Don't sit on those tables. That's not... Don't be מחוץ למחנה. Come in, come in here. Okay, נו. The משנה tells us the cases of when you're חייב, the עשיר, the עני for הוצאה and הכנסה, when you're חייב, and it gives an example of an עני and עשיר standing here, standing there, and giving in. If he does עקירה and הנחה, then you're חייב, for הכנסה, for הוצאה. So I mentioned in the other שיעור that the ר' ברטנורא and the תוספות יום טוב, they all mention, why is the משנה giving an example of an עני and an עשיר? Okay, so I said פשוט פשט is not a שאלה. It's just other words for a guy standing in, a guy standing out. So instead of every time mentioning מי שעומד בפנים or מי שעומד בחוץ, so we say עשיר, so we know, or a בעל הבית standing inside, the עני. But he gives a different reason I mentioned, and the רבי in the שיחה that we learned mentions it too, to tell you that even though you're doing a מצוה, you're doing the מצוה of צדקה, nevertheless, you're not allowed to do it, and if you did an עקירה and הנחה, you're חייב a חטאת. And there's a big So that's the reason it says that, but there's a deeper ווארט to this that they say. And the חידוש is that you're not considered a טועה בדבר מצוה. Like this there's a דין: if you do a מלאכה on שבת בשוגג, what's the what do you do? Bring a קרבן חטאת. What happens if the reason you made a mistake because you thought it was a מצוה? The example given is there was a child that you thought you have to be מל, and to do מילה on שבת you're allowed to, even though it's a מלאכה. To cut and let blood out is a מלאכה. You're allowed to do it on שבת because the תורה says you have to do it on שבת. There was a child that you thought that this child was born eight days ago, today is the day that you have to do the ברית. לפועל, you found out that the child was born a day a day later, so today was not a ברית yet, not חייב to do the ברית yet. But you made a mistake, but it wasn't a mistake סתם you thought you're allowed to do a מלאכה. A regular שוגג means, this is just by the way to mention, שוגג doesn't mean mistake, people טייטש: you do בשוגג by mistake. If you do it by mistake, you're not חייב a חטאת. למשל, if you walk by something and by mistake you push it and the fire goes on, that's not called שוגג. שוגג means you know what you're doing. You know exactly what you're doing, and you're intending to do what you're doing, you just forgot that it's forbidden, or you forgot that today is שבת, you know that you're not allowed to do it. That's called שוגג. You thought you're allowed to do it. You know what you're doing. So this guy thought he's allowed to do the מילה. Why? Because he thought it was a מצוה. That's called טועה בדבר מצוה. You make a mistake in a דבר מצוה, you are פטור from a חטאת, only if you thought that you're allowed to do it. What happens if a guy here thought that you're allowed to do עקירה and הנחה of הוצאה because of the מצוה of צדקה? So you would think that he's called a טועה בדבר מצוה. He's made a mistake thinking that you're allowed to do this מלאכה on שבת, so he should be פטור from a חטאת. That's why the משנה בדווקא picks this case to tell you that אף על פי כן, you are חייב because this is not טועה בדבר מצוה. And that's what רש״י says, this משנה tells you you're חייב, and he says, what does חייב mean? That if חייב חטאת, על שגגתו, you are חייב a חטאת if you do it בשוגג, no matter what, even if it's a case like this where you made a mistake. It's not considered טועה בדבר מצוה. טועה בדבר מצוה is טאקע פטור. If it's a case of מילה that I said before, the דין is טאקע you're פטור. טועה בדבר מצוה is פטור from a חטאת. But the משנה is telling you that if you made a mistake in this מצוה of צדקה, thinking that you're allowed to do a מלאכה for the sake of the מצוה צדקה, does not fall into that category of טועה בדבר מצוה פטור, but you are חייב. That's what they say. Question is, why? Why טאקע? לכאורה, the guy thought you're allowed to do this מצוה even if it's a מלאכה, so why טאקע are you חייב? So they don't say it. לכאורה, why is this different מצוה than מילה?

Comes the גור אריה. גור אריה is written by who? מהר״ל מפראג. You have to know who's who. And he gives a reason why. The reason he says is because when do we say טועה בדבר מצוה פטור? Only he calls it a מצוה מוחלטת, a מצוה ודאית, a מצוה that you have to do. ברית מילה you have to do, there's no שאלה, you have to be מל a child, and he thought this is what he's supposed to do, so he made a mistake, so that's called טועה בדבר מצוה. צדקה, he says, is not a מצוה מוחלטת. צדקה is not something that you have to do. If the if the עני wouldn't be there, You wouldn't have to give him. But even לכאורה even if he came to the door, it's because I'll tell you the לשון that he says and I'm going to טייטש it. He says the לשון like this: מוחלטת, מוחלט means ודאי, and the reason what he says, I'll tell you the words he says, not exactly like I just said, but he says because the עני could be מוחל. What happens if the עני comes and says, \"Give me some צדקה,\" and then, \"Eh, you know what? Don't give me. I'll manage. I won't eat today. I'll manage.\" Then you're not מחוייב. So it's not a מצוה that you're ודאי מחוייב. מילה, there's no way, no one could be מוחל you from being מל. You've got to be מל, you've got to be מל, and if you made a mistake, you're called a טועה בדבר מצוה. מה שאין כן here, since it's a עני could be מוחל, it's not called a מצוה מוחלטת, and that's why it's not טועה בדבר מצוה. That's what that's what he says, the גור אריה. What? Did someone say? Okay.

Comes ר' יוסף ענגל in the ספר גליוני הש״ס, he has a ספר גליוני הש״ס on גמרא, and ר' יוסף ענגל says has a ראיה לכאורה, a קשיא, a ראיה against it. He quotes a גמרא in פסחים where the גמרא says that if a person, there's a דין a נדה, to have relations with a נדה is a חיוב כרת, and if someone does it בשוגג, he forgot that it's אסור or whatever, you have to bring a חטאת. That's the rule. What's the rule? On which עבירה בשוגג do you bring a חטאת, and when don't you bring a חטאת? What's the כלל? Does anyone remember the כלל? Which עבירה, not every עבירה that you do בשוגג do you bring a קרבן חטאת. Which עבירות do you bring a קרבן חטאת? No, oh, by accident. No, שוגג! שוגג! A what? Oh, that's the כלל. Any עבירה that if you do במזיד you're חייב כרת, if you do that עבירה בשוגג, you bring a חטאת. The לשון is: דבר שזדונו כרת, שגגתו חטאת. A נדה is a איסור כרת, so doing it בשוגג brings a חטאת. So the גמרא says, what happens if a person thought that she that she is, he thought that it's a there's a מצות עונה? There's a מצות עונה. That when a woman goes to the מקוה, that night מדאורייתא there's a חיוב the מצות עונה with the wife. She happened to be a נדה then, the time of עונה. There's other עונות also, I don't want to go into the details here. What happens if a guy thought, while she was a נדה, he thought that you still have to do it because there's a מצוה, מצות עונה? So you're פטור from a חטאת because a טועה בדבר מצוה. You did the עבירה thinking by mistake that you're that that it's a מצוה to do. So you're called a טועה בדבר מצוה and you are פטור. So he asks the שאלה, there also the דין is that a woman could be מוחלת. The דין is that even though there's a חיוב עונה, but if the woman is מוחלת, there is no חיוב. So just like the מהר״ל מפראג says that over here there is no דין of טועה בדבר מצוה פטור because the עני could be מוחל, so he says over there we see it's a case where the person could also be מוחל and it still it's called If she says, \"I don't mind if you don't.\" That's the דין, yeah. It's a חיוב, it's like any חיוב a person has, and if you have a חיוב, you could be מוחל a חיוב. If I owe you money, you say, \"Never mind,\" you could be מוחל. So she could be מוחלת. So just like by the עני we're saying that because the עני could be מוחל, so it's not called a מצוה מוחלטת, and therefore טועה בדבר מצוה is not פטור, over there how come you're פטור? That's what ר' יוסף ענגל asks. What about ברית? No, no. לא תעשה שיש בו כרת? עשה is not דוחה לא תעשה שיש בו כרת. He's asking on the גור אריה, which ultimately comes out a קשיא on the ברטנורא, because the ברטנורא said that this case, the משנה is teaching that you're not פטור. And the reason the גור אריה gives is because it's not a מצוה מוחלטת, because the עני could be מוחל. So he says, who says that that's the difference? Over there we see she also could be מוחל, and nevertheless he'd be פטור from a חטאת because he thought it was a מצוה, and it seems like it's not a מצוה מוחלטת. Could be another reason. Could be another reason. So we've got to find another reason. I'm saying for the ברטנורא. Maybe yeah, if you can find another reason for the ברטנורא. But then we have a קשיא on the גור אריה! Okay, I'm saying if this is the reason for the ברטנורא, then it's a קשיא on the ברטנורא too, on the תוספות יום טוב. If we have a different reason, good, so the קשיא on the גור אריה. That you're פטור. Yeah, טועה בדבר מצוה, he thought it's a מצוה, you're פטור. So we see that it's even if you could be מוחל. So what I'm trying going to say, try to say here is that a little bit deeper פשט in the גור אריה, it doesn't mean דווקא if you're מוחל or not. That's not the ווארט. The difference between צדקה and other מצוות is, צדקה, you're only חייב to give צדקה because the עני came to you. Because the עני came to you, that's why you're חייב. Now, every איד has a חיוב to give צדקה. Who gives the שיעור? The קדושת לוי. It's a joke, don't you remember from last year? Okay, so I'll tell you. Once, the ברדיטשעבער was sitting with the תלמידי המגיד and they were talking, so he said that a good a ווארט on the פרשה, on a פסוק. So, the חברים asked him, \"Where did you take it from?\" So, \"I saw it in a ספר,\" he said. So, pressured him, \"Which ספר did you see it?\" Says, \"In ספר קדושת לוי.\" He wrote the קדושת לוי. He himself wrote it. So, he said, \"Where did you see it? In the קדושת לוי.\" So, when you ask me where who says it, it's the קדושת לוי says. I get it. Okay. So, צדקה is not like other מצוות. I'm just going to say מצות צדקה, you don't there's no דין that you have to give צדקה. Every person has a חיוב בעצם to give צדקה, but that's a different thing, you have to give it in for the year a פרוטה. You have to give צדקה only because the עני came. The fact that you have to give צדקה בכלל has nothing to do with this person. Like you \"I could give yesterday, I don't have to give today.\" If the עני comes to you and asks you for צדקה, now you have a חיוב to give him. So, it's something that became because of a certain situation. It's not a מצוה that's there בעצם. And that's the difference. The case of נדה, a case of of עונה, בעצם there is a מצוה. It's no עונה is a דין עונה that you have to do. אלא מאי? She could be מוחל, good. But that doesn't mean that the מצוה is not מוחלטת. על דרך דוגמא, could I say that the חיוב that I have to pay for a loan is not מוחלט? Why, because you could you could be מוחל. I owe you $100. Now, if I ask, is it מוחלט, I must pay you $100, or it's not so ודאי? So, you say, \"No, it's not so ודאי because you could be מוחל.\" That's not how it works. Works the other way. I have to pay, for sure, I borrowed money, I have to pay. You have an ability to take away the חיוב that's there. It's a חיוב that's בעצם there. That's by that's And that's called a מצוה מוחלטת. By צדקה, the whole מצוה happened because the guy came, he made the מצוה. So, it's not really the wording the way it sounds, because he could be מוחל. He could be מוחל, what's mean he could be מוחל? He could לכתחילה not have come. So, it's not בעצם. So, when do you say that it's a טעה בדבר מצוה? When the מצוה is there בעצם, and even though you could be מוחל, but as long as you're not מוחל, it's it's no no פשט, the מצוה is תלוי ועומד. תלוי ועומד means it's hanging. If I owe you $100, say, \"Well, it's not really sure that I owe you. It's hanging in the air. It depends. If you're not מוחל, I'll have to give, if you're מוחל, I I don't give.\" That's not how it works. The the חיוב is there, finished. There's no no שאלות. And that's why over there, it's a called a מצוה מוחלטת. It's not depending whether you have a right to be מוחל or not. It depends what kind of חיוב that is. And since it's a חיוב that came because he asked for it, it's not called a מצוה מוחלטת. And in that case, we don't really say that this is a גדר of טעה בדבר מצוה. Okay, this is this one ענין. Just so for the sake of everybody to know, the סדר of this שיעור is like this year I said we're going to try to learn things inside also quite a few times. But the other times, it's not like a שיעור כללי, go one ענין, but we go piece by piece. So, one ענין to explain, another ענין to explain. So, we'll start with this. This is one ענין, and as a פרט, the ענין of טעה בדבר מצוה, פשט in the תוספות יום טוב and the ברטנורא, the way the גר\"א learns, so learned that פשט. Now, let's go to another ענין. Let's see which one is is is Okay, go to תוספות פושט.

Okay, we're going to jump back and forth. Right at the beginning of תוספות פושט, תוספות says that הוצאה is a מלאכה גרועה, and in the beginning, תוספות says a ראיה, תדע, okay, let's go back. תוספות says, why do we make a difference between the עני and the בעל הבית, to make it into two? And he answers, because it's a מלאכה גרועה, so therefore, I would not have learned out הוצאה דעני from בעל הבית and בעל הבית from עני. תדע, brings a ראיה. What's the ראיה? מדאיצטריך תרי קראי בהוצאה. Since we need two פסוקים by הוצאה, and he brings both פסוקים, one the פסוק by the משכן, and one the פסוק by there. One, one for the עני, one for the בעל הבית, why do we need two פסוקים? Because we can't learn one from the other, because it's a מלאכה גרועה. Okay.

Comes the מהרש״א and the מהרש״א asks the שאלה: Why does תוספות have to bring a ראיה from the fact that we need two פסוקים? Why wouldn't there be a ראיה from the fact that you need a פסוק בכלל? Which other מלאכה needs a פסוק? מלאכה doesn't need a פסוק. It's all, from where do we know the מלאכות? From the משכן. Here we need a פסוק, let's say that we only have one פסוק, would be the same question: Why do we need a פסוק? Must be because it's a מלאכה גרועה, so we need a פסוק, that's what it is. If someone will ask you, why do we need a פסוק here? Why is not enough the משכן? מלאכה גרועה. So from תוספות it seems that the reason, the ראיה תוספות brings is מדאיצטריך תרי קראי, since we need two פסוקים. Why do we, what's the ראיה of two פסוקים? הוה מצי למימר, תדע, מדאיצטריך כלל קרא להוצאה. בכלל, why do we need a פסוק for הוצאה? אף על גב דהוה במשכן, ולשאר אבות לא בעינן קרא. Other אבות don't need a פסוק, אלא כל דהוה במשכן, whatever was in the משכן is a מלאכה. And this was in the משכן, as the גמרא says, and still we need a פסוק. וכן הוא התדע, this is the ראיה בתוספות ריש פרק שבועות שתים. And he says, ויש ליישב דברי התוספות דהכא, you could answer why תוספות brings the ראיה from two פסוקים. Anyway, so this is the מהרש״א שאלה. So we have to see what, what's the... Yeah. That's תוספות further. תוספות further says that because it's a מלאכה גרועה, the תולדות also have to be in the משכן. But the ראיה that תוספות brings לכתחילה, the תדע, why does תוספות bring the ראיה דווקא from תרי קראי? Why would it not bring a ראיה from the fact that you need a פסוק? Right. I don't know, but what's the ראיה that it's a מלאכה גרועה? No, no, no, not what's the ביאור why it's a מלאכה גרועה, what's the ראיה תוספות is trying to bring? תוספות is bringing a ראיה that it's a מלאכה גרועה. The ראיה is that we need a פסוק, that's what תוספות should have said. תוספות says we need two פסוקים. One second, תוספות is, we need two פסוקים. That's the ראיה. So the מהרש״א says, could have said, the mere fact that it says that we need a פסוק is a ראיה that it's a מלאכה גרועה, because if it would be a regular מלאכה, we don't need a פסוק. Why? We have it where? In the משכן. So that, but תוספות doesn't say that ראיה. What? תוספות doesn't bring that ראיה. תוספות says that ראיה is from two פסוקים. Oh! Saying good. לכאורה, this could be the פשט. If we have in the משכן, we only have in the משכן one. If we have in the משכן one, you could say that the reason you need a פסוק is because if you have in the משכן only הוצאה דעני, so we need a פסוק for the second one, it's no ראיה it's a מלאכה גרועה. Huh? Is that later on in תוספות? It's, it's על דרך like earlier on in תוספות, yes? It's על דרך. But it's, this is what you could say לכאורה, it's not so פשוט. I'll tell you why it's not פשוט, but I'm trying to make this clear. You could say that the reason why it wouldn't be a ראיה if it bring, if תוספות would say we need a פסוק, you could say you need a פסוק because the משכן is not full. The משכן is not, doesn't tell us exactly the whole thing. It only tells us הכנסה דעני, הוצאה דעני, it doesn't tell us the בעל הבית. Which case was the הוצאה in the משכן? תוספות brings from דף מ״ט. It says here: הם הורידו את הקרשים מן העגלה לקרקע, ואתם לא תוציאו מרשות היחיד לרשות הרבים. They took off from the, from the עגלה, what's the עגלה? A רשות היחיד. And they took it down, so just, you too, אתם לא תוציאו, don't take from רשות היחיד to רשות הרבים. Where were the לויים standing when they took out from the עגלה? תוספות says they were standing on the ground. בכלל, the whole thing that they were working, they weren't קריכינג in the עגלה. So, so this is talking about the עני, because he's standing on the ground. So I would say All that we know is from the עני, but not we don't know from the בעל הבית. So that's why we need a second פסוק to teach you the בעל הבית also. So that's why תוספות couldn't bring a ראיה from the fact that we need a פסוק, because we need a פסוק for something that wasn't in the משכן. What is the קשיא of the מהרש\"א? He should have brought a ראיה, since it wasn't in the משכן and still we need a פסוק, is a ראיה that's something special. So he says maybe the פסוק is for the case where we do not have it in the משכן. Now, so it sounds like a good תירוץ. But it's not so פשוט. Why? Why would we think that there is a difference between the two? אלא מאי? You know why there's a you think there's a difference between the two? Because it's a מלאכה גרועה. If it's not a מלאכה גרועה, then you just compare, like any אב we have a תולדה which is not exactly the same, but it's similar. It's enough to be to compare. Here, it wouldn't be enough. Why would we think that the עני and the עשיר is different? Only because it's a מלאכה גרועה. וממילא the מהרש\"א's קשיא comes back, that תוספות wants to bring a ראיה it's a מלאכה גרועה. He could have brought a ראיה from the fact that we need one פסוק, that we have a פסוק בכלל. איי you're going to tell me that that פסוק is only for one thing the the the משכן was for one thing and the פסוק is for the other, but that גופא is a ראיה it's a מלאכה גרועה! Why do we need a פסוק for something other, לכאורה learn it out from the first? If we find הוצאה דעני, learn out הוצאה דבעל הבית from הוצאה דעני without a פסוק. Why can't we learn it out without a פסוק? Cuz מלאכה גרועה. So תוספות is back to the ראיה! So we're back to the שאלה of the מהרש\"א, that לכאורה תוספות could have brought this as a ראיה because whichever way you're going to look at it, it's going to prove it's a מלאכה גרועה. סתם אזוי you're going to bring a ראיה? תוספות would have said תדע that we need one פסוק is a ראיה. Now if we need one פסוק for the עצם מלאכה, is אוודאי a ראיה. Why do you need a פסוק? It wasn't in the משכן. אפילו if you're going to answer me that we need a פסוק for the second half, for the בעל הבית, but even that גופא why do we need a פסוק? Why do we need a פסוק for that? Why can't we automatically, על פי שכל, compare? Cuz it's a מלאכה גרועה, you can't compare. So we're back to a מלאכה גרועה. That's exactly the ראיה, that's exactly why we need two. No, we're saying even if one is the משכן, and one פסוק is the משכן is for הוצאה דעני, and the פסוק is for הוצאה דבעל הבית, that itself, if we wouldn't have two פסוקים, we have a ראיה that it's a מלאכה גרועה. Why? From one פסוק. From one פסוק! So the מהרש\"א's קשיא is back, why does תוספות have to bring a ראיה from two פסוקים? Cuz once it's a מלאכה גרועה from one פסוק, then we need the other one. Then we need the other פסוק to teach us that. We know why we need the other פסוק, that's not the question. His question is not that it's wrong, why we need the two פסוקים. His question is the ראיה that תוספות brings. Why can't תוספות just bring a ראיה from the fact that we need a פסוק? תוספות seems to be saying the fact that we need two פסוקים is a ראיה. You're חייב. חייב for what? No, no, that we learn from the משכן. No, we learn from the משכן that if הוצאה הוצאה דבעל הבית דעני we learn from the משכן, let's say. הוצאה דבעל הבית we learn from a פסוק. So I'll ask you a שאלה: why can't we learn הוצאה דבעל הבית from הוצאה דעני? Why do we need a פסוק? Must be because it's a מלאכה גרועה. So from the fact that we have a ראיה from one פסוק for the second thing is a ראיה that it's a מלאכה גרועה would be enough! Unless we're going to say that this is what תוספות meant. It's a little bit to put it into the words of תוספות, and maybe that's what you're saying, possibly, that תוספות, when תוספות the ראיה is from two פסוקים, is like תוספות is jumping a stage. The ראיה is from the fact that it's a פסוק. We have one from the משכן, and still we need a פסוק. That's the ראיה. And still we need a פסוק Why why do we need a פסוק? Why can't we learn one from the other? Must be because of it's a מלאכה גרועה. Which because it's a מלאכה גרועה, we can't even learn from the משכן at all, and that's why we need two פסוקים. So when תוספות says the two פסוקים, תוספות טאקע means going all the way to the end. The ראיה is from the one פסוק, which because the one פסוק proves it's a מלאכה גרועה, that's why you need the two פסוקים, because now we can't even learn the other one from the משכן either. וממילא, we need two פסוקים. So ס'ליגט, it's not so פשוט to say this, it's a דוחק, but to say ס'ליגט in תוספות's words, ליגט also this ענין, the stage in between. Because סוף כל סוף, this is the result. The result of the one פסוק is the result of the two פסוקים. Yeah. Why טאקע do we need two פסוקים? The ראיה is from the fact that we need a פסוק בכלל. איי you'll tell me that we need a פסוק is because the משכן is only for one thing and not for the other? But then the question, but still why do we need a פסוק? Let's learn one from the other. Why can't we? Must be because it's a מלאכה גרועה. And now that it's It's a מלאכה גרועה, the משכן בכלל doesn't work. So you need another פסוק. So we're jumping right away, so תוספות jumps right away to tell us the two פסוקים, meaning we need one פסוק which ממילא is מכריע the second פסוק, וממילא the ראיה is from the two פסוקים. So the ראיה is טאקע this ראיה, the two פסוקים includes this also. I'll say it one more time. And it's true that I don't mind repeating something twice, three times if people want to understand. And this, I'm not saying it for now, but other times, sometimes they ask, \"Could you say it again?\" Why? Because they didn't listen the first time. That I don't I don't want to repeat. But if you listen and just want I'll repeat it again. The ראיה is טאקע from one פסוק. The fact that the גמרא brings a פסוק, which we what do you need a פסוק for? It was in the משכן. That's the ראיה. Why is that a ראיה? הגם you could say it's no ראיה, the fact that there's a פסוק, maybe the reason is because the משכן was only one, the משכן is only הוצאה הוצאת עני, the פסוק, if it's so, for הוצאת בעל הבית. But הא גופא, why do we need a פסוק for הוצאת בעל הבית? Why can't we learn הוצאת בעל הבית from הוצאת עני? Must be because of מלאכה גרועה. So from the fact that we need one פסוק is a ראיה it's a מלאכה גרועה. But this is the what that leads you, when you have one פסוק מלאכה גרועה, מלאכה גרועה is so strong that you don't even have a ראיה from the משכן at all. So because we have a ראיה we have a מלאכה גרועה, that requires a second פסוק for the first thing also. So the end result is that we need two פסוקים. How do we need another פסוק for the first, for the reverse? Because of מלאכה גרועה, the משכן won't do a good be good enough. And Even if it's in the משכן. Remember uh, yeah, even the עני. I said that the other day in the שיעור, if you remember. What's a מלאכה? Was in the משכן. Everything that was in the משכן turns into a מלאכה? They walked there too. What, they they do מלאכה? אלא מאי? Anything which has the תוכן of a מלאכה. Since it's a מלאכה גרועה, the fact that it was in the משכן is like they walked in the משכן too. So therefore, because we realize it's a מלאכה גרועה, the משכן doesn't work at all, so we need a second פסוק. So we're going directly to the two פסוקים. Okay.

Now let's go to another closed-up ענין, going to the back to the to the משנה. And that is the ענין of חצי שיעור, which is one of the things that's spoken about around this area. חצי שיעור. I mentioned yesterday this שאלה in the שיחה, which is not the רבי's שאלה, it's a שאלה the other אחרונים ask also. And I'll just repeat it again to make sure that you know it. We have a דין of חצי שיעור אסור מן התורה, that any עבירה that you're not allowed to do, and there's a שיעור, if you do only a half a שיעור, it's still אסור מדאורייתא. למשל, you can't eat חמץ on פסח. You only get punished כרת for eating חמץ on פסח if you ate a כזית. What about less than a כזית? You don't get punished. Are you allowed to? For sure you're not allowed to. The question is, why aren't you allowed to? Is it a דין דאורייתא or a דין דרבנן? So here we have a מחלוקת between רבי יוחנן and ריש לקיש. ריש לקיש says, \"חצי שיעור מותר מן התורה.\" חצי שיעור is only אסור מדרבנן. So it's still אסור, but מדרבנן. רבי יוחנן says, \"חצי שיעור is אסור מן התורה.\" Why? So the First, before we get to the question of our גמרא, which you know already from yesterday, but I'll just explain, what's רבי יוחנן's reason? Where does he get this idea that חצי שיעור is אסור מן התורה? So the גמרא says like this, \"חצי שיעור is אסור מן התורה because it's חזי לאיצטרופי.\" Because you could combine it to the other half. It's חביבה. That's what רבי יוחנן I'll explain it in a moment. But he also brings a פסוק. The פסוק, by חלב the פסוק says, \"כל חלב לא תאכלו.\" Why does it say the word \"כל\"? חלב, לא תאכלו חלב, don't eat חלב. So זה מרבה חצי שיעור. Okay? That's what רבי יוחנן says. Okay? What חזי לאיצטרופי means, I'll just translate and then I'll explain it second later. It means you could combine it. Wait a second. The שאלה that the רבי asks, and that the other אחרונים ask, how come an עקירה without an הנחה, is not אסור מדאורייתא? Only עקירה and הנחה by הוצאה or עקירה הנחה by הכנסה is אסור מדאורייתא. Why isn't עקירה also אסור מדאורייתא? Because of חצי שיעור. Just like if you'd eat a half a כזית, it's אסור מדאורייתא, you're not חייב the punishment, but you're אסור. So here too, עקירה with הנחה, you're חייב the punishment, you're חייב כרת, you're חייב סקילה. If you only do an עקירה, it's a חצי שיעור. But the גמרא says here, \"שתים שהן ארבע, שתים is חייב\" No, פטור ומותר, the גמרא says מפורש מדרבנן, the whole thing. רש\"י, look at רש\"י, נו? What does רש\"י say? שהן ארבע, read רש\"י. What does רש\"י say, שהן ארבע? Even here in רש\"י, \"מדבריהם הוסיפו שתים.\" מדבריהם, מדבריהם means from the חכמים. חכמים אסרו, it's a דין דרבנן. Why is it not אסור מדאורייתא אלס חצי שיעור? That's the שאלה. And the רבי answers, which again this is not the רבי's own answer, there's other אחרונים say the answer. The רבי only brings it in connection to קשירה so you get it. That's why he brings it in, it's not the רבי's חידוש. But the answer is חצי שיעור is אסור מדאורייתא if you have the whole מלאכה, the whole עבירה, you're just missing the quantity. The quality of the עבירה is there. The quantity, you eat a piece of חמץ, חמץ the same is a big חמץ, a small piece of חמץ, it's all the same. You did the same thing. What was missing? The שיעור. Then we say חצי שיעור is אסור מדאורייתא. But here if you did only an עקירה without a הנחה or a הנחה without an עקירה, you did half of the מלאכה, it's not half of the שיעור. You don't have the whole מלאכה. You know what would be חצי שיעור by שבת, by carrying? I'll give you what would be חצי שיעור by carrying. The דין is, the פרק המוציא goes into שיעורים, certain things when you carry you're חייב if you carry a certain amount. That's not, that actually that's one of the קשיות they ask: why is that not חצי שיעור? That's going to be some other time to talk about. But there's a case when you carry on שבת, even by הוצאה, there's certain things that you carry, למשל, it says you carry dog food, you're only חייב if you carry an amount that a dog could eat. But if you carry a little bit, you're not חייב, but it's still אסור מדאורייתא אלס חצי שיעור. Because you did the whole מלאכה, you made an עקירה, you carried it out, you made a הנחה with something. אלא מאי? The שיעור was missing, that's חצי שיעור. But if you made עקירה without a הנחה or הנחה without an עקירה, that's not חצי שיעור, that's חצי מלאכה, and therefore this is not אסור. The question, this is what the רבי says, this is what אחרונים say to answer. I want to elaborate, go further on that. לכאורה, if you look into the reason why רבי יוחנן says חצי שיעור is אסור מן התורה, לכאורה by חצי מלאכה it should be the same reason. Okay? What is the reason he says חצי שיעור is אסור מן התורה? חזי לאיצטרופי. חזי לאיצטרופי means it could be combined, and there are two פשטים in this חזי לאיצטרופי. There's the פשט of the of the of the חזי, חזי means fit, לאיצטרופי, to be מצטרף. So you have the way the צל\"ח learns. Who wrote the צל\"ח פסחים? He wrote a other ספר where he's more famous, now I hope you know what that is, the נודע ביהודה. נודע ביהודה wrote the צל\"ח פסחים. And the נודע ביהודה lived when? I don't mean exactly which year, you can't remember all, in which which era? Is it ראשונים, אחרונים, in the time of רש\"י, in the time of the רמב\"ם, in the time of the בעל שם טוב? No, he was a רב of פראג, so he was much after them. Time of of which time למשל? A little bit before the אלטער רבי, time of the בעל שם טוב. He actually was a contemporary of the בעל שם טוב, but he was a big מתנגד. His wife was a חסידת of the בעל שם טוב, and he was a מתנגד. Actually when the בעל שם טוב came to פראג, he used to stay in his house. Anyway, so the צל\"ח learns פשט like this. What's the פשט that רבי יוחנן says חזי לאיצטרופי? Listen, listen. What's the פשט חזי לאיצטרופי he says? רבי יוחנן's ראיה that that חצי שיעור is also אסור because you could combine it. What does that mean? It's like a גזירה of the תורה. Usually the תורה is not גזירות, the תורה is הלכות, the רבנן make גזירות. Sometimes the תורה makes a גזירה. The תורה really wanted you shouldn't eat a whole כזית, but the תורה also made a half a כזית or a little bit אסור because you might forget or might and you might continue and finish off. And there is a שיעור: if you eat a כזית within כדי אכילת פרס, within whatever amount of minutes, you're חייב. So the guy says, 'Okay, I'm allowed to eat a half a כזית,' so he eats a half a כזית of חלב of חזיר, איך ווייס, מותר, let's say it would be מותר מדאורייתא, would be מותר, then a minute later he forgot that he ate and he starts eating again, or he didn't forget and he eats more, and he finished a כזית. Since it's possible to finish off, the תורה made a גזירה that you can't eat even a little bit. That's דייטש חזי לאיצטרופי according to him. But you're not חייב. You're חייב only חייב עונש, you're חייב מלקות or כרת, whatever it is, if you do a שיעור. But חצי שיעור is חזי לאיצטרופי that's why אסור מן התורה. That's one פשט. The other פשט in חזי לאיצטרופי is the פשט that the פרי מגדים says, the ראגאטשאווער says, and that's the פשט that the רבי learns all the way whenever he חצי שיעור, חזי לאיצטרופי is not a practical thing, you might be מצטרף, you might combine it. חזי לאצטרופי means, it's a ראיה! How could you say that a little bit is מותר, if you're going to combine it with a little bit more it'll become אסור? How does that become אסור? If a חצי שיעור is מותר, a חצי שיעור of חזיר is not טרף. You have another חצי שיעור of חזיר, also not טרף. You put two things which are כשר together and they become טרף? And it's the same thing. So that's a ראיה that באמת this is also טרף. אלא מאי, there's no punishment for it, unless you ate the whole bunch. But the חזי לאצטרופי is a ראיה that even a חצי שיעור is אסור. This the פרי מגדים, and the ראגאטשאווער, and this is how the רבי learns in many שיחות פשט in this גמרא חזי לאצטרופי. That it's not a practical thing of we're afraid you might be מצטרף, you might add more, but it's a proof because if you would add more it would become אסור, is a proof that a little bit is also אסור. There's a big difference להלכה between these two פשטים. Know what the difference להלכה would be? No, but according to both it's אסור now. No. So you were afraid someone will bring you. If a person would eat a half of כזית of חמץ the last second of פסח, would it be אסור or not? According to the first way, it shouldn't be אסור according to the first way because it's impossible for you to finish it, because if you're going to continue eating it'll be after פסח already. Or יום כיפור, if you can eat a חצי שיעור on יום כיפור the last minute, shouldn't be אסור. But according to the second way, that it means it's a ראיה that this has an איסור, so what's whenever you're going to eat it, since this is something that a שיעור is אסור, so half a שיעור is also אסור. That every little bit has the איסור. Right. No, really not כשר. If it would be really כשר, then how could it be that when it's מצטרף to the same thing more, a lot of כשר doesn't make טרף? If it's the same thing. Is a ראיה that it's טרף, that even חצי שיעור is טרף. Possible. No, So it's not a practical נפקא מינה. So היגיונ'דיקע נפקא מינה. נפקא מינה with the פועל ממש maybe not for some other reason. No, because it's less. That's for sure because there's no חיוב. It's still אסור מדאורייתא, but you're allowed to be עובר מדאורייתא. Why עובר a חמור'דיקע איסור if you're able to עובר less? Okay, let's go ווייטער, נו. The שאלה is, according to the reason of רבי יוחנן that it's חזי לאצטרופי, that's why חצי שיעור is אסור מדאורייתא, why is a חצי מלאכה not אסור? Isn't it the same סברא? If you learn the first פשט in חזי לאצטרופי, it's אוודאי a קשיא. Just like by חצי שיעור you might finish it off and the תורה worried about the חצי שיעור, why wouldn't the תורה worry about חצי מלאכה? Same thing. By every עבירה, because of the חשש you might be מצטרף it to a further step. So what's the difference if the further step will be in the שיעור or a further step will be with the other? But it's something that's a you did the beginning and if you're going to continue it's going to be אסור, so it should be אסור there too. At least עקירה, maybe הנחה you could say maybe not because you can't finish it off. You're finished. But עקירה itself should be אסור מדאורייתא אלס חצי שיעור. איי, it's not the word, so we won't use the word חצי שיעור, but the logic of חצי שיעור אסור מן התורה should apply also to חצי מלאכה. So according to the first, אוודאי. What about according to the second? According to the second, I'm not so sure. You could also maybe think because סוף כל סוף, since part part of the מלאכה is the עקירה, is a ראיה that this is includes in the מלאכה One second, but that that No, so you should be אסור. You'd be פטור from עונש, but that should be אסור מדאורייתא, just like that. Now, if you notice I kept on saying before that חצי שיעור, the ראיה, the second way חזי לאצטרופי, because if it's both the same thing and half of it is מותר, how could it both be אסור? Why did I keep on saying the same thing? Because you have a ראיה from בשר בחלב. בשר is מותר? Yeah. Yeah. חלב is מותר? Yeah. Why isn't בשר itself אסור אלס חצי שיעור? If together it's אסור, חזי לאצטרופי. The answer is because they're two separate ענינים. בשר we find a lot of times So by בשר בחלב, we understand there's no דין of חצי שיעור, there's no דין of of חצי anything to say it's אסור. No one actually I wouldn't even mention it because it's שטות. I saw the תפארת ישראל, I don't even remember where, I saw the תפארת ישראל once gave a דוגמא, I think for this חצי מלאכה, כמו בשר בחלב, that that it's not אסור as חצי שיעור, but it's not the same and I'll tell you why. Because חצי מלאכה, עקירה and הנחה are both parts of the same thing. It's all parts of carrying out. How do you carry out? Carrying out is you pick up and you take it out and you put it down, you carried out. בשר בחלב, completely two separate ענינים. So I could say like this: בשר בחלב I understand there's no חצי שיעור, no חצי nothing, cuz there's no connection, so it's no ראיה. But but חצי מלאכה, עקירה without הנחה, because it's all part of the same thing, why wouldn't we make say it's אסור for the reason of חזי לאצטרופי? So I said, if you learn חזי לאצטרופי in the simple way, then it's a קשיא. If you learn the second way, it's not 100% a קשיא because you can make a חילוק. But that's not so פשוט, I'm saying you can make a חילוק, but on the other hand, it's not the same like בשר בחלב. So it's still not so פשוט to think for sure that it doesn't apply because it's all part of the same thing. על כל פנים, the שקלא וטריא is you could, if you want to say, it's not such a strong קשיא. But according to the first way, it's clearly it's a קשיא. נו, so one way you could say is a ראיה the second way is right. And obviously we know the second way is right anyway. If the רבי says it, then you know it's right, so so nothing to talk about. But על כל פנים, according to those סברות that say חזי לאצטרופי is the first way, even the second way is not so פשוט. I want to mention another thing. There is a חכם צבי who the אלטר רבי brings him in שולחן ערוך, who holds a שיטה which the אלטר רבי doesn't agree. The חכם צבי holds that חצי שיעור אסור is only by אכילה. Only by מידת אכילה, by eating. Eating טריף, eating חזיר, eating פסח, eating יום כיפור, eating. But not by anything else. Then it's no problem. Then we have לכתחילה no קשיא why there's no חצי שיעור, because not because חצי מלאכה, cuz it's only by אכילה. The אלטר רבי doesn't agree with it. If you looked at the שיחה that and you should look at it again, I'm saying you should learn the שיחה with the הערות, the רבי brings there clearly that the אלטר רבי holds that that's by everything. He brings a ראיה from that we find by the by כתיבה, the אלטר רבי says that if you write, the example I gave, if you write two letters you're חייב. The שיעור is two letters. If you write one letter, the אלטר רבי writes is אסור מן התורה מצד חצי שיעור. Is a ראיה that חצי שיעור is not דווקא by אכילה. In הלכות גניבה, the אלטר רבי says that you don't have to return an object that you stole if it's worth less than a פרוטה, but it's אסור to steal even if it's a חצי שיעור, you're not allowed to steal even half a פרוטה, because of איסור דאורייתא of חצי שיעור, and that's by גניבה, that's not by אכילה. So there's no But that's no one holds עקירה is חצי שיעור. Everyone holds it's דרבנן. But the אלטר רבי says it's אסור מדאורייתא, so it's חצי שיעור. So the אלטר רבי doesn't hold. I just want to mention before I finish this פרט, I have a שאלה on the שיחה: why does the אלטר the רבי bring a ראיה from the אלטר רבי from the case of of writing, why doesn't he bring a ראיה from another case in the אלטר רבי's שולחן ערוך also clear, and the אלטר רבי doesn't bring it? גזיזה, if you cut off hair from a live thing, איסור דאורייתא, it's one of the ל״ט מלאכות. The שיעור is two hairs. So the אלטר רבי says if you cut one hair, אסור מדאורייתא, חצי שיעור אסור מן התורה. So we see from here it's not דווקא by אכילה. And the רבי doesn't bring that, and I wonder why. Maybe there's a difference there. Someone could look into it if you want to. By a But afterwards, the מלאכה is there. What? Afterwards, the מלאכה My שאלה is not only by by this case. My שאלה is by שאלה is not only here, but any חצי מלאכה, any חצי thing. Doesn't matter. What the אחרונים ask, it's not only here. When they make a חילוק between חצי שיעור and חצי מלאכה, it's not only by not like this מלאכה. If they would do other מלאכות, but not do half of the שיעור, but half of the מלאכה So there, yeah. Let's say if a person would cut part of the hair, give you an example, not the whole hair. That's not חצי שיעור. That's חצי מלאכה. No, the person who completely cut it off would be חייב, the first person didn't do anything. Yeah. Well, he didn't cut the Why is that Why is that not חצי מלאכה? But part he cut. That's not חצי מלאכה. No, completely separate the hair. How do That's טייטש, no, it's the מלאכה is if you do the whole thing. He didn't do half way, though. Yes, he did. Even cutting the last half is doing the whole thing, cutting the first half isn't doing anything. No, the מלאכה is to do two hairs. There are a whole bunch of examples. They're all cases where we have חצי מלאכה, not only here. When the אחרונים talk about it, they bring this in, but it's not only this. I have a קובץ מראה מקומות that I can show where you can look it up. Anyway, but it's nothing to do with מלאכה. If it's only here, then you could say מלאכה גרועה. I want us just say something now. So the קשיא is, according to the חכם צבי there is no קשיא, but we don't hold like the חכם צבי. ממילא, we're back to the קשיא of why did he say it. The only, and the נקודה that you could say a very simple answer is that the reason, we find in גמרא that the reason of רבי יוחנן is not only חזי לאצטרופי. What else was another reason I gave? There's a פסוק that says, \"כל חלב\". And they all talk, why do we need two, חזי לאצטרופי and \"כל חלב\"? Is משמע that the סברא of חזי לאצטרופי, whatever the פשט in חזי לאצטרופי is, would not be enough without the פסוק. Basically, what it comes out that the חזי לאצטרופי is a reason for the פסוק. The The reason רבי יוחנן says חצי שיעור אסור מן התורה, how does he know that? 'Cause there's a פסוק. The פסוק says \"כל חלב\". And from there we learn out חצי שיעור. Then we have a סברא, חזי לאצטרופי. Now, since the פסוק \"כל חלב\", the גמרא says, is only talking about the שיעור, ממילא, even though the סברא of חזי לאצטרופי might have applied to חצי מלאכה too, but since the פסוק \"כל חלב\" the גמרא learns out is בנוגע the שיעור, so we don't apply it also to the ענין of חצי מלאכה. Now you say, how does the גמרא know that this is only by חצי שיעור? Well, the כלל is that whenever we have a לימוד of a פסוק, do we say the חידוש of the פסוק is to the furthest extent or to the least? Can't can't stretch חידושים to the furthest. It's always to the least. How do you know it's the furthest? Maybe it's not. The least, for sure. When you say רבים, I'll give you an example: מיעוט רבים when it says two when it says many and it doesn't say it says לשון רבים, doesn't say how much, how much do we assume it is? Two. Maybe it's four? Maybe it's six? We don't know. Two, for sure! Same thing when the תורה tells you an extra לימוד and we don't know how far it goes, what do we assume? The least. So here we have, we could go to חצי שיעור, could go even further to חצי מלאכה. So as long as we don't have a לימוד for extra, we assume the פסוק is teaching us חצי שיעור. Then we have a סברא why חצי שיעור. But we have no פסוק to מגלה that it goes even to חצי מלאכה, because that's a step further. So even though if we'd only look at the סברא, we should apply it to חצי מלאכה too, but since we don't it's not based only on the סברא, the סברא is only we're saying a reason for the פסוק, that's why we don't base it, we don't say that this would also be אסור. Now, when we're talking about חצי שיעור by שבת, there are some that hold that even not like the חכם צבי that חצי שיעור is only by אכילה, they hold it's by other things also, but by שבת not. Which doesn't seem to be like רש״י, 'cause רש״י later on on דף ע״ד, if you מיש ע״ד, you'll see, when the גמרא talks about a certain thing, and then the גמרא uses a לשון:

וכי מותר לאפות פחות מכשיעור? Are we allowed to cook less than the שיעור? Where is it? On דף ע״ד עמוד א׳. וכי מותר לאפות פחות מכשיעור? So רש״י says, נהי דחיוב חטאת ליכא, even though you're not חייב a חטאת for less than the שיעור, איסורא מיהא איכא. There's an איסור. Now, so far, do we have any ראיה that it's אסור מן התורה? Maybe שבת it's still not אסור מן התורה. I, when it says אסור, מדרבנן. So רש״י continues, דקיימא לן חצי שיעור אסור מן התורה בפרק בעשור, יומא. So we see from רש״י clearly that it's אסור מן התורה, and this is talking about cooking on שבת. He's assuming it doesn't apply in שבת. The רשב״א in בבא בתרא says it does not apply in שבת. And he gives a reason, why would שבת be different? ממילא, the חכם צבי, why why everything would be different besides אכילה, we understand why. Why? Think. What's the סברא of the חכם צבי? I didn't mention it, I should've mentioned it before. What's his סברא? Only by אכילה. No, a lot of things have a שיעור בגשמיות. Cooking you'd also you're חייב only if you cook רש״י says a גרוגרת. Well, where do we know חצי שיעור from? Well, we just spoke about it. From כל חלב. And what's חלב? Eating. That's all. How come it's in the פסוק that teaches us חצי שיעור is by eating, so it's only by eating. So what's the סברא that it should be only by everything besides שבת? So here you have different מפרשים say that תוצאות חיים, one of the main ספרים, not a מפרש on the גמרא, but he has כללים, very... תוצאות חיים on שבת, תוצאות חיים, ת-ו-צ-א-ו-ת חיים, written by רב מנחם זעמבא. Who was רב מנחם זעמבא? When did he live? Was he a תנא, an אמורא? He was a, yeah, he was in the Warsaw uprising, and they even claim that he gave a היתר for them to do the uprising. He died in the Holocaust when he was a young man. He was a he was a big גאון. He was a big גאון, he was he was the רב, one of the רבנים of ווארשא, and he was a famous, a פוילישער big גאון. The ראיה that he was a big גאון, besides his ספרים are געוואלדיג, the ראגאטשאווער didn't hold of anybody. Anybody spoke to him in learning said these guys are עם הארצים, anybody, the biggest גדולים. Once רב מנחם זעמבא spoke to him, and when he walked out, the ראגאטשאווער turns around to the guy, to the שמש, ״דער פוילישער יונגערמאן קען א ביסל לערנען״. This פויליש, 'cause he was a young man when he died, ״דער פוילישער יונגערמאן, ער קען א ביסל לערנען״. He knows. So he wrote a ספר תוצאות חיים. Actually, the פריערדיקער רבי, there's a letter from the פריערדיקער רבי to him asking him to come be the ראש ישיבה in ליובאוויטש ישיבה. And there's a long letter where the פריערדיקער רבי explains to him what it means a ליובאוויטשער תלמיד. It's good for בחורים to read it. And he gives example of a few בחורים, I think of three, I maybe I don't remember the third, of רב שמחה גורודצקי, and he describes his life, and of רב בענטשע שעמטוב. And he said, ״This is what a בחור is.״ And he asked him to to become ראש ישיבה in one of the ישיבות he wanted to open, and רב מנחם זעמבא made a condition, ״If you don't learn חסידות,״ and obviously that didn't fly, so he... A פוילישער, yeah, but not It's a פוילישער, learn חסידות? Yeah, a half hour a week, they learn in a ביסל שפת אמת, I mean, he was a גערער חסיד בעצם. Anyway, so רב מנחם זעמבא also in his תוצאות חיים is a on שבת, it's one of the מפורסמ'דיגע ספרים on שבת, very good ספר, very... and it's not even the פוילישער דרך, you know, the חריפות, he's very... So he writes a סברא, he says because שבת, and brings down the רמב״ם that שבת, it says מלאכת מחשבת אסרה תורה. You have to have מחשבה. And חצי שיעור is missing מלאכת מחשבת. A מלאכת מחשבת means it has to be a חשיב'ע מלאכה. And a חצי שיעור is missing the חשיבות. So that's why, איי רש״י says it's מדאורייתא, so לכאורה the רמב״ם argues with רש״י. But there's a סברא to say that רש״י never meant it. When רש״י says that you cannot cook חצי שיעור, and רש״י says why, because we know that חצי שיעור אסור מן התורה, so some want to say the פשט in רש״י is different. Because חצי שיעור אסור מן התורה all over, that's why here the רבנן אסר'ד it by by שבת. But that's not the פשוט'ע פשט. Obviously the אלטר רבי definitely doesn't hold like that, because the אלטר רבי says you're not allowed to do כתיבה and גזיזה, so this is not doesn't doesn't פארענטפער at all to the Rebbe. But this is what they say that this is that this is the דין of of חצי שיעור. Now, this that he says that the reason is because it's not מלאכת מחשבת, is מלאכת מחשבת part of the quality of a מלאכה or it's a side thing? In other words, when you do a מצוה something or you do an עבירה, if you do an עבירה without intentions, then it's only שוגג. So the כוונה is not part of the איסור, the איסור is eating חזיר. If you don't have כוונה, there's a side problem. If you have כוונה, then you did. Is מלאכת מחשבת, if מלאכת מחשבת that the תורה says that שבת you have to have מלאכת מחשבת is a is a side thing, then you can't say that that ממילא חצי שיעור is מותר. Because חצי שיעור, the מלאכה itself is a מלאכה. It's a side thing. So you must learn that he say that you must say that he learns that מלאכת מחשבת is one of the conditions in the מלאכה, just like you have to have an עקירה, you have to have an הנחה. Those are parts of the מלאכה. You have to have מחשבה for the מלאכה, it has to be a חשיב'ע זאך. And therefore by שבת, since it's not חשוב, it's different than others. So by other things you would have חצי שיעור, and by שבת you wouldn't, if it's part of it. And it looks like מלאכת מחשבת is part of the מלאכה, the way it's Rebbe explains in ליקוטי שיחות חלק ו', where the Rebbe talks about אינו מתכוין, חלק ז' I mean, not ו', ז', in פרשת בחוקותי, where the Rebbe talks about the ענין of why on שבת if you're not מכוין, we פסק'ן that it's מותר, מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, not to go into the פרטים. It's all because it's missing מלאכת מחשבת. It seems that מלאכת מחשבת by שבת is a condition in the מלאכה. וממילא if it's a condition in the מלאכה, חצי שיעור would be מותר, if you hold that way. But פשוט'ע פשט in רש״י doesn't seem that way, פשוט'ע פשט in רש״י seems that it's חצי שיעור is אסור. וממילא if חצי שיעור is אסור, Comes a שאלה, so how come חצי שיעור by עקירה והנחה doesn't apply? And this is where the whole thing comes in, that it's only חצי מלאכה, and what's wrong with חצי מלאכה? Then we go to the whole thing that it's חזי לאצטרופי, and it boils down that it's all based on the פסוק.