First we're going to finish off a little bit from last from what from the previous Gemara, we're going to go hopefully into the the סוגיא of עקירת גופיה. So okay, the last thing we were talking about, I think was whatever, difference between nu nu, between the different peshatim of כולהו דאתו לידי חיוב חטאת, that the Mishnah counts only those things that could bring you חיוב חטאת. So we said there is Rashi's pshat, and there is רבותיו של רש״י, and then there is the Riva, and then there's the Ran. Rashi learned that what is it that we're counting? עקירות. רבותיו של רש״י learns that we're counting the the the one that's not transfer, the beginning of who starts. The Riva learns is the transfer, and the Ran learns is the hanachah. That's what we went through. I just want to just some kind of sevarah in possibility of what the machloket is based on. In the acharonim we have a she'eilah, and the Rebbe actually brings a nekudah of that in that same sichah in Vaetchanan, when we say that in a melachah of hotza'ah you have akirah, you have hanachah, and you have the actual transfer of the reshut, which of them is the ikar? Is the akirah the ikar? Is the hanachah the ikar? Or is the transfer the ikar? Are they all ikarim? So just bekitzur, it seems from here that Rashi will learn that what is the ikar? The akirah, and therefore he calls the akirah, this is the one that makes it a חיוב חטאת, because the akirah is the ikar. Okay, according to Riva, seems like what's the ikar? Hanachah? The transfer. According to the Riva. Oh, the Riva it's the transfer. Oh, the transfer! So we said is the עיקר עקירה or הנחה, so according to the Riva seems, or that or the actual הוצאה or הכנסה is משמע that according to the Riva that's how he learns, that the עיקר of a מלאכה is the transfer. So therefore what is the one that we're counting as the one that's אסור לחיוב חטאת? The transfer. No, depends on which case. Oh, the עני or the בעל הבית. But the one that does the transfer. According to the Ran, what's the עיקר? The הנחה. So in other words, so the מחלוקת is here not what we look the שאלה פשוט in the גדר of מלאכה: what is the מלאכת הוצאה? And that's what they argue with! According to Rashi, the מלאכת הוצאה, you have to have all three parts, but the main thing is the עקירה. According to the Ran, the main thing is the הנחה. According to the Riva, the main thing is the הוצאה. The only one that's not so clear is רבותיו של רש״י. Why? What's Aderaba, if it's clear it's good, I'd like to know how clear it is. He says who starts off. In other words, according to him it doesn't depend on what's the עיקר of the מלאכה, because sometimes it could be starting off with a with with עקירה making עקירה, or sometimes could be the guy starting off and he sticks his hand in empty and he's going to make the הנחה. So according to to to the רבותיו של רש״י, it seems that it's it has nothing to do with what is the עיקר. The action itself. It's nothing to do with what is what part is the עיקר. So it comes out, so I I think it's all possibilities: Rashi is the עיקר the עקירה, Ran the עיקר the הנחה, the Riva the עיקר the transfer, and according to whoever says the רבותיו, it could be either one! It's nothing to do with this his peshat here their pshat here is nothing to do with that. That's one way to learn pashut a machloket. And then there's another she'eilah what the machloket, another way to learn, I don't know if you could explain them all, but at least between Rashi and the Riba, we could say like this: what's the reason that the רבנן made עקירה without a הנחה or הנחה without an עקירה, that it's also אסור מדרבנן? Mid'Oraita you have to have both. What is the reason the רבנן did it? That you don't become, you don't start doing a melachah. So, it's you shouldn't come to do a full melachah. Now,

I want to tell you clearly, when it comes to gezeirot on Shabbos, when it comes to these gezeirot on Shabbos that the רבנן made, it seems from the Rambam that there are two categories of gezeirot. In other words gezeirot, two categories of איסורי דרבנן. According to who? Rambam. According to who? The way that it comes out from the Rambam. The רבי brings it in the שיחה in ואתחנן, and I remember when I was working on that שיחה, writing that שיחה, I looked it up in the, in the אנציקלופדיה תלמודית, they obviously did not catch that point. The רבי makes a דיוק in Rambam that the Rambam says that when the רבנן made certain things אסור, they made it אסור because of a גזירה, you might come to the איסור דאורייתא, or because it looks like a מלאכה דאורייתא. There's also שבות, right? They're both שבות, no, they're both דרבנן. Isn't it because of because of a pelt? That's not that's a third category. That's, that's עובדין דחול. Yeah, I'm not talking. When they made certain things which mid'oraita is not a melacha, certain parts of a melacha which mid'oraita is not asur, so some things they made asur because if they're going to allow it, you might by mistake come to do a melacha. That's called a gezera. And sometimes it's because it looks like a melacha. And Encyclopedia Talmudit, where they're very medayek in like in all this category What's an encyclopedia? To categorize and put it to classify each thing. They didn't catch on this. But the Rebbe makes it very clear. Now if someone wants to bring me a חלק י\"א? Is that what Rabbi Yitzchak Sharabi done? Rabbi Yitzchak Sharabi, yeah? Is that what they're doing? The what might lead to a melacha? Ma'aseh of Rashbi, what do you mean ma'aseh of Rashbi? The בית of Sharabi. רב בית? Oh, we're going to get I thought you ma'aseh, cuz they have the ma'aseh of Rashbi. Now I'll get to this in a sec. I want to first show חלק י\"א, פרשת, חומש דברים. Okay, I'll just read you. Okay, let's go, let's go, because we want to get לא מרידן לא מרידן. Here, listen to this. במלאכת הוצאה, he wants to say there are certain things is גזירה שמא יבואו כל אחד ואחד מהם לעשות מלאכה שלימה בשבת. It's a gezera, even if you did it in a way which is not a full melacha, and it not אסור מדאורייתא, but we're afraid, the חכמים were afraid you might come. So he says there's a סוג הדברים, there's a category of things שאסרו חכמים גזירה שמא יבוא מהם איסור סקילה, and then you have a different case, which is a סוג המלאכה שאסרו חכמים מפני שהם דומים למלאכות, because they are melachot. And the Rebbe brings in the bottom in the הערה, he says, שהמלאכות מסוג זה, the melachot in this category, the second category, אינם מחשש שמא יבוא לאיסור דאורייתא. It's not because we're afraid you might come to איסור דאורייתא. The question is why, what's the re'aya, because if this would be the peshat in the words when the Rambam says it looks like a melacha, it means mimaila since it looks like a melacha you might come to do it, then he says the רבי, למה מחלקם לב' sugim? Why does the Rambam divide it? And he says, הרי סוג אחד הוא, it's all one. And then he quotes different places in Rambam with these, different איסורי דרבנן, and he says look, one place the Rambam says this is mutar because אינה דומה למלאכה ואינה מביאה לידי מלאכה. It's two things. One place he says, you know, this and this is אסור מפני שהוא כ, it's like a certain מלאכה דאורייתא. Which means why is it asur? Because it's like. It's like a melacha. Some issurim he says, this is אסור גזירה שמא you might do. So we see these two categories of of of איסורי דרבנן. When it comes to the melacha of hotzaah, and here the Rebbe goes according to one shita that the מלאכת הוצאה is a gezeira. But be'emet, you could think that the melacha of doing an עקירה without an הנחה is not because of a gezeira. Maybe it falls in the category because it looks like a melacha. Which is obviously not like the Rambam, not like the the Rebbe learnt pshat in Rambam in in the מלאכת הוצאה. But if you learn like that, we could understand the machloket between Rashi and the Riva very simply. Well, it says דאסיפא דביאת חיוב חטאת, not that it's going to look like a Yeah, it doesn't need to gezeira. I mean, you can say what the taitch of that gezeira is. Rashi learns that the issur is because of a gezeira. If the Chachamim are gonna allow just עקירה without הנחה, you end up doing, and Rashi says it a few times, you might end up to do a full hanachah. Even to do hanachah without an akirah, which can never get to a melachah, why is that asur? What's the gezeirah there? Well no, if we hold that it's only a gezeirah, so what's the peshat you can't do an hanachah without an akirah? Because the next time you might do it. It's a gezeirah you might do it. Or you could learn that the reason is because it looks like it. Since it looks like a melachah, so the chachamim made that it should be asur even though it's not a melachah. So if you learn it looks like it, which part is the one that mainly looks like it? The hanachah? The switching of the רשות, that makes sense. Because the melachah is hotza'ah or hachnasah. So what's the peshat? So the switching of the רשות, but the switching of the רשות needs conditions, akirah and hanachah. But which part is the one that is the reason for the chachamim to make this דין? The switching of the רשות. So the Riva shows that Rashi learns it's the switching of the רשות, and that's called אתי לידי חיוב חטאת. And Rashi says it's a gezeirah, that's why Rashi says the ikar is the akirah. But לגבי the Rambam you can't say this sevara, but I'm just saying לגבי Rashi and the Riva you could say this sevara. Okay, let's go vayter here. Yeah.

Tosafot, we're gonna just go through the few Tosafot. Tosafot says, when the Gemara asks the she'eilah, a new Tosafos, a new inyan, so everybody can start listening even those that didn't follow till now. Reb Dorfman, Vek zikh oyf. If you need, I don't know now, but Rabbi Abrahams used to say in the shiur, you know, Rebbe used to say take a coffee, wake yourself up. Black coffee is better, wakes you up even more. How can you say that the akirah looks like a gezeirah? Akirah doesn't akirah is farkert, עקירה is a gezeirah. Gezeirah, you might come. The switch of the רשות is what looks like a melachah. Okay. Everybody up? Have to get a veker. Everyone said by farbrengen when people would sleep, so he's told that by the Rebbe Maharash they used to have a guy walk around amongst the people while the Rebbe said the maamar, and he would walk around with, he called it they used to call it they said in Russia, שאמריצע. שאמריצע was a kind of thing that had a very sharp smell, and if the guy was sleeping they would walk over and put in his nose, the guy would wake up. That's how they would wake him up. So the Rebbe started said that, so that we won't go around start giving out smelling salts by farbrengen, so people shouldn't sleep. Anyway, here, let's go vayter. So Tosafos says when the Gemara asks the she'eilah that why is there פטור והא איעבידא מלאכה מביניהו, that the melachah was done between the two, so Tosafos says on what's the Gemara, who's the Gemara שאלה? On the one that did the akirah he should be chayav or the one that did the hanachah? So Tosafos says, let's look the words inside: ולא פריך שיתחייב הראשון, it wasn't a she'eilah on the guy, the first guy should be chayav, the one that did the עקירה, דאין סברא שידי השני שעשה הנחה וגמר המלאכה יתחייב הראשון. The first guy had, he did half. When he did it, there was no melachah yet, and then he walked away, he has nothing to do anymore. The she'eilah is, השני קפריך, on the guy who did the hanachah, sheyitchayev, he should be חייב, לפי שעל ידו נגמרה המלאכה, because he finished the melachah. This is what Tosafos says. Now when I was speaking to some bachurim about this Tosafos, some figured said a few things, I said this is not the pshat in Tosafos, but there is a sevara that the Chachmas Manoach says, which is something I don't remember even who said it, but someone saying that what Tosafos says here is only according to the Riva or according to, but not according to the Rashi. Who says this? The Chachmas Manoach. Rashi says that the עיקר is עקירה, so he says according to Rashi you could ask a shaila, what did the guy that did the עקירה do? Because he did the עיקר of the מלאכה and סוף כל סוף the other guy finished it off and he did the עיקר and it got finished, he should be חייב. So when Tosafos says it can't be on the guy who did the עקירה, it only goes according to Tosafos's pshat, to the Riva'ss pshat that the עיקר is this transfer, but not the עקירה. But according to Rashi it's no problem. That's what he says, one pshat. But then he says maybe not. Maybe it goes on Rashi also, according to Rashi also. That even according to Rashi you can't say the guy did the עקירה. אי Rashi says that עקירה is the עיקר, so this is his pshat, this is his like way of thinking. When Rashi says the עקירה is the עיקר, that's only by the דין דאורייתא, so there you say the עקירה is the עיקר, but when we're coming to אסור מצד הדין דרבנן, נון, פארקערט, it's a דרבנן, I'm sorry. When it comes to the de'oraita, there you would say that the hanachah could be the ikar. When the when Tosafot' when Rashi, let's, you know what, I'll start over again to make it clear, it shouldn't confuse. Rashi said that which of the מלאכות are we counting in the Mishnah? פטורי דאתו לידי חיוב חטאת is the עקירות. And those are the peturim that what? De'oraita. No, no. That's why I said forget about what I said about דאורייתא דרבנן for a second. In the Gemara itself, the Gemara is dealing with a case, you're chayav or you're patur? When the Gemara said this, פטורי דאתו לידי חיוב חטאת, are we talking about chayav or patur? Patur. Patur, patur. פטור אבל אסור? פטור אבל אסור. The Gemara said which פטור אבל אסור are we counting? And the Gemara said, you know which one we're counting? The one that did the עקירה. So, he wants to say that because we're dealing with a פטור דר- with a חיוב דרבנן, פטור אבל אסור only mi'derabbanan, there is where Rashi says that the עקירה is the ikar. But when we're talking about being חייב מדאורייתא, he says possible Rashi would agree that the hanachah is the ikar. Second, let me just finish. And b'meila what will we gain here? So הנחה או דשני רשויות. Then it could be the hanachah, could be even the hanachah also. And therefore, when the Gemara asks now why are they פטור, והא עביד מלאכה מבינייהו, what's the Gemara asking? You should be chayav! So, the Gemara is asking chayav means mid'oraita. So, b'meila, even according to Rashi, the main guy who should be chayav is the one that made the hanacha. So, when Tosafot says that the Gemara never had a hava amina that the one who did the akirah should be chayav, that goes even according to Rashi. So, there are two peshatim what the Chochmas Manoach says. One, he says that the Gemara שא- that Tosafot's pshat that it only goes on the hanacha and not the akirah is only according to Tosafot, not according to Rashi, cuz according to Rashi, it's different. Takeh the Gemara's she'eilah is could be the akirah guy is chayav. And second pshat is that even according to Rashi, the Gemara, Tosafot is saying that the Gemara's she'eilah was only on the hanacha, because by derabbanan, then you could say the ikar is the akirah. Which would fit a little bit what we said before, that what's the pshat in Rashi that the akirah is the ikar? Because in the melachah the akirah is the ikar. But could be now, according to this pshat in the Chochmas Manoach, not b'etzem in the melachah. When the rabbanan made the gezeirah that you shouldn't do it, which part of the gezeirah did they look as the ikar part problem? The עקירה! And especially if we're gonna say like Rashi learns, it's a gezeirah, not דומה, so where is the real gezeirah? עקירה. פשוט בגשמיות, where is the real problem where we're afraid you might come to come to a finish melachah? By the עקירה. By the הנחה also, maybe you'll throw it later, but the real thing is עקירה. So, when Rashi said the עקירה is, according to the second pshat that I said before, when Rashi said the עקירה is because it's why did the Rabbanan make it asur? So, that's why we count that one. That's the ikar where they made asur. But when it comes to de'oraita, it's possible that הנחה is the ikar. And there's a sevara why the הנחה should be the ikar, cuz that's the גמר. And usually the גמר is the one that makes it. So, he says that's possible Tosafos learns in Rashi like that. Because, tell you the truth, if Tosafos would mean only according to Tosafos, not according to Rashi, Tosafos should have said it. But according to the Riva, cuz it comes after that Tosafos, according to the Riva, we have to learn this pshat. Since Tosafos didn't say it, it's משמע it could be according to Rashi also. So, he says, how could it be also according to Rashi? So, he says, because Rashi will admit that when it comes to a de'oraita, it's ikar is the הנחה. So, you could say that. So, if we say that Why would that question exist then? Of what, of Tosafos? Tosafos. Yeah. He still doesn't agree with Rashi. But according to Rashi, he understands it. Doesn't mean he has to agree with Rashi. He doesn't agree with Rashi, but he could have said according to Rashi, this pshat this part of the Gemara means the akirah also. Because Rashi will be different. But according to the second way, Rashi will be modeh. Now, I just want to say one thing. If you learn the first way he learned, that the kashya is not according to Rashi Oh, you didn't take the coffee? No. If we're saying now, according to his first pshat that it doesn't go according to Rashi, you could answer a bissel another kashya. You could answer with a kashya? You could answer, no, this would answer a kashya on Tosafos.

The Avnei Nezer and the Sfas Emes both ask a stirah in Tosafos. Tosafos here said that the kashya when the Gemara asks let them be chayav is a she'eilah who should be chayav? The hanachah. Only the guy who made the hanachah. On דף צ״ג Tosafos says completely different. When the Gemara says that there's a pasuk to tell you that זה עוקר וזה מניח is patur, so Tosafos says, why do we need a pasuk to tell you זה עוקר וזה מניח is patur? Why would I think he's chayav? In other words, why is there a sevara that he should be chayav? So Tosafos says, let's, you know what, open up דף צ״ג עמוד א׳ in Tosafos, דיבור המתחיל חד. צ״ג עמוד א׳, דיבור המתחיל חד. צ״ג? צ״ג עמוד א׳. דיבור המתחיל חד. Gemara says there is one pasuk that tells you that זה עוקר וזה מניח is patur. זאגט תוספות, וזה כותב אות אחת ובא חבירו וכתב אות שניה לא איצטריך קרא. Why, the hava amina is we need a pasuk that זה עוקר וזה מניח is patur? How come we don't need a pasuk to tell you that if one guy writes one letter and another guy writes another letter and together there is a full melacha of ketiva, and each one is patur, but we don't need a pasuk for that, it's obvious that they're patur. If the shiur of the melacha, when are you chayav on the melacha, if you wrote two otiyot, so it's obvious if one guy wrote one and the other guy wrote the other, even though between the two you have two letters, you're not chayav. How come by זה עוקר וזה מניח we need a pasuk? Why can't you say the same thing? Isn't it logical that if one person does one part and he didn't do the second, and the other guy did the second, not the first, they should be patur? So Tosafos is mechaleik. Let's finish. One guy writes one letter you don't need a לא איצטריך קרא, אלא אהוצאה. Only by hotsaah you need a pasuk that if one guy does the akirah and one guy does the hanacha, that is patur. Why? דהוה אמינא הכנסה והוצאה דקפיד רחמנא, because if not for the pasuk, I would think the main thing the Torah cares about is the taking in and out, וליחייב אפילו בלא הנחה. That you should do, the guy who did the akirah without hanacha might be chayav also. So what does Tosafos say here is the sevara to be chayav, who? The first one. The first one, the one that did the akirah. So it's a stira between the two Tosafos'en. Now, Tosafos, I don't think means דווקא the הנחה, דווקא the עקירה. It could be הנחה or עקירה, either one. But he's trying to say that here we would think that as long as you did the הוצאה, we would think, even though you only did one of the two, you did only the עקירה not the הנחה, you're chayav. Or you did only the הנחה also. But here Tosafos says that on עקירה there is no hava amina. If a guy did only the עקירה, there is no she'eilah even, there's no hava amina that he should be chayav. So there's a stira, it's not a machloket, it's a stira in two Tosafos's. What do you do when there's a stira in two Tosafos's? So sometimes, not sometimes, you have to find a teirutz. If you can't find a teirutz, there's always a way out. Different Baalei Tosafos. Huh? Different Baalei Tosafos, yeah. That's a very, that's a cop-out be'emet, but that's what sometimes we do. This was the, Rabbeinu Tam, and this might be the Ri, because it's written by many people, different Baalei Tosafos. But usually we try not to do that, that's mamash. So here what could be, so there are answers to give, but one answer you might say, that this Tosafos goes according to Rashi. If we're going to learn the second way, the Chokhmat Manoach, that Tosafos is saying, is to think that there's no hava amina that the guy who did הנחה should be chayav, and that goes say according to the Riva and say according to Rashi, and that means there is no such sevara that the guy who did הנחה alone, akirah alone should be chayav, if you learn like that, then there's a stirah. Here Tosafos says clearly there is a sevara that the guy who did akirah should be chayav. But if you're going to learn his first way, that Tosafos is saying it not l'kulei alma, Tosafos is only saying it according to the Riva and not according to Rashi, that means according to Rashi, there is a possibility to say that the akirah guy himself should be chayav as long as he did also the הוצאה. So עפ״י זה Tosafos could be there according to Rashi. So this could answer that she'eilah, that this goes according to Rashi. Okay. No, he doesn't say, he's, he's Yeah, could be. Hanachah also could be. But according to Rashi it's not meduyak that it has to be davka, davka, but it could be the hanachah also, but it could be akirah also. Okay. One more thing and then we'll get to the next piece of Gemara. Tosafos quotes a Yerushalmi that בנוגע a מושיט, the bottom line, how are you chayav for מושיט? And before that, what's מושיט? What's מושיט? You're carrying, you're handing from Which is which What's the porch? כרמלית, isn't it? No, what רשות is it? רשות היחיד. The porch is a רשות היחיד, and you're passing over to another porch, רשות היחיד. And what's in between? רשות הרבים. And that's a melachah is מושיט, and you're chayav for that. So, Tosafos brings the Yerushalmi that by מושיט there's a special din the Yerushalmi holds. Not everyone, the Bavli doesn't agree, but the Yerushalmi holds that in order to be chayav for מושיט, it's only על ידי שני. What does that mean? There's somebody that you're putting it into his hand. Tosafos thought l'chatchila Yerushalmi meant that they're doing it together, half and half, that he does the akirah and the other guy does the hanachah. That's what Yerushalmi meant, and then Tosafos had a problem with that, that couldn't be. So, Tosafos said that's not the pshat. The pshat in Yerushalmi is that the Yerushalmi holds by מושיט, בפרט, you're only chayav because when you give it over to the other guy. And the Yerushalmi says, why? Because that's how it was in the Mishkan. So, since we're learning out מושיט from the Mishkan, and that's how it was in the Mishkan. So, if you put it according to the Yerushalmi, put it on the floor, it's not going to be chayav. Okay, and we have a re'iyah from the Mishkan. My she'eilah is, and be'emet I said this once in by the way in a different shiur, so hopefully maybe you remember, but anyway, I'm going to repeat it now: what's the sevara behind it? The fact it was in the Mishkan should not mean anything in this case. If you remember, I already explained many times, being in the Mishkan doesn't mean, pashut, the physical way it was in the Mishkan. In the Mishkan, who did this? Leviyim. So, you have to say you're only חייב מושיט if you're a Levi? And what did they take there? The קרשים. So, you're only chayav if you carry a board? It has to be some תוכן in the chiyuv. So, why, because over there it happened to be that that you handed it to somebody, and that guy you put it into his hand, that's why the only time you have to chayav is only if you put it into someone's hand? There has to be some logic. Then you could say the logic if it fits if in the Mishkan was like that, and there's a sevara to be why this is the only way it's a melachah. Because like I said, anything you learn from the Mishkan, they did a million things in the משכן. Doesn't mean it's a melachah. Doesn't turn into a melachah, they walked, they this. Ela mai, you have to realize that this is the geder of a melachah, and it was in the משכן, and you're chayav. Now, why the fact that in the משכן happened to be somebody else who received it, that's why it has to be like that? So, what I explained it once, it's all based on one nekudah: what is הוצאה? A מלאכה גרועה. So, הוצאה, what is it missing? Why is it a שוואכע מלאכה? Why is it a weak melachah? Because there's no melachah. What does it mean there's no melachah? There's no change. There's nothing that's actually changing from one thing to another, all it is is changing position. So, we said after all there is a sevara to be a change, a a a a רוחניותדיקע change, like the akirah is as if you're tearing it out, hanachah, but the bottom line is sof kol sof it's not a real change. But nevertheless, there is a sof kol sof it's a change, cuz if it wouldn't be any change at all, what did I explain? As much as we find a pasuk that it's asur, but it wouldn't be a melachah! It would be an issur, but it wouldn't be one of the ל״ט מלאכות. So, there must be some change. So, there is a change, ober it's a change that's only a שוואכע change. Therefore, when it comes to מושיט, whatever change sof kol sof we find by regular הוצאה, by מושיט that's much less. Because by regular הוצאה or הכנסה, where are you taking it from? רשות היחיד to רשות הרבים, from רשות הרבים to רשות היחיד. And you did an akirah in רשות היחיד and hanachah in רשות הרבים. So, between all the things together, sof kol sof there is some kind of רוחניותדיקע change. But by מושיט, you're taking it from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד, אלא מאי, there's a רשות הרבים באמצע. But sof kol sof it starts with a רשות היחיד, finishes in רשות היחיד, where is the change? So, therefore, if we find in the Mishkan that there was something there to show more change, and that is that there was another person that took, got it, so that adds to the shinui that, hey, so obviously that must be there, cuz otherwise, the Yerushalmi didn't understand. Why would Why would you be חייב on מושיט? What kind of a מלאכה is it if it came from the from one רשות to another? From the one the same רשות to the same רשות. So, therefore, by regular הוצאה, it's enough change sof kol sof normally. And here, the Yerushalmi says you have to have a a a shinui, a shinui. And this I explained last time, there's Tosafot doesn't bring it, but there's another opinion in Yerushalmi. Yeah, that you're putting it from your from your hand in someone else's hand. It's not just another רשות, but it's another person. So, another person taking it, that makes it completely different, two people. So, it adds to the difference. It's still not a lot, but at least if we're looking for some change and we want to say, so this could be a change. There could be even more. In Yerushalmi, there's another opinion that by מושיט you're only חייב if you remember, I said this opinion once, if you switch. It's not enough that Reuven from this רשות היחיד hands it over to Shimon this רשות היחיד. It's only if he hands over to him, and Shimon hands it back to him, not the same thing, and Shimon gives something else to him, cuz that's how it was in the Mishkan. But that's the only time you are, both are חייב if each one gives another guy also. No one could be חייב for just giving it. No, no. They both have to have עקירה and הנחה. So there should be a gezeirah that you shouldn't... receive to be חייב, I can just give to be חייב. No, no. According to this opinion, you're only חייב if you give and receive. So there should be... So there should be a... All right. But what's the sevara behind it? Because if you, if we switch, there's even more change, cuz they're looking all to find this nekudah of a change in the מלאכה of מושיט. There should be a gezeirah by there, because maybe if one, if, if by the opinion in the Yerushalmi that holds both... You know what? I'm, I'm not sure there's no gezeirah according to the Yerushalmi. Doesn't say, maybe takeh there's a gezeirah if you do it alone. But de'oraita'dike, but they're... You may come to... may come, exactly. So maybe, ein hachi nami, maybe even just putting it down is also a gezeirah d'rabbanan. We're talking about the de'oraita'dike דין. Okay. Now let's get back to... let's go to the Gemara. עקירת גופו כעקירת חפץ. Starting now this new sugya. עקירת גופו כעקירת חפץ. What's the Gemara שאלה? That if you do an עקירה, but you're not doing an עקירה of something, in other words, you're not picking up the object itself. You're not picking it up and taking it away, but you have it on you and you start walking with it, so now you start walking, the thing is moving its place, but you didn't actually take the חפץ and move the חפץ. Is that called an עקירה or not? And the Gemara answers, it is called עקירה, and then אינו דומה ליוצא. Before we get to אינו דומה ליוצא, let's get to that עצם שאלה. So Tosafos says here, תוספות עקירת גופו כעקירת חפץ, that the שאלה is not only by עקירה, the שאלה is also by הנחה. Is הנחת חפץ, למשל, he says, a person took out a חפץ to reshus harabim and he stopped there. But he never put it down, but he stopped in the reshus harabim. Is that stopping called that the חפץ rested, is called הנחת חפץ? That's the first part of Tosafos. Then Tosafos comes with another thing altogether seemingly, and Tosafos says, what's the Gemara שאלה? I have often a ראיה from a Mishnah! What Mishnah does Tosafos have a ראיה from? לא יצא! Not from, לא יצא החייט במחטו. It says Friday before Shabbos, a tailor should not walk out with his needle. Why? שמא ישכח ויצא. He might forget and walk out on Shabbos. And what's going to happen if he walks out on Shabbos? He's going to stop and continue walking, and then it'll be considered a melachah, so he might do a מלאכה דאורייתא. And אי עקירת גופו לאו כעקירת חפץ, then אמאי לא יצא בו? Why aren't you chayav? הרי לא מצי למיתי לידי איסור דאורייתא. He never could come to an איסור דאורייתא. If mid'oraita you have to put it down to be chayav, or you have to start off picking it up to be chayav, and here the whole chashash is he might continue walking, and make an עקירת גופו, so if it's only a derabbanan, if it's not asur, if עקירת גופו is not עקירת חפץ, then why would they make a gezeirah? So Tosafot says it's no ראיה, ויש לומר דאפילו הכי אסור דרבנן. The Gemara could be that even though it's not מדאורייתא, מדאורייתא עקירת גופו could be not כעקירת חפץ, and still the רבנן said, \"Don't walk out.\" What does Tosafot say? The Gemara says don't walk out before Shabbos because on Shabbos he might walk. So obviously, walking on Shabbos would be an איסור דאורייתא, so we say don't do it on Friday so you shouldn't come to איסור דאורייתא. So Tosafot, if the if even if he'll walk with it on Shabbos, עקירת גופו is not כעקירת חפץ, then he'll never come to איסור דאורייתא. So why would the רבנן אסר him before Shabbos to walk out before Shabbos? What are we afraid of? The worst that could happen, he'll be only עובר איסור דרבנן. What could happen? He'll walk out before Shabbos and continue walking, and he'll stop in the street and then get up and start walking vayter. So he'll be חייב מדאורייתא? But if he's only חייב מדרבנן if that happens, so what are we afraid, he might do איסור דרבנן? So Tosafot says, yeah, even it could be it's only איסור דרבנן. Mid'oraita, טאקע it's not an issur because עקירת גופו לאו כעקירת חפץ, but it's still אסור מדרבנן. So the רבנן said, don't walk out Friday in order he should not come to איסור דרבנן. So before we get to explain the the the הסברת הענין, just this itself: what's the שאלה of Tosafos, what does that mean? Tosafos didn't think in the hava amina that it would be איסור דרבנן? What did Tosafos think, עקירת חפץ is not called, עקירת גופו is not עקירת חפץ, and it wouldn't be אסור even מדרבנן? Obviously, it could be אסור מדרבנן. But Tosafos' hava amina was very pashut: if it's only אסור מדרבנן, would the רבנן make a גזירה to an איסור דרבנן? What's the, what's it called? אין... אין גוזרין גזירה לגזירה, the חכמים didn't make a גזירה to a גזירה. The רבנן didn't make a איסור דרבנן because you might come to an איסור דרבנן. But they do sometimes. One sec, we don't make a גזירה לגזירה. So Tosafos in the hava amina was sure that if we made a גזירה not to walk out Friday because you might walk on Shabbos, must be that walking on Shabbos is a איסור דאורייתא. Because if walking on Shabbos would only be a איסור דרבנן, they would not have made a גזירה on Friday because it's a גזירה לגזירה. So then what's Tosafos's תירוץ? That it's also מדרבנן, but it's still a גזירה לגזירה. So, I'm just saying peshat in Tosafos, must be, like you said, sometimes we do find that the Rabbanan did make a gezeirah lagezeirah. What's the case? How, why, and when? So the Gemara says it in a few places. So the lashon in one place in Gemara is, כולה חדא גזירה היא. The gezeirah they made to the other gezeirah is not two separate gezeirot. That's all one. Which means, the way the Gemara says in a different place, the Chachamim saw אי לאו הא לא קיימא הא. Taytsh me the words: the Rabbanan, they made a gezeirah, let's say they made a gezeirah that עקירת גופו is asur. Then they realized that if we're not going to stop them from walking out on Friday, that gezeirah we made is not going to exist, people are not going to keep it. So they, in order to keep the first gezeirah, they felt they have to make another gezeirah. And that's Tosafot saying, that the Gemara's hava amina why it doesn't bring a re'ayah from that Mishnah, because the Gemara would learn, be'emet it's עקירת גופו לאו כעקירת חפץ, but it's only אסור מדרבנן, and the reason you can't walk on Friday, because the Rabbanan had to make that gezeirah in order not, in order to keep the gezeirah of not doing an עקירת גופו. But there's another way to explain the same thing, but in other words, which is a כללותדיקע ענין, which is noge'a to many things. And listen to this כללותדיקע thing. It's important to many gemarot, to many inyanim. When the Rabbanan made a gezeirah to a certain din, there are two ways they made it. Those that were last year, not too many guys, but would remember, I mentioned it in some of the shiurim last year. When the Rabbanan made a gezeirah not to do something,

there are two types of gezeirot. They made a gezeirah sometimes, they made a new isur. Mid'oraita this is mutar. Came the Rabbanan and they said, \"Because we're afraid if we're going to allow you to do it, you might come to do a איסור דאורייתא, so we made a new issur, a issur d'rabbanan.\" Then we find a gezeirah that the Rabbanan made that's not a new din. Listen to the words carefully: there are certain דינים דאורייתא which the issur is limited to a certain point. Come the Rabbanan and they didn't make a new gezeirah. They said, \"This איסור דאורייתא which is limited and only go up to here, we extend it.\" It's still going to be d'rabbanan, but we're taking the דין דאורייתא and we're extending it. על דרך דוגמא I'll give you a משל. And before I give you even the משל, the nafka mina will be can we make the gezeirah l'gezeirah. And I'll give you now a משל and I'll tell you. Basar b'chalav is אסור מדאורייתא. Which בשר? בשר בהמה. בשר עוף is not אסור דאורייתא. בשר עוף בחלב is אסור דרבנן. Then the Gemara in Chullin says there are certain things that the Rabbanan אסר'ד because of basar b'chalav. L'mashal, just an example, you're not allowed to sit, two people, on the same table, one eats milchigs, one eats fleishigs. You can't do that. You have to make some heker, some way to recognize it. You have to put something down or you have to have a placemat to separate. You can't do it. Why? The chachamim were afraid. What will happen? Yeah, if you're this, we're, it says only for friends or we know each other, so I might come take from you, you might take from me, so you might eat basar b'chalav. So that's why אין עולין על השולחן. What about בשר עוף to eat, I'll eat chicken on the same table as you're going to eat milk, am I allowed or not? Lichora, what should be the din? You should be able to, because what's to happen? It's a gezeirah you might come to eat them together, eating together itself is only a gezeirah d'rabbanan, and אין גוזרין גזירה לגזירה. Nevertheless, the din is not so. The din is clearly, all the dinim that the rabbanan said you're not allowed to do by בשר בהמה בחלב goes on בשר עוף בחלב just the same. And the question is why? Lichorah it's a גזירה לגזירה, that's clear. To eat בשר עוף בחלב is a gezeira and this is going to be a גזירה לגזירה. The answer is, when the rabbanan made the gezeira of בשר עוף, they did not say, \"We make our new issur, don't eat chicken with milk because of a gezeira.\" They said like this: mide'oraita there is a din of בשר בחלב. אלא מאי, it's limited to בשר בהמה. What we're doing, we're extending the din of בשר בחלב דאורייתא, מדרבנן, to also to of. Why? Because of a gezeira. But the way they did it wasn't that they made it as a new din. The gezeira was done in a way that they extended. And it makes sense why they should do it. Why would the chachamim want to make new dinim? Forget, all they do they stretch out a din de'oraita. And that they have a right, they have a right to make the din also if they want to. But wherever they didn't have to, why should they do it? So sometimes the rabbanan make gezeirot, it's a new din as a gezeira. Some gezeirot are that it's not a new din, it's an extension of the din de'oraita. The nafka mina is, when they made a new גזירה, אין גוזרין גזירה לגזירה. They made a new din because of this, and this itself is a is a new din, they don't do it. But if the the first din that they made was not a gezeira, it's because of preventing, but they made an extension of the din de'oraita, that's all they did. All they said, whatever applies to this din de'oraita by בשר בהמה will apply to בשר עוף. And therefore, any halacha, even if it's a gezeirah, it's not called a gezeirah lagezeirah. I'll give you another example which is more at home, more to Maseches Shabbos. In the Gemara on דף י״א, there's a she'eilah like this: Can a person stand in the רשות היחיד and bend over, you know what, let's look inside, it's going to be even clearer. Here, says Gemara quotes the Mishnah. לא, the bottom of י״א עמוד א׳ on the bottom, לא יעמוד אדם ברשות היחיד וישתה ברשות הרבים. Don't stand in רשות היחיד and stick your head out and drink in the רשות הרבים, or רשות הרבים to רשות היחיד. Shouldn't do it. Why? So Rashi says, גזירה שמא יוציא הכלי אליו. You have a cup in the רשות הרבים and you stuck your head out and you're drinking. You might by mistake take the cup and bring it in, so you'll be carrying from רשות הרבים to רשות היחיד or vice versa. Okay, that's the Gemara there. Comes the Gemara right after that and has a she'eilah here. איבעיא להו: כרמלית מאי? Can you do it over a כרמלית? Can you stand in the רשות היחיד and stick out your head and drink something in the כרמלית? Now the issur of carrying in a כרמלית is only derabbanan, or from a כרמלית to a רשות היחיד דרבנן. So אמר אביי: היא היא. It's exact same din. So Rashi said, כשם שגזרנו, just like we אסר-ed it רשות הרבים, the same thing by כרמלית. רבא אמר, how could you say that? היא גופא גזירה, ואנן ניקום ונגזור גזירה לגזירה? Gantz כרמלית is a gezeirah, so we'll make a gezeirah that you can't stick your head out and drink because you might come to carry in from a כרמלית, if carrying in from a כרמלית itself is only a gezeirah? What's the bottom line, the point of the machloket between Abaye and Rava? Peshitus, this is the machloket: When the Rabbanan made the din of כרמלית, did they make a new din? Mi-de'oraita there's רשות היחיד, רשות הרבים. There's no issur carrying from a כרמלית, there's no such thing, anything else is not is not asur. Came the Rabbanan, we made a new din! That's called a new din de-rabbanan of כרמלית. Now we're going to make a gezeirah that you can't even stand inside and stick out, it's a gezeirah to a gezeirah, to a din de-rabbanan. That's the sevara of Rava. So Rava says, how could you do it? היא גופא גזירה, and we'll make a גזירה לגזירה? How does Abaye say no, that it's the same issur? Because Abaye holds כרמלית was not made by the Rabbanan as a new din. They said, the din of רשות היחיד and רשות הרבים מדאורייתא is only if it's so and so and so. If it's different then it's not. We're saying we're extending it, and we're saying even there it's a din issur. So the moment, all they did, they extended the din of de'oraita, so here what's the din? You're allowed to make a גזירה לגזירה. It's not called a גזירה לגזירה. So the same thing going back to our Tosafot: The hava amina of Tosafot was that if the Rabbanan would אוסר עקירת גופו, it's not עקירת חפץ, but the Rabbanan made it asur, it would be a new din. If it would be a new din, the Rabbanan couldn't make a gezeirah to that. They couldn't say don't walk out Friday with the needle. So therefore must be it's a de'oraita. So Tosafot קשיא, so here we have a re'ayah it's a de'oraita. So Tosafot: No, could be it's דרבנן, מדאורייתא it's not. איי, why would the Rabbanan make a gezeirah that you can't walk on Friday? Because when the the Rabbanan made it, it wasn't a new a new din, they made the din de'oraita extend. So you could make a gezeirah to that. That's the answer of Tosafot. The havah aminah of Tosafot was that if עקירת גופו is not עקירת חפץ and it's only אסור מדרבנן, the Rabbanan would never have made a gezeirah, on Friday you can't walk because it's a גזירה לגזירה. Why? Because this din would have been been a new din and a gezeirah to a new דין דרבנן you don't do. And since the Rabbanan did make a gezeirah is a re'ayah it's a de'oraita, that's Tosafot's kushya. So why can't we bring a re'ayah that עקירת גופו is a de'oraita from that Mishnah for the fact that they made a gezeirah don't walk on Friday? Tosafot's answer is that's no re'ayah, could be mi-de'oraita it's not, it's only a דין דרבנן. Why did the רבנן make a גזירה to that דין How could they make a גזירה to a דין דרבנן? Because the גזירה that they would have made of עקירת חפץ is not a new דין they would have made. They would have said מדאורייתא you need an עקירה, but it's עקירת גופו עקירת חפץ. We extend the דין of עקירה also to עקירת חפץ, וממילא you could make a גזירה to that and wouldn't be a גזירה לגזירה. So it's no ראיה, so Tosafot's answer is it's no ראיה that it's a איסור דאורייתא. Seems like it's the same point as the other one, just going a little deeper. Same point as what? As As As the other reason why you're allowed to Right, it's just This might This is a kind of הסברה in the other one. This is a הסברה, באמת, when do the רבנן make a גזירה לגזירה? Because they said it's all one גזירה, is when the case when they did the first one not as a new דין, but as a המשך to the דאורייתא. Exactly, exactly. Okay. But you're saying that every single case where where where they're going to make If they make the, I forgot what the לשון you used, but make this עילאי הוא דקאי מטה. Right, every single case? I don't know if every single case, in some cases, for sure. So you can say עילאי הוא דקאי מטה falls into this category, but this car You said the opposite, this car category, uh, you could Exactly. It's like you're making a a גזירה on a גזירה. And then you say, \"No, it's really you're just extending cuz it would have been part of the גזירה that they originally made.\" Tosafot gave a a a started off the Tosafot by saying that when the גמרא has a שאלה is עקירת גופו כעקירת חפץ, תוספות says the same שאלה is by הנחה, right? The same שאלה is by הנחה Tosafot says. In Tosafot Yeshanim on the side, it says, והרשב״א פירש דהנחה פשיטא ליה. Also by הנחה? And by הנחה is no shailos, The Gemara knew for sure הנחת גופו כהנחת חפץ. It wasn't a shaila. ואפילו הכי בעיא על עקירה. On עקירה he's asking. And where do we see a sevara that הנחה is more reason to be chayav, and that's what the Gemara understood it's chayav, by עקירה we weren't sure. So, he says the the Gemara asks later on on דף ד׳ עמוד ב׳, דילמא הנחה לא בעי ועקירה בעי. In certain cases, I'll tell you what the Gemara talks about. The Gemara says that when you're doing an עקירה, you have to take it off a מקום ד׳. And when you put something down to be a הנחה, it has to be on a מקום ד׳. And the Gemara has a sevara that maybe הנחה לא בעי עקירה בעי. הנחה would be a הנחה without מקום ד׳ because a הנחה is easier to make, and עקירה would need ד׳. We see from that Gemara that you could be מחלק between עקירה and הנחה. Same thing the Rashba says here also that the Gemara only ודוקא asks on עקירה because עקירה the Gemara didn't know is עקירת גופו also called עקירת חפץ, but By הנחה it's okay הנחה the Gemara didn't ask, which is arguing with Tosafos. Tosafos says clearly, נראה לרי דהכא נמי מצי למיבעי לענין הנחה. And he gives an example. If you walked out and you stopped, is it הנחת הנחת גופו כהנחת חפץ או לא? That's the uh what he says. We're going to have to go into It won't be now. What's the sevara? What is the Tosafos brings a re'ayah. But what's the logic? Why would there be a difference between akira and hanacha? Why hanacha the Gemara knew for sure? What's the sevara? Hanacha is more sevara to be chayav even if it's not the real hanacha, and by No, so a re'ayah, what's the sevara? Why would here we we know hanacha might Is we sure if he stop it's like you the thing stopped, but עקירת עקירה maybe not. Cuz your body rests. And when your body rests and when your body starts walking, your body also walks. Cuz maybe they said that your hand is different than your body? Not the hand, we're not talking about the hand now. Talking about the body itself. The גמרא שאלה before the Gemara goes in like ידו, not like ידו. What is the sevara? How come hanacha makes more sense? Cuz hanacha is more pashut that it should be called a hanacha even though it's not הנחת חפץ, while by akira it's less? So, just okay, just to give a short vort to this sevara because it's a a long אריכות. Maybe next year clearly or the one after, I don't know. We'll see. But just one vort just to make it. We said before, before many times That by akira, why is akira and hanacha so important? Because you you need to make a shinui, like I said before. So actually, one of the ways you make a shinui is when you actually pick it up, you're taking it away from the reshut, and now you're taking it to another reshut, and the hanacha you put in another reshut. What's harder to do? To take something that's an existing thing, an existing matzav, and to change it, or to take something which is not an existing matzav yet, and to make it into a matzav? Is harder or easier? Harder. Okay. What's harder, yesh me'ayin or from ayin to yesh? No, from yesh me'ayin or or or אין מאיש? אין to יש. Nothing to something. What? Something to nothing? Yeah, that's easier. That's easier. אין to יש is taking nothing and you're making something. It's harder. Yeah. Always, would you ask what's harder? Well, in Chassidus it brings, לגבי this, in Chassidus it brings the גמרא גדולים מעשה צדיקים ממעשה שמים וארץ. Tzadikim, what they do is harder than the creation of the world. And Chassidus says what's the peshat? Because the Eibershter, by the creation, made from אין to יש, and what tzadikim, what Yidden have to do, is to make yesh me'ayin, yesh to אין, and יש to אין is harder. When something has a מציאות, you got to break that מציאות and take it away, and change it to something else, that's hard. But something doesn't have a מציאות, and you're just making it, it potentially could be anything. When something is already concrete, and this is it, to change it is harder. The Gemara says a לשון, קשה עתיקא מחדתא. To if you learned old stuff, and you want to change it, it's much harder to change something. A mashal, a person learned and learned by and learned by mistake, to change that and learn normal good is harder than something that you didn't learn at all, now you're learning, to learn it normal. Here the same thing. עקירה means that it has a place, it's קונה שביתה, it's רשות היחיד. You're going to change the מצב of this being in רשות היחיד into taking it away from רשות היחיד. That you need a real, real, concrete פעולה. הנחה means it already went away from that רשות היחיד, and now it's in the middle, and what you're trying to do, make it from no רשות and put it down into the רשות. So that's easier, because here from nothing, it's no רשות, after you tore it away, it's not in any רשות, and you want to make it to רשות, it's easier than from a רשות to change that. Like I said, from to make from יש, אין is harder than from אין to make יש. So mimela, this is what the Rashba says, that that הנחת הגוף is, even though it's not 100% a הנחה, but I could see that this should be considered a hanacha, because all you're doing is from hanacha we said means putting it like as if you're planting it into the place. But from nothing to make something, I could see that it doesn't have to be 100% a real, real hanacha. But to make an akirah, which means something that's established, and you want to change that by uprooting it, that you have to have a real, real way. You know, but something that's already 100%, and to change it, you got to do. So the Gemara says, is hanachat is עקירת גופו also just good enough as akirah as a as a as עקירת חפץ? Now, just there are other things that you have to say here, but just one thing, the chiluk between Rashi, pashut pshat, Rashi and Tosafot in the pshat, ידו, לא ידו, why it's not like יד. You have five minutes, just listen to this. Rashi says why is it different than the case of the Mishnah with יד. In the case of the Mishnah, when the let's give it an example, the בעל הבית sticks his hand out, and the עני puts it into his hand, and he takes it in, what is the din? The בעל הבית The בעל הבית, what's his din? He's patur. Why? What didn't what didn't he do? He didn't do He stuck his hand out, and then the guy put it in, he pulled it in, and he made the hanacha. What didn't he do? The akirah. So the Gemara שאלה is, why is it not called an akirah? The other guy put it in his hand, his hand is in the רשות הרבים, and he's holding it. And then, after he's holding it, he takes it in. So it's עקירת גופו. עקירת גופו, עקירת חפץ. So the Gemara answered, it's not like יד, this is a different din. So Rashi says the difference in this din is, and I'll just say two words because just the Rashi learns the problem why in this case you're patur, not because it's not to the רשות, you didn't take it from the רשות הרבים. What you didn't do, you didn't make an akirah, because, because you didn't do an akirah, because if the body moves and you're standing on the ground, you're standing. And if you're standing, it's it's מונח. You start moving, that's an akirah, because the akirah comes from a מקום מונח. When this your hand is in in the whole thing started with your hand, it's not מונח. It's not munach, your hand is not called nach, so when you take it you're not oker from the hanachah. Why? Because the hand dangles. That's the way we understand the pshat Rashi. Tos- the the the גירסא ידו לא נייח, I mean ידו בתר גופא גריר, you're also answering why you're patur in the case of yad. But what's the reason why are you patur there? Not because it wasn't an akirah. What? Give me in one word, what's the reason? It's not an hanachah? Yeah, and No moving? No, you moved it, took it in. No hanachah. No. Wait, what was your question? According to the other girsa, not taken from reshus harabim. Oh! Accor- it's the problem is that it didn't come from reshus harabim, because since your hand is in a different reshus than you, that hand does not get the reshus of where it is. So that's the main word the difference between Tosafos and Rashi. According to Rashi, the reason why by the case of yad you're not chayav, because there was no akirah. Right. It was in reshus harabim, but you didn't do an akirah. And according to the to R"Y, what's the problem? Not because you didn't do an akirah, because you did an akirah not from reshus harabim, that's why you're not chayav. Because it's from the reshus hayachid, there's no problem. No, because when it's in your hand, it's not reshus harabim. ידו בתר גופא גריר. What does ידו בתר גופא גריר mean? Means his hand goes by the body. The hand goes with the body, but it doesn't mean it becomes like the body. The hand outside is not in reshus hayachid. If the guy is standing inside and his hand is in reshus harabim, it doesn't mean it becomes reshus hayachid. What it means is, because he's standing in reshus hayachid, the hand is stopping the hand from being in reshus harabim. Which he can't do an akirah. And therefore, no, you did an akirah, but you did an akirah from nothing. You did an akirah from from makom patur, and that's why you're not chayav. So Rashi and Tosafot argue: According to Rashi, the reason you're patur because you didn't do an עקירה. It's דוקא רשות הרבים, but you didn't do an עקירה, because the hand doesn't do an עקירה. And Tosafot learns, davka you did an עקירה, but not from רשות הרבים, and that's also why you're patur. Cuz you did it in מקום פטור. What does Rashi say again? Rashi says the reason you're patur because you didn't do an עקירה. Because since it didn't rest in your hand- So basically Tosafot adds on also to- Argues! Tosafot says it is an עקירה. Ah, the reason why is- The only thing is, because since it's in a different רשות, it's not רשות הרבים, so you didn't do an עקירה from רשות הרבים.