I will be giving over a שיחה, a שיעור of the רבי, of the ליובאוויטשער רבי, which is a סיום, a הדרן on מסכת שבת. This שיחה, which this שיעור the רבי said on שבת פרשת שלח תשכ\"ב and is printed in לקוטי שיחות חלק י\"ד, פרשת ואתחנן. Since פרשת ואתחנן has the עשרת הדברות and one of the עשרת הדברות is about שבת, so that's why in this פרשה ואתחנן, לקוטי שיחות חלק י\"ד, this הדרן was printed. Now we will repeat the הדרן, go into the details of what the רבי explained concerning the end of מסכת שבת. The last משנה in מסכת שבת says: ומעשה בימי אביו של רבי צדוק ובימי אבא שאול בן בטנית שפקקו את המאור בטפיח וקשרו את המקידה בגמי לידע אם יש בגיגית פתח טפח אם לאו. Now what this means is, it's not exactly clear in the מפרשים exactly the case, but more or less, there are different opinions, more or less the פשט is like this: there were two houses facing each other, and in the middle there was a small path, and there was a window in the walls of both houses. Now, in the time of the גמרא, when it says a window, a window doesn't mean with glass, it means a hole in the wall. There was a person who was very sick and they saw that he's dying, and if he dies, the טומאה might travel from where he is into the house. Because the דין is that if there is a dead body under one roof with other things, the other things become טמא. This was a case where there was a path in between, on top of the path there was a גיגית, and the מת, they were afraid that's going to die, or according to one opinion was in the house across, or it was in the middle of the path, and since there's a open window, there's a hole in the wall of the next house, the טומאה would travel. So the first thing they did before the person died, they stuffed up that window with a כלי, a כלי חרס, with a earthen כלי. Now, when does the טומאה travel? Only if it's not stuffed, there'll be a hole, but if it's closed up, the טומאה would not travel. But only if it's closed up with something that in itself cannot become טמא, otherwise the טומאה goes through it. Now, a כלי חרס we know doesn't become טמא from the outside, it only becomes טמא from the inside. So they took the כלי חרס, they put it into the hole, with the inside of the חרס facing the house, and outside, towards the path, was the back of the כלי חרס which cannot become טמא. So in their mind if the person dies, the טומאה will not go into the house. What happened? The person died, and they wanted to take it out. There's another way that the טומאה would not travel in: if the cover that was over the מת in the path, in between the two houses, has an opening on top of פתח טפח על טפח, then the טומאה will go through that hole instead of going into the house. So if there is a פתח טפח on top of that גיגית which covers the path where the מת is, or the מת it was in the house and the טומאה would go through here, if there's a פתח טפח there, then the house would not become טמא. And so ממילא they could take out the כלי that they stuffed the hole. So they had to measure to see if in the opening on top of that in that גיגית was a פתח טפח. So what they did was, they took a stick and they tied another כלי with a גמי, a גמי is a reed, which is not a real tying, and they tied it on the stick, and with the stick, they took the כלי and tried to push it, put it down that it should go through the hole of the גיגית on top of the מת or the area where the מת, the טומאה would go. Now, this thing that they, כלי that they took was a טפח. So if it'll go through, that means that opening is a טפח. So what they did was, so again, let's read the משנה again: the story happened that פקקו את המאור, they stuffed up the window, the hole in the wall, בטפיח, which is a פך של חרס, a jug of חרס, they stuffed it up, and then, וקשרו את המקידה, they tied the מקידה, which is another כלי חרס, with a גמי, which a reed, to know, לידע to know אם יש בגיגית פותח טפח אם לאו, to know that whether in this גיגית which covered that path, whether it has a טפח or not. That's the story. And then the משנה continues, ומדבריהם למדנו, and from these words, from this story, we learned out שפוקקין ומודדין וקושרין בשבת, that you're allowed to stuff up a hole in the wall on שבת, you're allowed to measure on שבת, and you're allowed to tie on שבת. Which means that on שבת you're allowed to stuff up a hole even though it could be something like building, nevertheless we see it that you're allowed. You're allowed to measure, normally you're not allowed to do a measurement, you're not allowed to measure on שבת, but here לצורך מצוה you're allowed, as they we see they did, they took it to measure the hole, and here it's לצורך מצוה because it's in order to find out whether there's טומאה in הלכה or not. And also you're allowed to tie a knot of a קשר שאינו של קיימא. Which means like this, that מדאורייתא we know one of the מלאכות is קשירה, you're not allowed to tie, not allowed to make a knot, but it's only if it's a קשר של קיימא. If you make it, a מעשה אומן, that's the הלכה, מעשה אומן means if it's a real knot, a double knot, but it's only חייב and only אסור מדאורייתא if you, when you make the knot, you tie it, you have in mind never to untie it, forever it should stay. But if it's a קשר שאינו של קיימא, if it's a knot that's not to stay, you plan to take it apart, so then מדאורייתא it's not אסור, it's only אסור מדרבנן. So what we see here, here they made this knot which is not a קשר של קיימא, it was made with a גמי, so it's not a קשר של קיימא, and they were allowed to do it on שבת. So we see that לצורך מצוה, this was לצורך מצוה, they were allowed to do a קשר שאינו של קיימא on שבת לצורך מצוה. And the גמרא טאקע there, in דף קנ\"ז עמוד ב', and that's how brought down the רמב\"ם, שולחן ערוך says like this: that when we say that you're allowed to do a מדידה, we see from here you're allowed to measure on שבת, it's only if it's לצורך מצוה, like it was over there. When it says that you're allowed to make a קשר שאינו של קיימא in this case, says clearly in שולחן ערוך, it's only לצורך מצוה. But when it comes to stuffing up the hole, which is פקיקה, so תוספות says in the end of the מסכת שבת, תוספות also says it earlier, that you're allowed to do it even if it's not לצורך מצוה, even if it's not לצורך מצוה. The logic over there in תוספות is because if it's forbidden and it's considered like part of a בנין, they wouldn't allow it even לצורך מצוה. So if they did allow it לצורך מצוה, obviously it's not because it's a מצוה, because that wouldn't be a good enough reason to allow it, a סימן that it's מותר, a סימן that in a case like this, to stuff up a hole is מותר. That's what the end of the גמרא is in מסכת שבת. Now the question that comes up is: what is the reason why when the משנה brings out the הלכה, after it tells us the story that happened, the סדר is that from here we know that you're פוקקין, which is stuffing up the hole, you're allowed to stuff the hole on the wall, מודדין, you're allowed to measure, and קושרין, you're allowed to tie? What's the סדר of these three things? Because when we look at the מעשה, the מעשה happened like this: first they stuffed up טאקע the hole, then they tied the כלי to the stick, and then they measured to see if there's a פותח טפח. So really, when the משנה learns out the הלכה from here, the משנה should have said that from here we see that פוקקין and קושרין, first the פוקקין the first, קושרין, then it should say the knot, make a knot שאינו של קיימא, you're allowed to do it לצורך מצוה, that was the next thing that happened, and then the last thing should be מודדין, and then they measured it. In other words, like this: the reason the first one of the three is פוקקין is understood, because that's the סדר, the way it was. But the other two don't fit to the סדר. So it should have said the opposite. That's the simple שאלה. Now באמת, there's another reason why פוקקין is first, not only because in מעשה it happened first, there's another reason why it's written first. And that's based on a תוספות in מסכת קידושין. In מסכת קידושין, דף מ\"א עמוד א', the משנה says there, האיש מקדש בו ובשלוחו, a man could be מקדש a woman himself or he send a שליח. And the גמרא asks: השתא בשלוחו מקדש, בו מבעיא? If he can be מקדש with a שליח, for sure you can מקדש yourself. In other words, the גמרא's קושיא is that if it should would have said האיש מקדש בשלוחו, you wouldn't need to say בו, because if you מקדש with your שליח, for sure yourself. So תוספות asks, לכאורה you could say that it's לא זו אף זו. He's telling us like this: לא זו, not only this, first he's telling you the דין that you could do it yourself, now he's telling us the חידוש. The חידוש is written later, which from תוספות comes out, and that's the way מפרשים learn in other ספרים, that תוספות קשיא, and then you have תוספות תירוץ. The תירוץ of תוספות is like this: לא שייך למשני הכא אלא בשתי בבות, אבל בשתי תיבות לא. By two words, we don't have it in the סדר. By two words, we don't have to say first the דין and then we say the חידוש. That's why the גמרא asks, it shouldn't have said בו ובשלוחו. Now you could learn the קשיא in two ways: it shouldn't have said בו at all, just בשלוחו, or even if it would say both, it should say first בשלוחו and then בו. And תוספות explains why: because by two words, you have to write the חידוש first, the one that's a bigger חידוש. And here, a bigger חידוש is בשלוחו. Now even though this תוספות is basically answering the גמרא is really talking it shouldn't say the word בו at all, but from the way תוספות writes it, it seems out seems that there is a כלל here that whenever you have two words, one is a bigger חידוש than the other, which one should be written first? The חידוש should be written first. That's what תוספות says, that by שתי תיבות we always should write the חידוש first. Now, between these three, which one is the bigger חידוש? When we have these three דינים of פוקקין, ומדדין, וקושרין. So פוקקין is a bigger חידוש. Why? Because as we said before, this דין that you're allowed to stuff the hole in the wall on שבת is even if it's not לצורך מצוה, that's a big חידוש. And as we said before, because if it would be a problem of בנין, what תוספות says, you wouldn't do it לצורך מצוה either. So the fact that עסיקנא you're allowed to do it, that's a big חידוש, that you could even do it if it's not לצורך מצוה. But this דין of that you're allowed to measure, מדידה, and you're allowed to make the knot שאינו של קיימא, it's only לצורך מצוה. So according to this תוספות in קידושין that you by two words you always write the חידוש first, so here, when we're talking about specific words, not whole cases, not whole בבות, but words, פוקקין comes first, that's the biggest חידוש. So we're saying now another reason why the לשון the משנה brings פוקקין first, not only because that's what happened first, because that's the bigger חידוש. So we have another reason why פוקקין is first. But that doesn't answer the question why later on we say the next thing is we say מדדין וקושרין, first מדדין then קושרין. This סברא doesn't apply because they both seem to be an equal חידוש. And if it's an equal חידוש, which one should be written first? The one that happened first. So it should say פוקקין and קושרין, because קושרין happened right after they stuffed up the hole, and then would be מדדין the last thing. So לכאורה it should write first קושרין and then מדדין. Now, ובאמת, between the two of קושרין and מדדין, which one is a bigger חידוש? So we said till now they're both equal, so if they're both equal, they should be written according to the way the מעשה happened, so it should be פוקקין, and then should be קושרין ומדדין. But באמת it's more than that. In the היתר of קושרין, the fact that you're allowed to make a קשר שאינו של קיימא לצורך מצוה is a bigger חידוש the fact that you're allowed to be מודד לצורך מצוה. Why? Because when we talk about the איסור of מדידה בשבת, the איסור that you're not allowed to measure on שבת, so the reason it says in שולחן ערוך דאלטער רבי and I'll quote the way try to quote the way the אלטער רבי writes it makes it very clear, so he writes in in סימן ש\"ו, the אלטער רבי writes like this: מפני שהוא מעשה חול וזלזול שבת, because to measure is a weekday thing, it's a זלזול, it's not such כבוד for שבת. That's the whole איסור of מדידה. But when it comes to the איסור of making a knot שאינו של קיימא, which is אסור מדרבנן, so here the אלטער רבי writes the לשון: because מדברי סופרים נקרא זה גם כן של קיימא. Even if it's not a קשר של קיימא, but מדרבנן it's still considered מדרבנן a קשר של קיימא. Which means, because it's similar to a קשר של קיימא, that's why the רבנן אסר it. So it comes out, which of the two is more reason to be אוסר? So it comes out that to make an איסור of קשירה, to do the קשירה שאינו של קיימא which is אסור מדרבנן, is worse than doing מדידה. In other words, if you're not doing it לצורך מצוה, which you're תאקע not allowed to do both, you're not allowed to do a קשר שאינו של קיימא, and you're not allowed to do a regular מדידה, which one is worse? So it seems like that the קשירה is worse, because קשירה is more similar to an איסור דאורייתא, close to a קשר של קיימא, מה שאין כן מדידה is just a side thing because it's a זלזול in שבת. So since קשירה is more reason for איסור, so in the case of צורך מצוה where the חכמים were מתיר it, it's a bigger חידוש. So to be מתיר קשירה is a bigger חידוש than to be מתיר מדידה לצורך מצוה. So based on the כלל that we said before from תוספות, that when it talks by single words, you write the חידוש first, so it should have written the היתר of קשירה before the היתר of מדידה because that's a bigger חידוש. So based on this also, it should have said that מדבריהם למדנו שפוקקין וקושרין ומודדין בשבת. פוקקין is first, first because that's how it happened, but besides that it's first because that's the biggest חידוש, and then it should say that you're allowed to be קושר and you're allowed to be מודד, for two reasons: number one, that's the way it happened, and besides that, as we just said, there's a bigger חידוש in the ענין of קשירה that you're allowed to do it לצורך מצוה, a קשר שאינה של קיימא, more than by מדידה, and the חידוש has to be written first. Now it seems that this is עפעס a דקדוק, a small is like what you call דקדוקי עניות. It's not such a טיפע קושיא in למדות. It's a קושיא only in the לשונות of the גמרא, and not even in the לשון, it's just in the סדר of the words. Not not a major קושיא. But as we will see, this has to do with the whole גדר of the מלאכה קשירה on שבת, as we will see. So it's not just a simple thing. It has to do with the whole ענין of what is the reason for the מלאכה of קשירה on שבת, a קשר של קיימא, and then we'll understand a קשר שאינה של קיימא, and then we'll understand צורך מצוה, etc., etc., as we will go on. Now to explain this, we know that by a הדרן by a סיום we always connect the end of the מסכתא to the beginning of the מסכתא, like it says, נעוץ תחילתן בסופן, so we always connect the beginning at the end. So let's start with the beginning of מסכת שבת. The beginning of מסכת שבת, the first משנה talks about the מלאכת הוצאה, the מלאכה of carrying out from one רשות to another. Now we know that מדאורייתא, the איסור of הוצאה, let's say from רשות היחיד לרשות הרבים, רשות הרבים לרשות היחיד, is only if you make an עקירה and הנחה. It means you make an עקירה, let's say by הוצאה, you make עקירה in the רשות היחיד, you pick it up from a resting place in the רשות היחיד, you carry it out to the רשות הרבים, and you make הנחה, you put it down. The same thing is opposite by הכנסה, when you take it from רשות הרבים לרשות היחיד, same thing by ד׳ אמות. It has to be an עקירה with an הנחה, that's the דין. But what happens if you do הוצאה or הכנסה and you did not do an עקירה and הנחה? Let's say you did only an עקירה: you picked it up in the רשות היחיד, took it out to רשות הרבים, but didn't put it down. מדאורייתא, it's not אסור. It's מותר. It's an איסור דרבנן. And the first משנה of שבת talks about it, tells us that this is an איסור דרבנן only. If it's עקירה and הנחה, it's an איסור דאורייתא and you're חייב, but if it's an איסור, if it's עקירה without an הנחה, הנחה without an עקירה, it's only איסור דרבנן. So here we have the famous קושיא: why is an עקירה without an הנחה or הנחה without an עקירה also not אסור מדאורייתא מצד the דין of חצי שיעור? We know there's a דין חצי שיעור אסור מן התורה. In גמרא in יומא, דף ע״ד, there is a מחלוקת between רבי יוחנן and ריש לקיש. There it talks about יום כיפור, but anything that has a שיעור, when you eat non-kosher food, you eat on יום כיפור, there's a certain שיעור that you're חייב if you do that. What about less than the שיעור? So we know to eat less than the שיעור is also אסור. You're not חייב the עונש, you're not punished for it, but it's also אסור. The question is if it is אסור מן התורה or אסור מדרבנן. So we have a מחלוקת, ריש לקיש and רבי יוחנן. ריש לקיש says חצי שיעור אסור מדרבנן, מדאורייתא, it's like מותר, דרבנן made it אסור, and רבי יוחנן says חצי שיעור אסור מן התורה. So it's an איסור דאורייתא, you're not חייב, but it's איסור. So the question is, why is an עקירה without an הנחה by הוצאה or הנחה without an עקירה only אסור מדרבנן? Why is it not אסור als חצי שיעור? You did half of it, so you did חצי, and חצי שיעור is also אסור. Now the truth is, there are some opinions that hold that the whole דין of חצי שיעור is only said by מידת אכילה, things of food, but it's not said by איסורי שבת. But there are many פוסקים hold not like that. רש״י, רש״י in שבת דף ע״ד עמוד א׳, רש״י holds that there is חצי שיעור even by שבת. The מאירי on דף ג׳ עמוד ב׳, ר׳ יוסף ענגיל in לקח טוב, כלל ט״ו, he all talks about it. Then you have the הגהות אשר״י in the end of פרק כלל גדול and the beginning of פרק המוציא יין, קרבן נתנאל, anyway. So they all hold that there is חצי שיעור also by שבת. The אלטער רבי says that, אלט- אלטער רבי in שולחן ערוך, סימן ש״מ סעיף ו׳, says clearly. He says that the שיעור that you're חייב for writing is two letters, but you're not allowed to write one letter either מדאורייתא because it's חצי שיעור. And not the איסור of גזיזה, cutting hair of a living thing, the שיעור is you're חייב only when you cut two hairs, but he says you're not allowed to cut one hair מדאורייתא because of חצי שיעור. So we see the אלטער רבי also פסקנט that חצי שיעור applies by שבת. Now we know that there is שיטות: the רמב״ם, and in תוצאות חיים, רב מנחם זעמבא talks about it, חלקת יואב, anyway, but many פוסקים hold that there is a דין of חצי שיעור also by שבת. So the question is: why is there no איסור מדאורייתא to do an עקירה without an הנחה, הנחה without an עקירה by הוצאה when it's חצי שיעור? And the answer is, the לשון is חצי שיעור אסור מן התורה, half of the שיעור. That means that whatever you did has the full-fledged quality of the איסור. What's missing is the quantity, the measurement amount. Like when you eat, the שיעור is a כזית. Half a כזית has the same quality of the food. If it's טרף food, it's the same quality whether it's big or small. What is missing is in the כמות, that's not the איכות, it's missing in the כמות. So then we say חצי שיעור, since you did the whole איסור, so that and since it has the whole איסור by איכות, even though it doesn't have the שיעור, it's אסור מדאורייתא. But by the case of עקירה without an הנחה, עקירה itself or הנחה itself, is חצי מלאכה, it's not חצי שיעור. It doesn't have the full-fledged מלאכה. It's not the פשט that has the full מלאכה, but it doesn't have the quantity. It's half of the איכות, of the quality, and in the גדר of the מהות of the פעולה of the act of carrying. Therefore, it's not אסור מדאורייתא. That's בנוגע the beginning of מסכת שבת, that why does the משנה say that עקירה itself, הנחה itself is only אסור מדרבנן? Because it's a חצי מלאכה, not a חצי שיעור. חצי שיעור would be אסור מדאורייתא. Fine. We apply that to the end. The end is talking about קשירה. So by קשירה, as we said before, מדאורייתא it's only אסור if it's a קשר של קיימא. A קשר שאינו של קיימא, it's not אסור מדאורייתא, אסור מדרבנן. The question is, same question: why can't we say that a קשר שאינו של קיימא is אסור מדאורייתא as חצי שיעור? Because it's missing half, part of it you did, so it's חצי שיעור, and חצי שיעור אסור מן התורה. The answer is the same as we said בנוגע עקירה and הנחה itself: that if you're missing the דעת of it should be של קיימא, it's not that you're missing just in the שיעור, you're missing in the מהות of the מלאכה. This ענין of being a a קשר של קיימא, that's part of the מהות of the מלאכה. The מלאכה of קשירה is if you have the דעת שיישאר כן לעולם and it should stay like that forever. That's part of what the מלאכה is, and if you're missing that, you're missing part of the מלאכה. That's why it's not אסור מדאורייתא, it's only אסור מדרבנן, it can't be also as חצי שיעור. Now the truth is, someone might ask that לכאורה we could look at the קשירה, קשר שאינו של קיימא as a חצי שיעור, because it's brought down in the שולחן ערוך, the אלטער רבי brings it in שולחן ערוך סימן שי״ז סעיף א׳, the אלטער רבי says like this: if you make a knot, and he says אם קצב בדעתו איזה זמן שאז יתירנו בוודאי, if you, when you make the knot you make up your mind that there is a certain time you're going to take it apart, אפילו הוא זמן ארוך מאוד, even if it's for a long time, אין זה של קיימא מן התורה. It's not called קשר של קיימא מן התורה, and he's פטור. רבנן said this is also called של קיימא, but מדאורייתא it's not. So לכאורה it comes out that מדאורייתא you're חייב if you have in mind that you will have this קשר for a very very long time, forever, or a long time. If you have in mind to have less than that, so it's part of the שיעור. In other words, the שיעור is if you have it for a long time, for no end, and this is part of that שיעור. So לכאורה by קשר you could look at it as חצי שיעור, it should be a חצי שיעור. It's half of the half of the שיעור, because the שיעור is forever, and this is less. So why are we saying it's not חצי שיעור, it's half of the מהות of the מלאכה? So the answer is, the difference is not in שיעור, that this is for a long שיעור and if you have in mind to take it off in a week, in a month, whatever it is, it's called part of the שיעור. If it's קשר של קיימא, it's a different מהות, a different thing of the קשר. It means it's going to be a knot that's going to stay there without any changes, not that it's a time thing. How long will it be? Will it be for 10 years or will it be now for for a month, and or it'll be for a lot of years? It's not. The difference between קשר של קיימא and קשר שאינו של קיימא: קשר של קיימא means forever. That means it's a knot and that's it. It's staying that way. There is no שיעור there. And if you do it for less than that, it's a different thing. It's a different מהות of a thing, and that's why it's not אסור מדאורייתא. It's על דרך like תשובת הרשב״א, it's in a different ענין, תשובת הרשב״א חלק א סימן ת״ס, so there he says, bringing a פסוק where it says אתה הוא ושנותיך לא יתמו, it says on the אייבערשטער, that you and your years will never stop. So he טייטשט, it's not the פשט it's going to be a very, very long time, more than other things which will stop, which have a הגבלה. It's a different מהות, it's a different kind of thing. We find that in other places also. ובמילא we understand why there is no דין of חצי שיעור, it should be אסור מדאורייתא by the case of the קשר. So we know why there's no חצי שיעור בנוגע an עקירה, an הנחה itself, not an עקירה without הנחה, and the same thing here also. But what we have to understand now, if we compare the two, the קשר שאינו של קיימא, that's not חצי שיעור, it's חצי מלאכה and אסור מדרבנן, and we compare it to the ענין of הנחה, and עקירה itself, to also not being חצי שיעור but it's חצי מלאכה and it's also אסור מדרבנן, why is there a difference between the two? בנוגע the מלאכה of הוצאה of carrying without, with עקירה and only, or הנחה itself, which is אסור מדרבנן as we said, it's אסור even לצורך מצוה. אדרבה, מפרשים explain, like the מאירי and the ברטנורא and the תוספות יום טוב, all in the beginning of מסכת שבת, when the, when the משנה tries to give us the example of doing an עקירה with an הנחה, עקירה without an הנחה, it talks, and by עקירה with an הנחה is דאורייתא, this is דרבנן, it gives an example of two people, one standing outside, one standing inside. The one from inside is in the רשות היחיד, the one outside רשות הרבים, and it goes into the cases, what happens there. But the way it says it, that the poor man is standing outside, the rich man is standing, the בעל הבית is standing inside, and the question is, if the rich man, the בעל הבית inside picked it up inside and put it down on the outside, in his hand, whatever, he's חייב מדאורייתא. If he didn't, it's דרבנן. Why did the משנה give an example of a poor man and another man? What's the חילוק, poor or other, מאי נפקא מינה these two things? So the מפרשים say, to teach you, when you give money to a poor man, you're doing the מצוה of צדקה. To tell you that this איסור דרבנן, if you do only a הנחה or only an עקירה, which is, which is not אסור מדאורייתא, only אסור מדרבנן, is even if it's לצורך מצוה. That's why it says there. So here we see that the איסור of the חצי מלאכה of הנחה itself, עקירה itself, is אסור מדרבנן even לצורך מצוה. But by קשירה, as we said, לצורך מצוה it's מותר. We said קשר שאינו של קיימא is also, we said, a חצי מלאכה, and it's, and it's אסור מדרבנן, but לצורך מצוה it's מותר. What is the difference? That's the שאלה we have. If we compare them, what is the difference? So לכאורה, the difference is like this. They're both אסור מדרבנן, but the reason why they're אסור is not the same reason. Let's look at the reason, at least in category of reason actually, let's look at the reason. בנוגע making an עקירה itself or הנחה itself, the reason is, רש״י says on דף ב in שבת that it's גזירה שמא יבואו כל אחד ואחד לעשות מלאכה שלימה בשבת. We're afraid that if we're going to allow you to do an עקירה itself, you might make an הנחה also and you will be עובר on the איסור דאורייתא. The truth is, the אלטר רבי in שולחן ערוך סימן ש״מז סעיף א׳ quotes לשון of רש״י, he adds one ווארט. רש״י says שמא יבואו כל אחד ואחד לעשות מלאכה שלימה בשבת. רש״י, the אלטר רבי adds שמא יבואו כל אחד ואחד מהם לעשות מלאכה שלימה בשבת. One of them. And לכאורה he's trying to add to tell us פשט, because there is a whole שקלא וטריא in the מפרשים, בנוגע רש״י and תוספות on שבת דף ג עמוד א, in פטורי דאסירי, but in that תוספות, that רש״י, so there is a שאלה: an עקירה without an הנחה, we know what the גזירה is. If you allow someone to make an עקירה itself, so he might make the עקירה and then continue and make an הנחה, that's the גזירה. But if you make an הנחה without an עקירה, what can happen? You made the הנחה, it's finished. So what בפשטות seems to be that someone else will see you making an הנחה without an עקירה and that's okay, he will go ahead and make an עקירה with an הנחה. You go a step further, it's not only a question for someone else, question for this guy himself: if we allow him to make an הנחה by itself, next time he himself will make an עקירה with an הנחה. So the אלטר רבי adds the words שמא יבואו כל אחד ואחד מהם to tell you that it's not only a גזירה for somebody else, כל אחד ואחד מהם, every one of these! The one that made the עקירה itself might make עקירה with an הנחה, and the, the one that made only an הנחה might make an עקירה with an הנחה. next time. But anyway that's not נוגע, the bottom line is that the reason why you can't, you're not allowed מדרבנן to do an עקירה by itself, הנחה itself, it's a גזירה you might come to do a מלאכה on שבת. בנוגע the reason why a קשר שאינו של קיימא is אסור, so here the reason is because מדברי, as we said before, מדברי סופרים נקרא זה גם כן קיימא, של קיימא, הואיל ועומד להתקיים איזה זמן. It's called של קיימא. מדרבנן it's called של קיימא. It's not just two different reasons, they're two categories of reasons. Now I'll explain what I mean. We see in the רמב״ם, in the beginning of פרק כ״א in הלכות שבת, where he starts off about the דברים that are אסור מדרבנן, the רמב״ם says like this: נאמר בתורה, it says in the תורה, תשבות, אפילו מדברים שאינם מלאכה חייב לשבות מהן, like even things which are not a מלאכה, the תורה wants you to rest from them. And then the next words are the important words here. He says like this: ודברים הרבה הם שאסרו חכמים משום שבות. Many things the רבנן forbid because of this שבות, and then he says, מהם, some of them that they forbid, is דברים אסורים מפני שהם דומים למלאכות. They're אסור because they are similar to a מלאכה דאורייתא. ומהם, and some things are, דברים אסורים גזירה שמא יבוא מהם לידי סקילה. It's because we're afraid you might come to it. So the רמב״ם makes it very clear that there are two categories in the איסורי דרבנן. Certain things are אסור, not because we're afraid this'll bring you to an איסור דאורייתא, it's because it looks like a מלאכה דאורייתא. Since it's דומה, the חכמים אסרו it. And certain things is because it's a גזירה you might come to an איסור דאורייתא סקילה. And actually, when you go through the whole פרק, the different examples the רמב״ם gives, which things are אסור מדרבנן, so it's very interesting. Some places the רמב״ם writes that the reason this and this is אסור, מפני שהוא כ-, because it's like another, an איסור דאורייתא. Sometimes he says this is אסור גזירה משום, גזירה שמא. So if you look through the פרק כ״א, פרק כ״ב, פרק כ״ג, you'll see. So the רמב״ם obviously is מחלק the two. In other words, those things which are אסור because they're דומה למלאכה, it's not a גזירה that you might come to an איסור דאורייתא, because if that is, then why divide it into two categories? Everything is אסור because you might come to an איסור דאורייתא. I assume from the רמב״ם that it's not so פשוט. Those things which are אסור because they're דומה למלאכה is not because they'll come to an איסור דאורייתא. It's only דומה למלאכה, and certain things are אסור. Now that is basically difference between the two categories of איסור דרבנן that we're talking about, עקירה without הנחה לגבי קשר של קיימא, שאינו של קיימא. That the case of הנחה without an עקירה, עקירה without הנחה is אסור says clearly because you might come to an איסור דאורייתא. That's a גזירה you might come to an איסור דאורייתא. מה שאין כן the קשר שאינו של קיימא, the לשון there is because it looks like a דאורייתא, it looks like a קשר של קיימא, so מדרבנן they'll refer to it as a קשר של קיימא, not because we're afraid that it'll come to it. And that is the answer. Since the מלאכה of קשירה is not because of a גזירה you might come to an איסור דאורייתא, it's only because it's similar to an איסור דאורייתא, so here it's not as strict, because it's not a גזירה you might come to an איסור דאורייתא. So here it's much more a סברא to say that certain cases you're allowed to do it. It's like an אסור because it looks like, but it's not going to bring you, we're not afraid it's going to bring you, we don't have that גזירה, so לצורך מצוה it's מותר. That's why by עקירה without הנחה, that's why by קשירה, I mean, it's מותר לצורך מצוה. מה שאין כן מלאכת עקירה without הנחה, where there the אסור is because you might come to an איסור דאורייתא, so here it's worse, because you might come to an איסור דאורייתא. So here the רבנן weren't מקיל even לצורך מצוה. So again, by קשר שאינו של קיימא, which is only אסור because it's דומה למלאכה, we understand we could be מקיל by צורך מצוה, מה שאין כן by the case of הנחה and עקירה by itself, there it's שמא יבוא you might come to an איסור דאורייתא, and there even לצורך מצוה is אסור. So this answers it. But the question is, this itself needs an explanation. Why טאקע didn't they make a גזירה by עקירה itself and הנחה itself, I mean by קשירה, קשר שאינו של קיימא, sorry, by קשר שאינו של קיימא. לכאורה, just like they made a גזירה by the case of שמא יבוא to make a מלאכה by עקירה without הנחה, why by קשר they didn't do the same thing? By by by the קשר שאינו של קיימא you might come to make a קשר של קיימא. Why don't you make that גזירה? So the fact is we see in the רמב״ם and the אלטר רבי brings it that it's not because of a גזירה, but the question is why not? Why don't you make a גזירה here, just like you make a גזירה over there? And not only that, it's a קל וחומר. By עקירה itself, or הנחה itself, in order to be עובר the איסור דאורייתא, what has to happen, you have to do something else. By עקירה, מדאורייתא it's מותר טאקע, you have to do something else to be עובר. So we're afraid you might do something else. Same thing if you only make a הנחה, we're afraid that next time you'll do something to make an עקירה and a הנחה. By the קשר שאינו של קיימא it's much easier to be עובר דאורייתא, cause the פעולה and מלאכה is the same. You might think that it's going to be forever. So this is more reason seemingly why we should make a גזירה. So why didn't we make a גזירה here? Now why am I saying that there's a סברא why בדוקא here there should be more reason to make a גזירה than there, because otherwise the קשיא wouldn't be such a good קשיא, because there's a תוספות in a few places: in שבת דף קג עמוד ב, you have חולין דף קד, and נידה דף לג. תוספות says, דשמא אין להשוות גזירה של חכמים זו לזו, אף על פי שאינם מלאכה אחת. It's hard to compare גזירות, one one place they did make a גזירה and another place they didn't. So we can't ask a קשיא how come by the case of the קשר שאינו של קיימא we didn't make a גזירה, by the case of מלאכה we didn't make. תוספות says we can't be משווה גזירות זו לזו. But we have to understand the פשט there is that סתם אזוי we can't just משווה and say, how come they didn't do here, they do here. But it doesn't mean that when there is a סברא, there is a סתירה. One is a סתירה to the other. When we see a סברא that if in one place they made it, the other one has the same thing and much more, then we have to explain it. סתם אזוי if there's no סתירה, no קשיא, they just want to know why did they do here. Don't ask קשיות, we don't know exactly what happened, what the חכמים saw. But here when you have a סתירה, so that's why I'm saying here there's a קל וחומר, there is a סתירה between the two. If by a case where we're afraid you might come to do another פעולה we make a גזירה, so in a case where to do the איסור דאורייתא you don't even have to do another פעולה, it's a סברא. So לכאורה they certainly should make a גזירה. So the שאלה is why didn't they? So we have the סברא that they are different. That's why one is אסור, עקירה והנחה is אסור לצורך מצוה. And קשירה it's not, because this is not a גזירה. The question is now, why טאקע didn't the חכמים make a גזירה here? So and we have to answer that שאלה. So we have to explain, to order to explain this, you have to first understand what is the סברא why is only an איסור by a קשר של קיימא, why is the איסור only by a קשר של קיימא? A let's go on the מלאכה of קשירה, why is it only אסור קשר של קיימא? Now it's not a קשיא why. I'm using the wrong words actually. Why is because since we learned it out from the משכן, all the מלאכות in in the משכן there was a קשר של קיימא, so that's why that's קשר של קיימא. Now the שאלה is not why is it, the שאלה what's the הסברה behind it. What's the סברא? Okay, we see there is טאקע a ראיה that it's only a קשר של קיימא, and אינו של קיימא shouldn't be אסור, but what's the logic? לכאורה it's the same thing. What's the חילוק what you have in your mind? לכאורה it should be the same. When will they understand what's the סברא for a קשר של קיימא, we'll understand why there is no גזירה by a קשר שאינו של קיימא, it's only because it's דומה. Now I want to add something else, something, a סברא that I have on my own, not from the original place where I took this, I'm taking the שיעור from, and and I'm saying it it's my own because we should understand that there's a difference between when I say what the רבי says and what I say myself. They say that ר' עקיבא איגר said to his תלמידים, אזוי זאגט מען, that I don't mind if you say over my חידושים in your name, just don't say your חידושים in my name. Cause you know there's a difference חידושים of the תלמידים and the ר' עקיבא איגר himself. So here also I want to say what I'm going to add now to this is what I'm saying what I think myself. Why is it that we're looking for a reason here? It's thing we understand from where we got this that קשר של only it's אסור קשר של קיימא מדאורייתא, but we're saying what's the הסברה? Why do we even need הסברה? Okay it's not a קשיא why we need. It's always good to have a הסברה if you're able to have, but I'm saying in this case it's not only it's good to have a הסברה, it's באמת a need for a הסברה. Why? I'll tell you why. באמת we all know what it says in the beginning of מסכת שבת when it talks about הוצאה, so we have there תוספות and all the ראשונים they claim that the מלאכה of הוצאה is מלאכה גרועה, it's a bad מלאכה. It's a שוואכע מלאכה, it's a weak not a real מלאכה. What does that mean? I want to explain what that means. Everyone knows, but I'll just explain it anyway what it means it's a מלאכה גרועה. Because לכאורה we have to understand בכלל, where do we know that you're not allowed to do ל״ט מלאכות? From the משכן. Whatever was done in the משכן when they build the משכן, those are called מלאכות. But the שאלה is there were so many things done in the building of the משכן besides these 39 things. They used to walk and they used to do this, and they schlepped this here, they put this there. I mean, when you do things like that, it's only these thirty-nine things they did? No, well, the answer is בפשטות. לשון הגמרא in שבת דף צ\"ו and in בבא קמא דף ב' in the beginning, כל, לשון is whatever was הווה במשכן חשיבי, whatever was חשוב in the משכן, that's a מלאכה. What does that mean משכן חשיב? It means like this. The חכמים looked at what was done in the time when they built the משכן. They assumed all the different things we see, not everything becomes a מלאכה. Why? Only things which have a תוכן of a מלאכה. And if it was in the משכן, so that becomes a מלאכה from the ל\"ט מלאכות. What is the תוכן of מלאכה? What makes it חשוב, a הווה במשכן חשיבא? And that is, the reason we keep שבת and we can't do מלאכה is because the אייבערשטער didn't do מלאכה on שבת, the אייבערשטער rested. So, from there, we learn out that anything that was done in the משכן, and it has the characteristic, the quality of changing something, similar to the אייבערשטער created the world. So the אייבערשטער changed, was no world, and He made a יש מאין, He made a יש. So anything that we do which makes a change, I mean nothing creates יש מאין by us, but it makes a change. Like, take for משל, cooking. There's food, and when you cook it, there's a change. When you write, before the words were not there, and here the words are there. So there is a real change of something that changed and became. Only things like that. And the חכמים looked into the משכן and saw there are thirty-nine things there of a change. Now, הוצאה is the only one that תוספות says in the beginning, the ראשונים say that we can't learn it out from the משכן, it has to have a פסוק for it. Why? Because it's a מלאכה גרועה. Carrying from one רשות to another is really not a change. There's nothing that happens, there's nothing that happens in the object that you carried. There's nothing that happened there. It's just from here to here. There's a change in place, but there's no real change in the thing. Like when you write, there's a change, there was no words, now there are words. And that's why it's called a מלאכה גרועה, because it doesn't have the תוכן of of בריאה. Although this reminds me, there's a famous question people ask, not so פרום people, that, \"Why should striking a match nowadays be a מלאכה דאורייתא?\" In the time when in חומש or in the גמרא, it was a גאנצע געשעפט, the whole thing how to make a fire, you got to take rocks and you rub it next to each other, and it goes and goes, a גאנצע געשעפט. That's a מלאכה! But to make a fire nowadays, you strike a match. So the answer is, it's not because of the hardship of the מלאכה that it's אסור, because it's hard. Not because it's hard. It's because it's creating. It's a מלאכה of creation. In a letter, the רבי gives a different the same answer, but in different words. A very short answer. I saw the כתב יד of the רבי, someone asked him the same question, so he answers these words: \"As easy as it is nowadays to make a fire, for השם to create the world was even easier, and nevertheless, He rested.\" In other words, it's not not hardship. And we see that in the לשון of תוספות. תוספות's לשון is there, first, the יראים makes it even clearer. The יראים in הלכות שבת, הלכות הוצאה says, \"מה מלאכה עשה? מעיקרא חפץ והשתא נמי חפץ.\" Before it was a חפץ, now it's also a חפץ. תוספות says, \"מה לי מוציא מרשות היחיד לרשות הרבים, מה לי מוציא מרשות היחיד לרשות היחיד?\" What's the difference between taking out from רשות היחיד to רשות הרבים or from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד? Which means to say, it's the same thing, there's no real difference. The רשב\"א says it even more. The רשב\"א says, אילו פנה מזוית לזוית משא גדול, פטור. הוציא כזית מרשות לרשות, חייב. If you take it out from one, a little bit, a small thing from one רשות to another, you're חייב. Because the גדר of the מלאכה is not the טייטש it's hard or it's easy. It's the גדר of the מלאכה is the change, the creativity. The רמב\"ם in פירוש המשניות uses this לשון on הוצאה, \"היא מלאכה אף על פי שנראה ממנה אינה מלאכה.\" It's a מלאכה that it doesn't look like a מלאכה. Doesn't explain why, but בפשטות this is the reason. It doesn't look like a מלאכה because there is no change. So having said this, that the whole גדר of a מלאכה is the creativity of it, that's why we need a שאלה, that's why the שאלה is here, why is מדאורייתא only אסור a קשר של קיימא? And if it's not של קיימא, why does that make a difference in the תוכן of מלאכה? If you make a קשר, you tie something, why is it that if you had in mind to take it apart in a week or whatever, then it's not really the תוכן of a מלאכה? Why not? There must be a הסברה. So I'm explaining deeper the שאלה why we're looking for a הסברה, why only a קשר של קיימא is אסור מדאורייתא. So the explanation is as follows. The טייטש of a קשר is a is a tying, tying two things together. Take two pieces of string or whatever, you tie like two thread you tie it together. And you make it into one. When you tie, it becomes one. Now, you cannot call it consider it that that's really became one or call it a קשר אמיתי only if you put it there in order to remain forever. That means like this: that the fact that it has to be a דעת of קיימא, that it's going to stay like that forever, that's what makes it into a קשר. Otherwise, it's not called a קשר. Otherwise, all it is, imagine you take two pieces of thread, you put it together like this, you take one touch to the other. That's not It's nothing. So if even if you tie it, but if you didn't have in mind, it's not really called a קשר. So therefore like this: if you have in mind לכתחילה to tie it and to take it apart, so even when they're tied together, while they're tied, a real tied, it's not called a חיבור אמיתי, it's not a real connection, and it's not in the גדר of קשירה that the תורה אסר. So it doesn't have the quality of the מלאכה. When does it really become a new thing? It's only if you make it and plan to leave it there. So from that comes out, we understand, that if you don't have the דעת that it should stay forever, so it's not the פשט you're missing part of the מלאכה, part of the פעולה. לכתחילה it don't have the whole גדר of the מלאכה to begin with, because they're not really tied. There's no tying here. It's only a putting together two threads or two things. That's all it is. And that's why it's אסור מדאורייתא only if it's a קשר של קיימא. Just to give you an example from other things to explain this idea, we have the famous משנה in פרה, פרק ח' משנה ט', בנוגע נהרות המכזבין. When you have to have טבילה, those that have to have טבילה in מים חיים in a well, if it's a well that we know that after before within seven years it's going to dry up, it's not called מים חיים. You can't טובל in it while it's there. Why not? When it will dry up, it will dry up, but now it's there, it's full of fresh living water. It's not, because if it's forever, if it's for no stop בעצם, that's one thing, that's חיים. If it's going to stop, even though it's not stopped yet, but we know it's going to stop, לכתחילה it's not considered מים חיים. Give another example that we see that how the דעת makes it. We know כל המקלקלין פטורין. When you מקלקל on שבת, you do a מלאכה on שבת which spoils something, you're פטור. מדאורייתא it's not אסור. But if you מקלקל על מנת לתקן, if you have do the קלקול with in mind to fix it, so even while it's being broken, it's called fixing. Because the כוונה makes it that it's a תיקון now. So here we see an example the other direction, that the כוונה now to have it later makes what it is now. Same thing פארקערט: if the כוונה now is take it apart, we look at it as as if it's apart already. Now to give a better example in our ענין is the famous מגיד משנה. The מגיד משנה in פרק י\"ב of הלכות שבת הלכה ב', brought down in the מגן אברהם סימן שי\"ח סעיף קטן ל\"ו, the רמ\"א talks about it, בנוגע the מלאכה of תיקון כלי. Interesting thing, very interesting thing. One of the מלאכות is תיקון כלי, מכה בפטיש, to fix a כלי. If you take something and it's broken, and you fix it, that's a מלאכה, מלאכה דאורייתא. And the example would be give מכה בפטיש: when they would make a כלי, after they finished doing it, they would take a hammer and give a bang that didn't do anything much, but it just that was the end. If you do that, you're עובר on the איסור דאורייתא. And similar, anything that you do that finishes a כלי, makes something fixed, is a מלאכה אסור מדאורייתא. Now here we see that the כוונה that you have to fix it, is not the פשט that's the כוונה of the מלאכה. That makes it into a מלאכה. By other מלאכות, it's not like that. Take the מלאכה, let's say, of of כתיבה. What makes the מלאכה? The מלאכה is כתיבה. Now you have to have כוונה, that's the כוונה of the מלאכה. The מלאכה is not the כוונה, the מלאכה is the fact that you're doing the פעולה, the act, the writing. The כוונה is the כוונה of it. By תיקון כלי, if you don't have that כוונה, you didn't do a מלאכה בכלל. You can have two people do the exact same פעולה, exact: one did nothing, מצד הלכה, nothing wrong, and the other one is חייב מיתה because this is דאורייתא. The example I gave from banging with a hammer: a guy takes a hammer and takes סתם a כלי that's there and can give a האק with a hammer. Well, you know, is there איסור דאורייתא? There's nothing there. This other guy took the same hammer, gave the same bang, but the כלי that he was finishing and gave that bang in the כלי, he's חייב. So here the פשט is that the כוונה is part of the מלאכה. And the מגיד משנה says because of that, you know there's a מחלוקת by שבת between רבי יהודה and רבי שמעון by אינו מתכוון. If you do a מלאכה, but you didn't intend to do it. So רבי יהודה says it's still אסור, still חייב, and רבי שמעון says that it's מותר on שבת, it's אינו מתכוון. So the מגיד משנה says that by the מלאכה of תיקון כלי, even רבי יהודה will be מודה that if you didn't have the כוונה, you're not חייב. Why? By other things where the כוונה is a כוונה of the מעשה, so as long as you did the מלאכה, the fact that you didn't have the כוונה is not, it doesn't make a difference and you're חייב according to רבי יהודה. But in the case of תיקון כלי, the כוונה is the מלאכה. Without the כוונה, it's not תיקון כלי, it's not בכלל a מלאכה. So according to רבי יהודה, he would also be פטור. And go a step also further, according to רבי שמעון, who says אינו מתכוון is פטור on שבת, or מותר, whatever, whichever way you're going to go, but if it's פסיק רישא, if you do it in a way that it has to happen, רבי שמעון is מודה, מודה רבי שמעון בפסיק רישא. זאגט דער מגיד משנה that it's not like that by תיקון כלי. By תיקון כלי, even if it's a פסיק רישא, by תיקון כלי פסיק רישא doesn't doesn't make it, because since it's אינו מתכוון, it's a פסיק רישא, it must happen, but you weren't מתכוון, so you didn't do a מלאכה. When does a פסיק רישא work? When you did the מלאכה, אלא מאי there's missing כוונה, so the פסיק רישא makes it that you're חייב. But by תיקון כלי if you didn't if you're אינו מתכוון and you didn't have a כוונה, you didn't do בכלל the the פעולה of תיקון כלי. So this is another example of what we see that the כוונה is not just a כוונה of the מלאכה, it's a כוונה that is part of the מלאכה. So I'm going to use, I'm using this the same thing here also, that the כוונה of קשר של קיימא, דעת that it'll be forever, that כוונה makes the מלאכה of קשירה. Without it, it's not a it's not a קשר בכלל. Now באמת is by some say by other מלאכות also, למשל the מרכבת המשנה in פרק י' דהלכות שבת הלכה י\"ז, הלכה כ\"ג, wants to say the same thing by מלאכת צידה. What's the מלאכה of צידה? You can't capture an animal. So what happens when an animal runs into a room and you lock the door? You're עובר on צידה, you captured it. So he wants to say that by צידה is the same thing, locking the door is nothing, can't lock a door on שבת? So if you're מתכוון to lock the door to catch the animal, then you did a מלאכת צידה. But if you weren't מתכוון, there is no מלאכת צידה בכלל. And he tries to answer based on a קשיא that the that the ר\"ן asks in שבת דף ק\"ו on the רשב\"א, questions from ירושלמי, it calls that. But לכאורה it's it's a hard thing to say it, to say such a פשט, because if according if by צידה it's like that, then even according to רבי שמעון, who says אינו מתכוון is פטור, but a פסיק רישא is אסור as we said. But not by צידה, if צידה is this, that if you don't have the כוונה it's not a מלאכה בכלל, so just like by מלאכת תיקון כלי if you didn't have the מלאכה for תיקון כלי, פסיק רישא won't make it אסור, so the same thing would be by צידה. Now the דין is it says in גמרא ביצה דף ל\"ו עמוד א' and it's brought down in the שולחן ערוך, אלטער רבי'ס שולחן ערוך, it says like this: you're allowed to spread a מחצלת, like a cover, on top of a beehive of bees as long as you're not מתכוון to capture them to to hold them to capture them, and it's not a פסיק רישא. But if it would be a פסיק רישא, it would be אסור מדאורייתא. Now we said according to the מרכבת המשנה that by צידה without כוונה it's not a מלאכה בכלל, so there's no דין of פסיק רישא, so what does it mean that if it's it has to be, when are you not חייב, if it's not פסיק רישא, but if it's פסיק רישא you're חייב. Good, okay, so that's another thing. So למעשה the שאלה is if the other מלאכות, but למעשה בנוגע I want to say that we find it by מלאכת תיקון כלי, but here בנוגע the מלאכת קשירה, I want to say that this מלאכת קשירה is the כוונה of קיימא is part of the מלאכה. It's not only a תנאי in the מלאכה that, other מלאכות have certain conditions, it's not even a תנאי, it's not a תנאי in the מלאכה, it makes the מלאכה. Now this is a reason to explain why by the case of צידה the חכמים did not make a גזירה. The שאלה was why didn't they make a גזירה in You might, why, by צידה, we said it's like by קושר גמרא made a גזירה, by עקירה והנחה made a גזירה, by צידה they didn't make a גזירה. By קשירה they didn't, why didn't they make a גזירה? That if you make a קשר שאינה של קיימא, you might come to make a קשר של קיימא. Now we understand why. Because when did they make a גזירה? When you do something which could bring you, that something is something. A קשר שאינה של קיימא is not part of a קשר של קיימא at all. You didn't do anything. It has nothing to do with what a קשר של קיימא is. That's why they didn't make a גזירה that when you do, when you did a beginning, you might come to do the end. It's טאקע, in other words, to put it in other words, it's not even חצי מלאכה. We asked a question, why by עקירה and final הנחה they made a גזירה and here not? By עקירה without an הנחה, it's not, you're not חצי שיעור, so it's not אסור מדאורייתא, but it is חצי מלאכה. You did part of the physical מלאכה. You did part of the מלאכה. You did an עקירה, which is part of the מלאכה. In other words like this: no matter how we learn what's the עיקר of the מלאכה of הוצאה, because we know in אחרונים there is a חקירה, what's the עיקר of מלאכת הוצאה? The עיקר the taking from one רשות to another, and there is a condition that it's only by עקירה והנחה, or the עיקר is the עקירה, or the עיקר is the הנחה, or both, or all three, whatever, whichever way we learn, הכל מודים, it's for sure that the עקירה itself is part of the מלאכה. It's not, it's part of the מלאכה, it's not part of the שיעור. It's more than that, it's חצי מלאכה. But it's part of the מלאכה. So here the חכמים made a גזירה that even though you didn't do the other half of the מלאכה, but you did part of the מלאכה, so they made a גזירה. מה שאין כן בנוגע קשירה, when you did a קשר שאינה של קיימא, you didn't, it's not even חצי מלאכה. You didn't even do part of the מלאכה, because the קשר is not a קשר if you didn't have in mind to be של קיימא, as we just said. ממילא, if the קשר that's אינה של קיימא is not the גדר קשר מדאורייתא, so the רבנן didn't make a גזירה, because this is something else. They didn't make a גזירה from far-fetched things. So we see at least a חילוק between the two. Now, what I just said now, that by a קשר the making the קשר is not part of it, לכאורה, what do you mean it's not part of it? לפועל ממש, if a person will have a כוונה to make a קשר של קיימא and not actually make a קשר, he is not חייב. So it is part of it. It is part of the מלאכה. So how do we say that the קשר itself without the כוונה is is not a מלאכה? Well, the answer is, it's only part of it after you have the כוונה. The קשר itself מצד עצמו without a כוונה is basically nothing. It's like a nothing. But when you have the כוונה, then when you make the קשר with the כוונה, then the קשר becomes... So the כוונה makes the קשר into into a קשר, into a a פעולה of a מלאכה. Now, I want to add something else, again, I'm saying this is something that I'm adding myself, that לכאורה, it's still not so simple because you could still ask: in הלכה, the קשר that you make is not a מלאכה. It's not, it's nothing. But בגשמיות, you did something. You put together two things, okay? It's not a קשר, but you put together two things. That's part, when you make a קשר, part of it is putting together and then you make the knot, so putting is also part in the גשמיות. Now, in עקירה and הנחה, לכאורה you could ask the same thing. עקירה, עקירה without הנחה is nothing. מדאורייתא, it's no מלאכה. So why am I saying it's half of the מלאכה? There's no מלאכה at all. So what's סוף כל סוף the difference between עקירה and הנחה we say that there סוף כל סוף each one is part of the מלאכה, and here it's not, the קשר itself is not part of the מלאכה without the כוונה? So על דרך חוכא like you would say, בשר בחלב is אסור, and בשר itself is half of the איסור, and it's מותר because it's only half of the איסור. It makes no sense. בשר itself is nothing, חלב itself is nothing, the whole איסור starts from both. So by עקירה והנחה should be the same. It's only עקירה והנחה. Nevertheless, we say no, it's called חצי מלאכה. Why? Because בגשמיות, the the putting together the two things, the doing the עקירה and without the הנחה, בגשמיות it's part of the act, even though in הלכה it has no value, but it's part of the act, so we call it חצי מלאכה. So why can't we say the same thing by the קשר? So I'm just thinking myself, there is a little difference here. בנוגע עקירה and הנחה, it's not the פשט that there is an עקירה and that there's הנחה, they're two separate things, you got to do both in order to be חייב. The way it says in in some אחרונים that עקירה is the beginning of the הנחה, and the הנחה is the end of the עקירה. When you pick it up from someplace and you put it down, the הנחה is a strong הנחה. The הנחה When is something really called you're putting it down, when you took it from one place and you're putting it down. The same thing, the opposite: when you have a a עקירה is the beginning of the הנחה, and the הנחה is the end of the עקירה. When is it really ניכר? When is it considered you took it away, when you really put it down? So it comes out by עקירה and הנחה it's more and עקירה and הנחה, it's like a half of, it's half of an הנחה also. עקירה is a beginning, a potential of an עקירה and הנחה, because what is called a real עקירה, when you plan to put it down. So ממילא, an עקירה by itself and an הנחה by itself could be considered חצי מלאכה. מה שאין כן a קשר is a thing for itself. And since it's nothing, it's just putting two things together, like, since it's not the כוונה to keep it, so it's really just like putting it together, so therefore there is no problem. And therefore, it's not called that this is חצי מלאכה. And that's and that's why over here, since it's not חצי not even חצי מלאכה, that's why מדרבנן לצורך מצווה it's אסור it's מותר. And that's and that's the answer that we're giving. We asked the שאלה at the beginning, why is this why is עקירה without הנחה אסור לצורך מצווה? And by קשר, so we say the difference is because this is אסור עקירה without הנחה is אסור as a גזירה, and a קשר שאינו של קיימא is אסור אלפא only דומה. And that's why this is so by קשר, it's מותר לצורך מצווה, because it's not so terrible and this is not and this is אסור. But then we ask the question what's the difference טאקע? So the difference is here, that a קשר אינו קיימא, without the כוונה of קיימא, it's not even חצי מלאכה. And therefore they didn't even make a גזירה, because you didn't do anything of it yet. And מה שאין כן by the case of עקירה and הנחה, you did a חצי מלאכה, and that's what it is. Now, באמת, this חידוש that we're saying here that the גדר of the כוונה by קשר is that makes the חשיבות of the קשר. The כוונה that that it should stay, that makes it into a קשר, that makes the קשר a דבר חשוב. Which is a חידוש לגבי the way we learn כפשוטו. Learn כפשוטו that it's a תנאי. קשר is the מלאכה, the making the קשר, מעשה אומן if you hold it has to be a double knot. And the כוונה is a תנאי. When are you אסור, חייב מדאורייתא, if you have that כוונה. But we're saying a different פשט. We're saying that this is what makes the מלאכה. There's another a difference that comes out between these two פשטים and the חידוש what we're saying is if the whole reason of the כוונה of קשר של קיימא is the כוונה that's there, and that gives the whole is is is is the חשיבות that gives to the קשר, what happens if there's another way there is a חשיבות in the קשר? Another way, and that is if you do a קשר a קשר a מצווה קשר. The קשר itself is a מצווה. See, what we're talking now, if you're doing a קשר לצורך מצווה, like in the case of the גמרא, you did the קשר לצורך מצווה, they wanted to measure to see if it's טמא, if it's בית הפרס יתחף, if it be טמא. In הלכה, they wanted like, but the קשר itself was not a מצווה. But what happens if the קשר itself is a מצווה? Now מצוות לאו לאיהנוי נתנו we know it says מצוות לאו לאיהנוי נתנו, that if you do something for a מצווה, that gives it a חשיבות. So if you learn that the כוונה is just a זײַטיקע זאַך, it's a side thing, that in order to be חייב you have to have a קשר er you have to have in mind that it should stay forever. So what's a חילוק if it's a מצווה or not, you didn't have in mind, so it's not חייב, not אסור מדאורייתא. But if there is a כוונה the reason is because that gives the קשר חשיבות, so could be, the סברא would be, that in the case of a קשר של מצווה, that מצווה itself gives it חשיבות, ובמילא, you would be חייב even by a קשר שאינו של קיימא if it's for a קשר של מצווה. Now, could be, not 100%, could be בדוחק that even if you learn it's a תנאי, maybe also it would be חייב if it's לצורך מצווה, למשל. What would be the סברא behind it? Maybe the פשט is that if you learn the other way that it's only a condition, so the קשר itself, קשר that's there the way you made it, is already חשוב. Not the not the מחשבה makes it חשוב, but the מחשבה makes it more חשוב. Could be that's the פשט. And that's why it's חייב. So לפי זה, what happens if it's a it's a קשר של מצווה, you could also say it's makes it more חשוב. But that's already a דוחק to say. The פשטות would be if it's only a condition, then even if it's a קשר של מצווה, you still wouldn't be חייב. But if it's to give חשיבות to the קשר, so a מצווה gives a חשיבות because מצוות לאו לאיהנוי נתנו. So לכאורה you could do that too. Now, it says in שולחן ערוך, and I'm going to use it like I did before, also the אלטער רבי's לשון in סימן תרנ\"א סעיף ו', when you have to tie the לולב, so it says if you didn't tie it before יום טוב, so he says tie it on יום טוב, but he says אבל אסור לעשות עניבה על גבי קשר ביום טוב, on יום טוב. You cannot make a knot and a bow כיון שאינו חושש להתירה עולמית, since when you do that, you don't plan to take it apart. So it is אסור. So even though it's not a קשר של קיימא, even though it's only על גבי it's עניבה על גבי קשר, עניבה, nevertheless, since you're planning to leave it, it's אסור. From here it comes out that had you had a mind to take it apart, it would be מותר, because it doesn't have the קשר של קיימא aspect. Ah, it's a מצוה. So לכאורה, from here we see that the מצוה doesn't make it חשוב. But that's not such a big ראיה, because there's no real מצוה to make the קשר. It's only מצוה מן המובחר לאגוד הלולב, to put the לולב and the together is only a מצוה מן המובחר. Anyway, after everything is said and done, what comes out from here that we have a big difference in the גדר of the מלאכה of הוצאה with עקירה and הנחה, עקירה without a הנחה, הנחה without an עקירה, versus the ענין of קשר שאינו של קיימא. And that's the reason why קשר שאינו של קיימא, לצורך מצוה, you're allowed. Now, based on this, we'll go back to the beginning and answer why the סדר in the משנה is פוקקין, and then מודדין and then קושרין. Now, פוקקין, we said we know why it's first, because first of all, it's the first thing that happened. Second of all, it's the biggest חידוש, that you're allowed to do it even not לצורך מצוה. But we ask the שאלה, why is מודדין and then קושרין, it should have been the opposite, seemingly because first they tied and then they measured. And also, seemingly there's a bigger חידוש in the fact that you can measure אגב the קשר. So the answer based on what we said before is like this: We said before that a קשר שאינו של קיימא that the חכמים אסר is not part of the מלאכה, the קשר שאינו של קיימא is not part of the מלאכה of קשירה דאורייתא. The איסור, why you're not allowed to make a קשר שאינו של קיימא is not because you did part of the מלאכה דאורייתא, חצי מלאכה, it's only because it's דומה, we said, it looks, מדרבנן they looked at it it looks like a איסור דאורייתא. But מצד the פעולה of the קשירה itself, it's not אסור. It's only because we compare it to something else, to a מלאכה אסורה. But not that this is part of it, it has no connection to it. That means like this: If it wouldn't be similar, there's no reason to make this קשר אסור, קשר שאינו של קיימא בכלל. מדידה, what is the reason for מדידה? Why is measuring אסור? It's not because there's a שייכות to a מלאכה דאורייתא. It's not part of a מלאכה דאורייתא, it's not even similar to a מלאכה דאורייתא. The whole יסוד is לכתחילה מדרבנן. What's the איסור? We said because it's מעשה חול, זלזול שבת, because it looks like a weekday it's a weekday thing. It's not because of anything else. It's an איסור that the חכמים put on that itself. Now this point, that this is an איסור that the חכמים made מצד עצמו, is in a פרט worse than an איסור that's made because of something else. See, the איסור in a קשירה, we said, is because of something else. Not that it's a גזירה, you might come to that, but that it looks like a דאורייתא. So we looked at it, and we said since it's like a דאורייתא we make it אסור. But in itself, it doesn't have the quality of an איסור at all. מה שאין כן מדידה, which is only אסור מדרבנן, which seems to be even less because it's not even like a מלאכה, but it has a quality of itself, in its own right, it's a problem. In a lower level, has nothing to do with a דאורייתא, but that makes it more חשוב. That makes it more סברא to be אסור. Similar to we have the תשובה in the חתם סופר. חתם סופר writes in a תשובה of אורח חיים סוף סימן קמ״ה, he says that the second day of שבועות is more חמור than the second day of the other ימים טובים. He gives the reason why. The reason we have two days יום טוב started because they didn't know which day was the real יום טוב. So it was a ספק, so they had to have two days, that's like a ספיקא דאורייתא. הרמב״ם says שבועות, there was never a ספק. The reason why it was a ספק by regular יום טוב, because let's say פסח, the fifteenth day of ניסן, you have to know when חכמים made ראש חודש, because every month the בית דין would make ראש חודש, and places were far didn't get the message by the time the fifteenth day came, they didn't know if it's today the fifteenth or tomorrow, so they had to keep both. שבועות doesn't depend on the day of the month, it depends on ספירה. It depends on פסח, which depends on ראש חודש ניסן. By the time they came to שבועות, everyone already knew when ראש חודש ניסן was. So they shouldn't have to have two days. But the רמב״ם says, the reason is, כדי שלא לחלוק במועדות, we shouldn't make any differences ימים טובים. חכמים decided, not because of it's a ספק, they made a דין of שבועות two days, it should be like all the ימים טובים. So he says, look at it. All the ימים טובים come from a ספק, all the second days of יום טוב. שבועות doesn't come from a ספק, so it's a ודאי. Now, the other days are ספק דאורייתא, when they made the ספק, there was a ספק דאורייתא. שבועות is not a ספק דאורייתא, it's מדרבנן, but it's a ודאי דרבנן. דרבנן made made it without a ספק, and there is a חומרא, he says there is more חומר on a ודאי דרבנן over a ספק דאורייתא. על דרך זה we could say here also. Anything that's אסור because of a דין דאורייתא, true, it's because of a דין דאורייתא, but this is only מדרבנן, so but nevertheless it has a קולא because it's not אסור on its own, it's אסור because of something else. But מדידה, מדידה is אסור on its own. The רבנן said this is something we don't want. So that should be in a in a certain פרט should be more חמור. So when the חכמים were מתיר it לצורך מצוה, it's a bigger חידוש that they were מתיר מדידה versus that they were מתיר קשירה שאינו של קיימא. And therefore the לשון is first מדידה, and מודדין and then קושרין, because מודדין is a bigger חידוש, and it's all based on what we said before from תוספות that when you have single words, then the חידוש comes first. So the first thing is פוקקין, that's a big חידוש, חידוש פשוט הלכה that even not לצורך מצוה. Then we have a second חידוש, that מדידה is also מותר לצורך מצוה, even though מדידה has a חומרא that it's an איסור of a זלזול שבת on its own. And then another, another דין is that's not such a big חידוש, that קשירה, קשר שאינו של קיימא is also מותר לצורך מצוה because it's not not such a big חידוש. And this answers this whole קושיא based, but it's all connected to the whole גדר of what the גדר of קשירה is and as far as the מלאכה דאורייתא, the מלאכה דרבנן, etc., etc. This is all בנוגע the נגלה פשט. But we know that there is נגלה דתורה, the revealed part of תורה, and then there is the פנימיות התורה, the deeper פשט, the kabbalistic, the סודות התורה. You know what it says in the זוהר, that נגלה and פנימיות are like a גופא and a נשמה. The revealed part of תורה is called גופא דאורייתא, it says in זוהר, the body of the תורה, and the פנימיות התורה is called נשמתא דאורייתא, the נשמה of תורה. And therefore, everything that's there in נגלה, everything has the פנימיות'דיקה פשט. Doesn't mean that we know everything, all the פנימיות. That when משיח will come, we'll learn that the רש״י says in שיר השירים we're going to learn the טעמי תורה, the depth of תורה, the סודות of the תורה we'll learn. But still, there are ספרים in קבלה, and there are מקובלים that explained different משניות, different דינים in נגלה על פי קבלה, על פי חסידות, על פי פנימיות. So the רבי here explains also this משנה על פי פנימיות to answer this שאלה. The שאלה, as we said, why is the סדר פוקקין, מודדין וקושרין? First פוקקין, that you stuff the hole, and then מודדין is the measurement, that you could measure, and then is קושרין, that you could tie. And the רבי explains it like this. בהקדים: The לשון is a strange לשון in the משנה. The משנה says from מדבריהם למדנו, we learn out from their words, שפוקקין ומודדין וקושרין בשבת, that we stuff a hole, we measure, and we tie on שבת. What do you mean? Should have said from here we learned out that מותר לפקוק, you're allowed to stuff a hole in the wall on שבת. We're allowed to the measure on שבת לצורך מצוה. We're allowed to tie a knot on שבת, a קשר שאינו של קיימא לצורך מצוה. מותר, why does it say פוקקין? It is משמע that this is what we're supposed to do, this is what is done, פוקקין, we learn out. So the רבי says על פי חסידות, yes, we will explain that. This is the end of מסכת שבת. And we said before that there's a connection between the beginning and the end. The beginning of מסכת שבת starts with the מלאכת הוצאה, we said. דינים of הוצאה, עקירה, הנחה, all kinds of the דינים of הוצאה. So here we have all the ראשונים, תוספות and all the ראשונים ask, why does it start with מסכת, with why did מסכת שבת start with the דין of הוצאה, when הוצאה really in the list of the מלאכות in פרק כלל גדול is the from the last? So why here the משנה started with? And there is answers, תוספות, all the ראשונים in נגלה they answer. But על פי חסידות the answer is based on this: There is a מדרש that says, it's in מדרש רבה, בראשית רבה פרשה י״א, ה׳, and in שמות רבה, says a certain אפיקורוס asked רבי עקיבא, \"If it's true what you're saying, that the אייבערשטער also keeps שבת, how does he make wind? How does he make it rain? How does he make things grow?\" So רבי עקיבא answered him that לגבי the אייבערשטער the whole world is one רשות. So it's not that you're taking from one רשות to another. So a person is not allowed to take from one רשות to another, but by the אייבערשטער, it's all one רשות. That's the answer. Now the question is very obvious, מפרשים ask the question. יפה תואר asks the question in שמות רבה, the מהרז״ו, they ask the question, they ask answer different answers, but what the קושיא is, this is only an answer how the אייבערשטער is allowed to carry. He asked him how does the אייבערשטער make things come from one place to another, he's carrying, he answered oh, it's all one רשות by the אייבערשטער. But he asked a שאלה, how does he make it grow? What does growing, which is one of the מלאכה שבת, how does that got to do with the ענין of carrying? So must be that the מלאכה of הוצאה is the יסוד of all the מלאכות. All the מלאכות on שבת is based on the concept of הוצאה, and since by the אויבערשטער is not שייך the ענין of הוצאה, ממילא everything else is בטל. Now what does that mean? Why is הוצאה the יסוד of all the מלאכות? הוצאה from רשות היחיד to רשות הרבים, the answer is: רשות היחיד means the רשות of יחידו של עולם, the רשות of the אויבערשטער, יחיד. רשות הרבים, רבים is many, plural. The וועלט is plural. It's not אחדות. You don't see the אחדות of the world. So רשות הרבים is the וועלט, certainly when it's bad things. קליפות in the world is certainly רשות הרבים. And רשות היחיד is יחידו של עולם. Any מלאכה that a person does, what he's doing is he's taking out from the רשות of the אויבערשטער to the רשות of קליפה. That's his, a person cooks on שבת, grows on שבת, it's all הוצאה. In the רוחניות'דיקע sense, it's all הוצאה, taking out from the רשות היחיד, יחידו של עולם into the רשות הרבים. And that's why if there's no דין הוצאה by the אויבערשטער, ממילא all the מלאכות don't count, as they don't accomplish any הוצאה. That's what it is. So this is the reason why the first דינים in מסכת שבת are בנוגע הוצאה, because since this is the beginning of שבת, so whatever, everything is, the beginning sets the tone, tells you ברוחניות what is the ענין of all the מלאכות of שבת is הוצאה. Now, just like we say that the beginning it contains everything further, we have another thing, the opposite also: הכל הולך אחר החיתום, it says by a שטר. The גמרא says in ברכות דף י״ב that if you have a שטר and there's a סתירה between the beginning and, anyway you go after the end. So the same thing, everything, the end, just like you put the tone in the beginning, the end is the סך הכל, so the end also. So here we're talking about the end of שבת, also of מסכת שבת. So just like over there is the יסוד of what שבת is, the end also. This end of the משנה in שבת that פוקקין, מודדין וקושרין is the end of מסכת שבת, is telling us a יסוד in what the גדר of שבת is על פי פנימיות הענינים, על פי חסידות. And דווקא in this order, as we will see, על פי חסידות. And the פשט is like this. It says in many places, all starts, the ר׳ חיים ויטאל writes this in his הגהות on זוהר חלק ב דף ה עמוד ב, in חסידות, לקוטי תורה in different מאמרים it's brought down, that we know that on שבת there are three sections to שבת: one is the night of שבת, sometimes it's called מעלי דשבתא, or ליל שבת, you have יומא דשבתא, the day of שבת, and you have the שבת מנחה time, which is called, in the זוהר it's called רעוא דכל רעוין, the רצון of all רצונות, it's a much higher level. What are the different levels על פי חסידות, על פי קבלה, על פי חסידות? It's like this: we know that there are four עולמות, אצילות, בריאה, יצירה, עשיה. בריאה is the first level of בריאה. There are different levels of creation, of the beginning of a יש, the beginning of a being already, that's already a מציאות for itself, עולם הבריאה. Then you go to יצירה, to עשיה, you come to this final, this world. The world on top of בריאה, which is not part of the בריאה, that's more like the בורא, part of the Creator, that is עולם האצילות. Now, in אצילות we have the seven מדות: חסד, גבורה, תפארת, נצח, הוד, יסוד, and מלכות. And we always in חסידות and קבלה divide it into two: the six, חסד, גבורה, תפארת, נצח, הוד, יסוד, are called ז״א, ז׳ א׳ which are ראשי תיבות זעיר אנפין, and then you have the seventh one which is מלכות, which is the lowest. When we say from אצילות comes the בריאה, since מלכות is the last of אצילות, so מלכות is the one that works with בריאה. And the תניא says that the creation comes from ספירת המלכות, and it says מלכות comes, whichever way we'll explain it על פי קבלה, here's not the place, that מלכות is יורד into בריאה, יצירה, עשיה to לברר בירורים, and it says or it's מלכות is connected. So מלכות comes down to עולם הבריאה. It says on שבת there's עלית העולמות, עולמות go up. So even right away Friday night, מלכות goes back to אצילות. Like this, during the week מלכות is within this world, goes back to אצילות. Now, since the עולמות get their חיות from מלכות, that has to be, so even שבת it gets its חיות from מלכות. But שבת, because מלכות goes back to אצילות, so it has a higher מדריגה. So what's מאיר, what shines in this world Friday night when שבת starts, the way מלכות is in אצילות. And that's a very high מדריגה. Now, great צדיקים feel it and that's the level where it says is מעלי דשבתא or ליל שבת is that when that starts. But afterwards, you go higher, so come the day of שבת is a higher מדרגה, comes the level of ז״א דאצילות. ז״א, which we said is the six מדות which is higher. So since as you go, you go higher and higher, so what shines in the world, not only ספירת המלכות of אצילות, but also ז״א דאצילות shines. Then as the day progresses and you come to the time of רעוא דרעווין, then comes a מדרגה even higher than ז״א. There's a מדרגה which is higher than ז״א and מלכות, and it's higher that it's מייחד, combines ז״א and מלכות together. It's מקשר ז״א and מלכות together. That's the reason, על פי קבלה, why Friday night, I don't know if in all נוסחאות, but in many נוסחאות, they say in in the שמונה עשרה they say וינוחו בה, בשחרית we say וינוחו בו, and by מנחה you say וינוחו בם. And the reason is, because Friday night is מלכות. מלכות is always called as נוקבא. ז״א is called זכר. מלכות is נוקבא, it's נקבה, so we say וינוחו בה, לשון נקבה, feminine. שחרית, when you have the גילוי of ז״א, which is זכר, you say וינוחו בו, it's masculine. And by מנחה time, that's when you have the combination of ז״א and מלכות, the חיבור and the קשר of both. That's why we say וינוחו בם. בם, them, לשון רבים, because it's both together. Now, therefore, since Friday night is מאיר מלכות in the world as it is in אצילות, in אצילות it says there's no such thing as קליפה. קליפה is יש. בריאה is the beginning of a יש. In אצילות, it's not. That's why the פסוק where it says לא יגורך רע, there's no רע, goes on אצילות. There's no It doesn't mean bad, evil like we think of evil. It means any מציאות other than the אייבערשטער. אצילות is called עולם האלקות, עולם האחדות. There, it's only אחדות השם. So during the week, we said that מלכות comes down into this world away from אצילות. מצד בריאה, יצירה, עשיה, there's a possibility of קליפה. So קליפה is a is תופס מקום, is תופס מקום. שבת, since ספירת המלכות goes up to אצילות, and the חיות in the worlds comes from ספירת המלכות the way it's in אצילות, so the קליפות are בטל. שבת, it says the קליפות are בטל. Friday night, as soon as it starts שבת, and we see that, we say that in כגוונא, all קליפות are בטל on שבת. Why? Because אצילות, מלכות of אצילות is מאיר, the way it's in אצילות is מאיר. Now, true, this is this is what happens, but we know everything that happens needs also part of עבודה. A איד has to work on it, and it doesn't happen by itself, has to do his עבודה. So in this ענין, we also find עבודה. We find the גמרא says that a איד who says ויכולו, כו׳ וכו׳, is נעשה שותף להקדוש ברוך הוא במעשה בראשית. You become a partner to the אייבערשטער in the creation. What do you mean become a partner to the אייבערשטער in the creation? The אייבערשטער created the world. We don't become partners. So חסידות says the פשט like this: The אייבערשטער created the world, but what He wants is that He gave us a job to finish off the job. He wants the קליפות should get out of the world. He made it with קליפה. He made it in such a way that we should reach a point when משיח will come, the קליפות will get out. But how do we get the קליפות out? We have to work on it. And when we work on it, we finish off the job that the אייבערשטער started. The אייבערשטער started the creation, made most of the creation, but left it to be finished over. That fits to what the חז״ל say in בבא בתרא that when the אייבערשטער created the world, רוח צפונית אינה מסובבת. He didn't finish off the northern side. Whatever it should mean בגשמיות I'd have to think think about it, but חסידות says like this: צפון represents קליפה. The פסוק says מצפון תפתח הרעה. צפון is קליפה. The אייבערשטער created the world that the צפון side is open, there could be קליפה. He didn't finish it off. He didn't finish off the creation finished off with being complete, no קליפה. He left the concept of צפון open. And what He wants is that we should do things to get rid of the קליפה. And therefore, during the week, the צפון side is open, and there's קליפה there. When it comes שבת, the אידן through keeping שבת become a part they finish off the creation. They become a שותף במעשה בראשית. The אייבערשטער created the world, He created it in a way that there's part of the world that's not finished, the צפון, which is the fact that there's a possibility of קליפה, and the איד, by keeping שבת, becomes a שותף במעשה בראשית. So when the איד starts off שבת, keeps שבת, the first thing, and that happens right away Friday night, שבת night, Friday night, so there is no more opening there. Like this, during the week there's an opening. The צפון side is open, it's not stuffed up. And we have the ability of making that that should be closed up, no קליפה, the צפון side should be closed up. And that happens right away, as soon as שבת comes in, the fact that we're מקבל שבת, that we keep שבת. And then as a reward for this עבודה, comes the next morning, the אייבערשטער gives us more. Since we did things to bring, take away the קליפה, which means to have the מלכות the way it's in אצילות, which there is no קליפה, come here and get rid of the קליפה, the שכר is that we get a higher level of אור. And that is that shines the level of ז״א דאצילות, shine on us. And then during the day of שבת we keep שבת more, then we go even higher, till we come to a level which is higher than ז״א, מלכות, and is מייחד them, puts them together. באמת even in נגלה we find such a thing that our doing helps שבת. The פסוק says לעשות את השבת, to make שבת, even though the גמרא says שבת is מקדשא וקיימא. שבת is there from beginning, and it's there not like יום טוב that depends on when the בית דין made ראש חודש, so they make the יום טוב. If they make ראש חודש today then 15 days later is יום טוב, so it's them. But שבת is מקדשא וקיימא. Nevertheless, the פסוק says לעשות את השבת, to make שבת. There is something in our עבודה that we make, we add to the ענין of שבת. Actually, in a certain הלכה we see it. It's a funny thing, interesting, we find that if someone is on a trip and he forgot which day it is and he doesn't know שבת, so he counts six days and then he makes שבת. And the רדב״ז says that it's a דאורייתא שבת, that means that his counting made שבת. So there is such a thing as with something that you do, you make שבת, but that's just a רמז to what we're saying here. But the ייד through his עבודה makes, so there's first עבודה that he does is makes this שבת by keeping, just the עצם keeping שבת, שבת comes in and he's מקבל שבת, makes מלכות go back to אצילות, and the גילוי in the world is from מלכות דאצילות. The next morning it's already ז״א דאצילות, higher, and then comes to later on is the level of the חיבור of both. Now, that's the reason, על פי חסידות, why the end of מסכת שבת, which means the end, the goal, the highest level of keeping שבת is, even though we're learning הלכות of שבת, but the הלכות of שבת, it says, we know that גדול לימוד שמביא לידי מעשה, so it's מעשה, so what happens? So, we're talking here about the end. The first, beginning of the מסכתא is telling you that you have to be careful of שבת because it's not there is a הוצאה, you're taking away from השם. Comes at the end of שבת and it tells you that when you keep שבת and you finish the whole מסכתא, it doesn't mean only learning, you've finished and you're doing the whole שבת the way it's supposed to do, you will reach three levels, and the three levels are פוקקין, ומודדין, וקושרין. Stopping up the hole, measuring, and tying, in this order, and it says that's what you do, it's not the פשט you're allowed to. Every שבת, this is what happens, and this is it. ליל שבת, Friday night, as we say, you cause the עליית העולמות, עליית המלכות, מלכות goes up, and the קליפות are בטל, which means, what does it mean קליפות are בטל? That hole that's there in the creation, that צפון hole, that's there that is a מקום for קליפות, we stuff up, no more hole. That's פוקקין. פוקקין, stuff up the hole. Then you reach the level of ז״א דאצילות, which are the מדות. ז״א, we said, is the six מדות. מודדין. מודדין comes from the same word, from the word מדה, like it says מדה שאדם מודד מודדין לו. So מודדין is a רמז for מדות. So this is the סדר of the end of שבת, to tell you what is שבת. שבת is פוקקין, you stuff up the hole of the קליפות, and then you reach the level that's that's מלכות going back to אצילות, then you reach a level of מודדין, you have the מדות. And then you go even higher to the level where a level of אלוקות which is higher than ז״א ומלכות, which combines them both. That's קושרין. You tie it, tie into one, that the אור which is higher than ז״א ומלכות and it's מקשר ז״א ומלכות, that's what shines. That's what the and the ענין of קשירה is when you make two things into one like we said before. And by doing that, you're מקשר all the עולמות, that בכלל you make you bring down such a מדרגה that all the עולמות become one. Like this, we have אצילות, בריאה, יצירה, עשיה, and this is וועלט, they become one because if there's a real level of גילוי אלוקות, there's only one אייבערשטער, is the only there's only one רשות, is רשות היחיד, and that's the רשות of the אייבערשטער, and we connect the world with the יחידו של עולם. And this happens on שבת, and obviously from שבת, we're ממשיך this the whole week to a certain degree. So here we have the ביאור על פי נגלה why it say the לשון in the מסכתא, the end of the מסכתא is remaining on the משנה, פוקקין ומודדין וקושרין, and also על פי חסידות why it says these three לשונות. Want to see what to do? Want to see what we do now? I stopped it already. But now I don't know, I'm afraid to push any button, not to erase it, not to ruin it. I just made end. That means it's ended. Yeah, I ended it. That's it. And now? Yeah, it's ended. Yeah, now what do you push? End recording for all. You did that?