Me'olam it's not מלאכת קושר to begin with, because what's the taytsh of a kesher? Kesher means to tie, right? If it's not to stay, then you didn't tie, you put strings together. There's a difference between putting strings close to each other or making a tie. So if it's קיימא, then it's a kesher, if not, not. But anyway, what I'm trying to bring out that you could say this sevara, even though the Maggid Mishneh says about תיקון כלים, clearly it says about תיקון כלים, you could use this logic with other melachot, but you have to have a reason for it. I want to say that according to Rashi, by the melachah of binyan in a body, the logic applies. Binyan in a house is pashteyt zich whether you're mechaven or not, it's a melachah. If you're not mechaven, it's a מלאכה אינו מתכוין. But to make a binyan, a hole in the body, and call it binyan, that's a chiddush. Rashi needs a pasuk for it, ויבן את הצלע. So I want to say if you intend to make the binyan, so it's a melachah. If you don't intend to make the binyan, to make the פתח, then it's not a melachah at all. וממילא if it's not a melachah, what will be if it's a pesik reisha according to the Maggid Mishneh's sevara? It won't be considered. But

according to what I said before, what we'll have to say is like this: that the pesik reisha makes it into a melachah, but it becomes a מלאכה שאינו מתכוין. Now I want to say that this is the peshat in the Gemara here, when the Gemara says that there is a sevara to say לדמו צריך, not for the פתח, so he's not mechaven for the פתח, so the moment he's not mechaven for the petach, the petach is not a melachah. The petach is not a melachah at all, because a petach in the body to be a melachah, even according to Rashi of מלאכת בנין, if you're not mechaven to it, there is no melachah. If there is no melachah, it has nothing to do with Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon. Even according to Rabbi Yehuda it should be mutar. So what does the Gemara say here? That if he's mechaven to the dam, not to the petach, that according to Rabbi Yehuda it would be chayav, why would it be chayav? So, you know what I say? You know why, because it's a pesik reisha. It's befeirush a pesik reisha here. And the pesik reisha here is the reason why according to Rabbi Yehuda chayav, and according to Rabbi Shimon it's still mutar. Ai, according to Rabbi Shimon a normal pesik reisha is chayav? But that's a pesik reisha when it's a melachah on its own, so pesik reisha elevates it from a מלאכה שאינו מתכוין to a מלאכה שמתכוין. But here, where it's not a מלאכה בעצם, and it's a pesik reisha, the pesik reisha makes it into a melachah, and that's when we come back to the machloket of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon. So this is right after when Rashi says why it would be mutar according to Rabbi Shimon and asur according to Rabbi Yehuda, Rashi says, \"ומיהו על כורחך פסיק רישא ממילא הוה,\" and the פתח is going to happen על כורחך. The question we asked before, why when it says that it's mutar according to Rabbi Shimon and asur according to Rabbi Yehuda, Rashi האקט אריין that it has to happen the פתח? Why is it important to mention it has to happen? Because if it wouldn't have to happen, the whole Gemara wouldn't make sense. The Gemara, you couldn't say according to Rabbi Yehuda is chayav, because if it doesn't have to happen, it's not a מלאכה שאינו מתכוין, so Rashi says it has to happen. Then when Rashi comes and asks, \"but it's a pesik reisha?\" Rashi's קשיא is not that it's a pesik reisha, because adraba, see, Rashi asks, \"since it's a pesik reisha, why would we say according to Rabbi Shimon that it's mutar? Pesik reisha makes asur.\" But Rashi couldn't ask that, because here the pesik reisha makes it from not מלאכה to יא מלאכה, and remains a מלאכה שאינו מתכוין, it's mutar according to Rabbi Shimon. So we

have to say that Rashi means a different קשיא in pesik reisha. The קשיא is like this: we keep on saying the whole time that the פתח is is is not really a מלאכה בעצם. בעצם, we said because it's in the body, but if it's part of the ביאה, the whole גדר of ביאה is that a פתח must happen, the ביאה ראשונה, the פתח must happen, then automatically it should be whether you're mechaven or not mechaven it should be a melachah, because that's something that you're intending to do the ביאה ראשונה, and ביאה ראשונה comes along with the idea of a פתח must happen, then automatically why would we say it's not a melachah? That's Rashi's kashya. Rashi says it's a פסיק רישא, meaning it has to happen, and not because that Rabbi Shimon should hold chayav. Yeah, Rabbi Shimon should hold chayav, but for a different reason. Since it has to happen, it's a melachah anyway, and if it's a melachah anyway, then the פסיק רישא will make it a מלאכה שמתכוין. That's Rashi's kashya. All Rashi wants to tell us that the answer is you should know that it's not necessarily something that's part of the ביאה. והא ראיה, there are some people who do הטייה. Takeh when they do הטייה, there is no dam and there is no פתח, but still this just shows that making a פתח is not part of the ביאה, that's all it shows. And the moment it's not part of the ביאה, then automatically it's not a melachah. If it's not a melachah, then the פסיק רישא makes it into a melachah, and Rabbi Yehudah is chayav, according to Rabbi Shimon it's mutar. So that's why, so the fact that when dam it has to, if you make הטייה it won't be dam and it won't be פתח, but it just shows you that the concept of the פתח. This is the way Rashi learns. Tosafot doesn't learn like this. Tosafot learns poshuter pshat that this melachah of making a פתח is a binyan, and it's a binyan whether you're mechaven or not. Even though it's a chiddush that there should be a binyan in a body, it's a it's a melachah anyway. And therefore according to Tosafos, it doesn't have to be a pesik reisha in order to be a melachah, it's a melachah anyway. The only reason why it's patur according to R' Shimon, because it's a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה. Comes Tosafos and asks a kashya, it's a melachah, but it's a pesik reisha! A regular kashya of a pesik reisha. So the only way Tosafos could answer is, it's not a pesik reisha! It's not a pesik reisha, because you can have דם without a פתח. So Tosafos asks a simple kashya of a normal pesik reisha. Rashi, but Rashi learns that the pesik reisha here helps our situation. The fact that it's a pesik reisha makes us understand the Gemara, and how that's what Rashi asks, and the only thing is, he asks, well, why the pesik reisha should show that it's part of the ביאה? So Rashi answers, it's not like that. Now, since what we have to do is, we're saying that the the ביאה that the the פתח בעצם is not a melachah, it's only the pesik reisha makes it into a melachah. What would be if it would be a mekalkel? If it would be a mekalkel, then it's hard to say that the pesik reisha should make it into a melachah. Why is it a melachah? A melachah because even though you're not mechaven, and this is a type of melachah that in order to be to make him to be a melachah you have to be mechaven. But a pesik reisha is like you're mechaven. So it elevates it to a melachah. But if you if you are a mekalkel, if the whole idea this is a kilkul, if this is a kilkul, then the pesik reisha will not elevate to a melachah, even though it's a pesik reisha, but it's a pesik reisha of a kilkul. And that's why the Gemara only asks the kashya here, according to Rashi. You asked the other kashya was why when the Gemara asks maybe it's a kilkul, why did the Gemara only ask it after the Gemara said it's לדם הוא צריך, and the petach is memeila, and according to Rav Yehuda you're chayav. Maybe it's a mekalkel. Why didn't the Gemara say lechatchilah, if you're mechaven to the petach, it says it's asur, ai maybe it's a mekalkel? So I'm saying like the Ritva said, like the Rashba said, not like, if you're mechaven, it's mechaven to the petach, since this is not a real kilkul, so then takeh the Gemara can't ask the she'eilah it should be mutar because it's a mekalkel. But later on the Gemara asks the she'eilah like this: Since now we're saying it goes according to Rav Yehuda, be'emet he wants the דם, and he's not mechaven to the פתח. Because if you're mechaven to the פתח, you have two things. Normally it's a melachah, number one, and it's a מלאכה בכוונה, so you're chayav. And if it's a melachah and a מלאכה בכוונה, this type of a mekalkel will not make it mutar, because it's not a real mekalkel. But later on when the Gemara said לדם הוא צריך, ולפתח is me'meila, so the פתח be'etzem, since you're not mechaven to the פתח, it's not a melachah. The only thing that will make it into a melachah is pesik reisha. But even if with pesik reisha, but if it's a mekalkel, not 100% mekalkel, but even a little bit of mekalkel is enough not to allow that this non-not-melachah should turn into a melachah. And that's what the Gemara asks. Still you're going to say לדם הוא צריך and the פתח comes also בדרך ממילא, and הולכת כרב יהודה, and the only reason you'd be chayav according to Rav Yehuda is why? Because of the pesik reisha that turns it into a melachah, but be'etzem it's not a melachah, you were not mechaven, so it's not a melachah, the pesik reisha turns it. So here the Gemara had it, maybe it's a mekalkel, and if it's a mekalkel, we doubt that the pesik reisha will turn it into a melachah, and mimeila it should be mutar. Ay it's a שוואכע מקלקל, but ממילא לגבי being a מלאכה, ומקלקל to be mutar, this type of a מקלקל wouldn't do it. But if it's a type of thing which is not a real מלאכה, and the psik reisha makes it, here a little bit of מקלקל will do it. And that's why davka here the Gemara asked this kashya. According to this, many דיוקים in Rashi, many ענינים in the whole sugya gets farentfert and musbar and the whole sugya goes smooth. This is just the tip of being. Yeah. [Non-speech audio]