גופו כעקירת חפץ. Gemara's question was if you do עקירת גופו, you move your body, and the חפץ, the object on the body moves through the body, is the same din as if you picked up the חפץ itself and you moved it? Tosafos says two things in the Tosafos. Tosafos first explains that the Gemara's question is the is also, not is also בנוגע להנחה. The Gemara uses the lashon, is the akirah of the body like the akirah of the object? The Gemara didn't mention anything about hanachah. So Tosafos, the same question is hanachah. It's a general question, he just uses, obviously the word akirah, but he means akirah and hanachah. And just to mention, should be בנוגע a little later, the Tosafos Yeshanim brings the Rashba. Just want you to know that the Rashba of Tosafos Yeshanim is not the same Rashba as this Rashba that we're learning today. This Rashba, he's much was much later. This is a Tosafos בעל ה... Rashba בעל התוספות? He was not בעל התוספות, he was generation later. It was closer to the end of the Rishonim, where the בעלי התוספות are more in the beginning of the Rishonim. Anyway, the Rashba argues and the Rashba says that when the Gemara asked the she'eilah, is עקירת גופו כעקירת חפץ, the Gemara meant to ask only בנוגע עקירה. What about hanachah? Nu, what does the Tosafos Yeshanim say? Pashut that patur or chayav? Patur if if it is, it's not patur. So what does the Rashba say, that the Gemara knew for sure that הנחת גופו is כהנחת חפץ and you're chayav. In other words, if you pick something up, and you, which is a real עקירה, and you walked out, and while you're walking, you put it on your back, and then you stopped, it's no she'eilah in the Gemara, because the עקירה was a regular עקירה of the object, and the הנחה is הנחת הגוף, but that the Gemara had no question that הנחת הגוף is a הנחה, and you are chayav. Chayav. The question is if you didn't make a real עקירה, you just did an עקירת הגוף. While Tosefos is telling us no, that עקירה, when the Gemara asks the she'eilah about עקירת הגוף, the Gemara meant to say the same she'eilah, that the she'eilah is הנחת הגוף also הנחה. That's one thing Tosefos says. Then Tosefos comes and says, I have a kashya. Why did the Gemara have a safek whether עקירת גופו כעקירת חפץ? The Gemara could have answered the question, resolved it from the open Mishnah. What's the Mishnah? לא יצא החייט במחטו. A tailor cannot walk out with his needle on Friday, because if he walks out with his needle on Friday, he might come to carry on Shabbos. Which kind of carrying will he do? עקירת גופו, because it's on him, and what are we afraid, that if he's walking with it, that he might walk on Shabbos and walk outside with it. So, the worst that could happen is עקירת גופו. If עקירת גופו is not asur, is not חייב מדאורייתא, then why would the רבנן say that you can't do it on Friday because you might come to do it on Shabbos? And as I explained it last time, even though Tosafos doesn't say these words, so the kashya is, why make a gezeirah lagezeirah? So obviously it's not a gezeirah, obviously it's מדאורייתא. That's Tosafos's kashya. The she'eilah that is asked here is Tosafos - huh? We answered, yeah, yeah, I'm not doing... The question here is, when Tosafos says two things in the same Tosafos, they must have a connection. Because if Tosafos has two separate ענינים to two separate comments on the same ענין, תוספות makes it into two Tosafoss, two דיבור המתחילs. When Tosafos in the same דיבור המתחיל asks something and then asks another thing, they must be connected. Because as we see many times, Tosafos speaks about the same piece of Gemara and has two Tosafoss in it. Why? Because they're two separate ענינים. What's the connection here between these two things? One thing Tosafos said that the Gemara's question is not only בנוגע עקירה, also by הנחה. Then Tosafos says, why doesn't the Gemara resolve it from the Mishnah of לא יצא החייט? And Tosafos answers it. That question has nothing to do whether הנחה, yeah. That's a שאלה בכלל. Why did the Gemara have a question whether עקירת גופו is עקירת חפץ, we have an open re'ayah, a re'ayah from a Mishnah of לא יצא החייט. What's the connection between these two parts of Tosafos? That's one of the קשיות that the מפרשים ask. So the Penei Yehoshua,

I want to tell the Penei Yehoshua answers the shaila. And this is what I want to tell what the Pnei Yehoshua says. The Pnei Yehoshua says it's befeirush connected. The whole kasha that Tosafos has, why the Gemara didn't resolve it from לא יצא החייט, is only because the question is hanachah also. Had the question been only on akirah, Tosafos said I wouldn't have a question. Why not? Because what is the chashash What is the chashash of what the guy might do? The guy might walk out. He'll walk out from the רשות היחיד to the רשות הרבים on Shabbos. Now, walking out on Shabbos from the house means that he's going to be Shabbos in the house. Now, in the house, it's a possibility, maybe, that what will happen is if he's have, if he has the pin in him, maybe what he'll do, he'll maybe take the pin with his hand and make a real akirah. How do you know the Gemara didn't, the Chachamim didn't have a chashash that he'll make a real akirah? What? Take it out to Maybe he'll take it out to, while he's talk, has it, he'll put it down and then he'll pick it up again. It's possible. He doesn't have it in his hand, why would he pick it up? No, he doesn't have it in his hand. He has it on him, let's say. He has it on him. So the Chachamim were afraid, if you have it on him and you're walking around with it right before Shabbos, you know you have it there, you'll see it, you'll put it down, you might pick it up. We are afraid maybe you'll make a real akirah and walk out. But there is no chashash you'll make a real hanachah. In the street, why would you put it down in the street? We're afraid you're going to make a hanachah in רשות הרבים. What kind of hanachah is there a possibility, a normal possibility he would make? הנחת גופו. So that's what Tosafos says. But the Gemara has a shaila on הנחת גופו also. So ein hachi nami, if the shaila would only be on akirah not on hanachah, and hanachah would be definitely הנחת גופו. Chayav. Chayav. So then Tosafos, I wouldn't have a kasha. The kasha of Tosafos is why don't we answer the question from the case of the of the of the tailor? I'll tell you why. Our whole shaila is not concerning הנחה. הנחה is takeh אסור. The שאלה is on עקירה. Why did they say you can't walk out on Friday with it? Because we're afraid you'll make an עקירה with your hand. And then it will be איסור דאורייתא. So ממילא, I have no ראיה from that Mishnah that עקירת גופו is just as bad. The ראיה Tosafos says from there is that since we said that we're afraid you're going to do a איסור דאורייתא, and the only way it could be is through עקירת הגוף, and since we're afraid of that, assuming that it's assur. Who says maybe that maybe the עקירה we're afraid of is, since you're still in, we're afraid in the house before Shabbos you'll be, maybe you'll make עקירה ביד? That's the חשש. הנחה, you certainly won't make ביד. But that's not a question. The question wasn't on הנחה. But now that Tosafos finished saying that the question is on הנחה also, now Tosafos comes up and says, you know, I have often a ראיה that הנחה הנחת גופו is כהנחת חפץ. Because since we can't allow him to walk out, and the only way we're we're afraid he might do a איסור דאורייתא, the only way this איסור דאורייתא could happen, because he'll stop. He won't put it down. Why will he Who thinks he'll put it down in the street? So he'll definitely stop the גוף, and the חכמים said that it's assur מדאורייתא, that's why they made a גזירה, that's what Tosafos says is a ראיה, הנחת גופו כהנחת חפץ. So we see the connection. מדאורייתא? What's the meaning מדאורייתא? In the קשיא of Tosafos learned, if it's דרבנן, they wouldn't make a גזירה. Why don't we have a חשש of just go of ד' אמות? Huh? Why don't we have a חשש? The חשש is just to go of ד' אמות ברשות הרבים with it, in his pocket, or whatever. Yeah. He can't have it before Shabbos, he's Right, it's the same problem. If הנחת גופו is הנחת חפץ, then then there's no re'ayah. No, there doesn't have to be any עקירה or הנחה for ד' אמות. Oh, sure it is. ד' אמות has to be עקירה and הנחה. Okay, so if I just transfer ד' אמות Without עקירה and הנחה, you're not חייב. No. Why can't we say that once you established that עקירה and הנחה are the same thing Not they're the same thing, but they're the same question. Same question, why do you need to solve the question? No, but if not, because if it wouldn't be the same question, Tosafos wouldn't have a kashya. All all Tosafos I'll put it in different words. There Tosafos says we have a re'ayah from לא יצא המחט to answer the she'eilah. The Penei Yehoshua says the re'ayah to answer the is only to answer הנחה. For עקירה we have no re'ayah. I mean, for for for עקירה we have no re'ayah. Why? Because how do you know that the Gemara wasn't חושש, the חכמים weren't חושש that you might do עקירה ביד? You want to prove that it must be he will do an עקירה בגוף, and since it's אסור מדאורייתא, because he made a גזירה, assuming עקירת הגוף is bad. Who says we're afraid he'll make עקירת הגוף? Maybe we're afraid he'll make עקירה ביד? הנחה, we're not In this case, we're definitely not afraid you'll make הנחה ביד. Because the guy's walking outside, why would he make an הנחה ביד? Where's he going to put it down, put it down on the floor? Inside, you never know, he might take it out, put it down. So from this re'ayah, the re'ayah is only for הנחה. Says Tosafos, since the Gemara's she'eilah is הנחה also, so I have a problem, why didn't the Gemara prove it from there? But if not, if I wouldn't say peshat, if I would say הנחה is no question, then the Gemara, then I wouldn't have a kashya why you don't bring from there. Because if the she'eilah would be only on עקירה, from there we have no re'ayah for עקירת הגוף. Because over there, maybe the she'eilah is maybe the חשש is he'll do עקירה ביד. Which answers another problem. You have here, when Tosafos asks the she'eilah from לא יצא החייט, ואם תאמר, there's a little gimel here, I don't know in your Gemaras here now they make different things, what does it say there? Before the she'eilah even, אם תאמר אמאי, in the Tosafos עקירה, there's a little gimel in the regular Gemaras. What does it say in the gimel here? Everyone look inside. Look at the little at the little gimel, and if you can't see it, take off your glasses and look. You got to see it. It says there like this, ולרשב״א שמחלק בין עקירה להנחה לא קשיא מידי. The kushya that Tosafos asks, why the Gemara didn't prove it from לא יצא החייט, is, according to the Rashba who says that the question was only on עקירה and not on הנחה, is no question. All the מפרשים wonder, what in the world is he saying? What's he saying here? Why is that no question according to him? Why is it not a Tosafos kushya that the Gemara could have proved from לא יצא החייט, is a she'eilah also according to the Rashba? Because the way you learn peshat in Tosafos, Tosafos says from לא יצא החייט we have a re'iyah that what? That akirah, according to פשט תוספות, without the Pnei Yehoshua, פשט תוספות, I have a re'iyah from לא יצא החייט that עקירת הגוף is כעקירת חפץ. The Rashba also says that the Gemara has a she'eilah is עקירת הגוף The only thing the Rashba says that by hanachah we have no question. So what's what does what does the what does the Tosafot Yeshanim say that according to the Rashba, תוספות קושיא is no kushya? Why is it no kushya? Same kushya. The Rashba says that akirah is a she'eilah. Tosafot has a kushya, why don't we answer the she'eilah from לא יצא החייט? Zogt the Pnei Yehoshua, but according to me it makes sense, because the Pnei Yehoshua is explaining that the whole kushya is only for hanachah. So zogt the Tosafot Yeshanim, according to the Rashba that we never had a she'eilah on hanachah, so you can't ask him why we didn't answer from לא יצא החייט, because we never asked the question about hanachah, and לא יצא החייט is only a re'iyah for hanachah. You understand? But that's what the Tosafot Yeshanim means to say. You see, because others say, ah? Yeah. Yeah, and the Tosafot Yeshanim doesn't make sense. So the other mefarshim like the Rashash and others, they in order to explain this Tosafot Yeshanim, they say the printer made a mistake. The gimel doesn't belong here. When it says that according to the Rashba this is not a kushya, doesn't belong here. It belongs in the next Tosafot. According to the next Tosafot, at the end of the next Tosafot, it's I don't want to go into it because it'd be אריכות, but according to what Tosafot says the kushya that Tosafot asks in the next Tosafot, according to the Rashba it's no kushya. Because in the next Tosafot, Tosafot says speaks about עקירה and הנחה in the end. And Rashi I'm not going to go into this now, it's not the So there, no, you can't correct on your own, so the Rashash says and this is not only the Rashash, other מפרשים, that it's pashut a printing mistake and it's supposed to be there. And here takeh makes no sense, because the kushya of Tosafot is according to the Rashba also. But the Pnei Yehoshua makes it very much seichel'dik. He says that the whole kushya is only because the she'eilah is on הנחה too, because the re'iyah is only for הנחה. So according to the Rashba it's no re'iyah. Okay, that's one. Ah? Being that the question the kushya of Tosafot is only that from here we could prove הנחה, according to the Rashba we don't need to prove הנחה. הנחה was never part of the question. Okay. The פועל ממש there's a problem here with like we have Rashi and Tosafot pshat in this Gemara. But

the Gemara answered that עקירת הגוף, עקירת גופיה is or isn't, which one is it, כעקירת חפץ? It is. And then the Gemara said, ואינה דומה לידו. Which means, don't ask me a question, how could I say עקירת גופו כעקירת חפץ when by יד we see differently. What do we see by יד differently? Which din do we see? That if a guy sticks his hand out empty, and somebody else, let's say the עשיר sticks his hand out outside and the עני puts something in, and he takes it in, he is patur. Now if עקירת גופיה כעקירת חפץ, why is he patur? He's standing, his hand is outside, he's taking it from the outside, and he's making a עקירת גופיה, because his hand עקירת גופיה, and he's taking it, he should be chayav. So the she'eilah is, that's a kushya that the Gemara has on what? A kushya on which din? On saying עקירת גופו כעקירת חפץ, we have a kushya on that din. And the Gemara answers the kushya. How does the Gemara answer the kushya? So we have Rashi and Tosafot. Let's go according to the way Tosafot understands Rashi. That what does Rashi do? Rashi says that you're right, when you stand stand in and your hand is you stand inside your hand is outside and guy puts it in and you're taking it you did make an עקירה. Why? 'Cause עקירת גופו כעקירת חפץ. That's what it seems like. So so Rashi says no I used the wrong word, so Rashi says the hand is different. By the hand we do not say that klal. Right. Why not? A can a hand itself as a reshut is not an עקירה because an עקירה could only be from a place where it's resting and since the hand is always not resting the body we say on the body standing on the floor so it's resting. If you start walking it's an עקירה, but the hand is not. So the reason according to Rashi why you can't ask a kashya from this case of ידיה because by ידיה we do not say the klal of עקירת גופו כעקירת חפץ. עקירת גופו we say, but not עקירת ידיה. Fine. Tosafot says that's not the peshat. Tosafot says the peshat is not that it's not an עקירה. There is no difference between your hand and something else. Every part of the body is the same. So when you move your hand when your hand is outside and someone puts it in, so you did do an עקירה. You did do an עקירה because עקירת גופו and the hand is just as much as עקירת גופו. So why aren't you not aren't you חייב? Because it's not רשות הרבים. Since the hand goes after the body so you cannot have the hand outside being a רשות הרבים. So so again so clearly According to Rashi the reason why by יד you're פטור, because it's no עקירה. It's takeh רשות הרבים, but it's no עקירה. And according to Tosafot it's בפירוש יא an עקירה, but it's not a רשות הרבים because it's after your hand after your גוף. That's what the difference is.

Comes Tosafot and Tosafot brings a ראיה. Huh? Yes, not the same, לגבי this, it's not a רשות הרבים, that's what he says. ידיה בתר גופו גריר, so since it's connected to the hand so you cannot make the hands inside of the רשות הרבים when your body is a רשות היחיד. So you're doing an עקירה, because Tosafot learns it makes no difference between the hand and the body. But it's an עקירה not from a רשות הרבים because it's not a רשות הרבים. Tosafot brings a ראיה against Rashi. Tosafot says according to Rashi that the hand is never called מונח so what happens if someone put something on someone's hand and the guy is standing, and then the guy starts walking? And on Shabbos he puts it on a Shabbos in his hand, then he walks, stops, walks outside, stops outside. Would he be חייב or פטור, according to Rashi? According to Rashi he would be פטור. He says that makes no sense. What's the difference where you put it on? The guy made an עקירה! A re'iyah, what's Tosafos re'iyah? From our Mishnah. What din of the Mishnah? או שנטל מתוכה, what is a case? If the עני takes out of the hand of the baal habayit In other words, if the baal habayit is standing inside inside, the עני sticks his hand empty, pick something out of the hand of the baal habayit, takes it out, the עני is chayav. Why is he chayav? Where did he take it from? From a hand! He made an akirah and hanachah, but there's no akirah here! Because if Rashi is right that anything in a hand of a person is not called laying, then this is not called an akirah. So how come this עני is chayav when he takes this out? So Tosafos said, a re'iyah Rashi is wrong! That there's no such thing, you can't say that the hand is not munach. Here, see, the guy the baal habayit is standing inside holding something, the עני takes from it, we're saying it's munach! That's why the guy is chayav. So me'orer'dike kashya on Rashi, no? We have to understand how will we answer Rashi. Rashi has to make sense. So someone said Rashi never never means what Tosafos thinks pshat in Rashi. Rashi means exactly what Tosafos says. Like the Ri says that when it says when it says ידיה לא נייח, it means because of ידיה בתר גופו גריר. And maybe Rashi means that too. That's why Rashi says we're not גורס these words because יתירא היא, not because it's wrong, it's extra because you don't need those words, cuz the words ידיה לא נייח means exactly the same thing as ידיה בתר גופו גריר. But Tosafos doesn't learn like that. So according to Tosafos if you learn peshat in the Rashi like Tosafos, how do you answer Rashi from this thing? It's a מעורר'דיקע קשיא. How could Rashi say ידיה לא נייח when we see here if you take it from the hand of the baal habayis, you're chayav? That means you took it from a מקום מונח. You made an עקירה, otherwise how could you be chayav? So in order to answer Rashi, we have to answer like this: peshat in Rashi is when Rashi says ידיה לא נייח, is only לגבי yourself. When you take something, let's say, we said before you stick your hand in empty, the עני puts something in, and now you're taking it. So the Gemara's שאלה was how come you're not chayav? עקירת גופו כעקירת חפץ. So Rashi says the answer is cuz it's לא נייח. This is all לגבי yourself. You are taking your own hand and you're moving it. So we say לגבי you, the hand that you have is not נייח. The second case we're talking, what does Tosafos bring a re'ayah? That you're taking it out from the baal habayis's hand. Is a re'ayah then the baal habayis's hand that it is מונח? Because it's not your hand. So his hand לגבי somebody else, a person's hand is מונח. If a person's So therefore, if you take it out from his hand, we consider you took it out from a מקום מונח. The whole time is only לגבי your hand, and the logic behind it makes sense based on the whole everything I'm saying a hundred million times this year, that the whole idea of a מלאכה of הוצאה is what? It's מלאכה גרועה. What is the מלאכה סוף כל סוף? עקירה הנחה, the change. So in order to the עקירה to be a change, so if you take it from somebody else, that's called a change, even though it's לא מונח, but לגבי him it's We're talking about yourself, since it's missing a change because the עקירה is yourself and you're taking it, so legabei yourself, takeh Rashi says ידו לא נייח. But legabei somebody else, that your hand, whether it's munach, if somebody is gonna take it from your hand, it's gonna be called munach. It's called munach. That's a munach. If because if on my and al pi peshat, if my body is standing, even though my hand is hanging, but my hand is also munach. But when we're trying to say I took my hand to myself, then it's not munach. But if I'm standing like this, it's munach, because legabei somebody else, this is part of me. But legabei myself, and we're looking at a hand as a separate entity, so then it's not munach. Can you say that the guy who reached his hand into רשות היחיד and you take it out of his hand, is his hand considered munach? What did he do? He was holding it? So that's what we're talking about. That's called munach. So legabei the other guy it's always munach? No, it's מונח לגבי you. Someone else's hand legabei you is munach, and your hand is not legabei yourself. That's how Rashi is gonna have to be mechalek. What's the difference? So I'm saying why, because the whole thing of this akirah and hanachah is the shinui. So if it's from somebody else, it is changing. It's enough to be changing. In yourself, it's not a change. Just like I kept on saying what the Yerushalmi you always look for, if it's not a change from רשות לרשות, רשות היחיד לרשות היחיד by מושיט, we said that the Yerushalmi learned has to be another person, has to be this, why? Because we're looking for shinui to be a real shinui, and here we're doing the same thing. For the shinui to be a real shinui, if it's in your own hand, it's not, it's not called a real akirah, but if it's from somebody else, it's a complete change. But you have to be mechalek that way according to Rashi. Why does it make a difference if it was פושט גופו לפנים as long as there is a change? Uh? Why does it make a difference if it was פושט גופו לפנים as long as No, what do you mean? According to Rashi we're not גורס, the way Tosafot learned, we're not גורס פושט גופו לפנים. We're just saying ידו לא נייח. So it's not a nafka mina if it's the other רשות or this רשות, ידו לא נייח. But when do we say ידו לא נייח? לגבי yourself, not לגבי if your hand is נייח לגבי if somebody else will take from it. לגבי yourself it's לא נייח. And maybe takeh, according to Rashi, if someone will put into your hand It's still a nafka mina. Could be, yeah, because now you did the akirah. So maybe not. Maybe takeh they're you takeh the person, person will be patur. Can you say that that this is hinted on in the Rashi in the beginning that it says that you're פטור לכתחילה, like in the beginning on דף ב? And that says you're patur says you're פטור לגמרי, and then it says אפילו לכתחילה you're patur. Yeah. So that's what he's saying over here, אפילו לכתחילה you're patur, even though seemingly you might have a hava amina to say that like Tosafos is saying, that seemingly it's a מקום מונח and so you might have that you might have done the akirah here if this guy's taking from your hand. So there it's a case where you took it from his hand. I'm saying that's this case that we had, that Yeah, where the guy the other guy is פטור לגמרי, מותר. Right, so yeah, so saying that Tosafos is saying even though you might think that, I mean Rashi is saying that even though you might think that you're picking it up, they and and according to Tosafos, seems like that that guy's the other guy's not doing the akirah, saying no, still, it's really that guy is doing the akirah. It's not you're not doing the akirah at all. No, then you wouldn't be, I mean so the sheilah is לגבי the other guy, is he doing the akirah or not, but לגבי you for sure you didn't do it. For sure, that's patur mima nafshach. Yeah, okay, fine. Hey, you know what, since we're talking about this Tosafos, let's go back a drop. According to the other girsa, that the Rashba the the number belongs over here. What was the What was that Tosafos Yeshanim saying? That according to the Rashba who says that the whole safek of the Gemara is akirah, and akirah is different than hanachah, it's not a kashya. So we thought it's not a kashya, the kashya from ליסחייה. According to that other girsa, Tosafos's kashya on Rashi is no kashya if Rashi learns like the Rashba, because the whole re'ayah from Tosafos is akirah and hanachah. Okay, I'm not going to go into it, forget about it. It's it's I already started writing it. You started writing it? So write next to it: אחר השיעור, אברר דאס ענין הזה. So I'm expecting you to come after the shiur, later on, to come and find out what this is, because since you started writing. Why? I'd give a shiur and explain it, what's wrong? Yeah, what's wrong? You want to know it, so I'll tell you. I just don't want to spend, because it's going to take a half-hour to explain it, and we're not going to get anywhere. We want to get a little bit further. Okay. I thought you meant like, it's like a question that I need to come back and No, no, no, no, no, that's not what I meant. No, I want you just to come to me, and I'll explain to you what I tried to say. What, according to the Rashash and other acharonim who claimed that this shayachut, this piece of Gemara belongs over there or how it belongs to there. You know what? Try to figure it out yourself. That if you would have that little piece written at the end of the next Tosafos, then it makes a lot of sense. And it really does. Go figure it out. In your Gemara, doesn't it say that? It is, it does. It says Here is a גימ״ל וצ״ע וכתב במאן וקשיא לי כיוון דהוי הנחה אף על גב דלא ניחא No, no, no, no. That's part of the Tosafos. Over here it says in the first Tosafos On the first Tosafos, what does it say? You have a regular Gemara or Oz Vehadar? Oz Vehadar. So what does it say? Doesn't it say something? Does it say that the Rashash says to put it in the next Tosafos? I'm sure it does. I can't believe it doesn't. This Oz Vehadar, I can't believe. Maybe it does, I don't know. Sure! The little גימ״ל has a טית next to it. What does it say by טית? הציון ג׳ השייך בתוספות ישנים, שייך בתוספות סוף דיבור המתחיל מאי טעמא. Who says it there? The Rashash and the Kovetz Shiurim, and וכן כתב השפת אמת. You have the Oz Vehadar? So look at the he'arot v'tziyunim, or הגהות וציונים, what's it called? See טית? Okay.

רבותי, מ'גייט צו די נייע ענין. Okay. Here we had in the Gemara, we're going to go try to learn this Rashba that we just that we had. We're coming to the Gemara that Abaye said: פשיטא לי, ידו של אדם אינה לא כרשות הרבים ולא כרשות היחיד. רשות הרבים לא דמיא, מידו דעני; רשות היחיד לא דמיא, מידו דבעל הבית. בעי אביי, what about מהו שתעשה ככרמלית? So here we have the Rashba. The Rashba quotes Rashi, says pshat in the Gemara the way Rashi explains it, has two kashyos on Rashi, then he explains that the Rabbeinu Chananel, which is actually your Rabbeinu Chananel printed on the side of the Gemara, has a different girsa. According to Rabbeinu Chananel it's understood. Then he has a kashya on the Rabbeinu Chananel, and then he answers it. We're going to learn it inside. Just to mention that the way he quotes the Rabbeinu Chananel is different than what we have the Rabbeinu Chananel. It's not exactly the way we have it, the girsa, the way the Rashba quotes it. So let's learn inside the Rashba. You all have a copy of it? You got it? What was the Rashba's name? Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar? Rav Shimshon ben Avraham? Rav Rav Shmuel ben Ezra? Rav Rav Shlomo ben Avraham Aderet. Known as Rav Shlomo ben Aderet, or his father's name was Avraham Aderet. I was talking about a different one. Yeah. The Rashba of the of Tosafot that we're speaking about is not that. He is I don't know who exactly, I don't know if it's ever written out his name. What what תקופה did he live, the Rashba? I actually said before. Oh, he's right by the end of the, end of the Close to that. He was one of the rabbeim of the Rosh. Yeah. He lived in Spain, and the Rosh ran away from Germany when they arrested his rebbe, the Maharam of Rothenburg. Did you guys ever read the book, \"Unpaid Ransom\"? I remember bochurim, bochurim never even dared to look at an English book and novels and But Merkos books that they gave out, that was a must read. So, Merkos gave out five books, little they called five novelettes, written by He translated it from what's from by who? Anyway, so One of them is \"Unpaid Ransom\". \"Unpaid Ransom\", the story of Maharam of Rothenburg was taken captive and then they didn't want they should redeem him. So, the nekudah of the stories are true, but the how the details are all made up. Yeah. So, it's all about the Maharam of Rothenburg. And there it tells it says that There it says I don't know if that's true, that the Rosh was his son-in-law. I don't know if that's true. Kind of has a mokor. But lemaaseh, after they arrested him, he was to the jail here, so then he ran away, and he ran to Spain, and he came to the yeshiva of the Rashba. The Rashba was a Sephardi, the Rosh was Ashkenazi. The The Maharam of Rothenburg was Ashkenazi. He lived in Ashkenaz, he had to live in Germany. So, he went away to the Spain. Spain is the Sephardim. So, he went and became a talmid of the Rashba. The Rashba was a one of the rabbeim of the Rosh. And the Rosh was for the last Rishonim because the Rosh's son, who is who? the Tur, is considered sometimes an Acharon. The Tur is this middle. Sometimes the Tur is called a Rishon, sometimes the Tur called an Acharon. So, the Rosh, who is the father of the Tur, is definitely later and the Rashba was his rebbe, so it's closer to the end of the of Rishonim. Okay, we'll learn here. הכא גריס רש\"ל, this is Maharshal's girsa there, אמר אביי, let's read the words, ידו של אדם אינה כרשות היחיד and nothing like כרשות רבים. And it says כרשות היחיד לא דמיא, how do you know that it's not רשות היחיד? מידו דבעל הבית. כרשות רבים לא דמיא מידו דעני. פירש, So, Rashi explains it like this. Huh? Why is it backwards? No, no, no, no. You mean the lashon רשות היחיד, רשות רבים? Oh, that's the same. That's not changing the the dinim, just which one you mention first. Okay. פירש, כרשות שהגוף עומד שם, that the hand is כרשות like the רשות that the body, where the body is, לבטל רשות שיפשטה שם, and it's not in the רשות where it's set out. בין שיפשטה לרשות היחיד והוא ברשות רבים הוא ברשות היחיד If he's standing in רשות רבים and his hand is רשות היחיד, so what are we saying? Or בין שיפשט לרשות היחיד והוא ברשות רבים So, in both cases, we're saying that the hand doesn't do what? is is not like the body. If you're standing in רשות היחיד, your body, the hand in רשות רבים, so we tell you Abaye is telling you you should know that the hand from that's standing in רשות רבים, coming from רשות היחיד, is not רשות היחיד. If you're standing in רשות רבים and the hand is in רשות היחיד, the hand is not רשות היחיד. He says like this, כרשות רבים לא דמיא, this is the pshetl in the Gemara. How do we know that it doesn't become רשות רבים if you're standing in רשות רבים? מידו דעני, the din of the פשטה לרשות היחיד. If the hand of the עני is stuck out into רשות היחיד, and he sticks, brings in something into, ואפילו הכי, נטל בעל הבית מתוכה, if the בעל הבית takes, the עני sticks his hand out in the רשות היחיד, and something is in the hand, and the בעל הבית takes it out from that hand, what's the din? פטור. פטור. Or נתן לתוכה, or he puts into that hand, is פטור. אי חשיב כרשות רבים, if the hand from the עני that's in the רשות היחיד has a din like the person in רשות רבים like it's כי שהגוף עומד שם, like the person is there, היה חייב! Should have been חייב. וכן, the זעלבע זאך פאַרקערט, פשט בעל הבית את ידו לחוץ, a בעל הבית who's standing in רשות הרבים, he sticks his hand out out, רשות היחיד, and the עני puts in, the עני is not חייב. If the din would be that the hand of the בעל הבית to outside is נגרר, goes after the body, and it has a din of a רשות היחיד, so then the עני outside who puts in should be חייב. That's how we're gersin in the Gemara. And that's the הקדמה. After this, what does אביי say? This is פשוט. בעי אביי, what about the hand becoming a כרמלית? זאגט דער Rashba, ve-einah mechuvor. S'iz nisht richtig. Eino mechuvor means it's not right. Chad, one reason why it's not right, one kashya I have on this גירסא of Rashi, that the Gemara, אביי is coming with a new סברא to tell you you should know, I'm clear that if you're standing in רשות היחיד, let's say, and the hand is in רשות הרבים, the hand is not the רשות היחיד. In other words, there could've been a sevara that the hand is in רשות הרבים, and what din does it have? רשות היחיד. So, he says Pashut, peshita! Or the opposite, פשיטא שאין היד הפשוטה לרשות היחיד מחלקת רשות לעצמה להיות רשות הרבים. How would I ever think that a hand that's stuck out into the רשות היחיד, that's the עני's רשות היחיד, could be a רשות הרבים? So, it's in רשות היחיד, and has a din of רשות הרבים? You ever heard such a thing? You ever hear a a רשות הרבים in a רשות היחיד? That's what it would come out! That in רשות היחיד you have a רשות הרבים! That's the hava amina and he's telling you I'm telling you no. That's what the Gemara says, peshita. I know, but peshita you don't say peshita that this is a Gemara. Peshita is something that we have to tell you, but I'm sure not everyone knows it, but I could tell you that I have no safek. And I say this, because I have a re'ayah that I'm right. Certain things I don't have a re'ayah. You need a re'ayah for this? That's what he's saying. He's asking lichorah, what's the kashya of the Rashba? He takeh says peshita. To say peshita also has to be a chidush. Because if it's a real peshita, you don't say it. You know it's peshita that if I eat kasher I didn't do any aveirah. That's It's peshita. It's stupid to say that. Does it say peshita li though? אה? Peshita li! Farkert, peshita li, adraba, means that you might not know it, but I'm telling you it's clear. And if we גריס like Rashi, everyone knows this. It's so pashut without even a raya. Farkert, he's bringing a a good raya. If I wouldn't say the word לי, you could say you couldn't still, but maybe it's such a דבר הפשוט. פשיטא לי means that it's not so pashut, but I'm telling you I know for sure. So he's asking you know for sure and as if nobody knows? It's not so It's very simple, it's a דבר הפשוט, no one even will have ever hava amina that a hand that in רשות היחיד, it's a רשות הרבים! To tell you that you know it's not. That's one kashya. ועוד, another קשיא, שאביי דאיבעיא ליה אם תעשה כרמלית, that the question that Abaye asks as a continuation of the פשיטא, אינו מענין הפשיטות. It's not the same inyan of what it was pshita. Usually when you say pshita, you say like this, pshita is this, and in the thing which I'm pashut I have a question. Here, this is two separate inyanim. Why? Because what is pshita? According to this, what was he saying pshita? שידו אינה נגררת אחר הגוף. That the hand is not like the body, לגבי which din? לחייב הנותן בתוכה והנוטל ממנה. That someone who puts into the hand that's stuck out into the other רשות and the guy puts in, he's not chayav. That's all he's saying. אבל לענין חזרתו אצלו אינה כמחלקת ממנו. But he never mentioned that לגבי you, if you could take back, it's considered a separate entity. He says לגבי We're saying it's not like the רשות of the body, which means it's a different רשות. That's what we're saying. The hand that's in a different רשות is not like the body. It's separated from the body. In which way is it separated? That the other guy won't put in he wouldn't be chayav, cuz he's not putting in the same רשות I'm standing. But he didn't mention a word about if he could It's a different רשות לגבי him to take back. ואין הבעיא אלא אם היא כמחלקת ממנו להחזיר אצלו. The question was, is it a separate entity לגבי taking back? So in order to make the flow he should have said, I'm telling you that this is He's not It's separated from the body, not only לגבי somebody else to put in that he's patur, לגבי me, too. Then the she'eilah is if it's separated לגבי me too, which way is it separated? Is it a מקום פטור? Is it a כרמלית? He didn't mention This is the way it seems the kashya. It's not so clear be'emet the lashon of the kashya, but this what it seems. He did not mention anything about the connection between the hand, the רשות of the hand לגבי the person who's standing. He's talking about somebody else. And his kashya and his be'aya is what? לגבי himself. So he should have said something about himself, that לגבי him it's also a separate רשות. If he would say, peshita li that the hand is completely separated from the body, in all ways: לגבי somebody else, לגבי yourself. Then you'll ask, yeah, לגבי yourself it's separated. How is it separated? It's definitely not your רשות, but maybe it's a כרמלית, maybe not. Then it flows. The second question The question is a פרט in the peshita. But now, it's like two separate ענינים. Peshita לגבי somebody else, now he says, nu, and what's the דין לגבי you? Nu. So it's not like a המשך. That's what it seems the kashya. It's not such a clear kashya, but that's what he's asking. Therefore he comes, he says Rach גורס איפכא, Rabbeinu Chananel has an opposite גירסא. And just before we go further, I'll tell you: the opposite גירסא is not like Rashi. Rashi says that what did Abaye try to say? That the hand that the hand in the other רשות is not like Oh, it's not like a כרמלית. No. No, the the peshita is not like the רשות of the גוף. Rabbeinu Chananel is saying punkt farkert, that he's trying to say peshita that a hand in another רשות is not like the רשות where it's in. Meaning it's like the גוף? It's not like the רשות where it's in. Not like We'll see. It's not like the רשות It's not like the גוף either, but that's not what he's saying. Let's see inside. כרשות הרבים לא דמיא, when he says it's not like the רשות הרבים, so before we said כרשות הרבים לא דמיא מידו דעני. His girsa is כרשות הרבים לא דמיא מידו דבעל הבית, and כרשות היחיד לא דמיא מידו דעני, כלומר, this is what he's saying. פשיטא לי, now he's saying the peshat in Abaye based on the girsa of the Rach, listen. פשיטא לי, this is what he's saying, it's פשוט, דידה בתר גופא גרירא, that's what he's saying. Farkert. According to Rashi we said pashut that the hand does not follow the body, right? Rashi uses the lashon: פשיטא לי ממתניתין דידו דפשטה לרשות אחרת אינה נגררת אחר גופו לגמרי, it doesn't go completely. According to the Rach we're saying farkert: I am clear that it does go after the body and it's not the רשות where it's in. בין דפשטה לרשות הרבים בין דפשטה לרשות היחיד, whichever רשות it goes in, it's not the same. ולעולם אינה בטלה לגבי רשות שפשטה שם. It's never part of the רשות where it is. The Rach says that it is that it is part of the guf, or it's not part of the That's the peshita. And here, you can't ask that Rashi you can't ask the first kashya. What was the first kashya on Rashi? You're telling me that if a hand is in רשות הרבים, it's not considered רשות היחיד? What kind of stupid thing is that? Ovadai it's that. Now we're not saying that. We're saying the hand that's in רשות הרבים is not רשות הרבים! And that's a that's a chidush. The hand that's in רשות היחיד is not like is not רשות היחיד if it's coming from another רשות. That's what he's telling us. Oh, which oh, that's how it could be So how do we know it? That's how it could be, that's it's like a רשות הרבים in a רשות היחיד. So ovadai it's possible to be a hand in רשות הרבים might be in רשות הרבים. Because his guf is in a רשות Because his gufo? No. His guf is stuck in רשות היחיד, but his hand is in רשות הרבים, maybe it's רשות הרבים. And it's possible for a רשות הרבים to be in a רשות הרבים. Or the hand is in רשות היחיד, you might think it's that it's a רשות היחיד. There's also no problem: a רשות היחיד in a רשות היחיד, there's no problem. So it's a chidush, he's telling you it's not. How do we know it's not? For which case do we have a re'iyah? So let's go back. So he says like this: כרשות הרבים לא דמיא מידו דבעל הבית. Where do we see from ידו דבעל הבית it's not a רשות הרבים? Nu, how do we know it's not a רשות הרבים ידו דבעל הבית? We're saying it's not like a רשות הרבים if it's you're standing in רשות היחיד and you're sticking out into רשות הרבים, it's not it's not like the רשות where it's coming into. Where do we know that from? Because the guy is patur. He would be פטור לגמרי if he's taking it from Because if the baal habayit sticks his hand out, and the עני placed it then it's not like where his רשות that he's in. So it's not like the רשות of the of where he stuck it out to, not the רשות of the עני. He has to make it Why? Because you see a case that where Because when he take he picks it up the עני places it in his hand, so it's like the עני is taking it, it's like he didn't do anything because it's in his hand. No. What? That's not a If it's a רשות הרבים, he wouldn't be chayav. He should be chayav, he should be patur, patur even מדרבנן. If what? Sticks it out. Even if he sticks it out, he didn't do anything because it's in the If he stuck out his hand and what? Put it down. through his hand like it's that it's on a רשות הרבים If his hand would would be a רשות הרבים, what would be the din wrong? It would be like he pick picked it up and put it down. If he put it if he put it out, what do we say, it's patur aval asur? Yeah, he put took it, picked it up, and took it out, and the עני took it from him. He would be chayav, because it's to the רשות, to the רשות The עני is is פט- is asur, and he's asur. Why is he assur? Because he took it from רשות הי- רשות היחיד to רשות הרבים. The עני should be פטור לגמרי, though. So the עני who who took it from his hand would be patur. Took it from רשות הרבים. The בעל הבית should be chayav. would be not patur u'mutar! Or if the עני put it into his hand, what would be the din? Patur u'mutar. Patur u'mutar, because it's רשות הרבים! The fact that it's patur aval assur is a re'ayah Right. that it's not רשות הרבים! So we see from here So what is the Rashba what is the Rabbeinu Chananel, look at the Rashba, saying? That what Abaye is trying to say פשיטא לי, is not פשיטא לי that a hand in a different רשות is not like the body in the other רשות. It's not like the רשות רשות it's in. And now comes based on that, אלא הא מבעיא לי, this I know for sure. So what are we dealing with? We're dealing what רשות the hand has in that רשות where it's in, that it's not that רשות. So Abaye says I know for sure it's not that רשות, so what is it? אי הוציאה מלאה פירות, if you took out from inside full of פירות, אי מיקרי רשות לעצמה, is it a separate רשות ככרמלית, אי נגררת לעולם בתר גופו ומותר להחזירה אצלו? Is, in other words, I'm saying that when you stick it out, it keeps the רשות where you are, not the רשות where it's put in, can you take it back? 'Cause לפועל, if you you you took from רשות היחיד out into רשות הרבים, the hand is like the body, that means the hand should be like the רשות היחיד, so you should take it back. But maybe not, maybe the Chachamim said it's a כרמלית. Once you say it's a כרמלית, you're not You're not allowed to. That's the המשך between these things. Didn't we say later on that it's a מדרבנן? No, so the Gemara comes to answer whether you're allowed or not, but this is the שאלה. וקשיא לי, he says, but I have a question, the Rashba says under Rabbeinu Chananel: if that's the question, ליפשוט ממתניתין, why can't we prove it from our Mishnah? דקתני, it says in the Mishnah: פשט בעל הבית את ידו לחוץ ונטל עני מתוכה, a בעל הבית took something and stuck it out, and the עני took from it, או שנתן לתוכה, or the עני put it in, בעל הבית פטור. בעל הבית is patur. And patur means patur u'mutar or patur aval asur? Patur aval asur. פטור אבל אסור קאמר, דבפטורי דשבת עסקינן כדאמרינן לעיל, we said like before, it's פטורי דשבת וחייבי חטאות, so it's a patur aval asur, so this guy is asur. Why did he do an issur? If the hand is stuck out, has the same din as your body, should be patur u'mutar. Because Because you're in a רשות היחיד, you stuck it out and it's still in your hand and it's רשות היחיד, so it's a re'ayah that it's not. Since we made an issur, assume that you're taking to the different רשות. Assume that it's a כרמלית. It's definitely not a רשות הרבים, but it's a כרמלית. Because if it wouldn't be a כרמלית, why would it be asur? We're saying it's asur to pick it up here, take it out outside. Why is it asur? Shouldn't be asur? If it's the same thing. If If this is like you, so it must be that it's a כרמלית, and also a כרמלית. So what, you אלמא ידו של בעל הבית שפשוטה לרשות הרבים, if your hand of בעל הבית is outside, stand outside, ככרמלית הוא. And if it's a כרמלית, what's the din? Can't take it out. אסור להכניסה, so you can't bring it back. So why didn't we bring a re'aya from there? He says: וליתא, that's not good, it's not a re'aya, because the התם, there it's not not because it's a karmelit. You know why you can't do it? משום דקא עביד מלאכה היא. Because together there will be a melacha. זה עקר וזה הניח. You took it out, he took it from you It's supposed to be patur. It's patur, but why is it asur? Ah, because You can't be part, you can't do part of a melacha. זה, ולא משום דהוי כרמלית. It has nothing to do with karmelit. It's a different reason, because you're doing an akira which could end up into hanacha, an hanacha which would be Right. a מלאכה דאורייתא, so that's why it's asur, not because it became a karmelit. And memeila has nothing to do with me taking back. ותדע לך, a ראיה, דהא פשט העני ידו לפנים, take the other case. When the ani puts his hand in, and we say the ani can't do that, right? The ani picked something up, took it in, and the baal habayit took from him. So we say the ani is asur. Nu, so are we going to say know why the ani is asur because his hand that came from outside in became a karmelit? Can Can we say that? No, because if it was a karmelit Why can't we say that? 'Cause karmelit you would be chayav. The what? He says why: בוודאי לא נעשה כרמלית. Because there is no such thing as anything in the רשות היחיד. A רשות היחיד cannot have any רשות. You can't have a רשות הרבים רשות היחיד, you can't have A רשות היחיד עולה עד לרקיע. רשות היחיד is like solid, this whole thing is רשות היחיד. So then if the only reason it's asur because it's a karmelit, it wouldn't be assur here because into the רשות היחיד you can't be a כרמלית. ואפילו הכי אסור. So over there the reason is not because it's a כרמלית. אבל הכא, here we're talking about a different case, שהוציאה מלאה פירות מבעוד יום, you took it out, let's say, on Friday, קא מיבעיא ליה, is asking, אי נעשה כרמלית, it became a כרמלית, so what you did was not wrong. And the kashya is, דאפילו להחזירה אצלו, to bring it back. And that he says, this like Tosafot says, it's only regarding can you bring it back. The טלטול ברשות הרבים, but stam azoy, in רשות הרבים itself, to pick something up and put it down, are you allowed? Yeah, because you're in the same רשות. Ai it's a hand maybe it's a כרמלית? So he says, that's mutar, and that's דתנן בפרק בתרא, later we see the same thing as Tosafot: עומד אדם ברשות היחיד ומטלטל ברשות הרבים. You can stand, you not only can you stand in a רשות היחיד and move around רשות הרבים, and you can stand in רשות הרבים ומטלטל ברשות היחיד. Why? Because the hand is not a כרמלית לגבי that. The she'eilah is, is it only a כרמלית לגבי taking back? And the case of the Mishnah that we tried to quote is not, the reason that it's פטור אבל אסור Not because of כרמלית. not because of כרמלית. The re'ayah, the best re'ayah is because inside רשות היחיד you can't have a כרמלית. Because you would finish The other way, maybe you can. And the only thing is because it could finishing a melachah, and that's why it's assur. But לגבי taking back, you're not finishing a melachah, so the she'eilah is if it's a כרמלית you can't, if it's not, you could. We can do that next week.