The ענין today, the Gemara itself is a hard Gemara, so I think half of the time will go away just to explain what the Gemara says. Okay, let's just learn the Gemara in here on דף ה' עמוד ב' in Kesubot. איבעיא להו: They asked a question, מהו לבעול בתחלה בשבת? Are you allowed to do the first בעילה on Shabbos, Friday night? And the question, the Gemara will explain the detail of the question, of the two sides. Do we say דם מפקד פקיד, אי חבורה מיחבר? Is the blood that you make come out, is it מפקד פקיד, is it gathered in one place and all you have to do, like Rashi explains, is basically by opening an opening, making an opening, and the blood comes out? Cuz when the first בעילה from דם בתולים, when she's a בתולה and you break the בתולים, it bleeds. And the שאלה is, how does the blood come out? Is it that the blood is there in one area, gathered together, like a bubble and you have blood in it, and all you're doing is opening the making an opening, and the blood comes out? Or חבורה מיחבר, is the blood connected to the flesh? And the difference is, if it's חבורה מיחבר, then you have a מלאכה. By doing it, you do the מלאכה of חבורה. What's חבורה? חבורה is when you make someone bleed. No, that's when you make someone You have a wound, but you make someone bleed, with a wound. This is a מלאכה of חבורה. Tosafot although goes into what under what category of מלאכה this will go, נטילת נשמה or צובע or whatever, but this is a מלאכה. But that מלאכה is only if the blood is part of the flesh and it and comes out, that's חבורה. So that's the Gemara שאלה: this specific blood that comes out by a בתולה, is it מפקד פקיד? Then it's not אסור on Shabbos, because you're not making חבורה, there is no מלאכה. Huh? What like? Like a boil, pus. What's it? Well, that the Gemara already brings as an example, yeah, that you can take the pus out. But anyway, that's the whole idea. But if it's a חבורה מיחבר, if it's gathered, if it's together with מחובר together with the flesh, then it's אסור. That's the beginning of the question. Then the Gemara continues, ואם תמצי לומר דם מפקד פקיד, even if we are going to say that the דם is in one place, gathered together, and therefore there is no melachah, but there could be another melachah. The problem is you're making a פתח. You're making an opening, you're making a door. Making a door is a melachah on Shabbos, and the way Rashi learns here, the melachah is the melachah of בנין, building. איי, it's talking by a body, so Rashi says that there is such a thing A little later Rashi explains it in more detail, there is such a thing as בנין by a by a גוף. He quotes a pasuk: ויבן את הצלע. When Hashem made Chava, the pasuk uses the expression ויבן, He built. So, we see from there that there is a melachah, a גדר of בנין in a גוף. And therefore, opening a פתח is a בנין. So even if we're going to hold, the Gemara says, that as far as the דם is concerned there's no melachah, we still have a שאלה: Do we say לדם הוא צריך ושרי, that when a person does it, what his interest is to get the דם, and since that's his kavanah, that's not a מלאכה, דילמא לפתח הוא צריך ואסיר? Or maybe what the person is interested in is really making the פתח? And if his kavanah is to make the פתח, then even though as far as the דם is concerned there is no melachah, but there's another melachah, the melachah of making a פתח. But only when would that be אסור? If he's מתכוין, if you intend to do it. Then the Gemara continues: ואם תמצי לומר לדם הוא צריך, even if you're going to say that the kavanah is for the דם, ופתח ממילא קאתי, the fact that you make a פתח, that's by itself, that happens without your intent, הלכה כרבי שמעון דאמר דבר שאינו מתכוין מותר, או הלכה כרבי יהודה דאמר דבר שאינו מתכוין אסור? How do we pasken? Do we pasken like Rabbi Yehuda or like Rabbi Shimon? There's a machloket Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon by דבר שאינו מתכוין, that if you do something which is mutar, but in the meantime something else which is asur will happen because of what you did, are you allowed to do it? So Rabbi Yehuda says it's asur. And Rabbi Shimon says דבר שאינו מתכוין is mutar. And that will be the question here, too. If you intend the blood, main you your main kavanah is for the dam, and therefore your kavanah is for something that's mutar, because now we're going according to the sevara that the dam is מפקד פקיד, so it's your kavanah is mutar, but in the meantime while you're doing it, the פתח will open, so you will have been doing the melachah of פתח, but you weren't מתכוין for the פתח. So the melachah is a אינו מתכוין, and the שאלה is, do we pasken like Rabbi Yehuda that אינו מתכוין is asur, or do we pasken like מותר רבי יהודה אינו מתכוין מותר? רבי שמעון, אינו מתכוין מותר. ואם תמצי לומר, now the Gemara goes a step further, even if we're going to say הלכה כרבי יהודה, that halachah is like רבי יהודה, מקלקל הוא אצל פתח, אי מתקן הוא אצל פתח? When he does make the פתח, and since we're possibly going now according to Rabbi Yehuda it's assur because אינו מתכוין is assur, but is it called a קלקול, or is it called a תיקון? קלקול is a spoiling, something ruining, תיקון is good, it's something fixing, something good. And the question is, we know that the the rule is that if you do a מלאכה on Shabbos, but you're a מקלקל, you're פטור. If the מלאכה that you do is a קלקול, if you're doing a you're tearing open, you'll be breaking something. If you're breaking something through the מלאכה, the מלאכה is not assur. Now, even if we'll say that there's a מלאכה here because you're opening a פתח, but the Gemara is the פתח a קלקול or is it a תיקון? Do we look at it the fact that they open a פתח is a קלקול? Rashi says why would it be a קלקול? Because now you're, by opening a פתח, you're changing her status from being a בתולה to being a בעולה, which lowers her מדריגה, so it's a קלקול. On the other hand, by the fact you're making into a בתולה, into a בעולה, and you're the one The Gemara says Tosafos brings earlier that a woman gives her her is is is כורת ברית, she gives her confidence to somebody who made her into a כלי. The first the person who gave made the first ביאה made her a כלי. Anyway, so there is a תיקון in making this פתח. So, if it's a קלקול, then even if you פסקן like Rabbi Yehuda, a דבר שאינו מתכוון אסור, but it still would be mutar because it's a kilkul. On the other hand, if you say it's a tikun, and if you pasken like Rabbi Yehuda, it would be assur. That's the first way the Gemara puts the question. Then the Gemara goes on to the second איכא דאמרי, another way, which let's not discuss it now, it's going to be too confusing, and that's not what This is all if you're interested in the dam, not the petach, and the dam itself is no problem because it's מפקד פקיד. Tosafos goes into what would be his purpose of wanting the dam, so Tosafos has two pshatim, it's machloket Rabbeinu Tam and the Ri. One is according to Rabbeinu Tam, he wants the dam out, so next time there shouldn't be dam. And the other one is he wants to see, תקי, if she's a betulah or not, so he needs the dam to see. Anyway, that's there's a whole difference of הלכות לגבי these two pshatim, but this is not Then the Gemara goes into a second way of asking the question: If we're going to hold דם חבורה מיחבר? And the Gemara also has a whole list of what the question will be, אם תמצי לומר you say this, if you say that. But what we're going to discuss is only this. This is the Gemara's discussion now. Comes Rashi and asks a kashya. The Gemara said like this: If his kavanah is the dam, and dam is מפקד פקיד, there is no issur. Only issur possible is because a petach is being made, but it's an אינו מתכוון. So it'll depend whether we pasken like Rabbi Yehuda or like Rabbi Shimon. According to Rabbi Yehuda it would be assur, according to Rabbi Shimon mutar. Comes Rashi and he says ואם תמצי ואם תאמר, Rashi asks a kasha, פסיק רישא ולא ימות? It's a פסיק רישא. The rule of פסיק רישא is that if you do something that's mutar, and in the meantime something that's asur will happen, which we said is a machloket between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, but if the melachah that's asur must happen, not could happen, but must happen, then even Rabbi Shimon agrees that it's asur, that it's chayav. Lemashal, the case is like this: The classical machloket between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon is when someone is taking over a כיסא, מיטה, וספסל, a chair. There's a chair standing here, you want to take the chair over there. Now to take the chair over there, you just schlep it there. If the floor is a floor made of sand, by schlepping it, it might make a חריץ. It'll scrape make a a scrape into the in the ground, and that's a מלאכה דאורייתא, that's the melachah of חרישה, digging into the ground. And that's where the classical machloket this is. But he's not intending, he doesn't need it. He doesn't not intend he's not His kavanah is not to make that חריץ, but the חריץ might happen. So, Rabbi Yehuda says, you can't do it. If you make the חריץ, you'll be chayav. And Rabbi Shimon says, no, since that's not what your kavanah is, it's okay, it's mutar. But Rabbi Shimon says if the chair happens to be a heavy one, that when you carry it, it must make the חריץ, there's no way it won't, then he also says you're chayav. The teitch פסיק רישא ולא ימות means chop off the head, it shouldn't die. The Rambam gives an example: Someone says, I want the head of a chicken to give to my little boy to play with, so I'll chop off the head of the chicken, but I don't want it to die. My kavanah is just to take of that, but I don't I'm not going for to kill it. So, I'm not chayav because He says, no. What do you mean? You chopped off the head, it dies. It's a פסיק רישא, that's called פסיק רישא. So, Rashi asks here, what does the Gemara say here? That if his kavanah is for the דם, but the פתח is going to happen anyway, so according to Rabbi Shimon there is no problem, the problem's only according to Rabbi Yehuda. So, Rashi says, it's a pesik reisha, because if you're going to make the dam, you'll definitely have the פתח. It must make the פתח. If it must make the פתח, it's a pesik reisha. So, even according to Rabbi Shimon, this should be asur. So, Rashi says, הא פרכינן, says like this: הא פרכינן לה לקמן, the Gemara later asks a question, ומשנינן, and the Gemara answers, יש בקיאין בהטיה, there are people who know how to do it in a special way, הטיה means some curvy way, some special way, דאין דם יוצא ואף אין פתח נפתח, that some people could do it that there should be no dam and there should be no פתח. הלכך לאו פסיק רישא ולא ימות הוא, it's not a pesik reisha, because it's possible that you shouldn't have the פתח. The whole kushya was it must make the פתח. פתח, so like Rashi said, it's possible not to have the dam and not to have the פתח. Wait, but only that if you not have the dam? Well, this is what Rashi says. Tosafot asks the same kushya. Usually Tosafot does not ask the same kushya as Rashi and give the same terutz, because Tosafot saw Rashi, Tosafot doesn't repeat it. Whenever Tosafot asks the same kushya and gives a terutz which is similar, you know for sure that it's something else. Tosafot asks the kushya here on the same thing. The Gemara says, אי לדם הוא צריך פשיטא, if he needs the דם, it's מותר according to רבי שמעון, ואי תימא פסיק רישיה ולא ימות פתח, same kushya, it's a pesik reisha, the פתח must happen, וצריך לומר שיכול להטות הדם בלא עשיית פתח. So, he says we must say that it's possible to have דם without פתח. That's what Tosafos says. Comes the Maharsha and says that Tosafos is not like Rashi. Tosafos makes sense. The kushya was your kavanah is for the דם. What is the melachah that's going to happen? The פתח. So, the kushya was, if you have דם, you must have a פתח, so it's a pesik reisha. So, Tosafos says it's not true. You could have דם without פתח. So, who says it's a pesik reisha? Pesik reisha means that if you're going to do the דבר המותר, it must make the דבר האסור. It's not true. Rashi didn't say that. Rashi said that if people could do הטיה, ואין דם יוצא ואין פתח נפתח, ואף אין פתח נפתח. That means that there is no דם and no פתח. In other words, you could make that there should be no דם and no פתח, but Rashi didn't say that you could make there should be דם and there should not be פתח. It's mashma that if you have דם, you must have פתח. So, what kind of terutz is it? It's not a terutz, because we're talking now in the case לדם הוא צריך, so he's looking for the דם. If he's looking for the דם, you can't have, you must have פתח, so it's a pesik reisha. So, if you're going to do the דם, you're going to have, it's a pesik reisha. What is Rashi's answer? But the Pnei Yehoshua says that Rashi didn't mean that. Rashi meant either/or. Rashi says you could do הטיה ואין דם יוצא, you could make הטיה דם shouldn't come out, ואף אין פתח נפתח, or you could do הטיה that פתח won't open, that דם will come and פתח won't, which is exact like Tosafot. But that's not the פשוט פשט in Rashi. If you look at Rashi, Rashi makes it very clear that why is it not a pesik reisha, because you could have דם, you could have that it should be no דם and no פתח. Comes the Ritva, and the Ritva says, I'll explain Rashi. He says like this: Being that it's possible to make הטיה that there won't be דם and won't be פתח, you never know this guy who's not going to do הטיה, because הטיה is a special art, he's not going to do הטיה, but you can never know, it might turn out to be הטיה. Since it's a possibility, it might turn out. So, what might happen? That there might not be a פתח. So, it's not a pesik reisha. The whole kushya is it's a pesik reisha because what you're doing must make a פתח, so he says, no, since there could be הטיה, and ein hachi nami if הטיה will happen, you won't have דם either. But לפועל, you won't have דם, you won't have פתח. So, now we can't say if פתח is a pesik reisha, which is very hard to understand, because if that's going to happen, you won't have the דם. In other words, you won't, so you won't do a דבר המותר either. The whole question is you're looking for the דם. If you make the דם, the פתח must come, must be. According to Rashi it seems that you can't have דם without פתח. So, what's the answer, you might not make דם? Okay, if you don't make דם, who's talking about it? Our whole kushya is if you're going to make the דם, are you allowed to go do the דם? And the reason why you're allowed to is because it's not a מלאכה, דם is not a מלאכה, it's מפקד פקיד. אי the פתח, it's אינו מתכוון. What do you mean אינו מתכוון, but it's a פסיק רישיה! What, it's hard to understand the the Ritva's teirutz, because after all, the דם must have make פתח. According to Tosafot, it's very good, and not according to Rashi. Then there are more kushyot here, a whole bunch of more kushyot. But let me just give, well, one more kushya, a major kushya, maybe there's another kushya in Rashi. The first question was, is דם מפקד פקיד? Is the דם just gathered in one place, or חבורה מיעבד? אם תמצי לומר דם מפקד פקיד, now, if you say דם מפקד פקיד, so, as far as the דם is concerned, it's מותר. So, but depends if that's your, if that's what you're looking for. If you're מכוון for the דם, it's מותר. If לפתח הוא צריך, if you're intending for the פתח, then even though the דם is מפקד פקיד, it's still אסור for a different melachah, for the melachah of פתח. That's what the Gemara says. Why didn't the Gemara right then, then and there on the spot, ask: Are you so sure it's going to be asur if he intends for the פתח? Depends if it's a מקלקל or a מתקן. The thing that the Gemara does at the end, after the Gemara says if you're intending the דם and the פתח happens also, eino mitkaven, if we paskan like Rabbi Yehuda, it's asur. But it depends, maybe it's a מקלקל! Why didn't the Gemara ask right at the beginning? When the Gemara said that if you're interested in the פתח, it's for sure asur, nothing to do with Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, because it's a mitkaven, you are mechaven to make a פתח, and that's a melachah, and that's asur. Hold on a minute. How do you know it's asur? Maybe it's a מקלקל! So, why didn't the Gemara right on the spot over there ask that maybe it's a מקלקל? The Gemara didn't do that. There, the Gemara said for sure if you, if you are mechaven to the פתח, it's asur. If you mechaven to the דם, then, then it might be mutar according to Rabbi Shimon, and it's asur according to Rabbi Yehuda, but even according to Rabbi Yehuda, if you're a מקלקל, it's mutar. Why didn't the Gemara say that right in the beginning? That's the kashya the Ritva asks, the Rashba asks. And the Rashba says, I'll tell you. This mekalkel here, he says, is not a real mekalkel. It's a mekalkel and a metaken together. The one that we're talking about, making the פתח, even when the Gemara feels it's a mekalkel, the Gemara knows it's not a real mekalkel. It's a mekalkel from one side, but it's a metaken from another side. It does good because, like we said, it makes her into, gives her, she has a כריתת ברית to the one that does the, makes her into a כלי. So there is a tikun for sure. So therefore, if you are mechaven for the פתח, we don't care if it's a קלקול, it's still assur. Because even if you're, even if it's a קלקול, but since there is some tikun here and you are mechaven to it, it's assur. The only time the Gemara felt a mekalkel should be mutar, if you're not mechaven to it. And the only reason that would be assur is because it's eino mitkaven is assur according to Rabbi Yehuda. Then the Gemara felt if it's an eino mitkaven and you're a mekalkel, even though it's not a 100% mekalkel, it might be still mutar. But lechatchila the Gemara doesn't say it. Which is also not so simple to understand, because after all, according to Rabbi Yehuda, eino mitkaven and mitkaven is the same thing. According to Rabbi Yehuda, eino mitkaven is assur. So obviously, according to Rabbi Yehuda, mitkaven and eino mitkaven is the same thing. And therefore, if by eino mitkaven we said מקלקל will make it מותר, by a מתכוין, according to Rabbi Yehuda at least, you should also be מותר. I think we can say before, the Gemara wasn't talking according to Rabbi Yehuda. So you could explain what he's saying, but keep in mind what the Ritva says because that's going to be נוגע to what it's going to say later, that the Ritva's vort is that before, when you are מכוין, he says then even if it would be מקלקל, it would be אסור. Only when you are אינו מכוין on the פתח and according to Rabbi Yehuda, it's אסור, but then if you're a מקלקל. Then there's another thing: Rashi, when the Gemara says like this: אם תמצי לומר לדם הוא מתכוין, if the beginning, if he wants the דם and not the פתח, then according to Rabbi Shimon, what would be? Would be מותר because you're not מכוין to the פתח, it's an אינו מתכוין, and it's מותר. On the other hand, according to Rabbi Yehuda, it would be אסור. So Rashi says, אם תמצי לומר לדם הוא מתכוין ולא לפתח, מיהו, על כרחך פתחא ממילא הוי, but על כרחך the פתח happens. Why does Rashi say that? Later Rashi asks the קשיא of פסיק רישא, but here the point should not be the על כרחך, here the point should be that even though a פתח will happen, but that's not your כוונה. The stress should be the other way. Rashi stresses, but על כרחך the... Why is that important to stress here? Rashi should say we disregard the פתח. Then Rashi will ask a kashya why it's a pesik reisha. But in the point before where the Gemara wants to say it's mutar, the Gemara says if he's mechaven to the דם and not the פתח, it's mutar. So Rashi should say even though the פתח happens, but Rashi didn't do that. Rashi says אם תמצי לומר לדם הוא מתכוין ולא לפתח, ומיהו, but על כרחך, על כרחך it's going to happen. Why does Rashi put it in there? על כרחך here just means it's forced, right? Forced. No, no, no, it's definitely going to happen. But that, if anything, that's a stress to the other direction. That's a stress to the reason of being assur. And Rashi will takeh ask. But why does Rashi stress it here in this Rashi where he tries to explain why it's called an eino mechaven and it's mutar? He should have said that because you're not mechaven to the פתח, you're just mechaven to the דם, so even though the פתח is going to happen, but you're not mechaven. Rashi doesn't say that. Rashi says you're not mechaven to the דם, but you should know that the פתח is going to happen. Why is that important to stay to know that the פתח is going to happen? Anyway, just there is the Alter Rebbe here in Shulchan Aruch, right, speaks about this din in סימן ר״פ. And he has a different peshat in the Gemara than Rashi. But from what he says, you could understand, we could come up with a peshat in Rashi. He comes and goes into the whole sugya here. And

according to the Alter Rebbe, it comes out here that what melacha would it be if he would make a פתח? Because we see the discussion is, making the פתח is a melacha. The whole she'eilah is, is he מכוין to the melacha, an אינו מתכוין to the melacha, is it a psik reisha, but the melacha is פתח. What melacha is making a פתח? So we said Rashi learns the melacha is binyan, building, making a door, like you make a door. Making a פתח goes with binyan. The Alter Rebbe learns that the melacha here of פתח is תיקון כלי, to make a kli. That's not a specific melacha, that falls under the category of מכה בפטיש. מכה בפטיש is banging with a hammer. The last of the thirty-nine melachot is מכה בפטיש. It's actually not the last, but it's one of the... Banging with a hammer doesn't, that means, there's nothing wrong, there's no melacha of banging with a hammer. If you take a hammer and bang it, the hammer might be muktzeh, but the meaning is when a craftsman makes a kli, after everything is finished, the last finishing touch, after everything is done, gives a bang, that is the end. So there is a melacha called גמר כלי, making a kli, finishing a kli. That's called the melacha of תיקון כלי, which is a category of מכה בפטיש. So making a פתח. The Alter Rebbe says it's תיקון כלי. Does that last bang actually do anything constructive, or practical to the kli, or is it Even if it doesn't. But if that's the way it's done, doesn't matter. If that's the way a craftsman finishes his kli, then that would be that would be the end. That would be the last thing you could do. Whatever the last thing is. Anything, whatever the last thing is. If a person binds a book in a way which is not a melacha, but when he makes the last little thing that will make it into a book, that's the מלאכה דאורייתא, that's called תיקון כלי, גמר כלי, תיקון כלי. Is it because you now have a new thing that wasn't finished until שבת? Whatever the, you find all kinds of reasons, yeah, yeah. But this is a melacha. So making a פתח, the Alter Rebbe says, is תיקון כלי, you are making the כלי. And in this case also it's תיקון כלי. So the Alter Rebbe says the Alter Rebbe פסקנ'ס להלכה at the end of the Gemara that you're allowed to do the first בעילה בשבת. And he says, \"What about תיקון כלי?\" So, he has all kinds of things here, but one of the things he says, והא דאסרו לפתוח פתח משום לתקן כלי, the reason you can't make this פתח is because of you're making a כלי, כמו שכתבתי בסימן ש״כ״ח. So this is what he says: וכשאין צריך לפתח זה, and if you don't need the פתח, אין זה תיקון כלל ולא עשה כלום. It's not תיקון and you didn't do anything. וכמו שיבואר שם, like he says there. And when we look what he says in סימן ש״כ״ח, he says here. I'll read it: כי עיקר חיובו הוא משום תיקון המכה, which is תיקון כלי, אם כן כשאין צריך לתיקון זה, ואינו מתכוון לו, when you don't need a תיקון, and you're not מתכוון to it, אף שנעשה מאליו, even though it's done by itself, אין זה חשוב תיקון כלל, it's not called תיקון, והרי זה כאילו לא עשה ולא כלום. So you didn't do anything. What's the pshat here? You understand what the pshat here? This is all based on a Maggid Mishneh.

The Maggid Mishneh on the Rambam makes a klal, which is a very logical klal. He says that the melacha of תיקון כלי is different than any other melacha. By any melacha, and if you do something and the melacha happens by itself, not by itself, it happened, that would be called a מלאכה שאינו מתכוון. The melacha is done, but you're not Like the example with pulling the chair, you schlepp the chair from here to there and it makes a חריץ. And you weren't miskaven to make the חריץ. So what is it? You still make the חריץ, you did a melacha. But since you did a melacha without kavana, mutar. דבר שאינו מתכוון בשבת, מלאכת מחשבת, whatever the reason is, mutar. Every melachah like that. תיקון כלי, if you were not mitkaven to it, you didn't do the מלאכה בכלל! And I'll explain the logic behind it. Every melachah has a certain ציור, certain description how it's done. Someone describes it. What is the form of doing the melachah of bishul? How would you explain? Very pashut. Take a pot, and you take raw cold water or raw a raw piece of chicken and you put it on the fire. That is the way you do the melachah of תיקון of of of bishul. How do you do the melachah of ketivah? Take a pen and you write a letter. That's ketivah. It has a ציור. Someone's asking, describe to me how do you do מלאכת תיקון כלי? Could be a billion ways. There's nothing, there's no ציור to the melachah. I could close the book. If that's the last thing you do when you make a book, closing the book is תיקון כלי. If it's if it's banging with a hammer, it's banging with a hammer. There's no ציור to it. So if there's no ציור, closing a book is a דבר המותר. What makes into a melachah? The kavanah! If I'm not mitkaven, it's not the פשט I did a melachah without kavanah. I did no melachah! That's what the Alter Rebbe says. And therefore, he says if the melachah of פתח here is תיקון כלי, if you're mitkaven for the דם and not for the פתח, so what is it? Not the פשט it's a פתח, which is a מלאכה שאינו מתכוון, it's בכלל not a melachah! You didn't do anything because if you didn't mitkaven for תיקון כלי, it's not a melachah. That's what the And the Maggid Mishneh goes בהמשך to that and says, according to this, you'll never be chayav according to Rabbi Shimon by פסיק רישא of תיקון כלי. Because what's when does Rabbi Shimon say you're chayav by פסיק רישא? If the melachah was done, but אינו מתכוון. So what happens? If it's a פסיק רישא, you're chayav, even though you were not מתכוון. But by תיקון כלי, if you're not מתכוון, you didn't do a melachah. So what was it, what's the פשט פסיק רישא? פסיק רישא, there is no melachah here! And therefore he says you would not be chayav by פסיק רישא according to Rabbi Shimon by תיקון כלי. That's the Maggid Mishneh's כלל. פסיק רישא is when you do something it's mutar and a melachah is done. So if the melachah doesn't have to be done, it's אינו מתכוון, it's mutar. If the melachah has to be done, it's a פסיק רישא, You're chayav even according to Rabbi Shimon. But if the melachah happens to be פסיק רישא, happens to be תיקון כלי, can never be. No, there's no melachah, since לפועל you were not מכוין. If you're not מכוין, there is no melachah. So what's the pshat there is a פסיק רישא, and you should be chayav? Chayav for what? מילא according to Rabbi Yehuda, אינו מתכוין is chayav. But the emet is that according to Rabbi Yehuda also, if according to Rabbi Yehuda if you're not mechaven by פסיק by תיקון כלי, you would be patur also. According to According to the Maggid Mishneh. Because there is no melachah. When does Rabbi Yehuda say you're chayav? If you do a melachah, but the melachah is eino mechaven, you're chayav. But since you're not mechaven, there is no melachah. Can never be eino mechaven when it comes to תיקון כלי. Right, so you're not chayav. That's what that says. I want to say a chiddush, a new a new peshat, that the Maggid Mishneh and the Alter Rebbe don't mean that we'll never say פסיק רישא by תיקון כלי. If there is a פסיק רישא by a תיקון כלי, what it does is it makes the act from not a melachah into a melachah. If you were not mechaven for a certain melachah, for תיקון כלי, it's not a melachah. But if the melachah has to happen, פסיק רישא, so the kavanah you had originally transfers to that melachah. The the kavanah you have, so then it turns it into a melachah. It does, not like we think from the Maggid Mishneh it doesn't. What the Maggid Mishneh means to say is it'll turn it into a melachah, but that it'll remain מלאכה שלא בכוונה. So we're saying it's not impossible to And you won't be chayav. It'll remain a מלאכה שאינו מתכוין. I'll explain this in a little better.

When we say according to רבי שמעון פסיק רישא you're chayav, it's אינו מתכוין, Rabbi Shimon holds eino mitkaven, and you were not mitkaven. The answer is very pashut. You were mitkaven to take it from let's the chair from here to there, you had kavanah, and you know that it must make a charitz, so the kavanah you have from here transfers on the thing that you were not mitkaven, and it's called kavanah. That's why you're chayav. It would have to happen. It would have to happen. So I want to say the same thing by תיקון כלי, that since you know it's going to happen, you know that תיקון כלי will happen, so there is kavanah there. And if there is, the kavanah from here transfers to there, and it turns into a melachah. But the kavanah doesn't do a double job. It can't turn it into a melachah and a מלאכה בכוונה, a mitkaven. What it'll do is it'll turn it into a melachah, and it will remain a מלאכה שאינו מתכוין. It's a secondary thing and not a So it'll be patur, you'll still be it'll still be mutar. When the Maggid Mishneh says that there is no chiyuv according to Rabbi Shimon by פסיק רישא דתיקון כלי, so normally we learn since you were not mitkaven, it's not a melachah, and that's it, so there's no pesik reisha because there's no melachah. I'm saying the fact that it's pesik reisha does do one step. It changes it from not being a melachah if you wouldn't be a pesik reisha, because has no כוונה למלאכה. Since it's a pesik reisha, it becomes a melachah. But it doesn't do two things: that it should become number one a melachah, and a melachah with kavanah. If it's a melachah from before, by itself a melachah, then the pesik reisha transfers the kavanah to the melachah, and does what? Gives it kavanah, it's a melachah u'mitkaven. Without it, it is a מלאכה שאינו מתכוין, now it's a מלאכה שמתכוין. So Rabbi Shimon says you're chayav. But if let's say something is not a מלאכה to begin with, so the pesik reisha will change it from not מלאכה to a מלאכה, but that's it. So Rabbi Shimon will hold it's still it's still mutar. And Rabbi Yehuda will say that you're chayav. Now it's asur. Now it's a

מלאכה, and a מלאכה שלא בכוונה, but according to Rabbi Yehuda, it's chayav. So the way this makes a difference is only according to Rabbi Yehuda, but then it gives it it Right. Right. But according to Rabbi Shimon, it makes a difference that it elevates it to the level of מלאכה. That's what that's what And that is noge'a to כמה ענינים in the דין of תיקון כלי, which we might see in other places later on talk about it. This is פשט there. This doesn't fit to Rashi, because Rashi doesn't learn that we're talking about the מלאכה of תיקון כלי here. Rashi and the Gemara learn we're talking about the מלאכה of פתח. This logic that the Magid Mishneh says concerning תיקון כלי could be said by other מלאכות also. For instance, the Merkavat HaMishnah wants to say it by מלאכת צידה. And it makes sense also. The Rabbi in a שיחה brings brings him back. Trapping. And the logic is there too. When you close the door of your house, is it a מלאכה? No. If there happens to be an animal there that like locking it up, you're not letting it out, you're over on מלאכת צידה. So צידה is also one of the things that if you have כוונה, it's a מלאכה. If you don't have כוונה, not the פשט you did מלאכת צידה שאינו מתכוין. You didn't do melachah. You locked the door, you're not. The Rebbe brings ראיות from Gemarot that he's wrong. Merkavat HaMishneh is is is he brings ראיות from different דינים that it's not true, by צידה we don't say that. That we don't say this This logic. In other words, צידה is a is a melachah even without kavanah. It's a מלאכה שאינו מתכוין. The Rebbe wants to say by קשירה, by making a קשר של קיימא. You have to make a kesher, and mid'oraita you're only chayav if