Gemara here in Maseches Shabbos דף ה׳ עמוד א׳, Gemara speaks about, the whole perek speaks about hotza'ah, the melachah of carrying, carrying from reshus hayachid to reshus harabim, or from reshus harabim to reshus hayachid, or carrying four amos in reshus harabim. If you carry four amos in reshus harabim, that itself, not changing from one domain to another, one reshus to another, is also a melachah. We also know from this whole Gemara that in order to be chayav for doing a melachah of carrying on Shabbos, you have to make an akirah and hanachah. Like for instance, in hotza'ah, in carrying from reshus hayachid to reshus harabim, you're only chayav if you pick it up from a resting place in reshus hayachid, you carry it out to reshus harabim, and you make a hanachah, you put it down. Hachnasah, which is the other way, same thing: you're only chayav for taking from reshus harabim to reshus hayachid if you make an akirah in reshus harabim, pick it up from the reshus harabim from a resting place, take it to reshus hayachid, put it down. Same thing with throwing ד׳ אמות. When you say that if you, I mean if you carry ד׳ אמות, if you carry four amos in reshus harabim, you're chayav, also has to be an akirah and hanachah. You pick it up in the street, start walking with it, you walk four amos, and you put it down, you're chayav. That's one one thing. Then we also know that all of these melachot of carrying is not only if you carry it by hand, even if you throw it. If you pick something up in reshus hayachid and you throw it out into the reshus harabim and it falls, you are chayav for carrying from reshut hayachid to reshut harabim because you threw it out and it landed. Same thing the opposite. So you're allowed to carry as long as you don't put it down? Mid'oraita. Derabbanan said even just an akirah is also asur. But mid'oraita, yes, mid'oraita, this would not be you're not chayav. It's asur, but you're not chayav. Chayav means mid'oraita. So that means that if you pick something up and you bring it home and you hold it until after Shabbat, it's okay? If you stop, it's called stopping, you have to keep on walking. Yeah, if you keep on walking, well, look, it could be it's five minutes before the before the end of the Shabbat, and you walk in and you keep on walking around, walking around until after Shabbat, then you're not chayav. It's asur mid'rabbanan, derabbanan said it's forbidden, but you can't, but you're not chayav mid'oraita. If you throw, it's the same thing: so either throwing of hotza'ah out from reshut hayachid to reshut harabim, so either throwing the other direction, so either is chayav if you throw ד׳ אמות ברשות הרבים. If you pick something up in reshut harabim and you throw it, and it flies four amot, and then it lands, you are chayav. Then this is the general din. Comes the Gemara, and the Gemara says here: אמר רב אבין, אמר רבי אילעא, אמר רבי יוחנן, רבי יוחנן says: If you

throw something, but someone else catches it, someone else catches it, someone catches it, עמד במקומו וקיבל, if the second guy who caught it was just standing there and it happened to land where he is standing, you're the first guy is still chayav, because he made an akirah and you made a hanachah, because it's like it would have landed on the floor. או קדם וקיבל, if the second guy ran and grabbed it and caught it, then the first guy is patur. The first guy is patur. Why? Because we don't attribute the hanachah to the first guy. In the first case where it just fell onto his hand, it's like it would fall on the floor. And when you throw and it falls, we consider it you made the akirah, you made the hanachah. But if the other guy ran Yeah, his mind was to to the other guy to keep it, no difference there? Why is he not chayav? If what? The other guy, right, he the the guy was throwing, and he threw he throw it to to this guy, and the other guy go go running, going You're you're patur. Why? Because He have a kavanah to The kavanah doesn't matter, but lama'aseh, it didn't land as a result of your akirah. There was a change in the course, and therefore, it's not considered that you made the הנחה. If the הנחה comes directly as you planned We'll explain, so the whole שיעור is going to explain to other ענינים of throwing. But if you it lands because of your throwing, the way you have planned it to be thrown, so that throwing is an עקירה that makes a הנחה, and you're חייב. It was bound to come down, I mean, it's inevitable. And if the guy wouldn't have caught it It would have get somewhere else. It would have been inevitable, right, but it would have been, but l'maaseh, it didn't. So your הנחה didn't happen. That's like shooting the arrow or something We'll see, this whole discussion is going to be with that, we'll get into shooting the arrows. And today, we're going to discuss it more in detail. Anyway, if the other guy grabbed it, you are פטור, the first guy is פטור. Then, בעיא דרבי יוחנן, but רבי יוחנן himself had a שאלה, had a question: זרק חפץ ונעקר הוא ממקומו וחזר וקיבלו מהו? He

threw it, and he himself ran and caught and it's made a different a different landing than it was supposed to be in the beginning. מהו, what's the דין? And he explains what the question: מאי קא מיבעיא ליה? What is the basis of this question? אמר רבא בר עולא, רבא בר עולא said the basis of the question is like this: שני כוחות באדם אחד. It's one person, Yeah. the one person did the עקירה and did the הנחה, but there's two כוחות. The הנחה is a different כח that changed the course. It's a הנחה that he made not connected with עקירה. I will explain in a second. That's this question. Do we say שני כוחות באדם אחד כאדם אחד דמי? Two כוחות in the same person, so it's like the same person did it and we say he did the עקירה, he did the הנחה, and therefore he's חייב. אי דלמא, or maybe כשני בני אדם. Since it was two people, it's two things that happened by him, so even though it's in the same person, it's like two people and you are פטור. I'll explain in a second. And the Gemara finishes off: תיקו. We can't answer this question. The nekudah the base the real nekudah of this question is like this, that's how it could be explained, and that's how it's usually explained. Our question is: Do we look at the person or we look at the מלאכה? If you look at a person, you say like this, this person did an עקירה, went ד' אמות since the עקירה, he did the הנחה of this throwing. So as far as the person is concerned, he did a full-fledged מלאכה of throwing, so he's חייב. But if you look at the מלאכה, there is an interruption between the עקירה and the הנחה. Usually by throwing, the הנחה is connected to the עקירה. The עקירה that you make, when you pick it up, and the זריקה, the throwing that you do, that contains the הנחה. Right? You didn't put it down. I'll explain later, but that's So here, you did the הנחה, but not connected to the עקירה. The הנחה came as a separate thing. So there is like a separation in between the two parts of the מלאכה and therefore we do not connect them. We're not מצטרף them. When are you חייב? If

you're מצטרף, you connect, you have an עקירה and a הנחה. But if you have an עקירה, another separate, lemashel, if someone picks this up on Shabbos and makes an עקירה, and doesn't make a הנחה, למשל, he walks out with it, or he walks Someone else takes it out of his hand while he's walking, he didn't make a הנחה. Later on in the day, he will Someone else will walk, and he will take it from him and put it down. So he has made an עקירה, he has made an הנחה, but he's not חייב, because these two, עקירה and הנחה, don't connect. They're not מצטרף. They're two separate things. So the same thing here, the Gemara שאלה is maybe, what I asked, maybe we say after all למעשה he did the עקירה and he did the הנחה and the מלאכה, he's חייב, or maybe they're two separate things and he's פטור, because we do not connect. And when it's disconnected, then we don't make it into one מלאכה. Actually, this is not נוגע to the whole shiur, but to bring out that the Rashash asked a שאלה: Here, we're saying that if we consider it disconnected, then you're not חייב. So he says, how come this is different than when you have the One of the מלאכות is to write. We know also right now Shabbos, it's one of the ל״ט, 39 מלאכות. The shiur of the

מלאכה to be חייב is two אותיות, two letters. What happens, it says, if one person writes one letter in the morning of Shabbos and one letter in the afternoon? Rabban Gamliel says, \"You are chayav,\" because the bottom line is you wrote two letters. The rabbanan argue, but even they, they don't argue on the concept. They say the case there is that you you remembered in the middle. That since you remembered in the middle, it's not connected. But if you wouldn't have remembered in the middle, they say you would have been chayav even though one is before and one is later. They say you would have been. You would have been chayav. You would have. עד כדי כך, it says in another place, I think in Yerushalmi it brings, Even if you remember, you would have been chayav? Yeah, because then it's connected and it's one העלם. It's called one melacha. I think he brings the Yerushalmi, it says that even if you did one letter on one Shabbos and one letter the next Shabbos, Good. you're chayav. That's Yeah, that's far-fetched. The whole the whole thing is always gonna have to consider how big is the הפסק between one one letter to the next. Cuz you can't write both of them at the same Well, that's what it There's natural time. So you can't say, like, half a second or three-quarters of a second? Yeah, whatever it takes, no? What about a week? What if you're a slow writer, you know? That's nothing, but you have to have the natural, normal way of writing two letters. But here you write before and you write later, and, let's say, you didn't remember in the middle, So, the rabbanan say if you remember, the rabbanan say you're chayav. But the she'eilah is: How come over here, Huh? Eating the shiur on Yom Kippur? No, there there's a שיעור כדי אכילת פרס. There if it's more than the amount of minutes, then it's not connected. But here you had in mind to? Doesn't matter. Half a shiur is אסור מן התורה, but you're called having eaten. So he says, what's the difference between this case Over here, we're saying that if we we say the עקירה, the beginning of the melacha, and the end of the melacha are disconnected, you are patur, That's the sevara, and over there, even though they're far apart, we don't say they're disconnected and you're chayav. What's the difference? And he says a sevara which he tries actually to say it's not, from a Tosafos that it's not, but the truth is from that Tosafos there's no kashya and the the sevara that he's saying is definitely a good sevara. There's a difference between חצי שיעור and חצי מלאכה. חצי שיעור means you did a full melacha in the first letter. The איכות the concept of the melacha you did. There is a measurement, an amount how much you have to do, and that you're missing. So therefore, as long as you did the beginning, the full melacha, then the second time it gets connected. But if you say you did an עקירה without an הנחה, that's half a melacha. So what you did is not a מלאכה בכלל. Here, a separation is important, and therefore if you're separated, disconnected, then we're פטור. And what is this חצי שיעור, over what? By writing. The שיעור to חייב for writing is two אותיות. Two אותיות. It's a שיעור, but it's not חצי מלאכה. And in the in the זריקה you're not talking חצי שיעור? No, עקירה and הנחה is not חצי שיעור. The best ראיה is חצי שיעור is אסור מן התורה. To do חצי שיעור is forbidden from the Torah even though you're not חייב. You're not חייב a punishment if you do a half a שיעור. If a person writes writes one letter on Shabbos, only one letter, he won't be punished he won't get put to death. But it's אסור מדאורייתא, that's how we pasken. Rabbi Yochanan, we pasken like רבי יוחנן הוא חצי שיעור אסור מן התורה. But if you make an עקירה without an הנחה it's not אסור מן התורה at all. What's the punishment? Huh? What's the punishment? No punishment. No punishment. Der Eibershter will take care of you. No punishment in beit din. It's in the שמים. It's a yeah, בית דין של בית דין של מעלה, whatever. So we see that חצי שיעור is much less reason to be חייב, and therefore if you separate I mean חצי מלאכה, so if you separate an עקירה and הנחה, you would be פטור. And therefore if you throw it and then you run to catch it, then we say that two of them are disconnected. You did the עקירה, you did the הנחה, but they're two separate ones, you're פטור. On the other hand, we look at it and we say no, since you did both, so לפועל you did an עקירה and הנחה, you should be חייב. It's not like you did two כחות. No, we call it like two כחות, but two כחות באדם אחד what kind of גדר does it have? That's the Gemara says: שני כחות באדם אחד, כחד אדם דמי ומחייב, ודילמא כשני בני אדם. So the shaila is what is the din of the two כחות? Now, I explained the vort is because we don't know whether we look at it as connected, because as far as the person, you did it one after another, or we look at as disconnected. What's behind that? There must be a sevara whether we look at it this way, we look at it that way to explain the two sides of Rabbi Yochanan. So, the pshat could be like this. This is what could be said. Bichlal, let's understand, why is a person chayav for זריקה, for throwing? You have to make an עקירה, and you have to make a הנחה in order to be chayav for carrying. You only made an עקירה, you picked it up and you threw it, the הנחה happened by itself. Why are you chayav? Why do we say that the הנחה came from you? Just to understand, sai by this, sai by הוצאה, throwing by הוצאה, throwing by הכנסה, wherever the מלאכה is of carrying, we say you're chayav for throwing because we consider that you did the עקירה and הנחה. Why is the הנחה to you? You didn't do the הנחה לפועל. But the Gemara in Ketubot says, Gemara talks עקירה and הנחה, and the Gemara says: עקירה לצורך הנחה, the עקירה is for the sake of the הנחה. What does that really mean? So that comes in the Nimukei Yosef that you mentioned before, that we spoke about last year, two shiurim ago, once before, many times this Nimukei Yosef, I mention many times, but it's noge'a to many things, cuz it's a very, so to speak, philosophical, it is, it's an abstract sevara. So that we have the Nimukei Yosef, and understanding the Nimukei Yosef, that the Nimukei Yosef has a hava amina, and then has a maskana. First he has it one way, then asks a kashya and comes to a maskana, an answer. The hava amina and the maskana, the two reasons behind these two could be the two sides of Rabbi Yochanan. What is that? So we know again, I'll repeat it again even though we mentioned many times, that the Gemara says, אמר רבי יוחנן, the same Rabbi Yochanan says: אשו משום חציו. Why is the din that when a person starts a fire, and the fire travels and travels and burns down this and this and that, you are responsible? Even though you started the fire over here, you didn't do anything a mile away, but if the fire travels and travels a mile, and every damage it does in between, you are chayav. Why? So רבי יוחנן says: אשו משום חציו, just like when you take an arrow, you shoot an arrow, or you throw a rock, same thing, you throw something, I took it up here, and I threw it, so לפועל, I didn't do the damage, it broke that guy's window, I didn't break the window. So you say no, we say that this is the חץ, this is the idea that what happens when when you throw it, whatever happens at the end, you are responsible for, it relates back to you. So you He says, the same thing is by fire. Fire also, you start a fire, whatever happens later relates back to you, and therefore when it burns down, whatever it burns, you are responsible. That's the Gemara. Comes the Nimukei Yosef, and the Nimukei Yosef asks this famous kashya: How are you allowed to light Friday candles? How? How could you write light candles on Friday? Because he says, what's the peshat? That R'' Yochanan is telling us that when you start a fire, whatever happens later is as if you're doing it. So the fire travels as if you're traveling along with it, and why are you chayav? Because if it burns down the house an hour later, an hour later you are burning the house! We consider it you're burning the house. So he says, so the same thing here, because you light a candle before before the שקיעה, and it goes into Shabbos, so by fire we say it's as if you are continuing to burn the fire. So you are making a fire on Shabbos, you're not allowed. It says that's the Nimukei Yosef's kashya. And the Nimukei Yosef answers, the peshat is different. We thought that the way he asked this question, he assumed that why are you responsible by fire? Because as it's going, whatever is happening, you are doing it then. So he says, no, it's the opposite! Whatever happens is included in the beginning! That when you start a fire, everything that's going to happen later is included, and that's why you're responsible. So there's no problem on Friday, because when you start a fire, the whole candle that's being burned is included. That's how he said answers the kashya. So the bottom line, as we come out from here is, what do we have here? We

have a hava amina u'maskana. The hava amina he learned that when you light a fire, and the same thing is by חץ, when you throw a rock or something, and you're responsible what happens at the end. The hava amina was, first he thought it was because as it's happening, you are doing it then. And the end is, he says, no, that's not the peshat. The peshat is that it's all done in the beginning. Now that could be the two peshatim here. R'' Yochanan has said you threw something. Same R'' Yochanan, you threw something, and you're chayav, if nobody catches, let's say it would go and fall, you're chayav. Now why are you chayav? Because it's all the whole thing is related to you. Depends, according to the hava amina, how is it related to you? That you are you are doing it. As it's falling, you are putting it down. According to the maskana, how is it related? That when you threw it, it was all included, and that's the difference. According to the hava amina, that it's as if you're doing it later, so what's the difference if you're doing it later or you're catching it? So you are again doing the hanachah. According to the hava amina, the pshat is, it's not that something is included in what you started, it's when it falls, we're saying you're doing it. Okay, so if I caught it, I did it. It's the same me. That's like שתי כחות באדם אחד כיד אחד דמי. After all, it's me. In other words, in this case, it's not worse than if it would fall. Why would I be chayav if it would fall? Because as it's falling, I'm doing it then! Not I'm doing it before, I'm doing it then, according to the hava amina. So I'm doing it then, what's the chiluk how I do it? But if you're going to say the way he says in the maskana, and the maskana is that it's all included in the beginning, that means it has to be part of your throwing. In this case, the hanachah was not part of your throwing, because you caught it and changed course! So it's not part of your throwing. If it's not part of your throwing, it's a separate inyan, and then we could we can separate between the two. So here if you learn according to the hava amina, we can't separate between the two. Because why? Because you are doing the same hanachah as if it falls. But this way, we could say that by throwing you're only chayav because the hanachah is included in the akirah, but in this case the hanachah that happened is a different hanachah, and the hanachah that you that was included, but didn't happen, umimela in this case you're patur, and that's the two pshatim. We said it changed course if the other, because the other guy ran for it. This guy ran! No, we're talking the she'eilah is when the same guy. If the

other guy ran, it's patur! The same person. But it changed course anyway, but according to the hava amina this makes no... What was the changing of course, if you don't mind? It would land on the floor. Oh, because it didn't land on... Yeah, it did not land, because he came and caught it. So would that be saying if you started a fire, and the fire was burning, and somebody somehow was able to change the course of the fire, you also wouldn't be chayav for it? Probably could, because he wouldn't be chayav, yes. What if he threw it and intended to catch it, according to the second opinion he would be chayav? Intended? He intended to catch it. Doesn't matter, but... He threw it and intended to catch, so he didn't change any course. Here you're getting into another subject. If the sevara is because his kavanah was לאו כוונה, whatever, this is not because of not his kavanah. It's what's linked, what's what's contained in the pe'ulah of throwing. What is the pe'ulah of throwing? The pe'ulah of throwing contains the landing, and that's why you are chayav. Because all you did was, to be chayav you have to do akirah v'hanachah. You did not do it! So we say, no, you threw it, the throwing is the hanachah that you did. But here what happened was you did a different hanachah. But but just like fire, we don't know where fire's going to go. I don't know what the fire's going to... If it goes and takes a path, I'm responsible for it all, nevertheless. No, but the fact is that if someone comes and moves it and pushes the the fire, then you wouldn't be chayav. But but here we're not saying somebody comes... No, but this is the way it... No, because it's natural there. Here, the way the ball was going to go naturally, that's the way it that's the course. Di gantze zach iz er modeh do, di gufah gufah echad, alts pe'ulot funem guf Why, why would we go to change between גופיה לכוחיה? Yeah, but the metziut the the the issur and the heter go in the same way from the גוף. But the גוף threw it, he is he does do everything. The question is, why are you chayav normally for hanachah when you didn't do it? So we're saying the hanachah is done by you in the akirah. But according to the hava amina, it's done in the hanachah. And you did the hanachah. That, what you're saying is right according to the hava amina of the Nimukei Yosef, that it's done by the hanachah. But if you say the other way that it's all included in the akirah, and here the hanachah changed, the hanachah was not included, so really we can't attribute it to your akirah. So here we akirah and hanachah are two separate ones. And the other way, it's not separate. So in koach you do the same, both things, the akirah and hanachah. There inevitably will be an hanachah, but however it is, when it lands on the floor he can't, he catches it, how do you, how do you decide which one of those was in the first akirah, the koach of that Why? Because well he wasn't standing there, it couldn't be there. Right, so So it wasn't there. And again, somebody else doesn't, the kavanah has nothing to do with it. No this according to one peshat is it's the whole problem of the throwing is kavanah, not that it was un... If you're walking along, you throw it off the wall and you run and catch it, so that catching is, you that's what you're going to do. No, it's linked into the throwing. You did something other, because in other words, throwing is what would happen from the throwing itself, that's what we look at. It will go up in the air and it will come down. Oh, up so then you're not chayav. We're talking ד' אמות, there's no such thing as throwing up in the, who cares about ד' אמות... Right. No, so you threw it, so the throwing is the way it's in the throwing, you're not there. So the way you're in the throwing it links is that it's going to fall on the floor. You came and changed what linked in the throwing, not what you had kavanah. It's what linked in, what linked in the פעולה, you did a פעולה that's going to fall, and that will be your hanachah. So what will, when, what did you do for the hanachah? You threw it. That's for hanachah. Lichorah, what turned out, that the hanachah was, you caught it, it's a different hanachah, so we separate it. There has to be some sort of exception for people who game the system. Well, well you know what? We'll go further and we'll get more into this, into this, we can't just Okay. The

problem with this peshat is that the Nimukei Yosef who says a הוה אמינא ומסקנה is all in R'' Yochanan. Now the the Nimukei Yosef has a first sevara and a second sevara. Rabbi' Yochanan knows his pshat, right? So how is Rabbi' Yochanan himself asking the question? See, someone else would say, \"I don't know what Rabbi' Yochanan meant.\" Right. So the Nimukei Yosef, he meant this, maybe he meant this, so I'm going to ask according to Rabbi' Yochanan what's the din. Here it's Rabbi' Yochanan himself asking a question. When we're going to say these two צדדים, the two sides are based on Rabbi' Yochanan saying over there, and the Nimukei Yosef simply I mean he doesn't know exactly, he's asking a she'eilah, I don't know, teiku, he doesn't even know what the answer is. What is it in his own in in he doesn't know what he said, he doesn't know what he meant, he knows what he meant. So therefore I want to say בהמשך to what we said before, that it's depended on the Nimukei Yosef, but not depended on the הוה ומסקנה. The maskanah of the Nimukei Yosef, the end of the Nimukei Yosef. In that גופא which Rabbi' Yochanan said his din, Rabbi' Yochanan has a safek exactly how this thing goes. And that's like he didn't know, but he knew the maskanah and he knew and we'll see, explain this. To explain this, let's start with something else. We

kept on saying Rabbi' Yochanan says אשו משום חציו, that if you throw something, Rabbi' Yochanan says what? אשו משום חציו, that when you throw an arrow, and if or a fire, so the Nimukei Yosef explains that whatever happens in the end really happened in the beginning, is included in the beginning. So the Rebbe asks, in Likkutei Sichos, a very strong she'eilah: The Gemara says in Ta'anit that Rabbi' Yochanan said, Rabbi' Yochanan, had I been in the time of the חורבן בית המקדש, I would have established the Ta'anit not on Tisha B'Av, not on the ninth of Av, but on the tenth of Av. And he says why? Because we all know that they put the בית המקדש on fire towards the evening of Tisha B'Av, it burned all the way through the night into the day of י' Av. Most of it burned on tenth of Av. So since most of it burned on tenth of Av, we should fast on tenth of Av. That's what he says. And that's the reason why even nowadays we have half a day, it's like the nine days. So the Rebbe asks, \"I don't understand, you Rabbi' Yochanan, according to the Nimukei Yosef, you Rabbi' Yochanan yourself say that it's all always included in the beginning. That's why by the fire you say on Friday, whatever you burned, beginning. So according to you, we know why you do it on Tisha B'Av, because the moment they started the fire, this includes the whole burning of the בית המקדש. So the real time is Tisha B'Av, why are you saying that you should have fasted on י' Av?\" Of all, yeah, you out of all people. Who started the fire? The goyim, I mean So the Rebbe answers that look at this, what is the reason for Rabbi' Yochanan or the way the Nimukei Yosef learns that it's all included in the beginning? Because as soon as it gets out of your hand, it's out of your control. Like if you shoot an arrow, it's out of your control. So if it's out of your control, everything is included. But by the בית המקדש, if the Oibershter made the burning of the בית המקדש, the Oibershter, nothing is out of His control. So there we don't say everything is included, and that's why Rabbi' Yochanan said this. That's what the Rebbe says there. So I have to tell you, I don't understand what he says. Why? Because this idea is only good by throwing an arrow, shooting a rock. By fire, why do you say it's out of your control? If you start a fire and it goes on and on, it's not out of your control, you could have stopped it. Put water on it somehow. No, the same way you could have knocked the arrow down. No, the arrow, this is something over there. So if you want, I can tell I'll tell you I would have a problem with the arrow too. Yeah. But I'm saying by the arrow I could see usually when you shoot a bullet Faster. Faster, yeah yeah. Take time out of it. Yeah, yeah, but in inyan the kashya is there too. What do you mean out of your control? And by fire, and you can't say by fire you're chayav only in a case where you couldn't control it. I would say farkert, if you couldn't control it you're chayav, and if you could control it and you didn't, right, you're another chayav. So there's no she'eilah that there even if you could control. So what does the Rebbe mean that the reason is because you can't control it? But the Oibershter, the Eibershter could control it, I mean by every fire you could control it, and still he says everything is included. I'm telling you there must be something deeper, the Rebbe has a deeper pshat which if you look into it you'll have to say this pshat. And I'll say what what what the pshat in the sicha is. בהקדם, first let's explain like this. And this again we spoke about this many times. The Ketzos says that Tosafot argues on the Nimukei Yosef, argues, פליקט אפ, on the maskanah of the Nimukei Yosef. Again, on Rabbi Yochanan. on Rabbi Yochanan. What does the Nimukei Yosef say in the maskanah at the end? That if when you throw a rock, everything's included in the beginning. He says Tosafot I see doesn't learn like that. Which Tosafot? A famous Tosafot, where Tosafot said, the Gemara says if a person throws a כלי down from a roof on the floor, it's going to break, no question about it, before it before it landed someone in the air broke it. Threw something else at it. So the other guy broke it, the first guy's chayav. Why? The Gemara says מנא תבירא תבר, the guy who broke it broke a broken כלי, yeah, it's broken. Comes Tosafot and

Tosafot says, What if you put a mattress under, is he still chayav? No, it didn't break. Nothing to be chayav for. Comes Tosafot comes Tosafot and Tosafot says this din is only if you threw down a כלי. What happens if you have a כלי laying on the floor, and you throw down a rock flying straight to the כלי, it's going to break, and someone breaks the כלי before it landed? Tosafot says there the first guy is not chayav, the second guy is chayav. And Tosafot says סברא פשוטה לחלק, it's a very simple sevara to make a difference between throwing down the כלי and throwing the rock on the כלי. And whenever I I say this this Tosafot, I always add what someone told me, he once heard a shiur from an older person, he did not himself, he heard from somebody, heard from Mendy Garelik. Mendy Garelik told me he heard from a guy who heard a shiur from the Rogatchover. And the Rogatchover mentioned this Tosafos. And the Rogatchover in the shiur said like this: \"ביי מיר פלאצט די קאפ פארשטיין דעם חילוק, my brain is busting to understand the difference, און תוספות זאגט זיך אזוי: סברא פשוטה לחלק, and Tosafos says it's so simple to make a difference.\" Okay, we're not going into that. The Rogatchover said that? Yeah, so he said he heard a guy the guy told him that he heard the Rogatchover say, \"ביי מיר פלאצט די קאפ,\" he said. He was in the shiur of the Rogatchover? Yeah, he was there, not him, Mendy Garelik heard it from a guy who was by the shiur, and the Rogatchover said this word said this: \"ביי מיר פלאצט די קאפ צו פארשטיין דעם חילוק, my brain is busting, my head is busting to understand the difference, און תוספות זאגט זיך אזוי, תוספות says it like it's a simple, סברא פשוטה, it's a simple reason to לחלק.\" Whatever, that's what he gives. Says the Ketzos that this obviously does not fit to the maskana of the Nimukei Yosef, because according to the maskana of the Nimukei Yosef that when you throw a rock at something and at a window and it breaks it, everything is included in the beginning, so if you throw a rock at a keli, right in the beginning the keli is as if it's broken, so someone broke it should be patur. That's what he says. So the Ketzos says there's a machloket between Tosafos and the Nimukei Yosef. Many acharonim say it's not so. It's not a setirah. Why? Because when does the Nimukei Yosef say it? If it actually broke it! Exactly, what's today? When it happened, then we say. Then we'll explain this. But Tosafos is talking in a case where b'foal it didn't break it. B'foal someone else broke it, so we don't say it. And I want to explain the pshat in that in in in this vort. Bichlal we have to understand, what does Nimukei Yosef mean that it's originally included in the beginning? When you throw when you start a fire, everything that happens is included. Why is it included? So I saw someone write once, עפעס in a sefer which like like I said, I think the guy's it didn't make any sense. He says when someone starts a fire, you are basically responsible for everything that is possible to burn. Right away you're responsible. If b'foal didn't burn it, you're patur. Interesting. As if when you start a fire, as if the whole world was burned. Strict liability, somebody... you have to... No, but to say as if the whole world was burned, and now the pshat if you didn't burn this if this guy's house wasn't burned, you're not chayav. No! You're chayav, but you became patur because it never got to it. It's it's it's it's strange, it's The peshat is really, like you

said, it works retroactive, that's what it means. It works lemif'rea. You throw it, nothing happened yet. As it's going, it happens then, and then you're doing it, but the maskana is that if you're doing it then, since it's by just leaving it and not doing anything to it, this is what would happen. So when it happens, retroactive we say that it goes back to before. And this is the difference between the hava amina and the maskana. The hava amina and the maskana both learn that at the end it's it it connects, you are doing it at the end. You start in, you're doing it at the end. The difference is the hava amina we thought you're doing it at the end and that's it, that's what's happening. The maskana is that when you're doing it at the end, because that was the normal course it would have taken, not because you could have stopped it, you could have stopped it maybe, but if you're leaving it go by itself this is how it would go, so when it happens it goes retroactive. That's the peshat in in the maskana. Therefore, we could explain peshat in the sichah. This is what the רבי means. By a regular fire according to the maskana in Bava Kama, what happens? Since this is the normal course that it goes, so when you start a fire b'derech me'meila, automatically, let's say this is normally it'll burn that house. And because of that, when it burns the house, you are burning it, only when it burns it, but then, since this was b'derech me'meila, it goes back retroactive. But you have to add the word, because it was a normal thing that would happen. That's what the רבי means, by the Oibershter there is no b'derech me'meila. By the Oibershter when he starts, no one can say, \"Well, he started something and then it'll automatically go by itself\", no, every second he is making it happen. When we reply just like by the world we say the אויבערשטער מחדש בטובו בכל יום תמיד, so when we apply something specific to the Oibershter, we can't say, \"He started it, and if no one's going to touch it, it'll happen, unless you stop it\". By the Oibershter you

can't say it. By a person you could say it, that you start a fire Why, the Rogatchover, the רבי adopts many times, it's a פעולה נמשכת, so you could say the same thing. Everything I'm doing, every moment, I'm Only in specific things he says it. Yeah, throwing it? No, no, it's the perfect thing, it's like shlichut. Yeah. If a shlichut is a פעולה נמשכת, then why can't you say throwing something is a Yeah, but it you put it in once. It's a different פעולה נמשכת by the Oibershter. You put it in once and goes. You see, by the Oibershter, when we say the Oibershter creates the world every second, it says the Rabbi Rashab writes in different maamarim, it's not like throwing a rock, he says. We say in תניא בשער היחוד והאמונה, then why didn't the Oibershter do it lechatchilah? They they claim the Oibershter created the world once and now it goes by itself. So the Alter Rebbe says it's not true, it doesn't make sense, it is. So you ask the she'eilah, we see that! Zerikah! You throw it and it goes by itself! And he says that the creation of the world is not like that. It's more than that, it's mamash the Oibershter is מחדש בטובו actually every second. It's still like zerikah because it's the כח So he said he says it's not so! And he says it in Sefer HaMaamarim I think, he says it's not like the כח הזריקה. כח הזריקה is, also we call it פעולה נמשכת because the person has to be there, but for the פועל ממש you put it in once before and now that כח, by the Oibershter, he actually himself is משגיח בהשגחה פרטית and it goes every second. Why do you say the Oibershter burned the בית המקדש? Because the Oibershter did it! The Oibershter sent, it says a pasuk, the Oibershter sent Nevuchadnetzar, \"הנני שולח את נבוכדנצר עבדי\" he says. Goyim don't have בחירה. Christians and whatever everybody Yeah, but that's not בחירה, everything's the Oibershter, we know that. So when I someone hurts somebody, it's the Oibershter doing it, so you shouldn't hurt him? No, but here, the בית המקדש not, the בית המקדש is a punishment the Oibershter gave the Yidden, and the Oibershter says, \"I'm sending him and I'm going to make him do it\". It's not like everything that happens stam as a, everything is from the אויבערשטער, אין עוד מלבדו, but כביכול this is the Oibershter made the דרך הטבע. This, in דרך הטבע was the Oibershter. The Oibershter, this couldn't have happened, the בית המקדש, the Oibershter made it happen. Since the goyim don't have בחירה, so whatever whatever happens with the goyim, whatever they do is because of Hashem. Yeah, but a lot of times He directs it. Directs it. He could stop the fire, because there's no בחירה. I'm not saying there's no way to stop, but yeah, the Oibershter could have stopped it. Nobody could have stopped it. More than that, could have stopped it doesn't help. We could have stopped the, we could stop a fire also. We could take water and stop the fire. I'm saying that today by the Oibershter, the fire is when it's going he's making he's taking it along. It's not the peshat that it's happening בדרך ממילא, we call it. We said by regular fire, since בדרך ממילא it goes here by itself from based on what you started, therefore when it ends and you're and it's considered you did it, it goes retroactive. But by the אויבערשטער, it's not because it's it's you start he started it and then it's going and retroactive it'll work. He is making it happen! And that's the difference, that's what the Rebbe means in the sicha. You have to see if it fits into the words, but otherwise I don't understand it. If not for this pshat, I don't understand it. Maybe, the אויבערשטער can you know the teshuva can hold up the the עונש. Well, that's true that's true, but that's not enough, because we could also stop a fire. We could also stop a fire, and we we yeah, in the last second, yeah, yeah. The same by the אויבערשטער, it's more than just, by the אויבערשטער it means he it's not בדרך ממילא. The ממילא does go retroactive. Why can't we say that the Rebbe meant, because one of the issues is, getting to our Gemara, one of the issues, with fire you can say, yes, of course we can intervene, shoot an arrow, you can cause something to stop, you shoot a faster arrow or, you know, a faster bullet to stop. But the

bottom line is, it's a, the reason why it's retroactive, because it's a normal process. And assuming that the minute you stop it, you can, a person can be paralyzed, a person can die, and that his estate is still responsible. Even if a person lights a fire, shoots an arrow, and he dies a second later, the estate is still responsible, because from a natural perspective, that once you stop it, we're not Not because you can't stop it, because it's בדרך ממילא going, like I said, exactly. Same thing with the rock and with throwing the Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. But by Hashem, Hashem is not You can say it's impossible to, if you're going to say Hashem physically did the fire, which we're saying Yeah, yeah, well that's right. It's impossible. There is no possibility for Hashem to cease to exist, to cease to have his power. What you're saying is not a sevara, it's a proof. It's a proof of what the Rebbe No, no, no, but the sevara is not. You're saying the sevara I'm saying, but you're saying here practically speaking, it shows it. But the Rebbe doesn't say that. The Rebbe says the words because you can't, because Hashem could stop it. But it's not the word stopping. You're saying is because Hashem is always there. And Hashem can't possibly said to start of something, and then back away. Yeah, but that doesn't mean the words with you could stop it now, because I, person might die. Well, die won't stop it. But if the other could stop it, and here it's not the word stopping, I'm saying it's not the word stopping. It's the words whether it goes בדרך ממילא or he's making it happen. But the

point is I'm saying is that bottom line is that according to the, the hava amina it's not retroactive. Right. You're doing it, and as it's falling, as falling or as it's burning the house, then you are doing it. The maskana is it works, no, the hava amina is it happens then. The maskana is also it happens then. But when it happens then, it works retroactively lemafre'a. This is Rabbi Yochanan's pshat. Now, Rabbi Yochanan himself says, I know that for sure it works lemafre'a. In lemafre'a there are two types of lemafre'a. And that's my topic over here. What's the two types? So that we also once went into a שיעור בנוגע למפרע: גלויי מילתא למפרע or נגמר למפרע. When you say something works retroactive, is the pshat that we find, it's as if we found out that it never was? If you're able If there is an halacha that you're able to change something and it works retroactive, that means it never was. Right, we talked about it with Yom Kippur. Yom Kippur, yeah, we talked all about that. I remember with teshuva, teshuva. Because only in halacha, in gashmiyus there's no such thing as works retroactive. Right, right, right. But in halacha it could work. So what's the peshat it works retroactive? So we have certain things works גלויי מילתא למפרע. I'll give an example. The

example of the Tzemach Tzedek baMishnah. So you annul a marriage, that's retroactive. No. No, no. Mid'oraita, you can annul from today, you can't annul from Yeah. A get, yeah, from today and on. Broken engagement, you get your silver back? Ah, that's not working now l'mafre'a. That's a gashmiyut. It's a gashmiyusdike thing. House done with in the beit din. Beit din, right, so the beit din does it. No, no, first of all, that's a תורה זאך, what I'm saying, but even then, it's it's not something that we could see. I'm just saying you can't change history basically. Whatever happened before, you can't change history. You had a get with a conditions. So that's condition, it's a הלכה זאך. A condition, when you give a get on condition, it works. Yeah. And that gufa, yeah, exactly. But I'll give an example of the Tzemach Tzedek with a get, that we know the din that if you send a get with somebody to give your wife, and in the middle, before she gets it, you decide that you want to be mevatel the get, you chase the your shaliach, and you tell him I'm mevatel the get. But the Gemara says when does the bitul work, the nullification of the get work? If the words that you use are words that mean that from now on the get should be batel. But if you use an expression which means that it was batel, then it's wrong, it's a lie. And the Gemara gives different expressions. So the Tzemach Tzedek had a she'eilah, and I mentioned it other time also, that there was a case where somebody was in a beit din and he was they were writing a get, he told him to write a get, in the middle he got upset about something and he started screaming, \"האדיע, האדיע, ניט קיין גט.\" \"האדיע\" means stop, stop. \"There is no get.\" Now the

question was, became a whole she'eilah. אין כאן, in Hebrew, ניט דא is אין כאן. \"אין כאן גט,\" is that a lashon that means future or past? \"אין כאן גט\" because it's אין כאן means there isn't. Does it mean it was never was or there shouldn't be? We don't know. So how, and the Gemara doesn't mention this expression. So the Tzemach Tzedek says, \"I'll let's look into other cases where we find a לשון אין כאן.\" So he found: when you go to a chacham and you make a neder, and you go to the to nullify, the chacham says, \"אין כאן נדר. אין כאן נדר.\" And the she'eilah is... And the and the neder, the chacham is עוקר the נדר למפרע. Works retroactive. So what would it seem like, the word אין כאן means the past? So he says opposite, it's not true. He says אין כאן means that the chacham is now destroying the neder, retroactive, but he's doing it now. I'm going to be mevatel the neder. So he proves from this case of אין כאן נדר that it works it's להבא, it's for the future. And the Tzemach Tzedek brings that there's another person, the Mishkenos Yaakov, a sefer Mishkenos Yaakov, sometimes I bring the teshuvah, who had the exact same she'eilah. אין כאן גט and he paskened that it means past from the same ראיה, the opposite. Since the word אין כאן works by a nullification of a neder, and a nullification of a neder works lemafre'a, it shows lemafre'a. And the Tzemach Tzedek says he's wrong. Why? Because it's now doing it. It's doing it that now as if it never was and therefore for anything that's going to be נוגע from now on, we look at it as if it never was. But

anything that happened before, as נוגע to before, it was. And he gives a mashal, he brings a Ramban. The Ramban says like you tie a knot and you untie it, as if it was never there. But it was, till now it was there, now you deal with it as if it wasn't there. But b'foal it was there. So, this is the difference. The Tzemach Tzedek like this, he holds like this. And there's other places where we find these two ideas of lemafre'a. Let's go back here. When we say that when you throw something and it falls and it makes an הנחה, and you're chayav because you made the הנחה, and we said that the maskana is that when it falls you are doing it then, but it works למפרע. Which way does it work למפרע? Does it work למפרע that as if מכאן ולהבא למפרע? Does it mean that now I'm making it happen as as if it never happened before, but what I'm doing is I'm doing it now? Or you'll say no, it's as if it never happened. Just like sometimes you do something and you realize it was a mistake. Let's say a person makes a neder, and later realized that it was a ta'us, that means his neder didn't, is that a pshat you're changing it now? You just realized, oh, you didn't know, you realized it never was. So, the same thing, אגלאי מילתא למפרע means it never was. So, if it never was, so when you make the hanachah normally and it goes למפרע, when did you really make the hanachah? It means all the way back in the beginning. Therefore, if a guy runs and catches it, when is the hanachah made? Now! So,

there's two separate things. By an akirah, normally a regular throwing, the akirah is the same time of the hanachah, after what happens, it works back. So, that's the side of the safek, Rabbi Yochanan himself says, I know that it works retroactive, that's why I say אשו משום חציו, but I myself am not clear, is it the pshat that it works למפרע back, and if it works למפרע back, mimeila in this case you would be patur, because in this case the hanachah happened the real hanachah, the b'poal mamash happened later, because you threw it, it was supposed to land, had it landed then then it would work backwards, and the way you would be chayav is because it works backwards and you made the hanachah in the akirah, b'poal you didn't, you made a new hanachah. But if you're going to learn what it means is that takeh till now it was one way, and now you are making a change, now you are making an hanachah, ein hachi nami, it works and tells it goes back to you, that's why you're chayav. But b'poal when are you doing it? Now. So what's the difference if you're doing it now because it's going to fall, or you're doing it now because you caught it? You're still doing it now, and in this case you would be chayav. That's מכאן ולהבא למפרע. למפרע מכאן ולהבא.

What is tamas the otiyot the means to being on Shabbos? Because that's chatzi shiur. Chatzi shiur, because the ot is a full melachah. One ot is a full melachah. What's missing is the shiur. Chatzi shiur is the half of the melachah. That's why חצי שיעור is also min haTorah. Yeah, because be'etzem you did the whole melacha already. You did the whole melacha already, all you need were add the shiur, that works. But if you didn't do the melacha, then there's an hefsek. The hefsek is an hefsek. You can't be מצטרף if you did b'poal, nein! B'poal they're distinct plain. וויבאלד אז ער האט געטון פריער די גאנצע מלאכה, אלא מאי עס פעלט די שיעור, אויף א שיעור קען מען צוזאמענפלעכטן. אבער אויב עס איז געטון נאר אן עקירה, דאס איז דאך נישט קיין מלאכה בכלל, נישטא צו וואס מצרף זיין. דארטן איז, that's what it is. I wonder what what was the sicha of the Rebbe? I'd love to see the words how it fits in it's. You want to know the truth? Yeah. It doesn't really fit into this. I mean you could it's it's Chelek Aleph' Parshas Va'eira. Oh, next, Chelek Aleph'. You never have nigleh in Chelek Aleph'. This has. Okay, terrific.

What happened to, by Hashem He already created all of it, so even though that's like אין פועל, אין בכח ובפועל, בכח, it's like b'poal, no? So even b'koach it's there. Right, in the koach the poal was there, therefore the continue is He's always there. Yeah, but b'poal mamash the world wasn't there. Right, right, right. Real b'poal. Good question, yeah. Uh-huh. Yashar koach. What was What