מאי ראו בבית זה? למה גיין? Be'emet since we're still in the middle of something, so we'll go back a drop. Still on that first Tosafos, when the Gemara says that בבא דרישא, the case of the Risha, where it says that's a בעל הבית חייב and עני פטור or בעל הבית or עני חייב בעל הבית פטור, so the one that's patur is patur u'mutar. It's not like always patur aval asur, it's patur u'mutar. So Tosafos asks the she'eilah, how could you say it's patur u'mutar? For instance, let's give the case, one case. The עני's standing outside and the בעל הבית standing inside takes something from inside, makes an עקירה, puts his hand out to the outside, to the רשות הרבים, the עני is holding his hand like this out and he puts it down. What is the din there? בעל הבית עקירה והנחה, חייב. So בעל הבית is חייב, העני פטור. What kind of patur? So we're saying patur u'mutar. Patur u'mutar. Okay. So Tosafos has a kashya, how could the Gemara say it's patur u'mutar when here be'emet also אסור מצד לפני עור לא תתן מכשול? Then he said, but לפני עור לא תתן מכשול you could say is not really because that's only in a case where he can't do it without you. We can't do it without you, but in this case could be if not if you wouldn't have your hand out, he would put it down someplace else, so you didn't make him do the aveirah. Without you, he did an aveirah anyway. So Tosafos says, still it's asur. What kind of issur? That you have to stop your friend from doing an aveirah. מה דאך you have to stop your friend from doing an aveirah, certainly you can't help him do an aveirah. Even if he would do it anyway, you cannot participate in a person doing an aveirah. So you're עובר a איסור דרבנן of מסייע לדבר עבירה. לפני עור is an איסור דאורייתא, but מדרבנן there's also an issur, even in a case where there is no לפני עור, why? Because he would have done it and he could have done it anyway, but there's still an issur of מסייע, מסייע לדבר עבירה. You're not allowed to help a yid do an aveirah. So the שאלה is how does it say פטור ומותר? Then Tosafos said maybe it's talking about the other guy is a goy. So Tosafos says there is by a goy also an issur. You are not allowed to, lemashal, if you're standing inside and there's a goy standing outside, you cannot give a goy food, you cannot give him anything for him to take, even if you're giving it to him for his benefit. Let's say you want to give him food, so he should have what to eat, you're not allowed to do it. Why can't you do it? What's the reason? No, no aveirah, it's mar'it ayin. People don't know. People see you're giving the goy something, thinking that what's going to happen? That this goy, he's doing the מלאכה for you. People don't know if he's doing it for you, so it's mar'it ayin. You're not allowed to do things that people might think you're doing an aveirah. So you're not allowed to do that either. So therefore we're back to the case, so where is there a case of מותר? So Tosafos's answer is the case is where it's a goy. Ai we just said by a goy it's also אסור? It's his object. It's his object! Ah, if it's his חפץ ממש, so by a goy, to give to a goy and it's his חפץ, then there is no aveirah, then there is no issur. Okay, not even דרבנן, that's what פטור ומותר.

We mentioned last time that in the Rosh we find a מחלוקת. The Rosh says, there's another opinion, that it's still mar'it ayin. Let's open the Rosh, takeh since we're in the Rosh, it's always good to look inside. The Rosh says here, when he gives the answer, וכי תימא דהכא מיירי בנכרי, you might say it's talking about a goy, which is no lifnei iver, but still there's an איסור דרבנן, he brings a ra'ayah. ויש לומר, he says Tosafos's תירוץ, דהכא מיירי כשהחפץ של הנכרי. בהאי גוונא, לית כאן איסור. The object is the goy's, and the case that the object is the goy's, there is no issur. Even though אפילו נראה כנותן לו על מנת להוציא, even if he gives him, it looks like you're giving him to carry, כיון שאין החפץ של בעל הבית. Then he says, ובאשכנז ראיתי מורים, that in Ashkenaz, which is where is Ashkenaz? Germany, they פסקנד לאיסור אף בחפץ של עכו״ם. And the Rosh says, וכן מסתבר, I hold that way. כיון שאסרו, and he gives the reason. Since it's assur because mar'it ayin, it's a very logical reason. If we're talking about something that's assur by itself, it's assur, you could say a chiluk if it's my cheftz that's an issur, if it's a goy's cheftz it's not. Be'etzem there's nothing assur here. The only reason it's assur is because people might not know. So they don't know whose cheftz it is, so they they also might think that you're doing an aveirah, that you're asking him to do. that כיוון דאיסור משום מראית עין, כי הרואה סובר, סבר, the guy who'll see thinks, שנותן לו משאת, you're giving him to carry, אין לחלק. Can't make a difference if the cheftz is a goy's or not. כי הרואה אינו מכיר שמי החפץ. The one that sees doesn't see whose it belongs to. And therefore he says, klal I don't care about the kashya anyway, he says, because he accepts which teirutz? Nu, we learned that last time. What does the Rosh hold? No, it's not a פרט, it's a כלל, it's a כלל there that it's So it's an איסור שבת. And we explained last time that what's the פשט איסור שבת? It's not, because it's a כללות'דיקער איסור, not that an issur is a פרט in every aveirah. Tosafos maintains that it's maris ayin. Well, Tosafos holds it is. Obviously we have here a machlokes. So we have a machlokes between Tosafos and אנשי אשכנז. Tosafos holds that even if it If it's a גוי'ס חפץ, you're allowed to, and the Rosh פסקנ'ט like Ashkenaz, you see that you're not allowed. So there's a machlokes. What was the sevara of the machlokes? So last time I tried to explain a sevara in the machlokes, and I said like this, if you remember, that it depends, just like we said by lifnei iver, there's a chakirah, is it a פרט in every aveirah, that if you cause somebody to do שבת, עובר שבת, you're over lifnei iver of Shabbos? So lifnei iver is a פרט in Shabbos. If you cause somebody to be over an issur of eating חמץ, פסח, you are over on an issur of lifnei iver of chametz. Or, we said, lifnei iver is a general din: You're not allowed to cause anybody to be over an issur. Any issur, it's all one and the same issur. The same thing, I said you could think by mar'it ayin. The din, there is a mar'it ayin, is there one general din of mar'it ayin? You cannot There's an issur from the Torah on a person not to do anything that somebody else would think he's doing something wrong, and it's not a prat. You shouldn't think You shouldn't do something, he should think you're מחלל שבת. You shouldn't do something, he should think That's a separate issur. Then there's another issur, he shouldn't eat chametz. It's all one nekudah, it makes even sense, it's one כללות'דיקע זאך. Or you could say it's a prat in every issur, there's a din, just like lifnei iver, there's a prat that chametz, you're not allowed to do anything which will be mar'it ayin of chametz. You're not allowed to do a mar'it ayin of Shabbos. I said it's possible to say that this is the difference, that machloket is if it's a prat in every If it's a Let's say the other way: If it's a klal, then like the Rosh says, what's As long as there's you are causing somebody to think that you're doing an aveirah, it's not to do with It belongs to the goy, it doesn't belong to the goy, it's a It's a general thing, which is based on the pasuk. Which pasuk is it based on, this inyan of mar'it ayin? Anyone remember? I mentioned it last time. A pasuk that says, ״והייתם נקיים מה׳ ומישראל״. You have to be clean from Hashem, which means don't do anything wrong against Hashem, and be clean in the eyes of other Yidden. In other words, don't make do things that will make another person think that you're doing an aveirah. If it's a prat in every issur, then there's a sevara to say that there has to be some yesod to the issur. If it's not If the chefetz is the goy's and everything is the גוי'ס and there's nothing there, in other words, even מראית עין also has הגבלות. You can't say you can't do anything because someone might think. So if there's a it has something to do with an איסור, it's your חפץ, it has something to do with an איד, and your חפץ, somebody might think you're doing an עבירה, it's מראית עין. But if it's not even your חפץ, then there's a סברא to say then there is no יסוד to even have מראית עין. But then I always say there's another vort here you could say, especially in this case: What's the מלאכה that What is this מראית עין about? What What is another איד going to think that you're doing? So the Rosh uses a לשון, he'll think that you gave it to him to carry. Who cares? He's a goy! So what's wrong? A goy, a goy is allowed to carry. What's the problem? A goy can't carry? They can't do מלאכה for you. For you! Yeah. Oh, that's what I'm trying to get to. The חשש is, he might think, a person who'll see might think that you gave it to the goy to carry for you. Under what category of איסור does this go? אמירה לנכרי. אמירה לנכרי שבות. To tell a goy to do a מלאכה for you is called אמירה לנכרי. What is the reason why aren't you allowed to tell a goy to do a מלאכה for you? Huh? They end up telling an איד? It's a גזירה, you might tell an איד? You might come to do it yourself? שליחות? That's what it says, that's Okay, that's one thing. There's a second thing, ודבר דבר, but the main thing is that the Alter Rebbe says in the beginning is because of He's your שליח. Okay, let me read the words here. Can you make a goy your שליח? One second, one second. I'll read you סימן רמ״ד סעיף א׳: ״אף על פי שאסור להניח...״ Oh, I got the wrong סימן, I meant סימן רמ״ג. סימן רמ״ג, סעיף א׳: אסרו חכמים לומר לנוכרי לעשות לנו מלאכה בשבת. Chachamim said you're not allowed to tell a goy to do a melachah for us. Okay, and he goes into some פרטים here. Why? Listen to the words: שכשהנוכרי עושה בשבת, הוא עושה בשליחות הישראל. Because he is a shaliach for you, so what's the din if you make a shaliach? שלוחו של אדם כמותו. But then the Alter Rebbe asks the obvious, obvious kushya. If someone doesn't ask the kushya, that means he doesn't know what's flying: ואף על פי שאין, אין ענין שלוחו של אדם כמותו מן התורה אלא בישראל. The whole din of shelichut is only by a ייד, שאין כן by a goy there is no shelichut. אבל הנוכרי אינו בתורת שליחות מן התורה. A nochri is no shelichut. Then they have another kushya, which the Alter Rebbe doesn't mention here: אין שליח לדבר עבירה. If you make a shaliach to do an aveirah, who gets the aveirah? The guy who did it, not the משלח, so here, only if you could get punished. No, no, there are a lot of dinim here, but not with punishment, an עילה, let's not get into that. So we have two problems here: how could you say that when you tell a goy to do a melachah for you, he's your shaliach, when number one he's a goy, and number two, it's an aveirah to be מחלל שבת? Okay. Could be, that could be, yeah, no, could be the person who's doing it doesn't have an aveirah because he's a goy. That's why the Alter Rebbe doesn't bring it. We can't go into every פרט here. The problem is how do you say that there is a inyan of shelichut in this case, the Alter Rebbe asks: מכל מקום, מדברי סופרים יש שליחות לנוכרי לחומרא. The Alter Rebbe says that there is a, Rabbanan, mid'rabbanan made a din that if you make a goy a shaliach, the Rabbanan were machmir. Takeh מדאורייתא there is no such thing as shlichus by a goy, but the Rabbanan made a דין יש שליחות. And this is the first thing that the Alter Rebbe says. There are more things he says later on, other סימנים, why you can't tell a goy, like I said, because you might come to do it yourself, and because there's a פסוק, ודבר דבר, you should stay away, not to speak on Shabbos things of חול. But this is the יסוד, which I mentioned once before this year, I think, already. There's a machlokes between the Alter Rebbe and the Chasam Sofer. The Chasam Sofer doesn't say, doesn't hold of this reason. He holds of the other reason, he says this is not a reason. He says there's no such thing as shlichus on Shabbos, even מדרבנן, and he gives a reason why: because the whole inyan of שבת, מלאכת שבת, what's the reason for the מלאכת שבת? So you should rest. If you tell someone else to do, did you rest or not? Yes! Yes! So he says, how could this be an issur? הרי גופו נח! Your body rested! So what's that shlichus? How could the Rabbanan make shlichus, the whole issur is on yourself. And does anybody remember what I explained, what's the basis of the machlokes? It's a side point, it's not, you know, to say, but do you remember any סברות in the machlokes, whether מלאכת שבת is the נפעל or the פעולה? When the Torah said you can't do a melacha on Shabbos, is the עיקר the Torah doesn't want you to have a melacha done, or the Torah doesn't want you to do a melacha? Doesn't want you to do a melacha. So I remember one ראיה that I mentioned that the Rebbe brings, in one מלאכה for sure is for sure the נפעל. Does anyone remember what מלאכה that is, where we have a דין that you did not do the מלאכה, but you made the מלאכה happen and it's חייב? No, where do you see, no. No, what's that, what do you see there? No, there we had חרישה or חורש, I know what you mean, in לשון of it, but I'm saying a דין. The Rebbe brings a ראיה: one of the מלאכות is כותב. You can't write. What's the שיעור of writing? Two letters. The דין is, if there is a ח, how's a ח in the ספר תורה? There's a ו and a ז and a גג, and a roof. If you erase the roof of the ח, you're חייב משום כותב, because you made two letters happen. You didn't write two letters. The פעולה of כתיבת שתי אותיות was not done. What was done is you did something that the two אותיות became. That's a נפעל. So that's a ראיה that by, at least in this מלאכה, but many other מלאכות, the עיקר is the נפעל. But I'm just bringing in that there is a שאלה by Shabbos: is the עיקר the Torah doesn't want you to do a מלאכה, or the Torah doesn't want you to make that the מלאכה should be done, you should not be a cause of a מלאכה to be done? Now, this must be the מחלוקת between the Alter Rebbe and the Chasam Sofer, because the Alter Rebbe says that even though גופו נח, you tell a goy to do a melachah, you rested, what you did do is by you telling him to do it, and he did it, you were a cause for the melachah to be done. זאגט דער Alter Rebbe, miderabbanan that's asur, and that's called shlichut, שליחות לחומרא. It's not a melachah for a goy, but you caused, for you it's a melachah, and you were the one that brought about the melachah to be done. Ma she'ein kein the Chatam Sofer learns that the ikar of Shabbos is פעולה to do, and that's why he says how could, he asks how could the Alter Rebbe say it's shlichut, and you're over when גופו נח, it says תשבות, you have to rest on Shabbos, you rested. אי a melachah came out because of you, but you rested, the ikar is the פעולה. Okay. But the bottom, this is, this is all by the way, because I went into this once before, so we have here l'poal the Alter Rebbe and we go with the Alter Rebbe that he says that the melachah of Shabbos, the אמירה לעכו''ם of Shabbos is because of שליחות לנוכרי, but it's a דין דרבנן, it's not a דין דאורייתא. No, but that's for sure there's no דין שליחות. שאלה would the רבנן be machmir? But the רבנן here by shlichut by a goy, the רבנן made a chumra, because the other guy's not chayav, so they put it on you. By a ייד, אין שליח לדבר עבירה, so the Yid would be chayav. What? Like to have a car stop for you on Shabbos. Even a goy you shouldn't That's what I'm saying. you're not doing the melachah. Okay, well, that's it says you shouldn't, no, because only if it's a goy it's no problem, if it's a Yid A goy is talking, a Yid, you're making a Yid do a melachah. A Yid will stop, a Yid might stop now. That's the reason. So the Chasam Sofer will hold that you're that you're allowed to have your business open if the goyim work? No, he said there are other reasons he says why אמירה לעכו''ם is asur, but not for this reason. You're saying stam to, you know, just to bring in a story, Shmuel Levitin, Shmuel Levitin, the famous chasid, used to live one time across the street from 770, across Eastern Parkway, by his son. So he told me that Shabbos a lot of times he used to cross the street, so you know, I guess he was younger then, would cross in the middle of the street, wouldn't cross by the light. So the Frierdiker Rebbe once told him, when he went in yechidus, \"I sit sometimes by the window in my from my house, and I see you crossing the street in the middle of the street, falt mir aroys dos harts,\" he said, \"my heart falls out. ובפרט שבת.\" That's what he told him, \"ובפרט שבת.\" So what's the pshat? Shabbos is is is... Not goyim, Yidden! So mistama what he meant was because on Shabbos you're making people stop, because make them slow down and making them stop. Okay. Yeah. So, now, if you hold, since אמירה לעכו''ם is a derabbanan, and the rabbanan made a din of מראית עין even for אמירה לעכו''ם, right? That's what we're saying, that if you give the goy your object, everyone agrees that you can't give it to him because he might carry, and people might think, what are you doing? It's a מראית עין of what aveirah? Of having a goy work for you. It's an aveirah of אמירה לעכו''ם. Now, since the whole אמירה לעכו''ם is only a דין דרבנן משום שליחות, and this is a a a מראית עין of אמירה לעכו''ם, so when the rabbanan made the din of אמירה לעכו''ם, they included any part of אמירה לעכו''ם, anything that, lemashal, the the the maris ayin of אמירה לעכו''ם is also included in that din. So you could say that that's why it makes no difference if it belongs to you or not. The Rabbanan said, since the whole thing is a דין דרבנן אמירה לעכו''ם, you can't tell a goy to do a melachah, and maris ayin is maris ayin, they might think that you're doing the melachah, you're telling him to do the melachah, so the Rabbanan put in the maris ayin of אמירה לעכו''ם into the דין אמירה לעכו''ם. See, if it's a din d'oraita, let's say if אמירה לעכו''ם would be a din d'oraita, then you could say, since it's a din d'oraita, but in the case where the cheftz is not yours, the cheftz, there is no connection to any aveirah, ובמילא how could that become asur? But since אמירה לעכו''ם is a din d'rabbanan, when the Rabbanan made their gezeirot, we don't know how far they went. So they said that, \"We made a gezeirah on אמירה לעכו''ם,\" and you would think it stops, the gezeirah stops at the point where the object is not yours, so you say, \"But since people might think it's yours, so the Rabbanan continued the isur of אמירה לעכו''ם.\" So it's specifically in the isur of אמירה לעכו''ם, the maris ayin would work even if it's not any connection to you, because it's not, he's not doing it for you, he's a goy, and it's not even your object. But if the Rabbanan, you could say, say, put אמירה לעכו''ם מראית עין into the din of אמירה לעכו''ם, that the part of אמירה לעכו''ם is even if it's a maris ayin of אמירה לעכו''ם. So if you're gonna, you could say that it's a separate, you could say that אמירה לעכו''ם, the maris ayin of אמירה לעכו''ם is a regular marit ayin like every aveirah. It's a din of marit ayin. So here you could start being mechaleik and say, since it's a marit ayin of something that there is no yesod of aveirah to begin with, there's no, he's a goy, it's not my thing, I didn't tell him to do it, so so far we wouldn't go. So you could say if it's a regular din of marit ayin, but you could say the marit ayin of אמירה לעכו''ם is a special din, different than marit ayin of another aveirah, because a מראית, אמירה לעכו''ם is a גזירה דרבנן, and the rabbanan didn't want you should tell the goy, so when the rabbanan made don't tell the goy, they felt that anything that someone might think it's a marit ayin, you're also not allowed. So it's like part of the din. So the marit ayin of this din is not a special din of a regular din of marit ayin, you could say it's a perat in אמירה לעכו''ם, because אמירה לעכו''ם is derabbanan. In other words, I'll put it in different words, it's possible to say that a marit ayin of a דין דרבנן is worse than a marit ayin of a דין דאורייתא. Because a דין דאורייתא they say that if if there is, it's asur, and since it's a case of marit ayin which doesn't fit to the issur, there is no issur. But when the rabbanan made an issur, they could put in whatever they want. They could extend their issur. So if they put in the issur of of אמירה לעכו''ם, they could say, how far did they go? אמירה לעכו''ם is mutar be'etzem, how far did they go? All the ways! Maris ayin is part of the din of אמירה לעכו''ם. So before I explained that every every maris ayin you could think is part of the aveirah or not. Now I'm saying you could say maris maris ayin, I'm saying farkert, if it's part of the aveirah of אמירה לעכו''ם it's asur. The first way I said if it's part of the aveirah, it shouldn't be asur in this case, cuz there's no aveirah here. Now I'm saying farkert, if it's part of the aveirah, part of maris ayin, part of אמירה לעכו''ם, so it's also follows אמירה לעכו''ם. But if it's not, then since it has no שייכות to the aveirah, then it's not. Okay, that's בנוגע this ענין. Let's go vayter. Okay.

Now let's go to the Tosafos to the din of מפיס מורסא. The Mishnah, the Gemara says like this: The Gemara says here that Shmuel said, כל פטורי דשבת פטור אבל אסור, whatever it says in Maseches Shabbos פטור, means פטור אבל אסור except three cases. Which are the three cases? צידת צבי, צידת נחש, ומפיס מורסא. מפיס... Now these three, why are they mutar? Well, not all three. צידת צבי, why is it צידת צבי, why is it mutar? You're allowed to capture a צבי on Shabbos? Isn't that one of the ל''ט מלאכות? What's the case? You were there, another guy walked out, so there is no melachah here, fine. So the reason why it's it's it's mutar because you didn't do anything, fine. The other two, צידת נחש, why could you capture a snake? It'll be mazik you. And the Tosafos says here, it's not סכנת נפשות, because if it would be סכנת נפשות, you could do anything here, you could kill him, it's משום צער. מפיס מורסא, why could you do it? Opening, also because of tza'ar. And that is mamash because of tza'ar, the Chachamim said that it's mutar lechatchila. Okay. Tosafot says here in מפיס מורסא, it depends. Depends what your kavanah is by the מפיס מורסא. If you're want to make the opening, you're chayav. If your your intention is to take the pus out, then it's patur, umemela in this case, because of tza'ar, it's also mutar. What bichlal is the melacha of מפיס מורסא that we're saying that in this case the Rabbanan were matir? What's what's the מפיס מורסא? What's the what's the issur? No, if you make it bleed, it's not a heter. I want to say this clearly, you should know the halacha. People think, \"Oh, so from now on if you're allowed to open a pimple...\" If it's gonna bleed or it might bleed, it's a different issur. Then that's an issur de'oraita of חבורה, that's a different. Here we're talking about the aveira of opening a hole. What's the issur? Which melacha is it? Okay, one second. Tosafot asks even a kushya. יש בזה הכנסה. Yeah. That lichora, why should it be allowed? And Tosafot answers, it's it's lechatchila, because he's putting in air and he's taking out the pus. Okay, what melacha is it? Let's say you make a hole which is made to take out the pus and to let in the air. What's the melacha? Because hachnasa like So what's the melacha? Taking a keli. Boneh? Which Okay, you're guessing, you're you're Who says boneh? Artscroll. Oh. Okay. No, we got to we got to look inside. You're building the pus. So look, everybody, Mishnah דף ק״ז, which is the whole mokad of this din. דף ק״ז, open up, דף ק״ז, ק״ז, on top. דף ק״ז? ק״ז, ק, ק. אמר רב יהודה Not from these words, look. Now look at the third line, the fourth line of Rashi. אם לעשות לו פה Yeah. So he says, okay, okay, next, weiter, חייב. חייב, the Rashi חייב. Boneh The second of the narrow lines, חייב. Why are you חייב? זאגט Rashi, משום בונה פתח, you're building a hole, או, או משום מתקן כלי. So if you ask him, what's the issur of מפיס מורסא that you're חייב if if you do it in the wrong way if it's to open a פתח? So Rashi has two pshatim here: or as the melachah of boneh, or the melachah of מתקן כלי. And he says, why is it מתקן כלי? מה לי מתקן מכה מה לי מתקן כלי. What's the difference if you fix the wound or you fix a כלי? Fine. So boneh, we know what it is, boneh is building. What's מתקן כלי? Which melachah is מתקן כלי? If you look at the list of the ל״ט מלאכות on דף ע״ג, it doesn't say the word מתקן כלי. Makah b'patish. Great. Makah b'patish. One of the melachot is to hit with a hammer. Now what's the melachah of hitting with a hammer? It's the last blow, finishing off, because there used to be the seder when you made a כלי, after it was finished, the guy would get bing with a hammer, that made it finished. So that b'etzem is no melachah, but it's called melachah of makah b'patish, which in other words is melachah of תיקון כלי. So here we have two reasons why מפיס מורסא should be assur: one is because of בונה, one is because of מפיס מורסא. Now, when Tosafot asks the shaila, one is because I mean because of, one is because of בונה. Tosafot here asks a kashya: how could you be chayav if you opened the פה of the מורסא, when a opening is only chayav if you made it for in and out? Meaning make a door, the whole purpose of a door is to go in and out. If you make something for only going out, that's not called a door. Why are you chayav? What did Tosafot answer? Because you want the air to come in. So the mefarshim say that according to Tosafot, is mashma that Tosafot holds which of the two things is it? Which of the two? בונה, because that's the question he asked. The shaila is on בונה, because Tosafot obviously learns that the issur is מצד בונה. And the Minchat Chinuch takeh says in mitzvah רל״ב that most poskim learn that the issur is משום בונה, not like the Rambam. Rashi brings both, but the Rambam says it's מכה בפטיש. Now if it's מכה בפטיש, really it makes no difference if it's only one way, because what is the מכה בפטיש, what תיקון כלי? It you're מתקן, you're fixing something. And what are you fixing, what does Rashi say you're fixing? מתקן מכה. So if you're making a תיקון, it makes no difference if it's for in and out. So obviously when Tosafot asked the שאלה לכאורה it's only made for one side, and Tosafot has to answer that l'poel it goes both ways, Tosafot holds it's משום בונה. And that's how most mefarshim hold. If you hold it's משום תיקון כלי, what is the תיקון כלי here? What are you מתקן? The wound. What is it, מתקן the wound? We have words מתקן המכה. What are you מתקן, which wound are What mean you מתקן the wound? Who's getting fixed? The person. The person, okay. So even I want to just clarify this, even though we use the לשון רש״י מתקן מכה, you don't fix the wound, when you do something to the wound, you're fixing the גברא. So even though Rashi uses the לשון מה לי מתקן מכה מה לי מתקן כלי, what's difference is if you fix a כלי or you fix the מכה, it doesn't mean the מכה. Fixing a מכה is the מלאכה of תיקון גברא, of fixing a person. Is that why it's considered a כלי? What, is a כלי? It's not a כלי, the person. A person, or No, I'm Yeah, that's that's So he says, just like you're chayav, just like you're chayav fixing a כלי if you fix a person. That's why there's a דין that שבת בעצם there's a sevara you shouldn't be able to go to the mikveh. If a person is tamei, you should not be able to go to the mikveh. Because by going to the mikveh, you're fixing the person. There's such a thing as מתקן גברא. Spiritual? Now it's, huh? Can't you bring either? We're talking about a person is tamei, a real tumah, a הלכה'דיקע טומאה, and now you become tahor. Can you טובל a כלי on Shabbos? No. No. מתקן. So same thing is... לפועל there's a whole shakla v'tarya, is it מתקן, is it not מתקן? But לפועל, I'm just bringing as a dugma. So here also, you're מתקן. Let's go the other way. According to the sevara that it's בונה, what are you building? What are you building? Whom are you building? What are you building? Is a building there? No, building an opening. How do you build An opening of what? A building you're making a It's a whole thing. Make a hole in it. You're opening, you're building by the person. Is there such a thing as building by a person? Yeah, why yeah, tell me? It must be. Why? Learned from here. You're working backwards! Where does the Gemara get this from that it's asur to build by a person? Where is there a pasuk that uses the pasuk the לשון בנין and that refers to a person? You just learned it two weeks ago, I hope you learned it. No, you learned it in Chumash. We're only Parshas, only Parshas Lech Lecha, so obviously it must be Parshas Noach or Parshas Bereishis. Building Chava. Built for yourself. ויבן את הצלע! When he made Chava, it says ויבן את הצלע, he built הצלע. And he built a person. So we see that there is a geder of binyan there, too. But the person was never created. So he built he built Yeah, he built up a person. He built up Chava. So it's called building. How is opening a wound building? Huh? How is opening a wound building? So after a person is created, how is there So we see how is making a person to a person, if you That's building. So if you if you're if you give a refuah, that means you're making a person better. Making the person more healthy is building up the person. And we do find that lashon. Okay, vayter. Nu, nu, nu. I'm trying to get from step I'm getting from step to step, going just through the few details. Okay. We mentioned the shitas Rambam. The Rambam brings this din that מפיס מורסא באמת is a איסור דאורייתא מצד מכה בפטיש. Nevertheless, if it's להוציא ליחה, the Rambam paskens like the Gemara says here, you're allowed. Why are you allowed? So let's discuss the sevara of the Rambam, why are you allowed. Now, it's not the Rambam who says you're allowed, the Gemara says you're allowed. What's the reason the Gemara gives? Not here. The Gemara later on, what's the reason the Gemara gives that you're allowed even though it should be asur? So Tosafos in Tosafos דיבור המתחיל בר, Tosafos דיבור המתחיל בר, yeah, brings it here, here. כההוא דמוקי לה כרבי שמעון דאמר מלאכה שאינה צריכה ל... צד נחש. Why are you allowed? Because it goes like רבי שמעון, it's a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, פטור עליה. Okay, so what is the pshat? So let's analyze that. When can we say that because of tzaar it's mutar? Must be that it's a issur derabbanan. By a issur de'oraita, you ever hear because you have tza'ar you could do a issur de'oraita? No, pikuach nefesh. You can't. Pikuach nefesh is not tza'ar. The only place where tza'ar plays a role is in Sukkah. מצטער פטור מן הסוכה. Which is a חידוש נפלא! Because you have tza'ar you don't have to sit in the Sukkah, is such a thing? If I have tza'ar, I don't eat matzah, you know, I don't blow shofar because doesn't sound I don't like it. No such thing. By Sukkah it's an exception, whatever. But like this, in order to say that the Rabbanan were matir because of tza'ar, it must be issur derabbanan only. Why is this only issur derabbanan? So Tosafot brings that the Gemara later that this is a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה. So I think now is the time to go because it's נוגע to many things later to discuss מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה and מלאכה שאינו מתכוין.

We have this famous machloket between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon. Huh? Obviously not. There are two דינים. And in both, there is a machloket between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon. Let's start with אינו מתכוין. אינו מתכוין means you do a melachah, but you didn't intend to do a melachah. You intended to do something that's mutar, and because of what you did which is mutar, a melachah happened. The classical example in the Gemara is if you take a chair and you schlep it from one end of the of the room to the other. The floor is a Grass. Not grass, is sand. And when you schlep, it might make a חריץ, it might make scratch in the ground. If you make a scratch in the ground, that's a מלאכה דאורייתא. Which melachah? חורש, plowing. Yeah, okay. So the din is Rabbi Yehuda says you're not allowed to take the chair from there to here. And if you do take it and it makes a scratch, you are chayav. Rabbi Shimon says, no, you're not, because it's אינו מתכוון. The only time Rabbi Shimon is מודה by pesik reisha. If it's such a big chair that it's impossible for you to schlep it and it should not make a חריץ, it has to make a חריץ, that's pesik reisha. What's taytsh the words pesik reisha? Taytsh the words. Pesik reisha means cut off the head. Pesik reisha velo yamut, you cut off the head, and the Rambam gives an example, Rambam gives about a chicken. If someone says, \"I want to give my kid a head of a chicken to play with, so on Shabbos, there's nothing wrong with that, I'm going to cut off the head. I don't want to kill the chicken. Killing is an issur, a melachah. I just want to chop off the head so I should have a toy.\" That's pesik reisha velo yamut. So Rabbi Yehuda says you're chayav. And Rabbi Shimon no, so even Rabbi Shimon says in this case you're chayav, but if it's not pesik reisha, that means it doesn't have to happen, so Rabbi Shimon says even if it happens, it's no problem. מה שאין כן רבי יהודה, he says it's asur anyway. What are the two opinions again? Huh? Can you repeat, what are the two opinions, what they hold? Rabbi Yehuda says that when you do a something which is mutar, like schlepping the chair from that room to this this part of the room, it's mutar, there's nothing wrong with that, and dervayl a melachah happens, but you were not mitkaven for that melachah, you're allowed to do it. So even if the scratch happens to happen, it's no problem. And you're not allowed to do it, and Rabbi Shimon says you're allowed to. Rabbi Yehuda says you're not allowed to, and Rabbi Shimon says you are. Pesik reisha is where everyone agrees, even רבי שמעון, מודה רבי שמעון בפסיק רישא. So בפשטות we learn Rabbi Yehuda holds chayav. And Rabbi Shimon says or פטור ומותר, פטור אבל אסור could be, he doesn't use the word patur, he says mutar. It's mutar. He says mamash mutar. And lema'aseh we pasken it's mutar. Then there's a din of מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, it's another machloket. If you do a melachah, but the melachah that you do, the purpose of the melachah is not for what the melachah is usually made for. You're intending to do it, but it's not that, למשל, חופר, חופר בור, if you dig a hole, the reason you're digging a hole is because you need sand. The melachah of digging a hole is to make a hole. So you're doing the melachah of making a hole, but the purpose of the melachah is not for what the melachah is usually, or what the melachah was in the Mishkan. You're doing the melachah for the purpose of something else. If someone would bring you sand without, you wouldn't dig the hole. So you're digging the hole, but not because you need the hole. Or you extinguish a candle. The real melachah of extinguishing a candle is because you need the פחם, because you want the ashes. But if you extinguish a candle because you don't want the light, that's called a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה. So here we have a machloket also between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yehuda says מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is chayav, and Rabbi Shimon says מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is patur. So the Gemara says that this din that Shmuel said that צדה, you're allowed to, צידת נחש, or מפיס מורסא, you're allowed to these do these two things because it's only an איסור דרבנן, and לצער, מצער you're allowed. Why is it only an איסור דרבנן? Because it's a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה. Because it's a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה. צידת נחש, you know what צריכה לגופה means? If you want the נחש. You're capturing the נחש because you want him. But here you're not interested in the נחש, you're afraid he'll bite you, so you do, you cover him up with with a כלי. That's אינה צריכה לגופה. So according to רבי שמעון, אינה צריכה לגופה is only אסור מדרבנן. ולצורך צער, מפיס מורסא also, you have tza'ar, you have a pimple. So since this goes according to Rabbi Shimon, so even if you would do it the real way, you do it to to make it to make a פתח, what's the purpose, why do you want to do it? Not because you need the hole, you want to do it so it shouldn't hurt you. So then it's only a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, so it's only אסור מדרבנן, but because of tza'ar, the רבנן were מקיל. So this is the reason that we give. The problem with this is this is one of the the חשובע ענינים here in What is Rabbi Yehuda? Huh? According to Rabbi Yehuda, it would be אסור, it would seem like. In both cases? According both cases, צידת נחש and מפיס מורסא would be אסור according to Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara says only because it's Why is it? Because it's an איסור דאורייתא, because it's a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, but according to רבי יהודה, מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is חייב. Tza'ar is not מתיר an איסור דאורייתא, the רבנן can't be מתיר an איסור דאורייתא because of tza'ar. So the whole היתר that Shmuel says is because of מלאכה שאינה because it goes according to רבי שמעון, מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is only אסור דרבנן, וממילא שייך צער.

Komen ale and ask a שאלה: the Maggid Mishneh on the Rambam and all the other מפרשים. The The Rambam פסקנ'ס like this דין. The Rambam פסקנ'ס that all three cases you're allowed to do, פטור ומותר. The Rambam פסקנ'ס you're allowed to לצוד צבי, but that's a different thing. And he says you're allowed to לצוד נחש. If the נחש is going to bite you, you're allowed to cover him. And if the pimple hurts you, you're allowed to open it up. The question is, how do we pasken? Like R'' Shimon or like R'' Yehuda? So, all poskim pasken, say by אינו מתכוין we pasken like R'' Shimon that what? You can't. You can. Say by מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה we pasken like R'' Shimon that it's only אסור מדרבנן. M'meila we understand why these things are מותר. The Rambam is a יחיד who pasken's like R'' Yehuda like R'' Shimon by אינו מתכוין, and like R'' Yehuda by מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה. So he holds that in these cases, it's even though it's a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, it is an איסור דאורייתא. So, then how can you permit you to do this? Huh? But the Rambam doesn't pasken like that. But the Rambam doesn't permit you to do it because he holds like R'' Yehuda, which says it's דאורייתא. Right. So, the kashya is according to Rambam who holds like R'' Yehuda, how does he pasken like this דין? How does the Rambam say that you're allowed to do it? Which case does the Rambam hold is like Rabbi' Shimon? It's מדאורייתא? By מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, no. The first case, by אינו מתכוין like Rabbi' Shimon. By מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה he paskens like Rabbi' Yehuda that it's אסור מדאורייתא. And the Gemara says clearly that it could only according to Rabbi' Shimon it's מותר משום צער. But according to Rabbi' Yehuda, it seems seems to the Gemara not. So how does the Rambam who paskens like Rabbi' Yehuda say it's mutar? That kashya the Maggid Mishnah asks. And the Maggid Mishnah answers that the Rambam holds that in these cases, and we'll see both. If you're let's say the case let's start with the case of מפיס מורסא, it's going to be easier. That the case of מפיס מורסא, if you're not מתכוין to do it for the sake of the melacha, not is it a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, it's not a מלאכה בכלל. I'll explain it in a moment. I just want the words to sink into your mind. Again, what does the Maggid Mishnah say? He says that the Maggid Mishnah, that the Rambam holds that by מפיס מורסא, It's not a melacha. if you are not מתכוין to do it the way the melacha is, it's not a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, and then the Rambam would say that it's אסור מדאורייתא. It's not a מלאכה בכלל. And if it's not a מלאכה בכלל, then you're allowed to do it if you're not מתכוין for the melacha. Why? So, this is the One sec, no. Listen to the, it's a, דארף מען פארשטיין. I'll explain it. From the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch you get the these The Rambam learns, what's the issur of מפיס מורסא בכלל? What's the melachah here, we said before? You're taking No, not what you do. What, מכה בפטיש, it's תיקון כלי. מכה בפטיש, תיקון כלי, that's what the Rambam learns. And let me explain this in in the words that the Maggid Mishneh doesn't even say, but it's pshat in the Maggid Mishneh, and from the Alter Rebbe we see it even more. תיקון כלי is such a melachah that's different than any other melachah in in in ל״ט מלאכות. Tell you how. Every melachah has a ציור. Every melachah has a shape of what the melachah is. Somebody let's describe to me, what is the melachah of מבשל? I'll tell you. You take a pot, you put food in, you put it on the fire. We know that's melachah. It has a certain ציור. What's the melachah of כותב? You take a pen, you write words. Right, it could be many ציורים, you can write a ה or a ב. True, but it's all one ציור of writing. What's the melachah of הבערה? Making a fire. You light a fire. Everything. What's the ציור of the melachah of תיקון כלי? What do you mean? The last blow which is not really a description. Anything. מכה בפטיש you can say the same thing. The last blow which is not really a description. The last blow which is there's no ציור. You know what? Use the word blow, I'll tell you blow can be with a hammer. I could say blow, you go like that. What happens if there is a כלי that the סדר is that when you finish it, you give a blow? What would happen if you blow? You're חייב מיתה for blowing. Now, the same person who stands and blows like that, is is nothing. What's the difference between these two? He has mitkaven for that. He meant to finish the כלי with it, and this guy did not. So the whole melachah of תיקון כלי, the kavanah to be מתקן the כלי, not only is the kavanah of the melacha, but the kavanah makes it into a melacha. If not kavanah, there is no melacha. So, whenever a person does some something that finishes a כלי. But he's not mechaven to finish the כלי, even though he finished, it's not a pshat he did the melacha, like if you write and you're not mechaven to write, you did the melacha, the melacha is the writing, you didn't have a kavanah. Or you didn't do it for the צריכה לגופה. It's not a it's not a מלאכה בכלל. And that's the chiddush of תיקון כלי. How can you be chayav? So therefore, if you have kavanah for the melacha, that turns it תיקון כלי. And what's the ציור of it? Anything. You could do like this, you could do like that, you could stand, there's no ציור. Anything that you do which you're mechaven doing this to finish the כלי, חייב. It says, if you a person writes a book and he puts in the last letter, only one letter, is he chayav or patur? He's chayav. Not אלס כותב, because it's חצי שיעור, it's only one letter. He's chayav makeh b'patish! So, what's the ציור of makeh b'patish? Writing and standing and going, there's no ציור! So what makes makeh b'patish into a melacha? The kavanah! This is what the Maggid Mishneh means to say that when you have when you the Rambam learns that since מפיס מורסא we said before, he doesn't learn it's משום בונה. See, if it would be משום בונה, what would be then? Then it's an איסור דאורייתא, even without kavanah it's a melacha. Ela mai it's a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, the Rambam says it's chayav. But the Rambam holds that it's a גדר of מכה בפטיש, and מכה בפטיש is a melacha which if you're not mechaven to do it for that purpose, it's not a מלאכה בכלל. That's why it's mutar. So מפיס מורסא, when you want to do it because you're not mechaven to do the to make the the מכה בפטיש the תיקון כלי, it's mutar. But so how is מפיס מורסא מכה בפטיש again? It's תיקון כלי, we said. You're metaken, or you're metaken the person, you're metaken the מכה, I don't know whichever. What does it mean metaken? You fix. You're fixing. Fixing your wound. So what other purpose can you have to pop a pimple other than fixing the person? Here, so you shouldn't have tzaar. That's what we're saying. We're doing it for the sake That's to fix, you're fixing the tzaar of the person. No, why why? Why is this בכלל You're fixing the beauty of the person, you're fixing No, no, no. Tzaar is taking away tzaar is not fixing the person. So what's fixing the person? What's the difference between tzaar and fixing the person? Could be that the tzaar the taking away automatically fixes the person, but they're two separate things. There are two inyanim. There's taking away tzaar. When you don't have tzaar anymore, then you're fixed. But taking away tzaar is a separate thing. It's just one brings the brings the other thing, which we'll get to it in a second. But without your tzaar, you wouldn't want to fix it. Why are you why No, but you're not interested you're not interested in being fixed. You're interested in taking away tzaar. The only way you cannot have tzaar is to be fixed. That's true. Like you say, the only way if you take away tzaar, you automatically fixed. True, but that's not your kavanah. Kavanah is just not to have tzaar anymore. Like I said before, any מכה בפטיש, when you do something, you give the bang, which you're fixing, but you didn't intend to do it, lemaaseh you fixed it, but you're still not he's not patur, it's not a melacha, we said. It's not a melacha, because the kavanah makes it the melachah. Shouldn't eino miskaven be the same though? Ah? Eino miskaven should be the same, no? What do you mean eino miskaven be the same? So you also don't have you don't have the אין כוונה, eino miskaven doesn't mean you didn't do the melachah. Right, but you don't have the kavanah there either. You don't have the kavanah, so it's a melachah without kavanah, so you have to know what's the din a melachah without kavanah. Here it's more than that, here it's not a melachah without kavanah, it's no melachah. What if you say מכה בפטיש is eino miskaven? Ah? What if you say מכה בפטיש is eino miskaven? If you would not be miskaven on מכה בפטיש, it wouldn't be a melachah at all either. Right, you're just scratching your face and accidentally popped it, it wouldn't be Right, that's מפיס מורסא then. Lema'aseh it popped, but it's not being miskaven. Yeah, what if you scratched What about the other ones, צד? Oh! What about the inyan of צד נחש? How does the Rambam מיקל there? So the Maggid Mishneh mentions it together, but it's not clear exactly what he means. In the Alter Rebbe, it comes out that what he means is that you have to do it with a the Rambam says you have to do it with a shinui. If you catch the nachash in a different way, not a normal way, then it's only a מלאכה דרבנן. Because mid'oraita, you're only chayav if you do the melachah in a normal way, but if you do it in an abnormal way, it's lechatchilah not an איסור דאורייתא, and memeila, if it's לשם צער, you're allowed. But what I wanted to bring really That's a Actually, tomorrow in the שיעור כללי we're going to discuss this more. But I want to bring out I wanted to really get to what Rav Chaim says. Rav Chaim Brisker, it's a famous Rav Chaim on this din. Rav Chaim is everyone Actually, even yesterday when I was there and I listened to one of the שיעורים for one of the מגידי שיעור in Ahlei Torah, he actually was talking about this Rav Chaim. Rav Chaim says that the Rambam holds that this is not a גדר of מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, it's a גדר of אינו מתכוון. There are two things: there's מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, there's אינו מתכוין. He says the peshat is you're not מכוין for the מלאכה. In other words, no, it's a מלאכה, but the Rambam פסק'ס by אינו מתכוין like who? Like R'' Shimon. And mimeila, לשם צער, the רבנן, it's only דרבנן, if anything. So you're allowed to do it because it's אינו מתכוין. So again, he says like this: there's it's a מלאכה, it's not a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, besides שאינה צריכה לגופה, it's also אינו מתכוין. And since it's a מלאכה שאינו מתכוין, אינו מתכוין is, even according to the Rambam, not אסור מדאורייתא. Maybe it's אסור מדרבנן, or it's בכלל מותר. And this why is it אינו מתכוין? Because he's not מכוין to do the מלאכה. The מלאכה is מכה בפטיש, but he's מכוין to take away the צער. So it's אינו מתכוין, and by אינו מתכוין he says even he says is also also he's not אסור מדאורייתא. The problem he has with this is: but it's a פסיק רישא! We've been saying the whole time the moment you do it to take away the צער, automatically there's a תיקון כלי. Yeah, but you said it by It's a different vort than than Forget about the vort of the Maggid Mishneh. The Maggid Mishneh says that without כוונה it's not a מלאכה, תיקון כלי. He's saying different, we're saying now forget about that vort. Go back to normal. Every מלאכה is a מלאכה, no matter you have a כוונה or not. If you're not מכוין, then it's a מלאכה without כוונה, אינה צריכה לגופה. So he says the Rambam will learn that this is not a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, it's a מלאכה שאינו מתכוין. And אינו מתכוין, even the Rambam. The whole kashya was the Gemara it comes out that it's a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה and that's why it's משום צער מותר. But the Rambam holds that not a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is אסור. The Gemara says it only goes according to ר' Shimon. So he says the Rambam learns it's a מלאכה שאינו מתכוין. And מלאכה שאינו מתכוין is not אסור מדאורייתא even according to the Rambam, because he פסק'ס like ר' Shimon in this case. And that's why it's מותר. The שאלה is, but it's a גדר of a פסיק רישא, and we said if you do something that causes another מלאכה to be done, even if you're not מכוין, but if it has to happen, it's אסור מדאורייתא, מודה ר' שמעון בפסיק רישא ולא ימות. So in this case, it should be אסור מדאורייתא. Why? Because you taking doing it לשם צער, so it's not the כוונה for the מלאכה, but automatically, like you said before, if you take away the צער, you're מכוין... So he says that the Rambam learns like the Aruch. There is a שיטה of the Aruch, which is brought down in Tosafot in Ketubot and different places. Tosafot says that like this: this דין that the פסיק רישא ולא ימות, a פסיק רישא, even ר' שמעון is מודה that you are חייב, is not in a case where it's a פסיק רישא דלא ניחא ליה. There's a פסיק רישא דניחא ליה and a פסיק רישא דלא ניחא ליה. There's a פסיק רישא that you are happy with, like this guy, what would be in the case of schlepping the the chairs? And you don't want the חריץ, it's just a big chair, and if you schlep it, it'll happen automatically. So the Aruch says if the חריץ is something you don't want, then it's even then it's mutar. Then it's a regular אינו מתכוין and it's not doesn't have the דין of פסיק רישא. That's the דין, because it's פסיק רישא דלא ניחא ליה. So he wants to say that the Aruch that the Rambam holds like the Aruch, u'memila azoy: this is a דין not of אינה צריכה לגופה, it's אינו מתכוין. If it's אינו מתכוין, it should be mutar. אלא מאי, it's אינו מתכוין with a פסיק רישא, it's a פסיק רישא דלא ניחא ליה. That's how he answers. Huh? Yeah, he does want it. No, he doesn't want the תיקון. No, so there's a she'elah: לא ניחא ליה and לא אכפת ליה. Doesn't care. That's not what he's interested in. He's not interested in that. He doesn't want he wants just the tza'ar. Tells you, do you want a תיקון? I don't need a תיקון. I is going to happen anyway, but I'm not interested, so mimila if according to the Aruch, it's no problem. Then you could open the fridge if there's if there's a light on it, to get a drink on Shabbos, because you don't care if the light goes on? Exactly. That's one of the היתרים, yeah. Do people say you're allowed to do that? When we're private and not taped, I'll talk to you. I just want to say one vort, and this is not נוגע to this Gemara, but בכללות אינו מתכוין, פסיק רישא, and and and מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה: isn't every מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה automatically a אינו מתכוין? Or I'll ask you no, I'll ask you the other way. I said no, you're right, I said it wrong. Isn't every אינו מתכוין automatically a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה? Yeah, 100%, yeah. No. Yeah? Yeah. Yeah. If you don't intend to do that מלאכה, you don't need that מלאכה. It seems like it's almost the same thing. Yeah, what's that You could need a מלאכה, but maybe you did it by accident, yeah. That's a אינו מתכוין is not by accident. אינו מתכוין is on purpose, it means you're opening the fridge to get the drink and you happen to turn the light on. That's the whole point. Yeah. I just want to read one line. Der Alter Rebbe, and I'm not gonna tell you where it is, I want you to look it up yourself. הכל מודים בפסיק רישא ולא ימות שחייב עליו מן התורה לפעמים. Yeah, we said that if it's a פסיק רישא, even though it's אינו מתכוין, you're חייב. פרעגט דער אלטער רבי, וכיצד מצינו זה, והלא כשאינו מתכוין למלאכה בוודאי אינה צריכה לגופה, right? So even though it's a פסיק רישא, but you should be פטור of מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה. Yeah, where is it? Huh? Where is it? Here, we said that if it's an אינו מתכוין, but it's a פסיק רישא, you're חייב. But if we פסקן not like the Rambam that מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is also פטור, isn't every אינו מתכוין, even if it's a פסיק רישא, but that's not what you're interested in, so you should always be פטור? So how could there be a דין of פסיק רישא that you're חייב? And? And find the answer! Come on. And I'm sure you won't be able to go to sleep like I always say at night because you don't know the answer yet. Can you, can you give another