putting in is not not enough. אלא מאי? It's על דרך like the גמרא says in בבא קמא concerning the נזיקין of אש. One of the things that you're חייב for, you're obligated to pay if a damage, is if you start a fire. You start a fire here, and the fire travels and goes on and on, could go on for who knows how long, whatever it damages, you are responsible to pay. And רבי יוחנן says in the גמרא בבא קמא, אישו משום חציו. Why are you חייב? Because it's similar to a person shooting an arrow. Imagine a person stands here in this place, pulls a trigger and then it damages over there. You can say the same thing, pulling the tri- \"I didn't do anything wrong, I pulled the trigger here!\" It went, that that already came by itself, what went there. So, we don't say it. So, therefore, we consider whatever he did in the beginning, he's responsible for everything that happened. Basically, it means that if he starts it off, whatever continues happening is as if he's doing it. That's why he's חייב. So if he starts a fire and the fire goes and goes for days, he forgot about it completely already, everything that happens throughout the time because of the fire that he started, he's responsible. Oh, so we see that if you put something in, and this is going to bring that it's going to happen, it's going to do damage, or in our case, if you put it in it's going to get baked, it's as if you are baking it, and that's why you're חייב. So you're חייב for the מעשה אפיה like it's over there. Okay. Now that we've compared it to the case over there, let's discuss the case over there. The נימוקי יוסף over there asks a famous קשיא, which in the שיעור, this שיעור I brought it already many times. He says like this: from this דין that you're חייב for fire, if fire goes, and you're fi- חייב as if it's like a חץ, seems to be saying that as the fire goes on, we look at it according to הלכה, we look at as if you're doing it. So he asks a שאלה: how could you light a candle on Friday? You're lighting a candle on Friday, and the fire goes on, and we're considering as the fire is burning, it's as if you're making the fire, so you're burning a fire on שבת. So how could you light a candle? That's for a different reason. They didn't have a fire, that's what, we're not asking about the מלאכה over there, he's not asking a שאלה about having fire. They said you're not allowed to have fire, you sit in the dark. No, here we're asking, go let a goy, a גוי will put on a fire. They claimed you're not allowed to sit in a lit house on שבת. Not allowed to have fire, that's something else. That's why they were sitting in the dark. But here we're saying: how could you light a fire before שבת? Not all that, not damage, but עבירה of a fire. He's giving an example: just like by the damage, we claim that the damage that goes on is something that he's doing, so whatever happens even an hour later, we're saying you're doing it. So if you light a candle before שבת and it goes into שבת, you are doing it, you're burning the candle. But here we say it's not like that, that's the שאלה! By fire we say you're חייב. That's this קשיא, by fire we see לכאורה... Obviously there's a תירוץ to the קשיא, but the שאלה is it looks that way, that as if you are doing it the whole time. So, this דרך, by the way, I once heard from our ראש ישיבה in 770, he said to answer the קשיא, this is not what the נימוקי יוסף says, but he to answer the קשיא, he said that there is a ילקוט שמעוני where it says on the פסוק, לא תבערו אש בכל משבתיכם ביום השבת, \"Don't burn a fire on שבת.\" So the ילקוט says a very strange statement: that this פסוק teaches you, בשבת אי אתה מבעיר, אבל אתה מבעיר בערב שבת. That you're not allowed to burn on שבת, but Friday you're allowed. So what's the פשט? Obviously Friday is not שבת, you could do all the מלאכות. He said: No, because I would have thought if not for the פסוק that you can't, because it's considered... So the פסוק tells you no. But that's not what the נימוקי יוסף says, the נימוקי יוסף gives a different תירוץ. He said, \"I want to tell you that we made a mistake in the whole פשט.\" The reason you're חייב on the far- if fire goes, is not because as it's going on, we consider as if every move you're doing. It's the opposite! Right in the beginning, it's as if you did, all the damage that's done later was done right in the beginning! That's why you're חייב. וממילא Friday also, when you light a candle on Friday, all the burning that's done later is as if you did it right in the beginning. So, regarding that, that's the reason you're חייב. So here we have a הוה אמינא and a מסקנא, which is a question, a first thought, and the thought then end of the נימוקי יוסף. Yeah, but you're not supposed to stay! That's something else. Stay and you didn't go out, you stay and you didn't go out, you're חייב. Like it says by שעטנז, if a person wears שעטנז and they warn him, every time they warn him and he doesn't take it off, he's חייב. It's חייב, a חייב of a לאו שאין בו מעשה, but it's... No, it's מותר to go to מצרים, to go there at first. it's מותר. Yeah, that's right. To go for for פרקמטיא, for business, is מותר. If you go there for that, it's מותר, but then you're not allowed to stay. You shake your head, so what is what is that supposed to be? So then it's a So you're חייב for not for not leaving. Right, but even if you had in mind, you still can't get מלקות for it because it's a לאו שאין בו מעשה. Even if you He does get מלקות. No, not if you, according to רמב״ם, not רמב״ם says you're not. He's maybe else. מלקות for that. That's how it goes, no? So you shake your head, so what do you want to bring out? It's the same thing. What? Why can't you say the same thing here with the pot? Like what? No, it happened by itself. So we're saying, there you didn't leave. And here, it's happening by it's automatic. So the same like a fire, you know, automatically included. Okay, let's look. and it's not like that. No, it's not, not. Not, this is Here you put it in and automatically it's gonna burn. So we're saying that whatever, wait, let's get back to here yet, by the fire over there. So the נימוקי יוסף finishes off saying that when you start a fire, everything that's gonna happen with it is included as if you did it now, and that's why you're responsible to pay. But the הוה אמינא was that it's the other way, that as it's happening, you are constantly doing it. So you could say the same פשט over here. Let's apply the הוה אמינא of the נימוקי יוסף there and here the same way. When it comes to baking, why are you חייב for baking? לכאורה, all you did was you put it in, and putting in is no עבירה, it didn't bake yet, and then it bakes by itself. So we're saying it's like by the fire. Why are you חייב to pay when the fire burns even though you didn't do it, it happened an hour later? So the same thing here, you're חייב because it's as if you're doing it. In which way is it considered as if you're doing it? There are two ways to say. One way is the הוה אמינא of the נימוקי יוסף, that as it's going on, every second it's as if you're doing it. So why are you חייב for baking on שבת? Because you put it in when it wasn't when it was raw, so nothing happened. As it's continuing, we're saying, \"Hey, you're doing it, and for doing it you are baking now, so you're חייב.\" Or you can learn the other way, like at the end, that as you put it in, everything that is gonna happen later, the whole baking is gonna happen later, is included. That could be the difference between the beginning of the תוספות, the קשיא, and the תירוץ. The קשיא of תוספות, תוספות knew from what he said before obviously that when you put in, this is the whole מעשה, and automatically it's gonna bake. But תוספות assumed, what's the פשט, why are you חייב for baking? Because as it's being baked, it's as if you continue doing it. That means that when you put it in, it's not done yet. You're חייב because what's gonna happen later you'll be doing. In that case, it's a התראת ספק. You can't tell him, \"You're חייב for what you're doing,\" cuz you're not חייב for what you're doing. You're חייב for what's gonna happen later. So you can't tell him, \"Don't put it in, cuz when you put it in, you're חייב for putting it in.\" You're not חייב for putting it in. If you put it in, it'll be considered that you later on, and you'll be חייב for the baking later. So the תוספות asks the קשיא, so how could you tell the guy now that you're חייב for for putting it in? What it might not, and it's a ספק. Why? Because it has Later on you'll be doing it, but if you take it out, it's not gonna happen. So it's a ספק because you have to have something else, you're חייב for something is done later. Comes תוספות, and תוספות answers like the תירוץ of the נימוקי יוסף, that it's not the פשט you are חייב for baking because later on it's as if you're doing it. When you put it in, everything that's gonna happen later is done. So you tell him, \"Yes, for this this מעשה that you did includes the baking.\" Just like over there in this fire includes the damage. So that's the תירוץ of תוספות. So now we understand the difference between the הוה אמינא and the מסקנא. That's what I was wondering with מצרים. It's safe if the guy went, let's say, חס ושלום, to stay at מצרים, and he ממש went with your mind to go there the second he went, so why could you get him מלקות for it? It's a לאו שאין בו מעשה, because the second you walked in there, he went for the wrong reasons. That's If you went for the wrong reasons, you get מלקות. Right, but I I believe רמב״ם says even if he had in mind, because it he considers a לאו שאין בו מעשה, because he went there and then and then No, you went באיסור. It didn't matter, cuz it was מותר for him to go. Why was it מותר? Nobody hindered him to go. So you can say לכתחילה it's never an עבירה. I I don't know, it's so We're not talking about לאו שאין בו מעשה, yes or no מעשה, we're talking there's no לאו here בכלל. He didn't do the לאו. There he's staying there. אדרבא, מצרים is even worse to a certain degree because he's staying there. Here, he didn't do anything. He put it in, walked away. What he did was nothing. This is nothing. אלא מאי, the reason you're חייב, could is חייב because what you did is gonna automatically bring the baking. The הוה אמינא was that it's gonna be חייב for what you did later. So the שאלה is, so you're warning for the wrong thing. The answer is you're חייב for what you did because it includes. Fine. This is how you can learn פשט. The problem is, this is only according to the way the נימוקי יוסף learns, right? He learns the הוה אמינא and the מסקנא. Does תוספות בכלל agree

with the נימוקי יוסף's logic over there? Cuz over there, the נימוקי יוסף says that by היזק, it's considered the הוה אמינא was that it's considered as if you're you're doing the whole time, and the end is, no, right now. The קצות learns that תוספות argues with the with the נימוקי יוסף. Where do we see that תוספות argues with the יוסף? So that's also a famous תוספות. The גמרא in בבא קמא says at י\"ז, I think, if a person takes a כלי, when we learned in בבא קמא we were talking about that that קצות, a person takes a כלי and throws it off the roof and it's going to break, so obviously he's חייב. What happens if he throws a כלי off the roof and before it landed to break somebody else took a stick and broke it? Who's חייב? First guy. But the גמרא says that the second guy is not חייב, the first... Why? מנא תבירא תבר. The second guy broke a broken כלי. It was going to break anyway, so the second guy is not חייב. What? Right, now he doesn't die because he's dead. Same thing here also, he considers him dead, right. Comes תוספות, and תוספות says, \"But this is only if you threw a כלי down. What happens,\" he says a different case, \"if there is a כלי laying on the floor and you throw an arrow or a rock at the כלי, and it's going straight at the כלי, and it's going to break it, and then someone else comes and breaks the כלי, the second guy is חייב,\" תוספות says.

תוספות doesn't even give a reason why, but תוספות says, \"סברא פשוטה לחלק.\" It's very simple to find out, figure out the difference between the two. And whenever I repeat this, I always mention I've heard from somebody who heard a שיעור once from the ראגאטשאווער, and the ראגאטשאווער quoted this תוספות, and the ראגאטשאווער said, \"מיר פלאצט די קאפ פארשטיין דעם חילוק, און תוספות גיט א זאג: סברא פשוטה לחלק.\" Me, my head, my brain is breaking to understand the difference, and תוספות says it's very simple to see the difference! The bottom line is that תוספות learns that when you throw a arrow or a rock at a כלי, we do not consider the כלי broken yet, because he holds not it's not broken yet. Now, you say what's the difference of the other one? Because there you threw the כלי itself, here you threw something else. No, that's what he says. If you take the כלי itself when you throw, as the כלי is going through the air, it's a broken כלי. Here, the כלי is laying there still, it's not throwing being thrown, nothing's done, something on the outside is being done. Well, so then somebody else may can can stop the כלי also, if you're saying maybe maybe something will happen. Oh, because already there was something done in the כלי, and here not. But the bottom line, the קצות says, from this תוספות we see that he disagrees with the נימוקי יוסף, cuz if you're going to learn like the end of the נימוקי יוסף, where the נימוקי יוסף says that everything is included in the beginning when you throw an arrow, when you start a fire, so here when you start throwing, it's already broken! So, he says, תוספות disagrees with the with the נימוקי יוסף. So if תוספות disagrees with the נימוקי יוסף, so how could we say now that here תוספות means in the תירוץ of תוספות, why is that not a התראת ספק, why is it a warning? Because when you put that in, it's not the פשט the הוה אמינא was that as it's being baked you're doing it, but the end is, no, that לכתחילה it's done, when תוספות over there doesn't learn like the נימוקי יוסף. Now, the אמת is if you want to go further, the קשיא could be even stronger. Some say different than the קצות, that the נימוקי יוסף himself didn't mean it. What he meant was that when it starts off, the אחריות, the responsibility starts off then, but not that it's considered that it's broken. Now, it doesn't seem like that's the נימוקי יוסף, because the נימוקי יוסף says clearly the לשון that כמאן דאגמריה דמי, as if it's finished now, as if it's done already. And from the רבי we see clearly that he learns the נימוקי יוסף very clear that it means that it's done, not just that there is a responsibility on you from the beginning. How do we see it? There's the famous שיחה, the רבי asked a very interesting question. Actually, I spoke about it in the שול, I think, this year, תשעה באב, I think. He asked the question.

גמרא says that רבי יוחנן said, \"If I would be in the time of the חורבן בית המקדש, I would make them fast on the 10th day of אב, because they lit the בית המקדש towards the end of the day of the 9th, most of the בית המקדש burned on the 10th. I would have made them fast on the 10th.\" So the רבי asked a שאלה: Why? If you hold like the נימוקי יוסף, that he says that when you start a fire everything is included in the beginning, so automatically because it started on the 9th, you should fast on the 9th! And who's the one that says this דין that a fire is like an arrow? It's רבי יוחנן! And the נימוקי יוסף says, what does רבי יוחנן mean? That it starts it's all in the beginning. אמר רבי יוחנן, the מחלוקת is, רבי יוחנן says, אשו משום חציו, ריש לקיש says, אשו משום ממונו. So the רבי asked the שאלה: So why did רבי יוחנן say that I would have said that you should fast on the 10th, because it was burning, when really according to him and the way the נימוקי יוסף learns, everything is in the beginning. And the רבי answers the חילוק if the אויבערשטער does it or somebody else does it. If somebody else if a person does it, it's already all done because you can't take it back, but the אויבערשטער could take it back. I'm not going into the answer, but from the question itself, we see that he learns פשוט פשט that the נימוקי יוסף learns that it's done. If the if the פשט would be Here it's only the אחריות, the responsibility, then the רבי has no קשיא. It's only responsibility, but when did it really burn? It really burns later. על כל פנים, so therefore, so the קצות, the the נימוקי יוסף really learns that it happens in the beginning. But תוספות, the קצות says learns different, תוספות learns not like the נימוקי יוסף. So if תוספות does not learn like נימוקי יוסף, we're stuck with that, the פשט we gave before, that the תירוץ of תוספות is that it's that that when you put it in, it's as if everything happened right away, and תוספות seems to learn that when you throw the fire, when the fire and the חץ it's all the same thing, it's not happening right away. You see the difference is פשוט, a very simple difference. When he breaks the the the I'm not looking for that difference. At this point we're not discussing differences. I'm just bringing out the point that from the דין that he says, why it's different is not what we're talking about now. It's a סברא פשוטה, and the חילוק I'm not The bottom line is he says if you throw the arrow on it, it's not called broken. That's what he says. That's why if someone else breaks it, he broke it. Now why that's different than a כלי that's a different discussion. That's Okay, yeah, yeah, I don't want to, but if you say it's a בור, a בור is פטור for a כלי. If you say that the guy broke it, he broke the thing, so you could say he's פטור because because of בור. When he throws the arrow Wait! Why would you say it's a בור? Yeah, when he threw the arrow down, a second guy comes in and he breaks it, you could say that's like a בור. Why a בור? A person is never a בור. Why is this a בור? Because כלי is בור, כלי and בור is... No, if you get hurt by the כלי it's בור, but if you break the כלי... No, somebody broke the כלים in a בור, the בעל הבור is פטור from the כלים, right? Yeah, but בעל הבור is פטור on כלים. You could say also the second guy is פטור because his thing is like a בור. This person threw his thing, when he shot the arrow... But the אדם המזיק, what kind of בור? What kind of בור? ארבעה אבות נזיקין. What kind of בור? How do you get בור here? I don't see how you get בור here. I could explain afterwards. Okay, okay, okay. It does fit. Okay, I'm going to Okay. It does say in תוספתא that כל התורה כולה ענין אחד, but I still I don't think it fits here. I'm going to show you afterwards how it Okay. לכאורה the פשט is there are some that learn it that תוספות does not, does learn like the נימוקי יוסף. Our קשיא was, if תוספות doesn't learn like נימוקי יוסף, how do we say פשט here? There are some that say not like the קצות. And that's how we're going to go. תוספות does learn like the נימוקי יוסף. And what happens? It's right in the beginning, everything has happened. The only thing is, לכאורה, if that's the case, how come when the guy threw the stick and someone else broke it, we say that the second guy is חייב? לכאורה, right away it's broken. Very simple. When do we say that it's included? It's always included. But when later on it actually wasn't broken by you, then איגלאי מילתא למפרע, you go back and you show that it never was included. What happens later is going to spoil what's included. The case of the נימוקי יוסף is when the fire went and actually burnt, when you threw an arrow and it actually damaged. So we say like this: right away when you throw it at that thing, it's included the damage, and it happened, so it טאקע was included in the beginning. But what happens if you throw something, let's say you throw an arrow at some wall, and it's going there, so, \"Oh, it includes the damage!\" and then something happens and it doesn't it doesn't damage it, then it shows למפרע that it never happened. And so therefore when the תוספות says that the guy threw down the thing, the second guy is חייב, because בפועל ממש, the first guy didn't break it. So בפועל it wasn't broken by the first guy. If it wasn't broken by the first guy, איגלאי מילתא למפרע. So that shows, went back, and took away the fact that it was included לכתחילה, because when he threw it, it wasn't broken by somebody else. He didn't break it. If what? Until somebody else comes and breaks it. So he That's what I'm saying. That's why he's not חייב. We don't say the second guy broke a broke a broken כלי, because it included in it. We don't say the second guy broke A broken כלי. Second guy is חייב. Why? Because בפועל, the the first guy didn't break it. When do we say this סברא that we say אשו משום חציו? Is when the damage is actually done through you. But when it's not done, so even though we say right away it's as if it's finished, but if it's going to happen. But if it doesn't happen, then איגלאי מילתא למפרע that it's not. The second guy is חייב because if he breaks it, then it's instead... Yeah. So the קשיא was, why don't we say he broke a broken כלי? Because the first guy threw it, and according to the נימוקי יוסף it's already considered broken, because everything included in what he did. So the second first guy should be חייב, not the second. So we're saying, when does the נימוקי יוסף mean that it's included? When it actually happens! But if it didn't happen, בפועל your throwing the rock did not make it break it, then איגלאי מילתא למפרע it works retroactively, and it wasn't included, it takes it away. It wasn't considered a כלי in the first place. No, it was definitely a כלי! And it was considered as if it's a broken כלי, but you can't be מחייב the guy. If a person threw it on his head, the כלי was just sitting there? That's a different thing. talking about a כלי. He threw a rock, תוספות בבא קמא, he threw a rock at a כלי that's flying. Threw the כלי, no, that's, that's something else. That's, that's, we're not discussing why the first thing is case is different. We're talking about he's throwing a חץ, what's the דין? Is it concluded or not? It says a דין that if you throw the כלי itself, because it's the כלי already flying in the air, so that case is that the גמרא says is called a broken כלי. תוספות says, but if you didn't throw the כלי, you threw something else at it, it's not a broken כלי. The שאלה was, why? Obviously, it's not like the נימוקי יוסף, obviously it's not called, considered broken yet, because it's not included yet. So I'm saying it's no ראיה against the, that he doesn't agree with the נימוקי יוסף. תוספות could agree, but תוספות just says that if the end is that it didn't break, a גילוי מילתא למפרע shows that it never included, and ממילא he never broke it, so who broke it? The second guy. That's how you learn. It's similar to what he says if he could if the בית המקדש is caused by השם, and he could have stopped it? Yeah, the כוח could stop that, so That's why he won't pass on the ten. No, no. אַ קער, that's why he should pass on the ten. That was the reason for the קשיא. אַ קער, the רבי asked what's what's רבי יוחנן's סברא he should pass on the ten? And he says this answer, that's why he should pass on the ten. Because by the אייבערשטער we don't say it's included. When isn't it included? When when there's you it has to happen. When you have no control over it. When you're not in control, but if you control, then it's not included, and as it's happening, it's happening. So then, since it's happening on the ten, that's the answer why רבי יוחנן said it. לפועל he didn't, רבי יוחנן didn't change, he did. But the סברא of רבי יוחנן. So you're saying if it didn't come out, wouldn't you say that there wasn't the כוח to begin with? It's the same thing No, it had the כוח! How can you say, it did have the, it just changed! So therefore it couldn't have been there. No, it had the כוח, it just didn't happen, so ממילא that takes away, the fact that didn't happen makes it that it wasn't included in the beginning, because לפועל it didn't happen. It wasn't gonna do it, it wasn't even בכוח. If it doesn't, and here it didn't happen. When you threw it and someone else broke it, you didn't break it. אי the נימוקי יוסף says that it includes, that's when it actually happened through you, you shot a fire, it happened, you throw an arrow and it broke! But if you throw an arrow and that didn't break it, so then that fact that it didn't break it takes away, a גילוי מילתא למפרע reveals from the beginning, goes back retroactive, and tells you that it that it wasn't included. But that's if it didn't break it, that's that. But in in סברא, the fact that when it starts off it contains the whole thing that's gonna happen later is included, even according to תוספות, like the נימוקי יוסף. So I have to go back to the burning, the the first three, this is why is the first three damages different than this and this, whatever, because they are חלק המזיק, so you have to wait for the ממש מזיק, and if it wasn't מזיק, then boom, it wasn't מזיק. To a to a ... whole thing. So the you see even though the fire, whatever, it has to go, when it has to actually consume to make a damage, right? Obviously you're not חייב if it didn't damage. Even if it got damaged by somebody else, but you're not חייב, because as far as you're concerned it didn't happen. But if you throw the כלי, it is! So you see, it's not, because it's possible that it didn't happen through you, and you're חייב. It's possible. Throw an arrow and you throw the כלי, you're חייב. But here, the fact that you throw something else at it, it's included in the beginning like the נימוקי יוסף says, if it's gonna happen. But if it doesn't happen, not. That's why the fire So, if we're back now that תוספות learns like the נימוקי יוסף, we could come back and say the תירוץ we said before. The הוה אמינא of תוספות, that תוספות asked that what how are you gonna warn the guy? He put it in, he didn't do anything. אלא מאי, you're חייב, so we say the הוה אמינא like the הוה אמינא of נימוקי יוסף. נימוקי יוסף explained the הוה אמינא, that it's not included in the beginning, it goes on. So why would the guy who put it in be חייב for baking? Because as it's baking, he's חייב. So then the קשיא is, how could you warn him before? That's like the נימוקי יוסף's שאלה. And the answer of תוספות is like the תירוץ of the נימוקי יוסף. What's the תירוץ of the נימוקי יוסף? Like that as if he did it in the beginning. And here we're talking about that you're leaving it in. When does תוספות not agree, not say different, when you, לפועל, didn't happen? For instance, you take it out. But if, לפועל, we're saying how could he be חייב, if it did bake, how are you חייב if you bake? But the warning wasn't good. Because if you did bake, it was included in the beginning. So when you warn the guy, it's included and you're warning him a real warning. And if it's gonna continue, it already happened as if it happened in the beginning, if it's gonna be baked. And that's what תוספות answered. So the הוה אמינא was that it's not considered baked that you didn't do it till it's happening, but before it's not, so that's a התראת ספק. And the other way, it's not a התראת ספק, which is exactly similar to a תוספות in קידושין, in גיטין. So when we learned גיטין we spoke about that תוספות, too. About אפקעינהו רבנן לקידושין מיניה. תוספות in גיטין goes, it's an interesting thing, תוספות, the גמרא there says that when a person sends a גט to his wife and in the middle he decides he doesn't want to divorce her, so מדאורייתא, you could sit here, he sent the גט who knows where, and And the שליח is on the way. See, if the שליח, I think the שליח gave her already, it's too late. And he didn't give her yet, he could here make a בית דין, say, \"I'm מבטל the גט,\" and the גט is no good. And ממילא when the שליח gives her the גט, she's not divorced. What happens if she gets married? Came the רבנן and said, \"Don't do it.\" The רבנן made an איסור: \"Don't do it! Don't do ביטול! If you want to מבטל the גט, chase the שליח! Catch him, or go to the wife, and come heard before she gets it, tell her.\" Why? One of the reasons is because what's going to happen? He'll be מבטל, she won't know, she'll go marry, get married, huh? Before internet days. And what's going to happen if she gets married? She'll have children, she'll have ממזרים. I mean it's a terrible thing. Before internet. Huh? Before internet, no phones. So the

רבנן said, \"Don't do it.\" Then the גמרא asks, \"What happened if the guy didn't listen to the רבנן and did do it?\" Yeah, he was מבטל the גט here. So מדאורייתא, the גט is בטל. So the גט is no גט. So if the guy gives it, she still remains married. So one opinion in the גמרא is that if he's מבטל in front of a בית דין, the ביטול doesn't work, and the גט remains a good גט. The רבנן said, \"Don't be מבטל it here.\" So if he did, מדאורייתא the גט is no more a גט. But the רבנן said don't do it, so they said the גט is not בטל and the גט is a good גט. So if the שליח goes ahead and gives the גט, it's a גט which מדאורייתא is no גט, the רבנן said it is a גט. So now the רבנן said that she's not married, and מדאורייתא says she is married! So the גמרא asks the שאלה, how could that be? The רבנן could be מקל like this? You can take a woman that from the תורה is an אשת איש, she's a married woman, came the רבנן and said she's not a married woman because of this גט? So the גמרא answers, כל דמקדש אדעתא דרבנן מקדש ואפקיעינהו רבנן לקידושין מיניה. That since when a person gets married, we say הרי את מקודשת, you are my wife, כדת משה וישראל, like the אייבערשטער, the תורה wants, so it's basically a condition: I'm marrying you on condition that the חכמים agree. So if you make a get a marriage on condition, the חכמים if this happens, they decide not to agree. So ממילא what happens? למפרע, so she never got married. So when they give the גט, it's not that the רבנן said that a גט which is really not a good גט becomes a good גט. If you do this, they say, \"We decided we don't want the קידושין, and she was never married.\" It's not, oh, it's true. They're not a ממזר, but they're born out of wedlock, and not not a It's yeah, it's not in the Huh? It's a matter of כהונה. It's a שאלה if she could, some say that where can you get... Yeah.

Comes תוספות and asks a שאלה, a similar שאלה to here. תוספות asks, how could anytime a married woman who is מזנה, who commits adultery, how could she ever be killed? You could never warn her. She's married, right? You're going to come and warn her, \"Don't do what you're doing, because if you do it, you'll get killed.\" How do you know? Maybe her husband will send her a גט and be מבטל it over here, not in front of the שליח. Then the רבנן will come and say that she was never married, so she won't get killed. So even if she doesn't do it, the התראה, the warning is a ספק! So תוספות answers one תירוץ that most people don't do it, whatever. But the second תירוץ תוספות answers is, לפועל ממש, she has a חזקה of אשת איש. She is now a married woman. So if you look at it from this perspective of now, she's married. And therefore, as it stands now, if she is מזנה she will get killed. אלא מאי? Something could happen later. You could change it, but it's, but, but as it stands now, she it's called התראת ודאי. And he gives an example: by a נזיר. A

נזיר who makes a נדר to be a נזיר, not to drink wine. If a נזיר drinks wine, he gets מלקות. And a נזיר is able to be מתיר נדר. It's a נדר. So when a נזיר drinks wine and you warn him, \"Don't drink, because if you drink, you'll get מלקות.\" How do you know he'll get מלקות? Maybe he'll go later be מתיר נדר? אלא מאי? Huh? Yeah. If he's מתיר נדר, so למפרע when you מתיר נדר it never was a נדר, never was a נזיר. So even if he doesn't מתיר נדר, still it's התראת ספק! אלא מאי? תוספות says to keep him here. So what's the פשט? That because now he's a נזיר, and he's now the חזקה is he's a נזיר, so it's not called התראת ספק. What's the פשט over there? The פשט over there is exactly the same פשט over here. The פשט is, what was the הוה אמינא and what is the מסקנא of תוספות? What did תוספות think, of course the סברא was this. But the ווארט over there is that the הוה אמינא was that since something might happen later and will take away the the that she's not an אשת איש, so it's התראת ספק. And the end, מסקנא of תוספות is, no, she's now an אשת איש. You know why she What תוספות's תירוץ is? Because as it stands now, she is an אשת איש. In order later on not to be an אשת איש, you gotta do something. If you don't do anything, she remains an אשת איש, which is the exact same thing like over here. The הוה אמינא of תוספות was that you're a, when you're חייב for baking, not for what you're doing now. You're חייב for baking because what's going to happen, continuous, you will be doing. התראת ספק. So תוספות over there also thinks maybe what's going to happen later, if you don't do this, you will have been an אשת איש, so התראת ספק. So the הוה אמינא, the the the מסקנא, the תירוץ of תוספות is, exact same like here, that as it stands now, she is an אשת איש. איי it might change later, what'll happen later if it changes, it'll change, it'll be למפרע. Which means like this, the הוה אמינא of תוספות was that if you change later, if you if he gives her a גט גט later, so it's גילוי מילתא למפרע, it shows from before that there was never an אשת איש. So ממילא later if this happens, she was never an אשת איש now either. So your warning is not a good warning. So even if it doesn't happen, but it's תלוי ועומד, you don't know. And the מסקנא of תוספות is, know that now she's an אשת איש, and later on what's going to happen if he gives her a גט and does this, then it'll change, but as it stands now, just like it was just like over here, what did we say over here? Why is it not התראת ספק? Because you're חייב now. איי it might change? If you do it you will change it, that's not called התראת ספק. Over there also, as she's now, she's an אשת איש. If he does this, it'll change it, and therefore it's not התראת ספק. But a bottom line, it comes to hear that we understand that what is the הוה אמינא and מסקנא of תוספות, is exactly like the נימוקי יוסף's. That the הוה אמינא was that it's going, you're חייב for what's happening later, so the warning is no good. The answer is you're חייב for now, the warning is good. איי you might change it? If you change it, it'll change. But as long as you didn't change it, this is what it is. And the same thing is over there, but you could say within the woman's lifetime, clear. Yeah, so תוספות have to change the words? And he holds clearly although, so one פשט is it's good, that תוספות argued on that? No, I'm trying to say תוספות doesn't argue. He doesn't? It's close. So how does he understand? What's קשה to say? We'll have a different פשט in תוספות. We'll have to find a different פשט. My what what I said about the before about the בור.

Donkey falls into a בור, laden with with with glass things, what happens? He's חייב for the the בעל הבור is חייב for the donkey, and פטור on the כלים. Yeah. Right? Same thing, he's, why, I mean the thing is falling, whatever. A בור is פטור on כלים. Think of the case that the guy throws the thing from the roof, the first guy. Huh? The second guy comes with a stick and breaks it. The thing fell, it's like a the thing it's like a בור, he's, why a בור? Why a בור? His stick is like a בור at that point. If you hit something, if a guy hits you over the head with a stick, it's a בור? No, at that point if it's broken, the thing is falling, why is it a בור? Why is it a בור? How can it be a בור? It's, because he is making it, the בור, when it falls into something, how can it be a בור if a guy came and took a stick and hit it? He's a מזיק! He's an אדם המזיק! No, he didn't. He just stood there. He just stood there and the thing broke on his stick. Yeah? Who is חייב? So he's not a מזיק! So how is he an אדם המזיק? A person stands and holds a stick, you're an אדם המזיק? He stands a stick and and it falls on that thing and and and he breaks it. So how is he an אדם המזיק if he, he didn't do anything. So then the first guy is חייב. He's, so we said the first guy is חייב. How is it called a בור? Because the first guy threw it, the second, threw it on the ground and it broke. What the hell is you do with a stick? So the second guy is פטור because he's a בור. He didn't do anything! If it's a בור, the second guy is פטור? Right. He's פטור because he didn't do anything. Think of 14, think of ערב שבת, very very, the answer to you is ערב שבת, before שבת. Yeah, and put the חלה, no, he's not. He was not, in 15, in 15 minutes? Clear away, make cook for yourself. That's what I'm praying. I'm putting it to the question, where do you see the, he yelled at, that's דרבנן. דרבנן? Sure. מדאורייתא, if you open a light on שבת, it's a burning, that's, no, because that מזיק, the second guy is not, he's not, he also didn't bake it. He just held the thing. Yeah. I'm trying to figure out what I can put up before שבת.

What if, you put a very raw food, you don't even need a, you don't even, raw meat, raw meat right before שבת. Yeah, you don't even need, they had to print a whole a whole טהרה, no, דרבנן, on that דרבנן said that has to be, otherwise you might make the fire stronger. But מדאורייתא, it's only 15. Then you can eat it. No שאלה, that's going to be anyway because, no, it's דרבנן, it's something that, no, no, anyway, it won't happen that it's going to stick in the raw, I don't know, no, if you did it, דרבנן, באמת if you did it with a, and if it wasn't, if it was מדאורייתא, מדאורייתא, מדאורייתא, you didn't, no, מדאורייתא, give me an example, מדאורייתא, it's פשוט that, no. No. What is common that you can, דרבנן said that you can't do it. מדאורייתא, what's if it came out later? I'm I'm trying to figure, what if it did come out later? What if it did come out later? But he didn't do it, there's no, no, it does not. One is We couldn't do that if we don't say if it doesn't come out, arrow. Fire, you're right. גילוי, a גילוי. I don't understand. I don't understand it. Write it down.

Somebody told me a joke when I was in Russia years years ago. You have you have to write atheism, that was communism. So, the teacher got up and wanted to show there's no God. \"Do you see God?\" \"No, there is no God.\" So, one kid gets up, turns around to the class and says, \"Do you see the teacher's brain?\" Harvey. Who's going to fight? Harvey. When? Next Friday. Next Friday.