Gemara explains what are the two sides, whether he is chayav or פטור, מאי קא מיבעיא ליה? What is this whole safek? אמר רב אחא בר אבא, רב אחא בר אבא said the she'eilah is like this, this is Rabbi Yochanan's safek: שני כחות באדם אחד קא מיבעיא ליה. Here you have it's one person, the same person did the akirah and the hanachah of this melachah, but there are two separate parts in this person. So the she'eilah is שני כחות באדם אחד כאדם אחד דמי וחייב, are the two kochos, the two parts of the person, but since it's in one person, it's like one person did it, so he did the akirah, he did the hanachah? או דילמא כשני בני אדם דמי ופטור? Or maybe, since he did it separate, and I'll explain in a moment what's behind all this, so maybe it's like a second person, like two people did it and he's patur. And teiku, the answer is teiku. This is the girsa that we have, and we're going to discuss this whole shiur is going to be according to this girsa. Tosafos, as we all know, brings Rabbeinu Chananel, who had an opposite girsa, goes a different pshat. We're discussing here according to this girsa, which is the girsa of Rashi and the girsa of Tosafos. So we have this she'eilah here. So what we're going to try to understand is what are the two sides of the coin. This sounds like a little bit philosophical. What do we consider this? So

normally, the pshat in the way we would learn kifshuto, the she'eilah, the two sides is, do we look at the melachah or do we look at the person? If we look at the person, we could see clearly, this person did akirah, threw it ד׳ אמות, did the hanachah. So why shouldn't he be chayav? A person, one person did the akirah of this melachah of throwing ד׳ אמות ברשות הרבים, and he did hanachah. He ran to catch it, and when he caught it, he made the הנחה. If someone else runs and catches it, that person makes the הנחה, that's why the first guy is patur, because the first guy did the עקירה, the הנחה was done by a second guy. But if the second guy is him, in other words, he ran and caught it, so he did the עקירה, he did the הנחה, he did his זריקה the ד׳ אמות, so why shouldn't he be chayav? That's if you're looking at the person who did it. But if you're looking at the melacha, the melacha was divided here. He did the עקירה טאקע, he did the הנחה, but the עקירה and the הנחה do not come together, they are not בצירוף, they're not combined, because be'emet, when a person throws it, let's say no one would catch it, he throws it and it falls, so we consider it that he did the עקירה and the הנחה, because the הנחה came as a continuation of his עקירה. And since he made the עקירה, I'll explain this with more length, but I'm just bringing general points here, that he did the עקירה by picking it up and throwing it, and in that throwing the course will go that it'll fall, so that הנחה is related to him. But if he

goes and makes, catches it, runs and catches it, so now that's a different הנחה, הנחה which is not a continuation of his עקירה. So this makes it like the עקירה and הנחה are two separate things, and if they're two separate things, it's patur. Imagine if a person would make an עקירה, carry something, and not make a הנחה. Three hours later, he would take, carry something else without an עקירה, and he would make a הנחה. You'll say, well, this guy made an עקירה, this guy made a הנחה, this guy carried, so he should be chayav! Peshita he's patur, because the two are not connected. When we say you're chayav for the melacha of carrying or זריקה ד׳ אמות, you're chayav for עקירה and הנחה, but they have to come together, it has to be a המשך of עקירה and הנחה. So here, even though you did akirah and you did the hanachah, but the hanachah is separate from the akirah, because you went and caught it. The akirah is one, this is two. So if you look at the melachah, the melachah is separate. So this is the general view, the way we would look at the two sides of the Gemara, whether we look the person, so we say the person did the melachah, he did it, he did akirah, he did the hanachah, and there was the melachah done. But if you're looking from the perspective of the melachah, the melachah is divided, and since it's separated, that's why we could say a sevara that it's patur. I just want to add that to this, that the Rashash asks a she'eilah, why is it that here there is a sevara that it's patur? Why? Because we separate the akirah from the hanachah. But there's another din that we find, that in a melachah of כתיבה, if a person writes on Shabbos, the din is you have to write in order to be chayav two otiyot. What happens if a person writes one ot in the morning and one ot in the in the evening. Separation of five hours. So there's a machloket between Rabban Gamliel and the Chachamim, and Rabban Gamliel says you're still chayav for writing two otiyot. And even the Chachamim who say you're not chayav, it's for a different reason, because in the middle you realized, so it's called a yediah, so it breaks between the two, you're not chayav a chatat, but as far as the melachah is concerned, you are chayav for doing two otiyot even though there's a separation between the two. And he

brings even more. It comes out that not only if you write one ot in the morning, one ot in the afternoon, one ot in this Shabbos, and one אות in another Shabbos, you're still חייב. Even though it's separate, the beginning of the מלאכה and the end of the מלאכה are far, far apart, and nevertheless you're חייב. How come over here we're saying a sevara that because you separate between the two, the עקירה is separate, the הנחה is separate, you'll be פטור? What's the reason for it? And he says, maybe the difference is between חצי שיעור and חצי מלאכה. Two אותיות, writing two אותיות is a שיעור. When you write one אות, you did the full מלאכה. The מלאכה is writing. What you're missing is not in the איכות המלאכה, in the מלאכה itself, but in the שיעור of the מלאכה, the כמות. While by here עקירה and הנחה, it's חצי מלאכה. When you did the עקירה and you did the הנחה separately, each one is half. So maybe this is the reason: that when you have the full מלאכות already, each one is a full מלאכה, what you're missing is just the שיעור, there we say we don't care if there's a separation. But if you separate between two parts of the מלאכה, each one half of a מלאכה, over there we takeh don't say it. Over there we say if it's separated, it doesn't count. He says, but I'll prove to you that that's not true, because we're saying now, I hope the kop, this is nothing against the המשך הענין, but you still think what we're saying. So he says, what we're saying now that maybe that there is more reason to be חייב by חצי שיעור, if you make a הפסק, a separation, in חצי שיעור, it's more reason to be חייב than if you make a separation in half of the מלאכה. But he says, I want to prove to you from a Tosafot that it's not true.

Tosafot on דף צ\"ג asks a kashya. The Gemara says, how do you know if זה עקר וזה הניח, one does the akirah, one does the hanachah, you are patur? We have a pasuk for it. We need a pasuk, the Gemara, we darash from a pasuk. Which means without the pasuk, we would have assumed זה עקר וזה הניח you're chayav. By writing two otiyot, if one guy writes one ot and one guy writes another ot, we don't have, we all know you're patur. We don't need a pasuk. Why not? That Tosafos asks. Again, זה עקר וזה הניח, the Gemara says there's a pasuk for it, and if not for the pasuk, we would say you're chayav. But writing two otiyot, we know without a pasuk you're patur. And Tosafos answers there is more reason to be chayav when one does the akirah and one does the hanachah over if one writes one ot and one writes the other. What do we get from there? That by chatzi shiur, there is more reason to be patur. That's what he says. That's what comes out from Tosafos. That by chatzi shiur, one guy wrote half of the shiur, one guy wrote half of the shiur, they did the full melachah each one, but half of the shiur, we don't need a pasuk you're patur. So by chatzi shiur, if you make a hefsek, there is more reason to be patur. מה שאין כן זה עקר וזה הניח, there we need a special pasuk to tell you. So he says, it comes out that there is more reason to be chayav by chatzi melachah. So we can't answer, he says, what we just said, that you know why over here there's a sevara that you're patur when you separate, because this is חצי מלאכה, and over there you're not patur if you separate because it's חצי שיעור. From this Tosafot, we see punkt farkert, that חצי שיעור is more reason to be patur than by חצי מלאכה. But the truth is, if you look into the Tosafot, you see his re'iyah doesn't seem to be a re'iyah whatsoever. Tosafot is saying that we would have thought, if not for the pasuk by זה עקר וזה הניח, not that חצי שיעור is, חצי מלאכה is a reason to be chayav. We would have thought that you don't need הנחה בכלל, that making an akirah is a full melachah. But לאחר, after we know that to do a melachah of hotza'ah you have to have akirah and hanachah, obviously there is more reason to be patur by חצי מלאכה than by חצי שיעור. The best proof is: חצי שיעור אסור מדאורייתא. If a person writes one ot on Shabbos, he's not chayav, but it's asur mide'oraita. If a person does an akirah without an hanachah, it's mutar mide'oraita. It's only asur miderabbanan. So his she'eilah, so what what he said, he tried to answer, he said you can't answer, is no, the answer is takeh that. The difference between writing two otiyot and making a hefsek, why over there you're chayav, and over here when you So the Gemara says if since we if we consider it a hefsek between the akirah and hanachah you're patur, obviously, because over there it's חצי שיעור. חצי שיעור, there's more reason to be chayav. So the first אות you wrote, you did the full melacha. And the way is the shiur. So if you added the shiur later, you're still chayav. But here, if you did only the עקירה without the הנחה, you didn't do the melacha at all. So later on when you did, you added the melacha, but the הפסק in the middle of the melacha, that's a הפסק. No, we pasken like that, obviously. We pasken. Okay, but you know what, this I brought in just to get, but this is not לגבי the המשך. So I don't want we're gonna get involved with this. The

bottom line is that what I tried to say is that the sevara of the two sides of the she'eilah of Rabbi Yochanan, and we have to remember it's Rabbi Yochanan. With רבי יוחנן חצי שיעור אסור מן התורה, but I don't mean for that reason, we'll see for later for other reasons why it's נוגע Rabbi Yochanan. That the she'eilah of why if a person, I'm repeating again, if a person takes it up and throws it and runs himself and catches it, the sevara to be chayav and the sevara to be patur. The sevara to be chayav is because we're looking at it, he did the עקירה, he did the הנחה, he did the זריקה, why shouldn't he be chayav? If you're looking at him. But if you look at the melacha that was done, there is a separation here. The melacha is not a complete melacha. Because normally, you have to have the עקירה and the הנחה go together. And here, the עקירה you threw it, and it should have landed someplace else, you ran and changed the course, so ממילא you made the הנחה, but a different הנחה, which is not connected to the way the זריקה was originally, so there's a הפסק. It's It's not the same, and that's the reason to be patur. What I'm trying to explain, because he did the melacha, the full melacha, right away, but here he didn't. Yeah, but because the one and one in the morning he did a full melacha, he's just missing a shiur. And here what he did, so there's a separation with You did a full melacha here, full melacha here. The shiur is combined. Here it's not the shiur that's combined. What are we trying to combine, the akirah and hanachah, to the melacha we're trying to make. This makes up the melacha, and here we say that if you're mafsik and it's separated, not connected, it's like I make an akirah in the morning, I so carry this out in the morning, not this, it's a pushke, you can't carry on Shabbos, but you can't carry out anyway. You can you take you carry out on Shabbos and you didn't make an hanachah, later on, you carry this, this also muktzeh, you carry this out and you don't make an hanachah, but you make an akirah or whatever, so you made an akirah, you made an hanachah, you're chayav? Because you did the melacha, it's not combined. They're two two separate, so here also they're separate. But what I want to really explain is, what's behind this gufa? And the truth is this is never ending. Whenever you say a sevara in a machloket, cuz he holds this sevara, he holds this sevara. Now why does he hold this sevara, he holds this sevara? It was because of this. Why does that He's going to go on and on, where does it end? Same like Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel. Always fight that Beis Shammai and בית הלל מחלוקת בכח ובפועל. Why does he hold בכח ובפועל? He holds like that. But why does he hold like that? Oh, because he darash's the pasuk like this. Why does he darash the pasuk like this? The end will be, if you really want which is never shayach, because if you'd go on, what is saying in the hakdamah of Tanya? שורש הנשמה. The reason why Beis Shammai says lechumra because the שורש הנשמה is גבורה. The שורש הנשמה of Beis Hillel is חסד, you'd have to get back to אצילות, it's There's no other way you can never ending. But we could try whatever we can. So to go behind and here it's not a machlokes, here is two sides of the sevara, but what reason Why is there a reason to think this, or why is there a reason to think this way? Later on, if we explained it, you're going to ask, \"So why isn't that Good.\" Fine. As far as we can go, we can go. So I want to say that the reason of the she'eilah is this. Let me start off first with a trying to understand, analyzing, this whole nekudah here. We're saying if you throw, you are chayav. Why are you chayav? In order to be chayav for let's go let's speak about ד' אמות ברשות הרבים, you have to make an עקירה, and you have to make an הנחה. When you threw it, you made the עקירה, but you didn't make the הנחה. Let's start with that. You didn't make an הנחה. It fell by itself, you didn't put it down. Ela mai? The Gemara in Kesubos, דף ל״א, עמוד א׳, uses a לשון עקירה by throwing the עקירה, עקירה סוף הנחה. The עקירה is for the הנחה. In other words, when you pick it up, and you throw it, in what you did, when you started throwing, in them liegt already the הנחה that's going to happen. Unless someone interferes. But sie liegt in them the הנחה that's going to happen. Which is really the nekudah of what Rabbi Yochanan says, אשו משום חציו. The Gemara in Bava Kamma talks about מזיק. A person starts a fire, and the fire goes on, and on, and on, and burns down someone's house, or 10 houses. 20 hours after he started it, but it continues going, you have to pay for everything, all the damage that was done in the middle, but you didn't do that damage. You didn't do that damage. You started a fire, actually you started it in your own backyard, you didn't even... you started a fire here, you let it go, and it went, you're chayav to pay. So Rabbi Yochanan says, אשו משום חציו, just like a person will say, \"I'm sitting in my house, now pulling the trigger, and it went there, and it broke somebody's window. I didn't do anything to his window, I'm in my house. In my house I can do whatever I want, you can't stop me from doing in my house. I can't pull a trigger? I can't shoot an arrow?\" Nevertheless, you're chayav. So אשו משום חציו. So when you start a fire, it's like shooting an arrow, so whatever the arrow is מזיק, you're chayav, so here also. This is what he says. Mimela here also, when you pick it up and you throw it, so whatever is going to happen at the end is is related to you, just like when you throw a rock and it breaks the window, so you didn't break it, but since you threw it, so it's connected to you, the fact that it broke the window. So the same thing here, the הנחה that's going to happen and based on your throwing, it's connected to you as if you did it. In this inyan of אשו משום חציו, we have the famous Nimukei Yosef, which I spoke about before, more than once, and we'll get back to that. And today, since we're talking about throwing the ball, throwing the rock, this is where we discuss the Nimukei Yosef. Like the Gemara many times discusses things because of something else, then the Gemara says גופא, now let's discuss the thing. Today, we're discussing the Nimukei Yosef. What does the Nimukei Yosef say? Based on this din that when you start a fire, whatever the fire does, you are responsible, like when you shoot an arrow, so the Nimukei Yosef asks his famous kashya: If so, how are you allowed to light a candle on Friday? If you light a candle, you're starting the fire, and we're saying that as the fire goes on, it's as if you're doing it. And since it's as if you are doing it, and that's the reason we said you're chayav for any damage it does, because when that damage happens, we're saying you did it, because you started, you did it then. So when you start it, when you light a candle on Friday, and it's burning into Shabbos, so as it's burning into Shabbos, you're lighting the fire. Shabbos, you're not allowed to make a fire, how could you do that? That's the Nimukei Yosef's kashya. And the Nimukei Yosef answers, as we all know, that's not the peshat. The peshat is not that as a fire continues, it's as if you are constantly making the fire go. The peshat is the opposite, that whatever happens later is included in the beginning. Whatever you started in the beginning, whatever you did in the beginning, already contains all the damage that's going to be done later. So by the fire on Friday, when you light a candle, as if on Friday you finished the whole candle. So there's no problem with Shabbos. That's what he says. So we have here a hava amina and a maskana of the Nimukei Yosef, what is the peshat by fire, why are you chayav for fire. In the hava amina, we learn, and that was his question, that why are you chayav? Because as the fire continues, you are considered being doing it. And the maskana is, no, everything that's done later is done is in the beginning. This could be and this hava amina and maskana in Rabbi Yochanan in peshat Rabbi Yochanan of אשו משום חציו, this could be the safek here. Why could this be the safek? If we're going to learn like the hava amina of of Rabbi Yochanan, the hava amina of the Nimukei Yosef's peshat in Rabbi Yochanan, that it's as if you're continuing to do it, so therefore, when you throw something, what did the hava amina of the Nimukei Yosef, that as the thing goes, you are as if you're moving with it, you are doing it. So applying it to Shabbos, why are you chayav when you throw something, when you throw ד' אמות, why are you chayav? Where's the hanacha here? The hanacha is that since you threw it, so right as it's going, you are going with it. When it falls down, you are putting it down now. That's the פשט הוה אמינא. If that's the peshat, so what's the hanachah that you did? As it's coming down, you did the hanachah. So what's the chiluk if you did it that way, or you caught it? You still did the same hanachah. The hanachah by zerikah is being done when it falls, and we're saying you're doing it, you did it! Instead of doing it that way, you did it by catching it. That's the sevara why you should still be chayav. Because what did you change, what did you make it worse by catching it? The way it should have been the hanachah is it would have fallen, and what would have been? You would have made the hanachah. How would you consider you made the hanachah? Because you are putting it down. When it's falling, you are putting it down. That's what the hava amina in the Nimukei Yosef, that as it's going, that's why you're chayav, because... So if you're putting it down then,

that's the way the hanachah is of zerikah, so you are you are doing the hanachah then. by catching it. If we're going to learn according to the maskana of the Nimukei Yosef, that the peshat is that everything is included in the beginning, so why are you chayav for zerikah? Where is your hanachah? That in the akirah that you did leaked the hanachah, and that's why and you're chayav because did you the hanachah. But if you're going to go and catch it, it's a new hanachah, so they're separate. If they catch If when you catch If when it fall normally, that you're doing the hanachah as it's falling, so the hanachah is not one with the akirah, because you started it, mimela you are doing the hanachah later. And if you catch it, you're also doing the hanachah later. Same thing, so you're chayav. But if we're saying that normally how is zerikah work that you're chayav? Because when you do the akirah the akirah contains the hanachah. But if you're going to run and catch it, that hanachah that state is what in the akirah didn't work, didn't happen, but now you caught it, and you changed the course. So that hanachah that's part of the akirah didn't happen. If it didn't happen, so there is a separation between the akirah and hanachah. It's not your It's not the same you. You did it, but like you did two separate things, and that's why you'd be patur. And since we have two sevarot here, we have the two sevarot of the Nimukei Yosef, those are the two sevarot that we have in the Gemara here whether by throwing and catching it you're chayav or patur. The only she'eilah is, see, we have a hava amina and a maskana in in the in the in the Nimukei Yosef, a hava amina and a מסקנא pshat in Rabbi Yochanan.

Rabbi Yochanan didn't have a hava amina and a maskana. We're learning pshat in Rabbi Yochanan. Rabbi Yochanan knew what he was talking, knew what he meant. If Rabbi Yochanan knew what he meant, and according to the maskana of the Nimukei Yosef, what did Rabbi Yochanan mean? He meant that it's happening in the beginning. So, what's his safek here? If you learn this pshat, what's his safek? If it wouldn't be the same Rabbi Yochanan, it would be a different person, then you could say that person is is wondering, what is the pshat in Rabbi Yochanan? Did Rabbi Yochanan learn like the hava amina, like the נימוקי הוה אמינא or the maskana? And even that would be hard to say, because after we have a maskana, there's no hava amina. It's only It's only a hava amina. The maskana is this way. But at least you could say it's a sevara. But in רבי יוחנן גופא, רבי יוחנן questions, what is this pshat? And we're saying here that this is a this two sides is the question, what is the pshat in אשו משום חציו that Rabbi Yochanan said? Rabbi Yochanan can have such a she'eilah. So, we're back to saying that we have to say something else. That definitely Rabbi Yochanan knew, and the maskana like the Nimukei Yosef. Even after the maskana, there's two ways to look at it. Even after the maskana, that by throwing, what is the peshat by throwing? That everything's included in the beginning, still there is a possibility, a sevara to say that it's all one. There's no problem that you caught it, or the peshat that you caught it, you changed the course, and memeila it's not connected to your עקירה, and you're patur. What is it? So behakdamah to

bring the sichah, the famous sichah from the Rebbe We'll call you uh see, whenever I call the sichah from חלק א', ב', or ג', or ד', we always call it famous, because there were years, many years, that this is the only כרכים, so everyone knew it. But this happens to be an interesting she'eilah that the Rebbe asks. Found the first כרך in first א' or ב', wenig, very few ענינים in nigleh, but this is a kashya in nigleh. The Rebbe asks a kashya based on the Nimukei Yosef. The Nimukei Yosef's maskana is, now it's happening an interesting she'eilah. You could listen. That the maskana of the Nimukei Yosef is that when you throw something or you start a fire, the reason you're chayav for what happens later not because you are doing it later, because everything that happens later is already as if it's done in the beginning, and you did it. The Gemara says in Taanit, Rabbi Yochanan said, \"Had I been in the time of the חורבן בית המקדש, I would have set to fast not on תשעה באב, but on י' באב.\" Because most of the בית המקדש was burnt on the tenth of אב. The בית המקדש, they put the בית המקדש on fire towards the evening on the ninth of אב, and it burnt through the night all the way to most of the next day, which is a reason why the דינים of the nine days continue into י' Av also till chatzot. But he said, \"I wouldn't make the fast on the ninth day. That's what they said. Finish, I can't help it. But had I would have been there, I would have set to fast on the tenth, because the most of the בית המקדש burnt on the tenth.\" So, the Rebbe has a shaila, a very geshmaka shaila. Rabbi Yochanan himself, according to the Nimukei Yosef, says that when you start a fire and it burns, everything that happens later is included in the beginning. So, in inyan, when did the when did the בית המקדש get burnt? On Tisha B'Av. Davka according to Rabbi Yochanan. If not for Rabbi Yochanan, you could say it's no kushya. You go with it the way it is. But according to Rabbi Yochanan, and the way the Nimukei Yosef learns in the maskana of Rabbi Yochanan, that the pshat is that everything that happens later is be'emet in the beginning, and that's why you're chayav. So according to Rabbi Yochanan, the right thing to do is to fast on ט', on Tisha B'Av, because Tisha B'Av is the day that they started the fire, even though most of it burned later, but it's all included in Tisha B'Av. And the Rebbe answers like this: that this whole din, and I'm quoting what he says, we'll have to understand it, this whole thing that the Nimukei Yosef says, the reason why if you shoot an arrow, everything is included in the beginning, because it's out of your hands. The moment you let it go, you can't take it back, you can't stop it. And since you can't stop it, so mimela everything is already done. But the חורבן בית המקדש came from the Eibershter, and the Eibershter is not limited, and the Eibershter could stop it anytime, we can't say you can't stop it. And therefore, by the בית המקדש, we do not, Rabbi Yochanan himself would not say that everything is included in the beginning, so you should fast on י' when the most of the בית המקדש was burnt. Now good, if that's direct or indirect, this is this is more. Everything happens by Hashem, but bederech hateva, everything that we deal with is bederech hateva. Here, bederech hateva it happened from the Eibershter. The

Rebbe doesn't bring it, but the Eibershter said, the navi says, הנני שולח את עבדי נבוכדנצר. The Eibershter says I'm sending Nevuchadnetzar to make a fire in the Beis Hamikdash. It's the Eibershter's shaliach basically. So here it's more, חורבן בית המקדש is more something that came from the Eibershter. The she'eilah that I have in the sichah, which I really, really don't understand at all: What does that mean? Milah by shooting an arrow, there you could say davka, you can't stop it. So mimela, since what you shot, that's going to happen, so it's already included. But by fire, why can't you stop it? The din of fire is that when you start a fire and it goes on for days and it burns things down, you are chayav. Why? Because according to the Nimukei Yosef, because everything is included in the beginning. You couldn't have stopped it? The din is not only if you couldn't stop it. Farkert, the din is if you couldn't stop it, you're chayav. Imagine if you could stop it and you didn't, a further chayav! So what does the Rebbe mean with the answer to the she'eilah? How does he answer the she'eilah? That's a kushya? No, I don't know if The Rebbe says a reason with no mareh makom there, על פי פשטות. But not The Rebbe says that vort, and the but the vort doesn't sound right, the way it seems, that it's because you can't stop it, and the Eibershter kevayachol can stop it. We're talking about two things: an arrow and fire. So the arrow maybe if you shoot it, you can't stop it. And even that! You throw something, you can interfere and you can stop it also be'emet if you want. Huh? No, you could push it! Right, but but what does the Rebbe say? That the reason is because you can't stop it, the Eibershter could stop it. פסקה לו כוח? We'll see, we have to see pshat here. The way he says is this: here it's out of his hand, and it's not out of his hands, that's the lashon. So we have to explain the שיחה פשט a little bit different, to add another vort there in the pshat what the Rebbe says, and that will explain the whole pshat in the Nimukei Yosef. בנוגע this Nimukei Yosef, we all know, again we spoke about it last time, the

Ketzos says that Tosafos argues on the Nimukei Yosef. The Nimukei Yosef says that when you throw something or you start a fire, peshat is that everything is included in the beginning, and already it's considered to have happened. So the Nimukei The Ketzos says on the Nimukei Yosef that Tosafos argues. Which Tosafos argues? It's Tosafos in Bava Kamma. Tosafos in Bava Kamma דף י\"ז עמוד ב'. The Gemara says in Bava Kamma like this, an interesting din: If someone זרק כלי מראש הגג, someone's standing on the roof and took a כלי, a glass, and threw it down from the third floor, it's definitely going to break, I mean there's no question, falls on the floor and will break. Before it landed on the floor, someone in the air someone hit it and broke it. Who's chayav? The Gemara says the first guy is chayav, because the second guy מנא תבירא תבר, he broke a broken כלי. The כלי is broken, considered broken already. Comes Tosafos, this is the Gemara, אמר רבה. זאגט Tosafos that this is only the din if he threw the כלי down. What happens in another case? There's a כלי laying on the floor, and this guy from the third floor throws a rock going directly to the כלי, which is definitely going to break the כלי, and before the rock reached, someone else broke the כלי. Tosafos says: The second guy is chayav. And Tosafos says סברא פשוטה לחלק, it's very simple, a simple sevara. harder to make the difference between זרק כלי and זרק חץ, whether he threw the כלי or not. Whenever I say this, I always repeat what I heard from somebody who heard a shiur from the Rogatchover, and the Rogatchover quoted this Tosafos, and the Rogatchover's mind was, you know... So he said, \"bay mir shpalt di kop farshteyn a chiluk, un Tosafos git a chazek 'סברא פשוטה לחלק'.\" My head is split- and bursting trying to understand the difference, and Tosafos said, you know, like that, סברא פשוטה לחלק, it's very simple to מחלק. Okay, let's not get into that. The bottom line is Tosafos says that if you throw a rock at a כלי, we do not say that the כלי was broken already. If you throw the כלי down, as it's flying it's considered broken, right away. But if the כלי is on the floor and you're throwing a חץ, we do not say the כלי is broken till it happens. That doesn't fit with the Ketzos! That doesn't, according to the Nimukei Yosef, because the Nimukei Yosef says when you start a fire or when you throw a rock or something, it's not the pshat as it happens you're doing it, everything happened in the beginning. So if everything happened in the beginning, so as soon as you throw down the rock on the כלי, it's as if it's broken! So the second guy broke it, should be patur! Why does it say he's chayav? Comes the Ketzos and says, therefore, I'm telling you that there's a machloket. Tosafos doesn't agree with the Ketzos with the Nimukei Yosef. Many people don't agree with the Ketzos, and they say it's not true! Tosafos could agree with the Ketzos! There's no machloket. The difference is: when the כלי actually breaks, when you throw something at a כלי or you throw something and it happens, then we say it was included in the beginning. But if we're going to- if it didn't happen through your throwing, then we don't say it's included, which means that the case of the of the Nimukei Yosef is it burnt it or something that you threw the rock and it broke the wall window, so we say you're chayav, why? Because it happened in the beginning. In the case of Tosafos, lemaaseh you never broke it! The bottom line is someone else broke it! So we don't say it's included. And I want to be masbir this a little bit more, what this means. What the pshat bichlal... What? Without the כלי, till you started, the breaking started. That's a different story because there you took the כלי, there's, let's use the word, a שינוי in the כלי already. Here the כלי is laying there, has no idea, the כלי doesn't know anything. Till it hits it, the כלי is independent, but if you take the כלי and throw, it's different. I mean, that's what you might say, but that's not noge'a to the hemshech. What bichlal the pshat in the Nimukei Yosef that everything's included in the beginning? So I saw someone write once, and לדעתי this is שטות, he says, what's the pshat everything is included in the beginning? It didn't burn it yet, why is it included? He says like this: when you start a fire, I mean, so it sounds even like a joke to me, when you start a fire, whatever this fire could do is already as if it's done, because it could- it could do it. So, when you start a fire, be'emet you're chayav for burning down the whole world, because the fire will go and go and go, and it will burn everything down. But it only burned down one house. Be'etzem it's בכח you're chayav for the whole world, but since nothing got burned, there was no hezek done, that's why you're patur. So it's not that- it's a patur. See, the pshutim sometimes say something, you know, if I didn't damage something, I'm not chayav. He says again, even if you didn't damage, be'emet you're chayav, but there's a patur, you're exempt because it didn't burn. I mean, to me it sounds like a pretty nice ma'aseh to say that it's a sevara. According to this sevara, there is no difference if it actually broke it or not, if actually you threw the arrow or the fire actually happened or not, because right away it's done! Right away you're chayav! So if somebody else goes and breaks it, it was included in yours, and bepo'al it got broken, so you should be chayav! That's not the pshat! The pshat is like this:

when you start a fire, and you or you throw it, when it happens, it breaks, then we say אגלאי מילתא למפרע! Retroactive, it goes back and we're saying that was included in what you did, but it only happens later. It's not the pshat The Ketzos doesn't mean like we would think the way we said in the beginning that when you throw or start a fire, everything is included. It's true! But he never meant that it included now. When it burns, we- the halacha says we look back and it goes back למפרע, and it's as if when you started it, this was כולל. So it's only, and that we have many times the inyan of אגלאי מילתא למפרע, it goes back retroactive. That's the pshat in the Ketzos. So it comes out the difference between the hava amina and the maskana of the Ketzos is not like we thought in the beginning. The beginning we were saying that the hava amina of the Ketzos is that you're chayav because as it's happening, whatever happens later, you're doing it later, before not. The maskana of the Ketzos is No, right away? That's not the pshat. The pshat is, for sure it doesn't happen till it you don't consider it you did it till it happens, in the hava amina and the maskana. Ela mai, the difference is, in the hava amina, what is the pshat? That it's happening later, and and ביי דעם בלייבט עס, and that's how it is. And the maskana says, no, when it happens later, then we say retroactive it was included in what he said. Why? Why didn't include? But it's totally, totally one thing, because when you start a fire and whatever happens, you don't need a new כח to make it happen. When you start a fire, bederech me'meila, if it'll you leave it go, it'll go and burn over there. So ein hachi nami de facto you didn't do it, but when it's done, and since what you did was something that bederech mimeila you didn't need an interference of something else or help of something else to make it happen. If you would need something else to happen, you start a fire and the fire would not go there unless something else came, and so you have to push it a little bit more, then no matter what, we'll never say it happened in the beginning. Since it happened automatically if you leave it, it's not a pshat that you can't stop it. Not like we said before, you can't stop it, that's the vort. If you don't do anything, it's going to continue bederech mimeila. Since it's going to continue bederech mimeila and it happens, it works retroactive. Uvemila we could understand the chiluk between the case of Tosafos and the case of the Nimukei Yosef, and it's not like the Ketzos, there is no machlokes. When it actually happens, that's the case of the Nimukei Yosef. You're a mazik. Since it happened, and when you shot the arrow or when you started the fire, automatically, if you leave it, it would go, it goes there without you having to do add something. If someone comes and has to add fuels to it happens, this guy won't be chayav. Since it's automatic, so when it happens, it works lemafre'a and it's considered that you it's kulo in the beginning. But if it doesn't happen, then there's nothing to work backwards for, it never happened. So not only according to the hava amina of the Ketzos, the hava amina of the Nimukei Yosef, if it doesn't happen, then you didn't do it, because it's only doing it when it happens. Even according to the maskana, if it doesn't happen, it's not doing. And that's the chiluk, so it's no machlokes between Tosafos and this Nimukei Yosef. Tosafos holds that could hold like the Nimukei Yosef. That what? Not that it's kulo now, that when it happens it works lemafre'a, it works retroactive, but if it doesn't happen it doesn't. So in the case of the Nimukei Yosef it works lemafre'a, in the case of the Tosafos doesn't work lemafre'a. Now this will explain pshat in the sicha. When the Rebbe explains the difference between the case of the Beis Hamikdash The Nimukei Yosef didn't mean that when you start a fire like this other guy says pshat, that's as if everything is included already, as if you burned down that house. Why? It didn't burn yet. But the pshat is when it burns that house, because in order for that house to be burned, it's all depended on what you started and it went automatic. When that happens, then we say it was included before. It works lemafre'a. The hava amina was that it doesn't go back lemafre'a. The hava amina is as you're going it's as if it's happening and you're doing it then. Back to the kashya, if you're doing it then, Shabbos, you're doing fire on Shabbos! And the answer is, about it happened, you're chayav because it happened then, but it happened then, we look back lemifre'a, and it goes back, umilei if it's lemifre'a, that's what you're patur. That's why you're allowed to do it on Friday. This explains the pshat in the sicha. What the Rebbe means to say, a difference between a regular fire and the חורבן בית המקדש. A regular fire works derech memila. If you start a fire, it is automatically going to go. And if it's going to go by itself automatically, when it happens, it works lemifre'a and we say it's in the beginning.

When the Aibershter made, by the Aibershter there's no such thing derech memila. By the Aibershter, as it goes, he is making it happen. Oh, so then if he if if it's not derech memila going to happen, then farshteit zich that when it comes later, it doesn't work back, it's retroactive, retroactive. It only works retroactive because you don't have to do anything. By the Aibershter, like we said hashgacha pratit, the Aibershter makes everything happen every, so he makes it. So when it burned the Beis Hamikdash the next morning, he's burning it now. It's not because derech memila, since it was started yesterday. Derech hateva yeah, but we're talking according to the teirutz of the Rebbe. So this like the the kashya the the pshat in the sicha was machriach to say that it can't be pashut that it's as if everything happened before, then the what's the teirutz? You can't say because the way that it says the seeming seems to be the lashon because it's out of your control. Not out of your control, you could go and stop the fire. It's not davka if it's out of your control. Sometimes a fire out of your control, but not always. The vort is not out of your control, the vort is derech memila. That's the vort. And if it's derech memila, it works retroactive and it goes back to the beginning. So now we under understand pshat in the Nimukei Yosef, pshat in the sicha, pshat in Rabbi Yochanan. According to the maskana of the Nimukei Yosef, that when Rabbi Yochanan says אשו משום חציו, what does it mean? But the maskana is one thing, that Rabbi Yochanan meant and Rabbi Yochanan knew what he meant, that the pshat is that

when you start a fire or you throw something, whatever happens at the end, when it happens goes back למפרע and it is as if you did it in the beginning. Huh? As long, yeah, as long as it's דרך ממילא, when you throw it, mimeila it's going to fall. The Aibershter. The Aibershter, don't think that the Aibershter started then it goes by itself. The Aibershter constantly makes it happen. So we reached a point to understand that the pshat in Rabbi Yochanan is מסקנא of the Tosafos, of the Nimukei Yosef, I keep on saying, is it goes back למפרע. The שאלה of Rabbi Yochanan here is is in his own ruling. His ruling that it goes למפרע he said over there. He says, \"But I'm not sure how the למפרע works.\" And based on the way we understand the למפרע, we're going to come to this שאלה of the two cases here. Because we know in למפרע itself, when things work retroactive, there are two kinds. Sometimes it's like this, sometimes it's like this. And what are the two kinds? So

let me start off with a Ran in Nedarim. Okay. It's like a lead-up to this whole thing of a למפרע. If a person makes a נדר that everything that he has is hefker, or not, he makes a נדר, he אסר בהנאה, that's the case there. He says, \"Everything that I have should be אסור for me to use.\" You could do that. The din if something is אסור בהנאה, you lose your ownership over it, because ownership means you have a right over it, but if you lose a right to have any הנאה from it, it's not yours, it's hefker. So if a person says, \"All my נכסים are hefker,\" \"All my נכסים are אסור בהנאה,\" anybody wants can come and take it. Fine? What happens if someone came and took it? And a while later, this guy who made that נדר went and was מתיר נדר. He was מתיר נדר. And the din is you could be מתיר נדר, you go to a חכם, and the חכם says the נדר is בטל, ממילא, and the din by a neder is החכם עוקר הנדר למפרע. So, mimela, when he made the neder, now looking back, it was never asur behana'ah. Does the guy who was koneh it have to give it back? Does he have to give it back? So the Ran says, \"Yes, he has to give it back.\" Because the whole reason he was able to take it, because it was hefker because of his neder, now the neder never was a neder, because the chacham is עוקר. Retroactive, never was a neder, so he has to give it back. Just like imagine that someone makes a neder and you find out that it was make by mis- the mistaking way, the neder is not, but we thought it was a neder, and someone did something, you have to give it back. But the

Rashba says, \"No.\" The neder טאקע you מבטל, and goes למפרע, but he doesn't have to give it back. What's the sevara behind this machloket? So one of the sevarot behind this machloket is, when a chacham is עוקר הנדר למפרע, when the chacham takes the neder away retroactive, in which way is it? There are two ways to do it. One way you could do it is we call it igla'i milta lemafre'a. Igla'i means it was revealed. Pashut, we didn't know before, and now we found out. We thought the neder was a good neder. Now we found out that it was not. Like I said, just like a נדר בטעות. You make a neder and you think it's a good neder, and you really go and read around, you look into the Shulchan Aruch, and it wasn't a good neder. So it never was a good neder. Then there's another category of עוקר הדבר למפרע. Not that it's igla'i. Till now it taka happened. Now you have a right to be עוקר הדבר למפרע. Now you have a right to tear out the thing from before. But what happened before taka happened before. It's only it's like if we're saying it works only לגבי מכאן ולהבא it works למפרע. לגבי anything that's נוגע from now on, it's as if it never was. But looking back before, before taka, it taka was. If you learn the first way, איגלאי מילתא למפרע, we found out it never was, so looking back it never was. The second way, if you ask, yesterday it was. Anything it has to do from now, we consider as if it never was. That's the two ענינים. Huh? Oh m'meila, if the other guy cut came when he made the נדר and he took it, so if you hold איגלאי מילתא למפרע, he has to give it back, cuz we found out there was never a נדר. He took it thinking that there was a נדר, thinking it was אסור בהנאה, thinking it was הפקר, and we found out it's not. So you've got to give it back. The other way is if you're not finding out it's not, Now you are changing it. You're changing it למפרע, but that's only that you could change. Anything that he did wasn't wrong, he did it then, so therefore then you don't have to give it back. Now be'emet, this is a machloket between the Tzemach Tzedek and the Mishkenot Yaakov. It's in the חידושים on the fourth, beginning of the fourth פרק of Gittin, it's also the same thing is in a long תשובה of the Tzemach Tzedek. And there the case is like this: The Gemara in Gittin says, huh? And the Mishkenot Yaakov. The case, the Gemara says that if a person sends a גט with a שליח to his wife, before the גט got to her, he could be מבטל the גט. He could ruin the גט. What did he do? He catches the שליח before he gave it, and he says to the שליח that I want the גט to be בטל. But the Gemara says, depends what expression you use. You could only use an expression that means that you are now being מבטל the גט. But if you use an expression which seems to be saying that the גט באמת is no good, that doesn't work, because you're lying. What do you mean, how come you say the גט is no good? The גט is good. If you say I want the גט now not to be good, then it works. And the Gemara goes into different expressions, that certain expression is מבטל the גט because that's an expression of להבא, certain expressions are called an expression of עבר. Those expressions that are expressions of before do not work, because you're coming to say the get is no good yesterday, it's not true, the get is no good from before. But if it's a lashon of להבא, then it's good. So

the Tzemach Tzedek had a maaseh, they asked him a she'eilah: there was somebody who was a husband who made a shaliach to write a get, and they were writing the get, and in the middle of writing a get, somehow he got angry, they got him angry or something, so he gave a scream and he said, hadiye hadiye, nit do kein get, in Yiddish. Hadiye hadiye I guess means Russian, I guess, stop, stop. Nit do kein get, afile far finf hundert rubel! Even if you give me 500 ruble, I'm not giving the get. But you see the lashon he used: nit do kein get. Oy gevalt, a whole she'eilah: was he mevatel the get or not? Nit do, nit do he says is in Hebrew אין כאן גט. Nit do is translated אין כאן. Nit do kein get. Now the Gemara goes into different expressions, which is ya good, which is not. What is this expression? If you say אין כאן גט, is it called להבא or not? Because straight from the Gemara גופא is a she'eilah. This is not written in the Gemara, we got to figure out. So we got to find other places where this lashon is used and compare it. Nu, where do we find a lashon of אין כאן? So the Tzemach Tzedek says, when you go to a chacham to be mevatel a neder, to be matir a neder, you know what lashon the chacham uses? אין כאן נדר. And what does the chacham do? The chacham takes the neder and makes it from now on no good. And mimela surely it's a lashon from now on, for the future. But then the Tzemach Tzedek says, what do you mean? We say a chacham makes a נדר למפרע, a chacham takes away the neder from before! So he says you don't understand the pshat. It's not the pshat that it never was, he's coming to tell you it never was. He's accomplishing it now, from now on he's tearing it out למפרע! And he brings a Ramban, where the

Ramban says a lashon by התרת נדרים, it's like when someone has a knot and you untie the knot, so as far as you're concerned as if the knot never was there. L'poel before, the knot was there. You know l'poel, before there was. So the לשון אין כאן נדר means it shall not be a נדר למפרע. But that lashon would make the גט בטל, he says. If you apply that lashon the way it's there, which means a chacham is now tearing out the neder, so by the get, he's now being mevatel the get, which would be a bitul. Then the Tzemach Tzedek himself brings that he saw the Teshuvas Mishkenos Yaakov had the same she'eilah: What is the din if a guy says אין כאן גט? And he says אין כאן גט is not a good lashon, it's not mevatel. What's his re'ayah? The exact same re'ayah the opposite! Since by nedarim the din the lashon is אין כאן נדר, and by nedarim we know the chacham is עוקר a נדר למפרע, so what's he doing is going back to before, a siman that the לשון אין כאן is going back to before! And mimela by a get, that's not a lashon that is mevatel the get. What's the nekudah of the machloket between the Tzemach Tzedek and the Mishkenot Yaakov? The same nekudah as we said before is the machloket between the Ran and the Rashba. Says the Tzemach Tzedek holds that the geder of התרת נדרים is נעקר הדבר למפרע. It's oker, it does it now. Till now it taka existed, even the way we look at it now. Looking at it now, before for before was there, we changed it now, so much so that as if it never was. And therefore any anything that's nogea to before situations from now on is as if it never was there, but before, before there was. Mah she'ein ken, the Mishkenot Yaakov learns that the taytsh is that it takes it away, ואיגלאי מילתא למפרע! Never was there. And we find this חילוק בנוגע other things also, and just בקיצור, אפקעינהו רבנן לקידושין מיניה, we know

when a person gives kiddushin, he gives on condition that the chachamim agree, and if for some reason he does something and the chachamim disagree, so could be fifty years later, lemifre'a the the kiddushin was never kiddushin. And here you have the same chakirah: is the peshat that now that the chachamim don't want it, it never was kiddushin, or the peshat is it never was kiddushin, looking at it from now on it never was, but before, the way it was before, it is? Because the Tosafot in Gittin asks a she'elah: if there is such a situation of אפקעינהו רבנן that sometimes could happen, אפקעינהו רבנן, they take away the kiddushin, then it's always התראת ספק. Whenever you warn a person, a woman who is מזנה as a eshet ish, you tell her, \"Don't do it because you'll get killed.\" How do you know? Maybe her husband will do something later where the chachamim will take away the קידושין למפרע, and so never, she was never, so she's not an אשת איש now. So Tosafos answers, but now she is an אשת איש. What's the What was the shaila? What's the answer? We knew before also that she's an אשת איש now. How, what's the pshat? Just bekitzur, the answer is the hava amina of Tosafos was, when you say אפקעינהו רבנן לקידושין מיניה, it means that it never was. So you're telling her now, \"You're an אשת איש, you'll get killed.\" That's a safek! You're not sure if she's an אשת איש. Maybe you'll find out later that she was not an אשת איש. The answer is, no, it won't change, because even when if she'll do it later, it'll be נעקר הדבר למפרע. Not you'll find out later she never was an אשת איש, you'll make later that then on, it's as if she never was an אשת איש before. But now when you're giving her the warning, she is an אשת איש, and that won't change! And that's what Tosafos means. And Tosafos says the same thing by a nazir, which fits to the machloket of the Ramban and Ran.

When a nazir drinks wine and he gets malkot, you have to warn him. What happens if the nazir is going to be מתיר נדר? So למפרע he never drank wine, so he'll be patur. So anytime a nazir drinks wine, you're warning him, \"Don't drink, you'll get malkot,\" it's a safek. How do you know? Maybe later he'll be מתיר נדר and it never was a neder. So Tosafos says the same thing: but now he is a nazir. But he might change! And that's the whole safek! So the hava amina of Tosafos, the kushya, is that it means that when it'll change, it'll change completely as if it never was, that takeh it never was. And then now it's a safek, is it or isn't it? Maybe you'll find out later it wasn't. And the answer is, no, even if you find out later, it's not you'll find out, it's only נעקר. Okay. So you have whenever we deal with things למפרע, we have these two ways, and there are more cases where we find this thing. This is just בקיצור נמרץ. What we said now, that according to the Nimukei Yosef, what's the peshat when you throw something or you start a fire or you throw, it's all included in the beginning is l'mafreia, is because after it happens, that's the maskana, after it happens it goes back l'mafreia, that it's included in what you did before, but it happened later. What kind of l'mafreia is it? And you could say the Divrei Chaim himself, he said, \"I know that's the peshat, and that's אשו משום חציו,\" but here he came with a safek that I don't know which of the two is it: is it איגלאי מילתא למפרע or is it ne'ekar? If it's איגלאי מילתא למפרע, so what happens when you throw it and it lands? It's be'emet this landing was done is part of your akirah. It goes back that this is what your akirah is. So the reason why there is an hanachah, because the hanachah is part of the akirah. If we say the second way, that even we say that later it goes back, but what goes back, it doesn't mean that it didn't happen now. Before that, takeh it wasn't, and you are causing an hanachah now, and we consider it as if it goes back to the to the akirah. And that's the two sides of the she'eilah. So

Rabbi Yochanan says, \"I'm telling you that I know the peshat is that now it happens, when it happens it goes back. If we're going to say that what happens now goes back איגלאי מילתא למפרע, so the way you're chayav normally by zerikah, because the akirah eventually, after the hanachah is there, is part of his akirah, the hanachah is part of his akirah. In this case, the hanachah is different. The hanachah, if he catches it, the hanachah is not part of the akirah, it's a new hanachah. It's not part of his akirah. Not even l'mafreia, not, because why? Because you're doing it now what was supposed to happen, and then had it happened, it would have gone back to his akirah, but it didn't happen. So it doesn't go back to his akirah. So you have akirah and hanachah, but they're two separate. The akirah he did, the hanachah he did, but the akirah is not connected to the hanachah. Had it happened, had it fall, it would have been connected to his to his akirah. But if you say that when you say איגלאי מילתא למפרע is not a Peshat that it takeh happened before. Even in a regular case when it falls, it happens now, and before it didn't happen. Now we're putting it, we're changing it now to happen, so the bottom line is, even though it goes back to his akirah, but what happened? Now he's making a hanachah that goes back to his akirah. So בזה, what's the difference if he made a hanachah now, a new hanachah or an old hanachah? When he makes it, it's a new hanachah anyway, because when does it go back? When he makes a hanachah now. According to the first way, the hanachah now doesn't count. Why? Because when it falls, we say it's נתגלה that this was already there before. And that's the she'elah. The she'elah is farkert to Rabbi Yochanan. Since Rabbi Yochanan is the one that says אשו משום חציו, and we learned the pshat in the maskana of the Nimukei Yosef that it goes back, so Rabbi Yochanan says it is going back, could be two ways. If you say it goes back completely, that it never was, that's by the regular case. So this case it's different, because now it's the hanachah did not go back, because it didn't happen the way it was included. אלא like we said by the throwing of the thing, you made a new hanachah. Oh, it's a new hanachah, it's not connected to the akirah. But if you say it always happens then, אלא מאי when it happens then, we relate it to you, but it's still happening then. So what's the difference here? It's also happening now. So you're chayav, because you did the akirah, you did the hanachah, which is similar to if it would have fallen in its place, you would have done the hanachah then also.