Here in Pesachim דף ד עמוד ב going on to ה עמוד א, there is a discussion in the Gemara, how do we know that the pasuk that says אך ביום הראשון תשביתו שאר מבתיכם means ערב פסח? The pasuk says \"אך\" means but, \"ביום הראשון\" on the first day, \"ביום הראשון\" means the first day, \"תשביתו\" you shall destroy, \"שאר\" which is chametz, \"מבתיכם\" from your house. And we know that it doesn't mean Pesach. We don't destroy chametz on Pesach, we destroy chametz on ערב פסח. So when it says in the pasuk that ביום הראשון on the first day you shall destroy chametz, so the Gemara says it means not Pesach, but the day before Pesach. And the whole sugya here goes in, how do we know that? The Gemara has different פשטים, proof, how we know that it means ערב פסח and not Pesach. One of the things it says is like this, it says in a ברייתא, אך ביום הראשון תשביתו שאר מבתיכם, מערב יום טוב, that the pasuk says you shall destroy on the first day chametz, means ערב יום טוב. או אינו אלא ביום טוב עצמו? The Gemara asks, maybe it means Yom Tov itself? And after all, it should mean Yom Tov, because ביום הראשון means the first day, it should be the first day of Yom Tov. תלמוד לומר, it quotes a pasuk where it says לא תשחט על חמץ דם זבחי, you shall not שחט the blood of my קרבן, which means do not שחט the קרבן פסח while you have chametz. לא תשחט את הפסח ועדין חמץ קיים, do not shachat the קרבן פסח when chametz is still around. Now we know the time to shachat the קרבן פסח is Erev Pesach after chatzot, so from here we know that Erev Pesach after chatzot, that's when you already can't have chametz. So from here we have a proof that when it says ביום הראשון, doesn't mean the first day of Pesach, it means Erev Pesach.

דברי רבי ישמעאל, that's the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael. רבי עקיבא אומר, רבי עקיבא says, אינו צריך, you don't need that re'ayah, I have a better, different re'ayah. הרי הוא אומר, since the pasuk says אך ביום הראשון תשביתו שאר מבתיכם, that on the first day you shall destroy chametz from your house, וכתיב, but there's another pasuk that says כל מלאכה לא יעשה בהם. On Yom Tov you cannot do any melachah. ומצינו להבערה שהיא אב מלאכה, and we know making a fire is one of the, it's an אב מלאכה. So how could you say it means on the first day of Pesach you shall destroy chametz, when on the first day of Pesach, which is Yom Tov, you're not allowed to do a melachah? So obviously, Rabbi Akiva says, it must mean Erev Yom Tov. So Rabbi Yishmael had a re'ayah from a different pasuk, and Rabbi Akiva has this re'ayah. And the Gemara comes at the end and says אמר רבא, רבא said, שמע מינה מדי רבי עקיבא תלת. From what Rabbi Akiva said, we see three things. We see that Rabbi Akiva holds three dinim, because if any one of these three dinim that we're going to mention soon would not be so, his re'iyah wouldn't be a re'iyah. In order for Rabbi Akiva's re'iyah to be a real good re'iyah, he must hold three dinim. Which ones?

שמע מינה אין ביעור חמץ אלא שריפה, we see that he holds the only way to destroy chametz is through burning, because he says, if you would, the whole, how does he know that it means Erev? Because if it would mean Yom Tov, Yom Tov you couldn't burn. If Rabbi Akiva holds like the Chachamim that you don't have to burn chametz, we know there's a machloket between Rabbi Yehuda and the Chachamim. Rabbi Yehuda says the only way to destroy chametz is through sereifah. The Chachamim say no, אף מפרר וזורה לרוח, you could break it up, throw it in the air, you could throw it in the toilet, you could do other ways. So what's his re'iyah? The whole re'iyah is it can't mean Yom Tov, because on Yom Tov you can't burn. Who says you have to burn it? So since he brings that re'iyah, it's a siman he holds that the only way you could do chametz is burn. That's number one. שמע מינה, also another ראיה, הבערה לחלק יצאת. That hav'arah, in the Gemara we have in a different place a machloket between Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Natan. What is the din of hav'arah? Hav'arah is fire. Now we know there are thirty-nine melachot. Where do we know the thirty-nine melachot from? From the Mishkan. Nevertheless, there is a pasuk that says לא תבערו אש בכל משבתיכם ביום השבת, you shall not make a fire in your house on Shabbos. And the question the Gemara asks, Rashi b'Chumash actually brings it, why does the Torah pick to say that you shouldn't make a fire? I mean there's so many melachot, you can't do thirty-nine melachot, why pick fire? So there's a machloket. One opinion says it's הבערה ללאו יצאת. The Torah comes to teach you that a fire on שבת is not really a melachah. For all other melachot, the punishment is כרת or סקילה, but הבערה, to make a fire, is an exception, it's only a לאו. The Torah specially said הבערה at לא תבערו אש to teach you that this is taka not like the other melachot. Another opinion is, no, הבערה is an אב מלאכה. The reason the Torah mentioned it is to teach you לחלק, and the way Rashi explains here, and we'll get into that a little later, that we would have thought that if a person does on שבת a few melachot together בשוגג, I would think you only bring one קרבן חטאת, because they're all melachot of שבת. So the pasuk comes and tells you, the pasuk happens to mention one, it just happens to pick one of the melachot to tell you one, that means each one is a melachah for itself. And therefore if you do more than one melachah on שבת, you're חייב for every melachah a separate קרבן. That's the טייטש הבערה לחלק. הבערה that is to divide, not to tell you it's only Now, obviously, Rabbi Akiva holds that way, because the re'ayah of Rabbi Akiva is that if it would be Yom Tov, how could you do a melachah on Yom Tov? הבערה is a melachah, a siman that he holds הבערה is a melacha. Okay, there are pshatim with this lashon of the teirutz, this is the Gemara's re'aya. שמע מינה, a third ראיה, לא אמרינן הואיל והותרה הבערה לצורך, הותרה נמי שלא לצורך.

There is a machloket between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel in Masechet Beitzah. We know that it says in Chumash that on Yom Tov you're allowed to do melacha for אוכל נפש, for food, for eating. Come Beit Hillel and say, מתוך שהותרה הבערה לצורך, since the תורה הבערה or any melacha since the Torah allowed these melachot, cooking and fire and all the melachot for the sake of eating, הותרה נמי שלא לצורך, you're also allowed to do it if it's not for eating. Basically, these melachot which falls in the category of אוכל נפש, you're allowed to do on on Yom Tov even if they're not for אוכל נפש. Beit Shammai argues, Beit Shammai says no, only for אוכל נפש, if not for אוכל נפש, you're not allowed. Now, obviously, Rabbi Akiva holds that we do not say מתוך, because if you would hold you say מתוך, what's his re'aya? He says, it can't be Yom Tov, cuz Yom Tov you can't make a fire. What do you mean you can't make a fire? Why not? Ai, it's not No, it's not to eat, it's to burn the chametz. But who cares? If he holds like Beit Shammai, we understand, you're only allowed to make a fire to eat, since this is not eating, you're not allowed. But if you would hold like Beit Hillel that you say מתוך, what's his re'aya? You're allowed to make a fire. Since he brings such a re'aya, it shows that he does not hold of מתוך. These are the three things the Gemara says.

Comes Rashi, and Rashi on the first one that it says אין ביעור חמץ אלא שריפה, that he holds that the only way you could destroy chametz is to שריפה, Rashi says like this: He holds like Rabbi Yehudah that you have to do שריפה. דאי השבתתו בכל דבר, if he would hold that you could destroy it some other way, סבירא ליה, that's what he would hold, לוקמה ביום טוב, you could say that the pasuk means Yom Tov, that אך ביום הראשון תשביתו, takeh means Yom Tov. Ai, how could you do it Yom Tov? ויבערנו בדבר אחר, he'll destroy it some other way! And Rashi gives an example: יאכילנו לכלבים או ישליכנו לים, or give it to the dog, or throw it away, לים. But one of the things he mentions is give it to the dog, that if it would be some other way, you could destroy it by giving it to the dog. This is what Rashi says. And since which would not be a melachah, since he says that you're not allowed it can't be on Yom Tov because it's burning, obviously he learns you could only burn it, there's no other way, it must be שריפה. Comes the Penei Yehoshua, and the Penei Yehoshua asks a kushya on this Rashi. Says Rashi in Beitzah דף כ״ז, Rashi says there's a din in גמרא אין שורפין קדשים ביום טוב, that you're not allowed to burn קדשים, קרבנות on Yom Tov. It means if you have a קרבן that needs to be burnt, something happened to it, it got פסול, it became נותר, it stayed over time or it became טמא, whatever, you have to burn it, you can't do it on Yom Tov. We have a we learn off a פסוק, אין שורפין קדשים ביום טוב. Comes Rashi, it's a shita of Rashi, not everyone agrees, Rashi says that if you cannot burn קדשים on Yom Tov because it's a mitzvah, you cannot give the kodashim to a dog either. It says you can't destroy it in any other form either. Why? Because since it's a mitzvah to destroy it, מצוותו אחשביה, the mitzvah made it a חשובה פעולה, a חשובה act, and since it's a חשובה act, you can't do it, it's אסור, it's a חשובה מלאכה. So Rashi learns that if it's a mitzvah to destroy, burn the korban, the kodashim, you couldn't give it to a dog either. Huh? To make it for a מלאכה. That's what Rashi says, מצוותו אחשביה, וממילא it's a מלאכה. It's a מלאכה on Yom Tov. It's an איסור. The same איסור applies to burning it will apply to any other to to giving it to a dog. Not stam throwing it away, not, but giving it to a dog is a פעולת ביעור, is איסורא אחשביה, מצו- what means איסור? מצוותו אחשביה. Actually, it's not only Rashi in Beitzah, it's Rashi here, too. Rashi on דף מ״ו, Rashi goes לשיטתו. Here, Rashi says like this: The Mishnah talks about a certain דין, an interesting דין, כיצד מפרישין חלה בטומאה ביום טוב? A person is baking on Yom Tov, Pesach, he's baking matzah, and you have to take off challah. So you have a big problem here, what are you going to do? If you take off the challah, you usually take it off when it's dough. What are you going to do with this piece of dough? Now, like this: to bake it, you can't, and this is and this is a case where it's טמא. The challah the the dough is טמא, so the challah that you're going to take off will be טמאה. החלה that's טמאה cannot be eaten, because it's like terumah, you can't eat it. What do you have to do with it? You have to burn it. So if you're going to take off the dough, what's going to happen here? To let it just like that, you can't, because it will become chametz. To bake it, you can't, because it's not ראוי לאכילה. You can't eat it. You can't eat it because it's חלה טמאה. Huh? No, no, you can't feed it to dogs either. Okay, because it's a mitzvah to to it you can't, it's Why? I guess it touched a dead body, I mean it became tamei. If it became tamei, what's the If it happened to become tamei. Why can't he throw it to since he ocean. Huh? Why can't you throw these things in the ocean, no mention of third possibility? But like by challah you can't do it, challah you can't do it. Challah by chametz is another problem. Couldn't that be the carrying, couldn't that be the problem? You're not going to take it out to the ocean. You can't carry it. Yom Tov you could carry. Yeah, that's a tzarah when you have an eruv. We have it, Yom Tov you could carry, Shabbos not. People that don't know it, people that carry with the eruv on Shabbos, forget there's such a thing as Yom Tov you could carry, Shabbos not. Somebody asked me the other day, took the eruv, send my wife into the ocean. So, I'll read you the Rashi. אין יכול לאפותה, you can't bake it, מאחר שאינה ראויה לאכילה, since it's not fit to eat, so you can't. להשהותה לערב, to wait and burn it at night, you can't, אי אפשר, שמא תחמיץ. ולשרפה, but to burn it on יום טוב, או להאכילה לכלבים, or to give it to the dogs, אי אפשר, you can't, שאין שורפין קדשים ביום טוב, because you can't burn kodashim on Yom Tov. But we're talking about giving it to the dogs! So Rashi says, not to burn, and not to give to the dog you can't, because אין שורפין קדשים ביום טוב, you can't burn kodashim, so you can't give it to a dog either. So here Rashi says it in one line. In Beitzah it's a big Rashi, and Rashi explains this whole thing of achshevei. So the Pnei Yehoshua asks the kushya here, just like over there by kodashim, since it's, you're not allowed, it's a mitzvah to burn kodashim, and you're not allowed to do it on Yom Tov, it becomes achshevei, so therefore you couldn't give it to the dogs either, so the same thing should be with chametz! That חמץ, it's a mitzvah to destroy, so if you can't burn it on Yom Tov, you shouldn't be able to give it to the dogs either. And then Rashi says here that if you would hold that you could destroy it some other way, then it could have been on Yom Tov, and you would destroy it by giving it to the dogs. But if it's a it's, was saying the mitzvah of destroying it, the fact that it's a mitzvah to destroy it makes it a חשובה פעולה, that it becomes asur on Yom Tov by קדשים, so the same thing should be by the פעולה of the mitzvah of destroying חמץ. And he answers, and it's so fantastic, he says, if חמץ you have to if you have to burn חמץ, then the fact that you have to burn it and you can't destroy it some other way shows that the Torah wants the פעולה of doing it. Because the Torah is careful which פעולה to do: you could only destroy it by burning, you can't destroy it some other way. So then the פעולה is חשוב, just like by קדשים. By קדשים it's a mitzvah to burn קדשים. So since the Torah wants you to burn it, the פעולה is shows the פעולה is חשוב. So since the פעולה is חשוב, so any other פעולה you'll do, will also be חשובה and be asur. But if you hold that you could destroy חמץ anyway, obviously the פעולה is not important, so there's no achsheveh. So the פעולה is not important, that's why you could do it, you could give it to a dog. That's what Rashi says here. אי הוה סגי בכל דבר, if you would not hold אין ביעור חמץ אלא שריפה, if you would hold you could do it some other way, then you takeh can give it to the dogs. Lafoal if you hold it's only שריפה, you takeh can't give it to the dogs. But Rashi's wording, אי הוה סגי בכל דבר. Now חלה you could only burn, so if you can't give it to the dogs, how do they get rid of the of קדשים, of the חלה that they bake? You know, they would burn it. So what's the end over there in the Mishnah? At the end there's a machloket, is it three days, one day, you should put it in cold water. Like the Pnei Yehoshua? That teshuvah does not fit to this. Pnei Yehoshua's teshuvah? Yeah, takeh it doesn't, yeah, that's one of the things that the that teshuvah won't fit, I don't want to get into the details, we'll get into it later, but this is mamash the same sevara, what the Pnei Yehoshua says is basically the same sevara that Rav Chaim answers on the kushya of the Tur on the of the Rabbi Akiva Eiger on the Tur. I think I mentioned it once in the shiur before. Look at your memory of it, that the Tur says like this. We know that the Gemara says in Arakhin, please, that by קדשים we find two different kinds: some of them that you have to burn, they're called נשרפים, and some of them that you don't have to burn, הנקברים, you have to bury it, you have to make sure it's not. So the din is like this: הני נשרפים, אפרן מותר. Those קדשים that you have to burn, if you burned it, after it's burned the ashes you could use. הנקברים, those things that you have to bury, if you happen to decide to burn it, you can't use the ashes. That's the din. Again: those that you have to burn, after it's burned you could use the ashes; those that you don't have to burn, you have to bury, if you burned it, you can't use the ashes. Comes the Tur and says, the same thing with chametz. According to Rabbi Yehuda that holds אין ביעור חמץ אלא שריפה, that you have to burn it, so then after you burn it you could use the ashes. According to the Chachamim that say that you could destroy it some other way, if you happen to burn it, you cannot use the ashes. That's what the Tur says. How do you happen to burn it if you've got to bury it? You do it some other way, you're not burning it. Well, if you didn't bury it, but you burned it. Not allowed to burn it. Not allowed to burn it? No, you don't have to burn it. You just said if you don't burn it, then you do it some other way. Right. This means if if the din is that you have to burn it and you burned it, then the ashes are mutar. If you don't have to burn it... could bury it. If you happen to burn it, happen to burn it? Yeah, which you're allowed to if you want to, but the ashes will still be asur. So the same thing by chametz. If you have one way, then you have to do it that way. No, if you have to burn it, then you have to burn it. If there's no other way, right. But if you could bury it, and if you burned it, the ashes are asur. So the, so the Tur says the same thing is by chametz. If you hold אין ביעור חמץ אלא שריפה, then after you burn it, ashes are mutar. If you hold that it's השבתתו בכל דבר, you do it some other way, then it's asur. Comes the Rabbi Akiva Eiger, he says, \"I don't understand the Tur. Let's look at the reason. What is the reason over there by קדשים?\" So the Gemara there says, Tosafot explains the reason is like this: if the mitzvah is to burn it, the moment you burned it, נעשית מצוותו, you did the mitzvah. Now that the mitzvah is over, finished, there's no din anymore, you could use it. If the mitzvah is to bury it, by burning it, you didn't do the mitzvah. There's no דין מצוה in burning, so why should it all of a sudden become mutar? Therefore, the ashes are still asur. So he asks a kashya. If so, chametz is different, because by chametz, even if the mitzvah is not to burn it, there's still a mitzvah to destroy it! By chametz, according to the רבנן who say you don't have to burn it, it's not a peshat because there is no mitzvah. Here it's not that over there the peshat is there is no mitzvah in destroying it. The mitzvah is to put it away. So if you burned it, you still didn't do the mitzvah. But here, not only if you burned it נעשית מצוותו, if you hold that you could destroy it any other way, and you happen to burn it, you still did the mitzvah, so it's נעשית מצוותו. So here, he asks that both shitot should hold that the עפר, that the אפר should be mutar. Well, and also not only that he did the mitzvah, if you don't hold that way, then you didn't get rid of your chametz and you're חייב כרת. Yeah, could be you did, but it's not נעשית מצוותו. You'll see what Rav Chaim answers. Rav Chaim answers the peshat, he says: if you hold the mitzvah is שריפה, then there is a mitzvah in the פעולה. Then it's called after it's finished, you did the mitzvah. According to the Chachamim that you could destroy it any other way, then obviously there is no mitzvah in the פעולה. So even if you burn it, according to the Chachamim, there's no נעשית מצוותו, the mitzvah is not done. That's what he answers, which is basically similar to the vort of the Penei Yehoshua here, that he says that that's why only if you hold there is a חיוב שריפה, that's when the פעולה is אחשביה, it's chashuv, and memeila you couldn't do it any other way either, because whichever way you'll do it, for some reason, it's a it's a פעולה that the Torah wants, it's chashuv, it's asur. But if you hold השבתתו בכל דבר, then you could give it to the dogs, which is the סיפא, but it doesn't actually fit with what the, with what the Rogatchover says, which is basically the Rebbe's shita, as we'll see later. So we must find a different answer. But even if it would fit, this is one answer, we could look for another answer. Then there's another thing here. We said that Rabbi Akiva holds לחלק יצאת. That when it says the Torah \"לא תבערו\", the mitzvah of the איסור of burn- making a fire, he holds lechalek. That the pasuk, the reason the Torah mentions specifically burning is not to tell you that it's only a lav, that it's different than all melachot. No, it comes to tell you lechalek. Lechalek means to separate. And as I said before, what does that mean? So I'll read you the Rashi inside. שלא תאמר, you should not think, not say, העושה ארבע או חמש אבות מלאכות בשגגת שבת, if a person does four or five מלאכות on שבת בשוגג, אינו חייב אלא אחת, he is only חייב one, everything. דהא חד לאו איכא בכולהו, there's only one לאו. All מלאכות come from the same לאו, לא תעשה כל מלאכה. וחד כרת, one כרת. לפיכך פרט הבערה באנפי נפשה, therefore the Torah chose one מלאכה to write, להקיש אליה, to compare and say, מה היא מיוחדת שהיא אב מלאכה, just like this one happens to be an אב מלאכה and

you're חייב לעצמה for itself, so everything also. That's what Rashi says here. That's how Rashi learns also in שבת, פרק כלל גדול when it talks about l'chaleik. Tosafot over there learns different, but that's not a problem. Rashi himself in יבמות דף ו׳ learns different. In יבמות דף ו׳, Rashi learns l'chaleik means I would have thought that the only time you're חייב שבת if you do all the מלאכות. If a person does all 49 or 39 מלאכות, but l'chaleik means to come tell you each one is separate, that you're חייב for each one. The שאלה is, why does Rashi here learn different? In other words, why did he learn here like this, and there different? There are different teirutzim in the מפרשים. Just one teirutz which happens to be an interesting teirutz is the Aruch LaNer's teirutz in יבמות, and this is what he answers. He says that the two Rashi's are basically dependent, now something that we spoke about before, on the machloket of Yehuda ben Beseira and the חכמים. There is a machloket, we learned that before, הכו עשרה בני אדם עשרה מקלות, if 10 people hit a person, one after the other, and then with the last blow by the last person he died, is the last person חייב or not? So the רבנן say you're פטור, and Rabbi Yehuda ben Beseira says the last guy is חייב. And the

Gemara says, what is the machloket? המחלוקת is because the פסוק says מכה כל נפש. If you hit כל נפש, you're חייב. What's meant by כל נפש? So the, Yehuda ben Beseira, Yehuda ben Beseira learns כל נפש means כל דהו נפש, any part of the נפש, as long as you killed him. So even though the last guy really himself he wouldn't have killed, he only killed, he only hit him a tenth of his life, but l'poal he kill he killed him, and the Torah says כל נפש, כל דהו נפש. And the Rabbanan say the same כל נפש the opposite: כל נפש means כל הנפש. Which means basically that the machloket between them is, what is the טייטש כל? Does כל mean yederer, or כל means ale? Does כל mean all, or כל means every? They're two opposites. Not opposite, two different ones. Ale ale means them all. Yeder means everyone separately. And Rabbi Yehuda ben Beseira holds everyone separately, כל דהו, any part, and the Rabbanan hold כל the opposite. The same thing when it says לא תעשה כל מלאכה, what does it mean? So if you learn like the Rabbanan, לא תעשה כל מלאכה means do not do all the מלאכות. And Rabbi Yehuda ben Beseira learns do not do any melachah. So according to the Rabbanan, there is a hava amina, maybe it means that you do all the you're only chayav if you do all the מלאכות. So according to the Rabbanan, that's the hava amina. According to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beseira, there is no such hava amina, because the Torah says clearly כל, and according to him כל means every. So the Torah says do not do any melachah, so obviously you're chayav for each one. So what is the hava amina? So according to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beseira the hava amina must be that maybe you're חייב בשוגג, if you do it more than one one, you're chayav for only one. So Rashi, in one place he wants to fit should fit according to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beseira, in one place he makes the hava amina to fit according to the רבנן. Which obviously needs a little bit more ביאור because just to say Rashi chose because he wants to make it fit because one place like this, one place like this, there has to be some reason why in our Gemara Rashi learns this way. Now really it has to be a reason why in that Gemara he learns different, but we're not learning that Gemara, we're not learning Yevamos, we're learning Pesachim. So what we're interested to explain here is, what is the reason why Rashi here feels to taytsh when it says לחלק to taytsh this way, not the way he taytshes in Yevamos that we might think that you have to do all the melachot to be chayav, but the hava amina is you might think if when you do if more than one melachah, four or five melachot, you're chayav one? To explain this, let me say like this: These three things the Gemara says here are all פשטא דרבי ישמעאל, פשט the way he learns out, I mean Rabbi Akiva, פשט the way he learns out that אך ביום הראשון תשביתו means ערב פסח, because if it would mean פסח, we couldn't do the melachah at all. Rabbi Yishmael had a different ראיה. So what you see basically here is a מחלוקת between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael. Now,

why Rabbi Yishmael argues on Rabbi Akiva we don't know, it could be because of one of the details he doesn't like, but it would be nicer if he argues in all three. In other words, if his שיטה is that all three things are different. And if we're able to figure out that the מחלוקת between Rabbi Akiva is a כללותדיקה מחלוקת, in all three things that Rabbi Akiva holds and Rabbi Yishmael like, which is not a הכרח, obviously, but if it would be, it would fit. Because we do find that the Rebbe is מסביר the כללות a big sevara, what is the machloket between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva in Shas. And here I have a thing here. They each have their own philosophy and they follow it. Philosophy and they follow it. No, that's רוחניות. The The Rebbe's, I'll tell you. In in the הגדה, this is not Likkutei Sichos, it's in the הגדה, the Rebbe is masbir machloket, in the end of Pesachim it's a הדרן on Pesachim, machloket between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva. And he brings out there many places in Shas that they argue on the same sevara. This is a sefer called Mikdash Melech. And after that sicha, the Rebbe said a sicha and it came out, I wrote then an article. And got somehow to Eretz Yisrael and they printed it. Anyway, one day, I didn't even know this, they just gave this out a few years ago, they happened to find what I wrote and they printed it here. What I wrote then was to show that when the Rebbe brings one, two, three, four, five, six places that it's all based on the same machloket, so I tried to show that I have about 30 more places in Shas, close to 30, where it's all based on the same nekudah. And now I would like to say, and I I brought one of the things here, too, that all three things here are based on Rabbi Akiva's shittah. And by doing that we're going to answer the kashyos of Rashi. Yeah. There the Rebbe is masbir the nekudah like this. What I'm going to say is that if you take it the words that the Rebbe says, won't fit all over, but if you take it in an extended, expand what the Rebbe says, but just put in different words. The Rebbe said like this: It sounds if so it's Chassidus, but it's not Chassidus, the Rebbe's לשון נגלה. He

says that when it comes to Torah, Torah was given by the Aibershter to Yidden. So there are two parts of the Torah. There is the בעלות, the בעלות of the נותן, of the Aibershter, of the giver, and the בעלות the חלק of the Torah which is to the receiver, of the Yidden. And some things in Torah we see fit more to the way it's מצד the Aibershter, some things fit to the way it's מצד אידן. Sometimes there's a safek the way it is. That's what the machloket of Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva is. Rabbi Yishmael says that we always look more on the side of the Yidden, and Rabbi Akiva says we always look more on the side of the Aibershter. And the Rebbe is מסביר like this, למשל: In Sotah there's a מחלוקת Rabbi Yishmael says כללות נאמרו בסיני, פרטות באוהל מועד. Rabbi Akiva says the opposite. Okay, there are certain ones that are more clear, I don't want to go in every single one. Let's use this one: כל העם רואים את הקולות. No, by וידבר אלקים את כל הדברים האלה, by by מתן תורה, Rabbi Yishmael says that they answered על הן הן, that when Hashem said certain things do, they said yes. על לאו, when he said don't do certain things, they said no, we won't. And Rabbi Akiva says no, על הן הן, ועל לאו הן. On everything they said yes. When Hashem said do this, they said yes. Don't do this, they said yes. Which means we'll we'll accept. So the Rebbe is מסביר there that Rabbi Yishmael follows the Yidden, so it's מצד The difference between a positive mitzvah and a negative is the way we the מצד the Aibershter, it was all one ratzon, the Aibershter wants. So if you look at the Aibershter's side, then they said to all, yes, we're giving up. And he goes into other machlokot and also then there are certain things he says like this: there's a machloket in Sotah, certain things whether many things Rabbi Yishmael says that these things that the Torah mention are only reshut, you don't have to do it. And Rabbi Akiva says they're chovah, you have to do it. Again, Rabbi Yishmael looks more for the benefit of the Yidden, so he's ממעט in making more issur. And Rabbi Akiva says No, no, he's ממעט. Less in this. And Rabbi Akiva, farkert, looks the Eibershter's more. It it says in in Sotah it says Rabbi Akiva holds דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם. A lot of times when the Torah says a word, Rabbi Akiva says that Torah talks כלשון בני אדם, and Rabbi Yishmael says that the Torah does not. So the Rebbe is מסביר how this fits to this, that Rabbi Yishmael holds the ישראלים. It seems like the opposite, but that's why he is מסביר. He holds it like So this makes it easier this, yeah. And then in Likutei Sichos there's a So, I try to say like this: that you take the same words that the Rebbe says, but just change it a little not change, but do it differently. You'll see different. See here, a whole bunch of מחלוקתן in here. If you look at every every mitzvah or every chiyuv that you have has two parts to it. You have the mitzvah in itself, and you have the way the mitzvah is in relationship to the person. Now, obviously, there is no such thing as a mitzvah without a person doing the mitzvah, and there's no such thing as a person, if not a mitzvah, then what are we talking about? But when you have the mitzvah and the person does the mitzvah, you could look at the way the mitzvah is in relationship to the person, or you could have the mitzvah on its own, as it is be'etzem. And that means the way it's מצד the Eibershter, cuz things the way they are be'etzem are, basically as if we're saying, is the way it is מצד its own creation without changing it to make it fit, tailor-made to the person. So you have the way things So basically what I'm trying to bring out, that Rabbi Yishmael, who looks at everything מצד אידן, looks at all the mitzvot the way it is related to people or the way people receive it. משא״כ Rabbi Akiva looks at everything מצד the way it's מצד העצם. And if you look through, you'll see many, many מחלוקתן that fit to this the way that Rabbi Yishmael If we learn that this is the פשט in the מחלוקת of Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva. Anyway, not to get into lengthy מעשיות, let's look here at the first thing: אין ביעור חמץ אלא

שריפה. It seems Rabbi Akiva says clearly that אין ביעור חמץ אלא שריפה, the only way to be mekayem the mitzvah of ביעור חמץ is only through burning it. We said, possibly, that Rabbi Yishmael argues, we're not sure. Maybe Rabbi Yishmael argues only on the other thing. But let's say if there would be a מחלוקת of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael, that Rabbi Yishmael holds, no, you could burn חמץ some other way too. You could destroy חמץ another way. It would fit exactly to this לשיטתו. Why? Based on the Rogatchover that the Rebbe brings in all the sichot. What is the basis, the basic philosophy behind this מחלוקת, whether שריפה, חמץ is only שריפה or you could do some other way? So the Rebbe is מסביר like the Rogatchover is מסביר like this: when the Torah says תשביתו, you shall destroy the חמץ, there if you burn it, you're destroying the עצם. The whole thing is not there anymore, there is no חמץ, cuz it says it brings in Tanya that when it becomes ashes, it's like a new מציאות, and it destroyed the עצם. If you don't destroy if you don't burn it, any other way you'll destroy it, the עצם is still there. You'll break it up, you throw it in the garbage, you'll throw it in the in in in the ocean, it's still there. What's not there is the תואר, that's what he calls, the description, which means people cannot use it. You can't use it, you can't eat it, you don't see it, it's But that doesn't mean the עצם is not there, the etzem is still there. And that's what the Rebbi is masbir. Rebbi Yehudah holds אין ביעור חמץ אלא שריפה, because when the Torah says to destroy, it means to destroy the etzem. So you have to burn it. The Chachamim hold when the Torah says destroy, it doesn't mean destroy the etzem, destroy the tzur of it. So therefore, any other way is good. Now, this is exactly what we're saying here: that according to Rebbi Akiva, whenever the Torah says something, we look at it that it has to be farbundn with the etzem inyan, the זאך אליין, not the way it's ביחס, because sreifah means that the thing itself is destroyed. Destroying it some other way, the self the thing itself is not destroyed at all. It's only ביחס, in relationship to us it's destroyed, we can't get to it. So Rebbi Akiva, who looks at everything מצד the מצד the etzem thing, holds אין ביעור חמץ אלא שריפה. Rebbi Rebbi Yishmael, who holds that we look at all things the way it's ביחס to people, he says no. As long as ביחס to a person is destroyed, it's enough to destroy. So this seems to fit. Would selling it be destroyed? Selling is not destroying. You don't have it anymore, you don't You don't It's not called destroyed, selling is not. No, but he can't use it anymore, he can't But because it's not yours! If then you use it, so it's not yours. But when you bury it, you throw it in the ocean They are still yours, could be still yours, unless you're mevatel. Selling it, you're just selling it away. Oh, we had a general concept before that a bittul was destroying the etzem in the world. Yeah, the Rav miBrisk connects that to this machloket. In this machloket, and the he'arot, one of the he'arot the Rebbe brings this, could be that this is afilu a מחלוקת רש״י and Tosafot in what bittul is, if that's hefker or at least. So Rebbi Akiva who says אין ביעור חמץ אלא שריפה, he holds because we look at everything מצד the etzem, and what the Torah wants with תשביתו is to destroy the etzem, that the thing itself should not be, not only ביחס to you. ולפי זה we could answer the kashya of the Pnei Yehoshua. Bit similar to what he says, but in different words. But before what I said, it seems like it doesn't fit, it's like a contradiction, opposite, it'll fit.

What is the geder of a melacha on Shabbos? Let's start that way. We're talking here about, again, let's remind ourselves what the kashya was: that Rashi there says that if you're not allowed to burn קדשים on Yom Tov, you couldn't even give it to the dogs. Why? Because it's a mitzvah to burn it, and the Torah says don't do it on Yom Tov, so anything you'll do, you're not allowed. How come over here Rashi says that you would be able to give it to the dogs? What is the geder of a melacha on Shabbos? We know that the geder of a melacha is, even in halacha, not only in philosophy like the the חוקרים, the פרומע, יידישע חוקרים talk, but even in halacha, the geder of a melacha is the change in something. Why are these thirty-nine things a melacha and not carrying heavy weights? That's even harder! Carrying things up four floors, that's not a melacha! The Alter Rebbe in Tanya, in Iggeret Hakodesh, and lately we learned in Shaar Hayichud, in in in Kuntres Acharon, he mentions לגבי מלאכה. He says that מלאכה ש- he has a פירוש על דרך אפשר, not a פירוש על דרך what we would know, he says melacha, we would think melacha means to carry heavy weights, like you can't carry אבנים, he says, stones, that's not a melacha. A melacha is small things. Why is this a melacha? We learn out from the Mishkan, but what's the logic behind it? The logic behind it is, any work that's creative work, that's the modern terminology that they use, דאכט זיך מיר Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch has a whole thing on it, talk about איסור הוצאה or even like making the fire, the famous kashya that the world asks: well, it was a big thing to make a fire, nowadays to make a fire you just put a switch, that's a melacha? So the answer is, במעשה it is, creative work, that's what Hashem didn't want. Hashem wants you to rest on Shabbos from creating like He rested from creation. That's geder. Huh? That's geder. That's? Geder, or whatever you call it, creative. Geder, what is the... You said, what is the geder of of the melachah? Oh, geder! What is the What is the classification, how do you classify a melachah? Creative work, creative work. And that's why you can't make a fire even though it takes you a second and there's no work. The Rebbe does a letter which be'emet is the same tochen, but it's a different בלשון. I saw the כתב יד, actually, the original כתב יד. Someone asked the Rebbe the she'eilah, so the Rebbe writes like this. Probably the same thing they asked, the same question: how come you can't nowadays make a fire when it's only such a small, so easy? So the Rebbe writes like this: As easy as it is for us to make a fire on Shabbos, for Hashem to create the world was even easier, and nevertheless, He rested from it. These are the words he uses. The tochen of it's a very shmeckedik vort, when I saw the כתב it was so The tochen is we have to rest like He from creation, not it's not because it's hard or easy. That's why Tosafos in שבת דף ב׳ beginning, and all the ראשונים, when they talk about hotza'ah, carrying, they say hotza'ah is a מלאכה גרועה. Hotza'ah is an easy, a bad melachah, it's not a real melachah. And that's why hotza'ah is different. We can't learn it out from the Mishkan. Tosafos says has to be also a pasuk: התם ויצו משה ויעבירו קול במחנה, וקרי להבאה מלאכה. And he says, why? Because it's a מלאכה גרועה, it's not a real melachah, it's a shvache melachah. Why is it a shvache melachah? So all the מפרשים say, actually it's merumaz in I think there is a ראשון says it בפירוש, but it's merumaz in Peirush HaMishnayos. He says, it's the only melachah that no change takes place. Change of place. That's all, change of place! There's nothing has changed. No, change means there's something that creative. Writing: before there was words, it wasn't written, now it's written. Making the fire: there was no fire, now there's a fire. Cooking: you cooked. Everything is something! The only one is just you changed it from here to there. I, when I learned Shabbos, I explained that, so סוף כל סוף why? You remember I explained that that's why you need עקירה and hanachah, because that adds to whatever. That's not noge'a now. I just want to bring out that melachah means if there's a change in the thing. Now this is the peshat: if the the mitzvah is to do sereifah, and sereifah makes it What did we say is the difference between sereifah and other things? Sereifah makes a change, and other things don't really make a change. If the melachah of if the chiyuv to do sereifah, so a siman that destroying the קדשים is a change, and that's what the Torah wants. And therefore, if for some reason there is a case where you don't destroy it by sereifah, and the Torah allows you to do give it to the dogs, but obviously that giving to the dogs accomplishes, for some reason, in that case, what sereifah does. Now it's hard to understand why, I don't want to get into the because here chasidishe shprakh will fit, as it's עכ״פ גילוי עצם, but I don't want to go into that. Giving it to the dogs, it's a change. No, it's not a change, because if the Torah לכתחילה would not want sereifah and say do it, then obviously the peshat is the Torah doesn't need a change, because it doesn't make a change in the עצם. If the Torah wants sereifah, it's a siman the Torah wants a change. So therefore, in the case where the Torah allowed you to do it some other way, but since it's part of the same din where the Torah originally wanted sereifah A siman that here, this also makes a change. This is the peshat basically in Rashi, the deeper peshat when Rashi says that if the Torah said you're not allowed to burn שריפת קדשים on Yom Tov, אחשבי, it becomes chashuv that you can't give it to dogs. What is the peshat in those words, it becomes chashuv? I'm going to say the peshat like this: since the Torah wanted sereifah, a siman that the Torah wanted a change. So therefore, if you're going to fulfill this mitzvah that the Torah wanted, for some reason, of only through שריפה, it'll still be considered a change to some degree, obviously, because if not, you wouldn't have fulfilled the mitzvah. And if it's a change, it's a melachah. If the Torah never wanted you to do שריפה, and if you don't do שריפה you don't change the עצם, if you don't change the עצם, then it's not a מלאכה lechatchilah, the Torah just אסר it, but not because it's a change. So therefore, if you do it through some other way, it's not אסור, because there is no change. In other words, the difference, you can do the same פעולה it seems: if originally you had to

do שריפה, and then you do this פעולה, this is called a change, because the שריפה would have been which is also a change. On the other hand, if lechatchilah the Torah never wanted שריפה, then the Torah never wanted a change. So when you do it some other way, obviously this is the Torah doesn't consider it into a change. And you have to say that, listen what, we don't have time to answer another kushya in this Gemara here, we have another kushya here, which is a very strong kushya, also Pnei Yehoshua asks, he asks a kushya like this: you see later on in the Gemara, this is this this Gemara, next Gemara I'm going to mention now is mind-boggling according to this whole the שיטה of the Rogatchover. The גמרא says later like this: that the חילוק between שריפה and and if Rav Yehuda and the רבנן say to do it any other way, that שריפה is the עצם, and Rav Yehuda holds you have to destroy the עצם. That's why you have to burn it, yeah. On דף כ״ב עמוד ב׳, the Gemara says look, אמר רב יהודה, the same Rav Yehuda we're talking about his דין, אימתי, when do I say that you have to burn it? שלא בשעת ביעורו. That's only not in the time of its ביעור. אבל בשעת ביעורו, in the time of its ביעור, השבתתו בכל דבר, you can do it

anyway. Now when does that mean? It doesn't say what it means. Machloket Rashi veTosafot here. Rashi says שלא בשעת ביעורו means before the issur comes, not at the time when you're mechuyav to mav'ir. Till the sixth hour of Erev Pesach, that's when I say you have to destroy it with fire. If you destroy it afterwards, then השבתתו בכל דבר, you can do it anyway you want. Tosafot says the opposite: when do I say you have to do it srefah? Only from the זמן האיסור, but before, not. So Tosafot makes sense. Rashi is very hard to understand according to the Rogatchover. According to the Rogatchover, so what does he say? The Torah says that you have to destroy chametz, and the תשביתו starts when the זמן האיסור starts, that's when תשביתו is. And he says because תשביתו means the עצם. So Rav Yehudah says the opposite according to Rashi, that when the before the חיוב comes of תשביתו, then you could do it then you have to do srefah, when the issur comes. So how to answer it, you have to go into that it was very, I remember when the first time the Rebbe mentioned this whole machloket, peshat in the Rogatchover, it was I remember he came back from the Ohel, it was a sudden farbrengen, and he said this it was a big you know very, but right away האבן געשריבן אין די הערות, וואס דער פשט, how does that Gemara fit according to the Rogatchover. How the ביאור is, is not for now. But the bottom line, what I want to say is like this: that according to Rav Yehudah, when you will destroy it some other way, it's not going to be the same type of destroying, even though you do the same פעולה like a רבנן if you do the thing.

The רבנן hold you lechatchilah don't have to destroy the עצם. So that's why you can destroy it some other way, the the Rabbanan hold. Rav Yehudah holds you have to destroy the עצם. But for some reason, at some point, whichever way, doing it the other way is also connected to the עצם somehow. Otherwise, it just this שיטה is שריפה. So the same thing I want to say here also: that if you have to burn it, like by קדשים, if you destroy the chametz through some other way, you're accomplishing the same thing for some reason like you do שריפה. And the שריפה makes the עצם, is also does something to the כלי, as Tosafot whatever it's to the עצם. And that's why it's אחשבי, you can't do it. But if השבתתו בכל דבר, means lechatchilah you don't want to change the עצם. So it's lechatchilah not a melachah, it's asur, it's asur, but it's not because it's אחשבי because it's a melachah. So if you destroy it some other way, it's not. This answers, I started saying, a mechtige kushya in our Gemara. The Pnei Yehoshua asks a kushya here, according to that Gemara there that we just said, according to Rashi, what is Rabbi Akiva's re'ayah? Rabbi Akiva's re'ayah makes no sense. Rabbi Akiva says אך ביום הראשון means Erev Pesach, because if it would mean Pesach, how could you burn on Pesach? And the Gemara says, why? Because Rabbi Akiva holds אין ביעור חמץ אלא שריפה. The Rav Yehudah who holds אין ביעור חמץ אלא שריפה, only holds that it's Erev Pesach, before the zman. But on פסח, הא, he also admits you don't have to do fire ביעור. So a machtige kashya! What does it say? Since Rabbi Akiva holds like Rav Yehuda, so he has a good raya it can't be on Pesach. What do you mean? Even Rav Yehuda admits it according to Rashi! You see according to Tosafot there's no problem, but talking about according to Rashi. What I'm saying is very good. According to Rav Yehuda who holds אין ביעור חמץ אלא שריפה, and on Pesach you could do it some other way, but you wouldn't be able to do it on Yom Tov, because it's achshevei. Since he holds that it's sreifah, so mimela it shows that he holds that he had to destroy the etzem, there's a shinui. So even when he holds that you're allowed to do it later some other way, obviously somehow the Torah Considered as a shinui in the etzem. Mimela it's a melacha, because what is the geder of a melacha? Shinui in the etzem. So this answers why Rashi says this. I want to continue and say that the other two things that Rabbi Akiva says also fit with Rabbi Akiva's shita.

Let's go to the inyan of lechalek. What are the two sides, lechalek and l'lav? L'lav means that hav'arah is only a lav. You're not חייב מיתה, you're not חייב כרת. Lechalek means that you are חייב. Hav'arah, fire, is just as bad as any other melacha. The Torah wrote לא תבערו, לחלק. Now, it's very simple that according to Rabbi Akiva, we said, the Rabbi brings here, that he, whenever there's a question whether it's asur or mutar, what would he say? He goes asur. Rabbi Yishmael would say mutar. Here we have a question: is הבערה אסור like all other melachot, or is הבערה not asur like all other melachot, is it less? What would we assume to say? So according to Rabbi Yishmael, who follows everything לטובת the Yidden, says mutar. Says ללאו יצתה. Again, it doesn't say yet that he holds that. But if we'll say that these three are where Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael argues, so Rabbi Yishmael will hold ללאו, and Rabbi Akiva will hold farkert, לחלק, not ללאו. So Rabbi Akiva's שיטה here will fit with his שיטה בכלל, that he holds that whenever there's a question of איסור, since we follow more shaychus to the Eibershter, so it's it's לחלק that it's asur like a real melacha. Based on this, I'll explain why Rashi says what he says in pshat of לחלק. I'll tell you why. Why would there be a hava amina that you're only chayav if you do all the melachot? Every melacha, every individual melacha has the עצם of the melacha. When we say that you might have to do a lot, every melacha has the nekudah of what the melacha is, of of of creation. So every melacha has the עצם. Why would there be a hava amina that you have to do 39 melachot to be chayav? The only reason for the hava amina is what's 39? 39 means much more כמות, more quantity of this מלאכה. But it's only quantity. In quality, every מלאכה has it. So if you hold like Rabbi Yishmael, if you would hold like Rabbi Yishmael, Rabbi Yishmael looks at everything the way it's ביחס to people. So ein hachi nami, ביחס to people, one מלאכה is less, two מלאכות are more, 39 are the most. If you're looking מצד the גדר of the עצם of מלאכה, one is the same. So why would there be, according to Rabbi Akiva, a hava amina that you have to do all the מלאכות to be chayav, if you're looking at the עצם of everything? So when we have, so that's why Rashi says there is no hava amina that you would have to do all the מלאכות to be chayav. Adrabah, because of Rabbi Akiva's שיטה, there is a הוה אמינא פונקט פארקערט. That שיטה makes a hava amina that if you do more than one מלאכה on Shabbos is chayav one. For his שיטה, why? Because since

according to Rabbi Akiva, every מלאכה, he looks at the עצם, and every מלאכה in the עצם they're all the same. What is the difference between writing and cooking? In עצם they're the נקודה of creation. There is the ציור. לגבי me, this brought out the גדר of writing, this happened to be, so it's on the ציור. But בעצם, all מלאכות have the same נקודה. What is the din if a person does four times the same מלאכה on Shabbos? Are you חייב one קרבן or you're חייב one? So Rabbi Akiva לשיטתו, who holds that we look at the עצם, so doing four מלאכות is basically doing one. If you look at the גילוי of it, the ציור, so four מלאכות are four different ציורים. But if you look at the עצם, אדרבה, that's why Rashi here, according to Rabbi Akiva דוקא, Rashi says it. Because according to Rabbi Akiva, we would takeh think four מלאכות are the same thing, so you should only bring one. So the reason, so Rabbi Akiva's sevara is the reason why there is no hava amina like the hava amina over there, and that is actually the reason why there is a hava amina like this. So that's noge'a, that answers that kashya. That's noge'a the second thing. Then again, בנוגע מתוך, the third thing that Rabbi Akiva says is also connected to this. And in two ways. Number one, pashut, if you hold מתוך, you take all these מלאכות and you say they're מותר on Yom Tov even not for צורך אוכל נפש, not for eating. Since the Torah was מתיר for eating, you could use for the other. If you don't hold מתוך, you say it's אסור. Nu, what would Rabbi Akiva hold? Whenever there's a שאלה of adding to the היתר or making less היתר, so Rabbi Akiva makes less היתר. That's why Rabbi Akiva says we don't say מתוך. Rabbi Yishmael, if he argues here, who holds that we always we use more heter, so that's very simple. But I'll go a step further. Deeper pshat, also based on what I said, but deeper. What is the basis of the machloket between Rabbi Yishmael and between Beit Shammai u'Beit Hillel? Whether we say mitoch or not. So in חלק י״ד, the Rebbe is masbir the machloket. He is masbir like this: the machloket is dependent, when the Torah says that you can't do לא תעשה כל מלאכה, you can't do melacha on Yom Tov, and then says אך אשר יאכל לכל נפש, but what you could what you have to eat, you're allowed to do. So the Rebbe puts it, he had to explain based on the Ramban, but the nekudah is, he has two terms. Is the inyan of אוכל נפש a siman or a taam? Is the inyan of אוכל נפש on Yom Tov that you're allowed the taam, the reason why you're allowed, why are you allowed to cook, why are you allowed to do these melachot, because of אוכל נפש, or is it a siman? Hataam is is the same thing, yeah. Sibah is taam. Is because of אוכל נפש, or it's a siman to which melachot are mutar? There are certain melachot which are in the category of מלאכות אוכל נפש: the melacha of cooking, the melacha of shechting, these are a category of מלאכות אוכל נפש. What the Torah did, instead of the Torah giving you a list which melachot the Torah wanted