You know the Gemara here on דף שבת דף ד דף ג עמוד ב the Gemara has the shaila the Abaye's question: בעי אביי ידו של אדם מהו שתהא ככרמלית? מי קנסוה רבנן לאהדורה לגביה או לא? The case is when a person sticks his hand out from the רשות היחיד into the רשות הרבים. The shaila is, can he take it back on Shabbos? And the lashon that he says, did the hand become like a כרמלית? And if the hand is like a כרמלית, if he will take it back, he will be carrying from a כרמלית to a רשות היחיד, which everyone knows on Shabbos you're not allowed to carry from a כרמלית to מדרבנן, but you're not allowed to do it. And the lashon of the Gemara is did they make it into a כרמלית? מי קנסוה רבנן לאהדורה לגביה או לא? Did the רבנן give him a knas that he shouldn't be able to take it back? And this is the גירסא that Rashi has. If you look in Rashi, Rashi writes, \"מי קנסוה רבנן.\" Did the רבנן make a knas? So here the Gemara uses two leshonot. The question is, is it like a כרמלית, and the reason you shouldn't be able to take it back because you can't take from a כרמלית to רשות היחיד, but the lashon is did they do this did they knas on him? Did they give him a knas he shouldn't take it back? Comes Tosafot, and Tosafot says, נראה לרי דגרס מי אסרוה. That the גירסא is not did they not did they make it a knas, but did they make it an איסור? ולא גרס מי קנסוה. We shouldn't make the גירסא מי קנסוה. Why? Because דלקמן בסמוך כי מוקמינן דלאו ככרמלית דמי אמרינן דאסור לאהדורה משום קנס, because later on the Gemara one of the תירוצים in the Gemara later says that באמת it's not a כרמלית and it's still asur because of a knas. So we see that the word knas is when it's not a כרמלית. If it's not a כרמלית, then באמת it shouldn't be asur, it's only asur because of a knas. So why do we have to use the word knas when we're talking about a כרמלית? If it's a כרמלית, it's not knas. Why can't you take it back if it's a כרמלית? Because you can't take from a כרמלית to a רשות היחיד, not because it's a knas. So therefore Tosafos is גורס not מי קנסוה, but מי אסרוה. It's not a knas! But then Tosafos says, ושמא you could be גורס maybe, but still it means כרמלית because הא דעבדי ככרמלית נמי הוי קנסא. באמת the שאלה is did they make it into a כרמלית, and the reason you can't take it back because you can't carry from a כרמלית. Why did they make it into a כרמלית? Because of a knas. So the knas is not directly on the person, but the knas is on the רשות. That because of the knas they made it into רשות. Now that it's a רשות, you can't take it back. Why? Because it's a כרמלית, you can't take from a כרמלית. Ay, what's the difference? I think nafka mina בשוגג ובמזיד. The bottom line is we have here basically a machloket between Rashi and Tosafot. Rashi is גורס מי קנסוה, even though we say the word כרמלית. Rashi also says the she'elah is מהו שתהא ככרמלית. Nevertheless, we're גורס מי קנסוה. Tosafot is גורס מי אסרוה. Va'afilu if Tosafot holds that you're גורס קנסוה, Tosafot the peshat is that it's really a כרמלית, the reason for the כרמלית is is is a knas, but it's a כרמלית. So what we have to do is understand, as we always do, what is the sevarot behind the two ways, whether it's a כרמלית without a knas, it's a כרמלית, or is it אסרוה, just a plain כרמלית, or is it a כרמלית with a knas. Bifrat we'll see later that even though Tosafot gives the sevarot, but we'll see that there is much more to it than it looks like. That's one thing. Okay.

There's a few things we have to understand. This is not a kushya what I just said, just let's look a little deeper into the machloket in Rashi and Tosafot. Then we have a few she'elot here, also not all kushiyot, just diyukim. When the Gemara says that did they make it into a כרמלית, so Rashi says like this: did they make it into a כרמלית, which there is the גוזר in the middle of Rashi דיבור המתחיל בעי דגזרו רשות מדבריהם לשבת, there's a כרמלית, that is, it's a different רשות that the חכמים made on שבת, שאסרו להכניס ולהוציא הימנו לרשות היחיד ולרשות הרבים. It's a רשות that the חכמים made that you cannot carry back from one place to from the רשות היחיד, not to רשות היחיד, not to רשות הרבים, ושמיה כרמלית. There is such a thing? There is an a רשות כרמלית. כדתניא בפרקין, like it says later on on דף ו, ד' רשויות לשבת. דף ו it says there are four רשויות לשבת, and the beraita goes on to list them: רשות היחיד, רשות הרבים, כרמלית, ומקום פטור. So there we see there is such a thing as a karmelit. Then Rashi goes in to describe to explain what does the word karmelit mean. Karmelit is לשון יער וכרמלו. It's a לשון of a פסוק, יער וכרמלו, it means a forest. Why is this רשות called a forest? Because it's like a forest, שאינו לא הילוך תמיד לרבים ולא תשמיש לרשות היחיד. It's it's not made for רבים, it's not like a street that people go, a forest is no people go, but on the other hand it's not made for a יחיד. So it's nisht ahin un nisht aher. It's not not רשות היחיד and not רשות הרבים, that's a karmelit. That's why it's called karmelit. So I have two not kushiyot at all, it's not a kushya, just diyuk: Why does Rashi have to bring here ד' רשויות לשבת? Rashi wants to say that later on in the Gemara we see that there is a רשות called karmelit. So Rashi should have said דגזרו רבנן רשות לשבת שאסרו להכניס הימנו, you can't carry in רשות היחיד, ושמיה כרמלית כדתניא בפרקין, like it says later on. Rashi quotes, it says later on ד' רשויות לשבת. Why does he have to bring the beginning of the beraita? He should have just said later on the Gemara says there is such a thing as a כרמלית. As if Rashi wants to stress that you should know there are ד' רשויות. It's not a kashya. Rashi maybe wants to just tell us the beginning of the baraita to know which baraita to look for, but Rashi doesn't usually do that. He just will say there is such a thing as a כרמלית as it says later on. It's one thing. Then another thing, again a diyuk: Why is Rashi here explaining what a כרמלית is? Pashut pshat is cuz this is the first time in מסכת Shabbos where a כרמלית comes up. The Gemara never mentioned the word כרמלית before, so Rashi explains it. But still it's not pashut, because usually Rashi would be enough he'd say there's such a thing as כרמלית. When we will learn on דף ו, the Gemara then we go into the metzius and the Gemara tells us there is a כרמלית, there Rashi should explain why it's called כרמלית. Here, where it's brought like בדרך אגב, is it like a כרמלית or not, here you have to explain what a כרמלית? So again it's not a kashya, yeah, Rashi does that. But look at Tosafot! Tosafot on דף ו explains what Tosafot holds why it's called כרמלית. Tosafot doesn't do it here, even though this is the first time the Gemara mentions. Tosafot in דף ו says, בירושלמי בריש שבת תני רבי חייא, why is it called כרמלית? From the word כרמל. כרמל is רך ומל, it's soft and hard. לא לח ולא soft, it's nisht same thing, it's not hard and not soft and not hard, not dry and not wet, אלא בינוני. הכא נמי כרמלית, אינה לא כרשות היחיד ולא כרשות הרבים. So Tosafos has this pshat different than Rashi why it's called כרמלית, but Tosafos waits till דף ו where the Gemara goes into that inyan of כרמלית. Why does Rashi do it over here? Okay, it's a diyuk. Then we have another thing here.

One of the teirutzim in the Gemara, cuz when the Gemara brought the she'eilah can he take the hand back or not, so the Gemara brought two beraitot: תני חדא אסור להחזיר, תני חדא מותר להחזיר. One says yes and one says no. And the Gemara gave first thought that that's a machloket whether it's a כרמלית, so the Gemara said no, everyone holds it's a כרמלית, but one is למעלה מיו״ד, one is למטה מיו״ד. If you stuck it out למעלה מיו״ד, then you're allowed to take it back; if you stuck it out למטה מיו״ד, you can't take it back. Pashut pshat, it seems, when you stuck it out למעלה when it says כאן למעלה מיו״ד that you could take it back, means you stuck it out למעלה מיו״ד. And that's how it seems Rashi learns, because Rashi gives the reason why if it's למעלה מיו״ד you could take it back. So Rashi says, דלאו איסורא עבד. Why shouldn't you take it back? What did you do wrong? You can't stick out Since למעלה מיו״ד is not a רשות הרבים, we have a klal: רשות הרבים only is עד עשרה, only up to ten טפחים. למעלה מיו״ד is not רשות הרבים. So when a person stuck his hand out on Shabbos, let's say, from a רשות היחיד out into רשות הרבים but it was למעלה מיו״ד, what did he do? It's a מקום פטור. So therefore there's no problem, you could take it back. And the other baraita says and the other baraita is למטה מיו״ד. Comes Tosafot, and Tosafot asks a kashya: אם תאמר, למעלה מיו״ד לכתחילה נמי מותר להוציא, הוי מקום פטור. I mean, what's the chidush that if you stick it out למעלה מיו״ד you could take it back? You look at he didn't לכתחילה he can stick it out. On Shabbos you're allowed to pick something up in a רשות היחיד, make an akirah, stick it out outside the window למעלה מיו״ד. So you're telling me that we didn't knas him, we didn't tell you you can't take it back, because it's למעלה מיו״ד? Pashut. Therefore, Tosafot learns different pshat. It's not the pshat you stuck it out למעלה מיו״ד, that's pashut, that we wouldn't even talk about. What does it mean? יש לומר דקא משמע לן דאפילו הוציאה מתחילה דרך מטה מיו״ד. When it says למעלה מיו״ד, it means take it back למעלה מיו״ד. You stuck it out למטה מיו״ד. Which if you stuck it out למטה מיו״ד, you did something wrong! Because you made an akirah in רשות היחיד, and you put your hand out into the רשות הרבים, למטה מיו״ד. It's not אסור דאורייתא, because you didn't do a hanachah, but מדרבנן you're not allowed to make an akirah in רשות היחיד and stick it out into the רשות הרבים. So you did something wrong! So the chidush is מותר להחזירו למעלה מיו״ד. You're allowed to take it back למעלה מיו״ד, ולא קנסינן ליה. So when it says למעלה מיו״ד, Tosafot learns that means you stuck it out למטה מיו״ד. So when it says that אסור להחזירו is למטה מיו״ד, means to take it back למטה מיו״ד. Both are talking you stuck it out למטה מיו״ד. When it says אסור להחזירו, means you can't take it back למטה מיו״ד. When it says למעלה מיו״ד you could, means you could take your hand, which is למטה מיו״ד, pick it up למעלה מיו״ד, and you take it out, that you're allowed to do. Why takeh are you allowed to do? So, because it's a מקום פטור. למעלה מיו״ד is a מקום פטור. So you're taking from a מקום, you're going to take it from the רשות הרבים to the מקום פטור, is a problem? You can take to a מקום פטור. Then you're going to take from the מקום פטור to the רשות היחיד, is that a problem? No, that's why you're allowed. So the bottom line is Tosafos learns that the case here is that you stuck it out למטה מיו״ד, not למעלה מיו״ד. Rashi obviously, like I said, doesn't learn like that, because Rashi gives us the reason: Why could you למעלה מיו״ד? Because למעלה מיו״ד is a מקום פטור, he says אויר מקום פטור, הלכך לא קנסוה, they didn't קנס him, why? דלאו איסורא עביד, because he didn't do anything wrong. If we're going to learn like Tosafos that he stuck it out למטה מיו״ד, we can't say he didn't do anything wrong. Befeirush did do wrong! Tosafos says you're allowed to bring it back for a different reason, not because he didn't do anything wrong, he befeirush did wrong, but since you're going to take it to a מקום פטור, is no problem. From a מקום פטור you can take back. אבל to say דלאו איסורא עביד you can't. So Rashi obviously learns that the pshat is that you stuck it out למעלה מיו״ד. But then we have Tosafos's she'eilah: So what's the chiddush? If you stuck it out למעלה מיו״ד, לכתחילה you could do it! So what's what's the chiddush that you could do it that you could take it back? Ela mai? You could say the chiddush is we would have thought that if the hand became a כרמלית, you still can't take it back, even if it's something that's mutar because you can't take from a כרמלית. Your hand is a כרמלית, you can't take from a כרמלית into רשות היחיד. That doesn't That's not true, because למעלה מיו״ד there is no such thing as a כרמלית. A כרמלית is also only till יו״ד. So it can't The hand itself can't be a כרמלית. So then why shouldn't you be able to take it back? You could put it out, you can take it back, what's the chidush? Tosafot's kushya. So you have that she'eilah on Rashi, how would Rashi answer that? And then there's another thing here, there's the Rashba's kushya on Tosafot, which is a very interesting kushya, and because of that he argues on Tosafot. But then the Sefat Emet gives an answer, which is a gevaldigah answer, which is a pele why the Rashba doesn't know say that answer. What's the Rashba's kushya? Listen to this kushya, it's a mora'digah kushya. Tosafot says that you're allowed to take your hand, lechatchilah if you stuck it out למטה מיו״ד, you could pick it up למעלה מיו״ד and take it in. Fine. Later on, when the Gemara gave the next תירוץ, halten dem kop, it's a very geshmak, a good kushya, but you have to think. Huh? Can you say that again? Tosafot says that if you're hold stuck your hand out למטה מיו״ד, you're allowed to pick it up למעלה מיו״ד and take it in. Later on, the Gemara gives a second terutz of the two beraitot. One is ביום, one is עם חשיכה. If you stuck it out during the day and you held it till the night, you could take it back. If you stuck it out at night, you can't take it back. Fregt the גמרא, תפשוט בעיא דרבא, the problem: If you're going to stick out your if you stuck out your hand at night, that means you did an akirah in רשות היחיד on Shabbos, and you stuck it out. We tell you, 'Listen here, if you did עם חשיכה, don't take it back.' So what should you do? Hold your hand out! For the next 23 hours, you'll hold your hand out! So the Gemara, you know what's going to happen? Who can hold his hand out like this 23 hours? You're going to throw it down! So you're going to be עובר on an איסור דאורייתא! So why should we tell you to hold your hand out? You're not going to have a breirah, you're going to have to be עובר an איסור דאורייתא! And if we don't care, a סימן, תפשוט בעיא דרבא, whatever. Frekt the Rashba, 'I don't understand, why will he have to throw it down? Tosafos says you could pick your hand up למעלה מיו״ד and take it in! So what's the problem?' He's going to stick his hand out, takeh he stuck his hand out משחשכה, and we tell him you can't take it back, meaning you can't take it back למטה מיו״ד, but if you take it למעלה מיו״ד you could take it back. So what's the problem? Why is he going to drop it? Why does the Gemara make such a whole fuss? The whole Gemara is that you're going to be עובר a איסור דאורייתא, and therefore the בעיא תפשוט בעיא the רביעי whatever the whole thing. No problem! Pick it up למעלה מיו״ד and take it. Tosafos says you're allowed to. And memaila because of that the Rashba argues on Tosafos, has different peshat than Tosafos.

Comes the Sfas Emes and he has a very simple teirutz. He says, \"I'll tell you what the peshat is. When did Tosafos say that למעלה מיו״ד you're you're allowed to take it למעלה מיו״ד? That's all in the beginning of the sugya where we held אסרוה, it became a כרמלית. So if it became and the whole reason you can't take your hand back because it's a כרמלית, so Tosafos says obviously if you pick it up למעלה מיו״ד, what happens? It's not a כרמלית anymore. Who ever said there's a כרמלית למעלה מיו״ד? There's no כרמלית, so you could take it back. When the Gemara says later that you're going to drop it, the Gemara says there it's not a כרמלית. What did the Gemara say later? כולי עלמא לאו ככרמלית. אלא מאי, why does one ברייתא say you can't take back? Because of a קנס. If it's a קנס, למעלה מיו״ד is also a קנס. If we're giving you a קנס that because you stuck your hand out when you shouldn't have למטה מיו״ד we're קנסing you, we're upset at you why did you do it, so we don't let you take back anyway, so you can't even pick it up למעלה מיו״ד.\" So what's the Rashba's kashya? The Rashba's kashya was that if he sticks it out למטה מיו״ד משחשכה the Gemara says he'll come to איסור דאורייתא because he has no choice he'll have to drop it. Why will he have to drop it? He'll pick it up למעלה מיו״ד and take it in. So he says, \"No, at that point of the Gemara that's not an eitzah.\" I Tosafot said you could pick it up למעלה מיו״ד and take it in, that is only when we hold it's because of as a כרמלית, so למעלה מיו״ד there's no כרמלית. But when it's not a כרמלית, when that's a קנס, a קנס could be anyway, so we can make a קנס that the moment you did an aveirah, the chachamim made a קנס. They said, \"Don't take it in. No matter what, don't pick it up either.\" The she'eilah is why doesn't the Rashba לכאורה a פשוט'ע תירוץ, makes a lot of sense. Why doesn't the Rashba accept it? He doesn't not accept it, but why he couldn't think of it? I mean it's a very simple thing. And the Sefat Emet taka writes that because of the Rashba's קשיא דחה פירוש התוספות, אבל מה שנראה לעניות דעתי כתבתי. I think this the Rashba, why does it seems like the Rashba wouldn't hold of this. So to explain this whole סוגיא, let's start off with something else.

So what I want to say is even if someone didn't כאפ all the קשיות, we're starting a new ענין. Not a new ענין, a inyan. And I have to tell you, I think this happens to be an interesting inyan in this מסכת שבת. When we talk about the issur of the the the רשות of a כרמלית, is a כרמלית בעצם a רשות or not? And I'll tell you the she'eilah is not a כרמלית, it starts off with a מקום פטור. Let's let's go step by step. D'oraita it's only asur to carry from רשות היחיד to רשות הרבים or from רשות הרבים to רשות היחיד. Then there are areas which don't fall into the category of רשות היחיד, and they don't have the dimensions of a רשות היחיד, they don't have the dimension of רשות הרבים. You're allowed to carry d'oraita from those places into רשות היחיד, into רשות הרבים, from there, you're allowed to. Those places are called a מקום פטור. D'oraita. Came the Rabbanan and out of these places which are called a מקום פטור, they separated, and they said some of them we make an issur, some of them remain מקום פטור. Lemashal, if it's less than ד׳ על ד׳ standing in the רשות הרבים, a pole less than four by four טפחים, on top of that remains a מקום פטור even mid'rabbanan. If it's more than ד׳ על ד׳ and it's in רשות הרבים, מדאורייתא it's also not nothing, but the Rabbanan said it's a כרמלית. So these רשויות which d'oraita is מקום פטור, let's understand: there are two ways to learn it. You could learn that a מקום פטור is a רשות. You have three רשויות מדאורייתא: you have a רשות היחיד, רשות הרבים, and a מקום פטור. It's a רשות, but it's a רשות that you're allowed to carry from there. Who says you're not allowed to carry from every רשות? From רשות היחיד to רשות הרבים you can't or vice versa, aber from a מקום פטור it's also a רשות you can carry. Or the pshat is not like that, the pshat is that a מקום פטור is not there are only two רשויות. There's only רשות היחיד, רשות הרבים, that's not, it's not a רשות. One of the differences in the way of learning learning is when the Torah אסר'ד carrying from one רשות to another. If the Torah אסר'ד to carry from one רשות to another, how do you have to learn is a מקום פטור? So what is a מקום פטור, a רשות or not? If the issur of the Torah is you're not allowed to carry from one רשות to another, Torah doesn't want you to transfer from one רשות to another. The fact that you could carry from this רשות, obviously is not a רשות! 'Cause if it would be a רשות, the Torah said you can't carry from one רשות to another. You could learn differently. You could learn the Torah never said you can't carry from one רשות to another. The Torah said you can't carry from רשות היחיד to רשות הרבים, from רשות הרבים to רשות היחיד. But from this רשות, you're allowed to carry. You could, you could say like that. This is באמת נוגע to, well, I think we spoke once before, is הכנסה an אב or a תולדה? I'll tell you pashut. If the issur is you cannot carry from one רשות to another because a מקום פטור is not a רשות, so what's the difference if you carry from רשות היחיד to רשות הרבים or from רשות הרבים to רשות היחיד? In both cases, you're carrying from a, no, you're doing the same thing. The issur is מרשות לרשות. If you learn that מקום פטור is also a רשות, you can't say the issur is carrying מרשות לרשות, because then you wouldn't carry from this, it's a רשות. So what is the issur? You can't carry from רשות היחיד to רשות הרבים. Now, the opposite way, הכנסה is very similar, but it's not the exact same thing. If the issur is carrying מרשות לרשות, so הוצאה and הכנסה are exactly the same. They're both carrying מרשות לרשות. So הוצאה is the אב and הכנסה is the אב. And actually, from the לשון of the Mishnah on דף ע\"ג where it says this מלאכה, what's the לשון over there? המוציא מרשות לרשות. It doesn't say המוציא מרשות היחיד לרשות הרבים. It's משמע that the issur is רשות לרשות. הוצאה and הכנסה, מקום פטור is not a רשות. That's why you're allowed. But the other way, if you say הכנסה, מקום פטור is a רשות, you cannot say that the איסור מדאורייתא is to carry מרשות לרשות, because there is another רשות which is not אסור. So the issur must be carrying מרשות היחיד לרשות הרבים. Let's go a step further. It's possible to say that even in the מקום פטור itself, there are two kinds of, two מקום פטור's. Certain מקום פטור's is not a רשות, and certain makom patur's are a reshus, but patur. Which ones? So I would think, I'm not מכריע, I would think those makom patur's that the Rabbanan turned into a karmelis, know what I would assume? They probably were a reshus before, possibly they were a reshus before. That means like this: you had certain thing, or anything which is not reshus hayachid, not reshus harabim, you're allowed to carry. Certain of them you're allowed to carry because it's not a reshus, like if it's less than ד' על ד', and because it's not a reshus to begin with, the chachamim left it like that and said let it stay mutar. Those things which are makom patur, but they have a certain, like they are ד' על ד', but not י' tefachim high, those were originally a reshus. But a reshus that's mutar. Came the Rabbanan and said, we, mi'derabbanan, make that רשות אסור. So it comes out according to this that what's a karmelis? A reshus. A karmelis is a reshus originally, mi'deoraita it's a reshus. אלא מאי? Mi'deoraita it's a רשות המותר. Came the Rabbanan and אסר'ד it. Or you could say no, that even a karmelis is not a רשות מדאורייתא. A karmelis is not a reshus at all. The difference between the two ways is, listen, the difference between the two ways is when the Rabbanan אסר'ד a karmelis, what did they say? How did they aser it? Listen, it's so, a little bit דק'סדיק, but if a karmelis is a רשות originally, before the רבנן, מדאורייתא it's a רשות, but it's מותר. What did the רבנן say? This רשות that's מותר, we make it אסור. That's what we saying, it's a רשות originally, but a רשות that's מותר, we make it אסור. If you're going to say that a כרמלית is not a רשות, you know what the רבנן said? If you say it's not a רשות, so what was the איסור originally? מוציא מרשות לרשות. Why could you carry from this area? Because it's not a רשות. What did the רבנן have to do to make it אסור? Make it into רשות. That's all. They didn't have to make it אסור. All the רבנן came and said, we make this into a רשות. רשות. What's the דין if it if it became a רשות מדרבנן? It's אסור, because we know to carry from one רשות to another, it's אסור. So again, if you hold that a כרמלית is not a רשות, what the רבנן did, they took something that's not a רשות, and they made it into a רשות. אה? A רשות that's אסור. Right. It's not a רשות, and they made it into a רשות. If you say that it's a רשות originally, אלא מאי, it's a רשות המותר, so what did the רבנן have to do? They came and they had to אסר it. The other way they didn't have to אסר it, the איסור is automatic. Anything that's a רשות is asur! They just had to make it into a רשות. This way, it's a רשות already, but it's mutar, so they had to make a issur. Which

possibly this is the machloket between Abaye and Rava later on דף יא עמוד א, which I want to say this a מחלוקת Rashi and Tosafot here. Because if it's a מחלוקת Rashi and Tosafot, you can't say it's a machloket Abaye veRava, but independently you could have say it. What is the machloket Abaye veRava there? We once spoke about it, and I said the נקודה there, and now is going to be מרחיב on the נקודה. The Gemara says there that you're not allowed to stand in the רשות היחיד and stick your mouth your head out and drink in the רשות הרבים. Mid'rabbanan, mide'oraita there's no problem, you're not carrying in from רשות הרבים to רשות היחיד. You're sticking your head out, and you are drinking in the רשות הרבים. But the Chachamim said, \"We're afraid, it's a gezeirah. If you're going to do that, you might forget or whatever and you'll you drink from a cup, you'll take the cup in.\" דאורייתא מעג מען. Comes the Gemara on דף יא עמוד א on the bottom, and the Gemara asks: It says תנן התם לא יעמוד אדם ברשות היחיד וישתה ברשות הרבים, פרעגט די גמרא here on top, איבעיא להו: כרמלית מאי? Can you stand in רשות היחיד and stick your hand out your head out in a כרמלית and drink outside? So the Gemara says, אמר אביי: היא היא. Yeah, just like you can't do it by a רשות הרבים, you can't do it by a כרמלית. רבא אמר: היא גופא גזירה, ואנן ניקום ונגזור גזירה לגזירה? Even by רשות היחיד, it's a gezeirah. So the whole מציאות of carrying from a כרמלית is a gezeirah, now we're going to make a gezeirah you can't even do this because you might come to carry from a כרמלית? It's a gezeirah legezeirah. What is the machloket between Abaye veRava? So I explained once before that the machloket Abaye veRava is, that Abaye who says, it's he doesn't Abaye doesn't care about gezeirah legezeirah? Everyone knows you don't make a gezeirah legezeirah. So I said there are two ways the rabbanan made their dinim. Sometimes the rabbanan made a din, like a new din that they made, whatever they had in mind they made a new din, and sometimes they didn't make a new din. All they did, they took the דין דאורייתא, which is limited to a certain point, and they, miderabbanan, extended it. And that's the machloket. According to Abaye, the rabbanan didn't make איסור כרמלית. The rabbanan just said the din of a רשות הרבים is limited to certain dimensions, we extend, we stretch that din of a רשות הרבים into a כרמלית. What happens then? All they did, they said that the din of the רשות הרבים transferred to a כרמלית. So all the dinim of a רשות הרבים automatically follow a כרמלית. It's a gezeirah legezeirah, it's, it's all. And Rava says no, the rabbanan made a new din of כרמלית. They made a new din of כרמלית, so it's like a gezeirah. Now you're going to make a gezeirah to their din, so it's a gezeirah legezeirah. This is what I said. So now I want to say what's the yesod behind all this? If they made if the the a karmelit originally is not a reshut, בעצם it's not a reshut, so what did we say, how did the rabbanan make it asur? They didn't say it's asur. What did they say? Originally it's not a reshut, now it's a reshut! The moment you say it's a reshut, all the dinim of the reshuyot fall! All the dinim of a reshut, you cannot carry from one reshut to another, and the rabbanan made certain gezeirot a reshut to a reshut, it applies here too, it's not a gezeirah legezeirah. If you say that it's originally a reshut, what did the rabbanan do? It's a reshut that's mutar, what did the rabbanan do? Oh, they had to make an issur! Oh, when the rabbanan make an issur, you can't make a gezeirah to an issur derabbanan. But the other way they made no issurim. What did they do? They just said, this is a reshut, finish. Whatever a reshut, whatever dinim of a reshut. Automatically, all the gezeirot and all the dinim apply here, too. So lichora it seems like you could say there's a machloket Abaye v'Rava whether a karmelit is originally a reshut and the rabbanan put an issur here, or it's originally not a reshut and the rabbanan just put a דין רשות on it. Fine. So if you learn it's a מחלוקת אמוראים, you can't say what I'm going to say now, it's a machloket Rashi and Tosafot. But if you say one of the two, if you say it's a מחלוקת Rashi Tosafos, you won't say you'll give a different ביאור over there. If you say the ביאור there, you'll give a different ביאור here. But I'm just saying that you could say independently that ביאור. I want to say that לכאורה it could be this is a מחלוקת Rashi and Tosafos. Where do we see it's a מחלוקת, where would we see? So okay, so let's go a few places. A few Rashi's, which at first glance would seem complete opposite, but you know everything you could twist around, I want to twist it around because then it'll be a good ביאור. Like the vort I always chazar over of Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer. Once Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer gave a shiur and in middle he said epes a pshat in the Rambam. And someone asked him, a talmid asked him, why do you say this is the pshat in Rambam? He says, \"I have a הכרח! I'm forced to say it.\" He didn't want to go into it. After the shiur, he walks over to him and he says, \"Now that...\" he didn't want to disturb the shiur, \"Now everyone is okay, privately could you tell me what's your הכרח?\" He says, \"What's my הכרח? I had to say a shiur! So I if I wouldn't say that pshat in Rambam, I wouldn't be able to give a shiur.\" So, so I have a הכרח to drey the Rashi and Tosafos the opposite the way it seems, would seem. Okay, Rashi here on דף ו׳, if you look at the Rashi on the bottom, Rashi דיבור המתחיל אדם, so Rashi says בנוגע a כרמלית, וזה מקום פטור שהוא י׳ למעלה, it's מקום פטור, it's talking about, שאינו, so מקום, שאינו חשוב רשות לעצמו. That a מקום פטור is not considered a רשות for itself. It's talking מקום פטור actually on a כרמלית, but this Why does So normally you would say what does Rashi say here? Which way would you say if you look אויבנאויפיק, what do you say, Rashi holds it's a רשות or not? Not a רשות. Not a רשות, אינו חשוב רשות. Why does Rashi add the word לעצמו? It's not a רשות for itself. Should have said שאינו חשוב רשות. It's not a רשות, finished! I can I'm going to say Rashi holds it is a רשות, that לעצמו means it's not a רשות האסור. It's not a רשות for itself that has an איסור on it. So I want to say farkert, Rashi learns that רשות that מקום פטור and in our case the כרמלית, which is originally a מקום פטור, is a רשות. It's a רשות not לעצמו, which means it's not a רשות that's חייב. It's a רשות that's פטור, but it is a רשות. So if you learn like this according to Rashi, what did the רבנן do when they made it אסור? They didn't make it into a רשות. It's a רשות before. What they did was they made this רשות that's מותר, they made it אסור. Another Rashi, which at first glance you could say farkert also. דף ח׳, look in Rashi דף ח׳. The Gemara there talks about כוורת. It's the famous sugya of כוורת. If you throw something which has the dimensions itself, it's a box, it's a beehive, which has the dimensions of a רשות היחיד. What are the dimensions of רשות היחיד? If it's four by four טפחים, ten טפחים high. You have a box that's that size, and you throw it into רשות הרבים, are you chayav or not? So the Gemara says here, אמר אביי זרק כוורת, you're patur. Why? So Rashi says why, because a כוורת is its own רשות. ואנן ממשכן גמרינן דהוי זרקי מחטין ולא הוי זרקי רשויות. The whole ענין of carrying, הוצאה, comes from a פסוק, but it's connected to the משכן. In the משכן they didn't throw רשויות, they threw needles. The Gemara asks what did they throw, they threw needles, which the Gemara later said that's not the source, whatever, but they threw things, they didn't throw גאַנצע רשויות. So if you throw a רשות, that's not called throwing. Comes Rashi and says, ואם תאמר בדלא גבוה עשרה נמי רשות לעצמו, it says if it's not ten טפחים high, you are chayav because it's not a רשות היחיד. פרעגט רש״י, but if it's not ten, but it's four by four and not ten, what is it? It is a רשות, דהא שמו כרמלית. So you're also throwing a רשות, why are you chayav? So Rashi says, ההיא לאו מדאורייתא הוי רשות, אלא מדרבנן. It's only a רשות מדרבנן. The רבנן made it a רשות. ולאו לאוקולי אדברי תורה, they didn't come to be מקיל on the Torah that you should be patur from a חטאת, so you should be patur. What would you see from this Rashi? That is it a רשות מדאורייתא or not? לכאורה you'd say not. The רבנן made it into a רשות, but מדאורייתא it's not a reshus. So it seems more that the other way. I want to say here also farkert. Why farkert? What, Rashi didn't know that it's only a רשות מדרבנן? What's what's Rashi's kushya? We're talking about chayav chatas. Is it de'oraisa, de'oraisa if you throw a reshus, you're not chayav. So Rashi says, but this is also a reshus. So why are you chayav if you throw a כרמלית? But we're talking about a chatas, we're talking about de'oraisa. This is not a רשות מדאורייתא. So I want to say farkert! Rashi knows it's a reshus, and Rashi knows it's a רשות מדאורייתא. And that's why Rashi asks the she'eilah. It's the כרמלית is a reshus, and therefore, and it's מדאורייתא רשות. That's why if you if you're telling me if you throw a reshus you're patur, here you're throwing a reshus, so you should be patur. Entfert Rashi, that de'oraisa you're patur on this reshus. That's the kvetch. Not that it became a רשות מדרבנן. The chiyuv, the issur to carry here is a derabbanan. And that's what Rashi says, and the rabbanan came לא לאוקולי על דברי תורה, they didn't come to be mekil The shmuess is to say, when are you patur if you throw a reshus which is chayav to care, in carrying. A reshus that you're patur from carrying, only derabbanan it's asur, that's not included. So, I want to say לפי זה, farkert that Rashi learns that be'etzem a כרמלית is a reshus. אלא מאי, מדאורייתא it's patur. So, what again did the rabbanan do when they made a chiyuv? They didn't make it into a reshus, it's a reshus before. What they did was, they made an issur on it. Fine. How does Tosafos learn? Okay. Let's go back to דף ו'. What does Tosafos taytsh כרמלית? כרמלית we said he says is לא לח ולא יבש, כרמל. Not רשות היחיד and רשות הרבים, אלא... ולא אלא בינוני. It's a בינוני. Comes the Chasam Sofer, and then Chasam Sofer says that in the Rambam in Perush HaMishnayos he gives a different reason for כרמלית, why is it called כרמלית. כרמלית really comes from the word כארמלית, it's missing an א. What's an ארמלית? ארמלית is an אלמנה. An אלמנה. So, he says like this: An אלמנה is not married, but not a בתולה. Same thing here, it's not רשות הרבים, not רשות היחיד. It's neither. And that's why it's like a כארמלית, that's called כרמלית, כארמלית. זאגט דער Chasam Sofer, what's the difference between the Rambam and Tosafos? According to Tosafos, he says, בינוני means it has both. It's a mixture, so to speak, of רשות היחיד and רשות הרבים. מה שאין כן according to Tosafos, according to the Rambam, it has neither. Now, ah? That's what, it's a mixture. We find that in other things too. We find by a כוי, or some people call it a כוי. Is it a חיה or a בהמה? So, some say it's a חיה, some say it's a בהמה, some say it's ספק חיה ספק בהמה, some say it's neither one, some say it's both. Bein hashmashos is what? יום or לילה? Some say it's יום, some say it's לילה, some say it's a mixture of יום and לילה. Some say it's not, לא יום ולא לילה. Now, if you hold it's לא יום ולא לילה, it's a מציאות בפני עצמה. If you hold it's a mixture of יום and לילה, then it's not a מציאות בפני עצמה. When it comes to רשויות, it comes out according to Chasam Sofer that according to the Tosafos, a כרמלית is a mixture of both. So, I want to say if it's a mixture of both, it's not a רשות בפני עצמה. According to it's not a רשות, it's not a רשות בפני עצמה. According to the Rambam, that it's a mixture, that it's not a mixture, it's neither. If it's neither, it's like by the כוי. A כוי is a בריה בפני עצמה. When is it a בריה בפני עצמה? If it's not a חיה and not a בהמה. If you're going to say a כוי is a mixture of a חיה and a בהמה, it's not a בריה בפני עצמה. You could make it, you could call it what you want, but I'm talking what is it בעצם? So, what I want to say is like this: That Tosafos and the Rambam here argue, it comes out like that from the Chasam Sofer. Tosafos learns that a כרמלית is a בינוני, ס'איז נישט אהין, ס'איז נישט פשוט, it's both. Mimeila, it's not a רשות בפני עצמה. It's not a רשות, there is no רשות called כרמלית. שאין כן according to Rashi, fits. According to the Rambam I want to say, yes, it's not רשות היחיד, not רשות הרבים, here you could say it's a רשות בפני עצמה. How does Rashi learn? Rashi in our Gemara, what does Rashi say why is it called, a third pshat, but it fits more to the Rambam. What does Rashi say? We said before: כרמלית is לשון יער וכרמל, like a forest. And what does Rashi taytsh is? לא הילוך לרבים ולא תשמיש ליחיד. It seems like it's more like the Rambam. So, it fits to what I'm saying before that according to Rashi, it's not, it's neither, and therefore it's a רשות בפני עצמה. So, I want to come out like this: Everything I said, all the ראיות from the Rashi's and this is not a הכרח. But I think it's mistaber, especially if doing that will answer the קשיות in our Gemara, but it's mistaber, not a הכרח, but it seems like. So, if we're going to go the way we're going, it comes out as a מחלוקת רש\"י and Tosafos in the גדר of a כרמלית. According to Rashi, a כרמלית is a רשות, a רשות המותר. The רבנן אסר'ט that רשות. According to Tosafos, a כרמלית is not a רשות, and the Rabbanan made from not רשות, they made to yeah a רשות. According to Rashi, do we find a מציאות of the Rabbanan taking not a רשות and making it into a רשות or making it into an איסור? We don't find such a thing. We don't find such a thing. We have a רשות היחיד, רשות הרבים, then we have a רשות called כרמלית, and the Rabbanan made an איסור on that רשות, but the Rabbanan never made such a new רשות. According to Tosafos, it's not a רשות, so here we find the Rabbanan have a right, they made from not a רשות to yet a רשות. And then it becomes like a regular רשות. And memeila, when they made it into, and then it's asur. Then all the things automatically are asur. Now, according to this, let's go back to our Gemara. If Rashi learns that there is no such thing as making from no רשות to yet a רשות, a hand is definitely not a רשות מדאורייתא. When the Gemara asks שאלות, what kind of רשות a hand is, a hand is a רשות, a hand is if nothing. If you're going to make the hand into a כרמלית, what you're going to be doing, whichever way you're going to look at it, you're going to be making from no רשות into a רשות. Now, according to Tosafos, that happens. The real כרמלית is the same way: it's really nothing, and the Rabbanan made into a רשות. Rashi looks at this and says like this, \"I don't understand. How do the Gemara make from no רשות into a רשות? Where do we find that the רבנן did such a thing by Shabbos, that we're making something out of a hand? Ela mai, we have to say that when the Gemara says the לשון that a hand is like a כרמלית, it doesn't mean the regular כרמלית. It doesn't mean it's like a regular, mamash they made it just like they made the כרמלית, a כרמלית is asur, they made a hand the same way.\" What's the לשון of the Gemara? ככרמלית. And we have, we know this klal always when we have כ-, and I didn't get into it too much this year, but other years, anybody who heard the shiurim or sees anything that I write this is probably very, very often, that whenever the Gemara says something is like something else, we have two general ways: Is it really become that way? Is it like that or is it almost like it? The best ראיה from שליחות, שלוחו של אדם כמותו. So we have the two ways, the three ways, the middle way, but the main two ways is did the שליח come במקום משלח? Yes, the שליח is the משלח, or he's בפירוש not, ela mai he has a דין like the משלח. Then you have the middle way, whatever. Same thing here. From ככרמלית to? Okay, the Gemara says ככרמלית, yeah. Yeah. Yeah, but the word אחמרו רבנן is just אחמרו רבנן is just as good as כ-. Yeah, it's the רבנן just made it something. It's a chumra, that's why he says אחמרו. He should have said מי אסרו רבנן. It's a chumra only. Which I mean to say is that according to Rashi, when the Gemara is כרמלית, it's not the same דין of כרמלית. Which automatically explains why Rashi's גירסא is קנסוה, and Tosafot is not גירסא קנסוה. Tosafos's גירסא is מי אסרוה. Because according to Tosafos, just like the Rabbanan took something which is nothing, no רשות, and made it into a רשות, they could take the hand which is no רשות and they made it אסור, just like they made a כרמלית. What was the, according to Tosafos, that originally it's not a רשות, what did the חכמים do? The חכמים took not a רשות and they made it into a רשות, and they made an איסור on it. The same thing they did here. It's a regular כרמלית like any other, that's the Gemara שאלה: Just like the Rabbanan made this a כרמלית, מי אסרוה, did they make this a כרמלית? Rashi cannot learn that way. Rashi cannot learn that they made a כרמלית, because Rashi says, \"I never found such a thing that you take not a רשות and make it into a כרמלית. Ela mai, the Rabbanan could be מחמיר and make it ככרמלית, make the same דין that that's a קנס, that's called קנסוה.\" Why does Rashi קנסוה? It's a קנס. A regular כרמלית is not a קנס. It's a רשות that's there, which is a רשות originally, and the Rabbanan put an איסור on that רשות. This is not a רשות to begin with, this is a קנס. So even though we say it's ככרמלית, which means it's worse than just not ככרמלית, but it's like a כרמלית, but it's not a real כרמלית. So Rashi says the לשון קנסוה. Tosafos says it's not קנסוה, it's אסרוה. They pashut made a regular issur, like they made an issur on a כרמלית. That's how they made the דין כרמלית here also. So this explains why Rashi would be גורס קנסוה, and Tosafos not. Why does Rashi learn like that we said? Because Rashi learns that a כרמלית is a רשות. Where do we see that, where does Rashi get this from that a כרמלית is a רשות? Because the Gemara says, \"ד׳ רשויות לשבת.\" There are four רשויות: רשות היחיד, רשות הרבים, and כרמלית, מקום פטור. And Rashi, when he wants to explain why קנסוה, Rashi quotes from the Gemara, \"ד׳ רשויות לשבת.\" He wants to tell me that this is קנסוה, why? Because the ד׳ רשויות, because a כרמלית is a רשות. Tosafos? No, how Tosafos can learn there is not, the Gemara is not מדייק בדוקא. It's not a kashya on Tosafos, but it's a Rashi has a backing, because from other place you could bring other ראיות. Then Rashi here explains what a כרמלית is, why it's called כרמלית. All the same way. We said before, according to Rashi's reason why it's called a כרמלית, is it a רשות or not? Rashi says it's a כרמלית because it's not this, not this, which the Chatam Sofer says, according to the Rambam which says Peirush HaMishnayot same thing, it's not this and not this. So we said if it's not this and not that, it is a רשות. Rashi wants to tell us that it is a רשות. And if it is a רשות, where do we see it from ד׳ רשויות לשבת? We see it from the fact that it the reason it's called כרמלית is because it's לית רשות היחיד, לית רשות הרבים, וממילא it's a רשות. And if it's a רשות, you can't say it's a real כרמלית. The moment you can't say it's a real כרמלית, this goes back to the next case. Tosafot says that if it's למטה you stuck it out למטה מעשרה, you can pick it up למעלה מעשרה. That's what the Gemara is כאן למעלה, but if you stuck it out למעלה מעשרה לכתחילה, פשיטא, לכתחילה מותר. The שאלה is on Rashi. According to Rashi, what's the חידוש? According to Rashi, it is a חידוש. It's possible that because this is not a דין כרמלית, okay let's before that, in Tosafot, why is it so pashut? Why is it so pashut that when you stuck it out, because למעלה מעשרה, why peshita, because there's no such thing as a כרמלית. That's only if it has a normal דין of כרמלית. And according to Tosafot, when they made the hand into a כרמלית, it's like a regular דין, just like they made this thing ד׳ על ד׳, they can make this a כרמלית. So it has all the דינים of a כרמלית. כרמלית cannot be למעלה מעשרה. Rashi learns that this is not a regular כרמלית. So according to Rashi, maybe the kenas that they made it into a כרמלית could be this type of כרמלית למעלה מעשרה also, because it's not a normal דין כרמלית. So according to Rashi, Rashi says that even if you stuck it out, could be you stuck it out למעלה מעשרה, and even if you stuck it out למעלה מעשרה, maybe the Rabbanan didn't want you to do it, and I would think at least that it's an issur. Why? Because you might drop it into the רשות הרבים. And mimela when the Rabbanan made into a כרמלית, maybe the כרמלית could be למעלה מעשרה, because this type of כרמלית could be למעלה מעשרה. Why taka do we say you're allowed to take it back? זאגט Rashi: דלא עבד איסורא, because sof kol sof you didn't do an issur, because when you stuck it למעלה מעשרה you didn't do issur de-rabbanan. But the she'elah is, the Rashba has a she'elah on Rashi: Why does Rashi say that it's reason you could take it back because you didn't do an issur? Rashi should have said very simple, you know why you can take it back? Because if your hand is למעלה מעשרה, if your hand is למעלה מעשרה, it can't be a כרמלית. Now we're going according to the sevara that it's a כרמלית, למעלה מעשרה it's not a כרמלית, so if it's not a כרמלית you can take it back. Why does Rashi say the reason you could take it back because you didn't do an עבירה לכתחילה, because you stuck it out למעלה מעשרה you didn't do an issur? Rashi, it's very pashut: you can take it back because, why not? We're going now this teirutz goes according to the סברא אידי ואידי both hold כרמלית, כאן למעלה מעשרה, כאן למטה מעשרה. למעלה מעשרה מותר להחזיר. Why מותר להחזיר? Because למעלה מעשרה there is no כרמלית. That's not what Rashi says. Rashi says why can't you why could you take it back? Because you didn't do an איסור. Why doesn't Rashi say the first thing? Because it's not לאו דוקא, could be למעלה מעשרה and it could be a כרמלית. This כרמלית could be למעלה מעשרה because it's not a real כרמלית according to Rashi. Why? Because according to Rashi, you can't make it into a כרמלית. You don't have such a thing as not a רשות turning into a רשות. So you can't make it a regular כרמלית. You can make a kenas like a כרמלית, so such a type of כרמלית maybe it could be למעלה מעשרה, too. The answer why ta'ake can't you take it back, because the רבנן didn't do it because לאו איסורא עבד. מה שאין כן according to Tosafot, Tosafot where it is a regular כרמלית, because you could make from not a רשות to a רשות, because every כרמלית is the same way, so if it's a regular כרמלית, so it has the גדרים of a כרמלית. למעלה מעשרה there is no כרמלית. So Tosafot says, so it's so פשוט. Now, according to this, that the reason why Tosafot says this, that למעלה מעשרה, he says is פשוט and it can't be talking about למעלה מעשרה that you stuck it out, because it's not a כרמלית, it's mutar, has to be you put it out למטה מעשרה, and the chiddush is that if you have it למטה מעשרה, you could pick it up and take it through the למעלה מעשרה. Came the Rashba, and the Rashba asked a kashya: If you could do that, so how come later on when the Gemara says משכשכה you have to stick your hand and hold it out, and the Gemara asks: How could you hold it out, you're going to come to a issur d'oraisa, you'll drop it? So the Rashba asks, according to Tosafos, you're not going to drop it, you'll pick it up למעלה מיו״ד and take it in. But it's very pashut. We said this that Tosafos learns it's a real כרמלית, and that's why there's no problem to pick it up למעלה מיו״ד, that's all when the Gemara said ככרמלית. And Tosafos learns when the Gemara says כרמלית, it's a real כרמלית, has all the dinim. When did the Gemara ask the קושיא משכשכו, you'll drop it and you'll do an issur d'oraisa? When the Gemara said לאו ככרמלית. So there, even according to Tosafos, it's not a real כרמלית. Like the Like the Shafas Emes says, even according to Tosafos, it's not a real כרמלית. So if it's not a real כרמלית, it's a קנס, and then it goes exactly like Rashi. Just like Rashi holds, and I'm going to say that I think according to Rashi, even in the first teirutz, when Rashi says that the case is you stuck it out למעלה מיו״ד, and the chiddush is you're allowed to take it back. Tosafos learns you stuck it out למטה מיו״ד, now you can take it back למעלה מיו״ד. I think according to Rashi, if you stuck it out למטה מיו״ד, even before Rashi will argue and say you cannot pick it up למעלה מיו״ד and take it in. Why not? Because it's a קנס. The whole reason Rashi למעלה מיו״ד you could take it back, because לאו איסורא עבד. But if you stuck it out למטה מיו״ד, meforash did an issur. So Rashi will argue on Tosafos not only pshat in the Gemara, in the din. Tosafos in the גמרא תתקני למעלה מיו״ד, Tosafos says it's you stuck it למטה מיו״ד, and what the Gemara means למעלה מיו״ד means you could take it back למעלה מיו״ד, pick it up. Rashi says, \"No, you stuck it out למעלה מיו״ד.\" What will Rashi hold in Tosafos' case? Besides is that the pshat in the Gemara? I think Rashi will argue, and Rashi will say you cannot do it, because according to Rashi, it's not a real כרמלית. It's only a קנס. The כרמלית is is is a כאילו a כרמלית, which could be למעלה מיו״ד. So the Chachamim could make a קנס you shouldn't take it back, and it's like a כרמלית. The only reason if you stuck it out למעלה מיו״ד you could take it back, because because לאו איסורא עבד, you didn't do an issur. But if you stuck it out למטה מיו״ד, you could do an issur. So according to this, we're saying that if it's not a real כרמלית, you cannot pick it up למעלה מיו״ד. When the Gemara asks later משכשכו, how could you hold it out, you're going to drop it, and the Rashba asks, what do you mean you're going to drop it, you'll pick it up למעלה מיו״ד, that piece of Gemara, even Tosafos holds you're not allowed to pick it up, because if it's not a real כרמלית, it's אסור, I'm saying. Rashi will learn even in the beginning when it's ככרמלית, it's not a real כרמלית. But later in the Gemara, even Tosafos agrees it's not not a כרמלית, right? The Gemara says כולי עלמא לאו ככרמלית. If it's not a כרמלית, only a קנס, like the Shfas Emes says, a קנס goes that even if you picked it up since you stuck it out למטה מיו״ד, even Tosafos will agree you can't pick it up למעלה מיו״ד and take it in. Why? Ai, it's not a Who cares? We're not talking about a כרמלית. It's a קנס. It's a קנס then, too. Rashi learns that even in the beginning, because even when the Gemara says ככרמלית, רש״י is גריס כנסוה. The כרמלית is not a real כרמלית. So when Rashi is גריס כנסוה, רש״י means to tell us, as if Rashi would say, אינו כרמלית רגיל. It's like a כרמלית, ככרמלית, not a real כרמלית. And if it's not a real כרמלית, then they can make a קנס. The second piece in the Gemara, even Tosafos says it's not a real כרמלית. It's not a כרמלית at all, Tosafos says. לאו ככרמלית דמי, so even according to Tosafos. Ai, the שאלה is on the Rashba. So how come the Rashba didn't think of that? How come the Rashba asks on Tosafos, according to you, Tosafos, that you said that you're allowed to pick it up from למטה until למעלה מיו״ד, and you could take it back out, so what's the Gemara's shailah later on that משכשכו you'll drop it? Didn't he think of the sevara that later on the Gemara goes כקנס? So I think we must say, and this is not a תירוץ בהמשך to the whole ענין, that the Rashba learns that even when it's only a kenas and not ככרמלית, but when the Rabbanan made it, they put it into the גדרים of a כרמלית. In other words, the the the restrictions of not a כרמלית, the kenas that they made cannot be worse than the כרמלית itself, because after all, if you look at it, this kenas, not ככרמלית, but it's a kenas, has to do with the fact that it's something like a כרמלית. Why? I have a shailah, which is a glatte shailah in the Gemara. The Gemara asks when he stuck his hand out, since he did something wrong, whichever way it is, maybe he should hold it out. Why did the גמרא טשעפע זיך on this case? Why by other דינים that a person is over on an issur d'rabbanan, they didn't do it? Why isn't there a din that if a person picks up muktzeh on Shabbos, the din is you should have to hold it in his hand the whole day? You picked it up! Aveirah, issur d'rabbanan. Hold it! Don't put it down! By muktzeh, it's פונקט the opposite. If you picked it up already, you can put it down wherever you want. You can walk around as much as you want to put it down, till you put it down. Why didn't the Rabbanan do this? Why didn't the Rabbanan say, see that by בדיקת חמץ, I'll give you an example, בדיקת חמץ there's a din you have to be בודק בזמן, and if you're not בודק בזמן, I don't know, I'm just or I don't know, I'm just they could make all kinds of gezeirot. Just like here, they make you hold your hand out. Why over here did the Gemara so much hit upon you did an issur derabbanan. Rabbanan said, \"Don't make an akirah in reshus hayachid and stick it out to reshus harabim.\" It's only a derabbanan. Deoraita says no problem, he didn't do hanachah. The rabbanan made so they're saying they made it into a problem. So if you say karmelit, okay, you can say a hand became is also a she'eilah. But if you don't say karmelit, stam a knas? Bemeizid this this is the worst aveirah and you can imagine this is the worst aveirah derabbanan a person could do. The rabbanan decided to give him a knas. I don't know. To me, it sounds not the worst thing in the world. I mean, there are worse aveirot and many other dinim derabbanan. Ela mai? Probably the Rashba who thinks probably that sof kol sof there is a גדר רשויות, and the hand could be like a reshus. So the and there is such a thing a reshus this is asur midrabbanan. And here so the chachamim said, \"Let's give him a knas.\" We won't make it a karmelit, but let's give him a knas because there is he did take it. It looks like into another reshus. Exactly like Tosafot says on the top here היה טעון. Tosafot says עקירת גופו עקירה he says here. No, תוספות מאי שנא דקאתיאסי כרמלית, תוספות says that it's not like that by everything. Tosafot says that you're allowed to in reshus harabim gufa pick something up and put it down. Ai the hand might be like a karmelit? So he says it's only לענין שאר רשות שאר רשות שהגוף שם שדומה ביותר לשתי רשויות. Because there since you're taking it from one reshus, it looks like it. Somebody say the same thing here also. When you took your hand, since your hand is something different than the place, you picked it up, you have in your hand, so it's domeh to a reshus. So even if we're going to hold it's not a כרמלית, but the reason that we even think a sevara to קנסen you because it's like you did something in שתי רשויות. So the Rashba says if and that's lichora you have to answer anyway. Somehow you have to find some reason why it is angechept it's a here. So the Rashba says if that's what the רבנן if if that's is the why they did it, so I think that they kept the gederim of the כרמלית even if we say it's not a כרמלית. Because the whole reason they're קנסing you is because, in theory, there is such a thing as a כרמלית. אי בעזה in a place where there wouldn't have been a כרמלית, they can't make you asur. So if למעלה מ-י׳ there is no כרמלית, so the Rashba says, \"I don't understand. Even later on when it's not כרמלית it's only a קנס, I think according to Tosafot pshat that you could pick it up למעלה מ-י׳. Even when it's a קנס, you should be able to pick it up. Because a כרמלית you'll be able it can't be למעלה מ-י׳. Ay this is not a כרמלית, but it can't be worse than a כרמלית. Because the whole קנס is based on the fact that there is such a thing as a כרמלית.\" So the Rashba says to Tosafot, \"If I hold like you, then I have a problem with the Gemara later.\" But Tosafot himself doesn't have to hold like that. Tosafot is mechalek. If it's we say is כרמלית, it's a real כרמלית, it has the gederim of a כרמלית, and therefore למעלה מ-י׳ is no such thing. If it's not a כרמלית, it's קנס, then it doesn't have the gederim of a כרמלית. Then למעלה מ-י׳, you could do it. So therefore so therefore, למעלה מ-י׳ you can't, I mean. Because if it's a כרמלית למעלה מ-י׳ is okay, but if it's not just a קנס, you can't do it למעלה מ-י׳ either. So therefore later in the Gemara, when the Gemara says לאו ככרמלית דמי, there even Tosafos will agree that you can't pick it up, and therefore the Gemara asks a good שאלה. He can't pick it up למעלה and take it in, because now a קנס you can't do it. So what's he going to do? He'll drop it. והוי איסור דאורייתא, and תפשוט בעיא דרבי אבהו.