For שבת דף ו עמוד ב, in connection to something else, but the גמרא brings this, that אמר רב, רב said, מצאתי מגילת סתרים בי רב חייא, I found a hidden מגילה, a hidden manuscript, by רב חייא, וכתוב בה, in this manuscript, it said like this. Why it's a hidden manuscript? Because those days, you weren't allowed to write down תורה שבעל פה. הלכתית? הלכתית, you're not allowed to, till רבי came when he saw that it's going to be forgotten, so he was allowed to write it down, that's when the משניות started. But till then, you weren't allowed to write תורה שבעל פה. So, if there was any תנא, huh? בלאו הכי מפורש. If any תנא that wanted to write things down for a note, like a note for himself just to remember, he would write little notes for himself, but he couldn't publicize it, couldn't, what do you call it, publish it, or whatever at that time, publicize it, so he would So, he happened to find a, one of these notes by רב חייא, וכתוב בה, and there it said like this. And there is going to be the לשון that it says there, and what we thought it meant, then the גמרא is going to prove that it meant something else, and that's going to be the conclusion. It

says there like this, איסי בן יהודה אומר, איסי בן יהודה said, איסי בן יהודה was a תנא, so it says in this note, איסי בן יהודה said, אבות מלאכות מ׳ חסר אחת, there are forty minus one אבות מלאכות, which means there are 39 אבות מלאכות on שבת, ואינו חייב אלא אחת, but you're only חייב one, which means as we thought, that it means that if a person will do many מלאכות בהעלם אחד, many מלאכות with one forgetting, he'll only be חייב one קרבן. That's what That's what it seems to say. It means if a person would in theory even do all 39 מלאכות with one forgetting, and here when we say forgetting, it doesn't mean he forgot it's שבת, because it it it means he forgot that this מלאכה is forbidden. שבת. Otherwise No, he forgot that it's Sorry, he forgot that it's שבת. He knew it's מלאכה. אינו מתכוון. I mean מתעסק. No, not מתעסק. שוגג, no. He knows what he's doing. No, שוגג means he knows what he's doing. He forgot. But he forgot that you're not allowed to do this. That's אינו מתכוון, no? No, אינו מתכוון is you're not intending it. Here, he forgot that it's אסור. מתכוון knows it's אסור, you're just trying to do one thing. He knows the הלכות of שבת, he just forgot that you're not allowed to do that. No, that's not that's not אינו מתכוון. You say אינו מתכוון No, no, but he's Here, right, he

knows what he's doing and he's planning to do it, he just forgot that this is forbidden on שבת. So, if you if that happens twice, like two מלאכות, so or three מלאכות or five, you're only חייב one קרבן. That's what we thought he said. In In simple words, it would using the terms of the גמרא, if you do more than one מלאכה בהעלם אחד, in one העלם. העלם means forgetting. If there's one forgetting, cuz if you forget and you do one מלאכה and then you remind yourself it's שבת, and then you forget again and do a second מלאכה, then you for sure חייב two, but if you do in one העלם, so he says you're only חייב one. That's what we thought איסי בן יהודה said. And one forgetting, is it the same as you forget that it's שבת or you forget that the מלאכה is is what do you call it? Is prohibited? Well, in this case, see, לפועל, by it's it's you forget you forget it's שבת. I mean, it's a lot of details in this. So, the one forgetting in all of them? Yeah, one forgetting, whichever way, let's say, whichever way. Okay. There are a lot of It's not so פשוט, but that's not נוגע to our ענין, so תוספות mentions. So, I don't want to Anyway, so so we thought that איסי בן יהודה said that if there are 39 מלאכות, that's how he starts off his his the the statement, there are forty minus one מלאכות, אבות מלאכות, but you're only חייב one if you do them, that's how we thought פשט, if you do them בהעלם אחד. But the גמרא says, והוינן, אינו, and that couldn't be the פשט, because דתנן, there's a משנה later in שבת on דף ע״ג, it says there, אבות מלאכות מ׳ חסר אחת. Here, this is the משנה on דף ע״ג, it says, starts off like this, אבות מלאכות ארבעים חסר אחת, there are 39 אבות מלאכות, then he lists them. He goes through the whole list: הזורע והחורש, if you plant, or you plow, or you cut, gather, and all It goes through the whole list. That's the משנה. והוינן בה, we thought into this משנה, and the question that was asked, מניינא למה לי? Why does the משנה have to give us a number? Why does the משנה have to say that there are 40 מלאכות? And the way רש״י explains it here, what is the גמרא שאלה, if you list them all, you could just count them. 1, 2, 3, 4, you count, there are 39. Why does he have to give that introduction that there are 39 מלאכות? 40 minus one. 40 minus one. Why is he phrasing it Okay, not at a time. ואמר רבי יוחנן, and

רבי יוחנן answered, to teach you, שאם עשאן כולם בהעלם אחד חייב על כל אחת ואחת, to teach you that there are 39 חטאות. that even if you would have do them all with one העלם, you're חייב for each one. So therefore, we cannot say that when איסי בן יהודה said you're only חייב one, this is what he meant. Because how could he say that when from this משנה we see that you're חייב for everyone? And how do we see it from the משנה? From the משנה saying 39 when it was extra. A lot of the גמרא נקרא פשטות. Yeah. אלא אימא, so it must mean the גמרא says that איסי בן יהודה meant something else: אינו חייב על אחת מהן, that one of the 39 you are not חייב. He doesn't say which one. That there are 39 מלאכות, but you're חייב מיתה only on 38. One you're not חייב. In general thing. Yeah, which one it is, we don't know. And what the גמרא here is trying to bring this into to say that you should know that הוצאה, carrying, is not the one. Carrying, for sure you're חייב. But there is another one. Now, some מפרשים want to say connect this to the, the גמרא has a שאלה whether הבערה is חייב, when you make a fire if you're חייב, because there is an opinion in other places in the גמרא that for making a fire you're not חייב מיתה on שבת, because even though there are 39 מלאכות, the תורה mentions one: לא תבערו אש בכל משבתיכם ביום השבת. It says, do not light a fire on שבת. And the גמרא asks, why of all of a sudden, out of all the 39, the גמרא, the פסוק mentioned one? So one פשט is ללאו יצאת, to teach you that this one is not, it's טאקע a מלאכה, but you're not חייב מיתה for it, it's only a לאו. So could be this is what he meant, but some don't hold that. המאירי says it's not נוגע to what this קושיא going to be. מסקנא is that what what he said is something else. He said that there are 39 מלאכות and one of them you're not חייב for. The הוה אמינא was that what he said was that there are 39 מלאכות, and you're only חייב one if you do them בהעלם אחד, and we proved that that's wrong because we have a ראיה from the משנה, where the משנה said the number, and רבי יוחנן explained, why did it say the number? To teach you חייב על כל אחת ואחת. When the גמרא quoted רבי יוחנן and he said that the reason the משנה mentions the number is to tell you that you are חייב על כל אחת ואחת, you're חייב on each one, so רש״י says like this: ובא להודיענו סכום החטאות, so the משנה, by writing the number, comes to teach us the amount of קרבנות שאדם חייב באיסורי שבת בהעלם אחד, how many קרבנות a person can be חייב, even if you do it all with one forgetting, how many קרבנות you can be חייב. ואשמעינן, it comes to teach us, מ״ם חסר אחת הן, that you could be חייב 39, ולא יותר, and not any more. שאפילו עשה תולדותיהן אין מביא על תולדה היכא דעביד אבותיה, and even if you did the תולדות, we know these are 39 אבות מלאכות, and each one have תולדות, and תולדות are אסור מדאורייתא, and if you do a תולדה, just a תולדה by itself, you're חייב the same way you're חייב on an אב. So you would think that if you do all the מלאכות plus you do some of the תולדות, you're חייב more than 39? So, he tells you, you're not חייב more, because when you do it, an אב and a תולדה, you're not חייב for the תולדה, דהוה ליה כעושה וחוזר ועושה. It's like, because the תולדה, if you do the אב and its תולדה, it's like doing the same thing over again, דכולה חדא עבירה היא, because it's all one עבירה. So רש״י seems to say something here which seems to be extra, not important at all to this גמרא. What the גמרא tried to say here is that we thought that if you do many of them בהעלם אחד, you're חייב one. What did we come to teach you? No, you're not חייב one, you're חייב for each one. That means if you did all 39, don't think you're חייב one, you're חייב 39. רש״י הכניס here something else: to tell you you're not חייב more! That's not what we're trying to say here. We're trying to say you're not חייב less! We would think that you're חייב only one, so רבי יוחנן says the פסוק the the משנה by the number tells us that you're going to be חייב 39. The fact that you're not חייב 59, not חייב more, that's true, but that's not what we say here. That's not what לכאורה what רבי יוחנן is trying to tell us. That's not what the reason the משנה tells us. It's like the גמרא in ע״ג. See, this piece of גמרא here of רבי יוחנן is the same thing in the גמרא after the משנה, right there. The משנה says אבות מלאכות are 39, and then it gives the list. Right away, the גמרא right here asks the question, מנינא למה לי? Why does it say a number? אמר רבי יוחנן, שאם עשאן כולן בהעלם אחת חייב על כל אחת ואחת, that if you did them all one העלם you're חייב on each one. So

רש״י says, to tell you, ובא להודיעך שאם נעלמו כל הלכות שבת הימנו כמה חטאות חייב, comes to teach you that if you forgot them all and you did it, it tells you how much you're חייב. In other words, it's telling you that don't think you're חייב one because they're all בהעלם אחד, you're חייב for each one separately. But not, it doesn't mention you should know that you're חייב 39, the maximum is 39, you can't be חייב more. Why is that נוגע here? Especially in our גמרא, when the גמרא even brings this in just to question the פשט in איסי בן יהודה. We thought איסי בן יהודה meant that you're only חייב one, so from רבי יוחנן we see you're not only חייב one, you could be חייב 39. But the fact that you're not going to be חייב more than 39 right? That's extra here. That's not part of what we're trying to discuss here. That's another thing. Also, another thing we see here that רש״י mentions here, he says if you do an אב and a תולדה, you are not חייב for the תולדה. That's a big חידוש. I wouldn't say that. If I would say normally you're if you do an אב and a תולדה, what would I say? You're חייב one for both. It's not like that one is פטור. Right? You did both. Since the תולדה is similar to an אב, the פשט is by bringing one קרבן you're יוצא for both. רש״י

says if you did the אב and the תולדה, you're only חייב for the אב. You're not חייב for the תולדה. That's for one forgetting. Yeah, we're talking about one forgetting. Everything is one yeah. The אב and the תולדה, yeah. But רש״י would still hold that if you just did the תולדה, you're Yeah, if you did just the תולדה you're חייב. But you did the אב and the תולדה you're חייב one. But he says the לשון, it tells you if אפילו if you did a תולדות with an אינו מביא על התולדה. You don't bring a קרבן on the תולדה if you did it with the היך if you did it together with אב. Because it's כהאי סבא כהאי סבא, because it's as if you did the אב over again, דכולא חד עבירה היא, because it's all one עבירה. Why would רש״י want to express that? The truth is the same קשיא is not only here. The same קשיא is in בבא קמא. In בבא קמא, in the beginning of the גמרא in ממש דף ב׳ עמוד א׳, there the גמרא speaks The בבא קמא starts with ארבעה אבות נזיקין, that there are אבות by היזק also. There are four fathers and then there are תולדות. And the גמרא questions are the תולדות of the אבות נזיקין do they have the same דין like the אבות? And the גמרא says we find other places אבות and תולדות, and it gives an example, for instance שבת, and by שבת, the תולדות and the אב are the same, that means you're חייב for the אב, and if you do the תולדה, you're חייב for the תולדה, not together, when you do For that Yeah. The same then you should you think that not חייב. No no no. It's the same yet you're still חייב. If you do an אב, you're חייב. If you do a תולדה, not the אב, just the תולדה, you're also חייב, right, the same way. But then the גמרא asks, so if you're חייב for this and חייב for this, why is this called an אב and this called a תולדה? Anyway, the גמרא says why is it called a תולדה? Because if you do an אב and a תולדה, you're only חייב one. It doesn't say, but you're You're only חייב one. חייב one. So רש״י says חייב one אב מלאכות, you're only חייב an אב, אבל אתולדה דידיה לא מחייב, but for the תולדה you're not חייב. And there's a תפארת שמואל, מפורש here, תפארת שמואל, who says it's like a big חידוש in רש״י, and he says, but anyway, what's נוגע here to this גמרא makes no difference. The גמרא says you're חייב one. What difference is it you're חייב one because one goes for both, or you're חייב one because you're only חייב for the אב not for the תולדה? So he says, it's תקי not נוגע to the גמרא. רש״י just says what רש״י feels is the פשט. But the question is it must be that it must be a reason why רש״י feels to mention it. It could also be to strengthen the fact that 39 and not more. Cause if it was an אב and if you were חייב it could be more than 39. Right, right, it's true, no, about that. So there's That's the first point, you bet, no, it's not נוגע. And if he be חייב one and both would be the same thing. I'm now asking another point. When we do an אב and a תולדה you're only חייב one. Right. What is the פשט you're only חייב one? Is the פשט you're only חייב one because the one will go for both, or you're חייב one you're only חייב on the אב, and on the תולדה you're פטור? Whichever way, it'll be only one. The question is why? And רש״י seems to be stressing that you're חייב only on that and not on the תולדה. When we kill somebody, what's it, he does a murder and he does another one, we only give him the harder punishment. Do we consider them פטור on the second one, or do we say that The לשון the לשון is פטור. The לשון is פטור, yeah, in other words something that's That doesn't mean Yeah, but that doesn't mean he's פטור, but there תקי לפועל you don't pay. The מושג קם ליה בדרבה מיניה is when you kill and you did something that you have to pay for, you don't pay. You תקי don't pay. But so you don't pay So רש״י is on to something with his פטור No, he תקי don't pay. Yeah, but this is not קם ליה בדרבה מיניה. This is not רש״י says the same thing if you do two אבות. By תולדות, all right. You're doing two two times the same אב, I mean. Two times the same אב. And what does he say? You're פטור on one. You're פטור on the second. Which also could be the same question, why are you פטור on the second? You're חייב on both, but you're only חייב one for both because they're both the same מלאכה. But I'm not even asking why. I'm asking why is it important to mention it? Why bring it in as what difference does it make? And the תפארת שמואל here in בבא קמא, תקי, there's no difference. רש״י just says it because רש״י holds like that, but there must be something more to it. Okay, to explain this, let's go through first what is the הוה אמינא, what is the reason of the הוה אמינא that if a person would do many מלאכות בהעלם אחד, he's חייב only one? So here, in the הוה אמינא, רש״י, oh, here's the reason רש״י says, תחילה we thought that it's only one, השתא משמע we think now, that's the הוה אמינא, אם עשאן בהעלם אחד, you do them all with one forgetting, שלא נודע לו בין כל אחת ואחת שחטא, that you didn't realize after you did each one that you sinned, that's called העלם אחד, אינו חייב אלא אחת, you're only חייב one. And רש״י says why? דכל חילול שבת דכל חילול דשבת גוף אחד של עבירה הוא. Because the whole חילול שבת is one גוף, one body of עבירה. So, therefore, what difference does it make? Did you do this מלאכה, that מלאכה, it's one body of of an עבירה. And I'll explain what that means, a little bit deeper than superficially. When we do a מלאכה on שבת, there are two ענינים there that are: Number one, there is the general concept that this is חילול שבת. And then that's called the עצם of the מלאכה. And then you have the ציור of the מלאכה. The ציור is the form of the מלאכה. How did you do this חילול שבת? This עצם of חילול שבת could take all kinds of shapes. It could take a shape of writing, it could take a shape of cooking. These are the this is only the ציור the צורה of the מלאכה, the צורה, the face, the form. So you have the עצם of the מלאכה and you have the צורה of the מלאכה. The question is, why are you חייב for the מלאכה? What is the עיקר problem with the מלאכה? Is the עיקר problem the צורה the the עצם of the מלאכה or the צורה of the מלאכה? If the עיקר problem is the עצם of the מלאכה, then all the מלאכות are the same. Just like we פסקן להלכה, if you do twice the same אב, even להלכה, twice the same אב בהעלם אחד, you're חייב only one. Why? Because you did twice the same thing. So if we look mainly at the עצם of the מלאכה, so when you cook and then you write with the same forgetting, you did twice the same thing, because the עיקר is the עצם and the עצם is the same. If we look בעיקר at the צורה of the מלאכה, so then it's a different מלאכה. The the problem is the צורה, the צורה is writing, you didn't do the same thing, so therefore So the הוה אמינא רש״י

says, that's what פשט deeper פשט in רש״י, דכל חילול שבת גוף אחד של עבירה היא, it's all one גוף because because we look at the עצם. I just want to make sure to know that there's a different angle we look at מלאכות of שבת, at the עצם and the צורה. And we shouldn't confuse the two. And I'm saying it because many people know this from the רבי in different שיחות, and therefore they would you know, ask me right away, how are you saying what you're saying when it says פארקערט, not like a difference. There is a שיחה, the רבי's חלק י״ז, a very interesting שיחה, where the רבי explains the מחלוקת between ר׳ יהודה and ר׳ שמעון by שבת, by אינו מתכוין. פרשת וישב. In by שבת, there is a מחלוקת ר׳ יהודה and ר׳ שמעון by אינו מתכוין. If you do a מלאכה, but you're not מתכוין to do that מלאכה, you're מתכוין for something else, the famous the classical case, you take a chair, you're schlepping it from here to there, and all you want is to bring the chair here, you're מתכוין just to bring it, דערווייל or while you're schlepping it on the floor, it makes it makes a חריץ. So if it has to make the חריץ, in other words, it's so heavy, then it's אסור. But if it doesn't have to, so ר׳ שמעון says that's מותר. Even if even if it will make the חריץ, since it didn't have to, and that's not what your intentions are, it's מותר. And not because like a שוגג, you know what you're doing, you're schlepping it knowing that it's going to make a חריץ, could make a חריץ, it's okay. And ר׳ יהודה says it's אסור. Then we have another מחלוקת ר׳ יהודה and ר׳ שמעון, מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה. Similar to this, I don't want to go to the פרטים. So the רבי explains what is their מחלוקת. So he says their מחלוקת is, an interesting way he explains this, whether it's אסור or מותר, he connects it to another מחלוקת of ר׳ יהודה, not of ר׳ שמעון, ר׳ יהודה and the חכמים by חמץ. You have to destroy חמץ, it says תשביתו, אך ביום הראשון תשביתו, you have to destroy the חמץ. So ר׳ יהודה says אין ביעור חמץ אלא שריפה. Only way you could destroy חמץ is burning it. And the חכמים say no, אף מפרר וזורה לרוח, you could break it up, throw it into the air, throw it into the ocean. So the אלטער רבי explains what is their מחלוקת? He says like this: Every there's a חמץ has like this, you have the עצם of the חמץ, and then you have the צורה of the חמץ. Ah? Yeah, yeah, yeah, right, right, I explained that, more than once, this is So what does ר׳ יהודה say? ר׳ יהודה says that's the עצם, and to get rid of the עצם is only through burning. When you break it up, you're getting rid of the צורה. That's there. That's you heard many times. This is another תשובה, the רבי connects that to שבת. He says, just like here we have an

expression תשביתו, should destroy, by שבת we have an expression תשבות. אך ביום ארי... ביום השביעי תשבות. You should rest. תשביתו means destroy, but it's also, resting means not doing something, like destroying, taking away something. When the תורה wants you to rest from doing a מלאכה, there are two things in every מלאכה: There is the עצם, and there is the צורה. The עצם of the מלאכה is the מעשה, and the צורה of the מלאכה, that's the תואר, he calls it the תואר, or the צורה, or the ציור, is the מחשבה, the כוונה. Now the question is, did the תורה say I want you to get rid of the תואר, of the צורה of the מלאכה, or the תורה says no, I want you to get rid of the עצם of the מלאכה? If the תורה only wants you to get rid of the תואר of the צורה of the מלאכה, so if you're not מתכוין, you don't have the צורה, so then it's okay. If the תורה wants you not to do the עצם of the מלאכה, then even if you're not מתכוין, so you don't have the צורה, but you still have the עצם, you've got to get rid of that too. So the רבי learns איז לשיטתו. ר׳ יהודה, not, ר׳ יהודה over there holds that אין חמץ, you have to burn, because he holds that what does it mean to get rid of the עצם, so Over here he also holds you have to get rid of the עצם of the מלאכה. Therefore he says, even if you're not מכוון, if you have the מעשה, the מלאכה itself, you still have the עצם, gotta get rid of it, and you're עובר. And ר' שמעון holds like the חכמים over there, that the עיקר is to get rid of the צורה, and as long as you don't have the צורה, you break it up, there's no more left, even though it's there, the עצם is there, but you can't eat it, there's nothing there, it's enough. Same thing here, if you don't have the כוונה, you get rid of the צורה. So he, ah? Where? In שבת. No, it doesn't say חכמים, it says ר' שמעון. Actually we פסק like ר' שמעון, so it could be... What'd you say? Ah, so my שאלה is it's not opposite, it's different. I'm trying to say that the עצם of the צורה is the עצם of the חילול שבת, and the צורה is the form of the מלאכה. And here it says that the עצם is the מעשה and that's the כוונה. But it's not a problem at all. It's, yeah, no, it's a different עצם and different צורה. In the מעשה המלאכה, in each מלאכה you have an עצם and a צורה. The עצם is the מעשה of the מלאכה, the צורה is the כוונה. But then in כללות השבת, this is the עצם and the צורה. In other words, we can't mix the two.

Similar like a משל from חסידות, the famous קשיא, the famous קשיא that it says שבת the אייבערשטער rests from creating the world. How does the world exist? It says that the אייבערשטער rests, דאס הייסט because the חיצוניות of His שייכות, the חיצוניות, the connection to the world is not there anymore, rests from it. But He's מחיה, He gives life to the world in פנימיות. Then it says on ראש השנה, it says, how does the world exist? It says the אייבערשטער goes away from the חיות until תקיעת שופר. So it says, the פנימיות goes away and the חיצוניות exists. So if יום טוב של ראש השנה comes on שבת, a big problem, how does the world exist? The answer is that they're not the same פנימיות and חיצוניות. It's not the same level of this פנימיות and חיצוניות that both go away. This is פנימיות and חיצוניות from one thing, this is פנימיות and חיצוניות from another thing. I'm just using this as an example. Same thing here. You have the עצם and the צורה from one thing, the עצם and the צורה of something else. So what I'm saying here is a different type of עצם and צורה, not in each מעשה המלאכה, in the מלאכה that you do, in the כללות השבת, do we look at the עצם of the מלאכה? The עצם of the מלאכה is just the fact that this is work, this is creative work, the צורה is how do you do it? So the הוה אמינא is that the עיקר of שבת is the עצם. Ah? Yeah, but that's not part of this עצם and... that's a different thing. Yeah, you have מחשבה and you have מחשבה ומעשה. But that's not in this... It's a different, it's a different, it's a different level, it's a different... Yeah, it's not the same צורה that we're talking about here, it's a צורה from a different aspect. Okay. So now

when רב... when איסי בן יהודה says, as we thought in the beginning, that you're only חייב one, obviously איסי בן יהודה holds, we think, that the עיקר of שבת is the עצם of the מלאכה. Cuz he says you're only חייב one, so it doesn't... Comes the גמרא, and the גמרא brings a ראיה that it's not true, it can't be like that. Why? Because in the משנה it says a number, and ר' יוחנן said that you're חייב for each one. Right? So how could you say that איסי בן יהודה holds that you're חייב one for all when you see from the משנה, the way ר' יוחנן explains the משנה, that the משנה gives a number, and the number is extra, why does it give it? To tell you that you're חייב for each one. So that's a קשיא, you can't say it. But there's a problem with this. Why can't איסי בן יהודה argue against the משנה? Who says, what's the problem with the משנה? So you have a משנה. So you have a משנה and what the משנה comes out from the לשון, from the ראיה from the משנה, is that you're חייב on each one. So the תנא of the משנה holds like that, that's the way ר' יוחנן explains. But איסי בן יהודה, who is a תנא himself, he argues. What's the problem, why does it make a problem? Oh no, but they argue, he holds עצם, he holds צורה, so what's the problem? He holds the עצם, he holds the צורה, and that's why they... So what's the

גמרא's קשיא? How does the גמרא prove that this can't be פשט in איסי בן יהודה? Now תוספות mentions a פשט. תוספות says that the ראיה is not from the משנה. The ראיה is from איסי בן יהודה himself. Why? How is that a ראיה? How do we have a ראיה from the משנה that it means you're חייב for each one? From the fact that it mentions אבות מלאכות ארבעים חסר אחת, it says the number of the מלאכות. איסי בן יהודה did the same. איסי בן יהודה himself also writes, he says, he starts, look at the לשון: I found in a מגילה, a hidden מגילה by רבי חייא, that's what it says there: איסי בן יהודה says, אומר: אבות מלאכות ארבעים חסר אחת. There are 39 מלאכות. So he also gives the number. So the same way we bring a ראיה from the משנה that the משנה holds you're חייב for each one from the number, so it's not because we have a ראיה from the משנה, so you can't say this is what איסי בן יהודה means. איסי בן יהודה himself says the number, so the same ראיה you have from the משנה, you have the ראיה from the number. But that's what תוספות says. רש''י definitely does not learn like that. Because, as I said before, that רש''י says, what is the problem with the number? Why is the number extra? So רש''י says, "Since he continues and gives us the whole list of the מלאכות, so you could count yourself." In the משנה, that's true, in the משנה it טאקע gives the list. איסי בן יהודה didn't give a list. איסי בן יהודה says, "אבות מלאכות ארבעים חסר אחת, ואינו חייב אלא אחת", and you're only חייב on one. So why is his words extra? So ממילא in the משנה רבי יוחנן has a good ראיה that the words are extra, because since you're giving me the list, so I could count. Why are you starting off saying there are thirty-nine? Oh, you want to tell me there are thirty-nine... איסי בן יהודה doesn't do that. See, תוספות learns different פשט there. תוספות learns the ראיה is not because of list. The words themselves are extra. But על כל פנים רש''י, and we're dealing with רש''י now, רש''י says that the whole ראיה for רבי יוחנן is not from the words themselves. It's because, as I read before, "מנינא למה לי? הא מני לבתר", why do you give a number as what if you're enumerating them? But if you wouldn't be enumerating them, there was no problem. So we have no ראיה. So איסי בן יהודה has no ראיה. So רש''י has a problem now. רש''י learns the גמרא, doesn't understand: how then in the world did the גמרא bring a ראיה that איסי בן יהודה cannot hold that you're חייב on one, because the משנה doesn't hold you're חייב on one? What's the ראיה of the משנה? And from איסי בן יהודה himself, from his words, you have no ראיה because his words are not extra. That's why רש''י comes and says the קשיא of the גמרא must be a little bit deeper. And what part is it deeper? The fact that what we learn out from רבי יוחנן is that you're not חייב on the תולדות. What does that got to do? So you're not חייב... Why is that? So

let's get into a little bit into this ענין of the אבות and the תולדות. There's a מחלוקת in גמרא in this דין that we kept on saying before that if you do an אב and a תולדה, its תולדה, you're חייב on one. Not everyone agrees with it. מחלוקת of רבי אליעזר and the חכמים. The חכמים say you're only חייב one; רבי אליעזר say you're חייב both, חייב for the אב and חייב for the תולדה. What is the basis of the מחלוקת whether you're חייב one or two? So the basis could be like this: we know many things we find, and I mentioned also this concept in many שיעורים, that when you have two things, and one leads to the other, or one is a סימן or a טעם. Is this the reason for it or it's just a סימן? Like we find by the סימנים of בהמה טהורה, we mentioned many times, other things. Here also, when we say that if you see an אב and then you see a תולדה which is similar, you say the אב tells you that this תולדה is also אסור, is it a סימן or is it a טעם? That means, is this a סימן to that מלאכה? That means that מלאכה באמת has nothing to do with this one. The אב is a סימן to the תולדה. So when a סימן, the תורה wanted to give us a list of 500 מלאכות, but instead of giving us a list of 500, it gave us names and say, "This will be a סימן which one is אסור." But the reason the תולדה is אסור is not because of the אב, it's on its own. Or you could say it's a טעם: because of the אב, that's why the תולדה is אסור. The result, the difference between these two approaches, will be this: if you say it's a סימן, then the תולדה and the אב have nothing to do, just this is the way I get to it, it's a סימן. And therefore you're חייב for the אב, you're חייב for the תולדה, they're two separate מלאכות, just like if you do two אבות you're חייב two, if you do an אב and a תולדה you're also חייב two because the אב and the תולדה have nothing to do. Even though it's a סימן, the אייבערשטער gave us like a code how to figure out what it is, but not that because of it. If you learn it's a טעם, טעם that means that we're saying that because this אב is אסור, the תולדה has the same. The תולדה, since it has the same thing as the אב, ממילא if the אב is אסור the תולדה is אסור, that's the reason. ממילא that's the reason, so we're looking at it as being the same. טעם means that the תולדה is the same as the אב, and if it's being the same, that's why you're חייב only one. According to this it would come out, there is a way to look at this, now that we said there are two ways, סימן and טעם. And if you learn that you are חייב only one, it means that it's a טעם, so you can look at it from two ways, but I'm trying to look at it in one way in order to make it fit to רש''י, that that shows that we're not looking at the צורה of the מלאכה, we're looking at the עצם of the מלאכה. Because if you really really look at the צורה of the מלאכה, the אב and the תולדה are different. How could you say it's טעם? On the פועל they're different. סימן you could say, since they have something in common, the תורה gave us a code how to figure out that anything that looks similar to this you are אסור. But if it's טעם, why, after all, they're not the same? So how could this be the reason for this? The only way we could say it's טעם, you know when? If you look at עצם. And since בעצם they're both the same, in גילוי they're סוף כל סוף different, because this is a different מלאכה, but they have something in common, deeper, in כללות they're in common. So when you say טעם, you are obviously not looking at the צורה, you're looking more at the עצם. This is what the גמרא tells us. You see, רבי יוחנן, רבי יוחנן said that you're חייב on each one, and רש''י adds, what did he also mean? That you're not חייב more than thirty-nine. That means you're not חייב for the אב and the תולדה. So obviously Obviously, he holds that we look at the עצם. So we see that even though you look at the עצם, nevertheless, you're חייב on each one. So

what would be the סברא of רבי יוסי בן יהודה? You're trying to tell me רבי יוסי בן יהודה holds that you're חייב only one. And what would be the reason? You're חייב only one because you look at the עצם? Here you see that רבי יוחנן looks at the עצם, and he's still נאך חייב. So that shows that looking