kesher. Kesher means to tie. Like, if it's not to stay, then you didn't tie, you put strings together. There's a difference between putting strings close to each other or making a tie. So if it's קיימא, then it's a kesher, if not, not. But anyway, what I'm trying to bring out, that you could say this sevara, even though the Magid Mishnah says about תיקון כלים, clearly it says about תיקון כלים, you could use this logic of other melachot, but you have to have a reason for it. I want to say that according to Rashi, by the melachah of binyan in the body, the logic applies. Binyan in a house is pashtet zich, whether you're mechaven or not, it's a melachah. If you're not mechaven, it's a מלאכה שאינה מתכוונת, אינה מתכוונת, but to make a binyan, a hole in the body and call it binyan, that's a chiddush, and Rashi needed a pasuk for it, ויבן את הצלע. So I want to say if you intend to make the binyan, that's a melachah. If you don't intend to make the binyan, to make the פתח, then it's not a melachah at all. And memeila it's not a melachah, what will be if it's a pesik reisha, according to the like the Magid Mishnah's sevara, it won't be considered. But according to what I said before, what we'll have to say is like this: that the pesik reisha makes it into a melachah, but it becomes a מלאכה שאינה מתכוונת. Okay. Now I

want to say that this is the pshat in the Gemara here. When the Gemara says that there is a sevara to say לדמו צריך, not for the פתח, he is not mechaven for the פתח, so the moment he is not mechaven for the פתח, the פתח is not a melachah. The פתח is not a melacha at all, because the פתח in the body to be a melacha, even according to Rashi, of מלאכת בנין, if you're not מכוון to it, there is no melacha. If there is no melacha, it has nothing to do with Rav Yehuda and Rav Shimon. Even according to Rav Yehuda, it should be mutar. So what does the Gemara say here? That if he's מכוון to the דם, not to the פתח, but according to Rav Yehuda he would be chayav? Why would he be chayav? So you know I say you know why? Because it's a pesik reisha. It's בפירוש a pesik reisha here, and the pesik reisha here is the reason why according to Rav Yehuda chayav, and according to Rav Shimon it's still mutar. איי, according to Rav Shimon a normal pesik reisha is chayav? But that's a pesik reisha when it's a melacha on its own. The pesik reisha elevates it from a מלאכה שאינה מתכוונת to a מלאכה שמתכוונת, but here, where it's not a מלאכה בעצם, and it's a pesik reisha, the pesik reisha makes it into a melacha, and that's when we come back to the מחלוקת of Rav Yehuda and Rav Shimon. So this is right Rashi, when Rashi says why it would be mutar according to Rav Shimon and asur according to Rav Yehuda, Rashi says: ומיהו על כורחך פתחא ממילא הוה. The פתח is going to happen al korchach, the question we asked before. Why when it when it says that it's mutar according to Rav Shimon and assur according to Rav Yehuda, Rashi hakt arayn that it has to happen the פתח? Why why is it important to mention it has to happen? Because if it wouldn't have to happen, then the whole Gemara wouldn't make sense! The Gemara, you couldn't say according to Rav Yehuda is chayav, because if it doesn't have to happen, it's not a melachah, it's אינו מתכוין, so Rashi says it has to happen. Then, when Rashi comes and asks whether it's a pesik reisha, Rashi's kashya is not it's a pesik reisha, because adrabah, see Rashi asked, since it's a pesik reisha, why would we say according to Rav Shimon it's mutar? Pesik reisha makes assur, but Rashi couldn't ask that, because here the pesik reisha makes it from not melachah to yeah melachah, and remains a מלאכה שאינה מתכוונת, it's mutar to Rav Shimon. So we

have to say that Rashi means a different kashya in pesik reisha. The kashya is like this: we keep on saying the whole time that the פתח is is is not really a מלאכה בעצם. בעצם it's we said because it's in the body, but if it's part of the ביאה, the whole גדר of ביאה is that a פתח must happen, the ביאה ראשונה the פתח must happen, then automatically, it should be whether you're מכוון or not מכוון, it should be a melachah, because that's something that you're intending to do the ביאה ראשונה, and ביאה ראשונה comes along with the idea of a פתח must happen, then automatically, why would we say that it's not a melachah? That's Rashi קשיא. Rashi says it's a פסיק רישא, meaning it has to happen, and not because of that Rav Shimon should hold chayav. Yeah, Rav Shimon should hold chayav, but for a different reason. Since it has to happen, it's a melachah anyway, and if it's a melachah anyway, then the פסיק רישא will make it a מלאכה שמתכוונת, that's Rashi קשיא. Or Rashi wants to tell us that in the answer is, you should know that it's not necessarily something that's part of the ביאה, והא ראיה, there are some people who do הטיה. Takeh when they do הטיה, there is no dam and there is no פתח, but still this just shows that making a פתח is not part of the ביאה, that's all it shows. And the moment it's not part of the ביאה, then automatically it's not a melachah. If it's not a melachah, then the פסיק רישא makes it into a melachah, and Rav Yehudah it's chayav, according to Rav Shimon it's mutar. So that's why, so the fact that it when dam it has to if you make a הטיה, it won't be dam and it won't be פתח, but it just shows you that that the concept of the פתח. This is the way Rashi learns. Tosafot doesn't learn like this.

Tosafot learns פשוטער פשט that this melachah of making a פתח is a binyan, and it's a binyan whether you're מכוון or not, even though it's a chiddush that there should be a binyan in the body, it's a it's a melachah anyway. And therefore, according to Tosafos, it doesn't have to be a psik reisha in order to To be a melachah. It's a melachah anyway. The only reason why it's patur according to Rabbi Shimon, because it's a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה. Comes Tosafos and asks a kashya, it's מלאכה ש- but it's a psik reisha, a regular kashya of psik reisha. So the only way Tosafos could answer is, it's not a psik reisha. It's not a psik reisha because you could have דם without פתח. So Tosafos asks a simple kashya of normal psik reisha. Rashi, but Rashi learns that a psik reisha here helps our situation. The fact is a psik reisha makes us understand the Gemara. That's what Rashi answers, and the only thing is, he asked, so why the psik reisha should show that it's part of the ביאה? So Rashi answers it's not like that. Now, since what we have to do is we're saying that the the ביאה the the פתח בעצם is not a melachah, it's only the psik reisha makes into a melachah. What would be if it would be a מקלקל? If it would be a מקלקל, then it's hard to say that the psik reisha should make it into a melachah. Why is it a melachah? A melachah because even though you're not מכוון, and this is a type of melachah that in order to be to make him to be a melachah you have to be mechaven. But the p'sik reisha is like you're mechaven. So it elevates it to a melachah. But if you if you want a mekalkel, if the whole idea this is a kilkul, if this is a kilkul, then the p'sik reisha will not elevate to a melachah, even though it's a p'sik reisha, but it's a p'sik reisha of a kilkul. And that's why the Gemara only asks the kashya here, according to Rashi. We asked, the other kashya was, why when the Gemara asks maybe it's a mekalkel, why did the Gemara only ask it after the Gemara said that it's לדם הוא צריך, and the פתח is memeila, and according to Rabbi Yehuda you're chayav, maybe it's a mekalkel? Why didn't the Gemara say lechatchilah, if you're mechaven to the פתח, it says it's asur, ay maybe it's a mekalkel? So I'm saying like the Ritva said, like the Rashba said anyway, no like the Ritva, that if you're mechaven to the פתח, since this is not a real kilkul, so then takeh the Gemara can't ask the she'eilah it should be mutar because it's mekalkel. But later on the Gemara asks the she'eilah like this: since now we're saying it goes according to Rabbi Yehuda, באמת he wants the דם, and he's not mechaven to the פתח. Cuz if you're מכוון to the פתח, you have two things. Normal it's a melachah, number one, and it's a מלאכה בכוונה, so you're chayav. And if it's a melachah, and a מלאכה בכוונה, this type of mekalkel will not make it mutar, cuz it's not real mekalkel. But later on when the Gemara says לדם הוא צריך and the פתח is memeila, so the פתח בעצם, since you're not מכוון to the פתח, it's not a melachah. The only thing that will make it into a melachah is pesik reisha, but even if with pesik reisha, but if it's a mekalkel, not a hundred percent mekalkel, but even a little bit of mekalkel is enough not to allow that this not melachah should turn into melachah. And that's why the Gemara asks, still you're going to say לדם הוא צריך, and the פתח comes also בדרך ממילא, and הלכה כרבי יהודה, and the only reason you'd be chayav according to Rabbi Yehudah is why? Because of the pesik reisha that turns it into a melachah, but be'etzem it's not a melachah, you are not מכוון, so it's not a melachah, the pesik reisha turns it, so here the Gemara, maybe it's mekalkel? And if it's mekalkel, we doubt that the pesik reisha will turn it into a melachah, and memeila it should be mutar. Ai it's a shvache mekalkel, but ממילא לגבי being a מלאכה מקלקל to be mutar this type of mekalkel wouldn't do it. But if it's a type of thing which is not a real melachah, and the pesik reisha makes it, here a little bit of mekalkel will do it. And that's why davka here, the Gemara asks this kashya.

According to this, many diyukim in Rashi, many inyanim in the whole sugya gets farentfert and musbar and the whole sugya goes smooth. This is just the tip of the... Yeah.