therefore, if it's a כלי in the רשות הרבים, it's that. מסקנת הש״ס learns differently. דש״ס סבר כפתור, but Tosafos learns batel. So the question is: where is there more batel? When it's מחובר or not מחובר? Which כלי would be more batel to the place it is? מחובר! It's not מחובר, it's that פארט, after all, it's separate. If מחובר, so if it's not מחובר, we say it's not, because it's a כלי, it loses its גדר of קרקע and it's batel to the קרקע and it becomes רשות הרבים. If it's מחובר, הא שוב יאבד נאבד. So what does Tosafos say? Why don't we say אין כרמלית בכלי, maybe because it's מחובר? So I'm saying that's the vort. Because if it's מחובר, it's so much batel that it loses מציאות. When is it שייכות אין כרמלית בכלי? When it becomes when it's It's a יש which is batel. But if it's completely batel, then then then you're not mevatel it. But anyway, that's just a dugma what I want to bring here. So I want to say like this: that when it comes to the shiurim of of Shabbos, of carrying, on one hand, מצד the melacha itself, you don't need a shiur, because the melacha is, and then this is different than all other melachot of Shabbos. Melachot of Shabbos, every melacha is a tangible melacha. So a tangible melacha has a tangible shiur. It's a shiur. But in But hotza'ah, because the melacha is not tangible, so the melacha, mi-tzad the melacha side, doesn't require a shiur. On the other hand, because of the person's ability to do the melacha, ma'aseh, there you have to have a shiur, because you have to have a chashivut, you have to have a shiur. So there has to be some metziut. Based I want to explain through this, that the Rebbe is מסביר in a sicha, Likkutei Sichot חלק כ״ט, when he spoke speaks there about the Gemara, some things by Shabbos is כל שהוא. The

Rebbe says that we find two גדרים in כל שהוא. We find like this: by avodah zarah, the Rambam paskan't that you're not allowed to have any כל שהוא of avodah zarah, and you got to destroy any כל שהוא, שנאמר, ולא ידבק בידך מאומה, that nothing of avodah zarah. Then he says, by Shabbos, we also find that certain things you're חייב בכל שהוא. Or even here we say, המצניע, you're חייב בכל שהוא. So the Rebbe says like there's a difference between the two כל שהוא's. That the כל שהוא of avodah zarah, because he says like this: when you have something that's חייב בכל שהוא, you can learn two ways. You can learn כל שהוא means that it doesn't have a shiur. Certain things have a kezayit, there's some things don't have a shiur. Or you could learn כל שהוא itself is the shiur. There's a shiur of כל שהוא. And he wants to say that by avodah zarah, כל שהוא, there is no שיעור, מאומה! Pasuk says, ידבק מאומה, anything. The shiur of כל שהוא by Shabbos is a shiur, is a shiur of כל שהוא, it's a shiur. Mai nafka mina? So the Rebbe brings a certain נפקא מינה לגבי תערובות, but I was thinking maybe the nafka mina would be, I just wonder why if this what I'm saying is true, why he doesn't bring it in the sicha. I remember when he said this sicha, when he spoke about it, he didn't bring this nafka mina. Would be, if the כל שהוא is no shiur, then it's as tiny as it could be, whatever it is. If it's a shiur of כל שהוא, it needs some ממשות. Has to be something there, something that you should, you know, be able to to כאפ on. But if it's mamash tiny, tiny, tiny, then it then it's nothing. And where do we see a chiluk? Because usually we imagine, or it's a shiur, or less than a shiur. I'm trying to say אפילו גדר, that in in כל שהוא there is, if it's mamash tiny We find such a chiluk! The chiluk is, we find that the Rambam says in Hilchot Chametz U'Matzah, the Rambam says that if you eat a כל שהוא, you're not allowed to eat even a כל שהוא of חמץ on Pesach, שנאמר, לא יאכל. But he says you're not חייב כרת unless you eat a kezayit. If you eat פחות מכשיעור, listen to the words, if you eat less than a shiur, מכין אותו מכת מרדות. You get this מכת מרדות which the Rabbanan would give, which you're not חייב מלקות, but the Rabbanan would give. So comes the Kesef Mishneh, and he's מדייק. He says, look here: in the beginning, the Rambam

says you're asur to eat a כל שהוא. When it comes to say that you're חייב מכת מרדות, he says, if you eat less than a shiur. Why didn't he say the same word for a כל שהוא? So he says like this: you're only חייב מכת מרדות if you eat, takeh, less than a shiur, but it has to be some ממשות. But the issur is mamash even a כל שהוא. But מכת מרדות you only get if it has some ממשות. So we see here, that there is, takeh, a difference between completely nothing, mamash the tiniest, tiniest bit, or some ממשות. So maybe this is the chiluk, that by avodah zarah is מאומה, there's no shiur. בנוגע שבת, there is a shiur of כל שהוא. Now, the Rogatchover, the Rebbe himself brings this, the Rogatchover doesn't make that chiluk. He puts the two together. He mixes this שבת כל שהוא, he says we find by עבודה זרה כל שהוא and שבת כל שהוא. Even looking at the sichah, it's mashma that the Rebbe disagrees with the Rogatchover. Now, I want to say that it's not true. Depends from which angle we look at it. If you look at it from the angle of the melachah, There is no shiur. When we say that you're חייב בכל שהוא, it's not because there is a shiur of חשיבות, there is no shiur, because the melachah is a מלאכה רוחנית, so there is no there is no need of ממשות. On the other hand, מצד the person, you need a shiur. The person has to have some חשיבות, substantive shiur. So when the Rebbe says that by Shabbos the shiur of כל שהוא is a shiur, that's לפי האמת the bottom line. When he says that by Shabbos it's like avodah zarah, because by שבת מצד the melachah you don't need a shiur, the whole geder of the shiur is מצד the person. Now, לפי זה it comes out that I understand why the Rambam would say by by by Shabbos by hotzaah, by hotzaah, if you don't have a shiur, it's not חצי שיעור, it's like עקירה without הנחה, חצי מלאכה. Why? Right. But it's only by the din of hotzaah. Now, this is just by the way. L'poel it comes out from here that by Shabbos, when we say we need a chashivus, but the whole chashivus comes מצד the gavra, only מצד the person. That's one thing. Okay, let's keep that in mind. So, when we came to a conclusion that by שבת מצד the person, it's not like any other melachah or any other thing where the shiur is a din in the melachah. The melachah is done with a shiur. It's only מצד the person that you need a shiur of chashivus. That's one thing. Now,

when the person is machshiv something, let's step aside a second. When the person is machshiv make something chashuv, let's have another chakirah here. Does that mean that this thing becomes chashuv like be'etzem, now it became חשוב, or I have to constantly have that מחשבה, so to speak, of making it חשוב. I want to use the words, is it a פעולה נמשכת? Something that's not חשוב בעצם and I make it חשוב, is it the fact that I have to make it חשוב, I constantly כאילו constantly have to do it because בעצם it's not חשוב, or the moment I make it חשוב, now it's חשוב? The difference will be a very simple difference. See, if I clearly decide I'm taking away the חשיבות, then it makes no difference, in both ways it's not חשוב. But what happens if I made it חשוב, then סתם? Then I did something to it סתם. If the פשט is it became חשוב בעצם, so the only way it loses the חשיבות is if you נמלך, if you decide not. If you say that I constantly have to give it the חשיבות, the moment I stop giving it, the moment I don't know that it's חשוב, I didn't change my mind, but it's שוכח, we say we forgot and it's סתם, so you stopped continuing the חשיבות, it's not חשוב. And I want to say now that the two points that we just made now, that the חשיבות of Shabbos is a דין in the גברא, in the person, not a דין in the thing, and the fact that by Shabbos it is not a פעולה נמשכת, when you make it חשוב it becomes חשוב, are the two דינים in the Gemara. Let's go from one דין to the other. The first דין was, Gemara said like this: you took it out, you hid it לזרע, then you forgot, you took it out סתם. מהו דתימא I would think that you're מבטל the original מחשבה. קא משמע לן no, that whatever you do you do על דעת ראשונה. What's the hava amina and what's the maskana? The hava amina of the Gemara was that when you are machshiv it, it's a פעולה נמשכת and you constantly have to the moment now you're taking it out stam, it's batel. Because otherwise, why would you think you're mevatel? Because according to a פעולה נמשכת you don't have to be mevatel, the moment you're not continuing the machshavah it's already, and you're not ka mashma lan no, that כל העושה על דעת ראשונה עושה, whatever you do goes on before as long as you're not mevatel it, positively mevatel it, it remains. Why? Because it's not a פעולה נמשכת. You made it be'etzem. That's the one. Comes Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel שמואל, says another thing: you should know that you're chayav even for the tiniest bit. And the Gemara says, what would I have thought? That you need not a big shiur even if you're machshiv it, but you need at least a kezayit. What's there the pshat? The Gemara had a hava amina that the shiur of Shabbos is like all other shiurim. We said before the shiur of is a din of chashivus. We thought maybe it's a דין בעצם it has to have some shiur. So therefore the Gemara said even if you're machshiv it, but it has to have some עצם שיעור. Ka mashma lan that it doesn't it's not like any shiurim, it's a separate din, that it's purely connected to the person. Now that we have these two klalim both, now comes up the Gemara with a she'eilah: if so, if a person had in mind to take out the whole house, and now he only took out a little bit, so you should not chayav. Why? We said before, what's the re'ayah? The re'ayah is pashut. Since we came to a conclusion that it's not there's no שיעור בעצם, it's only מצד the person, so it only depends on the person. If it only depends on the person, so it should both The person, if he decides what's chashuv, then if I decided only the whole house is chashuv, yeah, that's the whole house chashuv. So if I take out a little bit, it shouldn't be. And the Gemara's sh'eilah is only if I take out a little bit, why? Because the Gemara's sh'eilah really now is since it's תולה in the person, so you made a whole house chashuv, number one. Number two, if you now take it out in the form of being stam, we said before that if you hid it לזרע and then you took it out stam, you're still chayav. That's the Gemara's case here. The Gemara's case here that you had in mind to take out the whole house, you took out only a little bit. When you took out a little bit, that's stam. See the kashya we had before, you took out a little, how does that show that you're changing your mind? You're taka not changing your mind, but it's definitely not continuing what you did before, but it's stam. And that's the Gemara's sh'eilah. Now that you're telling me that it depends on the person, if it depends on the person, he could make what he wants, and he decided that the whole house is chashuv, and now you went on and you continued stam, and stam goes according to the מחשבה ראשונה, so you should be patur. So it comes out the Gemara's sh'eilah is only based on is after we have both dinim. Number one, we had a din that when you take it out stam, the old מחשבה stays. We had a din that it depends on the individual. So between the two dinim comes up a new sh'eilah. If it depends on the individual, it's not stam. No, it depends on the individual, then you could decide even the whole house should only be chashuv, not less. Then when you took out one, you're not מבטל the old מחשבה, because we don't know that means that you don't you still might take out more, who knows what you'll do later, so that's stam. So based on both dinim before, comes up the question, i hachi, should be patur here. Now Rashi

will learn, that's how Rashi will learn, that taking out a little bit is befeirush not stam. You meant to take out the whole thing, now you took out a little bit, it's not stam. So what's the Gemara's kashya? So therefore Rashi learns the Gemara's kashya is different. You took out the whole thing, but you took it out פורתא פורתא, you took it out slowly. That's called stam. You wanted to take out the whole thing that together, and you took out a little bit, so here you can't say you're going against what you did before, because you wanted to take out the whole thing, you're taking out the whole thing. On the other hand, it's not exactly like before, because before you wanted to take out the whole thing together, now you're taking out slowly. So that's stam. So the machloket where Rashi adds this is because Rashi wants to show you that this has to be בהמשך to the first case. It has a המשך to the second and המשך to the first. How is it an המשך to the first? In a case where it's stam. Why is it stam? So Rashi learns stam is only if you בפועל took out the whole thing. Because his original intention was but but it's not against. See, stam means not against. If it's against your original intention, then it's changed, it wouldn't be stam. So Tosafot normally the מפרשים will learn that the fact that you took out one piece is not still against. It's not changing your mind. It's not doing what you wanted, but not change, that's called stam. And Rashi will learn that's not called stam. That's called changing your mind. You wanted the whole thing, you took out one. When is it called change your mind? You did you did exactly what you wanted, but in a different way. That's called stam. So that's the she'elah, the המשך to before. And so the whole she'elah of the Gemara is based on both. So when Rashi says it goes בהמשך to the first case, and Tosafot says it goes בהמשך to the second, they're both true. Because the whole she'elah could only be asked if we have both. Why? If we're going to learn that what's the peshat in both, that one teaches you that this shiur is a shiur of the gavra, nothing to do with the thing, with the מלאכה, and the other thing is that it doesn't change it changes b'etzem and therefore stam is not chayav, so that's how the Gemara comes up with both שאלות. The bottom line is the first rule and the second rule are really against each other. One is talking about a gavra, one is talking about a cheftza. If you focus on the gavra, then it's not focusing on the cheftza, and when you focus on the cheftza, it should be different. Both focusing on the gavra. Both are the gavra. The gavra, yeah, but it's what it's what constitutes a a difference and a change and an ending of a start and the starting of a new one, or a or a or a condemnation of a No, מצד the melacha itself, per se, the shiur, there's no need for any shiurim. But מצד the gavra, there is a need for a shiur. By other things that מצד the the aveirah itself, that's when the shiur comes in. Here the shiur, right? So and and not only that, we're saying that when you you have to make it chashuv, and not only that, when you do make it chashuv, it stays that way. Those are the two rules. Nothing to do with against each other. They're two separate rules. Don't think that it's a שיעור כל שהוא, therefore it should be at least a kezayit. Doesn't have to be anything. All depends on the person individually, and that's all. Then, depends on the person individually, you are able to make it chashuv. Then we're saying when you do make it chashuv, what happens? You have to reverse it. It stays, you have to reverse it. If you don't reverse it, stam won't. So then when we have that, so now it comes out, the Gemara says, so if you're telling me it's completely talui on the person himself, so why davka from not chashuv to יא חשוב? Maybe from יא חשוב to not chashuv? Maybe I make chashuv differently. It's everyone according to his own chashivut. Right. So mimela, for me the whole house is chashuv, so that's only that's chashuv. And therefore, what'll be the next step? If I take it out, now stam, that's the Gemara's שאלה. Now that, so mimela this became chashuv, plus if I if I am machshiv the whole thing, so now stam means that I don't reverse it. So now, if I took out a little bit, it shouldn't be chayav. That's the Gemara's she'elah. The Gemara's answer is batelah da'ato, that is not a normal thing. We only say these things when they're when it's normal. It's not by everybody, \"I want to\", but something that's normal. Something that's crazy, we don't count, and this is crazy. But only, so that's that's the Gemara's status. I'm going to say what the Gemara's she'elah. The Gemara's she'elah is before we know that it's crazy. Right. So the she'elah is because it's up to me, so I make it חשוב, and and it's stam, so that's actually What's stam mean in English? Doesn't have like quantum, you know, to it. Doesn't matter. Always. Stam means plain, simple, I don't know what how you call it. Not saying not doing anything. In other words, not not saying. For instance, in this case, you put it away לזרע, to to then later if you take it out בדוקא now to eat, so now you have a positive thought against what it was before. If you take it out again לזרע, you are exact doing like you did before. What happens if if you didn't do like before, but you didn't change it to something else? That's called stam in this case. Because you took and you hid it, you don't remember why, and you take it out now stam. And we're saying that the old machshavah stays. Because when you were machshiv it, it became חשוב and it stayed that. So I So the Gemara's she'elah is, so if I machshiv only the whole and it stays that way, and stam won't work, and what's stam? So peshat סתם means half, take a little bit, and Rashbam learns stam means איפכא, you take the whole thing, but not the way I said, that's stam. All this Gemara here, this and the next pieces are all very, very abstract. I mean, if you learn it deeper, it's not concrete, you know, סברות that are very That's why I said this is again what we talked about, the quantum physics, what You know what I mean? It is what you think it is and and what you have to make it is, and as long as you're looking at it and concentrating, that was the question on י״א before. As long as you're concentrating and keeping something going, the minute you take it off of it, it loses the חשיבות. That that that's the whole that's the Now that's if full המשך, but if it's not full המשך, it doesn't. Right. You have to take away that. Take away, it's like here, you have to reverse it. Yeah. And the Gemara says

at the end, the whole thing doesn't count because it's a very unusual Right, right, right. It's only where that they hold. Batelah da'ato, yeah. [Non-speech audio] [Non-speech audio] stood, right? So there are several different answers. The classical answer, the simple answer, the peshat, if you look back into the previous sentence, it says, ברוך שומר הבטחתו לישראל, ברוך הוא, שהקדוש ברוך הוא חשב את הקץ לעשות כמו שאמר לאברהם אבינו בברית בין הבתרים, שנאמר, and then it quotes the pasuk, and He said to Avraham, know that your children will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, for four hundred years, and after that they will go out with great wealth.