here in the Gemara in Shabbos, דף ד עמוד א going into דף ד עמוד ב, we have a machloket in Gemara whether ילפינן זורק ממושיט. A what? I'll explain that. We're talking about the melachah of carrying, how to carry on Shabbos. Now the melachah of carrying on Shabbos includes many halachot. One halachah is called הוצאה, you're not allowed to take out from a רשות היחיד to a רשות הרבים, from a private domain to a public domain. You're not allowed to do הכנסה. הכנסה is taking in from a public to a private. Then in the רשות הרבים itself, in the public domain, you're not allowed to carry ד׳ אמות, not allowed to carry something four אמות. Then there's another melachah within the same family called מושיט. Now this melachah of מושיט is that you're not allowed to take something from a רשות היחיד to a רשות היחיד, start in a רשות היחיד, pick it up in a רשות היחיד, put it down in another רשות היחיד, רשות הרבים באמצע, in the middle there is a רשות הרבים. And this

also is only in a certain case: if you have a רשות הרבים and you have two רשות היחידs across each other and you carry from one to the other, you're not chayav. If they're next to each other and the רשות הרבים is in the middle, then you're chayav. Why? Miderabbanan also, although you can't go across the street though. You can't, that's miderabbanan, but מדר- miderabbanan? No. Miderabbanan could. No, but miderabbanan this you can't, even if it's across, but you're not chayav. How are they next to each other and there's a רשות הרבים between them? Right. How are they next to each other? There is a רשות הרבים here, and sticking out into the רשות הרבים is two porches. And in this case, and if you carry from one to the other, you're chayav. Why? Because that's how it was in the Mishkan. In the Mishkan they had the agalot, the wagons, and the whole area was a רשות הרבים, because of so many people were there. They had the wagons set up next to each other, and the Leviim used to take the kerashim, some of the boards, from one wagon to another. And the wagons were next to each other, not like across. So come so what happened there? So they would carry from one wagon to the other, which is a רשות היחיד to a רשות היחיד, and in the middle there was a רשות הרבים. They're not next to each other if there's separation. No, no, I don't mean next pulling, I mean side-by-side rather than parallel, that's what I mean, rather than across, that's what I mean next, not next touching each other, there was a רשות הרבים in the midst, middle. Also, in the in the רשות הרבים, in the midbar, the way it was, when they carried from the רשות היחיד to the רשות היחיד over the רשות הרבים, it was higher than 10 tefachim off the ground, because the wagons were רשות היחיד. In order to be a רשות היחיד, you have to be 10 tefachim over. So when they took from one רשות היחיד to another, it was over 10 tefachim. Now we

have a din that the רשות הרבים is only up asara tefachim. The רשות הרבים, the street, a רשות הרבים only goes to 10 tefachim. On top, למעלה מיו״ד, on top of 10 tefachim is not a רשות הרבים. What is it? It's a מקום פטור. We know that one of the domains, one of the reshuyot is called a מקום פטור, a place that you're lechatchilah allowed to So, over anything in the רשות הרבים over 10 tefachim is not a רשות הרבים, it's a מקום פטור. Nevertheless, the din is that when they carried from a רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד above 10 tefachim over the רשות הרבים, it was above 10 tefachim. So, therefore, the halachah of מושיט, this melachah of מושיט is when you carry it from here That's the original melachah, from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד over the רשות הרבים over 10 טפחים. That's the original דין. Even though over 10 טפחים is a מקום פטור. That's a מושיט. If to be under 10 טפחים is מטלטל? What? No, no. If you go in the רשות הרבים itself No, if if you're if you're doing it The same, we'll see in a second. We'll see. The original דין, the way the way the things were in the משכן, which ממילא this is the source of our דין of מושיט, is over 10 טפחים. The

שאלה, מחלוקת in Gemara is whether we learn out זורק ממושיט. זורק is throwing. What happens if you do the same thing, but you didn't pass it, but you threw it? We know that all the מלאכות of carrying, just like you're not allowed to carry, you're not allowed to throw. For instance, just like you can't carry something from the private to the public, from רשות היחיד to רשות הרבים, you can't throw. Just like you can't carry from the public to the private, you can't throw. Just like you can't carry ד׳ אמות in רשות הרבים, you can't walk and carry something ד׳ אמות and pick it up and walk and put it down, huh, you can't throw ד׳ אמות in רשות הרבים. Throwing is the same thing as carrying. So the question Huh? It's the same as putting down. No, no, no, the same as carrying. Where does the putting down come into it? Right, because any מלאכה, only to be חייב, whichever one it is, you have to start off, pick it up and put it down. So when you Throw also you put it down, because it landed. Throwing is putting down? Right, you picked it up, and when you throw it, it lands, you put it down. So there's עקירה and הנחה. So זריקה is also The question is, by מושיט, if you do the same thing as מושיט, but not passing it, but throwing it, so there's a מחלוקת in the Gemara here.

Rabbi Akiva says ילפינן זורק ממושיט, ילפינן means we learn out throwing from passing, just like passing from רשות היחיד to a רשות היחיד over the רשות הרבים you are חייב, so too throwing you're חייב. And the רבנן say לא ילפינן זורק ממושיט. We do not learn out throwing from passing. Passing you're not allowed. If passing you're not allowed, throwing is not is not מדאורייתא you're allowed מדאורייתא. You're allowed miDe'oraita, yeah, miDe'oraita you're allowed, yeah. That's So, that's the machloket. Now, Tosafot here asked a she'eilah. Tosafot asked, look at the time, why would there be a sevara? Hm? Mayer said they had to go to a bar mitzvah or just Oh. Why does רבי עקיבא hold that we learn out זורק ממושיט? What does זורק ממושיט mean? We compare them. The original din is only מושיט. We use our sechel, and we say, \"Well, this is very similar, so we learn it out.\" Which basically is like a toldah. We know that we

have 39 melachot, 39 types of work. They're all called אבות מלאכות. And then, these are the 39 that happened to be in the Mishkan. Then each one of these 39 has toldot, children, has offsprings. How do we get to these toldot? Well, we The Chachamim said when we see other things which are very, very similar to this original one, so they're in the same category, so they're also part of that melachah, they're called toldot. Tosafot explained on דף ו׳ עמוד א׳ that by all the 38 melachot, besides carrying, besides הוצאה, the toldot are based on our sechel. By הוצאה, you can't just decide because it makes sense that it's the same to make it into a toldah to be chayav. The toldot themselves have to be found in the Mishkan. Why? So Tosafot said because הוצאה is a מלאכה גרועה. Means הוצאה is a very weak melachah. It doesn't really have the quality of a melachah. All the other melachot have the quality of change. You do something, things you created, so to speak. We have to rest Shabbat from work like the Eibershter rested from creation. We can't create. Creation in our level, we don't create anything. So anything that you make something new, when you write, you make a word, when you cook, you change, everything has a change. Carrying is no change. All it is, from here to there you took something. That's called a מלאכה גרועה. So therefore, since the whole concept of a melachah of הוצאה is a very weak idea, so we can't on our own decide that something which are similar to it we learn it out. So we can't make up toldot by הוצאה. But we do have toldot by הוצאה. It's all from the Mishkan, because they, those תולדות, were also in the Mishkan. So Tosafot asked a she'eilah, if carrying is a מלאכה גרועה, and therefore we cannot learn out any תולדות, how does Rabbi Akiva say we learn out זורק ממושיט? How does Rabbi Akiva say that we learn out throwing from passing? Lichora it's It makes sense, they seem to be equal, but by תולדות, always stays inside. וכיון דלא הוה במשכן, if carrying was not in the Mishkan, and he proves it was not in the משכן, אמאי מחייב רבי עקיבא? Why does Rabbi Akiva say you're chayav for throw throwing, throwing, I mean. Throwing was not in the Mishkan, throwing from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד over the רשות הרבים. Throwing was not in the Mishkan, so how does he say chayav? Because by תולדות of הוצאה, שהיא מלאכה גרועה, the תולדות, offsprings of הוצאה, which is a weak מלאכה, אין לנו לחייב, we can't make חייב, אלא דוקא אי שכיחא במשכן, only those that were in the משכן, כדפרישית לעיל, like I said earlier, Tosafot said on דף ב׳. There's a practical thing when you're passing something, sometimes you're letting go and the other guy is grabbing it. So, it's almost as if you're I'm letting go. that it's in the air for a second, you know, they're throwing. No, that's passing, not throwing. You're passing, sometimes you're holding it, the guy grabs it, you're still holding it, but sometimes as soon as So what? Maybe I'm just saying maybe So, but there it was מושיט, we don't know that. You got to base it on what was in the Mishkan. In the Mishkan they're always moving They passed. It was מושיט, was was. Yeah. They passed it, they didn't throw it. They didn't throw, yeah, so they didn't throw the boards, they didn't throw the boards. Right, they didn't throw, they passed it, but they passed like one guy Okay, I understand. ויש לומר, so Tosafot answers, דרבי עקיבא סבר, רבי עקיבא holds דזורק דמי טפי למושיט ממה דדמי שאר תולדות להוצאה, that throwing is so close to passing, much closer than any other תולדה to carrying. So even though we said that by הוצאה you can't decide on a תולדה on your own even though they're similar, but something that's so similar as throwing to passing, that we can decide. This is what Rabbi Akiva holds. So the question is, if it's so close the way Tosafot says, why do the רבנן argue? Why do the רבנן say לא ילפינן זורק ממושיט, that we do not learn out You do not learn out throwing from passing. Must be some sevara here. Not so pashut. Good, so that has to be that that's very, you know, obviously they disagree, like, no, but why? What's the sevara behind it? That's one question. Then there's another question. This Tosafos that says that throwing is so close to passing, that we even by הוצאה which is a מלאכה גרועה, we can learn it out. Ah Tosafos says pshat in Rabbi Akiva. So this vort seems to contradict an earlier Tosafos. Tosafos at the on ב' עמוד א', Tosafos says like this: Our Mishnah, the Mishnah in the beginning of the perek talks about the different levels, chiyuvim and peturim of carrying, and all it talks about is הוצאה and הכנסה. It says taking in from רשות היחיד out from רשות היחיד to רשות הרבים, and he's chayav, in certain cases he's patur, standing inside, standing outside, okay. And the same thing with הכנסה, taking in from רשות הרבים to רשות היחיד. Tosafos asks: Why doesn't our Mishnah also talk about throwing? Why doesn't? Yeah. If the Mishnah is telling us all the dinim, it should say also dinim about throwing. So Tosafos: זריקה נמי לא דמי להוצאה. זריקה is very far from from הוצאה. שזה מלאכה ביד וזה בזריקה, פשוט. They're completely different. This is taking by hand and this is throwing. Throwing and a hand is is a different thing, it's altogether different. So he's only talking about the main ones, and things which are like far away, even though you're חייב, the Mishnah doesn't talk about. עיקרו של משנה. Here Tosafos says that זריקה is closer to the מלאכה than any other it's a תולדה. And here Tosafot says, no, here it's talking about הוצאה, here it's but it's the same idea. But the idea is, why? Because whatever הוצאה is, if you throw, it's different. So even though he talks about תולדות, הכנסה is a תולדה, according to Gemara the way Gemara says. הכנסה is not the original מלאכה. Original מלאכה is just from רשות היחיד to רשות הרבים. Bringing in is a תולדה, and he talked about it. Why? Because it's a תולדה that's very close. But throwing, that's not so close, that he doesn't talk about. And here Tosafot says opposite, that throwing is so close, that that that it's closer than any other תולדה. That's one thing you have to see. Yeah, but so that Tosafot is going on according to רבנן? And they're so far apart that they it's comes to two two extremes? Every machloket is in two extremes. This is the best, he says the worst. Usually a machloket is one guy says it's the best, one says it's not the best. But one guy says it's the best, one guy says it's Like, we don't find a machloket, a certain thing, one guy says you're not allowed to do it, and one guy says you must do it. We find one guy says you you're not allowed, one says you are allowed, or one guy says you must, one guy says you don't have to. But מחלוקת כל המחלוקות is סברות הפוכות? A machloket in opposite extremes we don't find. Here, it seems like he says it's the closest, he says it's the furthest! What's the pshat? It seems to be a contradiction. Then there's another she'elah here. We said before that the מלאכה of מושיט, which again is from רשות היחיד passing over to another רשות היחיד over the רשות הרבים, originally the way it was in the Mishkan וממילא that's the original מלאכה, is למעלה מי'. Higher than ten. Tosafot here has a whole discussion: What about למטה מי'? In the משכן it wasn't under י'. But what happens if you carry from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד, and you're passing it under י'? Is it also part of מושיט or not? So there a שאלה in Tosafot back and forth, a whole safek, because the Gemara doesn't say it anywhere. Tosafot is trying to derive from different situations in Gemara to prove yes or no, there's a proof, no proof, go back and forth. And the Rishonim talk about it. But first of all, what are the two sides? I mean, lichorah, do you need a Everything is a hasbarah. But besides that, if Rabbi Akiva Eiger asks, he says, I don't understand what Tosafos is so bothered. Wouldn't this be dependent whether you learn out זורק ממושיט? We said before there is two opinions: One says we learn out throwing from passing, one says not. What's the logic behind it? One guy says that since it's similar, we could learn it out. One guy says since it's not even though it's similar, we can't learn out. Same thing here: Under ten is similar to over ten. So if you say we learn out זורק ממושיט, that means it doesn't have to be exactly the way it was in the Mishkan. So it doesn't have to be exactly on top higher than י'. So למטה מי' would also be chayav. The one that says that we do not learn out זורק ממושיט, what does he say? It has to be exactly like the Mishkan! And so, exact like the Mishkan, so on top of the Mishkan was on top of י', so למטה מי' not. So why is this a separate discussion? Why is this not connected to that same machloket? Isn't it shouldn't it depend? So Tosafos has a she'eilah, yes למטה מי' is chayav, למטה מי' are not, Tosafos should have said: If you learn out according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva that you learn זורק ממושיט, so למטה מי' is also מושיט, and according to the one that says לא ילפינן, that the Chachamim, so למטה מי' would not be chayav. But Tosafos doesn't do that. Tosafos doesn't connect it. It seems like it's two separate inyanim. So what is the biur? It's a toldah of a toldah? Yeah, but is it mazik? No. Mazik is not a toldah. Nafka minah. Toldah? No. מושיט is not a toldah. Nafka minah. I mean a toldah from, from, yeah, but this is a toldah from carrying, yeah, but this is a toldah which is in the, in the Mishkan. It's a direct toladah. It's in the same, here toladah means category. So sure, we learn this out from there and you could have toladot there. But if it's, now we have to learn out, we start, but if it was in the Mishkan we can learn out, but Tosafot says it's mamash the same. So it's not even learning out, it's almost like it includes it. So we'd have to know if it was from the Mishkan or not. Well, מושיט was in the Mishkan for sure. מושיט, but זורק not necessarily not. זורק, definitely not. Okay. But the question is, is it the same? Tosafot says that it's so much the same according to Rabbi Akiva that we can learn out. It's a toladah of a toladah. Yeah, in fact, if you call it a toladah of a toladah, no problem. In the Mishkan, the toladot were like the same as the avot. In the Mishkan they didn't have the toladot, except for, no the Mishkan, the toladot the chachamim said that we see how close they are, so obviously they were included, but in the Mishkan they didn't have... הוצאה, all the toladot happened to be in the Mishkan, otherwise they wouldn't be asur, they wouldn't be chayav, because it's a מלאכה גרועה, and זורק according to Rabbi Akiva that you would learn זורק from, זורק by מושיט, זורק, not זורק from רשות היחיד לרשות הרבים, but זורק, throwing over the רשות הרבים, from רשות היחיד לרשות היחיד, that is so close that we don't need it in the Mishkan anyway. So to explain this we'll go into this nekudah. Not the only one that doesn't put it to the... The Pnei Yehoshua asks a she'eilah: Why is מושיט חייב? Because it was in the Mishkan? Many things were in the Mishkan. You think every little thing that is in the Mishkan becomes a melachah? In the Mishkan they walked. When when we say the Mishkan we have to be know what we're talking about. It means things that they did when they built the Mishkan. Yeah, and built it. So when they built the Mishkan they did a lot of things. I'm sure they put things down from this end and this out. They walked around there. Anything that they did then becomes a melachah? Makes no sense. The Gemara's לשון is כל דהוה במשכן חשיבא. Whatever was in the Mishkan was chashuv. In other words, anything that in the, was in the Mishkan, but it has a certain logic why this should be a melachah, if it was in the Mishkan, we could make it a melachah. Why is taking from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד, even though it goes over the street, why is that a melachah? So it was in the Mishkan, fine! But it starts in רשות היחיד, finishes in רשות היחיד. Mila when you say you find from רשות היחיד to רשות הרבים, רשות הרבים to רשות היחיד, at least there's some kind of idea, it changed רשות. Okay, it's called a מלאכה גרועה, but it's something. But you start with from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד, so pass through רשות הרבים. Why, why is that a melachah, because it was in the Mishkan? So he says a very interesting thing. He answers his own question? Yeah, he answers, it's a fantastic question. And besides, he says, you're going over a מקום פטור. You're going over higher than ten, מקום פטור. Why are you chayav? He says, \"I have a similar question,\" he says. The Gemara says later on that when a person carries something outside, four amot in the street, holding it on his shoulder, is chayav. Why? Higher than ten tefachim? Because כן היה משא בני קהת. Because in the Mishkan they carried the ארון on the shoulders, קהת, the שבט קהת, the the family of קהת, and the Leviyim were very tall, so definitely the ארון was higher than ten טפחים. Since that it was in the משכן like that, the Mishnah says you're חייב. So you have the same she'eilah: Big deal it was in the משכן, but it's higher than ten טפחים, so it does makes no sense. He says, \"I'll tell you what the peshat is. In both of these cases, the Torah refers to it as the word melachah.\" When it speaks about the משכן, the Torah uses the word מלאכה, צד בנוגע the carrying and צד בנוגע the Leviyim. Oh, so it's gezeirat hakatuv. Beside that this happened, and the Torah uses the word melachah on it, it doesn't speak about Shabbos there, but since the Torah uses the word melachah, it's a gezeirat hakatuv. Gezeirat hakatuv means it's a, like, makes no sense takeh, but the Torah decreed that this is a melachah. Oh, that's what the Gemara means! And therefore, the same thing by the

carrying on your shoulders, even though, because the Torah refers to the carrying of the ארון as מלאכה, ממילא when it comes to Shabbos it's a melachah. Oh, so we have from here, from the Pnei Yehoshua, an idea that this whole thing of מושיט is a gezeirat hakatuv. Yeah. Otherwise they wouldn't be חייב, it wouldn't be a melachah. Not because it was in the משכן. It was in the משכן and there's a gezeirat hakatuv that the Torah calls it with the word melachah. The way they call it גרועה, also is גרועה? Yeah. No, but גרועה because the סוף כל סוף the logic isn't there, that's called מלאכה גרועה. Hotzaah is also from a pasuk. Hotzaah is from a pasuk. Why did, farker, why do we need a pasuk, Tosafot says? Because it's a מלאכה גרועה. If not for the pasuk, we wouldn't know it's chayav. The same thing with מושיט, if not for the pasuk, we wouldn't know. But lefo'al the pasuk calls this מלאכה, so it's גזירת הכתוב. Okay. When we say that this is a גזירת הכתוב, the גזירת הכתוב that the Torah teaches us that it's a מלאכה, you could learn in two ways, and that's going to be the machloket between Rabbi Akiva and the chachamim, and that's going to answer the setirah in Tosafot. You could learn like this: the גזירת הכתוב is that even though you started off in רשות היחיד, and you finished in רשות היחיד, and you passed through the top of the רשות הרבים מקום פטור, nevertheless it's a מלאכה. Even though it doesn't the רשות, nevertheless this is called a change. That could be one way. Or you could say the גזירת הכתוב is that if you do this you're chayav. What's the difference, the same thing? The difference is the גזירת הכתוב on the place, or the גזירה's on the person. The second way, the גזירת הכתוב is, a person who does this is over on a מלאכה, that's all. It didn't explain, a גזירת הכתוב is not that the place becomes a place which is, even though it's not a real different רשות, but it's like a different, no no, this makes no sense, this is a רשות היחיד, רשות היחיד over מקום פטור, you're not allowed to do it. The Torah says that you're chayav, that's a גזירת הכתוב. The other way, the Torah didn't say you're not allowed to do it, the Torah says that this is like another רשות. The Torah says, melachah means that this is considered, because you're taking it from one רשות to another, one רשות היחיד to another רשות היחיד, passing over רשות הרבים, this is called a change in רשות. So the גזירת הכתוב is on the place that, on the act, not on the person. It's not telling a person not allowed to do it, it's that this is called a change. And the difference between these two ways is a major difference. What is the difference? If you learn the first way that the that the גזירת הכתוב tells you that changing from this רשות to this רשות is called a change, automatically what's the difference if you throw it or you you don't need a pasuk to tell you throw. One thing we know for sure from before yet, any place where the Torah says you're not allowed to change רשות, it's not only by pass, by carrying, it's also by throwing, that we know. From רשות היחיד to רשות הרבים throwing, from רשות הרבים to רשות היחיד throwing, ד' אמות in רשות הרבים throw, that we have a given. Throwing is like passing. The moment the Torah tells us that this is called a different רשות, and that's why you can't do it, so why would we say throwing would be allowed? It's an automatic, because we know already throwing is not allowed. If you say that the Torah didn't say that this is called a different רשות, the Torah says that you're not allowed to do this, throwing is not this. Throwing is something else. And this is the pshat in Tosafos, this is the pshat in the machloket. So

Rabbi Akiva says we learn out זורק כמושיט, רבי עקיבא says what is the גזירת הכתוב? The Torah didn't say that this is not allowed to be done, the Torah just made a גזירת הכתוב that this is called a change, similar to רשות היחיד to רשות הרבים. So automatically you can't throw, because whatever is it's called a change, you automatically can't throw. So ילפינן זורק כמושיט. Not a pshat we compare the two because they the it looks alike. Farkert, זורק and מושיט are two opposite, this is throwing, this is, but in this case, the moment we say that this is called a change in רשות, and we know from before yet that wherever there's a change of רשות you cannot throw, automatically you can't. The Rabbanan say, that's not the גזירת הכתוב, the גזירת הכתוב of moshit is that you're not allowed to pass from a רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד over רשות הרבים. There is a rule called אין לך בו אלא חידושו. When there's a chidush you know you can't learn out, Torah did not allow, throwing is you didn't do this, how can you learn out? So now we understand there is no setira in Tosafot. Tosafot here when it says zorek is different than passing, very far different, that's we're talking about bichlal learning out that throwing is the same thing as passing, that's not true, it's not the same. And Tosafot uses a לשון, לא דמי, שזה הילוך ביד וזה בזריקה. Here you're carrying it by hand, here you're throwing it, two different things. That's when we over here we're talking about knowing the whole concept of zerikah. After we know that concept that throwing is the same din as this, now over here, it's obvious, here Tosafot says very clearly, Rabbi Akiva holds that zorek is so is much closer to moshit. Why is it closer to moshit? Because what the chidush of moshit is, according to this Rabbi Akiva, that it's called a shinui reshut. Automatically, we know already that throwing is the same. So this is the reason for the two sides and how it answers the setira in the two Tosafot. Okay. Now,

there's another safek in this gezeirat hakatuv, and that's going to be nogea to the second din whether under 10 tefachim is also asur or not. And it's not the same safek as here. We said like this, that the gezeirat hakatuv is, whichever way, or that you this is called a shinui reshut, because even and it's shinui reshut. Why ta'ake call it a shinui reshut? Because, see if you take from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד it's not a shinui reshut, because there was a hefsek in between, or you say it's an isur be'alma to do it with a hefsek in between. Again, they're both the same nekudah, that the isur is that you cannot take from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד with an interruption in between. The question is, is it that it becomes, it's called a שינוי רשות or בעלמא? When we say that the Torah, the גזירת הכתוב the Torah tells us that because there is an interruption, a hefsek, between this רשות היחיד and רשות היחיד, that's why it's chayav, what did the Torah mean with that גזירת הכתוב? Another, another similar chakirah, but a different way. Did the גזירת הכתוב say that if you have a hefsek of a מקום פטור between the רשות היחיד and the רשות היחיד, you are chayav? Or did it say, if you have a hefsek of a רשות in between, anything else in between, you are chayav from a רשות היחיד to a רשות היחיד? And know what the difference is? If you say the first way, that the Torah said a hefsek of a מקום פטור, so under, which is not a מקום פטור, maybe maybe then you're not chayav. No! But from a רשות היחיד to a רשות היחיד is not a melachah. The reason it became a melachah, because there's a hefsek. So, if you say what makes it into a hefsek and mimela divides it into two separate רשויות, because there's a מקום פטור in the middle, so what about under י' which is not a מקום פטור? But you also have to agree a מקום פטור is a רשות. One second. You're not allowed to do this. So, then you would be allowed. Why? You're not allowed to. Because it's not a רשות. If it's not called a hefsek, Under י' is רשות הרבים. Only it's a hefsek? No, yeah. You're starting in the רשות היחיד, you're finishing in the רשות היחיד, so really it's nothing. The only thing why it is something, because between the two רשויות of the רשות היחיד there's a הפסק. But what what did the Torah say? Well, that הפסק makes it into a מלאכה. Is it because there's a מקום פטור in between, that's why it's a מלאכה? So, there's a מקום פטור between the two, that's what makes the איסור. And if there's no מקום פטור between the two? That's not what the גזירת הכתוב said. What do you call under? What do you call under three? Well, under three is just the floor. What do you call it? It's the floor, whatever. Is it not a כרמלית? Is it not a רשות הרבים? No, רשות הרבים, the floor. So, it is a רשות. What? The floor is the ground. So, it is a רשות. Yeah, it's under. Under 10 is the רשות הרבים, yeah. Okay. But who said that if there is a if there is a רשות הרבים in between, makes it into a איסור? Lichora it shouldn't be an איסור. You're starting with רשות היחיד, finishing רשות היחיד, that's the main thing. You passed the רשות הרבים, so the Torah said, but because you passed a הפסק, but that makes it into two. But did the Torah say because you passed a הפסק of a מקום פטור? And soon I'm going to say סברות why each side. If you say that's the point, then under י' which is not a הפסק of a מקום פטור, maybe taka then it's מותר. If you say the vort is because there is a הפסק of a רשות under, in between, if you take from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד with a הפסק of a רשות in between, then then רשות הרבים is also a רשות. And this is connected to a different שאלה: is a

מקום פטור a רשות or not? And we've spoken about that שאלה once before. Is a מקום פטור, you can say like this: be'emet there are only two רשויות, רשות היחיד, רשות הרבים. Anything that doesn't fit into the description of a רשות היחיד or רשות הרבים is nothing. Why is it mutar? Because it's not a רשות! Or you can say they're also called a רשות, but a רשות that you're patur. From some רשויות if you carry, you're chayav, and some רשויות you carry, you're patur. But it's also a רשות. You can learn both ways. And it's noge'a to many other dinim and different places where we can learn it out from But the Gemara brings ד' רשויות, no? So, that's one of the ראיות. It's a lashon, that four רשויות, four רשויות says רשות היחיד, רשות הרבים, כרמלית, מקום פטור, so it calls it a רשות. But the שאלה is, is it only like a שם בעלמא or is it a גדר of a רשות in הלכה? כרמלית is also not really a רשות. But כרמלית is really a מקום פטור, but the חכמים made it into a רשות. חכמים definitely made the כרמלית into a רשות. That's why there's a issur there. A מקום פטור, you could say no רשות, because there's no issur, nothing about. A כרמלית there is a issur, you can't carry from there to רשות היחיד. Mimela they made it into a רשות. But the she'eilah is, did they make it from a מקום פטור which is not a רשות into a רשות, or a מקום פטור is also a רשות? It's a רשות המותר. And I once explained it depends on, see the Gemara's לשון in the Mishnah when it talks about הוצאה, the carry, the issur of carrying, it says in the Mishnah on דף ע\"ג, the issur is המוציא מרשות לרשות. From that is mashma that מקום פטור is not a רשות. It says you can't carry from one רשות to another. So, but if מקום פטור is also a רשות, here you could. See, if the לשון would be המוציא מרשות היחיד לרשות הרבים is אסור, then you could say מקום פטור is a רשות, but that's not a רשות which is אסור. It says you cannot carry from one רשות to another. And a מקום פטור you could. It's a re'ayah, isn't it? So, here you have a re'ayah like this, here you have a re'ayah like that. I'm saying there are different places in Rashi which is mashma it is a רשות, not a רשות, but there is a chakirah: is a מקום פטור a רשות, but a רשות המותר, which you're allowed Or it's not a רשות בכלל? Now, if a מקום פטור is a רשות, no, let's go the other way, if a מקום פטור is not a רשות, then there's a sevara to say like this: if a מקום פטור is not a רשות, makes sense that when the Torah said if you carry from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד, מושיט, in the middle of a מקום פטור, it's only a מקום פטור that makes you chayav, because you had a hefsek, which the the two רשויות of no רשות. See, normally you shouldn't be chayav. You carry from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד, why are you chayav? No, it's two. What makes it into two? Because in between, there was no רשות. So you came from one רשות and the רשות, the concept of רשות stopped and then it started again, you're chayav. But what about if there is a if it's a רשות הרבים in between, if it's under י', רשות הרבים is a רשות! Who knows, maybe over there it doesn't make it separate because there's no there's a hefsek of another רשות. Who says a hefsek of another רשות is is is also a hefsek? So the one that says that we say למטה, it's not according to this sevara that למטה מיו״ד you're also chayav holds that what was the גזירת הכתוב, why are you חייב מושיט? Because if you carry from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד with a hefsek of a רשות, that's how you learn it, a רשות of a מקום פטור. But if a רשות of a מקום פטור is enough to make it two, so the רשות of a רשות הרבים is Ad'rabah, should make it into two separate things and you're chayav. If you're חייב למעלה מיו״ד, you're חייב למטה מיו״ד אדרבה. If you learn מקום פטור is not a רשות, then you could say the opposite. You could say that only when there is something which is not a רשות is מפסיק, then it's called two רשויות. But something which is a רשות is מפסיק, it's not called. Or you could say punkt farkert. You could say like this: If מקום פטור is not a רשות, then if מקום פטור is a רשות let's say like this, and it's מפסיק, then takeh only if it's a רשות, it's only מקום פטור, not a רשות הרבים. Why? Because a מקום פטור is a רשות, and a רשות המותר. That's a complete opposite of the רשות היחיד. So what's מפסיק between the two רשות היחידs? Something which is complete opposite, then it's a הפסק. But if a רשות הרבים is מפסיק Why is it completely opposite? Because it's a רשות המותר, and רשות היחיד is is a רשות האסור. So רשות הרבים is not complete opposite. It's a different רשות, but it's also something has an איסור. So in one way, רשות הרבים is closer. So maybe the הפסק of the רשות הרבים is not really called a הפסק. I, over there it is called a הפסק? Over there it's called a הפסק because it's a רשות המותר, and רשות המותר is worse than a רשות האסור, because a רשות האסור, it has something in common to to רשות היחיד. רשות הרבים has something in common, maybe that's not a real הפסק. And רשות היחיד, which is a רשות המותר, is a הפסק. Mah she'ein kein if you're going to say רשות היחיד is no רשות A מקום פטור. A מקום פטור, I mean, if a מקום פטור is no רשות, if a מקום פטור is no רשות, and af al pi chen it's called a הפסק, something which is a רשות is אדעבא called a הפסק. You could say both sevarot. The bottom line is that there is a sevara to say either way. So you could say that the difference between these two sevarot, these two opinions, whether under י' is also חייב מושיט, is dependent on whether מקום פטור is a רשות or not. So it comes out that that's a complete different inyan than the she'eilah whether we learn זורק from מושיט. Rabbi Akiva Eiger's she'eilah was: these were the same thing. If you learn זורק from מושיט, that means it doesn't have to be exactly like the Mishkan. So למטה מיו״ד should be the same. If you don't learn זורק from מושיט, it has to be exact, so למטה מיו״ד not. Why aren't they together? Because it's dependent on two different sevarot. זורק from מושיט depends on וואס געהער it. What's the גזירת הכתוב of מושיט? Is it a גזירת הכתוב on the place, the גזירת הכתוב is it this is called a שינוי רשות, then זורק is automatically the same. Like Yeshuos? Yeah, Yeshuos Yaakov, that's what the גזירת הכתוב. So, based on the Yeshuos Yaakov, I'm saying that the shaila what I'm saying is the גזירת הכתוב, the shaila what the גזירת הכתוב is. If you learn the גזירת הכתוב is that this is also called a change of רשות, פשיטא, throwing is the same, because anytime there's an issur of a change of רשות, throwing is the same. Why can't they be put together by saying the גזירת הכתוב is against the person carrying or throwing, because the reason is cause he's changing it from one place to You could, you could say that, I'm saying. Adrabah. That's a shaila, see? See, so as we have no re'ayah, how can you say for sure that זורק is like מושיט? If the whole issur the Torah said you can't do this, how do you know you can't do It looks similar, but we said we can't compare, especially by issur, we can't compare because it looks similar. If the Torah אסר it, it How do you know אסר that? But if the Torah אסר it not אסר it, the Torah has a שינוי רשות, then it's not similar, it's the same thing. We know that throwing is like passing, ela mai In this case, we didn't know if there's שינוי רשות. Comes the Torah, גזירת הכתוב says it's שינוי רשות, so throwing is not allowed either. So the shaila

whether you learn זריקה from מושיט is dependent on that shaila. The shaila whether it's under י' is also מושיט depends on another shaila. When the Torah was mechadesh the גזירת הכתוב that even though it's from a רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד, but because there is a hefsek in between it's chayav, what is the kavanah of that hefsek? Is the כוונה of the הפסק מקום פטור, or is the כוונה of the הפסק another רשות? If it's מקום פטור, then who says רשות הרבים? If it's another רשות, so רשות הרבים also, פשוט הדבר. So it depends. And this gufa depends whether מקום פטור is a רשות or not a רשות. It's like both ways, because if the מקום פטור is a רשות, but what's there? Is there even a, I mean it's hard to think that the הפסק is, it's like ביטול יש. Where if it's not even, מקום פטור is not even a רשות, ביטול מציאות. Nothing at all. Nothing. While a רשות is just יש. I mean you have יש, אין, יש. The question is what is the אין? Is the אין ביטול יש or ביטול מציאות? Yeah. Did you get an email list? Did you write an email list? Started 40 minutes ago. How could a רשות הרבים ever be mutar? How could it ever be? Under No, but you didn't stop, you didn't have nothing there, you just passed through, you threw it. So you didn't stop there. You stopped in another רשות היחיד. So we're not coming on to when you throw Yeah, that's a different Okay. So

what was the title of this one again, the title of everything? ילפינן זריקה ממושיט. Shkoyach, shkoyach.