Gemara itself is a hard Gemara, so I think if the time will go away just to explain what the Gemara says. Okay, let's just learn the Gemara in here on דף ה עמוד ב in Ketubot. איבעיא להו: they asked a question, מהו לבעול בתחלה בשבת? Are you allowed to do the first bi'ah on Shabbos, Friday night? And the question, the Gemara will explain the detail of the question, of the two sides. Do we say דם מיפקד פקיד, אי חבורה מיחבר? Is the blood that you make come out, is it mifkad pakid, is it gathered in one place, and all you have to do, like Rashi explains, is basically by opening an opening, making an opening, and the blood comes out? Cuz when in the first bi'ah, from דם בתולים, when she's a בתולה, and you break the בתולים, it bleeds. And the she'eilah is, how does the blood come out? Is it that the blood is there in one area, gathered together, like a bubble and you have blood in it, and all you're doing is opening the making an opening, and the blood comes out? Or, חבורה מיחבר, is the blood connected to the flesh? And the

difference is, if it's חבורה מיחבר, then you have a melachah. By doing it, you do the melachah of chaburah. What's chaburah? Chaburah is when you make someone bleed. No, not so when you make someone You have a wound, but you make someone bleed with a wound, this is a melachah of chaburah. Tosafot over goes into what under what category of melachah this will go. נטילת נשמה, צובע, whatever. But this is a melachah. But that melachah is only if the blood is part of the flesh, and you and it comes out, that's chaburah. So that's the Gemara's she'eilah. This specific blood that comes out by a בתולה, is it mifkad pakid? Then it's not asur on Shabbos, because you're not making a chaburah, there is no melachah. Like a boil. Huh? Like a boil, it hurts. Well, that the Gemara later brings it, an example, yeah, that you could take the pus out. Anyway, that's the whole idea. But if it's a חבורה מיחבר, if it's gathered If it's together with מחובר together with the flesh, then it's asur. So that's the beginning of the question. Then the Gemara continues: אם תמצי לומר דם מיפקד פקיד, even if we're gonna say that the dam is in one place, gathered together, and therefore there is no melachah, but there could be another melachah. The

problem is, you're making a פתח. You're making an opening, you're making a door. Making a door is a melachah on Shabbos. And the way Rashi learns here, the melachah is the melachah of binyan, building. אי, it's talking by a body, so Rashi says that there is such a thing A little later, Rashi explains it in more detail. There is such a thing as binyan by a by a גוף. He quotes a pasuk: ויבן את הצלע. When Hashem made Chava, the pasuk uses the expression ויבן, He built. So, we see from there that there is a a גדר of binyan in a גוף. And therefore, opening a פתח is a binyan. So, even if we're gonna hold, the Gemara says, that as far as the dam is concerned, there is no melachah, we still have a she'eilah. Do we say לדמא הוא צריך ושרי, that when a person does it, what his interest is to get the dam, and since that's his kavanah, that's not a מלאכה, אי דילמא לפתחא הוא צריך ואסור? Or maybe what the person is interested in is really making the פתח. And if his kavanah is to make the פתח, then even though as far as the dam is concerned, there is no melachah, but there's another melachah, the melachah of making a פתח. But the only when would that be assur? If he's mechaven, if you intend to do it. Then the Gemara continues: ואם תמצי לומר לדמא הוא צריך, even if you're gonna say that the kavanah is for the דם, ופתח ממילא קאתי, the fact that you make a פתח, that's by itself, that happens without your intent, הלכה כרבי שמעון דאמר דבר שאינו מתכוין מותר, אי הלכה כרבי יהודה דאמר דבר שאינו מתכוין אסור?

How do we pasken? Do we pasken like Rabbi Yehudah or like Rabbi Shimon? There's a machloket between Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon by דבר שאינו מתכוין, that if you do something which is mutar, but in the meantime something else which is asur will happen because of what you did, are you allowed to do it? So Rabbi Yehudah says it's asur, and Rabbi Shimon says דבר שאינו מתכוין is mutar. And that will be the question here too. If you intend the blood, mainly you your main kavanah is for the dam, and therefore your kavanah is for something that's mutar, because now we're going according to the sevara that dam is מיפקד פקיד, so it's your kavanah is mutar, but in the meantime while you're doing it, the פתח will open. So you will have been doing the melachah of פתח, but you weren't mechaven for the פתח. So the melachah is an אינו מתכוין. And the she'eilah is, do we pasken like Rabbi Yehudah that אינו מתכוין is asur, do we pasken like Rabbi mutar אינו מ- Rabbi Yehudah אינו מתכוין is mutar? Rabbi Shimon, אינו מתכוין is mutar. ואם תמצי לומר, now the Gemara goes a step further, even if we're gonna say הלכה כרבי יהודה, that the הלכה is like רבי יהודה, מקלקל הוא אצלה פתח, אי מתקן הוא אצלה פתח? When he does make the פתח, and since we're possibly going now according to Rabbi Yehuda, it's asur, because ein mitkaven is asur, but is it called a kilkul, or is it called a tikun? Kilkul, is it spoiling, something ruining, and a tikun is good, it's something fixing, something good. And the question is, we know the rule is that if you do a מלאכה on Shabbos, but you're a mekalkel, you're patur. If the מלאכה that you do is a kilkul, if you're doing a cooking, you're tearing open you're breaking something, if you're breaking something through the מלאכה, the מלאכה is not asur. Now, even if we'll say that there's a מלאכה here because you're opening a פתח, but the Gemara, is the פתח a kilkul or is it a tikun? Do we look at it the fact that you open a פתח is a kilkul? Rashash says why would it be a kilkul? Because now you're, by opening a פתח, you're changing her status from being a בתולה to being a בעולה, which lowers her מדרגה, so it's a kilkul. On the other hand, by the fact that you're making her into a בתולה, into a בעולה, and you're the one the Gemara says, Tosafot brings earlier that a woman gives her her כרת ברית, she gives her confidence to somebody who made her into a כלי. The first the person who made the first ביאה made her a כלי. Anyway, so there is a tikun in making this פתח. So if it's a kilkul, and even if you פסקן like רבי יהודה, דבר שאינו מתכוין אסור, but it still would be mutar because it's a kilkul. On the other hand, if you say it's a tikun, and if you pasken like Rabbi Yehuda, it would be asur. That's the first way the Gemara puts the question. Then the Gemara goes on to the second ika d'amri, another way, which, let's not discuss it now, it's going to be too confusing and that's not what... He's only interested in the dam, not the petach. This is, he's only interested in the dam, not the petach, and the dam itself is no problem because it's מפקד פקיד. Tosafot goes into what would be his purpose of wanting the dam. So Tosafot has two pshatim, a machloket of Rabbeinu Tam and Ri. One is according to Rabbeinu Tam, he wants the dam out, so next time there shouldn't be dam. And the other one is he wants to see, תקי, to see if she's a betulah or not, so he needs the dam to see. Anyway, that's there's a whole difference in הלכה לגבי these two pshatim, but this is not... Then the Gemara goes into a second way of asking the question, if we're going to hold דם חבורה מיחבר. And the Gemara also has a whole list of what the question will be in אם תמצי לומר, if you say this, if you say that. But what we're going to discuss is only this. This is the Gemara's discussion here. Comes

Rashash and asks a kushya. The Gemara said like this: if his kavanah is the dam, and dam is מפקד פקיד, there is no issur. The only issur possible is because the petach is being made. But it's אינו מתכוין. So it'll depend whether we pasken like Rabbi Yehuda or like Rabbi Shimon. According to Rabbi Yehuda it would be asur, according to Rabbi Shimon, mutar. Comes Rashash and he says, ואם תימא, Rashash asks a kashya, פסיק רישא ולא ימות? It's a pesik reisha. The rule of pesik reisha is that if you do something that's mutar, and in the meantime something that's asur will happen, which we said is a machloket between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, but if the melacha that's asur must happen, not could happen, but must happen, then even Rabbi Shimon agrees that it's asur, that's chayav. The mashal, the case is like this: The classical machloket between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon is when someone is taking over a kise, a מטה, a chair. There's a chair standing here, you want to take the chair over there. Now to take the chair over there, you could schlepp it there. If the floor is a floor made of sand, by schlepping it, it might make a חריץ, it'll make a a scrape into the in the ground. And that's a מלאכה דאורייתא, that's a melacha of חרישה, digging into the ground. And that's what a classical machloket is, but he's not intending, he doesn't need it, his kavana is not to make that חריץ. But the חריץ might happen. So Rabbi Yehuda says, you can't do it, if you make the חריץ you'll be chayav. And Rabbi Shimon says no, since that's not what your kavana is, it's okay, it's mutar. But Rabbi Shimon says if the chair happens to be a heavy one, that when you carry it, it must make the חריץ, there's no way it won't, then he also says you're chayav. The taytsh פסיק רישא ולא ימות means chop off the head, it shouldn't die? The Rambam gives an example, someone says, I want the head of a chicken to give to my little boy to play with, so I'll chop off the head of the chicken, but I don't want it to die. My kavana is just to take a head, my kavana is not to kill it. So I'm not chayav of course. He says no, what do you mean? You chop off the head, it dies, it's a pesik reisha, that's called psik reisha. So Rashash asks here, what does the Gemara say here? That if his kavanah is to the דם, but the פתח is going to happen anyway, so according to Rabbi Shimon there is no problem, the problem is only according to Rabbi Yehuda. So Rashash says it's a psik reisha, because if you're going to make the דם, you'll definitely have the פתח. It must make the פתח. If it must make the פתח, it's a psik reisha, so even according to Rabbi Shimon, this should be אסור. So Rashash says, הא פרכינן, it says like this, הא פרכינן לה לקמן, the גמרא later asks the question, ומשנינן, the גמרא answers, יש בקיאין בהטיה, there are people who know how to do it in a special way, הטיה means some curvy way, some special way, ואין דם יוצא ואף אין פתח נפתח, that some people could do it and there should be no דם and there should be no פתח. הילכך לאו פסיק רישא ולא ימות, so it's not a psik reisha, because it's possible that you shouldn't have the פתח. The

whole קשיא was must make the פתח, so this Rashi says it's possible not to have the דם and not to have the פתח. Wait, but only that if you not have the דם... One sec, this is what Rashi says. Tosafot ask the same קשיא. Usually Tosafot does not ask the same קשיא as Rashi and give the same תירוץ, because Tosafot saw Rashi, Tosafot doesn't repeat it. Whenever Tosafot has the same קשיא and gives a teirutz which is similar, you know for sure that it's something else. Tosafos asked the kashya here on the same thing. The Gemara says if לדמו צריך, if he needs the דם is מותר according to רב שמעון, ואם תאמר פסיק רישא שיעשה נמי פתח. Same kashya, it's a pesik reisha, the פתח must happen. וצריך לומר שיכול להוציא הדם בלא עשיית פתח. He says we must say that it's possible to have דם without פתח. That's what Tosafos says. Comes the Maharsha and says that Tosafos is not like Rashi. Tosafos makes sense. The kashya was your kavana is for the דם. What is the melacha that's going to happen? The פתח. So the kashya was if you have דם, you must have a פתח, so it's a pesik reisha. So Tosafos says it's not true, you could have דם without a פתח. So who says it's a pesik reisha? Pesik reisha means that if you're going to do the דבר המותר, it must make the דבר האסור, and it's not true. Rashi didn't say that. Rashi said that the people could do הטיה, דאין דם יוצא ואף אין פתח נפתח. That means that there is no דם and no פתח. In other words, you could make there should be no דם and no פתח. But Rashi didn't say that you could make there should be דם and there should not be פתח. It's mashma that if you have דם, you must have פתח. So what kind of teirutz is it? It's not a teirutz, because we're talking now in the case לדמו צריך, so he's looking for the דם. If he's looking for the דם, you can't help, you must have פתח, so it's a pesik reisha. So if you're going to do the דם, you're going to have it's a pesik reisha. What was Rashi's answer? But the Pnei Yehoshua says that Rashi didn't mean that. Rashi meant either or. Rashi says you could do הטיה, דאין דם יוצא, you could make הטיה דם shouldn't come out, ואף אין פתח נפתח, or you could do הטיה that פתח won't open, that דם will come and פתח won't open, which is exactly like Tosafot. But that's not the pashut pshat in Rashi. If you look in Rashi, Rashi makes it very clear that why is it not a pesik reisha, because you can have דם you could have it should be no דם and no פתח. Comes the Ritva, and the Ritva said I'll explain Rashi. He says like this: Being that it's possible to make הטיה that there won't be דם and won't be פתח, you never know. This guy who is not going to do הטיה, because הטיה is a special art, he's not going to do הטיה, but you can never know, it might turn out to be הטיה. Since it's a possibility, it might turn out. So what might happen? There might not be a פתח. So it's not a pesik reisha. The whole kashya is it's a pesik reisha because what you're doing must make a פתח, so he says no, since there'll be an הטיה, and ein hachi nami, if הטיה will happen, you won't have דם either. But לפועל, you won't have דם and you won't have a פתח. So now we can't say a פתח is a פסיק רישא. Which is very hard to understand. Because if that's going to happen, you won't have the דם. In other words, you won't so you won't do a דבר המותר either. Where the whole question is you're looking for the דם. If you'll make the דם, the פתח must come must be according to Rashi, it seems that way. You can't have דם without פתח. So what's the answer, you might not make דם? Okay, if you don't make דם, there's nothing to talk about. Our whole kashya is if you're going to make the דם, are you allowed to go do the דם? And the reason why you're allowed to is because it's not a melachah. דם is not a melachah, it's מפקד פקיד. אי the פתח, it's אינו מתכוין. What do you mean אינו מתכוין, but it's a פסיק רישא? What It's hard to understand the the Ritva's terutz, because after all, the דם must have make פתח. According to Tosafot, it's very good, and not according to Rashi. Then there are more kashyot here, a whole bunch of more kashyot, but let me just give well, one more kashya, major kashya, maybe there's another kashya in Rashi. The first question was, is דם מפקד פקיד? Is the דם just gathered in one place, or חבורה מיעבד? דאם תמצי לומר דם מפקד פקיד, now if you say דם מפקד פקיד, so as far as the דם is concerned, it's mutar. But depends if that's your If that's what you're looking for. If you're mechaven for the דם, it's mutar. If לפתח הוא צריך, if you're intending for the פתח, then even though the דם is מפקד פקיד, it's still asur for a different מלאכה, for the מלאכה of פתח. That's what the Gemara says. Why didn't the Gemara right then and there on the spot ask, are you so sure it's going to be asur if he intends for the פתח? Depends if it's a מקלקל or a מתקן. The thing that the Gemara does at the end, after the Gemara says if you're intending the דם and the פתח happens also, אינו מתכוין, if we pask like Rabbi Yehuda, it's asur. But it depends, maybe it's a מקלקל! Why didn't the Gemara ask right at the beginning? When the Gemara said that if you're interested in the פתח, it's for sure asur, nothing to do with Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, because it's a מתכוין. You are מכוין to make a פתח, and that's a מלאכה. And that's asur? Hold on a minute! How do you know it's asur? Maybe it's a מקלקל! So why didn't the Gemara right on the spot over there ask that maybe it's a מקלקל? The Gemara didn't do that. That the Gemara said for sure, if you if you are מכוין to the פתח, it's asur. If you מכוין to the דם, then then it might be be mutar according to Rabbi Shimon, and it's assur according to Rabbi Yehuda, but even according to Rabbi Yehuda, if you're a mekalkel it's mutar. Why didn't the Gemara say that right in the beginning? That's a kashya the Ritva asks, the Rashba asks. And the Rashba says I'll tell you: this mekalkel here, he says, is not a real mekalkel. It's a mekalkel and a metaken together. The one that we're talking about, making the פתח. Even when the Gemara feels it's a mekalkel, the Gemara knows it's not a real mekalkel. It's a mekalkel from one side, but it's a metaken from the other side. It does good because, like we said, it makes her into a gives it she has a כריתות ברית, the one that makes her into a כלי. So there is a tikun for sure. So therefore, if you are mechaven for the פתח, we don't care if it's a kilkul, it's still assur. Because even if you're even if it's a kilkul, but since there is some tikun here and you are mechaven to it, it's assur. The only time the Gemara felt if a mekalkel should be mutar, if you're not mechaven to it, and the only reason it would be assur is because it's אינו מתכוין is assur according to Rabbi Yehuda. Then the Gemara felt if it's an אינו מתכוין and you're a mekalkel, even though it's not a hundred percent mekalkel, might be it's still mutar. But lechatchila the Gemara didn't say it. But it's also not so simple to understand, because after all, according to Rabbi Yehuda, אינו מתכוין and mitchaven is the same thing. According to Rabbi Yehuda, אינו מתכוין is אסור. So obviously, according to Rabbi Yehuda, מתכוין and אינו מתכוין is the same thing. And therefore, if by אינו מתכוין we said מקלקל will make it מותר, by a mitchaven, according to Rabbi Yehuda at least, it should also be מותר. Well, I think you could say, before the Gemara wasn't talking about according to Rabbi Yehuda. So, you could explain what he's saying, but keep in mind what the Ritva says, because that's going to be noge'a to what we're going to say later, that the Ritva's vort is that before when you are mechaven, he says then even if it would be מקלקל it would be אסור. Only when you're an אינו מכוין on the פתח, and according to Rabbi Yehuda it's אסור, but then if you're a מקלקל... Then there's another thing: Rashi, when the Gemara says like this: אם תמצי לומר לדם הוא מתכוין, if the, in the beginning, if you if he wants the דם and not the פתח, then according to Rabbi Shimon, what would be? It would be מותר, because you're not mechaven to the פתח and it's אינו מתכוין, and it's מותר. On the other hand, according to Rabbi Yehuda, it would be אסור. So Rashi says: אם תמצי לומר לדם הוא מתכוין ולא לפתח, מיהו על כרחך פתחא ממילא הוי. But בעל כרחו the פתח happens. Why does Rashi say that? Later Rashi asks a קשיא of פסיק רישא, but here the point should not be the בעל כרחו, here the point should be that even though a פתח will happen, but that's not your kavana, the the stress should be the other way. Rashi stresses: but בעל כרחו the... Why is that important to stress here? Rashi should say we disregard the פתח. Later Rashi will ask a kashya why it's psik reisha, but in the point before when when the wants to say it's mutar, the Gemara says if he's mechaven to the דם and not the פתח, it's mutar. So Rashi would should say even though the פתח happens, but Rashi didn't do that. Rashi says אם תמצי לומר לדם הוא מתכוין ולא לפתח, ומיהו, but al korchach it's going to happen. Why does Rashi put that in there? Al korchach there just means it's forced, right? It's forced. Doesn't mean against his doesn't mean No, no, no, it's definitely going to happen. But that, if anything, that's a stress to the

other direction, that's a stress to the reason of being asur. And Rashi will takeh ask. But why does Rashi stress it here in this Rashi, where he tries to explain why it's called an eino miskaven and it's mutar? He should have said that because you're not mechaven to the פתח, you're just mechaven to the דם, so even though the פתח is going to happen, but you're not mechaven. Rashi doesn't say that. Rashi says you're not mechaven to the דם, but you should know that the פתח is going to happen. Why is that important to say that to know that the פתח is going to happen? Anyway, just there is, the Alter Rebbe here in Shulchan Aruch, learn, speaks about this din in סימן ר״פ. And he has a different pshat in the Gemara than Rashi. But from what he says, you could understand, we could come up with a pshat in Rashi. He comes and goes into the whole sugya here. And according to the Alter Rebbe, it comes out here that what melachah would it be if you would make a פתח? Because we see the discussion is making the פתח is a melachah. Whole she'eilah is, is he מכוין to the melachah, is אינו מתכוין to the melachah, is it פסיק רישא, but the melachah is פתח. What melachah is making the פתח? So we said Rashi learns the melachah is בנין, building, making a door, like you make a door, making a פתח is בנין. The Alter Rebbe learns that the melachah here of פתח is תיקון כלי. To make a kli. That's, not to say the melachah, that falls under the category of מכה בפטיש. מכה בפטיש means banging with a hammer. The last of the thirty-nine melachot is מכה בפטיש. Actually not the last, but it's one of the... Banging with a hammer, does that mean... there's nothing wrong, there's no melachah in banging with a hammer, if you take a hammer and bang hammer like your books, but the meaning is when you when a craftsman makes a kli, after everything is finished, the last finishing touch, after everything is done, he gives it a bang, that is the end. So there is a melachah called גמר כלי. Making a kli, finishing a kli. That's it called the melachah of תיקון כלי, which is a category of מכה בפטיש. So making a פתח פתח, the Alter Rebbe says, is תיקון כלי. Does that mean is anything actually doing anything destructive or practical to the kli, or is it somewhat Even if it doesn't. But if that's the way it's done, it doesn't matter. If that's the way a craftsman finishes his kli, then that would be that would be the end. That would be the last thing you do. Whatever the last thing is? Anything, whatever the last thing is. If a person binds a book in a way which is not a melachah, but when he makes the last little thing that will make it into a book, that's a melacha d'oraisa, that's called תיקון כלי, גמר כלי, תיקון כלי. Is that because you now have a new thing that wasn't finished until Shabbos? Whatever that You find all kinds of reasons, yeah, yeah. But this is a melacha. So making a פתח, the Alter Rebbe says, is תיקון כלי, you are making a כלי. And in this case also it's תיקון כלי. So the Alter Rebbe says, the Alter Rebbe פסקנט להלכה at the end of the Gemara that you're allowed to do the first ביאה בשבת, and he says what about תיקון כלי? So he He has all kinds of things here, but one of the things he says, ואף שאסרו לפתוח פתח משום מתקן כלי, the reason you can't make this פתח is because of you're making a כלי, כמו שכתבתי בסימן שכח. So this is what he said, וכשאין צריך לפתח זה, and if you don't need the פתח, אין זה תיקון כלל ולא עשה כלום, it's not תיקון and you didn't do anything, כמו שכתבתי, כמו שנתבאר שם, like he says there. And

when we look what he says in סימן שכח, he says here, I'll read it: כיוון שחיובו הוא משום תיקון המכה, which תיקון כלי, אם כן כשאין צריך לתיקון זה, ואינו מתכוון לו, when you don't need the תיקון and you're not מתכוון to it, אף שנעשה מאיליו, even though it's done by itself, אין זה חשוב תיקון כלל, it's not called תיקון, והרי זה כאילו לא עשה ולא כלום, so he didn't do anything. What's the pshat here? I'll explain what the pshat here is. This is all based on a Maggid Mishneh. The Maggid Mishneh on the Rambam makes a klal, which is a very logical klal. He says that the melacha of תיקון כלי is different than any other melacha. By any melacha, and if you do something and the melacha happens by itself, operates, so happens, that would be called a מלאכה אינו מתכוון. The melacha is done, but you're not Like the example with pulling the chair. You schlepped the chair from here to there and it makes a חריץ, and you weren't מתכוון to make the חריץ. So what is it? You still made the חריץ, you did a melacha, but since you did a melachah without kavanah, it's mutar. That's the din by שבת, מלאכת מחשבת, or whatever the reason is, mutar. Every melachah like that. תיקון כלי, if you were not mitkaven to it, you didn't do the מלאכה בכלל. And I'll explain the logic behind it.

Every melachah has a certain ציור, certain description how it's done. Someone describes it. What is the form of doing מלאכת בישול? How would you explain? Very pashut: take a pot, and you take raw, cold water, raw, a raw piece of chicken and you put it on the fire. That is the way you do the melachah of of of bishul. How do you do the melachah of ketivah? Take a pen and you write a letter, that's ketivah. That has a ציור. Somebody asked you, describe to me, how do you do מלאכת תיקון כלי? Could be a billion ways, there's nothing, there's no ציור to the melachah. I could close the book. If that's the last thing to do when you make a book, closing the book is תיקון כלי. If it's if it's banging with a hammer, it's banging with a There's no ציור to it. So if there's no ציור, closing a book is a דבר המותר. What makes it into a melachah? The kavanah! If I'm not mitkaven, it's not the pshat I did a melachah without kavanah, I did no melachah! That's what the Alter Rebbe says. And therefore, he says, if the melachah of פתח here is תיקון כלי, if you're mitkaven for the דם and not for the פתח, so what is it? Not the pshat it's a פתח, which is a מלאכה שלא במתכוון, it's בכלל not a melachah! You didn't do anything because if you didn't mitkaven for תיקון כלי, it's not a melachah. That's what And then the Magid Mishneh goes בהמשך to that and says, according to this, you'll never be chayav according to Rabbi Shimon by פסיק רישא of תיקון כלי. Because what What does Rabbi Shimon say? You're chayav by פסיק רישא if the melachah was done, but אינו מתכוון. So what happens? If it's a פסיק רישא, you're chayav, even though you were not מתכוון. But by תיקון כלי if you're not מתכוון, you didn't do a melachah! So what what was what fell into פסיק רישא? פסיק רישא there is no melachah here! And therefore he says, you would not be chayav by פסיק רישא according to Rabbi Shimon by תיקון כלי. That's the Magid Mishneh's klal. פסיק רישא is when you do something that's מותר and a melachah is done, so if the melachah doesn't have to be done, it's אינו מתכוון, it's מותר. If the melachah has to be done, it's a פסיק רישא. So you're chayav even according to Rabbi Shimon. But if the melachah happens to be פסיק רישא, happens to be תיקון כלי, it has to be. No, there's no melachah. Since the פועל you were not מכוון. You're not מכוון, there is no melachah. So what's the pshat there is a פסיק רישא and you should be chayav? Chayav for what? Mila according to Rabbi Yehuda, אינו מתכוון is chayav. But the Rambam says according to Rabbi Yehuda also, if according to Rabbi Yehuda if you're not mechuvan by a פסיק by a תיקון כלי, you would be patur also, according to according to Maggid Mishneh, because there is no melachah. When does Rabbi Yehuda say you're chayav? If you do a melachah, the melachah is אינו מתכוון, you're chayav. But since you're not mechuvan, there is no melachah. Right, so you're not chayav. That's what it says. I want to say a chidush, a new peshat, that the Maggid Mishneh and the Alter Rebbe don't mean that we'll never say פסיק רישא by a תיקון כלי. If there is a פסיק רישא by a תיקון כלי, what it does is it makes the act from not a melachah into a melachah. If you're not mechuvan for a certain melachah, for תיקון כלי, it's not a melachah. But if the melachah has to happen, פסיק רישא, so the kavanah you had originally transfers to that melachah. The the kavanah you have, so then it turns it into a melachah. It does, not like we think from the Maggid Mishneh it doesn't. What the Maggid Mishneh means to say is, and it'll turn it into a melachah, but it'll remain מלאכה שלא במתכוון, and you won't be chayav. It'll remain a מלאכה שאינו מתכוון. I'll explain this a little in in a little bit better.

When we say according to Rabbi Shimon פסיק רישא you're חייב, אי, it's אינו מתכוון. Rabbi Shimon holds אינו מתכוון, but and you were not מכוון. The answer is very pashut. You were מכוון to take it from let's say the chair from here to there. You had כוונה, and you know that it must make a חריץ, so the כוונה you have from here transfers on the thing that you were not מכוון, and that and it's called כוונה. That's why you're chayav. So, I want to say the same thing by תיקון כלי, that since you know it's going to happen, you know that תיקון כלי will happen, so there is כוונה there. And if there is the כוונה from here transfers to there, and it turns into a מלאכה. But the כוונה doesn't do a double job. It can't turn it into a מלאכה and a מלאכה בכוונה, a מתכוון. What it will do is it'll turn it into a מלאכה and it'll remain a מלאכה שאינו מתכוון. So, but it'll be patur. You'll still be It'll still be mutar. When the Maggid Mishneh says that there is no חיוב according to Rabbi Shimon by פסיק רישא תיקון כלי, so normally we learn since you were not מכוון, it's not a מלאכה, and that's it. So, there's no פסיק רישא because there's no מלאכה. I'm saying the fact that it's פסיק רישא it does do one step: it changes it from not being a מלאכה if you wouldn't be a פסיק רישא, because it has no כוונה למלאכה. Since it's פסיק רישא, it becomes a מלאכה. But it doesn't do two things: that it should become, number one, a מלאכה and a מלאכה with כוונה. If it's a מלאכה from before by itself a מלאכה, then the פסיק רישא transfers the כוונה to the מלאכה and does what? Gives its כוונה. It's a מלאכה ומתכוון. Without it, it is a מלאכה שאינו מתכוון, now it's a מלאכה שמתכוון. So Rabbi Shimon says you're chayav. But if let's say something it's not a melachah to begin with, so the pesik reisha will change it from not melachah to yea melachah, but that's it. So Rabbi Shimon will hold it's still it's still mutar. And Rabbi Yehuda will say that you're chayav. Now it's a Now it's a melachah and a מלאכה שלא בכוונה, but according to Rabbi Yehuda, it's chayav. Right. Right. But according to Rabbi Shimon it makes a difference that it elevates it to the level of melachah. That's what That's what and that is נוגע to כמה ענינים in the din of תיקון כלי, which we might in other places later on talk about it. This is pshat there. This doesn't fit to Rashi, because Rashi doesn't learn that we're talking about the מלאכה of תיקון כלי here. Rashi in the Gemara learns we're talking about the מלאכה of פתח. This

logic that the Maggid Mishneh says concerning תיקון כלי could be said by other מלאכות also. For instance, the Merkavat HaMishneh wants to say it by מלאכת צידה. And it makes sense also. The Rebbe in a שיחה brings brings a מראה מקום. Trapping. And the logic is there too: when you close the door of your house, is it a מלאכה? No. If there happens to be an animal there that locking it up you're not letting it out, you're עובר on מלאכת צידה. So צידה is also one of the things that if you have כוונה, it's a מלאכה. If you don't have kavanah, not the peshat you did מלאכת צידה שאינו מתכוון. You didn't do a melachah. You locked the door. You what? The Rebbe brings re'ayot from Gemara that he's wrong. Merkavat HaMishnah is he brings re'ayot from different dinim that it's not true. By tzidah we don't say that. This logic, in other words, tzidah is a is a melachah even without kavanah. It's a מלאכה שאינו מתכוון. The Rebbe wants to say by keshirah, by making a קשר של קיימא, you have to make a kesher, and mi-d'oraita you only chayav