two people did a melacha together, they're both patur. But it's not so simple. There's a machloket here. Three three opinions, three shitos in the Gemara, and Gemara goes for the details. The three shitos are like this: The beraita says: תני, זה יכול וזה יכול, if two people together do a melacha, but each one was able to do it himself, Rabbi' Meir מחייב. Rabbi' Meir says, you are still chayav, even though each one could have done it himself, and lemaaseh they did it together, they're still chayav. V'Rabbi' Yehuda v'Rabbi' Shimon פוטרין. Rabbi' Yehuda and Rabbi' Shimon both say patur. זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול, if it's a case where they did a melacha together and each one himself couldn't have done it, Rabbi' Yehuda v'Rabbi' Meir מחייבין, ור' Shimon פוטר. Rabbi' Yehuda and Rabbi' Meir say chayav, and Rabbi' Shimon says patur. זה יכול וזה אינו יכול, דברי הכל חייב. If one is able to, and the other one is not, and they did it together, so everyone agrees, and the Gemara will explain that the one that is able to, he's chayav. So just to and the other one is patur. So just from here comes out that the three shitos are like this: in Rabbi' Meir holds that no matter what, whenever two people do a melacha together, they are chayav, even if it's זה יכול וזה יכול, even if each one could have done it himself, they're still each one chayav. R'' Shimon holds that they're always patur. In both cases, if it's זה יכול וזה יכול, you have to here keep cheshbon the the cases, not to confuse them. זה זה יכול וזה יכול, this guy could do it, and this guy could do it, they're both patur. זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול, this guy can't do it, and this guy can't do it, according to R'' Shimon, they're also both patur. R'' Yehuda is the middle case. R'' Yehuda holds that by זה יכול וזה יכול, if they both could do it, then they're both patur. If it's זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול, if this guy can't do it, and this guy can't do it, and they did it together, they're both chayav. And the Gemara is going to go into the explaining where they take this din from. What about the case where one can do it, one can't? And that's where everyone agrees, a case the fourth case where ever one could do it, and the one not, everyone agrees that the one that could do it is chayav, the one that cannot do it is patur. Who's the first one again? R'' Meir, R'' Meir says they're all chayav. R'' Shimon says they're all patur. The third case. No, three opinions. I don't mean three cases. Three opinions. Three opinions. Three opinions and three possibilities. And the Gemara goes in here, תנו רבנן, they bring a beraita and it's all based on a pasuk, בעשותה, The

pasuk says and the Gemara will explain. It says, \"ואם נפש אחת תחטא בשגגה מעם הארץ בעשותה,\" if one person will sin בשוגג בעשותה, when he will do it. So we learn out from בעשותה, העושה את כולה, ולא העושה מקצתה. If you do the whole thing, you're chayav, but if you only do part of it, you are patur. כיצד, and the Gemara goes into the case here, שנים שהיו אוחזים במרעו ובמגרזה ובכרכר ובשרביט וספוג וקונדוס וכיס וחמת והוציאו לרשות הרבים, two people holding on a fork, and they were doing a melachah with a fork, digging with a fork together, Now here you have a case where it's זה יכול וזה יכול. It's a very simple. I mean, it's a small thing with a fork. You don't have to be a גיבור to do it. Or it says two people were holding a pen or a small thing, and together they held onto it, and they carried it out on Shabbos. So here, יכול יהיו חייבין, I would think you're chayav. תלמוד לומר בעשותה, The pasuk says בעשותה, when you will do it, את כולה, העושה את כולה, ולא העושה מקצתה. You do the whole thing, you're chayav. If you do part of it, and in this case, he only did part of it, because together they did it. ועיגול של דבילה והוציאוהו לרשות הרבים, בקורה והוציאוהו לרשות הרבים, for example, if they took a big beam out into the רשות הרבים, and they both together carried it, now here it's a case of זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול. No one could carry himself a groisse beam. So

here, ר' יהודה אומר, ר' יהודה says, אם לא יכול אחד להוציאה והוציאוה שנים, if one couldn't do it, neither one couldn't do it, and they did it together, חייבין, they're chayav. ואם לאו, but if it's a case where they could have done it each one separately, then they're patur. So here, Who said this is the בעשותה? It we'll see in a minute. So the Gemara will explain. ור' שמעון אומר, ר' שמעון says, אף על פי שלא יכול אחד להוציאה והוציאוה שנים, even if they couldn't take out, neither one could have taken out himself, but they took it out together, they're also פטור, לכך נאמר בעשותה. And we know it's from בעשותה. And the Gemara explains במאי קמיפלגי. Where do they argue? What is their argument? And the Gemara says their argument בהאי קרא, this pasuk. The pasuk says, \"ואם נפש אחת תחטא בשגגה מעם הארץ בעשותה.\" So ר' שמעון סבר, תלתא מיעוטי כתיבי. The גמרא דרש, if ר' שמעון says there are, everyone says there are three מיעוטים here, three words that are ממעט: נפש, as if it would have said, נפש תחטא, אחת תחטא, בעשותה תחטא. So we have three מיעוטים that נפש, one נפש means completely you, אחת is one, בעשותה is when you do it, three pesukim that tell you. So, So, what does it come to teach us? That's still always patur. Right! So there comes three מיעוטים to tell you that if you do it together, you're patur. Now, what are the three cases? So we have another case here which I haven't even mentioned before, which is זה עוקר וזה מניח. One does the עקירה and one does the הנחה. So two people together made the whole melachah, but the difference between this and the other case, the other case we're talking about that two people together did the whole melachah. They both together picked it up, made the עקירה, carried it out, made the הנחה. What happens if one does half, and the other guy does the other half? That's the first and foremost case where you're patur, cause you didn't even do the whole thing. See the other case is at least you participate. So here everybody agrees, even according, everyone agrees. Even Rabbi Meir, you mean? Even according to Rabbi Meir. So here with, so he darash that Rabbi Shimon says there are three pesukim. חד, one למיעוטא is זה עוקר וזה מניח, one comes to exclude that if one makes the עקירה and one makes the הנחה, you're patur. וחד למיעוטא זה יכול וזה יכול, one comes to be ממעט that if they both could do it, each one could have done it himself, and they did it together, that you're patur. וחד למיעוטא זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול, and one comes to exclude even if you, this one can't do it and this one can't do it. And that's where Rabbi Shimon gets his extreme opinion. So Rabbi Shimon holds that in all cases where you do it together, you are patur, whether it's זה יכול וזה יכול or זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול. Now

there is more reason by זה יכול וזה יכול to be patur than by זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול. So if the first מיעוט will go for זה יכול וזה יכול, if both could do it, so we attribute the melachah more to you and more to to, no, since both could do it, so the fact that I'm able to do it takes away from yours, and the fact that you're able to do it takes away from mine, so here is more reason to be patur than the case of זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול. In simple words, by זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול each one did his maximum. So you would think more that in this case each one is chayav. Right! So לפועל you are patur, he says, but the seder of the three pesukim, the first and the simplest miut is for זה, is זה עוקר וזה מניח. One makes an akirah, makes hanachah, that's for sure then patur. Comes the second מיעוט, Rabbi Shimon says, that's for the next case: זה יכול וזה יכול, and you're also patur. And then the third miut is זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול, you're also patur. That's Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Shimon, uh? Why can't he say, if Rabbi Shimon, it states נפש אחת, אחת בעשותה. Why אחת בעשותה? Huh? Nefesh is is one and achat... If if the pasuk says נפש אחת בעשותה, yeah, instead to divide it in three times, why... Then you have only one limud, no? What? Then we only have one limud. But his limud is that's only when one is doing this... But we have But we have one limud, it would only go for the simplest case, it would go only for זה עוקר וזה מניח, if we don't have the other limudim. Because whenever we have a choice of saying the limud goes... שנים ובין כך and... No, we would only think by זה עוקר וזה מניח. But because there, really two people are part, and no one did the whole thing, so we would say mistama it goes on that. Rabbi Yehudah, what does he hold? Chad, one limud he says goes למיעוטא זה עוקר וזה מניח. One comes to exclude one making עקירה והנחה. חד למיעוטא זה יכול וזה יכול. One comes for the next case if each one could do it. V'chad, the third one he says that doesn't go for this בכלל: למיעוטא יחיד שעשה בהוראת בית דין. That if a person does a melachah because beit din paskent you're allowed to do it, or any aveirah, and later you found out that you're not allowed, beit din changed their mind, they realized that they made a mistake, so the yachid does not bring a korban. The individual doesn't bring a korban. Who brings a korban? If anything, the whole community, בית דין will bring a korban, but not him. So we know, how do we know he doesn't bring a korban? From this last mi'ut, from the word that you do it, בעשותה, you do it, but not if you, this is not called you did it, because it's בית דין. So since he holds that the third limud comes for this, so he's only left with two limudim for שנים שעשוה. So which are the two limudim? One is for זה עוקר וזה מניח, and one is for זה יכול וזה יכול. What did we have here זה עוקר וזה מניח when we already learned that it is, it is patur? Where did we learn it from, here? From here, or from some other, from a different place? Still, is where we know it from. Are three people the same as two people? Yeah. As far as lifting and moving? Yeah, yeah. But Rabbi Shimon? Now the question is on Rabbi Shimon now. We said Rabbi Shimon uses the third pasuk for זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול, so where does he know this din that if a yachid did בהוראת בית דין he's patur? Rabbi Shimon holds that יחיד שעשה בהוראת בית דין חייב! He takeh doesn't hold patur! He doesn't have a mi'ut and he takeh doesn't hold patur! So it's a, a pesak of the tribunal. And although that's patur, not for all of them, but by yachid is chayav? Yeah, that's just how it is. has nothing to do with יחיד שעשה בהוראת בית דין, it's a different din. And Rav Meir, we said before Rav Meir holds that even by זה יכול וזה יכול, you're chayav. Because he טענ'ט, מי כתיב נפש תחטא, אחת תחטא, בעשותה תחטא? You have three limudim. Ai ta'ana, he says, תרי מיעוטי כתיבי, it's only two mi'utim. Ai ta'ana there's two mi'utim, and since there's two מיעוטים, חד למיעוטא זה עוקר וזה מניח, one goes for זה עוקר וזה מניח, וחד למיעוטא יחיד שעשה בהוראת בית דין, and one goes for a יחיד that did בהוראת בית דין. And I have no מיעוט for, not even for זה יכול וזה יכול. So here in the Gemara we have the reasons from the pesukim how you darshen the three, the דרשות, whether you're a chayav, when you're a chayav, when you're a patur, and we come out with these three שיטות: again that according to Rav Shimon you're patur by זה יכול וזה יכול, זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול; according to Rav Yehuda you're patur only by זה יכול וזה יכול, and you're chayav by זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול; and according to Rav Meir you're chayav in all the cases. Now, besides having the limudim from the pesukim, usually we have sevarot, reasons why each one would darshen the pasuk the way he darshens it. In other words, we find it in all the ספרים, we find it in the Rebbe when he explains different ענינים. So even though there is a reason in the Gemara for a certain שיטה, but the Rebbe always comes out with a sevara behind it. Always בית שמאי בית הלל, אלקים חיים. Every time there's a מחלוקת בית שמאי ובית הלל, the Gemara brings pesukim: he darshens the pasuk like this, he darshens the pasuk like this. But then the טענה is that there always has to be a reason behind it, which is the hasvara in why he darshens the pesukim, because you could darshen it like this, you could darshen it, it must be he has a sevara how to hold. So there must be a sevara. So we have to go into here and see, what is the hasvara in the machloket here between Rav Meir and Rav Yehuda and Rav Shimon? So the hasvara, and this is all I'm going to explain is the hasvara in the machloket. The hasvara in the machloket could be based on this: when we say that שנים שעשו פטורים, that when two people the general concept that if two people do it, each one is patur, there are two ways to look at it. You could look at it that in order to be chayav, you have to do the whole melachah. And therefore, if two people did it, you didn't do the whole melachah, so therefore you are not chayav, the other guy not chayav either. You could look at it a different way: to be chayav, it'll sound the same thing, but you'll see it's not, to be chayav, you don't have to do the whole melachah, it has to be done. The fact that somebody else participated poter's you from your melachah, from your chiyuv. So the question is here, is the pshat that when two people do it, there is no you are not chayav, you didn't do it in a way which causes you a chiyuv, or the pshat is פארקערט, מצד you, there is a chiyuv, but because you don't have to do the whole melachah to be a chiyuv, but the fact that somebody else האט אריינגעהאקט, he saved you. To say, is it we'll always use the same leshonot because it's the same thing, is it העדר or is it שלילה? Is the pshat that without when you do it with somebody else, according to the first way it's העדר, there is no chiyuv. העדר means lack, and שלילה means to take away. There is a lack of chiyuv, you didn't do it in a way that you should get to the point of chiyuv. And the other way is, what you did is chiyuv, but somebody else came and קריכט אריין in your in your thing, and he poter'd you from it, because if somebody else does it, he takes away your chiyuv. And I

always used the example, and I'll use it again. In yeshiva, if I would mention, say 'nu tell me, I remember what is it?' Here passt nisht to say it, the bachurim I would say it. It's noge'a the מודה Just an example from a different sugya altogether: מודה בקנס ואחר כך באו עדים. That's the example I always use, cuz this brings it out very clear. מודה בקנס the din is that if a person himself admits in the case of קנס, there are certain things you have to pay because it's payment. If you borrow money, you have to pay, you owe the money. If you're מזיק somebody, you have to pay, because you caused them damage, you have to pay. Then there are things that the Torah is מחייב a person as a קנס, so fine. למשל, when you steal, you have to pay כפל, double. You steal a hundred dollars, you have to pay two hundred. So the first hundred you pay because you stole it, you have to give it back. What's the other hundred? The other hundred is קנס, it's a fine. That the din by קנס is מודה בקנס פטור, that if you are מודה yourself, if instead instead of עדים be careful what you say, because it should be before the עדים, if the עדים didn't come, and you yourself come to Beit Din and say, 'Listen here, I stole,' Beit Din will tell you pay only one, you don't pay the קנס, מודה בקנס פטור. What happens if you came to Beit Din and you were מודה, and then עדים came? מודה בקנס ואחר כך באו עדים, then עדים came. Is a machloket in Bava Kamma between Rav and Shmuel. Rav says מודה ואחר כך באו עדים חייב, שמואל says patur. He says that since the עדים came, now you're chayav. He says, 'Nope, you were מודה, and מודה is patur.' What is the reason for the machloket? So the Rogatchover explains it very geshmak. He says, it's not a machloket in מודה בקנס ואחר כך באו עדים whether you're chayav or patur, it's really a machloket in what is the pshat When we'll understand why מודה בקנס פטור, we'll understand. And he says there are two ways to learn מודה בקנס פטור. You could learn that when a person is מודה בקנס, there is no reason for chiyuv. You are only חייב קנס if עדים came. We must still say if עדים came, as long as עדים didn't come, there is no חיוב קנס. Not that you're patur from a קנס, there's nothing to obligate you to pay קנס, as far as קנס is concerned you're never obligated. We know that you stole, but either the first half the first hundred you'll have to pay, and it is because הודאת בעל דין כמאה עדים. We know that you stole, but nevertheless the din is that קנס you only pay if עדים come. That's one way to learn why מודה בקנס פטור. The other way to learn is מודה בקנס פטור not because you are not חייב קנס unless there are עדים, you are חייב קנס for stealing! And we know you stole, you were modeh! The Torah said that because you're a nice guy, you did teshuvah, whatever, you're modeh, the תורה חס רחמנא עליה, the Torah took rachmanut and took off the קנס. That's to to encourage the to encourage to do teshuvah whatever. No, I know what it says. It doesn't say of teshuvah. In other things it says תקנת השבים. But here it's from the Torah, מודה בקנס פטור is a דין דאורייתא. So Regardless of the עדים, Torah they said That's one way, that's one way to learn that regardless of עדים you are חייב קנס. For the ma'aseh, but so why taka is the din מודה בקנס פטור? Cuz the Torah said, if you were מודה the Torah takes off the knas. But like stealing, you have to pay knas, Torah took it off. The first way is not because the Torah, it never had the חיוב קנס. So according to the first way, מודה בקנס פטור is an he'eder, there is no חיוב קנס. And the second way it's a she'lilah, there is a חיוב קנס, and the Torah is meshallel it. What will come out the difference? The difference will be מודה בקנס ואחר כך באו עדים, if you're מודה in knas, and then the edim came. According to the first way, since מודה בקנס is only patur because there is no reason to chiyuv, why is there no reason? Because edim hasn't come. So when the edim come, now you're chayav! So that's why מודה בקנס ואחר כך באו עדים חייב. According to the second way, you're chayav קנס, אלא the Torah took it off. So what will the edim help? The edim will come and what will they do? They'll mechayev you knas? No, I was chayav already! Ela mai? I was chayav and the Torah took it off. So what will happen, so מודה בקנס ואחר כך באו עדים is patur. So this is just to use as an example What's that? Is that a real example? Huh? Is it a real example? Ah ya, I think so. Wait a second. What if we don't know if he stole? Yes we do! He was מודה. Yes we do, when the guy He obligates himself to pay, but it doesn't mean הודאת בעל דין כמאה עדים. כמאה, but not No, good that's The truth is, even if we learn let's say whether it's say whether it's mamonot, the Ketzos, whether it's mamonot or it's let's say Even if it's התחייבות חדשה, it's still the פשט מצד his התחייבות, we know that you did it, we know that because he was already, he didn't come voluntarily and say 'by the way Right, but if he is modeh, so he was chayav and the Torah patar him, so the edim won't do anything. So al derech zeh, you could say the same thing. Is it a, is it an העדר or a שלילה? The peshat when you do two together, you could learn the peshat is, one way is that as long as you didn't do the whole thing, you are patur, you are never chayav. Because to be chayav you have to do the whole thing. If you did it together with somebody else, you're patur. Or no, there's no דין that you have to do the whole melachah yourself. So as far as you're concerned, what you did, you were part of the melachah, you're chayav. Ela mai? Somebody else who helped you is שלל, takes away the chiyuv, the Torah made that if someone else, takes away your chiyuv. Now this could be the machloket here between Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Shimon will learn, Rabbi Yehudah will learn like this, Rabbi Yehudah will learn like this: He will learn that the second way, that a second guy takes away your chiyuv. To be chayav, you don't have to do the whole thing. If you do even part, you're chayav. If the other guy gets involved in what you did, he's patur. And therefore he says like this: By זה יכול וזה יכול, that other guy got involved in my department. Since I was able to do the whole thing and he did also part, so he took away my chiyuv. So since I hold that taking away my, the other guy takes away my chiyuv, so he says, by זה יכול וזה יכול, the other guy took away my chiyuv. By זה אינו יכול If he took away your chiyuv, then he's chayav. Oh no, he spoiled it for you, he's not chayav either for the same reason. He's the first. What do you mean to go

back, I took away his chiyuv? What? I took away his chiyuv? Both the same. takes away, doesn't take it to himself. Spoils his chiyuv. Everyone, there's nobody here that's responsible. Why? Because both guys He has a point. If he took away another chiyuv, now he has two chiyuvim. No, he doesn't take it to himself! You think he takes his chiyuv to himself, takes the sickness away and puts it on himself? He doesn't allow his chiyuv to happen. He takes the, the chiyuv that's on him because he came in, so he spoiled his chiyuv. He spoiled his chiyuv. He also did it, and he's also a יכול, because what I'm saying is is יכול, two יכול's, each one gets into the other guy's domain! Since I could do the whole thing, so I'm doing the whole thing, and he came and he's taking it away. So therefore, if they're two, each one is a יכול, זה יכול וזה יכול, each one gets involved and the other guy takes it away. So, what, so I'll carry on Shabbos, and I'll I'll call you, come out of your house, take this and then you'll put it in 100%, yeah. Both patur? Yeah. פטור מדאורייתא, but you're פטור מדאורייתא, exactly. Yeah, but they're always patur, always פטור מדאורייתא. There's no chiyuv chatat. Yeah, there is no chiyuv chatat, no סקילה even if it's במזיד. You're פטור, הכי נמי. What does it say, other things? If I want to carry something, I'll be עוקר, you'll be I'll ask you to be מניח, and I will be patur. Sure. It's always like that, isn't it? So, so Rabbi Yehuda is, no, we're trying not to. So Rabbi Yehuda says, Huh? Yeah, yeah, because no one did anything. No, nothing was done. Not only no one did, melachah never happened. Melachah never happened. Yeah, yourself you can't, to put it down and then take pick it up again, go down and up again, but to give to people, you can. So,

according to him, so by זה יכול וזה יכול, since they're both krochen arein in the other guy's domain, so they're both patur. By זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול, since this guy couldn't do it, so he did as much as he could, and he did as much as he could, so they're both chayav. I, two people did it, we're going now according to the sevara that there's no problem if you do don't do the whole thing. The only reason why שנים שעשו פטורין, because that guy spoils it for you. But by זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול, no one spoils it for you, because what he did is not קריכן to you. מה שאין כן by זה יכול וזה יכול, he is קריכן to you, that's why over there you're patur. This is the shita of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yehuda. Now the shita of Rabbi Shimon will be the other way. The shita of Rabbi Shimon is going to be that the reason for the melachah, the reason for שנים שעשו, is because in order to be chayav, you have to do the whole thing yourself. So in that case, what's the difference? No, that's the לימוד, I understand the pesukim. It's safe with the sevara, not the pesukim. So he'll hold the other way, that why is שנים שעשו פטור? Not because you did, you're chayav, and the other guy takes away from you. There is a din that in order to be chayav, you have to do the whole melachah. No, not the whole melachah. You have to do it yourself, not the whole, you have to do it yourself. You have to do it yourself. So, therefore, if you have to do it yourself, in the case of זה יכול וזה יכול, you didn't do it yourself. In the case of זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול, you didn't do it yourself. But the same thing is also with the whole melachah, the same thing. Uh-huh. Yeah, yeah, but I don't want to get into that could be another guy in here. But I'm saying, so so if you hold that you cannot be chayav unless you do yourself, you have to do the whole thing, and in this case you didn't, because you did it together. So he says, so what's the difference if it's זה יכול וזה יכול or זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול, it's the same thing. And therefore he says that you are patur in in both cases. Now, Rabbi Meir says,

Rabbi Meir says different. Rabbi Meir holds that as long as you were involved in the melachah, you are משתתף in the melachah, you're chayav. Yes, since the melachah was done and you were involved in the melachah, then to be chayav. See, by זה עוקר וזה מניח, over there also the melachah was done, but there he says no, because you weren't משתתף in the whole melachah. You lechatchilah only did part, but when you two people did together the whole thing, so you were משתתף in every part of the melachah and the melachah was done, so there Rabbi Meir says you're chayav. So Rabbi Meir says you're chayav by זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול, by זה יכול וזה יכול, and the only place you're patur is by זה עוקר וזה מניח. What about זה יכול וזה אינו יכול? By זה יכול וזה אינו יכול everyone will agree, because since I'm a yachol, I did the whole thing and the other guy didn't do anything. So whichever way we're going to learn, when there is a זה יכול, the other guy takes away. זה אינו יכול doesn't take away, but I didn't do the whole thing because I'm a אינו יכול. See, זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול, I I didn't do the whole thing, that's for sure. I couldn't do the whole thing. The

she'eilah is, am I patur or chayav? So if you say that I have to be do the whole thing to be chayav, I will be patur. If as I don't have to do, the other guy shouldn't take away, it doesn't take your patur. But in this case of זה יכול וזה אינו יכול, so the זה אינו יכול has got nothing. The Gemara says taka, what do you mean he didn't do anything, but he is a mesaye'a? So the גמרא, מסייע אין בו ממש. Mesaye'a means he helped. Helping doesn't count. We פסק'ן מסייע אין בו ממש, so he didn't do anything. If he didn't do anything, so this יכול did the whole thing. So the יכול is chayav no matter which way we're going to taitsh the melachot. The יכול did the whole thing, the אינו יכול didn't do anything, so the יכול is chayav, and the אינו יכול is patur. Now, this that we're saying that if it's a case of זה יכול וזה יכול, according to Rabbi Yehuda you're patur, because the other guy takes away from this guy. So I just want to clarify, what does he take away? Does he take away from the melachah Or does he take, or does he take away from the other guy's chiyuv? Chiyuv, me-chiyuv. This will be nafka minah, who cares what word we'll call it, at the end of the day it's taking away. This will be the yesod could be to the chakirah, the she'eilah, the safek of the Shabbos Shel Mi. The Sefer Shabbos Shel Mi on the Gemara, and the Shabbos Shel Mi has a she'eilah here: What happens, by a משא, זה יכול וזה יכול, and the second guy is a goy? Or the second guy is a katan, who is not chayav? So that's his she'eilah. The sheilah is: Will this first guy be chayav or not? What's the yesod of his sheilah? This is the yesod of his sheilah. The yesod of the sheilah is, since we're saying, I'm saying this A goy can't take away a chiyuv. Right, that's the, that's the davar. If the goy taking away from his melachah, so a goy took away from his melachah. The goy took the melachah, part of the melachah. If the word is taking away from his chiyuv, a goy or a katan cannot take a, doesn't have a chiyuv. So the sheilah is according, we're saying according to Rabbi Yehudah. According to, according to Rabbi Shimon, there's no problem, because according to Rabbi Shimon it's not because it takes away, it's because I didn't do the whole thing. But according to Rabbi Yehudah, he doesn't taytsh just like that. He, he says the שאלה סתם, I'm trying to say, according to the ביאור that I'm giving, so according to Rabbi Shimon there's no sheilah, but if according to Rabbi Yehudah it takes away, does he take away from the chiyuv, or does he take away from the melachah? Now, The conditions are different, how can you learn out one from the other? What do you say? Right. The conditions are different, one is with a goy, So? and the other What happens one is with a kohen and one is with a Levi? That's like a big difference. We don't go like that, it's only because of the chiyuv. What happens one guy is tall and one guy is short? I mean, this makes We have to look, is there, in halachah is difference. If you say take away from the melachah, what difference is a Yid or a goy? He's still helping him in the melachah and he's taking away from his doing the melachah, he didn't do the whole melachah. Or or, but if it's chiyuv, he is not having a chiyuv, a katan doesn't have a chiyuv. When you say two people are doing, in case of That's his she'eilah, does two people mean any two people, or two people mean, and even a goy? Or two people could be davka a Yid? But it has to be a reason why it's mechalek a Yid and a goy. So the reason would be, is it a chiyuv, or is it, is it a melachah? Now, this could be taluy in many many things, and that's why we're going to go into many peratim how you could say back and forth צדדים. Number one, I want to say this depends on another she'eilah. Even if we're going to say takes away from the melachah, let's take away from the chiyuv, you say the goy takes away A goy can, a katan, but from the melachah a goy could or a katan. I want to say that even if we're going to say that it takes away from the melachah, it's also not so pashut. I'll tell you why. It depends in a different she'eilah. I once explained that there is a she'eilah that the Avnei Nezer clarifies.

What is the geder of melachah on Shabbos? Is this, is it מלאכה בשבת, or is it מלאכה לשבת? Are there both? מלאכה בשבת. What does that mean? Is the peshat that the issur is melachah, Same as Pesach. same as Pesach, and when is the מלאכה אסור? The zman is Shabbos. Or the combination of Shabbos and melachah together is asur. It's better like by חמץ בפסח. He says the same chakirah: Is the איסור חמץ on Pesach, or is the איסור חמץ and Pesach together? Das heisst, is the pshat חמץ is the חפצא של איסור, the object is חמץ, and when is the zman? On Pesach it's asur. Or the the object is חמץ בפסח? The combination of the חמץ with Pesach. He says a nafka mina. The nafka mina will be: Is חמץ בפסח called a דבר שיש לו מתירין? We know that חמץ בפסח is אסור במשהו, there's no shiur, it's not בטל בשישים. The question is why? So pashut, l'chorah the din is a דבר שיש לו מתירין אפילו באלף לא בטיל. Any issur that today is asur, but a time will come that on its own it'll become mutar, even while it's asur, it doesn't become batel. So some say that the reason why חמץ בפסח is אסור במשהו is because it's a דבר שיש לו מתירין, because after Pesach it'll become mutar. But after Pesach Huh? Yeah, מדאורייתא, מדאורייתא, מדרבנן, מדאורייתא. Now, some say that it's not, that's not the reason. חמץ בפסח is not called a דבר שיש לו מתירין. And why is חמץ במשהו? Why doesn't it become batel? Because חמץ is chamur. The רבנן said, since חמץ has an issur of בל יראה ובל ימצא, you can't even own it. חמץ הלכה is that יוצא is not מטמא, we can learn the Mishnah that talks about an אבר שיצא מקצתו כפשוטו. We don't have to say that it is speaking about only if the part that was יוצא was less than a כביצה or less than a כזית. It doesn't matter how large that piece is. Since יוצא is not מטמא, it will not be מטמא the rest of the korban, and the rest of the korban is therefore כשר. Continues the Gemara: ומוציא בשר פסח, עמוד ב, מחבורה לחבורה מניין? How do we know this issur of carrying בשר from the korban Pesach from one חבורה to another חבורה, as Rashi explains, this means that if there are two חבורות who are, each one is eating its own korban Pesach, even though they are eating in the same house, there is an issur to carry the בשר of the korban Pesach to the place where the other חבורה is eating their korban Pesach. דתניא, as we learned in a ברייתא: לא תוציא מן הבית מן הבשר חוצה. The Torah says that you are not allowed to carry any of the בשר outside of the house. אין לי אלא מבית לבית, I would only know that the issur includes if he carries בשר from the korban Pesach outside of the house. מחבורה לחבורה מניין? How do we know that carrying it from one חבורה to another חבורה, even within the same house, is also included in the לאו? תלמוד לומר: חוצה. The Torah adds the word, an extra word חוצה, to teach us חוץ לאכילתו, that as long as he takes it out of its מקום אכילה and he brings it to the מקום אכילה of