Here the Gemara in Shabbos דף צ״ב עמוד ב׳. Here the Mishnah talks about the din of שנים שעשוה. שנים שעשוה פטורים, you know if two people did a melachah together, they're both patur. But it's not so simple. There's a machloket here, three opinions, three shitot in the Gemara, and the Gemara goes through the details. The three shitot are like this: The beraita says: תניא: זה יכול וזה יכול, if two people together do a melachah, but each one was able to do it himself, רבי מאיר מחייב. Rabbi Meir says you are still chayav, even though each one could have done it himself, and b'foal they did it together, they're still chayav. ורבי יהודה ורבי שמעון פוטרין. Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon both say you're patur. זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול, if it's a case where they did a melachah together, and each one himself couldn't have done it, רבי יהודה ורבי מאיר מחייבין, ורבי שמעון פוטר. Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir say chayav, and Rabbi Shimon says patur. זה יכול וזה אינו יכול, דברי הכל חייב. If one is able to and the other one is not, and they did it together, so everyone agrees, and the

Gemara will explain that the one that is able to, he's chayav. So just to, and the other one is patur. So just from here it comes out that the three shitot are like this: Rabbi Meir holds that no matter what, whenever two people do a melachah together, they are chayav, even if it's זה יכול וזה יכול, even if each one could have done it himself, they're still each one chayav. Rabbi Shimon holds that they're always patur in both cases. If it's זה יכול וזה יכול—you have to here keep cheshbon the cases, not to confuse them—זה יכול וזה יכול, this guy could do it and this guy could do it, they're both patur. זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול, this guy can't do it and this guy can't do it, according to Rabbi Shimon they're also both patur. Rabbi Yehuda is the middle case. Rabbi Yehuda holds that by זה יכול וזה יכול, if they both could do it, then they're both patur. If it's זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול, if this guy can't do it and this guy can't do it, and they did it together, they're both chayav. And the Gemara is going to go into the, explaining where they take this din

from. What about a case where one could do it, one can't? And that's, everyone agrees. A case, that fourth case where one could do it and one not, everyone agrees that the one that could do it is chayav, the one that cannot do it is patur. Who's the first one, again? What was the middle? Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Meir says they're all chayav. Rabbi Shimon says they're all patur. It's the third person, it's only three cases. No, three opinions, I don't mean the cases. Three opinions. Three opinions on... Three opinions on three possibilities. And the Gemara goes in here: תנו רבנן, they bring a beraita, and it's all based on the pasuk, ״בעשתה״. The pasuk says, and the Gemara will explain, it says, ״ואם נפש אחת תחטא בשגגה מעם הארץ בעשתה״. If one person will sin בשגגה, ״בעשתה״, when he will do it, so we learn out from ״בעשתה״, העושה את כולה ולא העושה מקצתה. If you do the whole thing, you're chayav, but if you only do part of it, you are patur. כיצד? And the Gemara goes into the case here: שנים שהיו אוחזין במזלג וניכשו בקרקע, או בקולמוס וכתבו בו, בקנה והוציאו לרשות הרבים, two people holding on a fork, and they were doing a melacha with the fork, digging with the fork together. Now

here you have a case where it's זה יכול וזה יכול. This is very simple. I mean, it's a small thing with a fork, you don't have to be a big גיבור to do it. Or it says two people were holding a pen or a little small thing, and together they held on to it and they carried it out on Shabbos. So here, יכול יהו חייבין, I would think you're חייב, תלמוד לומר ״בעשתה״. The pasuk says ״בעשתה״, when you will do it, את כולה, העושה את כולה ולא העושה מקצתה. If you do the whole thing, you're chayav. If you do part of it, and in this case you only did part of it because together they did it. היה עיגול של דבילה והוציאו לרשות הרבים, קורה והוציאוה לרשות הרבים, an example if they took a big beam out into the רשות הרבים and they both together carried it, now here it's a case of זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול, no one could carry himself such a groise beam. So here, Rabbi Yehuda אומר, Rabbi Yehuda says, אם לא יכול אחד להוציאה והוציאוה שנים, if one couldn't do it, either one couldn't do it, and they did it together, chayavin, they're chayav. ואם לאו, but if it's a case where they could have done it each one separately, then they're patur. Who said this is the ״בעשתה״? We'll see in a minute, the Gemara will explain this. Rabbi Shimon אומר, Rabbi Shimon says, אף על פי שלא יכול אחד להוציאה והוציאוה שנים, even if they couldn't take out, neither one could have taken out himself, but they took it out together, they're also patur. לכך נאמר ״בעשתה״. And we know it's from ״בעשתה״. And the Gemara explain, ובמאי קמיפלגי? Where do they argue? What is their argument? And the Gemara said the argument בהאי קרא, on this pasuk. The pasuk says, ״ואם נפש אחת תחטא בשגגה מעם הארץ בעשתה״. So רבי שמעון סבר תלתא מיעוטי כתיבי. The גמרא דרשנ׳ס, רבי שמעון says there, everyone

says there are three mi'utim here, three words that are memate: ״נפש״, as if it would have said, ״נפש תחטא״, ״אחת תחטא״, ״בעשתה תחטא״. So we have three mi'utim that ״נפש״, one נפש means completely you, ״אחת״ is one, ״בעשתה״ is when you do it, three pesukim that... Tell you. So what does it come to teach us? That שתיים is always patur. Chad! So there comes three lemi'utin that tell you that if you do it together, you're patur. Now what are the three cases? So we have another case here which I haven't even mentioned before, which is זה עוקר וזה מניח. One does the akirah and one does the hanachah. So two people together made the whole melachah, but the difference between this and the other case, the other case we're talking about that two people together did the whole melachah. They both together picked it up, made the akirah, carried it out, made the hanachah. What happens if one does half and the other guy does the other half? That's the first and foremost case where you're patur, cause you didn't even do the whole thing, see, the other cases at least you participate. Even according to Rabbi Yehuda. So here everybody agrees, even according, everyone agrees, even Rabbi Meir, you mean, even according to Rabbi Meir. So here we, so he darash, so Rabbi Shimon says there are three pesukim. Chad, one למיעוטא זה עוקר וזה מניח, one comes to exclude that if one makes the עקירה and one makes the הנחה, you're patur. וחד למיעוטא זה יכול וזה יכול. One comes to be memay'et that if they both could do it, each one could have done it himself, and they did it together, that you're patur. וחד למיעוטא זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול, and one comes to exclude even if you each one can't do it, and this one can't do it. And that's where Rabbi Shimon gets his extreme opinion. So Rabbi Shimon holds that in all cases where you do it together you are patur, whether it's זה יכול וזה יכול or זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול. Now there is more reason by זה יכול וזה יכול to be patur than by זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול. So if the first miut will go for זה יכול וזה יכול, and both could do it, so we attribute the מלאכה more to you and more to to No, since both could do it, so the fact that I'm able to do it takes away from yours, and the fact that you're able to do it takes away from mine, so here is more reason to be patur than the case of זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול. In simple word by זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול each one did his maximum. So you would think more that in this case each one is chayav. Right. So lefoal you are patur, he says, but the seder of the three pesukim, the first and the simplest miut is for זה is זה עוקר וזה מניח. One makes an עקירה, one makes הנחה, that's for sure. Then patur. Comes the second miut, Rabbi Shimon says, that's for the next case: זה יכול וזה יכול, and you're also patur. And then the third miut is זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול, you're also patur. That's Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon, huh? If רבי שמעון שטייט נפש, אחת, אחת ולא שתיים. Nu, אחת ולא שתיים. That's נפש is is one and אחת Ja, but if the pasuk would say נפש אחת בעשותה Yeah. So instead to divide it in three times, why couldn't he Nu, then you have only one limud, no? What? Then we only have one limud. Ja, but his limud is that only when But we But we have one limud, it would only go for the simplest case. It will go only for זה עוקר וזה מניח, if we don't have the other limudim. Because whenever we have a choice of saying the limud goes But we would only think by זה עוקר וזה מניח. But because there you really two people are part, and no one did the whole thing. So we would say mistama it goes on that. Rabbi Yehuda, what does he hold? חד, takke one limud he says goes למיעוטא זה עוקר וזה מניח, one comes to exclude one making עקירה והנחה. חד למיעוטא זה יכול וזה יכול, one comes for the next case if each one could do it. וחד, the third one he says, that doesn't go for this בכלל, למיעוטא יחיד שעשה בהוראת בית דין. That if a person does a melacha because בית דין פסקנ'ד you're allowed to do it, or any aveirah, and later you found out that you're not allowed, בית דין changed their mind, they realized that they made a mistake, so the yachid does not bring a korban. The individual doesn't bring a korban. Who brings a korban? If anything, the whole community, בית דין will bring a korban, but not him. So we know, how do we know he doesn't bring a korban? From this last מיעוט. From the word that you do it, בעשותה, if you do it, but not if you this is not called you did it, because it's בית דין. So since he holds that the third limud comes for this, so he's only left with two limudim for שנים שעשוה. So which are the two limudim? One is for זה עוקר וזה מניח, and one is for זה יכול וזה יכול. Rabbi Why do they have here זה עוקר וזה מניח when we already learned that it is it is mutar? Where did we learn it earlier? From here or from different place? That's No. This is where we know it from. It's three At three people it was two people. Yeah. As far as lifting and moving. Yeah, yeah. Rabbi Shimon Now the question is on Rabbi Shimon now. We said Rabbi Shimon uses the third pasuk for זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול. So where does he know this דין that if a יחיד did בהוראת בית דין he's פטור? Rabbi Shimon holds that יחיד שעשה בהוראת בית דין חייב! He takeh doesn't hold פטור. He doesn't have a מיעוט and he takeh doesn't hold פטור. So it's a a total extreme. And all's do, and all that פטור, נאר בכלל אליין, אבער יחיד is חייב. Yeah, this has has nothing to do, יחיד and בית דין, it's a different דין. And Rabbi Meir, we said before Rabbi Meir מאיר holds that even by זה יכול וזה יכול, you're חייב. Because he טענה'ט: מי כתיב נפש תחטא, אחת תחטא, בעשותה תחטא? You have three לימודים! Ai ta'aneh, he says, תרי מיעוטי כתיב, it's only two מיעוטים. Ai ta'aneh there are two מיעוט, and since there are two מיעוטים, חד למיעוטא זה עוקר וזה מניח, one goes for זה עוקר וזה מניח, וחד למיעוטא יחיד שעשה בהוראת בית דין. And one goes for a יחיד who did בהוראת בית דין. And I have no מיעוט for not even for זה יכול וזה יכול. So here in the Gemara we have the the reasons from the פסוקים how you דרשן the three the דרשות whether you're a חייב, when you're a חייב, when you're a פטור, and we come out with these three שיטות. Again, that according to Rabbi Shimon you're פטור by זה יכול וזה יכול and זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול. According to Rabbi Yehuda you're פטור only by זה יכול וזה יכול and you're chayav by זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול, and according to Rabbi Meir you're chayav in all three cases. Now, besides having the limudim from the pesukim, usually we have sevarot, reasons why each one would darshan the pasuk the way he darshes it. In other words, we find that in all the sefarim, we find it in the Rebbe when he explains different inyanim. So even though there is a reason in the Gemara for a certain shita, but the Rebbe always comes out with a sevara behind it. Always בית שמאי בית הלל, כח הפועל. Every time there's a machloket Beit Shammai Beit Hillel, the Gemara brings pesukim: he darshes the pasuk like this, he darshes the pasuk like this. But the רבי טענה'ס that there always has to be a reason behind it, which is the hasvara in why he darshes the pesukim, because you could darshan it like this, you could darshan like this, there must be he has a sevara how to hold. So there must be a sevara. So we have to go into here and see what is the hasvara in the machloket here between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon. So the hasvara, and this is all I'm going to explain is the hasvara in the machloket, the hasvara in the machloket could be based on this. When we say that שנים שעשו פטורין, that when two people, this general concept, that if two people do it, each one is patur, there are two ways to look at it. You could look at it that in order to be chayav, you have to do the whole melachah. And therefore if two people did it, you didn't do the whole melachah. So therefore you are not chayav, the other guy is not chayav either. You could look at it a different way. To be chayav, it'll sound the same thing, but you'll see it's not. To be chayav, you don't have to do the whole melachah. The fact that somebody else participated patur's you from your melachah, from your chiyuv. So the question is here, is the pshat that when two people do it, there is no you are not chayav, you didn't do it in a way which causes you a chiyuv, or the pshat is פארקערט, מצד you, there is a chiyuv, but because you don't have to do the whole melachah to be chayav, but the fact that somebody else האט זיך אריינגעהאקט, he saved you. Dos heist, is it, we'll always use the same leshonot because it's the same, is it העדר or is it שלילה? Is the pshat that without when you do it with somebody else, according to the first way, it's העדר, there is no chiyuv. העדר means lack, and שלילה means to take away. There is a lack of chiyuv, you didn't do it in a way that you should get to the point of chiyuv. And the other way is, what you did is chiyuv, but somebody else came and קריכט אריין in your in your thing, and he patur'd you from it, because if somebody else does it, he takes away your chiyuv. And I always use the example, and I'll use it again. In the yeshivah if I would have mentioned, say: nu tell me, adrabah what is it? But here past nisht to say it. Adrabah, I would say it. It's בנוגע the modeh, just an example from a different sugya altogether: מודה בקנס ואחר כך באו עדים. This example I always use, because this brings it out very clear. מודה בקנס the din is that if a person himself admits, in the case of knas, there are certain things you have to pay because it's payment. If you borrow money, you have to pay, you owe the money. If you're mazik somebody, you have to pay because you caused them damage, you have to pay. Then there are things that the Torah is mechayev a person as a קנס. It's a fine. Le-mashal when you steal, you have to pay כפל, double. You steal a hundred dollars, you have to pay two hundred. So the first hundred you pay because you stole, you have to give it back. What's the other hundred? Other hundred is קנס, it's a fine. But the דין by קנס is מודה בקנס פטור, that if you are מודה yourself, if instead of instead of עדים, be careful what you say because said before the עדים, if עדים didn't come, and you yourself come to בית דין and say, \"Listen here, I stole,\" בית דין will tell you, \"Pay only one, you don't pay the קנס. מודה בקנס פטור.\" What happens if you came to בית דין and you were מודה, and then עדים came? מודה בקנס ואחר כך באו עדים, then עדים came, is a מחלוקת in Bava Kama between Rav and Shmuel. Rav says מודה ואחר כך באו עדים חייב, and Shmuel says פטור. He says that since the עדים came now you're חייב. He says, \"No, you were מודה and מודה is פטור.\" What is the reason for the מחלוקת? So the Rogatchover explains it very geshmak. He says, it's not a מחלוקת in מודה בקנס ואחר כך באו עדים whether you're חייב or פטור, it's really a מחלוקת in what is the פשט מודה בקנס פטור. When we'll understand why מודה בקנס פטור we'll understand. And he says there are two ways to learn מודה בקנס פטור. You could learn that when a person is מודה בקנס you're not there is no if עדים came. If you're busted, like they say, if עדים came. As long as עדים didn't come, there is no חיוב קנס. Not that you're פטור from a קנס. There's nothing to obligate you to pay קנס. Never, yeah, as far as קנס is concerned, it never happened. We know that you stole. והא ראיה, the first half the first hundred you'll have to pay. And it is because הודאת בעל דין כמאה עדים דמי. We know that you stole, but nevertheless the דין is that קנס, you only pay if עדים come. That's one way to learn why מודה בקנס פטור. The other way to learn is מודה בקנס פטור not because you are not חייב קנס unless there are עדים. You are חייב קנס for stealing! And we know you stole. You were מודה. The Torah said that because you're a nice guy, you did teshuvah, whatever, you're מודה, the תורה חס רחמנא עליה, the Torah took רחמנות and took off the קנס. No, that I don't know that's like It doesn't say in the לשון here. Other things says תקנת השבים. But here it's from the Torah. מודה בקנס פטור is a דין in de'oraita. So That's one wait that's one way to learn that regardless of עדים you are חייב קנס for the מעשה, but so why takeh is the דין מודה בקנס פטור? Cuz the Torah said, if you were מודה, the Torah takes off the קנס. For the stealing you have to pay קנס, the Torah took it off. The first way is not because the Torah It never came to חייב קנס. So according to the first way, מודה בקנס פטור is a העדר, there is no חיוב קנס, and the second way it's a שלילה, there is a חיוב קנס and the Torah was שולל. What will come out the difference? The difference will be מודה בקנס ואחר כך באו עדים. If you're modeh in קנס and then the עדים came. According to the first way, since מודה בקנס is only patur because there is no reason to chiyuv, why is there no reason? Because עדים hasn't come. So when the עדים come, now you're chayav. So that's why מודה בקנס ואחר כך באו עדים חייב. According to the second way, you're chayav קנס, אלא the Torah took it off. So what will the עדים help? The עדים will come and what will they do? They'll מחייב you קנס? No, I was chayav already! Ela mai? I was chayav and the Torah took it off. So what will happen, so then מודה בקנס ואחר כך באו עדים is patur. So this is just, I used as an example. Huh? Ah yeah, I think so. Exactly. Except that we don't know if he stole. Yes, we do. He was modeh. Yes, we do, בנידון דידן. He obligates himself to pay, but it doesn't mean הודאת בעל דין כמאה עדים. כמאה, but not No, good, that's The truth is, even if you learn that, say, whether it's say, whether it's נאמנות, the Ketzos, whether it's נאמנות or it's let's say But even if it's התחייבות חדשה, it's still the pshat, מצד his chiyuv, we know that you did We know that What did That's why he's chayav. Right, but if he is modeh, so he was chayav and the Torah פטר him, so the עדים won't do anything. So על דרך זה, you could say the same thing, is it a chiyuv is it a העדר or a שלילה, the pshat when you do it two together. You could learn that the pshat is, one way is, that as long as you didn't do the whole thing, you are patur, you are never chayav, because to be chayav you have to do the whole thing. If you did it together with somebody else, you're patur. Or no, there's no din that you have to do the whole melachah yourself. So as far as you're concerned, what you did, you were part of the melachah, you're chayav. Ela mai, somebody else who helped you is שולל, takes away the chiyuv. The Torah made that if someone else takes away your chiyuv. Now this could be the machloket here between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Shimon will learn, Rabbi Yehuda will learn like this, Rabbi Yehuda will learn like this: He will learn that the second way, that a second guy takes away your chiyuv. To be chayav, you don't have to do the whole thing. If you do even part, you're chayav. If the other guy gets involved in what you did, it's patur. And therefore he says like this: By זה יכול וזה יכול, that other guy got involved in my department. Since I was able to do the whole thing, and he did also part, so he took away my chiyuv. So since I hold that taking away my the other guy takes away my chiyuv, so he says, by זה יכול וזה יכול, the other guy took away my chiyuv. By זה אינו יכול If he took away your chiyuv, then he's chayav. No, no. He spoiled it for you, he's not chayav either for the same reason. He's the first

Wait a minute, what about me? I took away his chiyuv! What? I took away his chiyuv. We're both the same. Takes away, doesn't take it to himself. Spoils his chiyuv. No one, everyone, there's nobody here that's responsible. Why? They're both guys He has a point. If he took away another chiyuv, now he has two chiyuvim. No, it doesn't take it to himself! You think it takes his chiyuv to himself, takes his sickness away and puts it on himself? He doesn't allow his chiyuv to happen. He takes the The chiyuv that's on him, because he came in, so he spoiled this chiyuv. He spoiled his chiyuv. He also did it, and he's also a יכול. Because what I'm saying is is יכול, two יכול's, each one gets into the other guy's domain! Since I could do the whole thing, so I'm doing the whole thing, and he came in, he's taking away. So therefore, if they're two, each one is a יכול, זה יכול וזה יכול, each one gets involved in the other guy, takes it away. So when so, okay, whatever. Shabbos, and I'll I'll call you. Come out of your house, take this, and then you'll throw it in... 100%, yeah. We're both patur? Yeah. You're עובר מדרבנן, but you're פטור מדאורייתא, exactly. עובר מדרבנן. Yeah, but you're always patur mid'oraita. Always patur mid'oraita. There's no חיוב חטאת. Yeah, there is no חיוב חטאת, there's no סקילה, because if it's במזיד, you're patur. Hachi nami. Lot of such, lot of things. If I'm going to carry something, I'll be עוקר, you'll be I'll ask you to be מניח, and I will be patur. Sure. It's always like that, seriously. So, so Rabbi Yehuda, no, we're trying not to. So, Rabbi Yehuda says, ד' אמות. Huh? You could throw it a thousand feet, everyone's within ד' אמות. Huh? Yeah, yeah. Cuz no one did anything. No, nothing was done. Not only no one did, it never happened. Melachah never happened. ודאי משום, thats why they say Yeah, yourself you can't. To put it down and then take pick it up again, now that's can, but to give to people, you could. So

according to him, so by זה יכול וזה יכול, since they're both gekrochen garin in the other guy's domain, so they're both patur. By זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול, since this guy couldn't do it, so he did as much as he could, and he did as much as he could, so they're both chayav. Two people did it, we're going now according to the sevara that there's no problem if you do don't do the whole thing. The whole reason why שנים שעשו פטורים, because that guy spoils it for you. But by זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול, no one spoiled it for you, because what he did is not kriching to you. מה שאין כן by זה יכול וזה יכול, he is kriching to you, that's why over there you're patur. This is the shittah of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yehuda. And the shittah of Rabbi Shimon will be the other way. The shittah of Rabbi Shimon is going to be that the reason for the melachah the reason for שנים שעשו is because in order to be chayav, you have to do the whole thing yourself. So in that case, what's the difference? No, that's the limud. I understand the pesukim. Say, but the sevara, not the pesukim. So he will hold the other way, that why is שנים שעשו פטור? Not because you did, you're chayav, and the other guy takes away from you. There is a din that in order to be chayav, you have to do the whole melachah. No, not that melachah. You have to do it yourself, that word melachah. You have to do it yourself. You have to do it yourself. So therefore, if you have to do it yourself, In the case of זה יכול וזה יכול, you didn't do it yourself. In the case of זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול, you didn't do it yourself. Yeah, yeah, but I don't want to get, that could be another inyan here. But I'm saying so so if you hold that you cannot be chayav unless you do yourself, you have to do the whole thing, and in this case, you didn't, because you did it together. So, he says, so what's the difference if it's זה יכול וזה יכול, or זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול? It's the same thing. And therefore, he says that you are patur in in both cases. Now, Rabbi Meir says

Rabbi Meir says different. Rabbi Meir holds that as long as you were involved in the melachah, you are משתתף in the melachah, you're chayav. האט צו געטין די מלאכה. Yeah, since the melachah was done and you were involved in the melachah, that's why you're chayav. See, by זה עוקר וזה מניח, over there also the melachah was done, but there he says, \"No, because you weren't משתתף in the whole melachah.\" You lechatchilah only did part, but when you two people do together the whole thing, so you were משתתף in every part of the melachah, and the melachah was done, so there here Rabbi Meir says you're chayav. So Rabbi Meir says you're chayav by זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול, by זה יכול וזה יכול, and the only place you're patur is by זה עוקר וזה מניח. What about זה יכול וזה אינו יכול? By זה יכול וזה אינו יכול, everyone will agree, because since I'm a יכול, I did the whole thing. And the other guy didn't do anything. So, whichever way we're going to learn, when there's a זה יכול, the other guy takes away. זה אינו יכול doesn't take away, but עכ״פ I didn't do the whole thing, because I'm אינו יכול. See, זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול, I I didn't do the whole thing, that's for sure. I couldn't do the whole thing. The she'eilah is am I patur or chayav? So, if you say that I have to be do the whole thing to be chayav, I would be patur. If as I don't have to do, the other guy shouldn't take away, it doesn't to be patur. But, in this case of זה יכול וזה אינו יכול, So the זה אינו יכול can't go left. The Gemara says, \"taka, what do you mean he didn't do a- anything? But he's a מסייע?\" Said the Gemara, \"מסייע אין בו ממש.\" מסייע means he helped. The Gemara, \"Helping doesn't count.\" We pasken מסייע אין בו ממש, so he didn't do anything. If he didn't do anything, so the יכול did the whole thing, so the יכול is chayav no matter which way we're going to taytsh the melachot. The יכול did the whole thing, the אינו יכול didn't do anything, so the יכול is chayav, the אינו יכול is patur. Now, this that we're saying that if it's a case of זה אינו יכול וזה זה יכול וזה יכול, according to Rabbi Yehuda, you're patur, because the other guy takes away from this guy. So, I just want to clarify, what does he take away? Does he take away from the melacha? From the other guy's the melacha? Or does he take away from the other guy's chiyuv? Or does he take or does he take away from the other guy's chiyuv? Chiyuv, chiyuv. This will be nafka mina. Who cares what what word we'll call, it plainly is taking away. This will be the yesod could be to the chakirah, the she'eilah, safek of the Shabbos Shel Mi. A Sefer Shabbos Shel Mi on the Gemara, and the Shabbos Shel Mi has a she'eilah here: What happens by, למשל, זה יכול וזה יכול, and the second guy is a גוי? Or the second guy is a קטן, who is not chayav. So that's his she'eilah. The she'eilah is, will this first guy be chayav or not? What's the yesod of his she'elah? This is the yesod of his she'elah. The yesod of the she'elah is since we're and I'm saying this Right! That's the vort. If the goy takes away from his melachah, so a goy took away from his melachah. The goy took the melachah, part of the melachah. If the vort is take away from his chiyuv, a goy or a katan cannot take cannot do a chiyuv. So, the she'elah is according we're saying according to Rabbi Yehudah. According to according to Rabbi Shimon, there's no problem. Cuz according to Rabbi Shimon it's not because it takes away, it's because I didn't do the whole thing. But according to Rabbi Yehudah He doesn't taytsh like that. He He says the שאלה סתם. I'm trying to say according to the biur that I'm giving, so according to Rabbi Shimon there's no she'elah, but if according to Rabbi Yehudah that it takes away, does he take away from the chiyuv or does he take

away from the melachah? Now, Which conditions? One is with a goy and the other is with a So, what happens one is with a kohen and one is with a Levi? That's like a big difference! We don't go like that! It's only because of the chiyuv! What happens one guy is tall and one guy is short? I mean, this makes We have to look, is there, in halachah, is there a difference? If you say take away from the melachah, what's the difference if a Yid or a goy? He's still helping him in the melachah, and he's taking away from his doing the melachah, he didn't do the whole melachah. Or or, but if it's chiyuv, he is not having a chiyuv. A katan doesn't have a chiyuv. That's his she'elah! Does two people mean any two people, or two people mean, and even a goy, or two people could mean davka a Yid? But it has to be a reason why it would be mechalek between a Yid and a goy. So the reason would be, is it the chiyuv, or is it is it the melachah? Now, this could be talui in many, many things, and that's where I'm going to go into many peratim, how you could say, back and forth, its toldot. Number one, I want to say this depends on another she'eilah: Even if we're going to say, takes away from the melachah, let's say take away from the chiyuv, you say the goy takes away, a goy can't, a katan can't. But from the melachah, a goy could or a katan. I want to say that even if we're going to say that it takes away from the melachah, it's also not so pashut. Now I'll tell you why: It depends in a different she'eilah. I once explained that there is a she'eilah that the Avnei Nezer clarifies: What is the geder of melachah on Shabbos? Is this Is it מלאכה בשבת, or is it מלאכה דשבת? מלאכה בשבת. What does that mean? Is the peshat that the issur is melachah, and when is the מלאכה אסור? The zman is Shabbos. Or the combination of Shabbos and melachah together is asur. Al derech like by חמץ בפסח. He says the same chakirah: Is the איסור חמץ on Pesach, or is the איסור חמץ and Pesach together? Zot omeret, is the פשט חמץ is the חפצא של איסור, the object is chametz, and when is the zman? On Pesach it's assur. Or the the object is חמץ בפסח, the combination of the chametz with the Pesach? He says a nafka mina. The nafka mina would be is חמץ בפסח called a דבר שיש לו מתירין? We know that חמץ בפסח is אסור במשהו, it's not בטל בששים. The question is why. So, pashut the din is a דבר שיש לו מתירין, אפילו באלף לא בטיל. Any issur that today is assur, but a time will come that on its own it'll become mutar, even while it's assur, it doesn't become batel. So, some say that the reason why חמץ בפסח is אסור במשהו is because it's a דבר שיש לו

מתירין, cuz after Pesach it'll become mutar. Huh? Yeah, miderabbanan, yeah, miderabbanan, so miderabbanan. Now, some say that it's not that's not the reason. And חמץ בפסח is not called a דבר שיש לו מתירין. And why is חמץ במשהו? Why doesn't it become batel? Because chametz is chamur. The rabbanan said, since chametz has an issur of בל יראה ובל ימצא, you can't even own it, chametz is אסור בהנאה, חמץ a חיוב כרת, so the chachamim were machmir and said אסור במשהו. The question is why would this shitah hold that it's not a דבר שיש לו The Rambam holds it's a דבר שיש לו מתירין. The Mordechai says it's not a דבר שיש לו מתירין. Why not? After Pesach it will become mutar! So פשוט פשט is פשוט פשט because next year Pesach, it will become asur again! דבר שיש לו מתירין means that it's it's asur now and it'll become mutar forever. If you'll hold it for a time and it'll become Pesach again, it'll become asur, so it's not called a דבר שיש לו מתירין. That's what the פשוט פשט is. The Avnei Nezer gives a different פשט. He says the she'eilah is, is the איסור חמץ and the zman is Pesach, according to that, chametz on Pesach it's asur, after Pesach, the same chametz will become mutar, so it's a דבר שיש לו מתירין. If you hold the issur is חמץ בפסח, the combination is חמץ בפסח, חמץ בפסח is always asur, there's no such thing. איי, after Pesach? After Pesach, it'll be a different object! It's not חמץ בפסח anymore, it's chametz! על דרך like I always use the example בשר בחלב. Could someone say, you know, basar is asur, but you know when? then if it's mixed with chalav, that doesn't make any sense. בשר בחלב together make up an issur. Same thing here, chametz with Pesach together make up an issur. The same thing is לגבי שבת. You could say that a melachah is a melachah. When is the מלאכה אסור? בשבת. That means that the melachah in the weekdays and the melachah on Shabbos is the same melachah, but this is the zman when it's assur. או you could say, you say he says this, the issur is מלאכה בשבת together as a combination. לפי זה, the whole if the issur will be מלאכה בשבת, by a goy there is no such thing as מלאכה בשבת. So the goy won't even take away from the melachah. We're saying that if a goy it takes if it's the chiyuv that he takes away, so a goy can't take away, but if it's the melachah that he could. Depends, if the issur is מלאכה, אלא מאי בשבת it's assur, the goy it's not assur, but the melachah is the same for a Yid and for a goy, so the goy takes away from the Yid. But if you're going to say the איסור מלאכה בשבת and there is no such thing by a goy as מלאכה בשבת, so the goy doesn't take anything away. So according to this, whether it's the chiyuv or it's the melachah that he's, a goy can't. Now what about a katan? Can a katan take away? So we're saying lichora He he mentions both together, a goy and a katan. Now a katan we're saying also l'chorah the same shailah: if it takes away from the מלאכה, a goy a katan takes away from the מלאכה; if it takes away from Shabbos from the chiyuv, a katan doesn't take away. Is that so pashut? It's also not so pashut, because is the pshat that a katan is not a part of the chiyuv? There's a big chakirah, also the Rebbe has it in a certain place, מבאר when a katan is patur, is the pshat that a katan is not בגדר מצוות? He's not he's like a גוי, לגבי מצוות like a goy, or pshat is that a katan is בגדר מצוות, אלא מאי he's patur. Be'emet, the same shailah is with נשים by מצוות עשה שהזמן גרמא, those מצוות, is she not in that גדר בכלל, לגבי her it's like a goy, she's allowed to, it doesn't have a chiyuv, or she's בגדר, and the תורה פטר her. But לגבי a katan it's even a bigger shailah. Only Kleinlehrer could be dragged in. Why? Why are you mindful of that now or something, yeah? He's talking about these combinations. וואס ביטע פאר א קטן? הא, וואס? לאמיר גיין ווייטער. Shalom Aleichem, לאמיר גיין, לאמיר גיין, לאמיר גיין ווייטער. So if we're going to say that a katan is not בגדר חיוב of Torah, then a katan is like a goy. So then therefore, if the if we say that the taking away is taking away from the chiyuv, a katan cannot take away from the chiyuv because he's not a בר חיובא. If we're saying a katan is בגדר חיוב, אלא מאי סוף כל סוף is now, b'foal, he's patur, so he is a גדר בר חיובא, so he could take away the chiyuv, so b'foal he could take away the chiyuv. Now let's go vayter. Even if we'll say that a katan is not בגדר חיוב, we could go a step further. We know by Shabbos, like we mentioned, but a little more, by Shabbos there's a special דין, ישבות, it says that in a pasuk that you should rest, אתה ובנך ובתך ועבדך ואמתך, you and all kinds of dinim it says. And one of the things that mentions your child, and the Gemara asks what does it mean your child? If it means a child after bar mitzvah, that's you! That's אתה, it says you can't, you are, ela mai it is a child under bar mitzvah. Now there and it says also your eved. There is a she'elah also in a different place look at the sichot that the Rebbe clarifies on this din that your eved is not allowed to do a melachah on Shabbos. Actually, your behemah is not allowed to do a melachah on Shabbos. So he clarifies a she'elah like this: is it a din on the eved, or is it a din on the adam? Dos heyst azoy, that's for sure an eved is not חייב, or a בהמה is not חייב במצוות, you are responsible, that's for sure. But the שאלה is, is this a דין that the תורה wants you to rest so much that even your בהמה should rest, or the תורה wants your בהמה to rest and puts the responsibility on you because there is no responsibility on the בהמה? The same thing is by the by the קטן. When you say that the תורה said that you shouldn't let your קטן do a מלאכה, is this a שאלה the תורה doesn't want the קטן to do, you're responsible, or lechatchilah it's on you? תורה wants you to rest so far not to allow your child to do, but the child itself not. If we say it's a דין on the child, then the child is בגדר חיוב. Even if in other מצוות he's not, by שבת there's a special דין בנך. If you say it's a דין on the father, that it's in him, so the child himself is not בגדר חיוב. Then we can go a step further. How come say the child is בגדר חיוב? Huh? It never comes into effect. Yeah, yeah, but בגדר, not בגדר בפועל, but he is called that he is in this category that he could take away my חיוב. Only a בר חיוב could take away my חיוב. The שאלה is, is he called a בר חיובה? That's an awkward line on תורה wants you to rest, or you want to rest so much on שבת Yeah, yeah. that you force Yeah, yeah, because he's your your your child or your animal. Not so much for him. No, that's another person, but this is your child. He has to rest because you want to rest. Right, because not you want, the תורה wants. תורה wants you to rest. says that you shouldn't allow any of a any thing in your in your household should do should do מלאכה. No, it's part of you. Anything that belongs to you should be because of you. You have to rest so far, don't allow anything. Or the תורה wants that thing to rest, and you are responsible to make sure it happens. Now, what

I say, even if the חיוב is on you, still, it's a possible to go a step further and say that the חיוב transfers to the child also. And that's based on another שאלה. There is, in a different, all these things are different חקירות that the רבי clarifies in Likkutei Sichos. In one place in Likkutei Sichos, חלק ז׳, there's a very geshmacke inyan there. He talks there about the mitzvah of chinuch. Mid'rabbanan, it says mid'rabbanan. But the mitzvah of chinuch is like this. Is the, it's machlokes Rashi and Tosafos, Ran and Ramban. Is the mitzvah of chinuch, on the child, or on the father? גזירה שוה It's not a גזירה שוה. The father has to make sure the child does it, but is the mitzvah on the child himself mid'rabbanan, or on the father? Now I'll tell you his machlokes. Rashi, the nafka minah will be very pashut. The din is that in order to be motzi somebody with a bracha, you have to be the same mechuyav as him. So therefore, if a child eats and an adult eats, and the child is going to bentch, he can be motzi the the father, or the adult, cuz the adult is mechuyav mid'oraita, the child become mid'rabbanan. Now, the din mid'oraita is that you only have to bentch when you ate כדי שביעה. You ate full. If you ate and you're not full, but you ate כזית or כביצה, you don't have to bentch mid'oraita, you only have to bentch mid'rabbanan. So the she'eilah will be if you have a קטן, if a קטן ate and he's going to bentch, and you only ate כזית, and you're not full, so מדאורייתא you don't have to bentch, and your chiyuv is mid'rabbanan, and his chiyuv mid'rabbanan, can he be motzi you? So Rashi learns, yes, he can be motzi you. אב מברך, הבן מברך לאביו. Why? Because he's mechuyav miderabbanan, and you're mechuyav miderabbanan, he could be motzi derabbanan. Comes Tosafot and says, beferush not! Because not this child is mechuyav, it's a chiyuv on the father to make the child do it. Now, the Rebbe comes there and asks a she'eilah, how could there be a shita that there's a chiyuv on the child? How could the Rabbanan put a chiyuv on the child? Right. So the Rebbe says, peshat, a new peshat, that even the one that holds a chiyuv on the child, it's not because there's a chiyuv on the child. The Torah, the chachamim put a chiyuv on the father. But since the father has to do the, mechanech his child, his child should do it, the lashon he used, trogt zich ariber the chiyuv, from the father to this child, and the child is called a מחוייב בדבר. And he brings that there's a machloket in many places in the Rambam and the Ran. He brings the different halachot, where the Rambam learns that's a trogt zich ariber and the other. I'll give you an example where he says it. He says it לגבי חיוב שמחה. We know that Yom Tov, there's a chiyuv to bring שלמי שמחה. What about a woman? So the Gemara says, אשה, בעלה משמחה. Her husband has to mesame'ach her. So obviously she doesn't have a חיוב שמחה. The Rambam says, אשה מחוייבת במצוה זו. Mamash she's mechuyav? How is she mechuyav if it says only the בעלה משמחה? Ela mai there is a Gemara where the Gemara uses the lashon, says לגבי, if a child, the father has to take his child לעליה לרגל. Anyway, and Jerusalem. Anyone asks, עד היכן, how did he till now how did he come? The mother brought him. So the mother also had to come to Jerusalem. What if, and the

mother says, מחוייב בשמחה, the Gemara says. But the Gemara says, אשה בעלה So the Rambam learns, באמת, the chiyuv is on the husband to be משמח her. But he could fulfill his chiyuv only if she participates. Memila, she becomes a מחוייב בדבר. That the Rebbe brings a Charedim. The Charedim says that even though the mitzvah of Birkat Kohanim is only on the Kohen, not on the Yidden to listen, but because the Kohen can't be mekayem his mitzvah unless he has somebody to be מתברך, so we are מחוייב. פריה ורביה is the same thing. He can't do it without him. That's the Ran. The Rebbe brings the Ran. When the Gemara says, מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו, and it's a bigger mitzvah if she takes קידושין herself, than a shaliach, fregt the Gemara, if she could take through a shaliach. No, the Gemara says, אשה מקדשת בו ובשלוחה, she could take herself, or a shaliach. Fregt the Gemara, if she could take through a shaliach, why do you have to tell me she could take herself? That's obvious. To tell you, mitzvah, it's a bigger mitzvah on her. Fregt the Ran, she has bichlal no mitzvah. What do you mean it's a bigger mitzvah? פריה ורביה is only a mitzvah on the husband, not on the on the wife. So the Ran says, because she helps the husband do his mitzvah, and here it's, he cannot do his mitzvah without her, she is called also mekayem a mitzvah. It's called What if they already were פרו ורבו? Huh? What if they already were פרו ורבו? There's suck a no mitzvah, even on him either. Right. Even on him there is no mitzvah, yeah. So we

come out from here, so the Rebbe says the same thing by chinuch. That by chinuch the mitzvah is on the father to be mechanech the son, and therefore, טראגט זיך אריבער that the son is considered מחוייב בדבר. All this is based on a Tzemach Tzedek. The Rambam says that a father is מחוייב מדאורייתא to teach his child Torah. All the other mitzvot the father is מחוייב מדרבנן to teach his child, except Torah. Then the Rambam says, מי שלא לימדו אביו, if his father didn't teach him, חייב ללמד את עצמו. He has to teach, learn himself כשיכיר. כשיכיר means when he starts recognizing. Before he is a gadol. Fregt דער Tzemach Tzedek, how could it be that mechuyav as a katan? So דער Rambam, so the Alter Rebbe says, so the Tzemach Tzedek says, that because מדאורייתא the father is mechuyav to teach his son, so mimela it's נמשך on the child that the child as a katan is mechuyav. I always tell the story that once when Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky came to the yeshiva here, remember I was driving him. So in the car on the way, we're talking in learning, so we came to talk about this Rambam. So I told him the Tzemach Tzedek. He says, Zeyer gut. So we came to the yeshiva, he says, I have to see the Tzemach Tzedek. So I showed him the Tzemach Tzedek, and he was very happy to see it. A few weeks later, I get a call from my wife's aunt, from my shver's sister, Miriam, Mrs. Feldman, she is a very... She calls with an excite... She was by a bris in Monsey, and Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky was by the bris, and Rav Yaakov spoke. And he spoke and he's... She doesn't understand what he's saying, but he spoke about a Rambam. And he said, \"All my life, I didn't understand this Rambam till I came to Miami,\" he said, \"and I came to the Lubavitcher yeshiva, and I spoke to Harav Shapira,\" mentioned my name, \"and he showed me the Tzemach Tzedek and is it... עס האבן געלאכטן די אויגן,\" he said. \"This vort, that it's it's nimshach.\" But

על כל פנים, נחזור לעניננו, let's go back to our inyan, the same thing here also. Even if you'll say that the chiyuv is on Shabbos, that the father, it's a din on the father, on this. But because the father has to do the chiyuv, how can he be mekayem his chiyuv, that the son should not do melachah, because if the son will participate in not do, so we can call the son a mechuyav. And therefore, a katan, according to this, would be part of the chiyuv. And therefore, if the katan does it, he does take away from the first. So the real nafka mina would only be בנוגע a goy. But if you say it takes away from the melachah, not from the chiyuv, then even a goy take away, unless we say that the melachah of a goy is a different melachah than a Yid, because by a Yid, it's מלאכה בשבת, and by a goy, it's not. A kohen or levi? You say that the kid... No, what you asked before stam, what's a goy, what's the difference? I said that is there a difference, a kohen or a levi, whoever he is? If it's a chiyuv, there is a difference. That's all I said. What about that, doesn't a child have an obligation for kibbud av va'em? So his father has to educate him, and he has kibbud av va'em. As a child? As a child, also. How does he have a chiyuv as a child? Kibbud av va'em is on him. Is that mid'oraita as a child? No. איז גארנישט... וואס איז בנוגע שבת, בנוגע תפילה, נבילות וטריפות, וואס בא קטן, וואס א טאטע טוט... מפרישין... הא? דאס איז א שאלה צי בעצם מפרישין הייסט עס? יא. וואס א טאטע טוט, איז אסור מדרבנן. איז וואס חילוק? Mai shna? ווי איידער... ווי איידער צו פארשטיין. He said in name of Rabbi' Yaakov Yosef, it was brought down in Shivchei HaBaal Shem Tov, and also in Tzava'at HaRivash, that he said in name of the Baal Shem Tov, that when he was niftar, he said that.