points, then we're going to get to the Chasam Sofer here on the Tosafos Shavuos, and we're going to learn that Chasam Sofer, both parts of the Chasam Sofer. The one that he writes here, that's this page, and then the one that he writes in דף צ״ז, that's the other page, all the המשך to the same inyan. First, just a few small points. Tosafos says that hotza'ah is a מלאכה גרועה, and we're learning about that so many times and we'll still learn more, more and more about it. It's all one It's a מלאכה גרועה. It means it's a שוואכע מלאכה, it's less than a regular melachah. And Tosafos uses it as a reason in the first Tosafos why this it starts with יציאות השבת. Since it wants to tell you that you can't carry on Friday the מחט, before that we have to tell you that you can't, that מכלל there is a דין הוצאה. And why davka by this, not by the rest? Because this is a מלאכה גרועה. Now there are some mefarshim who say punkt the opposite, that hotza'ah is the most important melachah, not a מלאכה גרועה, because the only melachah that you see the difference between Shabbos and Yom Tov is hotza'ah. Because since there is no דין הוצאה ביום טוב, and it's more than any other Every other melachah exists on Yom Tov also. I, you're allowed to cook on Yom Tov, but you're only allowed to because צורך אוכל נפש. But hotza'ah, there's a דין אין עירוב והוצאה ביום טוב. יש עירוב והוצאה בשבת, ואין עירוב והוצאה ביום טוב. Yom Tov, there's no din of hotza'ah. So where do you see takeh the greatness, the kedushah of Shabbos or the specialty of Shabbos? In hotza'ah. Huh? By hotza'ah. By hotza'ah! And that's the reason, the reason they give why Shabbos, Maseches Shabbos starts with הוצאה, punkt farkert than the this ענין of of הוצאה being a מלאכה גרועה. So, I just want to mention that don't think The Gur Aryeh says this, the Maharal miPrag says this. But it's not the peshat, I just want to explain, not the peshat that it's a stira, that it's a machloket, that Tosafot according to Tosafot הוצאה is a shvache, the the weakest melacha, according to what he's saying is the shtarkste melacha. They're both true. It's not like a stira, it depends on which angle we're looking at it. If you're looking from the angle of what the melacha itself is, it's a מלאכה גרועה, like I've been explaining, because there's nothing that's happening when you do הוצאה. But if you look at it from the other angle, לפועל, מלאכה גרועה means that that's why the Torah had to specially write a pasuk there, we wouldn't know different, but לאחר the Torah wrote it, it's a melacha? Yes. And it's a type of melacha which doesn't exist on ש- on Yom Tov. Mimeila, it has a maala over the other. So, there are two reasons why it starts off with הוצאה, two opposite reasons, but they're not opposites, they're two reasons from two different angles. One angle is why the עצם מלאכה is a מלאכה גרועה, so you have to tell you that there is such a melacha, and then there's another reason for this לאחר we're told, this is something special melacha, that this is a melacha which is a עיקר מלאכה on Shabbos. Yeah, but it doesn't make it any more of a melacha... It just makes it something... Well, right, but it makes something that expresses Shabbos. Saying on one hand this is a shvache melacha, on the other hand, if you want to know what expresses the specialty of Shabbos which no other thing has except Yom Kippur, no other day in the week it has besides Shabbos is the melacha of הוצאה. So there is something a maalah. Which fits be'emet to what the Rabbi writes in Likutei Sichos in חלק י״א, פרשת בשלח, חלק י״א פרשת בשלח, the Rabbi brings Tosafos' kashya why the Mishnah, Maseches Shabbos starts with הוצאה. You know what the Rabbi says there? He goes into על פי חסידות, but he brings out, he brought, he brings the Tosafos' kashya and he answers, you know why it starts with יציאה? Because the עיקר מלאכה of Shabbos is הוצאה. But he doesn't say the vort of them because it's the חילוק between Shabbos and Yom Tov. He goes out into whole ענין על פי חסידות. What's הוצאה? Taking out from רשות היחיד to רשות הרבים. Because every any מלאכה that you do on Shabbos, you know what you're doing? You're writing, you're cooking, you know what you're doing? You're taking out from the רשות of יחידו של עולם into the רשות of קליפות. יחידו של עולם is יחיד, that's רשות היחיד is רשות of the אייבערשטער, רשות הרבים represents קליפה. Every מלאכה is really הוצאה. And he brings a re'ayah from a Midrash. The Midrash says שאל מינא את רבי עקיבא, an אפיקורס asked Rabbi Akiva a question. You say that the אייבערשטער keeps all the mitzvot, we know that. So he keeps Shabbos, he has to keep Shabbos. How does he make it rain on Shabbos? You're not allowed to water your grass on Shabbos, the Eibershter makes it rain. So you know what Rabbi Akiva answered him? Pashut pshat in Midrash, pashut makes no sense. So he answered him, what are you talking about? Mimeila by us, we can't carry because there are different רשויות. But the whole world is by the Eibershter one רשות! That's why you're allowed. Does that make any sense? Does this answer make sense? Why not? Because just because you have a רשות on Shabbos doesn't mean you're allowed to water your... Right. Right! If you'd ask a kashya how the Eibershter is allowed to carry, oh you can, but by the Eibershter there's no such thing as carrying from one רשות to another. You asked a shaila about watering your grass. Like yeah, I remember I once asked somebody, a guy was, \"So how could you drive on Shabbos?\" \"There's an eruv!\" \"So an eruv, you're allowed to drive on Shabbos! If the Eibershter has no one רשות, that's why you can water the grass, yeah?\" So the Rebbe said the pshat in Midrash is that the Eibershter, the whole reason of being מחלל שבת in any melacha, watering the grass or whatever it is, is פשט הוצאה. The whole thing, the nekudah, is הוצאה, that you're מוציא מרשות היחיד לרשות הרבים. But since by the Eibershter there's no such thing, mimeila you can't be מוציא, so you can do any melacha. But עכ\"פ this fits to what the Maharal says here. That the Maharal says here that הוצאה is gar a שטארקע מלאכה. So this fits that the Rebbe says there also, that this And he also answers Tosafos's kashya that way. Why does it start off with הוצאה? Because this is the main מלאכה! And the Rebbe says the same thing from a different angle, but it all fits to one thing. That's one nekudah here.

Another nekudah, Tosafos in We go back again to the inyan of מלאכה גרועה. Tosafos asks, \"Why are we making an עני and an עשיר? What's the difference where עני and עשיר?\" So Tosafos answers, because it's a מלאכה גרועה. So מלאכה גרועה you wouldn't know one from another, so we need the Mishnah has to tell us both דינים. Pesukim! We need two Pesukim, Tosafos says! Why do we need two Pesukim for הוצאה? One is for הוצאה דעני, one is for הוצאה דעשיר. The she'eilah is like this. How do we know הכנסה? From הוצאה. הכנסה we know from הוצאה. How do we know it from הוצאה? When you finish the Tosafos פשוט and I'm asking you how do we know, the bottom line, how do we know הכנסה from, where do we know הכנסה from? Oh! It's a sevara! And Tosafos asks, \"If it's a sevara, why do we need it to be in the Mishkan?\" What's Tosafos's answer? Oh! We needed it to be in the Mishkan not because otherwise we wouldn't know it, because we could learn it out from הוצאה. What's the sevara we learn out from הוצאה? מה לי מכניס מה לי אפוקי מה לי עיולי. It's a שכל! What's the difference? It's the same thing, it's part of הוצאה. So why do we need that the Gemara should say it's in the Mishkan? What is Tosafos's answer? No, every other, but not by הכנסה. By מושיט Tosafos says, by זורק, everything has to be in the Mishkan. ד' אמות we don't have the Mishkan, but we have הלכה למשה מסיני. But בנוגע הכנסה specifically, what does Tosafos say? Look inside. It was in the Mishkan, he answers. Then he asks, כיון הכנסה אויך איז אין משכן, why do we need the sevara? Sevara of הכנסה דבעל הבית, okay. Then Tosafos asks, if you have a sevara, why do we need in the Mishkan? The sevara is enough! And Tosafos answers, you would yeah, you would think it has nothing to do with the Mishkan, you would make people would make mistakes and think that anything that makes sense in your mind to be a melacha would turn into a melacha. So it's only to bewarnen a mistake, but not be'etzem you need. So if you learn Tosafos, it comes out the bottom line of Tosafos is that the Mishkan itself would be enough, but the sevara itself is also enough. We don't need We need the Mishkan for some other side reason you shouldn't make a mistake. But the sevara is enough! No, other things, so you shouldn't think that something it was דומה למלאכה even לא הוי במשכן, that's a different That's to bewarnen a mistake, but the עצם הכנסה, Tosafos says, we know it because of the sevara. What's the sevara? מה לי מכניס מה לי מוציא or מה לי אפוקי מה לי עיולי. So that sevara is good enough, because they're so equal the two, that sevara is good enough to make הכנסה into a melacha, whether it's a תולדה or an אב, the Gemara here משמע it's a תולדה, whatever, but to make it into a melacha just for sevara. What's the sevara? What's the difference to take in and out? עני and עשיר, is not even a better sevara? What's the difference if you're standing in or you're standing out? The melacha is hotzaah, so we say if we'd have the melacha of hotzaah, one pasuk, we would think it's only a מלאכה חייב by the עני, which mean by the עני, if you're standing outside, you can't do hotzaah, but if you're standing inside, you could. Aren't they very similar? Lichora in my mind they're more similar than הכנסה to hotzaah. Because הכנסה to hotzaah, there's a good sevara, a strong סברא, מה לי מילן, yeah, but the bottom line is they're two רשויות! This one is רשות היחיד to רשות הרבים, this is רשות הרבים to רשות היחיד. But עני and בעל הבית, both hotzaah, they're both the same רשות! They're both taking out from רשות היחיד! אלא מאי? Where you're standing! What do you think is a bigger sevara? What's closer, הכנסה to hotzaah in שכל or הוצאה דבעל הבית to הוצאה דעני? In my mind it would be הוצאה דבעל הבית, alright. עני to בעל הבית is closer than הכנסה to hotzaah. So why does so why are we saying here that Tosafot says we would not know, we need a pasuk? That's a שאלה. Why do we need a pasuk for this, and for הכנסה we don't need we don't need a pasuk? The sevara that they're so close is good enough, and for this, it's not good enough.

So the Pnei Yehoshua asks this she'eilah. And the Pnei Yehoshua answers, and I mentioned part of what the Pnei Yehoshua answers the other shiur. He says, by עני and by עשיר, there's a specific sevara I would think why they're not the same. Why? So no, עני and עשיר doesn't mean tzedakah. The reason the Mishnah used an עני is to teach us tzedakah. עני and עשיר means standing outside, standing inside. The same hotza'ah you could do by standing inside and taking it out, and the same hotza'ah you could do by standing outside and sticking your hand in and taking it out. They're both taking out. The chiluk is where you're standing. So what's the difference? So he says the difference is because each one has a sevara bedavka. Hachnasah and hotza'ah, there is no sevara why one should be different than the other. I mean it's exactly the same thing, just opposite רשויות, but the idea of changing רשויות. Here, he says there is a sevara. And you have to have a sevara from both sides. You have to have a sevara why if it would be הכנסה הוצאה דעני we would not yet know הוצאה דעשיר, and if we'd say only עשיר we would not know עני, and this is what he says. So anybody remember what I said in the other shiur? One side I said, if we would say hotza'ah the the עשיר, I would think only he's chayav, not הוצאה דעני. What's the sevara I said then? Because the עני hasn't finished. A melachah is when you finish, you do something concrete. The עשיר, what's his thing to do? What does he want to do? Whatever reason is, he cares for the guy, whatever, he wants to take his thing and give it to the guy. That's it, he's finished with what his job. Whatever he's interested in doing is finished. So נעשית, what is the לשון there, נעשית מחשבתו, and by Shabbos there is a גדר of you're chayav if your machshava what you intended to do happened. The עני is not finished yet. The עני is standing there and he's taking it. Why is he taking it? Because he wants to eat it, he's hungry, I don't know, whatever it is. Yeah, we're talking about הוצאה now. Yeah, the the pasuk is הוצאה, הכנסה isn't הוצאה. And if we say one pasuk, we would think only let's say we'd only know, we'd assume it's only הוצאה the עשיר, he says. Why would we assume only הוצאה דעשיר, and עני we wouldn't know? Because the עשיר, it's a it's a it's a מלאכה גרועה, but whatever the מלאכה גרועה is, he finished his job. Mah she'ein kein the עני didn't. The עני is still doing it and he has to continue, or he has to take it home. And even let's say we would be talking about a goy, cause one of the they're talking about a goy, he could carry, okay, but a goy is not chayav. But the bottom line, he's not finished, he took it for a for purpose. The the guy who gave it, his chelek, see there's a chelek of a נותן a נותן and a מקבל. The נותן's job always is over when he gives it. The מקבל is receiving it cause he wants it. And guy says, \"I'm giving it away, finished, that's away from me.\" He mimela, I would think it's לא איתעבידת מחשבתו, it's not enough. Yeah, but normally, it's not always like this, but normally you're taking it out, you're standing over and you give Why would you put it down? What for, later? I mean you put because you need it there. Normally you give it because someone else I mean this this We're talking about sevarot that we would have thought, because this is the common case, a more regildige case. No, עני not so because he's poor. עני and עשיר is the word poor, but the guy standing outside. We're talking about a guy, not because he's poor, a guy could be rich, but he's taking it for a reason. Right. A guy who's taking something cause he wants it for something, he doesn't want to just take it and then he's finished. That's why, and the guy who gives it, is finished. The same thing you could say a סברא פארקערט: The guy who's taking it wants it. There's something strong in what he's doing. The guy's giving, he's giving it away. That's, in other words, yeah, he's like getting rid of it. It's not something it's so concrete, there's a sevara to say that. I know, not because he does I don't mean if he wants it or not, maybe he likes it very much, but there is a reason for him to get away from him. So you could say one hand that's a maalah, so stronger he's finished, on the other hand, it's more like a a a it's a not than a yes. The other guy is doing, there's something he needs it for. And and here, by the עשיר, he's just giving it away, so it's a not. Mimela, there's not it's not such a strong thing. What's always stronger? Kum va'aseh or shev ve'al ta'aseh, yes or not? Yes is always stronger. And by him he needs it, and this guy is getting rid of it for whatever reason, could be I'm not saying what the reason is, it makes no difference, but it's not. At least, as long I'm not saying this is bedavka, as long as there is a sevara, so we cannot on our own learn one from the other when there is a סברא פארקערט. That's that's what the Penei Yehoshua says. long Pnei Yehoshua there, but this is the nekudah that he says. משא\"כ הכנסה and הוצאה, we have no sevarot why one should be different than the other. I mean, they're not exactly the same, but very close, so why should? There, the Gemara says מאי אוליה דאפוקי ממאי אוליה דעיולי. The sevara is enough to make it a toldah. משא\"כ the עני and the עשיר, we would not know.

I want to say a little bit different in the Pnei Yehoshua, but it's it's basically, you can put it into what he says, or I don't know if into his words, but the תוכן. Whenever we have a melachah, let's talk about מלאכת הוצאה. Two things are happening by הוצאה. By הכנסה also, but we're talking about הוצאה now. Two things are happening: It's going away from you, and it's entering some place else. That's what it is. הוצאה means you go away from רשות היחיד, going into רשות הרבים. הכנסה the same thing: going from רשות הרבים to רשות היחיד. Now, when we talk about הוצאה, going away from רשות היחיד into רשות הרבים, which of the two is the main part? The fact that it went away from the רשות היחיד into another רשות, but the point that it went away from the רשות היחיד, in other words, it went away from you, or the opposite, the fact that it came from there to you? It could be either way. It's similar to another chakirah, which is not the same. There's a chakirah which acharonim talk about: What's the ikar of the melachah, the עקירה or the הנחה? There are There are four possibilities. Four. One possibility is the עקירה is the ikar. The main thing is that you take it I'm not that you're not chayav unless it happens you put it down, but the ikar is the There's an opposite sevara, that the main thing is the הנחה. Then there's another sevara, that it's not the עקירה, not the הנחה, the main thing is the transfer of רשות. The fact is that it goes from one רשות to another. Ela mai, if you didn't have an עקירה, הנחה, you're not chayav, but that's the ikar. So how many possibilities do we have? There's a fourth one: that all four ikar. Or or or three, I mean ikar. All three, every part. Because a lot of times, when we have anything that's made up of two parts, there's a lot of time I don't want to go into this, because it could take us away, and could get carried away to something else. But when there are two parts to something, you always could clarify is one the ikar and the other one the tenai? The ikar means this is the problem, but there is a condition. If you didn't do so and so, you're not chayav, or it's not a melachah. But that's not what the melachah is. So you could always clarify: Is this the ikar and that's the tenai? You know what I mean, ikar and tenai? Tenai A condition means that you're be'emet you're chayav for this thing, you know, that you did. But there's a condition: If this this didn't take place, then the chiyuv can't come. So it could be this is the ikar and that's the condition. Could be this is the ikar, and the other thing is the condition. Could be both ikar. And you have that in in in many, many places. And I don't want to go into give examples now, because we'll get carried away with another sugya. So the same thing you have here. Could be the ikar of hotza'ah is the עקירה. There's a tenai, that עקירה, when you pick something up, and you don't take it out, you're not chayav, or if you don't put it down. Or you could say farkert, the ikar is that it was put down in another רשות. You're not chayav unless you picked it up. Or you could say they're both ikar. But I'm not even talking now about that chakirah, that's a similar chakirah, but that we'll get to other times. The chakirah is: Is the ikar, I could, at least I could think, is the ikar the fact that it's going by hotza'ah, starting with hotza'ah, the fact that it's going away from you? That's the melachah. Pashut, if this didn't come to the other רשות, it didn't come someplace else, you're not chayav. But the ikar is that you're giving it away from you. Or farkert, the ikar is that you're getting it. The only time you're chayav if you get it from someplace else. Now, it could be either way. Now, if it would say only by ani, let's say הוצאה דעני, what would I say? The ani means he's standing outside, he he's getting it. I would think maybe, I don't know, maybe the ikar of the melachah is getting it. And the הוצאה דבעל הבית, he's not getting it, so mimela he's not chayav, if the ikar is getting it. On the other hand, if we would say הוצאה דבעל הבית, I would say, the בעל הבית is taking it away from him. Maybe that's the ikar of the melachah. So the ani, who's not taking away from himself, adrabah, he's taking it to himself, maybe he's patur. At least there are sevarot lechan and sevarot lechan, so I don't know. It's not a question of who's taking. The she'eilah is it coming to him or going away from him? And they're both hotzaah. You could have hotzaah coming to you and hotzaah taking away from you, getting away from you. And the she'eilah We're not You could bring re'ayot from Gemara, but the she'eilah what people would think that each one Every time it says, and as long as there is a sevara to say that it's only here, not someplace else, on our own, we could never put it someplace else. So we would not know the other, that's why we have to have both. Could be that's ligt a little bit in what the Penei Yehoshua says, yeah? Huh? Yeah, it's not legabei this. It's al derech, it has this a similarity, it has a similarity. Right, right. Okay. This inyan that we're saying now, that by hachnasah there's a sevara, and Tosafot said, it comes out from Tosafot that in order to know hachnasah, what do what do we need? And what about the Mishkan? We don't? On the other hand, had it been in the Mishkan without a sevara, would we know? We would know, but we wouldn't know הכנסה דבעל הבית. Yeah? From Tosafot? No, Tosafot says it would have been. Why is this different than other hotza'ot? Why is it different than moshit? Why is it different? No, it would be in the Mishkan. But look what Tosafos says. Tosafos answers, the first answer when Tosafos says, how do you know הכנסה, what does Tosafos say? What's the first answer? דגבי הכנסה נמי... No, Tosafos says, I know from the Mishkan: הם העלו קרשים מקרקע לעגלה. So Tosafos says right away, how do you know הכנסה? From the Mishkan. Then Tosafos asks: If it's in the Mishkan, why do we need the sevara? So Tosafos says, oh, it's just as strong. So Tosafos so Tosafos's answer: why do we need a sevara? For something else. You need a sevara for הכנסה דבעל הבית, cuz in the Mishkan you didn't. But for הכנסה דעני, you don't need a sevara, so the Mishkan is enough. So Tosafos says clearly that the Mishkan is enough. Then something that's not in the Mishkan, the sevara. And Tosafos and the sevara is enough. Then Tosafos: if the sevara, why do we need the Mishkan? You takeh don't need it. So the bottom line, it comes out from this Tosafos that by הכנסה, in order to know הכנסה, what do we need? Or a sevara or Mishkan, one of the two, you don't need both. That's clear in Tosafos. How is it just the Mishkan? Tosafos said that. But Mishkan would just teach you just הכנסה ד... Right, right, but הכנסה but but if we whatever we have a sevara for by הכנסה would would fit. No, not sevara, whatever is the משכן, הכנסה is good enough. In the משכן, הכנסה is good enough, like any other תולדה of הוצאה. Whatever is not in the משכן, we need a sevara. But that same sevara applies to the other one also, why do you say, say, but takeh don't need it. But l'poal, Tosafos says like that.

Okay, but look in דף צ״ו. Tosafos quotes the Gemara דף צ״ו. משום דף צ״ו, it's important to give a look in Tosafos. דף צ״ו עמוד ב׳. If you look at Tosafos כפשוטו, Tosafos says complete opposite. תוספות איז ממש זיך סותר. This is the Gemara that when the Gemara says הכנסה is a sevara, that's from this Gemara. This is the Gemara here. Look at Tosafos דיבור המתחיל הכנסה, let's read the Tosafos inside. Try to read things inside. אותיות, what's the word? מחכימות. What else? אותיות מאירות. If you look inside, it helps you understand. I can tell you that, you look inside helps to understand. I know there are certain people ask the Rebbe, בנגע you know they before davenen they want to tracht chassidus, and their mind wanders, they can't concentrate. So the Rebbe said to many more more many bochurim, keep the sefer that you're thinking, the maamar that you're thinking open, not look inside, think it, but keep it, even if you don't look in, the fact that it's there helps you. If you look inside, okay, then it's not machshava, then you're reading it, but looking inside the words helps you concentrate, helps you understand. Look at Tosafos הכנסה. The Gemara asks: הכנסה מנלן? And what did the Gemara answer? סברא הוא. Okay. פרעגט Tosafos: ואם תאמר מה צריך להאי סברא? The same kashya like Tosafos asked by us. Why do we need a sevara? כיון דהוה במשכן. It was in the משכן, כדאמר like it says, and he quotes the same Gemara: הם העלו קרשים לעגלה. And the fact it was in the Mishkan is enough. A raya Tosafos bring that the Mishkan is enough to make a תולדה: דהא בסמוך משמע גבי זריקה, the same raya as Tosafos brings here, by זריקה, how do we know they can't throw? It's משמע by זריקה of ד׳ אמות, it's משמע דאם הויא במשכן הוי אסור לשפיר. The Gemara, how do you know you can't throw ד׳ אמות? We're trying to find in the The end was we couldn't find it in the Mishkan, so what it was it? הלכה למשה מסיני. But from the Gemara, it's משמע had we found it in the Mishkan, would have been good. A siman that to have a תולדה of הוצאה, the Mishkan is enough. So הכנסה, Tosafos asks, since it's in the Mishkan, why do we need a sevara? It's a תולדה. ויש לומר דבזריקה נמי איכא סברא. The Mishkan itself is not enough, even by זריקה there is a sevara there. Besides, when the Gemara thought it was in the Mishkan, there's a sevara. What's the sevara? מה לי על ידי הוצאה, מה לי על ידי זריקה? What's the חילוק if you carry? Cuz they were talking about throwing בכלל. What's the חילוק if you throw it or you carry it? Okay, but he's talking about זריקה בכלל, okay, this goes in whether it's זרק ד׳ אמות, but the sevara of throwing is just as bad, just as bad as carrying, אפילו from הוצאה. How do you know, we know you can't carry out, how do you know you can't throw out? Since there's a sevara. Even though we could have found in the Mishkan. דאי לאו סברא, לא הוי מחשבינן ליה תולדה דהוצאה. If not for a sevara, Fine. So Tosafos says that even by זריקה, משכן is not enough. וליהוי וליהוי הא הות נדבה במשכן. On the other hand, if you only have the sevara and not the משכן, לא הוו מחייבינן ליה מסברא, we wouldn't say you're חייב מסברא, משום דמלאכה גרועה היא. So Tosafos is using this as an answer when we ask the sheilah, why do we need by הכנסה two things? That's the kashya of Tosafos. Why do we need by הכנסה two things, a sevara when we have it in the Mishkan? And by זריקה, the Mishkan would be enough. So Tosafos, it's not true. By זריקה also you need two things: you need a sevara, you need the Mishkan. So what, if you learn Tosafos peshat, what does, ah? Because it's a מלאכה גרועה. So we see, if you learn this Tosafos, what is Tosafos saying? הכנסה, so if you've only know this Tosafos, not on דף ב', you learn דף צ\"ו עמוד ב', someone will ask you, where do we, how do we know הכנסה is a מלאכה? Because you have Mishkan and sevara, both, and we need both. So Tosafos says one would not be enough. Which seems not to fit to what Tosafos says here. And Mishkan wasn't good enough, why? Because מלאכה גרועה. He says if it would be just in the Mishkan, why would it be a תולדה of הוצאה? No, the sheilah would What does it mean? Maybe it would be a מלאכה for itself. But like you said before, farkert, what you said before makes a lot of sense, and I didn't, you said it I think, or someone, that you could if there's no sevara, if there's no sevara, the fact that it was in the Mishkan, they walked in the Mishkan, too. So that's asur? You have to have a sevara that this has some kind of melacha to it. Since it's a melacha geru'ah, so in itself it has no no meaning of a melacha. It's a melacha geru'ah. The only thing is if you connect it to hotza'ah, but if there's no sevara to connect it The sevara means it's similar to hotza'ah. If there's no sevara, then why why is it a מלאכה בכלל? It was in the Mishkan. The Mishkan means nothing. That seems like what Tosafot is trying to say, that you have to have it in the Mishkan, you have to have a sevara, because if not for the sevara, it wouldn't be. So comes out from this Tosafot clearly that melacha, hachnasah has to be in the Mishkan and a sevara. Does that fit our Tosafot here? Our Tosafot says seems not to say that, seems that by by hachnasah not. So what you have to say is this vort, it depends what kind of sevara. One thing is clear: you must have a sevara in order to have it a toldah of hotza'ah. Otherwise, like I said, if it's no no sevara means it has nothing to do with carrying. So why would it be a toldah of hotza'ah? I mean, in itself it's nothing. It's not even similar to hotza'ah, so why in the world is it asur? You have to have some kind of sevara. But because it's a melacha geru'ah, so this sevara, if it's not a strong sevara, it wouldn't be good enough. There has to be some slight sevara. There has Slight sevara means there has to be some connection between this and hotza'ah. If there's no connection between this and hotza'ah, there's nothing. So there has to be some. But even after you have some slight sevara, it's not good enough to make it a chiyuv. So there is a connection to, but who says it's chayav? So therefore, what do you have to have? No, that's the sevara, the Mishkan. The Mishkan itself would not be enough without any little sevara because, what, you walked there, too. So you have that's so you have to have both. So זריקה, Tosafos says you have to have both, because the sevara by זריקה that Tosafos says is just a sevara to connect it, but it's not a סברא חזקה. The sevara by הכנסה is a very strong sevara. מאי לי אפוקי מאי לי עייולי is exact same thing. It's not a סברא סתם, it's a סברא חזקה. So a סברא חזקה, לאחר you have הוצאה, which we would not have known, but we have a pasuk for הוצאה, and this is mamash a סברא חזקה, that's what you have. So when Tosafos says over there that even by זריקה you have a sevara, that's a שוואכע סברא, and by case of הכנסה, it's a strong sevara. We takeh don't need a Mishkan. It's a סברא חזקה only of a מלאכה גרועה. Let me explain that. It's not a סברא חזקה of why it's a strong melachah, it's a סברא חזקה in the similarity to הוצאה. That's all. It's very, very similar to הוצאה. הוצאה itself is a problem. הוצאה itself is a is a מלאכה גרועה. But if we have and nevertheless we needed a pasuk, and the Torah said it's asur. The moment the Torah said asur and something which is like הוצאה, very strongly like הוצאה, that's good enough to make it Ah, we takeh Tosafos kashya. Tosafos asks, why do you need Mishkan? Because it's not a melachah in itself. What? Yeah, because we're basing if we're basing it on sevara. No, but it's לאחר we have a pasuk for מלאכה גרועה, now it's a melachah. So now it shows that even though it's a מלאכה גרועה, we do consider it a melachah. Because the bottom line it is a melachah. Why is it takeh a melachah if it's not only a מלאכה גרועה? No, not why is it asur. Why is it takeh a melachah when it's missing the the quality of a melachah? What did I explain in shiur? If that's a מלאכה גרועה, so why is it takeh a melachah? גזירת הכתוב, the Torah said. Okay, is it no שכל behind it? It's like the Torah would say don't look up on Shabbos. Okay, so it's no nothing there, no change, nothing. Why is it, so what did I explain in shiur clearly? Oh, because there is a melachah in it. It's a a a akirah, an hanachah, and it's not enough for us to decide on our own, but לאחר the Torah says, we see how it's a melachah. So now it's a melachah and we have a sevara, so we would think that any sevara, because sof kol sof it is a melachah. So I'm saying with in all this it comes out that הכנסה has a strong sevara and that's why הנחה הכנסה the sevara is enough. Other things also, any תולדה of hotza'ah which was because of the Mishkan, like Tosafos, is also with a sevara. Without a sevara it wouldn't have anything to do. Ela mai, it's a shvache sevara.

Okay, so now let's go vayter. Let's go to Tosefos Shavuos, and this was what I was trying to get and hopefully we'll pass we'll go through the Chasam Sofer. And this is the What does Tosefos say here? First, maybe first a small vort and something else. Tosefos asks: Why doesn't he count eight? So first he answers: only learns דבר וחילופו. What should be the eight? Two should be by by שבועות שתים, just שבועות שתים שהן ארבע, which are the two? By Shavuos, not by טומאה. אוכל ולא אוכל, that's the first two. אכלתי ולא אכלתי. אזרוק... זרקתי ולא זרקתי... אזרוק ולא אזרוק, זרקתי ולא זרקתי. And Tosefos answers we only say דבר וחילופו. But what's the second terutz of Tosefos? He's only picking אכלתי ולא אכלתי, why? To show la'afukei to of who? Of Rabbi Yishmael. Then Tosefos comes with a new sheilah. How come here he only talks about הוצאה and הכנסה? Why doesn't he talk about מושיט and מעביר and זורק, why doesn't he talk about all that? And Tosefos answers, we'll see in a second. What's the connection? What's the connection between this and what Tosefos said before? Usually when Tosefos asks a kushya in the same Tosefos, there must be a connection to before. What is it that Tosefos said before that he says this a kushya on its own! Tosefos could have asked a kushya on the Mishnah: Why do you only count there are more מלאכות. There's not only הכנסה. Besides הוצאה there's הכנסה, הושטה, there's Okay, why does he say this? What doesn't Tosefos... Yeah, so why does he ask it here? But the kushya has nothing to do with before. Before he asked a kushya: add cases over there. Oh, so since he mentioned a kushya over there, so he I think he should have done farkert, he should have asked the kushya over here and then say and same thing should be later. I mean, why did he do this? I just want to say one פשוטע ווארט. What was the terutz on the kushya before? That he only He wants to tell us things which is where there's a machloket, and he wants to tell you against the guy against the other guy. By מושיט there is also a machloket. Later on, and also under here on דף ד, there's a whole machloket between Rabbi Akiva and the חכמים whether ילפינן זורק ממושיט. What's the melachah of מושיט by the way? Oh, מושיט is means handing, but it doesn't mean just plain handing from רשות היחיד to רשות הרבים. מושיט means from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים. What about if you throw, not you hand? You stand in רשות היחיד, you're throwing it to another רשות היחיד, and it passes through רשות הרבים? That's That's not זורק. That's זורק מרשות היחיד לרשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים. It's a machloket between Rabbi Akiva and the חכמים. The Gemara later on דף צ\"ז and on צ\"ו, actually the first Mishnah on צ\"ו in פרק הזורק, and and on דף ד here. Rabbi Akiva holds ילפינן זורק ממושיט. מושיט we know from where that you can't pass from רשות היחיד לרשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים? In the Mishkan. זורק was not in the Mishkan. So Rabbi Akiva says: ילפינן זורק ממושיט. We learn out, just like you can't hand, you can't... Huh? Yeah, that's another she'eilah if קלוטה כמי שהונחה, but one of the things is a machloket whether zorek is like moshit. And the chachamim hold לא ילפינן זורק ממושיט. Halachah is like who? Like the chachamim. If the Mishnah is interested in telling us wherever there is a machloket to tell you against the other guy, should have brought moshit here, and zorek of moshit! That's the hemshech. Tosafot finished saying that over there, why do we bring these things and not something else? To bring those that there is a machloket to show that not. Azoy? So Tosafot, oyb azoy, how come he doesn't count moshit? How come he doesn't count other things here too, which also would be against somebody as a machloket? If you're interested in fighting somebody, fight over there too. That's the hemshech. But that's just a vort, derech agav, for peshat in Tosafot. This is not really where I'm trying to get, I'm trying to get to the Chatam Sofer. Ha?? That's Tosafot קשיא, why in our Mishnah it doesn't bring. But why does Tosafot ask in here? Because he just finished saying that he's only bringing something against. Azoy, אם תאמר, by Shabbos there's also something like that! So it's an hemshech to before. But anyway, what was the kushya of Tosafot? What should he bring? Why does it say שתים שהן ארבע ותו לא, not more? He should have brought ליתני נמי, תוספות mentions a few things: מושיט ומעביר מרשות הי- מושיט ומעביר מרשות היחיד לרשות הרבים, מרשות היחיד לרשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים, and זורק מרשות היחיד לרשות הרבים לרשות היחיד. That's Tosafot קשיא. What did Tosafot mention as ma'avir? What kind of ma'avir? What is מעביר מרשות היחיד לרשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים? What's טייטש מעביר מרשות היחיד לרשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים? You're passing, you're walking with it. You're walking from your house, מרשות היחיד, and you're holding it, into the רשות, but you didn't stop in the רשות הרבים, and you're continuing into the next רשות היחיד, and there you stopped. And you're also chayav. That's מושיט if you hand over. To hand over is not walking over. מעביר is when you're taking it over. And then you have zorek. That's what Tosafot says. That's the kashya. Normally, what's מעביר? If someone will tell you there's a melachah of of hotza'ah, and hachnasah, and השוואה מושיט, and מעביר, what's a normal case of מעביר? How would a person, if I ask you what's מעביר? And what? מעביר is carrying something ד' אמות ברשות הרבים. Normal מעביר is, just like you can't go from רשות היחיד לרשות הרבים, you can't carry from רשות הרבים לרשות היחיד, you can't, in רשות הרבים, you can't pick something up in the street, make akirah, walk ד' אמות in רשות הרבים, and put it down. You're chayav mitah for that. That's מעביר ד' אמות ברשות הרבים, that's the din. That's normal מעביר. Here Tosafot doesn't mention that מעביר. Here Tosafot mentions מעביר, מושיט ומעביר. What kind of מושיט ומעביר? מרשות היחיד לרשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים, like מושיט. It's not מושיט, מושיט is when you're handing, מעביר you're carrying. Yeah. You're still carrying ד' אמות ברשות הרבים, but you didn't start off in רשות הרבים and finish in רשות הרבים. You started off in רשות היחיד, finished in רשות היחיד. Okay, let's take inside. Now, let's, ha?? Right, but you didn't do hotza'ah, you didn't stop, you didn't make a hanachah in רשות הרבים. If you take in רשות היחיד and stop in רשות הרבים, and then pick it up again and go into רשות היחיד, what would you be chayav? You'd be chayav twice, you'd be chayav for hotza'ah and hachnasah! You took it from רשות היחיד לרשות הרבים, that's one מלאכה, hotza'ah. Then you picked it up in רשות הרבים again and took it to רשות היחיד and put it down, you're chayav for hachnasah, you're chayav two. You didn't stop in the middle, so you're not chayav, not for hotza'ah and not for hachnasah. You're not chayav for moshit because you didn't pass it over. You're not chayav for מעביר ד' אמות ברשות הרבים, לכאורה. What are you chayav? So we'll see, let's... That stopping, the Gemara has a whole סוגיא later, that's called putting down: הנחת גופו כהנחת חפץ. And it's only if you stop לפוש. If you stop just to fix your bag, that's not called stopping. If you stop to stop, to rest. Okay. Take your papers out, we want to learn some... הא? אין אומרים קל וחומר, אין דין מן הדין, you can't learn קל וחומר. Don't... The sevara is the same, and this is a כחא דהיתירא. Look, look, please. It's only 15 minutes left, and I had in mind to finish both pieces today, and then masbir further, deeper on this Chatam Sofer, which doesn't look like it's going to go. Okay, but let's start, let's try, see as far as we get. שבועות שתים! And I have to tell you that I'm going to tell my son that when he tests the guys today, he should test them to read inside the Chatam Sofer. I'm going to tell him to go in. I'm... no, I'm I'm warning you לכתחילה, don't don't... have, because this is one of the things. It's not only to be able to know how to test you to read the right the the the Mishnah. To read the Mishnah, that they test in fourth grade also, or fifth grade. But to see if you can learn a Chatam Sofer. Okay, שבועות שתים. So Tosafot says, מה שכתב תוספות, דיבור המתחיל שבועות. what Tosafot wrote in this dibbur hamaschil. And what did Tosafos write? דמושיט ומעביר חייב מרשות היחיד לרשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים, עיין שם. Look in Tosafos. Tosafos says that, that you're chayav for מושיט that your hand from רשות היחיד לרשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים, or you're passing, carrying it from רשות היחיד לרשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים, that's what Tosafos says. So lichorah, Tosafos is making מושיט and מעביר as the same melachah, the same pe'ulah, the same act. The difference is מושיט is you're handing over, and מעביר is you're carrying it out. So he says מכל מקום לא דמי מושיט למעביר. It's not the same. מושיט and מעביר are not really the same, cuz מושיט אינו חייב, the whole melachah of מושיט that you're only חייב אלא מרשות היחיד לרשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים, that's the only way you're chayav. אבל מעביר, besides the chiyuv of carrying from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים, there's a simpler case of מעביר: חייב נמי ד' אמות ברשות הרבים. If you just carry, just ד' אמות ברשות הרבים ועמד לפוש שם. You carry ד' אמות ברשות הרבים and you stop. לפוש means to stop to rest. Like I said, if you stop and you don't mean to rest, because just to you have to fix, it says, that's called לכתף. לכתף, כתף means a shoulder. If you, the strap on the shoulder is falling off and you have to fix the shoulder, that's not called stopping. But if you stop because you want to rest, that's called stopping. אפילו בלא רשות היחיד כלל. מעביר has nothing to do with רשות היחיד, it's ד' אמות ברשות הרבים. But אלא גם אם אינו עומד לפוש ברשות הרבים, even if you didn't stop in רשות הרבים, אלא נכנס לרשות היחיד ונח שם, if you went into רשות היחיד and you rested there, so כיון שעבר ד' אמות ברשות הרבים, חייב. Since you traveled, l'poal you went ד' אמות ברשות הרבים. It's interesting: you did everything that you do for מעביר: you did an עקירה? Yeah. You did an הנחה? Yeah. You did ד' אמות? Yeah, so you're chayav. אי the עקירה was not done in רשות הרבים, but according to what it says in this Tosafot, it comes out that you're still chayav. אבל באמת, so the Chasam Sofer says באמת, דין זה צריך עיון גדול. This din needs a lot of, a lot of עיון, דלא מצאתי בשום מקום, I never found anywhere, שיהא מעביר ד' אמות ברשות הרבים חייב, that if you carry ד' אמות ברשות הרבים you should be חייב, אם אינו מניח שם, if you don't put it down. We're saying if you put it down in רשות היחיד you're, I never heard such a thing, he said. No such thing. And therefore, how do you answer p'shat in Tosafot? So לפי עניות דעתי, צריך להגיה. You have to fix Tosafot, there's a mistake in the print. And I saw that the Oz Vehadar Gemara on the side, they brought this Chasam Sofer. And what do you have to change it? בין בקושיא דתוספות, בין בתירוצם. In the kashya, the kashya Tosafot said, why doesn't he bring מושיט ומעביר ברשות היחיד לרשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים? In the teirutz, Tosafot repeats the same thing. Tosafot says, why doesn't he say that? And what does Tosafot mention why doesn't he say? L'afukei, the same thing, the last line of Tosafot: לאפוקי מושיט ומעביר מרשות היחיד לרשות היחיד. So Chasam Sofer, I think you have to change the words: להקדים מעביר קודם מושיט. Put the words מעביר before מושיט, then you have a different p'shat completely. And the kashya is like this, והקשו, their kashia will be, this is what they're asking: לישני נמי מעביר. Let's look into Tosafot. Tosafot' kashia: why does it say only four, בשלמא not more, look at the words: לא לי, בשלמא, לישני נמי. So if you put the word מעביר before the word מושיט, what's Tosafot' kashia? לישני נמי מעביר. What's מעביר? ד' אמות ברשות הרבים. And then also מושיט מרשות היחיד לרשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים. That's לישני נמי מעביר, ועוד לישני נמי מושיט מרשות היחיד לרשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים. That's in the kashia, that it should be like מעביר is a regular מעביר, and מושיט is מרשות היחיד. ותירצו, and what's Tosafot' teirutz? דלא קתני אלא הכנסה שמרשות הרבים לרשות היחיד. He says that he's only talking about הכנסה which is from רשות הרבים to רשות היחיד. לאפוקי, to exclude מעביר. First מעביר. Why מעביר not? Because מעביר is ברשות הרבים עצמו, בלא רשות היחיד כלל. He doesn't talk about מעביר because it has nothing to do with רשות היחיד, and he's only talking about things from רשות היחיד and רשות הרבים. And also לאפוקי מושיט, which is מרשות היחיד לרשות היחיד. כן נראה לעניות דעתי. So he says, if you put the word מעביר in both places first, then the kashia goes off. Tosafot never mentioned the din of מעביר מרשות היחיד לרשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים. Huh? Yeah, מעביר is only מרשות היחיד לרשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים, and מושיט, מושיט. And מעביר, he means only ד' אמות ברשות הרבים, because מרשות היחיד לרשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים, you're takeh not chayav for מעביר. It's not מושיט because it's not מושיט, you didn't do מושיט, but it's not chayav for מעביר either, even though you carried ד׳ אמות ברשות הרבים, but since he didn't make the הנחה there and the עקירה there, you're not chayav for מעביר, and Tosafot never mentioned it. So he says if you learn the way we have here it's מעביר ד׳ אמות it's מעביר מרשות היחיד לרשות הרבים, I never heard such a thing. But

שוב מצאתי, the Chasam Sofer, I found later in Eruvin דף ל״ג עמוד א׳, ומה שכתב עליהם רשב״א לקמן דף צ״ז עמוד א׳. I found later that it's not so pashut. Look in Eruvin, and look what the Rashba writes לקמן דף צ״ז, and the other Chasam Sofer that I have, the other copy, is the Chasam Sofer, not the Rashba, is what the Chasam Sofer wrote on דף צ״ז, ולכאורה אפילו להתוספות היינו לרבי עקיבא אבל חכמים פוטרין, עיין לקמן דף צ״ז עמוד א׳ וצריך עיון ועיין פני יהושע. Okay, let me tell you the background to דף צ״ז, and then we'll see a little bit what he means, and then we'll go to the next piece. On דף צ״ז, it's almost clear from the Gemara, not almost, it's clear from the Gemara, that if you're מעביר from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים, you're chayav. Which is a פלא that Chasam Sofer says לא מצאתי בשום מקום דעל מעביר, the Gemara says it clearly! The Gemara there says בתוך הדברים, that if you're gonna say it means מעביר, when we're, it's talking there about רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים, and the Gemara wants to know what the case is. If you're gonna say it's מעביר, and we have a problem, for a different reason, cuz the לשון doesn't fit. So we see clearly from that Gemara that מעביר מרשות היחיד לרשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים, you're chayav. So what's his problem here? Ela mai look at the Rashba there. The Rashba over there says that this חיוב that the Gemara means is only according to Rabbi Akiva, the Gemara talks according to Rabbi Akiva, because Rabbi Akiva holds like Ben Azai. And what does Ben Azai hold? That's another sugya, a lot of the things we're going to learn פשוט באריכות in the Gemara later, Ben Azai holds מהלך כעומד. Ben Azai says when you walk, it's as if you stopped. Okay, just to see the, kedai everything to see inside, then you'll remember it better, and here. דף, no, דף ה׳ עמוד ב׳. Look at דף ה׳ עמוד ב׳. דף ל״ג actually is not here. Where did he say is דף ל״ג? Eruvin. Look here, דף ה׳ עמוד ב׳ on the bottom, mamash דף ה׳ עמוד ב׳. תנו רבנן המוציא מחנות לפלטיא דרך סתיו. סתיו is a karmelit. חנות is a רשות היחיד. It's a karmelit. Hope everyone knows what a karmelit is, except if you weren't here the first day. Yeah, tell me what's a karmelit? Nu? Tell me, who...? Okay, if you have something is ד׳ על ד׳ under י׳ טפחים, okay, what else is a karmelit? You have a piece sticking out that's ד׳ על ד׳, but it's not, if it's י׳ טפחים ד׳ על ד׳, what is it? רשות היחיד. If it's not ד׳ על ד׳, it's a מקום פטור. If it's something, yeah, if it's less than ד׳ על ד׳ and less than י׳ טפחים, even less, then it's a מקום פטור. If it's ד׳ על ד׳ and less than י׳ טפחים, it's a כרמלית. But what else is a כרמלית? One thing of a רשות הרבים besides the dimensions, as it has to be a מקום שרבים הולכים בו, lots of people go, there are some hold, Tosafot and Rashi both hold that it has to be 600,000 people, but even if you don't hold that, the Rambam doesn't mention that so they say the Rambam doesn't hold, but it has to be מקום הילוך לרבים. What about a מדבר? It's a כרמלית. A ים is a כרמלית. Places like that are כרמלית. סתיו is a כרמלית. סתיו is like a porch, it's a כרמלית. So he says if you carry out from חנות, חנות is a store, it's a רשות היחיד, פלטיא, פלטיא is a big town square, real רשות הרבים, but you go דרך סתיו, you pass a כרמלית, חייב. בן עזאי פוטר. Ben Azai says you're patur. And the Gemara says why? Because Ben Azai holds קסבר מהלך כעומד דמי. When you're walking, so every step you take is as if you stopped. וממילא as if you stopped, so since you're walking through the כרמלית, so really what you did was you made an עקירה in רשות היחיד, הנחה, you're פטור דאורייתא, הנחה in the כרמלית, and then you started over again, you made another עקירה in a כרמלית, so you're patur from both. Huh? You should never be חייב. כמו Ben Azzai? Yeah, because every, because there's more than one step between ד' אמות. So Tosafot asks there, how could you ever be חייב for walking ד' אמות? If you're running. Running, you make steps. Tosafot answers, if you jump. But if you're walking, taka according to Ben Azzai, you wouldn't be חייב, because מהלך כעומד. Okay, so now you know what Ben Azzai's שיטה. Rabbi Akiva holds like Ben Azzai, the Gemara says, in certain opinions. If Rabbi Akiva holds like Ben Azzai, so according to רבי עקיבא, מהלך כעומד. Oh, that's why if you're מעביר from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים, you are חייב. Why? Because you took it from רשות היחיד, and you walked to רשות הרבים, you stopped, because every step you took, you stopped. But if that's only according to Ben Azzai. But if not according to Ben Azzai, the Rashba says you're not. So, according to the Rashba and the So, it comes out that the The fact that the Gemara over there says that מעביר מרשות היחיד לרשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים, you're חייב, doesn't mean that there's a מלאכה like that. You're only according to Ben Azzai, you're חייב for a different reason. And Rabbi Akiva holds like Ben Azzai. But if we pasken not like We pasken not like Ben Azzai, so then you're פטור. So there is no such מלאכה. So this is what the Chasam Sofer says here: שוב מצאתי תוספות in Eruvin and what the Rashba writes in דף צ״ז. And the Rashba writes in דף צ״ז that what Tosafot in Eruvin is משמע like here, that there is a melachah of מעביר from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים. But he says, look what the Rashba says on דף צ״ז. And he says אפילו לתוספות, only רבי עקיבא, אבל חכמים פוטרין. So what he's saying here really is that the bottom line, he doesn't understand. There is no such melachah as מעביר מרשות היחיד לרשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים. Okay, therefore he changes the words. Take the second piece. We'll start, we have three minutes. אילימא במעביר, the Gemara says. What is it that we're talking about? Is it talking about מעביר? And there we're talking specifically מרשות היחיד לרשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים. משמע דמעביר ד' אמות ברשות הרבים. If you carry ד' אמות ברשות הרבים, מרשות היחיד I mean, you carry ד' אמות ברשות הרבים, but you're carrying מרשות היחיד לרשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים, חייב. That's what's משמע from that Gemara there. אפילו לא נח ברשות הרבים, even if he didn't stop in רשות הרבים. וכן כתבו תוספות לעיל. That's what Tosafot wrote בריש מכילתין, the beginning of our מסכתא, דיבור המתחיל שבועות, בסוף הדיבור, that if you carry... And he sticks to the Tosafot way we have it here, not his change of the גירסא. That the Chasam Sofer there says that what do we see from our Tosafot? No, but there, the one we read before on this תוספות, he changes the גירסא. But here he says that from Tosafot on דף ב' is משמע that you are חייב מעביר מרשות היחיד לרשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים. והוא שיטת Tosafot Eruvin דף ל״ג עמוד א' דיבור המתחיל והא. But no, the contradiction. Because the Chasam Sofer the way he changes, but if you don't change, there's no contradiction. It fits. ונראה דלאו מושיט הוא אלא מעביר. And it's not מושיט. It's not מושיט! מושיט מרשות היחיד לרשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים? No! This is a different מלאכה. It's מלאכת מעביר ד' אמות! The chiddush is that you don't need to make the עקירה and the הנחה in רשות הרבים. If you make the עקירה in the רשות היחיד and the הנחה in רשות היחיד, but in the middle there was ד' אמות, you are חייב already. This is what he No, this is what he says. That from that Gemara we see it, and it fits to Tosafos here, and it fits to Tosafos in Eruvin דף ל״ג.

ובזה יובן לשון הש״ס בכל מקום גזירה שמא יעבירנו, ולא גזירה ובכל מקום גזירה שמא יוציאנו מרשות היחיד לרשות הרבים. This is נוגע to Rosh Hashanah. It comes out on Shabbos, you can't blow shofar. Why not? What does the Gemara say? גזירה דרבה: שמא Tell me the You might carry it out. Since people don't know how to blow, they might want to take it to the בקי, and they might carry ד' אמות ברשות הרבים. Why does it say such a crazy thing? Should have said, we're afraid you'll do הוצאה. Where is the שופר בכלל? In the street? In your house. You'll try to blow, won't go. You want to go, so what are you going to do? You're going to take the shofar, you're going to walk out and take it outside. So you'll go from רשות היחיד to רשות הרבים. Why does it say ד' אמות ברשות הרבים? So Tosafos and Rashi ask that she'eilah in Sukkah. When the Gemara says it, they ask the she'eilah: why does it say that? And they give an answer. But the she'eilah is a different story. You won't be עובר on ד' אמות, no? Because if you're taking it from your house and you're going to go to the house of the בקי, and in the middle you'll carry in רשות הרבים, but you're not over on, because you didn't do the עקירה and הנחה in רשות הרבים. So what do we see from there? That you will be chayav for ד' אמות ברשות הרבים. But we're not finished. להוציא מרשות היחיד לרשות היחיד. Even though it's from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד. I have to tell you this happens to be an interesting inyan.