We're going to hear on דף ד', first עמוד א', bottom of עמוד א' goes over to דף ד' עמוד ב', and we find a machlokes between Rabbi Akiva and the Chachamim according to one pshat, whether ילפינן זורק ממושיט. One way the Gemara said was a shaila whether machlokes is whether קלוטה כמי שהונחה, and the other way is a machlokes is whether ילפינן זורק ממושיט. We all know what מושיט is. מושיט is when you pick something up in a רשות היחיד, you put it down with your hand in another רשות היחיד with the רשות הרבים in between, and it's למעלה מעשרה. You're going over the רשות הרבים, but higher than 10, which normally higher than 10 in the רשות הרבים is a מקום פטור because רשות הרבים עולה עד עשרה, it only goes to עשרה, but nevertheless we learn out from the Mishkan that if you pass over with your hand from a רשות היחיד over a רשות הרבים למעלה מעשרה and then you go into the next רשות היחיד and you put it down, you are chayav for the melachah of מושיט. The shaila is

do we learn out זורק from מושיט? What happens if you don't pass it with your hand, but you throw it? What would be the din there? So if you hold ילפינן זורק ממושיט, that means we learn out throwing from passing, that just like if you pass from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד over the רשות הרבים you are chayav for the melachah of מושיט, so too if you throw. If you throw from רשות היחיד, you pick it up in רשות היחיד and you throw it from רשות היחיד over the רשות הרבים, and it falls down into the next רשות היחיד, are you also chayav? So if you learn out זורק ממושיט, you're chayav the same way. If you don't learn out, if you hold לא ילפינן זורק ממושיט, then we do not learn out, and only מושיט if you pass it with your hand you're chayav, but if you throw it, you are not chayav. That's the technical machloket whether ילפינן זורק ממושיט or not. Comes Tosafot, Tosafot דיבור המתחיל דרבי עקיבא, which the Gemara says Rabbi Akiva holds ילפינן זורק ממושיט, that just like מושיט is chayav, throwing is the same way, ואם תאמר, Tosafot asks, ועל כרחך זורק מרשות היחיד לרשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים לא היה במשכן. If we're thinking to learn out זורק from מושיט, obviously זורק itself was not in the Mishkan. Because if it was a Mishkan, why do you have to learn it out? The she'eilah is, וכיון דלא היה במשכן, since throwing from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד over the רשות הרבים was not in the משכן, אמאי מחייב רבי עקיבא? Why is Rabbi Akiva chayav? אלא מאי, when you say ילפינן, we compare it. We use our sechel to compare, like we do every toladah. We know that only the אבות מלאכות were in the Mishkan, the toladot were not in the Mishkan. So where do we get the chiyuv of toladot? Because we use our sechel to compare one thing to another. So the same thing would be here: in the Mishkan we found מושיט, and on our own we compare, since if you pass it over you're chayav, if you throw it would be the same thing. Zogt Tosafot ober by toladah of הוצאה we don't do that, שהיא מלאכה גרועה אין לנו לחייב אלא דווקא איזו שהיה במשכן.

Tosafos says, I said on דף ב' עמוד א' that הוצאה בכלל, the whole מלאכה of הוצאה is a מלאכה גרועה, is not a real מלאכה, and therefore we cannot compare on our own. So the only way we could know the תולדות of הוצאה, we have to have other ways of knowing it besides the משכן. So if we need, if by הוצאה, any מלאכה of הוצאה, we cannot on our own compare with sechel because it's a מלאכה גרועה, how does Rabbi Akiva say to compare זורק to מושיט? Maybe it sounds like pretty close: if you pass over from רשות היחיד to רשות over the רשות הרבים you're חייב, it would make sense to throw also, but that's only our own sechel. But don't we say that by הוצאה we can't make any comparisons, and we cannot learn out any תולדה, he says, מלאכה גרועה אין לנו לחייב אלא דווקא איזו שהיה במשכן כדפרישית לעיל? That's תוספות קשיא. So how is there a סברא of of of ילפינן זורק ממושיט? Why would we compare זורק to מושיט if הוצאה is a מלאכה גרועה? ויש לומר, Tosafos answers, דרבי עקיבא סבר דזורק דמי טפי למושיט ממה דדמי שאר תולדות להוצאה. So Tosafos says, I'll tell you: when we say you cannot compare a תולדה by הוצאה on our own to the אב, that's when they're comparable, but not not a hundred percent. זורק, that's very close. If you're חייב when you pass over, to be חייב if you throw is very close. It's closer than any other תולדה. So by a regular תולדה from an אב, since הוצאה is a מלאכה גרועה, we can't compare it on our own. But זורק, we could compare, because זורק to זורק throwing it to מושיט ביד are very, very close, that even by a מלאכה גרועה we could compare it. That's what Tosafos says. Even though the זורק was not in the משכן, but it's so close that Rabbi Akiva says you could do it.

What do the רבנן hold then? That we can't. The רבנן say that we cannot compare זורק to מושיט. אי, it's very close? So they hold, I guess, it's not very close. We'll see. That is what we have to see. What is the basis, based on this Tosafos that Tosafos says that זורק is very close to מושיט, what the two sides of it that the רבנן say זורק is not so close to מושיט, and therefore לא ילפינן זורק ממושיט? What are the two sides here? הא? The רבנן say you're פטור, because they do not compare זורק to מושיט. אי, it's very close? So they hold it's not so close. But what is this יסוד of whether it's called close or not close? That's one thing that we have to keep in mind to understand. A second thing is, this Tosafos seems to be a contradiction to another Tosafos, where Tosafos says the opposite. Here Tosafos says that זורק, throwing, is very close to passing by hand. Good? Tosafos on דף ב עמוד א, on the bottom of the Tosafos, the end of Tosafos דיבור המתחיל שבועות, Tosafos asks a שאלה, ואם תאמר, גבי שבת אמאי תני שתים שהן ארבע ותו לא? In our Mishnah, it talks about the עני and the עשיר בנוגע two מלאכות: מלאכה of הוצאה, and the מלאכה of הכנסה. Why doesn't he also speak about מושיט or מעביר מרשות היחיד לרשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים דחייב? Why does he talk only about this? Why not other things? Just like in the Mishnah in Shavuos, it talks about ידיעות הטומאה, it has all kinds of things. Why does he only talk here about the two? And Tosafos answers, ויש לומר דלא קתני אלא הכנסה. He only talks about הכנסה, דדמיא להוצאה. הכנסה is mamash like הוצאה. Why? שהוא מרשות היחיד לרשות הרבים. Just like הוצאה is רשות היחיד לרשות הרבים, this is from רשות הרבים לרשות היחיד, which is basically the same, it's just the opposite side, it's the other side of the coin. לאפוקי מושיט ומעביר שהוא מרשות היחיד לרשות היחיד. But מושיט is מרשות היחיד לרשות היחיד, it's a different type of מלאכה, so we don't talk about it. Fine. But then the she'eilah is, why doesn't he talk about זורק? Regular זורק, not רשות היחיד לרשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים, why doesn't he talk about throwing הוצאה? Just like carrying, when you carry out with your hand, you're חייב for הוצאה, or carrying out when your hand backwards, you're חייב for הכנסה, why doesn't he talk about זורק? If you pick something up in רשות היחיד, and you throw it out into the רשות הרבים, or you pick something up in the רשות הרבים and throw it into the רשות היחיד, why doesn't he talk about that? So Tosafos says, וזריקה נמי, why doesn't he talk about throwing, לא דמיא להוצאה. It's not the same, he only talks of things that are very close. הכנסה and הוצאה are close, throwing is not close, שזה הילוך ביד וזה בזריקה. They're two different things. This is carrying with your hand, and this is throwing. Throwing and carrying, they're far apart, they're not close. That's why he doesn't talk about it. It's a mamash a stirah to this Tosafos here. Here, on דף ד, Tosafos says, use the לשונות again, דרבי עקיבא סבר דזורק דמי טפי למושיט ממה דדמי שאר תולדות, that זורק is much closer to מושיט, because it's the same thing. What's the chiluk, basically what's the chiluk if you take it by hand or you throw it? Same thing. And therefore you could learn out זורק from מושיט even though it wasn't in the Mishkan, and it's a מלאכה גרועה. And here Tosafos says punkt farkert. Tosafos says that throwing is far from the melachah because זה בהילוך ביד וזה בזריקה. Okay, so l'chorah you could say maybe that Tosafos here says Rabbi Akiva holds זורק is so close to מושיט, but the Rabbanan say it's not so, and the Tosafos over here goes according to the Rabbanan. But it's not mashma like that. Tosafos doesn't say according to the Rabbanan. Tosafos makes it like a fact. The fact that זו הילוך ביד וזו בזריקה, so they're far apart. And Tosafos makes it like a klal. And here Tosafos says that it's close. So, okay, there's a machloket between Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbanan over there, how close is it. But to make it here the other extreme, that this is worse than other comparisons? הכנסה He's making הכנסה is closer to הוצאה than השלמת הוצאה of זריקה. Which one is closer? הכנסה is a different רשות. No, but it's still that it's the same. This is mamash the same. Make the same הוצאה from רשות היחיד to רשות הרבים. Ela mai? Instead of the hand you throw it. So Tosafos says no, there must be something more to it, that it's not a real stirah, and there must be some biur. I once explained that. We once, a shiur spoke about this, closely I spoke about something of the case. It could be some Basically, there are ways to explain it, obviously. So, we're going to see we're going to explain so you could say something worked out what you said, but you could. So, two things now, we have to understand what's the sevara of the מחלוקת יליפינן זריקה ממושיט, that Rabbi Akiva says it's very close and the Rabbanan say it's not close. And then we have to understand why is this different than the Tosafot on דף ב', where there Tosafot says זריקה is different than מושיט, and here Tosafot says זריקה is very close. זריקה is different than ביד, and here Tosafot says it's very close. Now,

there's another thing. Tosafot even במסכת, אבל, the first אבל, and don't get scared, we're not getting into that Tosafot, but one thing is Tosafot says, Tosafot has a she'eilah, and it's not only Tosafot, all the Rishonim, whether there's a din of מושיט למטה מיו״ד. The original din of מושיט was if you pass over to רשות הרבים למעלה מיו״ד. You take from רשות היחיד, go over the רשות הרבים למעלה מיו״ד, and then you put it down in רשות היחיד. That's the that's the way it was in the Mishkan. So, Tosafot has a whole discussion, what about מושיט למטה מיו״ד? Is there a din of מושיט למטה מיו״ד or not? And there are sevarot אהער, sevarot אהין, do we compare it to or not? Comes Rabbi Akiva Eiger and asks the she'eilah, לכאורה, the answer to this question whether מושיט is למטה מיו״ד should be dependent whether יליפינן זריקה ממושיט. It's the same thing. יליפינן זריקה ממושיט means that even though מושיט in the Mishkan was by taking it by hand, we compare it to, we say זריקה is the same. If you say לא ילפינן, we say it's not the same. In other words, the machloket whether יליפינן זריקה ממושיט is, is מושיט exactly as it was in the Mishkan? Then you can't learn out זריקה. Or is מושיט not exactly? Isn't that the same shaila here? In the Mishkan it was higher than ten. If you learn יליפינן זריקה ממושיט, that means we say לאו דווקא exactly as it was in the Mishkan. In the Mishkan it was by hand, if you throw it, it's also the same. So, the same thing would be here. In the Mishkan it was למעלה מיו״ד, לאו דווקא, it could be למטה מיו״ד also. If you say לא ילפינן זריקה ממושיט, that means we hold that it has to be exactly like it was in the Mishkan. It's the same thing here also. So, if the Mishkan was למעלה מיו״ד, it has to be למעלה מיו״ד, למטה מיו״ד you're not chayav. Why do we say What makes it into two separate sheilot? And the meforshim talk about it, and we spoke about it in the Sefat Emet in other shiurim, but here we're going to discuss it also, why the shaila whether למטה מיו״ד there's a din of מושיט is not connected to whether we learn out זריקה ממושיט. In other words, the shaila whether we learn זריקה ממושיט is one type of shaila, and the shaila whether we compare, we say למטה מיו״ד there's a din of מושיט, is another type of shaila. And we'll see the different sheilot the way they go. Yeah, he has a shaila why it's the same thing, obviously, we have to answer that shaila, so we have to say it's not the same. So, I have to explain this. Why is it not the same? What's the sevara why it's not the same? I mentioned once a shiur before, the Pnei Yehoshua asks a שאלה בכלל, why are you chayav if you're מושיט למעלה מיו״ד? Why are you chayav? למעלה מיו״ד is a מקום פטור. So מקור, you're going through a מקום פטור. מקום פטור is nothing. So, basically, you're starting off in the רשות היחיד, you make the עקירה in רשות היחיד, you're making the הנחה in רשות היחיד, the fact that you pass through a מקום פטור, why should you be חייב? אי, it was in the Mishkan like that? So, he says very clearly, as we always say, the fact that it was in the Mishkan doesn't make it a מלאכה. The fact that it was in the Mishkan, they did million things in the Mishkan. They walked in the Mishkan, they they spoke in the Mishkan. Ela mai? It means things which have the גדר of a מלאכה. Why did we say הוצאה בכלל is a מלאכה גרועה? אי, it was in the Mishkan? So, Tosafot says that's not enough that it was in the Mishkan. Or using the לשון of the Gemara in other places, הך דהוה במשכן חשיבא, what was in Mishkan a חשוב something, a מלאכה, then we can count it. So, why is מושיט It was in the Mishkan, the לויים carried from one עגלה to another עגלה, both רשות היחיד, in middle there was רשות הרבים, with י״ט אמה, so it was, but why is enough to make it. So he says, he gives an example from another דין. It says later on in the Gemara that if a person carries a load ד' אמות ברשות הרבים, on his shoulder, which is למעלה מעשרה, a person's shoulder is higher than ten טפחים, that means you're carrying it ברשות במקום פטור, you're חייב. So the Mishnah says, why are you חייב? שכן היה משא בני קהת. We learn it from the משכן, the Bnei Kehat carried the ארון. And the Gemara makes a חשבון that the ארון was definitely higher than ten טפחים from the ground. So since that's how it was in the משכן, you're chayav even if you carry למעלה מעשרה. פרעגט ער the same שאלה, so it was in the משכן, but it's a מקום פטור, not everything that was in the משכן should count as a melachah because it happened to be in the משכן. So he answers like this: We find in the Torah that the Torah calls these carryings with the word melachah. It's מלאכת המשכן. And it says regarding Kehat, Bnei Kehat, and Bnei Merari, Kehat carried the ארון, the Merari, family of Merari carried the קרשים, and it calls what they did, calls it melachah. It's part of the מלאכת המשכן, and the Torah refers to it as a melachah. Oh, so the Torah tells us that this is a melachah. So it's like a gezerat hakatuv let's say that this is a melachah, because the Torah calls it. So he says just like by the case of the Bnei Kehat, still why do we say that even though you're carrying it למעלה מיו״ד you're חייב? Because Kehat did it, it's because it was the Torah calls it melachah. So he says the same thing here, by the Leviim, the Bnei Merari, when they carried from one עגלה to another through the רשות הרבים למעלה מיו״ד, the Torah calls it מלאכה, מלאכת המשכן. If the Torah calls it melachah, that's why it's a melachah. That's how he explains it, and he goes into more פרטים. The bottom line, what I'm trying to use the Pnei Yehoshua is for this vort, that he says, so it's a גזירת הכתוב that this is called a melachah. So now, after we know that the Torah calls it a melachah, so it's a גזירת הכתוב, the she'eilah is what is the גזירת הכתוב? How do you taytsh the גזירת הכתוב? You could taytsh this גזירת הכתוב in two ways, and you have to think. The גזירת הכתוב is, let's go we're talking about מושיט, not about the other מלאכה בני קהת, the גזירת הכתוב is that if you carry from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד over the רשות הרבים למעלה מיו״ד, the Torah tells you that this is a melachah. That's the fact. This gufa could be oisgetaytsh in two ways: One way you could say it says that even though, it starts the גזירת הכתוב tells you that even though you started in רשות היחיד and you finished it in רשות היחיד, but because you passed over in this area, therefore this is also called a שינוי רשות. We know that מלאכת שבת הוצאה is שינוי רשות. Lichorah this is not a שינוי רשות. Why not? You started in רשות היחיד and you finished in רשות היחיד, so not שינוי רשות. Comes the גזירת הכתוב and says this is a melachah. This is also called שינוי רשות, that the when you did this you actually changed the רשות, it's called changing the רשות. That's one way to learn, and that's why you're chayav, the Torah tells you you're chayav because שינוי רשות. Or you could say the Torah didn't say the גזירת הכתוב is not that this is a שינוי רשות, the גזירת הכתוב is that if you do this you are chayav. Put it in other words, the the classical words that every by shiurim that's what everyone say uses the words, is this גזירת הכתוב to tell you a din in the gavra or a din in the chafza? Now here chafza doesn't mean the object, chafza means the רשות. Did the גזירת הכתוב tell you that this is called שינוי רשות? It's a din in the רשות. Normally without the גזירת הכתוב, without the Torah using the word melachah, I wouldn't think it's a שינוי רשות, because you're starting in רשות היחיד and finishing in רשות היחיד, that's not שינוי רשות. Zagt the גזירת הכתוב that this place, this melachah, this is called a שינוי רשות. Or you could learn like it's on the gavra, it doesn't tell you anything about the רשות. Like every גזירת הכתוב, it tells you a person who does this, if not for the pasuk I wouldn't think he's chayav, comes the pasuk and says you're chayav, it's a melachah and you're chayav. It's a din that a person is chayav. Lichorah it sounds the same, and who cares which words we're going to use? Stam, as the Rebbe used to use the לשון אמאל: stam geshpalten geshpalten a hair, take a hair and you split it. What's the point? There has to be a nafka minah. The nafka mina is very simple. Nafka mina is like this: If the גזירת הכתוב tells you that this is called a שינוי רשות, that's what it is, Automatically זורק is the same din. Why? We know that wherever you're not allowed to carry, that's already a given, you're not allowed to throw. That's a klal. You can't do הוצאה, you can't walk out with something, you can't throw. You can't do הכנסה, you can't throw. To throw something is the same thing as carrying it. That we know not over here, bichlal we know זריקה ד' אמות... You can't carry ד' אמות ברשות הרבים, you can't throw ד' אמות. Throwing is the same thing. Here the Torah was מחדש that going through from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד through the רשות הרבים is also called a שינוי רשות. Now we know whenever there's a שינוי רשות you're chayav. And you're chayav sei by hand, sei by throwing. So automatically if the whole גזירת הכתוב is it tells you that this is called a שינוי רשות, so יאלפינן זורק ממושיט, it's pashut! Why is there a difference? It's automatic. Because the moment we know that this is a שינוי רשות, why should throwing be different? Just like throwing הוצאה throwing is חייב, הכנסה throwing is chayav, this is also chayav. If we say the Torah said it, if you pass over from רשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים you're chayav, it's a din on the gavra, it never told you that this is called a שינוי רשות. It's a din on the person, you're not allowed to do it. How do you know you can't throw either? We never said this is called changing רשות. All we know is that wherever there's a שינוי רשות, you cannot throw, you cannot throw from one רשות to another. The Torah never said this is called a שינוי רשות, the Torah says you can't do it. So this will the cat- this will fall under the category of the lashon that we always say, whenever we have a חידוש, אין לך בו אלא חידושו. The chiddush, the Torah is mechadesh a chiddush, you cannot pass over from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד over the רשות הרבים even though it's not שינוי רשות, the Torah never said שינוי רשות. Ai, normally if it's not שינוי רשות why not a melacha? Here the Torah calls it melacha. But then how do you get to זורק? זורק is not. But if you learn the Torah never told you you're chayav in this case, the Torah just says that this is also called a שינוי רשות, וממילא you're chayav because when you pass over a שינוי you're chayav. So what's the חילוק זורק? And that's what Tosafos means Rabbi' Akiva holds.

What Rabbi' Akiva holds זורק דמי טפי למושיט משאר כולהו, it's very simple. What does Tosafos mean, זורק is closer than than other כולהו? Pashut! Not that throwing is very close to passing, farkert, throwing and passing are two different things! But what Tosafos means that Rabbi' Akiva holds that the גזירת הכתוב was that this is called a שינוי רשות. Automatically, without any you don't have to come to anything, throwing would be the same thing! This is the difference between this Rashi and this Tosafos and Tosafos בדף ב'. Tosafos בדף ב' is talking to tell us that there is a issur of throwing. Everybody throwing is completely different than passing. Much different than more different than הכנסה and הוצאה. But that's lechatchilah to compare throwing to passing. So Tosafos says: זריקה לא דמיא, זה ביד, זה בזריקה. So that's when we're trying to say, why didn't the Mishnah tell us the איסור of throwing? Here we're not talking about Here we're talking we know that throwing is asur just like passing. The שאלה is by מושיט is throwing? So if we learn that the גזירת הכתוב is that מושיט over רשות הרבים is also called שינוי רשות, then we don't need anymore, then pashut that זריקה is is very close, is the same, because that we know from before! If you put two and two together: 1 + 1 = 2. If this is called שינוי רשות, so we know that this is called שינוי רשות. We know that throwing wherever שינוי רשות is asur we know that from before, throwing is asur. So automatically you can't throw just like you can't pass. That's what he means. Lechatchilah to come and say how do you know throwing is אסור בכלל, ein hachi nami, that we need a לימוד. You can't say throwing is very close to passing, it's not! But לאחר we know that, that's already after that Gemara, then we know this. And this is the

מחלוקת between Rabbi' Akiva and the Chachamim. If Rabbi' Akiva says יאלפינן זורק ממושיט, Rabbi' Akiva holds that the גזירת הכתוב that the Torah told us that when you pass from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד over is it called a שינוי רשות, that's all the Torah tells us. That's that's how we learn the גזירת הכתוב. To learn that גזירת הכתוב, so automatically יאלפינן זורק ממושיט. It's even more than when Tosafos seems כפשוטו, כפשוטו it means it's such a close לימוד. It's not even a לימוד! You don't even have to learn out זורק ממושיט, it's we call it learning, it's automatic! If מושיט means that the Torah said that רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד over the רשות הרבים is a שינוי רשות, then המשך of זורק is חייב. The רבנן say לא יאלפינן זורק ממושיט. They hold that the גזירת הכתוב is on the גברא. We learned that the Torah made this chidush, that if a person passes from רשות היחיד to Didn't tell us it's שינוי רשות. You're not allowed to do it, and it's a melachah. So if it's not, if it never told us שינוי רשות, and it's a melachah, it's a chidush gadol. סתם on our own to compare זורק to מושיט, we can't compare, because the Torah never mentioned שינוי רשות, so לא ילפינן זורק ממושיט. So this would be the ביאור in these two she'elot, how, what the machloket is between Rabbi Akiva and the רבנן, and how that there's no setirah to the places before. This is ילפינן זורק ממושיט. And again, it's based on this nekudah: what is the chidush of מושיט? Is the חידוש שינוי רשות, or the chidush is the din? In that גופא, whatever way the chidush will be in these two, there's another chakirah. We could go חקירה בתוך חקירה בתוך חקירה. There's

another chakirah, another she'elah: what is the גזירת הכתוב? In whichever way, whether it's שינוי רשות or the din, but what is it, what did the גזירת הכתוב tell us? Did the גזירת הכתוב tell us that when you pass over another רשות, something else, I don't know if we call it the word רשות, but you pass over another, let's not use the word רשות, let's use the word domain, you pass over another domain, you're a חייב, or if you pass over the מקום פטור, you're a חייב? You hear the vort? You could learn that what we learn out from the גזירת הכתוב of מושיט is the pshat that the Torah is mechadesh that if you pass over from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד over a מקום פטור, למעלה מ-י' is a מקום פטור, over a מקום פטור you are חייב. חייב because that's called שינוי רשות, or that's חייב because you are חייב for doing that, whichever way. But it's over a מקום פטור. Or you could say not like that. It's not that we're carrying over מקום פטור, carrying over another רשות. If you can't, even though it's from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד, but since you passed over another רשות, it's also called שינוי רשות, or also you're חייב, whichever way we're going to learn. So again, what is the chakirah here? The chakirah is: is the גזירת הכתוב that if you pass from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד over a מקום פטור you're חייב, or over another רשות you're חייב? What's the nafka mina between these two ways? Call it whatever you want, the nafka mina will be very simple. What about למטה מ-י'? That's where it's going to be nafka mina, so it's a different chakirah than the chakirah before. If you say that גזירת הכתוב is like if you carry from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד over a מקום פטור, you're chayav, but under י', which is not a מקום פטור, you're not chayav. Where do we get that you're chayav? If you say that if you carry over from רשות היחיד, or over that area is because you carried over a different domain, a רשות הרבים, a רשות הרבים is more other domain than the מקום פטור. So if carrying over a מקום פטור you're chayav, carrying over למטה מ-י', which is not a מקום פטור, which is a רשות הרבים, אדרבה, חייב. So that's a different she'eilah. So the she'eilah, now I'm explaining the sevara in the she'eilah whether you learn out למטה מ-י' from למעלה מ-י'. The origin of מושיט is למעלה מ-י'. We learn, we're trying to think למטה מ-י' also. This is the sevara: if the גזירת הכתוב was, and it's not the same chakirah as before, which was if ילפינן זורק ממושיט, it's a different chakirah, was the לימוד so, based on the fact it's a גזירת הכתוב, was the גזירת הכתוב that when you pass from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד over מקום פטור you're chayav, have to be over מקום פטור. That's called שינוי רשות or that's the time when you're chayav. Anything which is not a מקום פטור, למטה מ-י' is not a מקום פטור, so רשות הרבים, you're takeh not chayav. If the vort is when you passed over from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד over a different thing, you're chayav, since it went over this area, it's a different thing, so since there was a הפסק in between, that's the vort, when is it not a melachah? If you take from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד without a הפסק. If you have a הפסק in between, you are chayav. So if מקום פטור is called a הפסק, רשות הרבים would vadai be called a הפסק. So then vadai you're chayav. Huh? Why wouldn't it be a kal vachomer the other way around? A kal vachomer? It's... It's not the word, it's not because הפסק רשות, I'm saying it's the vort, I'll explain it more in detail soon, even these words a bit better. This way is the Torah told us if you go over a מקום פטור. And now I'll explain soon why, a מקום... So if you think it's a מקום פטור, otherwise אין לך בו אלא חידושו, you can't go anything else. If you say the vort is not מקום פטור, just happened to be a מקום פטור, but it's another, there's a הפסק in between, that's the whole vort. When is it רשות היחיד, רשות היחיד not chayav when there's no Yeah, and not when there's no הפסק. If there's a הפסק, you're chayav. So anything it's a הפסק. Forget about if you kal vachomer, no kal vachomer. Any הפסק. If the vort is הפסק, מקום פטור is a הפסק, and this is also a הפסק. But another way, it's not the word הפסק. If you go over a מקום פטור, you're chayav, and if it's not a מקום פטור not. And that will be the yesod to these two ways whether מושיט למטה מיו״ד is chayav. If you say the vort is the גזירת הכתוב is that if you go from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד with a hefsek, you're chayav, so למטה מיו״ד is also a hefsek. Not a הפסק, רשות הרבים. If you say the vort is not hefsek, but the vort is from רשות היחיד שיש עובר מקום פטור, then למטה מיו״ד not. But I want to go into details to explain this takeh more, which will be more לקרב אל השכל. And this is connected to something we've been mentioning many times, mention it now again and maybe now go more into the details of that sevara. We

had a chakira that I've spoken about a few times already, בנוגע what is the geder of a מקום פטור? Is a מקום פטור a reshut, but a reshut that's patur, or is a מקום פטור not a reshut? That's a she'eilah we had. שאלות לשונות, remember we brought לשונות from the Gemara? Here it's משמע ד׳ רשויות לשבת, מקום פטור is a reshut. Other places משמע it's not a reshut, Rashi it's not, whatever. That's the she'eilah: Is מקום פטור a reshut? We have a reshut of רשות היחיד, רשות הרבים, and we have a מקום פטור, it's a reshut. The difference is, this is רשות היחיד שאדם חייב, and מקום פטור is a reshut that you're patur. Came the רבנן and they added a רשות within the מקום פטור. They took some of the cases of a מקום פטור, and they added that it becomes a כרמלית. That's how we have ד׳ רשויות לשבת: רשות היחיד, רשות הרבים, and כרמלית and מקום פטור. Or you could say no, בעצם מקום פטור is not a it's not a רשות בכלל. She'eilah how the Gemara uses the לשון of רשויות, good, that's a לשון שאלה. But it's not a it's not a it's not a רשות. And if you remember, I explained what the מלאכה of הוצאה is. Is the מלאכה מוציא מרשות לרשות? If מקום פטור is a רשות, you cannot say that the מלאכה is you can't carry from רשות to רשות. It's not true, cuz there is one רשות you could carry. So what will be the peshat there in the מלאכה? What can't you carry? From רשות היחיד to רשות הרבים. הכנסה is because we compare, רשות היחיד the other way the same way. But you can't say the מלאכה is you can't carry from רשות to רשות. If you say מקום פטור is no רשות, then you can say the מלאכה is you can't carry from רשות to רשות. If there is a place you could carry, that's not a רשות! And if you remember, just a bit, I said that this is בנוגע whether הכנסה is an אב or הכנסה is a תולדה, don't know if you remember or not, remember it now, it wasn't the test, that might be go on. Just let me finish this vort. If you say the issur is מוציא מרשות לרשות, what's hachnasah? What is it? Also an אב! Same thing. The word The אב מלאכה on דף ע״ג of hotzaah is המוציא מרשות לרשות. Doesn't say מרשות היחיד לרשות הרבים. This means whichever way. And that's the melachah. Any reshut, from any reshut to any reshut, you're chayav. מקום פטור is not a reshut, that's why you're not chayav. If you and ממילא הכנסה is the same thing as hotzaah, cuz there's no din of hotzaah, the דין מרשות לרשות, from רשות היחיד to רשות הרבים or רשות הרבים to רשות היחיד. If you learn מקום פטור is a reshut, you can't say the melachah is, even though the lashon in the Mishnah is like that, but you can't say the melachah is מוציא מרשות לרשות, cuz there is a reshut which is not chayav. I'm not We're talking about the lashon. I'm not talking about why. Talking about what the lashon is. No, so that's not part of it. The the the melachah is not מרשות לרשות, the melachah is רשות היחיד, רשות הרבים, and You're excluding it, then it's not part of it. No, that means why make it say it and exclude it? Lechatchilah don't say it. So obviously not. Lechatchilah not. So according to this, what's hachnasah? The melachah is רשות היחיד to רשות הרבים, הכנסה is מה לי אפוקי מה לי עיולי, it's the same, so mimela we make a toleda. But the bottom line what I'm trying to bring out is one thing, that there are two ways to learn: Is a מקום פטור a רשות, אלא מאי you're patur, or is מקום פטור not a רשות בכלל? Yeah. The Mishnah over there says that there's that there's ד׳ רשויות. But does it say specific number or not? Cuz if it does, then it's three. It says ד׳, on דף ו׳. In דף ו׳, it says: ד׳ רשויות לשבת. From that לשון is I'm saying, there are different לשונות in Gemara and Rashi and Tosafot which mashma one way, mashma another way. This is mashma that it is a רשות, yeah. From this לשון: ד׳ רשויות לשבת, it's mashma it is a רשות. We'll see that in a minute. But this is the chakira here. Now, based on this she'eila, we'll see whether we can learn out מושיט למטה מי' which is a what למטה מי'? רשות הרבים, can we learn that out from from the למעלה מי' which is a מקום פטור? And be'emet, you could say two opposite ways here, and they both will make sense, but you could say it all based upon this same chakira. If you learn that מקום פטור is not a רשות, so you could say like this: the fact that you can't carry over a מקום פטור, you could say, you know why? That's called a real hefsek, because in between you have something that's not a רשות. But something that's a רשות is not such a big hefsek, because it has a lot in common. It has in common, רשות היחיד and the רשות הרבים have a lot in common, they're both רשויות. So if the Torah we know told us that you can't carry from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד with a הפסק of a מקום פטור, we could say it means only מקום פטור. You can't learn out that if it has a הפסק of רשות הרבים it's the same din. Because a מקום פטור is a real הפסק. Why? It's not a רשות. Since it's not a רשות, so it's the complete opposite thing of the רשות היחיד. So when you have רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד with a thing in the middle which is mamash a space which is complete not even a רשות, that's a הפסק. How do you know that the same thing would be if it goes over the רשות הרבים? Even though רשות הרבים is different than רשות היחיד, but after all it has in common, it's also a רשות. So you could say like this, if the מקום פטור is a no-רשות, we cannot learn out למטה מי' from למעלה מי'. If מקום פטור is also a רשות, oh, then it's the same thing. Just like there's a הפסק of a מקום פטור which is a רשות and it's called that there is a melachah because you're going over רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד with a הפסק of a רשות, so רשות הרבים also. As a matter of fact, if if מקום פטור is a רשות, רשות הרבים is a harbeh stronger רשות. It's a רשות that you're even chayav. So that's adrabah. So that there would could be the two ways that we can learn the she'eilah whether למטה מי' could be learned out from למעלה מי'. That if you say מקום פטור is a רשות, is not a רשות, you cannot learn out למטה מי' from למעלה מי'. If מקום פטור is a רשות, and you're chayav, so למטה מי' you're also chayav, maybe vadai chayav. If you want, you could say lehefech, you could say punkt farkert. If מקום פטור is a רשות, but a רשות that you're patur, that's worse. A רשות that you're patur is more opposite than a רשות that you're chayav. You can look at that way. If it's not a רשות, then you could say this is not a רשות, and you're chayav. רשות הרבים, which is a רשות, is vadai chayav. It's a רשות that you're chayav. Actually, there's a לשון in Gemara, מינה in Menachot, מינה מחרב בה דלאו מינה לא מחרב בה. Something that's the same מין and it's the opposite, it's that'll ruin it more than something that's out the out, that's not שייך. מינה, if it's from its מין, it could spoil it. So if it's a רשות, if רשות if if מקום פטור is a רשות, and you're chayav because that's called a הפסק, רשות הרבים is vadai. If it's not a רשות, you could say that's a הפסק and the other one's not a הפסק. So you can learn both ways, but whichever but either way you're going to say that the מחלוקת between the שאלה or מחלוקת הראשונים whether למטה מי' is learned out from למעלה מי' depends on this, whether מקום פטור is a רשות or מקום פטור is not a רשות, and whichever way you're going to go to learn it out. Now, like I said, we're going to get a little bit into this inyan of whether מקום פטור is a רשות or not a רשות, where based on this we find other inyanim in beginning of Shabbos which will be explained based on these two sides.

One thing we explained once before, if you remember just to mention it derech agav because I don't want to repeat the whole thing, when the Gemara has a she'eilah did a hand become a כרמלית? Remember? So the Gemara's לשון, the way Rashi's גירסא is, מי קנסוה, did they make a קנס that the hand should become a כרמלית? Tosafos's גירסא is, מי אסרוה, did they make an issur? And remember I explained that מי אסרוה means it became means a regular כרמלית. You made it asur like a regular כרמלית. מי קנסוה doesn't mean it's a regular כרמלית. It's a it's a different type of כרמלית. It's a כרמלית because of a קנס, not a real כרמלית. And I said this is depended on this. If you learn מקום פטור is not a רשות, nevertheless, there are certain things in a מקום פטור that the Chachamim made a כרמלית, right? What's a כרמלית? A כרמלית is not a רשות היחיד, not a רשות הרבים. So what is it mid'oraita? A מקום פטור. Came the Rabbanan and said that this type of מקום פטור is a רשות called כרמלית. So, if a מקום פטור is not a רשות, that means that the Rabbanan made from not a רשות into a רשות. That's what they did. They made from a place which is a מקום פטור מדאורייתא, and they changed it, they transformed it into a כרמלית, into a רשות. If you learn that a מקום פטור is a רשות, do you find anywhere where the Rabbanan made from a not a רשות into a רשות? You don't find such a thing. Here we're talking about a יד. A יד is not a רשות. הכל מודים, there is no question not a רשות. The Gemara's question is did it become a כרמלית? So, if you if you want to make it a כרמלית, that means the question is, did the Rabbanan make from not a רשות to a רשות? Where do we find such a thing? Do we find ever that the Rabbanan took from not a רשות to make a רשות? If you hold מקום פטור is not a רשות, sure we find. Every כרמלית is that. Every כרמלית they took from not a רשות to a רשות. So, why can't they do the same thing by a hand? And that's exactly what Tosafos learns. Tosafos learns that a מקום פטור is not a רשות. B'meila when they made a מקום פטור, certain מקום פטור's into a כרמלית, they made from a not a רשות a רשות. So, Tosafos says, the same thing could be by a יד. They made the יד, which is not a רשות, into a רשות. Rashi will learn that the מקום פטור is a רשות. So, when the רבנן made from a מקום פטור to a כרמלית, they never we don't find anywhere where they switched from no רשות to a רשות. So, Rashi says, how could you say a יד becomes a כרמלית? A יד is not a רשות. We don't find such a thing that the רבנן took from no רשות to a רשות. So, Rashi says this is not a regular כרמלית. This is a כרמלית מחמת קנס. It's it's a different type of כרמלית. A כרמלית depending on a קנס, but not a real כרמלית. So, Rashi has to be גורס קנסוה. Rashi can't learn אסרוה, which means that it's a regular כרמלית, because Rashi learns the מקום פטור is a רשות, so we have no place where we find no רשות a רשות, we can't make from a יד, which is no רשות, a רשות. And Tosafot learns that a מקום פטור is not a is not a רשות, so every מקום every כרמלית they did that, so they could do it here too. That's one of the things we said before. But there's another place, another Tosafot, which we understood based on this. And that's Tosafot דעו״ף. At the

עו״ף, the Gemara says ארבע רשויות לשבת. What are the four רשויות? רשות היחיד, רשות הרבים, כרמלית, ומקום פטור. Comes Tosafos and says, קשיא להרשב״א, ליתני ה׳ רשויות. I have a fifth רשות the Gemara could have mentioned. And what is that? קרפף יותר מבית סאתים שלא הוקף לדירה. הזורק מרשות הרבים לתוכו או איפכא, חייב. אם איתלטל בד׳ אמות. There's another din here. And that is a קרפף, if you have an open area, open area like the yard here, and it's bigger than two סאה, and it has a wall around it, a complete wall around it, but it wasn't walled in order to live there. It was made for a playground. It's a נוגע להלכה to other places which we have. It's made for not to live in. What din does that area have? The pshat's what din is it? It's a רשות היחיד. It's four walls, more than 10 טפחים high. Inside, it's a רשות היחיד. Came the רבנן, and they said, yes, it's definitely a רשות היחיד, במילא and therefore, if someone will throw from a רשות הרבים into it, what will be the din? You'll be chayav, not just asur, you'll be chayav. It's a regular רשות היחיד.

Nevertheless, you cannot carry inside, like a רשות הרבים. The רבנן made a גזירה that since it's not made לדירה, and it's a very big place, so you can't carry inside. Now, this is a new thing that we don't have in any of the other four. See, a רשות היחיד you can carry you're chayav if you throw inside, but you're allowed to carry inside. רשות הרבים, you're not allowed to carry inside, and if you walk carried ד׳ אמות, you'll be chayav. If you carry ד׳ אמות in this קרפף, you won't be chayav. It's asur, but you won't be chayav. A regular כרמלית you're not chayav anyway in any whatever you do. מקום פטור, you're patur. There's no other רשות that has this משונה דין that it's a רשות היחיד that you're chayav. See, a כרמלית also you can't throw in, you can't throw out. You can't carry ד' אמות. But in none of them you're chayav. Here, if you throw inside from רשות הרבים, you are chayav. And the same thing, it has a din like a רשות הרבים. It has a din like a רשות הרבים. So, it's a new a new type of of of רשות. So,

Tosafos says, \"Here is a new רשות.\" What is Tosafos's answer? ויש לומר, דהיא רשות היחיד גמור. It's not a new רשות. Really, it's a רשות היחיד. אלא ענין דאין מטלטלין בו אלא בד' אמות, but the fact that you can't carry inside more than ד' אמות, עשו ככרמלית. It's like a כרמלית. So, really, what is it? A combination of a רשות היחיד and a כרמלית. והרי כבר שנה רשות היחיד וכרמלית. Among the four, you have a רשות היחיד, you have a כרמלית, so it's mentioned. And this is a little bit like a רשות היחיד and a little bit like a כרמלית, ממילא it's mentioned already. The she'elah is, what was the hava amina and what's the maskana? The hava amina, Tosafos knew that it's a כרמלית, that it's a רשות היחיד really. Tosafos knew that. והא ראיה, if you throw into it, you're chayav, like when you throw into a רשות היחיד. Tosafos knew that the fact that you can't carry inside is like a כרמלית. Nevertheless, Tosafos had a kashya. Why don't we consider it a separate רשות? And I understand why, cuz even though it's a combination of two רשויות, but since there's a din in this רשות that doesn't apply to any other reshuyot, so it has a special geder. And so Tosafot asked that af al pi I know it's a reshut hayachid, partially reshut hayachid, partially karmelit, nevertheless, I think it should be four it should be a fifth reshut. So what's Tosafot's teretz? Because it's really a reshut hayachid and a karmelit. But we knew that before! What changed from the hava amina to the maskana? What is the sevara that first we thought that because it has a different din, even though we know it's a karmelit and a reshut hayachid, but because there's a new din on this area, it should be considered a separate reshut, and the maskana is that no, it's not called a separate reshut. Why not? Because it has the dinim of the two reshuyot. Good, we knew that before, and we asked! And then Tosafot adds the same thing is חצר שלא עירבו. If you have a yard that you didn't make an eruv, you can't carry there either. Why don't we count it? Because it's really a reshut hayachid. Ai, you can't carry, it's like a karmelit, but what's the pshat? So the pshat is like this. The hava amina and the maskana is dependent on what we just said before. Whether a makom patur is a reshut, but it's a reshut that's patur, or makom patur is not a reshut. The hava amina of Tosafot was that makom patur is a reshut. Makom patur is a reshut. So what happened here? In this case, so let's go first, every karmelit. If makom patur is a reshut, what happened by every karmelit? Makom patur is a reshut. And when the rabbanan said that a karmelit, that some of the makom patur's have a din of a karmelit and you can't carry there, what did the rabbanan say? They really

made a a new din of a reshut here? It's a reshut anyway. What they made, they made an issur. What they did was they made on this reshut, which is a reshut anyway, they made an issur. And because they made an issur, we call it a new reshut. That's why we have four reshuyot. Mide'oraita, we have only three. Mide'oraita, we are if makom patur is a רשות מדאורייתא, we have three reshuyot: יחיד, רבים, מקום פטור. Came the rabbanan, said we have four reshuyot. They gave it this karmelit a new name. What happened, they gave a karmelit a new name? They didn't make a new din of reshut. They made an issur. That's all they did. Because before they made the issur, it was also a reshut, if you hold makom patur is a reshut. So there's a it's a reshut. It's a reshut that's mutar. Came the rabbanan and they made an issur. Because the rabbanan made this issur, they call it a new name, it's a new reshut. So now we have four. When it says ד' reshuyot, even though באמת מדאורייתא there are three, one of the three, partially, the chachamim a certain case they made it asur, and because they took a reshus which was mutar and they made it asur, all they changed was the issur, and that issur turned it into a new name. That's why we have four reshuyot. Frekt Tosafot a very good kashya. The same thing happened here. I know that this קרפף is what? This קרפף is a reshus from before. It's not a extra reshus. It's a רשות היחיד and it's a and and it's a and it's a כרמלית. But bepo'al the chachamim made a new issur here. It's a new din. We see from this, from the fact that chachamim made a a כרמלית and they called it a reshus, a siman that when the rabbanan took a reshus and they added an issur or they changed the the din, automatically gets a name of a new reshus. That's what happened by a כרמלית. So this should also be the same.

Bepo'al, there is no new reshus here. Tosafot in the hava amina knew there is no new reshus. A קרפף didn't become a new reshus. It has a new issur. So Tosafot Tosafot says, what do you mean? If it has a new issur, that's called a new reshus, so we should have a fifth reshus? Where do we see a new issur has a new reshus, is called a reshus? Every כרמלית is like that. Every כרמלית, the rabbanan didn't make a new רשות. It was a רשות from before. But because it got an איסור, it's called a new רשות, so the same thing should be here. What's the maskana of Tosafos? מקום פטור is not a רשות. So what happened here, what the Rabbanan made a כרמלית like into a separate רשות, is because they changed from no רשות to a רשות. But in a case where it was originally a רשות, and all it changed was the איסור, that we could not give a new name. That's what Tosafos says. Be'etzem, it has a name of רשות, רשות היחיד, it has a כרמלית. אלא מאי, it has a new דין. Where do we find that by having a new דין, it should be called a new רשות? We don't find that. Ah, a כרמלית is called a new רשות? That's not because it changed the דין only. They changed the רשות, because מקום פטור is not a רשות. So it comes out that the hava amina and the maskana of Tosafos is, the hava amina was that מקום פטור is a רשות and the maskana is not. So if you learn like that, this goes לשיטתו to Tosafos on דף on דף ג' עמוד ב'. דף ג' עמוד ב' we said what does Tosafos say? That for גזירה סתורה. Why are we גזירה סתורה? Because מקום פטור is not a reshut, and the chachamim made from not a reshut to a reshut. The same maskana is here also. That the reason why Tosafot says you cannot call this a new reshut because מקום פטור is not a reshut, and they changed from not a reshut to a reshut, that's called a reshut. But from a reshut to another reshut, that they don't call a new reshut. So that fits this inyan. Then there's another inyan, I'll just bekitzur, which is also talui whether מקום פטור is a reshut or not. And that is on דף ז'. So instead of going דף ז' and everything going to the Gemara, I'll just read Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch. If you don't mind, give me Alter Rebbe's שולחן ערוך של שבת. There the Alter Rebbe makes it there are two shitot, like it's a Rashi and it's a Ran, like דף ז'. But the Alter Rebbe pashut brings the two shitot very simple, and I'll tell you by heart what the two shitot are. If you have a karmelit, an area which is a karmelit, like a midbar, karmelit, in the karmelit you have sticking out a stick which is not ד' על ד', what is that? Nu? What happens in a reshut harabim if you have a stick that's sticking out over three, but it's not ד' על ד'? It's a מקום פטור. If you have in a karmelit something like that, what's the din? So l'chorah it should be the same thing! Since it's not ד' על ד' and it's sticking out, it's a מקום פטור. So we have here in סימן שמה, two שיטות. Here, סעיף כ\"ה. No, could be a כרמלית, could be a כרמלית on its own. Like a מדבר is a כרמלית, a ים is a כרמלית, you can have a כרמלית. Here. Here. כרמלית is a מקום פטור מדאורייתא. Okay, let's see. If you have sticking out in the כרמלית, says, אבל דבר מסויים כגון ראש העמוד העומד בכרמלית, if you have a עמוד, on top of the עמוד, אם יש בו ד' על ד', that's pashut. What happens if it has ד' על ד'? If it's higher than 10, it's a רשות היחיד. אם אין בו ד' על ד' אף למטה מעשרה אינה כרמלית אלא מקום פטור, because if it's not ד' על... ויש אומרים שאין מקום פטור בכרמלית. In a כרמלית, there's no such thing as a מקום פטור. אלא ברשות הרבים, you could have a מקום פטור. אבל בכרמלית אנו אומרים מצא מין את מינו וניעור. The מין found its own מין. דהיינו, מקום פטור מצא את הכרמלית, the מקום פטור is in the כרמלית, it found the כרמלית, and what's a כרמלית בעצם? מקום פטור. שהוא מיניה, שהוא גם כן מקום פטור מן התורה, וניעור, it gets mixed, ונתחזק אותו המין להצטרף עמו. So a מקום פטור in a כרמלית, automatically it's a כרמלית, ולהיות כמוהו. ולכן כל דבר שאין בו ד' על ד' שאינו חלק רשות לעצמו, anything that's not ד' על ד' which is not its own רשות, on the רשות היחיד, בטל הוא אצל הכרמלית ונעשה כמוהו אם הוא למטה מעשרה. למעלה מעשרה, then it's a מקום פטור because there's no כרמלית למעלה מעשרה. But למטה מעשרה, since it's a כרמלית, we say מצא מין את מינו וניעור because the מקום פטור met up with the כרמלית, and the כרמלית בעצם is a מקום פטור and the חכמים made it a כרמלית, so this מקום פטור becomes part of that מקום פטור and it all becomes כרמלית. And the first shita holds not. The first shita holds no, you could have a מקום פטור. And we do not say מצא מין את מינו. Had it been more than ארבע? Huh? And had it been ארבע? Then it's לכתחילה כרמלית. And למעלה מעשרה or למטה מעשרה? Huh? למעלה. Then it's pashut a רשות היחיד. It's a רשות היחיד. And למטה מעשרה it's certainly a כרמלית because it's always a כרמלית, solid. The question is if it's למטה מעשרה and it's less than ד' על ד' which is ordinarily a מקום פטור, in a כרמלית it can't be. Why? Because so he says they're the same מין and they mix, and he says not. So the nekudah I'm trying to say is here, the machloket whether it's the same מין or not is תלוי whether מקום פטור is a רשות or not. And I'll say it pashut in three words to finish on time. If a

מקום פטור is not a רשות, and what happened when the Chachamim made a כרמלית? What did they do? They made, from no רשות, they switched it to become a רשות. So you know what happens? So מקום פטור and כרמלית now are different: מקום פטור is not a רשות, and כרמלית is a רשות, so it's not מין במינו. If the מקום פטור is a רשות, so what happened when the Chachamim made a כרמלית also, you know what they did? They made it אסור, but בעצם the רשות is the same. If it's the same רשות, so it's מצא מין את מינו, in simple words. So when the Ran says, this is the Ran, that מצא מין את מינו, מקום פטור in a כרמלית, because he will hold that a מקום פטור is a רשות, and a כרמלית is the same רשות. There's a new din, we call it a fourth רשות, but it's all, the difference is only what the din is. But the מהות is the same, and therefore מצא מין את מינו. But the Rosh who says that in a כרמלית you have a מקום פטור and he doesn't agree with מצא מין את מינו, he's pashut. He says כרמלית is, מקום פטור is not a רשות, כרמלית is a רשות, so became, the Chachamim made it into a new מין. So why would you say מצא מין את מינו? The whole reason is because it's be'etzem the same thing. This is a מקום פטור, so what? It's not the same thing, the Chachamim switched it, so it's not מצא מין את מינו. So it comes out that this machloket is also another machloket which is based on this she'elah, whether a מקום פטור is a רשות or not. And there are many more machlokot which we will get to other times throughout the dapim. I didn't understand the last thing that you said. Last thing, I think, was easy. The whole she'elah is does a, is the מקום פטור and the כרמלית the same מין? Right. I'm saying if מקום פטור is a רשות and it's the same מין, then there's no such thing as a מקום פטור in a כרמלית. So then it's, no, then the, there's no such thing as a מקום פטור in a כרמלית because מצא מין את מינו. But if you hold that a מקום פטור is not a רשות, אלא מאי, כרמלית is a רשות, so the Chachamim made it into a new מין, so it's not מצא מין את מינו.

Do you have a ticket? For what? For the bus.