means first the lighter, easier thing. I don't know, I hope you all learned this, and we'll start with this, and then the other one in the Rashi and Tosafot and the Maharsha is a little bit, it's not hard, it's very, happens to be very geshmak, but it's a little bit more gedreyt, while this is a little bit more simpler if you have the background and you know what this is all about. Okay, so let's get to this. We're talking here about ידיעות הטומאה שתים שהן ארבע, going straight to that. What are the two things by טומאה שתים שהן ארבע? That if a person is tamei, the din is that you're not allowed to go into the Beit Hamikdash, that's the din. A person walks into the Beit Hamikdash while he's tamei, what does he get? B'mezid. What does he get? Karet. Or if a person eats eats kodashim. What happens if he does it b'shogeg? That's what we're talking about. So the din is that if you do b'shogeg, you don't bring a regular chatat. Normally when you do an aveirah, a regular aveirah that b'mezid is chayav karet, b'shogeg is chatat. Remember this rule, there's a rule that has to be on the mouth of every yeshiva bachur: דבר שזדונו כרת, שגגתו חטאת. Something that zedono, the b'mezid is karet, shigegato, if it's b'shogeg, it's chatat. That's the klal, fine. This is an exception to the rule. Here there's a different korban. There's a קרבן עולה ויורד. That's a special korban that you bring for walking in b'shogeg into the Beit Hamikdash or while you're tamei or eating or eating kodashim. Now we say שתים שהן ארבע, there's two things how the shogeg it could happen. In both cases, there's the first case is shogeg could happen if you forgot that you're tamei, and you walked into the Beit Hamikdash or you ate kodashim. Those are the two which is chayav a קרבן עולה ויורד. Same thing שהן ארבע, what's the other two, is you remembered you were tamei, but or you didn't realize, you forgot that this is kodashim, or you didn't realize that this is the בית המקדש. Fine. That's what it says here. Be'emet, as we see here, it's not so pashut the din. There's a machloket here. We have here in this Mishnah, look inside, we'll learn just the Mishnah: רבי עקיבא אומר, ונעלם ממנו והוא טמא, when the pasuk says benoge'a this דין, ונעלם ממנו והוא טמא, על העלם טומאה חייב. You're only chayav if you forgot that it's tamei, that you were tamei, and you did what? And you did one of the two things. אבל על העלם טו- and ואינו חייב על העלם מקדש. If you remembered you're tamei, but you just didn't realize this is a בית המקדש, and the same thing, he doesn't mention it, but the same if you didn't realize this is קדשים, Rabbi Akiva says you are not chayav. You're not chayav a קרבן עולה ויורד. That's what it says here in the Mishnah. You are not chayav, because the din of, and the way he learns peshat in the פסוק ונעלם, this is what the pasuk means. The Rabbi Akiva Eiger, in Tosafot Rabbi Akiva will bring, start off by bringing a Tosafot in Shevuot דף י״ט. Tosafot in Shevuot דף י״ט has a hava amina, a sevara, if you're patur in this case according to Rabbi Akiva from a קרבן עולה ויורד, you still did an aveirah b'shogeg, which if you would have done it b'mezid, you'd be chayav a chatat, and you are not chayav a קרבן עולה ויורד. Are you chayav a chatat? Are you chayav a chatat? Lichorah you should be chayav a chatat, because be'emet this is an aveirah, if not for the special pasuk of עולה ויורד, what would be the din? You're chayav a chatat. The Torah doesn't mention by every aveirah that's חייב כרת, the Torah doesn't mention if you did b'shogeg, you're chayav a chatat, that's a rule. So if the Torah wouldn't mention any any korban by this aveirah, what would we פסק in the din? Chayav a chatat. Came the Torah and the Torah made a special din that this case you're chayav a קרבן עולה ויורד. If for some reason Rabbi Akiva says in this case there's no קרבן עולה ויורד, if there was העלם מקדש, you knew you were tamei, you forgot this is the בית המקדש, there is no קרבן עולה ויורד, okay, so it's not in the category of עולה ויורד. Then what happens to it lichorah you would think? Chatat. So it falls back with על פי שכל, it would fall back to the regular case, and what's the regular case? You're chayav a chatat. So Tosafot starts off over there by saying, you know what, it would be כדאי טאקע. This is a Shevuot I see right here. יא, א punkt. So give me I'll read you the Tosafos inside. Shevuos דף י״ט, and I won't read the whole Tosafos, just a few words from the beginning. So Tosafos starts off by saying: אומר רבינו תם דלא מיפטר אלא מקרבן עולה ויורד, that this case, רבי עקיבא says you're patur only from עולה ויורד, אבל חטאת קבועה חייב. Why? Because we learn out in the, from Avodah Zarah, that's the limud: כל שחייבין על זדונו כרת, חייבין על שגגתו חטאת. So you're chayav. חייבין על שגגתו חטאת. Okay, so mimela it would make sense, and that's what Rabbeinu Tam says. When it says רבי עקיבא holds you're not chayav, what he means is you're not chayav a special קרבן עולה ויורד, but a chatas you're chayav. Comes Tosafos further, let me just finish, and Tosafos veers off, and asks a kashya, and he says: אלא כן נראה דפטור לגמרי. You're completely patur. Why? משום דהוה דבר שהיה בכלל ויצא לידון בדבר חדש. It's one of the rules in י״ג מדות שהתורה נדרשת, that when you have something that was included in a rule, and then the Torah took it out and made a new din, so that old rule is forgotten. It doesn't belong to that rule. Since this din of טומאת מקדש וקדשיו, of of walking into the מקדש or eating קדשים בטומאה, originally it was part of the klal, no? Doesn't it belong in the klal? It falls Does it fall into normally in the klal of chayav chatas? Yeah, it's דבר שחייב כרת, so בשוגג should be chayav chatas. Came the Torah and took it out of the klal, and the Torah said no, there's a קרבן עולה ויורד. So automatically the Torah took it away from the klal. So no more chatat. What's that? No more It's exactly what he's saying, no more chatat. Ela mai? עולה ויורד. If for some reason there's no עולה ויורד, then you're not chayav, then you're patur. That's what Tosafos says. So the reason why he says איני חייב על העלם מקדש, and the taytsh of the words איני חייב means patur legamrei, so Tosafos says means that he's patur completely because of this reason. Okay, let's learn inside.

Rabbi Akiva Eiger brings this Tosafos. Says the Mishnah: איני חייב על העלם מקדש, הוא פטור אפילו מחטאת קבועה. He's patur אפילו from a regular set chatat. משום דהוה דבר שבכלל, ויצא לידון דבר חדש. It's a It was included, came to a new din, and memeila you're patur. That's what he quotes from who? Tosafos דף י״ט עמוד א׳, דיבור המתחיל הרי העלם מקדש. מקדש.

Comes there Rabbi Akiva Eiger and he says: ולעניות דעתי היה נראה, I think that I have another reason why you would be patur, not because of this. And he says like this: דלכאורה, he has a starts off with a she'eilah, we're reading it inside, לכאורה בהעלם המקדש, אמאי חייב לרבי ישמעאל? See, Rabbi Akiva says if you forgot that it's a בית המקדש, you're patur. But and that's the whole discussion, patur completely, or only patur from עולה ויורד. But Rabbi Yishmael says you are חייב עולה ויורד. Right? Rabbi Yishmael disagrees, and he says you're chayav a קרבן עולה ויורד even if you forgot העלם מקדש. העלם קודש. He has a kashya, I don't understand Rabbi Yishmael. How could he be חייב בכלל? הא קיימא לן דהמתעסק פטור. Don't we have a rule that if a person does an aveirah by mistake, but not b'shogeg, but misasek, he's patur. What's the difference between misasek and shogeg? Yeah? If he knew he was doing something wrong, how can it be shogeg? If he knew the halachah then this guy is a bad, terrible guy. Knew the halachah... So he didn't know the halachah it means. Didn't know that it was asur. A person did, let's say, a melachah on Shabbos, but he knew what he was doing. He planned to do he made a fire. He didn't by mistake make a fire. He had a mind to light a light a match. But he just forgot it's Shabbos. Or forgot forgot that, you know it's Shabbos, he forgot that on Shabbos, one of the melachot is is is lighting a match. That's called shogeg. Misasek means he didn't mean to do it. The example in Gemara is, I'll give you one there's different examples, machloket Abaye v'Rava, exactly the details, but just general deal: a person took a knife and wanted to cut a piece of challah. No problem. But on the table was also laying a a grass, a long grass, that was still connected to the ground. To cut something off that's connected to the ground is an איסור מלאכה, חייב מיתה for it, right? Which melachah is it? Ketzirah. Cutting off. Kotzer. What he did was, he took the knife, wanted to cut the challah, and by mistake, he cut that piece. So he did a melachah by mistake, but he didn't mean to do it. That's called misasek. Misasek is patur. Patur from a chatat. Yeah, מתעסק בדבר המותר, that's the לשון, ונעשה דבר אחר. Why is it called misasek? Misasek means I was involved with something else. Misasek, I was trying to do דבר המותר, and and and and something else came out. Huh? Yeah, he knew it's asur, but he never meant to do it. That's why when people you know walk by by mistake sometimes Shabbos switch, you know, the light, and it goes on: \"Oh, I did an aveirah b'shogeg.\" That's not shogeg, that's misasek. In time of the Beit HaMikdash, you wouldn't be chayav a chatat for this. The only time you're chayav a chatas for misasek is if it's achilah or be'ilah. So, it says because שכן נהנה. Any misasek that you had pleasure from, you got you get some benefit from, you're chayav even for misasek. But a regular misasek So, he says here like this. So, since we פסקן מתעסק פטור חוץ מחלבים ועריות, except if you eat cheilev. It's an example. Why does he give an example of cheilev rather than eating treifah? Eating chazir is also an hana'ah. Why does the Gemara give us an example cheilev? I'm just I'm just testing you if you chapt the klal that I said before. Only for cheilev you're chayav karet. For chazir it's only a lav. For all treifah food it's a lav. So, you give an example of what you'd be chayav a chatas. So, if you eat cheilev, cheilev is karet, umimeila you're chayav a chatas beshogeg. Umisas ek, you're also chayav. The same thing arayot. Arayot is also an inyan of karet, you're chayav. But שכן נהנה because you have hana'ah, but a regular misasek is patur. Nah, that's not. Nehenah means the direct melachah was hana'ah. Like eating, the exact aveirah. The aveirah of of making a fire is not hana'ah. You bring something to hana'ah. Here, eating is hana'ah, עריות is hana'ah. So, Rabbi' Akiva Eiger asked a שאלה, וכיון דהוא לא ידע שזה מקדש, if we're talking a guy didn't know that this is the Beit HaMikdash, what did he think? He planned to walk into a regular house, וחשב שהוא בית דעלמא. He thought it's a regular house. It's a strange thing how it happened. Okay, but this guy is some nut or whatever, he doesn't realize it. He's a mit'asek! So, he should be patur from a קרבן עולה ויורד also! How did the Torah say you're chayav a קרבן עולה ויורד for according to Rabbi' Akiva? According to Rabbi' Yishmael, I mean. For forgetting mikdash, that's a mit'asek. A mit'asek should be patur from anything! Vetzarich lomar, Huh? This is what he said, because if you walk into you're planning to walk into a regular house, and it turned out that you walked into the Beit HaMikdash. See, meshugag would mean what would be shogeg? I knew this is the Beit HaMikdash, I pashut forgot that you're not allowed to walk in while you're tamei. That's taytsh shogeg. But if I didn't know that this is the בית המקדש, למשל, אפילו the example I gave you before, if a person is cutting, he sees a piece of grass laying here thinking that this grass is not attached to the ground, and he cuts it, and then he realizes it's attached to the ground, that's mit'asek. Shogeg means he knew that what he's doing, here he didn't know what he's doing, he didn't know he's cutting off something from the ground, he thought he's cutting off something that's not connected to the ground. That's mit'asek. If he knew it's connected to the ground, but he forgot that you're not allowed to cut something that's connected to the ground, that's called shogeg. But the example I'm giving, he didn't know, he sees grass here, he didn't look, I mean, that's mit'asek. Same thing here, you're walking into a house and you think it's a house, and that's what you're planning, you walk, you plan to a house, and then you khapt zich, you realize afterwards it was the Beit HaMikdash. That's mit'asek. So, he should be patur from any korban! How could Rabbi' Yishmael say you're chayav a korban, a קרבן עולה ויורד? The answer, before we learn inside, I'll tell you by heart what he answers. The answer is, where do we take this idea that mit'asek is patur? A little late. Oh, you forgot. So, you're late anyway. Oh, it's coming from there. Okay, so so this case so the so the the Rabbi' Akiva Eiger answers like this. This whole din, where do we get this idea that misasek is patur? Because there's a pasuk that says אשר חטאה בה. So, it has to be, חטאה בה means you know what you're doing. This pasuk אשר חטאה בה is written where? By chatat. So, only by a chatat you're patur from misasek. קרבן עולה ויורד is a different korban. There there is no pasuk. So, you're chayav even though you're misasek. That's what he said, וצריך לומר, דקרא אשר חטאה בה דילפינן מינה פרט למתעסק, this pasuk אשר חטאה בה, which from this we learn out that מתעסק is פטור, כתיב רק בחטאת קבועה, that's only written by a regular chatat. אבל עולה ויורד, שייך גם מתעסק. עולה ויורד you're chayav even misasek. Okay. So, it comes out like That's Rabbi' Yishmael, ah? That's the logic behind Rabbi' Yishmael. That's why he says you're chayav, because by because the din of עולה ויורד, you're chayav even by misasek. ולפי זה ניחא, now we understand it, according to Rabbi' Elazar and Rabbi' עקיבא דאינו חייב בעולה ויורד על העלם מקדש, according to Rabbi' Akiva now, which he says you're not chayav קרבן עולה ויורד for העלם מקדש, so what was the she'eilah? You're not chayav for העלם מקדש קרבן עולה ויורד. But the she'eilah was, let it be chayav a chatat. What's the answer? Why? Because if you because it's out of the klal already. Not Tosafos, he's giving That was Tosafos, I know. The pasuk of misasek is only by chatat. So when this guy is patur from עולה ויורד, why is he not chayav a chatat? Because he's a misasek! A misasek is patur from a chatat. Every misasek is patur for chatat. Ah, you're asking if he's a misasek is patur from a chatat, why isn't a מתעסק פטור from עולה ויורד? Because Because by עולה ויורד there's no there's no din of misasek to be patur. So therefore, in the case where for some reason you wouldn't be חייב עולה ויורד, like according to Rabbi Akiva if you forgot the מקדש you're not חייב עולה ויורד, so the she'eilah is let that be chayav a chatat, so he says no, a chatat you can't be chayav. Because if you're going to talk about a chatat, you'll be patur for a different reason, because you are a misasek. The guy who's doing going into the Beit Hamikdash thinking it's a regular house is a misasek. If he would be chayav a chatat, he would definitely not be chayav, because by by chatat there's a דין you're פטור for מתעסק. If you hold you're חייב on עולה ויורד, you're חייב a קרבן עולה ויורד. If you're פטור from עולה ויורד, then automatically you're פטור לגמרי! Because עולה ויורד you're not חייב because the way whatever he says this doesn't fall in the category. To be חייב a חטאת as a regular case you can't, because you're מתעסק. The only one that could say, if Rabbi Yishmael who holds you're חייב עולה ויורד, that makes sense, because עולה ויורד a מתעסק is חייב. The moment this is not part of of עולה ויורד, אלא מאי you want to put it back now if you're not עולה ויורד, then you go back to the category of a חטאת. A חטאת, you cannot be חייב. Why? Because it's a, no חטאת for a מתעסק. ממילא לית ליה לאשכוחי חיוב חטאת קבועה, he says you can't be מחייב a חטאת קבועה, דהוה מתעסק. He's a מתעסק. So that's why you're פטור. Not like Tosafot says that the reason is because it came out of the כלל, and you can't That's what he says. Now, based on this, he adds something else: ומיושב ומדוקדק היטב. This explains very בדיוק לשון המשנה, לשון of this Mishnah. The לשון of the Mishnah was אינו חייב על העלם מקדש. See, Rabbi Akiva says you're only חייב on what? העלם העלם טומאה. העלם מקדש not. What about העלם קודש? Also not. העלם קודש also not חייב. So why didn't he use that לשון? Why didn't he say ואינו חייב על העלם מקדש או קודש? So he says, ואינו חייב על העלם מקדש ולא קתני ואינו חייב על העלם קודש, והיינו why? Because the Mishnah comes to teach us that אינו חייב כלל. When he says אינו חייב, he learns אינו חייב כלל. Not עולה ויורד and not chatas. By מקדש By קודש, is he a And why is he not חייב חטאת? Because he's a misasek. If he didn't realize this is קודש, is he a misasek? So he says no. ואילו באוכל בהעלם קודש, נהי דאינו בעולה ויורד, he's not עולה ויורד, מכל מקום חייב חטאת. He's chayav a חטאת, כמו בכל חייבי כרת שוגגין, ואין בזה מתעסק. Why not? Lechora he didn't know that this is קודש? Because שאינו נהנה? No, כיון שנהנה! Because he's eating, and by eating there is misasek is chayav. And what does he say vayter? What's the next few words? ונכון במאד בעזרת השם יתברך. He says this is very good peshat, he says. He has to say it himself, it's a very good peshat. So here he has his peshat that the reason you're patur is because you are misasek, and you're patur, and that's only by מקדש, and that's why you're patur even from a chatas, not like Tosafot. Ah? By קודש you should be chayav a chatas, he takeh says. According to this peshat, you'd be chayav a chatas. Tosafot says you're chayav? Tosafot says you're patur, for a different reason, and according to Tosafot it would be סיי קודש סיי מקדש. Okay. Ah? Because since it was היה בכלל and it went out of the כלל, it's finished. No, he's, because we have a שאלה why is he פטור completely. Then you'd be חייב a חטאת. No, he's trying to find another ביאור. He says, ודאי, I think another ביאור. No, because he holds it's, he says it's a מתעסק. He says this is a מתעסק, there's no, no one says, he says it's a fact. Because it's not! If you didn't know it's a בית, he said if it's, if you didn't know this is the בית המקדש, you thought it was something else, that's called, that's not called שוגג. That's the whole thing, you know. No, the case is נעלם, נו. נעלם מקדש, that he that's the whole case here. Or נעלם that it's טומאה, or נעלם that this is the בית המקדש. So he didn't know this is מקדש, so he thought it was a בית, so it's a מתעסק. That's also, no. נעלם goes that he didn't know what that He forgot about this, he forgot what this is. That's what we're learning the whole time here. Yeah.

The only problem is they ask a שאלה on the Rabbi Akiva Eiger from a Gemara in הוריות. The Gemara in הוריות דף ט עמוד א says there like this. הוריות talks about the different קרבנות that the כהן גדול brings when he does an עבירה, the ציבור brings and also talks about the נשיא. If a מלך does an עבירה, there's a special פסוק for קרבנות. So the פסוק says, \"ואשר נשיא יחטא,\" so the Gemara says there that if the if he did the עבירה of טומאת מקדש וקדשיו he has to bring a שעיר. He has to bring a קרבן, a שעיר on טומאת מקדש וקדשיו. This din of walking is called טומאת מקדש וקדשיו. If you eat if you go into the בית המקדש or you eat קדשים while you're טמא, it's טומאת מקדש וקדשיו, okay. So he brings so the shaila so he brings a korban, he brings a קרבן שעיר. In the same case the the נשיא brings a special korban. Let's ask a kashya on this נשיא. How could he bring a korban when he's a מתעסק? A מתעסק is patur. Let's ask the same shaila. A מתעסק is patur. So he's a מתעסק. And we don't have a special pasuk by him. He brings see bichlal a נשיא brings a special קרבן חטאת, different than everybody else. So if he went to the בית המקדש and he forgot that it's a בית המקדש, he has to bring a korban, his חטאת, his שעיר. It's a special קרבן חטאת that he brings. But why? Milah everybody else who brings a קרבן עולה ויורד, not a חטאת, so you could say קרבן עולה ויורד, what did he say before, is not part of מתעסק. The pasuk doesn't teach him you're חייב מתעסק. But a נשיא who is not part of קרבן עולה ויורד, is different. Why does he bring a korban? And the Gemara says in Horayot דף ט he does bring a korban. No, מקדש if he forgot that it's מקדש. Right, but it's korban chatas, it's his chatas. In other words it doesn't speak specifically about this aveirah. It says that whatever a person a regular ordinary person brings a regular chatas, he brings a se'ir. Se'ir is the same as chatas just that the the nasi's chatas. And he brings and and he's not a קרבן עולה ויורד. Why isn't he patur as a misasek? The answer would be bepashtut that even though it's misasek, but since everybody else brings a קרבן עולה ויורד on this thing that means that the Torah came and said that the patur of misasek does not apply here in this aveirah. If the patur of misasek doesn't apply, so automatically he brings a se'ir. Right. And לפי זה, if the Torah says that the patur of misasek doesn't apply here, you cannot say Rabbi Akiva Eiger's terutz. In other words, if this is not a גדר of misasek, if the whole patur of misasek doesn't apply by this aveirah, so who cares that this guy who did it We said, why is he What did Rabbi Akiva Eiger say? Why is he patur from a chatas? He's a misasek. But by this aveirah of טומאת מקדש וקדשיו, there's no patur of misasek bichlal even for a chatas. The best re'aya is the nasi is chayav a chatas even though this is this aveirah. I'll explain it in different words. Let me put it this way. You have to When Start from the other side. When the Torah said that you have to bring a קרבן עולה ויורד even for forgetting that it's a Mikdash, which means even though technically this is a mitasek, the Torah said you're patur you're chayav a קרבן עולה ויורד. There are two ways to learn that that peshat. What did the Torah say? And actually I have to tell you this is not only here. In a lot of cases where the Torah comes and says has a certain chidush in the din, there are two ways to learn. I'll explain it here, and then you could use it in many things. Now I'll explain what I mean here. You could say like this. The Torah came and said, \"You know, by טומאת מקדש וקדשיו, even though you are a mitasek, you're still you're mitasek, but a קרבן עולה ויורד you still have to bring.\" Right? Or you could say it differently. The Torah is telling you that by by the din of טומאת מקדש וקדשיו, you are not a mitasek. There is no din of mitasek. You could learn one way that even though you are a mitasek and there's mitasek, the Torah says, \"In this case, you're still chayav a קרבן עולה ויורד.\" Or you could learn the Torah is telling you that you are not a mitasek. There's no דין מתעסק here. I first want you to get clear what I'm saying, two sides, then you'll see the difference. One is does the Torah, by telling you that you're chayav a קרבן עולה ויורד, say that this does not fall into the category of mitasek, this metziut, this טומאת מקדש וקדשיו, or the Torah never said that. The Torah is not going against it's a mitasek, whatever did a mitasek here, there's a special דין קרבן עולה ויורד. The nafka mina would be if for some reason you did this aveira, but you don't have to bring a קרבן עולה ויורד, would you have to bring a chatat or not? That's the nafka mina. If the Torah is telling you that the whole דין of misasek doesn't apply here, you would bring. Normally, you bring a קרבן עולה ויורד, if there's no קרבן עולה ויורד, then you have to bring a קרבן חטאת. Ah, you're misasek, but in this aveirah there is no misasek. The Torah came and said that in the aveirah of טומאת מקדש וקדשיו there is no דין מתעסק. So, if there's no דין מתעסק, then it goes back to as if it's not a misasek. So, normally, you bring a קרבן עולה ויורד, let's say for some reason there's no קרבן עולה ויורד, what do you bring? A חטאת. Ah, misasek, the Torah told you by טומאת מקדש וקדשיו there's no misasek. If you learn the Torah didn't do that, the Torah said you are a misasek, but in this case, קרבן עולה ויורד you bring even you are a misasek. What happens if you don't bring the קרבן עולה ויורד? Would you bring a חטאת? No. Why? Because because you're a misasek. Misasek patur פטור from a חטאת, and you are a misasek. The Torah never took it away misasek. Those are the two ways. From the fact that the that the that the נשיא brings a קרבן חטאת for this aveirah of טומאת מקדש וקדשיו, what does that prove? Shows that there is no misasek. If there is no misasek, then why would a regular person not be chayav a חטאת? Rabbi Akiva Eiger wanted to say, a regular person is patur from a חטאת, why? Because for a חטאת, you're a misasek. But if we're going to learn that the Torah said that by this aveirah there's no דין מתעסק, then if you're not עולה ויורד, you're chayav a chatat, just like the nasi. So, this could be a reason why Tosafot does not say the peshat of the of the Rabbi Akiva Eiger. Because the Rabbi Akiva Eiger is not so pashut, the from that Gemara in Horayot is a re'ayah against him, a re'ayah that it's not the peshat that there is a מתעסק and you're patur, because you're מתעסק you're patur from a chatat. There is no דין מתעסק over here. So, or you bring a קרבן עולה ויורד, and if no עולה ויורד, you bring a regular chatat, and you have no patur of מתעסק. So, this is against against what Rabbi Akiva Eiger says. So, even though he says ונכון מאוד בעזרת השם יתברך, and bichlal Rabbi Akiva Eiger's verter, you can't move. I mean, it's ever known when Rabbi Akiva Eiger says someplace tzarich iyun, you know it's a good kushya, and when he says tzarich iyun gadol, you know it's a very good kushya. It's very, because his bichlal it's known, his his way of learning was so So, I'm sure he'll have a terutz on this she'eilah. So, maybe someone could think of a terutz, why it's no kushya from the nasi. Like you say, nasi is some, maybe nasi is an exception. We're trying to use a nasi as a re'ayah that there's no דין מתעסק here. No, but we have a ra'ayah from נשיא that the other way is wrong. That's, I'm saying, from נשיא, we see that you are chayav, is a ra'ayah that this is the right way. So, say, \"Oh,\" so say, \"Maybe we'll have to find someway that by נשיא it's an exception.\" So, we got you can't just say it, because lichorah can't just say it's an exception, why? If you find a biur, somehow, you got to find it. Huh? Gemara does it always in different places. הכא במאי עסקינן, we can't do that. But then there's another she'eilah here on Rabbi Akiva Eiger. He says that the reason you're patur from a chatat is why? What's his sevara? Because you're mit'asek. But if you would be נהנה, you'd be chayav anyway. That's why if you ate קדש, which is food, you're chayav even you're mit'asek. Walking into the Beit HaMikdash is called נהנה or not? No, you did no. הפוך, did you have hana'ah? You walked into, if you walk into the a room with air conditioned and you cool off in the room, is it called hana'ah from the building? Not not from the מלאכה, that's from the עבירה. If maybe takeh, if that would be hana'ah. Not you could say, but but here here we have a דין. The Gemara says that you're not allowed to sit בצל המקדש, you're not allowed to sit the shade of the Beit HaMikdash, because you're not allowed to have hana'ah from קדשים, Is it what how are you how is it considered pleasure or is it what's pleasure? It's called pleasure. That's that says you're not allowed to. Well, the Gemara considers this pleasure, you see. The Gemara says the Gemara says if you if you have it's just sitting you want to it's too hot and you want to sit in the shade and you walk to sit in the shade of the Beit HaMikdash, it's asur. Actually, the Gemara even asks a kushya in Pesachim, how did Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai, it said, sat to for shade and he sat in the shade of the Beit HaMikdash? It's a siman that that's and why? Because it's called נהנה מן ההקדש. Huh? There's no tree, you're just walking in, having hana'ah. Well, bichlal, if you walk into a building, you're having hana'ah. If you're walking into the building, I mean, you're you're not outside, or it's cooler or whatever it is, you're in shade. Huh? Here is you're walking inside, yeah. You walk into the Mikdash. I'm saying צל as an example. It's not a kushya, okay, this is not a kushya, I'll tell you why. Cuz the Gemara says you're not allowed to do it, but you're not חייב a קרבן מעילה. Like this has a דין מעילה בהקדש. The Gemara says three things: קול, מראה, וריח, אין בהם משום מעילה. It's not called me'ilah, you're not mo'el, not called you know, you're not allowed to, but it's not called really really hana'ah. Cuz kol, voice, lemashal, if you hear this the the Levi'im singing in the בית המקדש and you enjoy it, or you smell the ketoret, you're not allowed to smell it for enjoyment, you're not allowed to sit and listen to them singing, you're not allowed to sit in the צל of the בית המקדש, but it's only a issur, but it's not a real me'ilah cuz it's not a real hana'ah. If it'd be a real hana'ah, you'd be you'd be מועל בהקדש. קול, מראה, וריח, אין בהם משום מעילה. So, mimela, it's not really called hana'ah, so he's right in that prat, I mean, obviously. Okay, let's go to the next inyan. Okay.

So, to some guys I explained, I'm sure you learned the Tosafot', Rashi, the Tosafot, the Maharsha, the Maharshal, and the Maharam. Not the Maharam? Well, the Maharam does what he does is he just goes into the nitty-gritty explaining the details of every case of what Tosafot means. That's what he says. And that's what we're going to learn inside now. So let's meyashev the Maharam. Let's meyashev the Maharam, and let's learn the Maharam inside. Huh? What is the biggest hana'ah? קול and ריח. What's hana'ah, I mean, ריח is שהנשמה נהנית ממנו and Yeah, but it's not Not physical hana'ah. Yeah. It's physical, but it's not tangible hana'ah, that's what it is. אין בהם משום ממשות. קול has no ממשות. You see something, למשל, קול me, you know, מראה, you look at the בית המקדש and you enjoy the beauty of the building. It's it's physical hana'ah, you really like it, like a person looks enjoys a painting, but it's not tangible hana'ah. Huh? What's the reason? Because like you took away, you ate something, obviously took away. Took away? Yeah, but here, like you're looking at it, you're not taking anything away, or listening, and that's You take away therefore. You drink something from הקדש, you're chayav a קרבן מעילה. Two things, אכילה and It's not אכילה, no, not only אכילה. You use something. You smear yourself with oil of הקדש. But you're using you're using it, no? What's the other one you're chayav for? Yeah. For hana'ah. אכילה and what's the other one? בעילה. He said that. You said another one. Yeah, ביאה is אסור, עריות. But what are you taking away there? Ah, no, that's not, no, there you're chayav for for איסור עריות, not for No, nothing to do with this. Okay. The Gemara first answered why in the Mishnah over there in Shavuos it says שתים שהן ארבע, and here it says שתים שהן ארבע בפנים, שתים שהן ארבע בחוץ. That was the Gemara's קושיא originally, the first קושיא in the Gemara. Over here it says שתים שהן ארבע בפנים ובחוץ, there it says שתים שהן ארבע only. And the first answer of the Gemara was because over there it's עיקר שבת, not עיקר שבת, it only talks about אבות. אבות, only about הוצאה, not הכנסה. By us, it talks about both. Then the Gemara asked, \"If it only talks about hotza'ah, where do you get four? There's only two. Two hotza'ah that you're chayav: the עני is chayav if he did עקירה and הנחה of hotza'ah, and the בעל הבית is chayav. Where do you get four?\" So the Gemara answered, first the Gemara, maybe you could say two חיובים and two p'turim of only of hotza'ah, two p'turim of hotza'ah. Fine. If you look in the cases of the Mishnah, you have more than two p'turim of hotza'ah. Each case has two p'turim, right? Each case, one did הנחה and one did עקירה, right? Take, for instance, the בעל הבית standing inside, picked something up, and he made a and he did hotza'ah. How did he do hotza'ah? He picked it up, took it out, and the עני took it from him. Let's say. So, he did the עקירה, the עני did the הנחה. So, there are two people who are patur aval asur. So, you have more than two, where do we get two? Obviously, what the Gemara says, maybe we're only talking about two p'turim of hotza'ah, two main ones, certain category of two, not Which are the two main ones? So, Rashi gives examples. And the way Rashi puts it, the way we have the girsa in Rashi, then there's this parentheses. So, you have one עקירה of the בעל הבית. Okay, the best thing is to look in Rashi inside. So, Rashi says like this, כגון the בעל הבית put his hand out, and the עני took from it. So, the בעל הבית did עקירה of הוצאה, right? בעל הבית picked something up, took it out, and the עני took from it. So, here you have the בעל הבית doing הוצאה. Which part of הוצאה? The עקירה. That's one, he says. That's one, and he's patur aval assur. הרי פטור של בעל הבית that he comes. כגון, the second thing, because we're looking only for two, two more. One and the second. פשט העני ידו ריקנית לפנים, the עני stuck his empty hand inside, ונתן בעל הבית לתוכו, and the בעל הבית put something in. So, and what happened? Here it's also the the he the עני stuck his hand and the בעל הבית put in, and he took out, and the עני took out. So, it's again out, הוצאה. The בעל הבית did the עקירה, the עני did the הנחה. So, here it's a second הרי פטור שני. The second פטור, who are we counting the second פטור? The בעל ה- it's הוצאה that the עני The בעל הבית did the עקירה, the עני did the הנחה. Who is the one that's חייב here? Who is the one that we're counting here as the פטור? So, Rashi just says, the way we have the גירסא, הרי פטור שני של הוצאה. The second פטור of הוצאה. Now, normally, without thinking too far, what would we think? The two חיובים of הוצאה are one for עני and one for בעל הבית. What would we imagine are the two פטורים of הוצאה? One for עני, one for בעל הבית. So, we would imagine the first one is the בעל הבית and the second one is the עני. The only problem is, if the second one is the עני, what did the עני do? He did a hanachah. Okay. So, we're counting him because we're counting a patur of hotzaah of the עני. The problem is that Tosafot says that Rashi himself learns that what does the Gemara count later as akirah? Because later on in the Gemara the Gemara asks a kushya that Rashi brought on דף ב' already. How does the Gemara, in the Mishnah say eight cases, there are really 12 cases? And the Gemara says, we don't count all the cases, we count the main ones. Which are the main ones? Akiros. The Gemara didn't say, if the Gemara would say akirah then we would have less fights. If the Gemara would be clear then The Gemara didn't say it clear and then we have a machloket. The Gemara just said, we're only counting that part of the מלאכה דאתי לידי חיוב חטאת. The part of the melachah that is the one that could have brought you to chatat. You didn't do a chatat because you didn't do the whole melachah, but the part that could have brought you to chatat, which part is that? So, Rashi says, which part is that? Akirah. Because the akirah is the one that could make you be over. If you do the akirah you could have been doing hanachah. The Riva learns, he asks kushiyot, and he says, no, it's the one that did the transfer of reshut. So, it could be sometimes akirah, sometimes hanachah, the one that So, in the second case of Rashi, who's the main guy? He stuck his hand, the עני stuck his hand empty, the בעל הבית put something in, and the עני took it out and made hanachah. So, who would we count according to the Riva? The עני, because he did the transfer, even though he did הנחה. According to Rashi, who would we count? The בעל הבית. So, we have two עקירות by the בעל הבית, because Rashi wants to count the עקירות. There is no such thing as an עני doing עקירה only by הוצאה. There's no such thing. Out of all the cases in the Mishnah, is there any case where the עני did an עקירה only by הוצאה? It's not possible. If he did the עקירה and he and he took it out, then it's a full מלאכה, he made הנחה. So, you cannot have עקירה by the עני only. So, when we're counting, if according to Rashi we should count עקירות only, we should count two עקירות of the בעל הבית. Now we're not holding At this point of the Gemara we're saying we're not counting הכנסה. Later the Gemara changes. The first part of the Gemara is saying says that over there we only count the אב. If so, we're not counting הכנסה. In הכנסה גופא you have חיוב and פטור. In הוצאה גופא you have חיוב, you have פטור. But we're not counting הכנסה. How do we have two פטור? So you have, and if you want to count only עקירות, has to be both בעל הבית. Tosafot comes and says, you know, Rashi explained this Gemara different than he learns himself later. Later on, according to what he says later on, it doesn't fit what he said here. Why not? It fits exactly what he said! Rashi says later on that we're counting עקירות, and that's exactly what Rashi says here! זאגט דער Maharshal, זאגט דער Maharsha, that Tosafos must have had a different גירסא in Rashi. And that's what we have in the parentheses. When Rashi This Rashi. When Rashi says on the second case, הרי פטור שני של הוצאה, and what did we say till now? What's the פטור שני, the second case? עקירה בעל הבית, so they have the גירסא: פטור שני של עני. And the second פטור is the עני. So if the second פטור is the עני, then what is it? No, no, so what is it? עקירה? No, has to be the הנחה. Zogt Tosafos a good קושיא, how could Rashi write here that the second פטור is the עני, when Rashi himself learns you have to look at עקירה and there's no such thing as an עקירה? No, according to the second גירסא. So vayzt oys that Tosafos had a second a different גירסא in Rashi than our גירסא. And that's what the Maharshal says. He says בכלל Tosafos didn't write this, somebody else wrote it, and that guy didn't have the right Rashi. But the Maharsha doesn't say someone else wrote it, but the Maharsha says the same thing. Could be it's Tosafos, but Tosafos had another גירסא in Rashi. The only thing, and then the and the Maharam pashut explains all this with the Riva. That the second case that we're using as a פטור is the עני's part. And what did the עני do the second case? הנחה. So Tosafos asks good, you should count עקירות only. Yeah, that's exactly what the Maharam says. According to the Riva, the way if your girsa is עני, it's good, and Tosafos's girsa is עני, so Tosafos is telling Rashi, you are not fitting to your own peshat! If you would learn like the Riva, you're right. But you don't learn like that, you learn ikar is עקירות, how do you write here the עני? So he's That's why Tosafos's lashon is רש״י לא פירש כן לפי שיטתו וסמוך, according to his own shita. The only shverkeit I'm just wondering, according to this girsa, let's say Tosafos had a different girsa, Tosafos's girsa was הרי פטור שני של עני. So he's talking not talking about עקירה, talking about הנחה. Look at the beginning of this Rashi. Look at the beginning, mamash the beginning of the Rashi, the first line. מהן לחיוב ומהן לפטור, what does Rashi say? יציאות דעני ודבעל הבית לחיוב, yeah, that's יציאה both of them if they did the עקירה והנחה, and then what's vayter? Someone read me. יציאה שתים של פטור, שתי עקירות של הוצאה. So Rashi says right away that the second ones, the patur, are both They're both הוצאה obviously, are both עקירה! How could you have a girsa that the second patur is the עני, when the עני's patur is only הנחה, when Rashi says שתי עקירות? No, I'm Yeah, I'm just How could you Unless you change the girsa there, too! That's going to be next, yeah. That's not such a big kushya, I'll tell you why, but I'll get to it in a second. Yeah, you're saying good. Yeah. The ani picked it up outside, and the baal habayit And what did the ani do? That's hachnasah, no? It's not hotzaah. We're talking about That's the whole problem, if it'd be hachnasah it would be fine, we're talking about hotzaah. But Rashi says clearly that the second the two pturim are both akirot! Now another thing, that he just mentioned now. Rashi says, why would we count these? They are asur lechatchilah, because there's a גזירה שמא יעשה הנחה על עקירתו. If the if the ptur, the second ptur is hanachah, what does he mean you might make a hanachah on your akirah? How does Why did I say that this she'eilah is not such a big she'eilah? Because maybe he means next time? It's still asur because next time you might not only make an hanachah, you might make an akirah and then make an hanachah. It's not such a good pshat, that's why it's not so simple, it's a little bit if it goes backward, and you are right, I'll tell you why. I once from somebody a very good vort: If you have a Rashi, and you have a kushya, whatever, a Rashi, anything, and you come up with a pshat, how do you want, how do you know if the pshuto k'mashma'o is good or not? You think to yourself, if I would want to write what I'm thinking Rashi meant, would I write it the way Rashi wrote it or I would write it different? If I would write what I meant differently, then I then I assume that Rashi didn't mean that. Why would Rashi write it crooked? Here also, I'm trying to say maybe Rashi meant that you'll make an next time an If I would want to write the lashon that I'm afraid you might make next time a full melachah, I would write like this? Clearly not. So mistama Rashi didn't either. So then what does Rashi mean? פשוט, פשוטו כמשמעו, that you make an hanachah on your akirah. So it's, so we're back to the she'eilah, how do you how do you learn out of the girsa? Good, so. But again, this is a a she'eilah in words, but in תוכן, you could say, ah? Because at the end of Rashi, no, to the second girsa, Rashi says that these two are אסור לכתחילה because it's a גזירה you might make a הנחה to the עקירה. But one of the two is הנחה itself. So if we learn like our girsa that they're both עקירה, so on both you could say, what's the גזירה? You might make an הנחה to the עקירה, because they're both עקירה. So, now let's learn inside. That's in the Maharam. Maharsha, Maharshal, there's nothing to learn because he just says the words that this is his. Let's learn fast because everything I said now is written inside, but if we go through it fast, you'll be able to inside. דיבור המתחיל, chevra, look inside. You don't have a Maharam? Yeah. Oy oy. Look in with him. וכי תימא מה הנך יתור, and he quotes Tosafot: רש״י לא פירש כאן לפי שזה. רוצה לומר He says, this is what, he's basically saying pshat in Tosafot. דלפי דלפירוש רש״י שפירש בסמוך, according to Rashi who says later on, דלא חשיב לענין פטור אבל אסור, that when he counts which are פטור אבל אסור, he counts כי אם העקירות, only the עקירות, that's what Rashi learns, דאתו לחיוב חטאת, because they are the ones you might come to חטאת. Im ken, if so, השתא דקאמר דלא חשיב כי אם יציאות, now in this part of the Gemara, under the Maharsha, not the You're looking at the Rosh, I think. Maharam? In the next page. Oh, no no, maybe I can't see from far. What are you You have a Maharsha? Yeah. Yeah? So look at the bottom, I don't know which piece it is. According to Rashi, he only counts עקירות, and now we're holding that we're only counting יציאות, ב׳ לחיוב וב׳ לפטור, two חייב, two פטור. אם כן, השני פטורים של יציאות, the two פטורים of יציאה have to be תרווייהו, both have to be גבי בעל הבית הן. They have to be by the בעל הבית, ולא גבי עני. To have a two עקירות, only עקירות, by הוצאה only, has to be by the בעל הבית. Why? דלגבי העני, לית עקירות גבי הוצאות, there's no such thing as just עקירה if you're talking only by הוצאה. כי עקירות של עני, when you talk about עקירה of the עני, תרווייהו הן גבי הכנסות. By הכנסה, you could have עקירות. Which two? חדא, דבבא דפשט העני את ידו ונטל בעל הבית מתוכה, one case, the עני stuck his hand in, הכנסה, and the בעל הבית took from it, the עני עשה עקירה להכנסה. That's a case of עקירה of the עני. הב׳, the second case, is דבבא דפשט בעל הבית את ידו, the בעל הבית stuck his hand out, ושנתן העני לתוכה, and the עני put something in, והכניס הבעל הכניס הבעל הבית. So here what? שעשה גם כן העני עקירה להכנסה. The עני did the עקירה, stuck his hand in, and this הכנסה and the בעל הבית took He gave it to the בעל הבית. And the עקירות של הוצאות is גבי בעל הבית. הכנסה עקירות, only the עני, and the and the עקירה of הוצאה is only the בעל הבית. חדא, in one case, בבא, the case of פשט העני את ידו ושנתן בעל הבית לתוכה, the עני sticks his hand in empty, and the בעל הבית puts in, והוציא, and the עני takes out. So who did the עקירה here? שעשה בעל הבית עקירה להוצאה. חדא, the other case is, פשט בעל הבית את ידו ונטל עני מתוכה, the בעל הבית stuck his hand, and the עני took out, שעשה גם כן הבעל הבית עקירה להוצאה. The בעל הבית picked it up, and the עני stuck his hand in, took it out. So the עקירות of הוצאה have to be only by the בעל הבית. וכאן היה כתוב בפירוש רש״י של התוספות, and in Tosafos, the way Rashi I mean in Rashi, the way Tosafos had it was written, משמעות שהיו מפרש דהוצאה של פטור היא חדא גבי עני וחדא גבי בעל הבית. It's mashma that one פטור of עקירה by הוצאה is the בעל הבית, and one is the עני. כמו שפירש הריב״א, that would fit like the Riva says בסמוך. What does the Riva say? דפירוש, the Riva says, דבבבא דפשט העני את ידו השני, השני פטורין אבל אסור תרווייהו גבי עני. He says when the עני stuck his hand in and did הוצאה, they're both by the עני. One is a הכנסה, חדא דהכנסה וחדא דהוצאה. But when we're counting the two main ones, it's not עקירות like Rashi says. What are we counting? The transfer of רשות. Could be one by הוצאה, one by הכנסה, and it could be that you did a הנחה. If you stuck your And the בעל הבית gave you, and you took it out, you did the עני did the הנחה, but he did this transfer of רשות. That's counted. That's what the Riva says. דנטל בעל הבית מתוכו הוא פטור של עני של הכנסה, that's a patur of הכנסה. ואי שנתן בעל הבית לתוכו והוציא עני, בעל הבית put in, he took it out, הוא גם כן פטור של עני. According to the Riva, when we count the patur, it's the עני's, אף על גב שבעל הבית עשה עקירה, even though he did עקירה, because according to the Riva, לא בעקירה תליא מילתא. It doesn't depend on עקירה, כי אם בפשיטת יד. The one that sticks his hand and takes it. וגבי האי שייך למימר פטור דאתי לידי חיוב חטאת קא חשיב. That's what the Gemara means when the Gemara says we're only counting that patur which could bring you a חטאת, the Riva learns means the one that stuck his hand and is going to take it out. וכן בבא דפשט בעל הבית יד השני, וכן בבא השני פטורין, in the second case the two פטורין are של בעל הבית. חדא דהוצאה וחדא דהכנסה. אף על גב דעקירה דהכנסה עשה עני, in the other case you could have a הכנסה that the עקירה the עני did, the בעל הבית is the one that we count, because he did the stretching out of the hand and taking. וכך כתבו התוספות. That's what Tosafos writes: לא פירש רש״י לא פירש כאן לפי שיטתו שפירש לקמן. Rashi here does not write like he writes later, like he himself writes later, דעקירה קא חשיב. This fits more to the Riva's pshat later, not to Rashi's pshat. כיוון דהשתא בעי לאוקמינהו שני פטורין של יציאה, since now the Gemara is trying to say that you have both פטורין in what? In יציאה, in הוצאה, הוה ליה לפרש שתים לפטור דיציאה, שתי עקירות דבעל הבית. Rashi should have said both בעל הבית. And Tosafos, the way Tosafos had in Rashi is משמע that one of them is עני. אבל לפירוש רש״י שלפנינו, the Maharam says according to our רש״י, אין משמעות רש״י כאן כמו שכתבו התוספות. There's no raaya in Rashi like Tosafos quotes from Rashi here. אלא איפכא נמי! Our girsa in Rashi exactly like Tosafos says: שני פטורי של יציאה מפרש רש״י by who? לפטור בעקירות יציאה זה בעל הבית. Takeh Rashi holds it's a בעל הבית. Then what was the last line? What does that, no, he's just saying, but the way we have the girsa, Rashi takeh means which two פטורין? Two עקירות of who? Of בעל הבית. It's exactly what he says, because when the Rashi takeh in the לשון it says, the first one he says עקירה שבבעל הבית, and the second one is פטור שני של הוצאה. Oh, yes. Because Tosafos had a different girsa obviously. Tosafos had a girsa that it said that the second פטור, פטור שני של עני. So עני has to be הנחה. But that's the girsa he had in in Tosafos' manuscript of Rashi, it was written like that. The Maharam is saying that when it says פטור שני, it's going back on the בעל הבית? Right, בעל הבית. And he didn't do, oh, because of the עקירה. Because he did the עקירה. Yeah. No, because Tosafos says that Rashi doesn't fit to what he said later, because there's another pshat later and Rashi argues. So he's saying you're not saying your own pshat from later. What about