Rashi. A kashya was: why does Rashi mention here that when he says 39, it means you're not chayav 50, not chayav on the תולדות? What's the nafka mina? He could've just said, \"You thought that you're chayav one, I'm telling you you're chayav 39.\" Why does Rashi bring in the תולדה? So I'm saying now why, because Rashi says that without that there wouldn't be a kashya. The just a kashya from Rabbi Yochanan saying pshat in the Mishnah wouldn't be a kashya, because Rabbi Yochanan is סובר the עיקר of the Mishnah. The whole kashya is based only on this, Rashi says. Because Rabbi Yochanan holds that you're not chayav on the תולדה במקום אב, סימן he holds it's טעם, and in order to hold it's טעם, it means it's עצם. So we look, the Mishnah also holds עצם, and still you're chayav on each one separately. So why would you say Isi ben Yehuda would hold that you're chayav only one? That's the Gemara's kashya. And then Rashi continues even further: not only that, you know how you are chayav on one, you're only chayav on the אב not on the תולדה. Cuz like this, be'emet you could say that when you're chayav one, it's not necessarily because it's טעם, could be you're chayav because it's סימן, but the תולדה is טפל, is secondary to the אב, so when you bring one, you're already yotzei for the second. To say that you're chayav only one could only be if the תולדה is ממש the exact same thing as the אב. If the תולדה is different, but you're just yotzei with the other one, then you can't say you're not chayav on the תולדה at all. If you say they're both exactly the same, exactly the same you could say, \"Well, you did one, so you did the melacha, and now it's only an extension of it.\" So that's what Rashi keeps on saying here.

Rashi says that what is the Gemara's kashya? The Gemara's kashya is based on this nekudah. Since he said you're chayav on each one, what does he mean you're chayav, not you're chayav on the תולדות, you're chayav on the תולדות, and in which way are you chayav only one if you do an אב and a תולדה, the peshat is that you're not chayav on the תולדה at all, that means that you could say that the תולדה and אב are exactly one. That proves that really you look at the עצם, because if you wouldn't look at the עצם, you couldn't say they're one, and nevertheless Rabbi Yochanan says the peshat in the Mishnah that you look at the עצם, and you're still chayav for each one. So then what would be the sevara of of Isi ben Yehudah? That is the Gemara's kashya. How do you know he's saying they look at the עצם? It's just saying, you know, it's actual, it's saying that they're chayav. Because he says you're only chayav 39, not more. That means you're not chayav on the תולדה. If you're not חייב on the תולדה, because the תולדה must be a טעם. If it's סימן, you would be חייב on it, and that must be a טעם. Why is it a טעם? טעם means that this is the reason. Why is it the reason if it's a different thing? So you look at... כולהו... So לכאורה it's, well, yeah, so it should all be the same, so you look at the עצם. That's the whole קשיא. So this

explains why Rashi brings in the מעשה of the תולדות, and what Rashi says that the תולדה is פטור. באמת in Bava Kama, also there's a reason why Rashi mentions it. I would say not like the Tiferet Shmuel says that there's no reason. How does it really prove it? He's just saying there's 39 אבות. Otherwise he would have to mention all the תולדות, too. No, who says that? When he says there are 39, he's giving you he's giving you a number. You could you could be חייב 39 חטאות, and that's all. Yeah. Here the Gemara brought this in in connection to the שאלה whether the תולדות are like the אבות or not, by by מזיקין. And the Gemara says, by Shabbos the תולדות are like the אבות. How do we know like the אבות? So the Gemara says, because if you do a תולדה you're also חייב. Now, this whole שאלה whether the תולדות are like the אבות or not, by מזיקין or by anything else, is based on the same חקירה: is it סימן or טעם? If it's siman, it doesn't have to be the same. This is a siman, what's a מזיק, does that have the same din? If it's a taam, that that was the reason you're chayav for the תולדה of מזיקין is because because of the אב, so it can't be different than the אב. So, when the Gemara wants to prove that by Shabbos it's כיוצא בהן, the תולדות are like the אבות, what the Gemara is trying to say that by Shabbos it's taam. So one of the things that the Gemara says it's taam, how do we see it's taam? From the fact that when you do an אב and a תולדה, and you're patur on that on the תולדה completely. That shows that it's mamash the same thing. So Rashi brings it in, not just because he happens to hold like that, so he says it, he's telling us because it's נוגע to that Gemara, too. How come what do other

people hold who don't hold like Is there anybody who argues with Rashi here? Most פוסקים. What do they what do they how do they... They say that כי הא דאיסי בן יהודה, that's just a question. כי הא דאיסי is In other words, this this פרט of the Gemara is just a side a side point. And they don't they don't get into whether it's taam or or or siman? No. No. No. Well they see is this a Rashi פשוט? Huh? In a couple of Gemarot? Rashi. Well they see a Rashi is what it's פשוט. Yeah, they say No, they know Rashi holds like that. They know Rashi holds like that. There has to be a reason... Right, right, right, there has to be a reason, but they they don't have to hold like that, and they could hold the whole thing different. But Rashi we see goes and Rashi stresses that, but he points it because Rashi will follow the concept of siman and taam. There's another way, just in a simple way, to mention to explain why Rashi brings in this case of the toldot, why it's נוגע here. Because this whole idea whether when you do all the many מלאכות בהעלם אחד, whether you're chayav one or not, or you're chayav for each one, it depends on something else also. What would be a reason, why would be chayav only one? What's the sevara? So we said Rashi says because it's all one one not גוף מלאכה, if you look at the עצם. Could say in a different way, it has nothing to do with the עצם. It's based on the פסוק פשוט. There's one pasuk for all the melachot. לא תעשה כל מלאכה. Torah says do not do any melachah. So if it's one pasuk, so it's everyone, even though this means 39 different types, it's one aveirah. But it depends how you learn the word כל. And you remember this I also explained once before. When it says כל, what does כל mean? All or every. Big difference, chiluk. If you say every, then it talks about everyone separate. If you say all, then they're all one. על דרך like there's a machloket between

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira and the chachamim. I mentioned this in other times also. When it says in the Gemara like this, if nine people, 10 people hit somebody and by the 10th blow he dies, so we mention there's a מחלוקת Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says the 10th guy is חייב מיתה because he killed him. And the Rabbanan say that you're patur, because if not for the first nine, he wouldn't have died. See, the first nine are certainly not chayav, because they didn't kill him. But the she'eilah is if the 10th guy. So the Rabbanan say since if not for the first nine they wouldn't, so his blow didn't really kill him, it's connected with them, so he's patur. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says no. And the Gemara in Sanhedrin explains what is the sevara of their machloket. The pasuk says מכה כל נפש. It says the word כל. מכה כל נפש, you die, מות יומת. So there it says in the Gemara like this. So Rabbi Yehuda ben Beseira says כל נפש means any part of the נפש, as long as he killed the guy. Even if you killed him with a ninth part of his, 10th part of his נפש, but you killed him. And the Rabbanan say כל נפש means the whole נפש, all of the נפש. So only if you kill him all the נפש, and this way is not. So we see there are two ways to look at the כל. You could look at it, it's the same way by Shabbos also. You can learn כל means every מלאכה. So the Torah says every, so every don't do any, not the word any מלאכה, or you could say it means don't do all the מלאכות. It's like the Rebbe always whenever he used to give, finish a שיחה, give a ברכה to all the Yidden, what would he say? Alle Yidden un yeder Yid ייד. It's always, all the Jews and every Jew. It's a big difference, complete opposite. It's complete opposite. Alle Yidden means all as one unit, and Yeder Yid means every Jew separately. Here also, it could be every מלאכה separately, so then you're chayav for every one, or you could say it means don't do any, don't do all the מלאכות, so all the מלאכות are really one one one unit. If if we

learn pshat in Isai ben Yehuda lechatchila in the hava amina that he meant you're only chayav one, so how did he learn, that what does the pasuk mean? לא תעשה כל מלאכה means don't do all the מלאכות, so you're chayav only one. If you say that, mah she'ein kein the pshat in the Mishnah where it says you're chayav for each one, that means that you're chayav for every. But the question is, according to Rabbi Yochanan you're chayav for every, how come if you do an av and a toldah you're not? So that shows that since you're chayav for the av av and a תולדה you're not chayav, mimela a siman we don't learn כל every. It's all. And nevertheless, you're chayav on each one. So mimela we have a she'eilah on Isi ben Yehudah, where is your sevara? Your whole sevara would be from the word כל, here we see that you can't learn that way, because you see from Rabbi Yochanan he learns כל means every, means all, not and yet you're chayav on each one for some other reason. That's the Gemara's re'ayah against Isi. So can't, so it's not a kushya from the Mishnah or Rabbi Yochanan, it's a kushya from the logic. Here we proved that the logic is that you can't learn that way. And based on that the Gemara says Isi ben Yehudah couldn't mean that, so the Gemara changed. Must mean something else. What does he mean? Means that there is one מלאכה that you're not chayav for. That's all. Wonder, no wonder. It's all the hava amina. Hava amina, yeah. Takeh, all hava amina. Rashi said patur for the תולדה. I didn't, according to this way I didn't explain, I didn't say. According to the previous way, Tuesday, because that adds to show how it's really ta'am. If it's ta'am, it means when you look at it as the exact same מלאכה. How do, and if we look at the exact same מלאכה, it must be you look at the עצם. Because if you look at the צורה, צורה it's מפורש not the same מלאכה. So that adds more to the strength that it's looking at the עצם. And אף על פי you look at the עצם, you're still chayav on each one. So we ask Isi ben Yehudah, why would you say you're chayav on all?