Okay, באמת, we asked a question last time, I started and I didn't finish it, something I said the אלטער רבי, שלחן ערוך says, so we're going to discuss that for a little while, even though it's not directly נוגע to the גמרא itself, directly to the שקלא וטריא, but it's in the ענינים that the גמרא touched. One of the things that the גמרא touched was זעץ זיך, חבר, זעץ זיך! שנעל! זריזות! זריזים מקדימים. I'm not asking for מקדימים, I'm asking for you to come on time. מקדימים is early. Don't be early, be on time. So, in גמרא שמואל said that there are three cases which is פטור ומותר: that's צידת צבי, צידת נחש, and מפיס מורסא. And the reason בפשטות why it's מותר is because it's a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה. And מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, there is a מחלוקת between רבי יהודה and רבי שמעון. רבי יהודה says it's חייב, it's אסור מדאורייתא. רבי שמעון says מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is not אסור מדאורייתא, it's only אסור מדרבנן. So these things, צידת נחש and מפיס מורסא, is a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, so really מדאורייתא it's not אסור. Oh, so מדאורייתא it's not אסור, the רבנן have a right that if it's a צער or it's a היזק, the רבנן were מתיר. That's That's what's נוגע to the גמרא. So לפועל what happened, we got into this ענין of what מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is, and then we got into the idea of the What's the other case which is also a מחלוקת of רבי יהודה and רבי שמעון? אינו מתכוין. מלאכה שאינה מתכוין. מלאכה שאינה מתכוין. And we said there are these two things: there is מלאכה שאינה מתכוין and מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, and I explained what it is, and it's not נוגע to this סוגיא the difference, but since it touched upon it and it's a important סוגיא in הלכות שבת, in מסכת שבת later on, and I don't know when else will we have a chance to discuss it, that's why I said let's go into this. מלאכה שאינה מתכוין means if you're doing—I'm just repeating it בקיצור, I explained it last time—if you're doing something that's מותר, no problems, but through the through the פעולה that you'll be doing which is מותר, an אסורדיקע פעולה is going to come out. For instance, you're going to שלעפ a chair from this corner to this corner. No problem, there's no איסור in bringing a chair from one corner of the room to the other corner. But when you're שלעפינג it on the floor, and the floor is made of sand, it could make a חריץ, it could make a line in the sand. If you make a line in the sand on שבת, it's a איסור דאורייתא. So רבי יהודה says, you're not allowed to שלעפ it, because if you do make that חריץ, you'll be חייב, so don't שלעפ it. And רבי שמעון says no, there's no problem, since that's not what you're intending, you're not interested, you're not מכוין to make the חריץ, you're מכוין to bring the chair to there. So רבי יהודה says, I mean רבי שמעון says, it's מותר! You're allowed to שלעפ. A חריץ will happen? We don't care. Why don't we care? Because it happened without כוונה, אינו מתכוין. That's one דין. Then there's a דין of מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה. מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is if you intend to do the מלאכה, but the purpose of why you want to do the מלאכה is not for what the מלאכה really is intended. The example is: Opening the fridge. Keep on with the fridge! If you dig a hole in the ground, in the sand, in the earth, which is a מלאכה דאורייתא of חורש, but your intention is not because you need a hole. Because you need the dirt. You want sand, you need sand for something. That's a מלאכה, it's a real מלאכה, and you're doing it with כוונה, but it's אינה צריכה לגופה. It's not the reason you need it is not for what the מלאכה is normally set for. So here again the מחלוקת, Rabbi Yehuda says it's חייב מדאורייתא. Usually when we say חייב, it's always מדאורייתא, and Rabbi Shimon says in this case it's not חייב מדאורייתא, it's פטור. פטור אבל אסור. Those are the two cases. The question that I asked, if you remember, is another דין, a third דין, not the third case, in אינו מתכוון itself. What happens if it's a פסיק רישא? פסיק רישא means, and just to make clear that everyone should hear this and clear understand, that if, take for instance, the chair that you're going to שלעפ from one corner to the other. Not it might make a חריץ, it's definitely going to make a חריץ. If the chair is so big that if you שלעפ it, it's definitely going to make a חריץ. So here the גמרא says even Rabbi Shimon, who says אינו מתכוון is normally מותר, פסיק רישא, מודה Rabbi Shimon פסיק רישא is חייב. If it's for sure that if you do make that חריץ, which you will if you שלעפ it, you'll be חייב. Sorry. The question that I left with was this: I asked the question if you why would a פסיק רישא be חייב? Because you're מכוון. But even if you're it's as if you're מכוון, but isn't it a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה? נניח דקא if it's a פסיק רישא, you didn't intend to make the חריץ, but it's going to happen וודאי. So it's as good as if you were מכוון and it's חייב. But even if you're מכוון, but it's still a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, no? When you make the hole in the ground because you need the sand, are you מכוון to make a hole or not? Yes. Nevertheless, Rabbi Shimon says you're פטור. Why? Because you're not intending for what the so if it's an אינו מתכוון פסיק רישא, you're definitely not intending to make the חריץ. So even though it's a פסיק רישא, so the פטור, the reason it's מותר because of אינו מתכוון doesn't apply because it's a פסיק רישא, it's still as if you were מכוון. Good. So let's say it's as if you were מכוון, but why isn't it a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה? There must be a possibility to be one without the other. There must be a possibility that it's an אינו מתכוון פסיק רישא and it's called צריכה לגופה. How's that? That's what the אלטר רבי is going to explain. But I just want to, before I get even to answer, let me just ask you: According to the רמבם, is this a problem? No, because he holds like Rabbi Yehuda, which means that you're חייב anyways. You're חייב anyways on מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה. So פסיק רישא is חייב? No. מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה. The רמבם we keep on saying, no, is the only one that פוסק'נס that a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is חייב. So the רמבם doesn't go in a straight like everything like Rabbi Shimon. The רמבם פוסק'נס like Rabbi Shimon by מלאכה אינו מתכוון and he פוסק'נס like Rabbi Yehuda by אינה צריכה לגופה. So if you פוסק'ן in one case, that then there's no problem. Then you say why is a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, I mean why a מלאכה אינו מתכוון פסיק רישא חייב? Ah, it's a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, according to the רמבם it's still חייב, because מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is חייב. So there's no problem. No, not the ערוך, the ערוך is אינה צריכה לגופה if it's a לא ניחא ליה. If I mean yeah, that's something else. If no, if a מלאכה אינו if a פסיק רישא דלא ניחא ליה, we're talking not this is not we're not talking about that now. No, we're talking about מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה. Actually, the גמרא says that שמואל פוסק'נס like Rabbi Shimon by אינו מתכוון and like Rabbi Yehuda by מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה. So then it makes a lot of sense. The קשיא we're asking is on Rabbi Shimon himself. Rabbi Shimon holds in both cases. He says אינו מתכוון is מותר, but פסיק רישא is אסור, and the מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה he says is מדאורייתא מותר, it's פטור. So how could a פסיק רישא be חייב? That's the שאלה.

So we have here the אלטר רבע'ס שולחן ערוך, and I'll read it for you בקיצור. In סימן רעח, the end of רעח, which is סעיף ד, the אלטר רבי says like this: הכל מודים בפסיק רישא ולא ימות שחייב עליה מן התורה לפעמים. Okay. Then he says, כיצד מצינו זה? He's asking the שאלה just like this: How could you say such a thing? והלא כשאינו מתכוון למלאכה, if you're not intending for the מלאכה, even if it's a פסיק רישא, but you're not intending, בוודאי אין צורך לגופה. כלל. So, it's obviously not צריך, that's not what you needed it for. So, even as far as אינו מתכוון you should be חייב, you still should be פטור because it's אינה צריכה לגופה. So the אלטר רבי answers, yes, מצינו כגון שהדבר ידוע in a case where you know שנוח לו במלאכה שנעשית בלא כוונה. You could have a מלאכה that you do without כוונה, but if the מלאכה will be done, you'll be happy about it. You'll be happy in a way that we could call it צריכה לגופה. In other words, the אלטר רבי is saying you're possible to be אינו מתכוון, and it could be צריכה לגופה. לכאורה, if it's אינו מתכוון, how צריכה לגופה? So, I'll tell you I'll say by heart the example he gives. One of the cases is when you have a barrel of wine, and then you have a hole for the wine to come out. You want to stuff up the hole, so you have a שמטע, piece of cloth, a place, and you stick it in, and it closes it up. When you're sticking it in, what happens? Wine No, that you're not fixing כלי, it's a temporary thing. The wine will squeeze out. To squeeze wine out, it's a איסור דאורייתא, you're not allowed to do it. But you're not intending, you're not pushing this שמטע in because you want the wine from the שמטע to come out. You want to stuff up the hole. Stuffing up a hole is not a problem, it's a היתר. So it's אינו מתכוון. But that's פסיק רישא. Because if you do it and you squeeze hard in order for the hole to be stuffed, is going to is going to squeeze out. Okay. But that's not your intention, so it's a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה. What happens if you think to yourself, you know what, I'm interested, טאקע, in squeezing, in closing the hole, but a vial of wine is going to come, it's a waste, so you put a a cup under that thing that when the wine will drip out when you squeeze it, you should catch the wine, it shouldn't waste. So here you have like this, it's אינו מתכוון. You were not מכוון to do it, that's not your כוונה. But it's still, when it happens, it's צריכה לגופה, you want the wine. You know it's going to happen, it's a פסיק רישא, and it's חייב. איי, you ask the שאלה, every פסיק רישא by אינו מתכוון is automatically a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה? It's not. It is a מלאכה שצריכה לגופה. Yeah. If you want it to happen, it means it's צריכה. You need it, you need the wine. You want it, so it's צריכה לגופה. Yeah, but לפועל, you want it, so it's צריכה לגופה. You do want it, right, so לפועל, and you know it's going to happen. That's what he says. You want I could read you the words inside, it'll be better. כגון נקב שבחביות, read אלטר רבי, שמציאין בו היין, the hole in the jar that the wine comes out, פקוק בנעורת של פשתן it's stuffed up with a piece of flax. שהנעורת בלולה מיין הרבה, this piece of cloth is absorbs a lot of wine. וכשמוציאה וחוזר ופוקקה when you take it out from the hole and then you stuff it back, ומהדקה בחוזק and you push it hard, אי אפשר שלא יסחוט יין ממנה, it's impossible that wine shouldn't come out. ואף על פי שאינו מתכוון אלא לסתום הנקב, all you're interested in is to close the hole. הרי זה פסיק רישא, because it has to. ואם יש כלי תחת פקיקת הנעורת, if there's a כלי under the stuffing, שהיין הנסחט ירד לתוכה that the wine that's going to be squeezed out will come out, הרי זה חייב על פקיקה זו, you're חייב for the stuffing, why? שהדבר ידוע, we know, שנוח לו ביין הנסחט ויורד אל הכלי, we know you want the wine. How do you know we how do we know you want the wine? He put a cup under it. שיוכל ליהנות ממנו, that he should be able to have הנאה from it, כשיהיה בכלי when it's in the כלי. אבל כשיהיה בלוע בנעורת אין בו הנאה של כלום. If it's in the cloth, you get nothing out of it. So you put a כלי, הרי זו מלאכה הרי זה מלאכה, נו, צריכה or אינה צריכה? צריכה. הצריכה לגופה, אף על פי שלא נתכוון לה. This is what the אלטר רבי answers. This is one point I wanted to make when we talk about these two ענינים of מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה and אינו מתכוון.

Now, another point I want to make here. There's a ביאור from the רבי in the ענין of מלאכה, אה? Because that's not why he did it. The reason he's squeezing this is not for the wine, he's not intending for the wine. But while it's there already, he's happy with it. He'll be חייב, no. So in this case, oh, he'll be חייב, right. And what if he doesn't have it? He'll be פטור. Why would he be פטור? Because he's not intending to take the wine. Not because of אינו מתכוון, because it's a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה. But when he puts the wine, it's צריכה. It's צריכה, he wants the wine. No, he's saying no. If it's a פסיק רישא and it's אינה צריכה לגופה, he טאקע would be פטור. In other words, let me let me טאקע פירוש the the answer to the שאלה. So, according to this, if you have an אינו מתכוון and a פסיק רישא, in a normal case would you be חייב or פטור? In a normal case, if you're not מכוון, it's אינה צריכה לגופה. So, normally, a regular case of אינו מתכוון with a פסיק רישא, which we all know you're חייב, but it still would be פטור Because it's אינה צריכה לגופה. So when is this דין that you're חייב for אינו מתכוין with a פסיק רישא? When it's מתכוין. When it's when it's No, when it's when it's צריכה לגופה! And that would be an example like this, or you could have other examples, כיוצא בזה. So that's the case. That answers the שאלה. Ah? Well, whatever it is. He wants to have it, he doesn't want to ruin it. That means he wants it. He wants it. If if the אמת is, if it's a case where you know for sure he's not interested in it, then it's טאקע not a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה. What we're looking for is a possibility of a case, that's all. Because if there's no such case, then the two דינים don't make sense. You could never, if you hold מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is פטור, you can never be חייב for a פסיק רישא. There's no such thing. So all we have to do is find it that it's not connected. It's a possibility to be אינו מתכוין and be צריכה לגופה. לכאורה it makes no sense. If it's אינו מתכוין, so how could it be צריכה לגופה? If you're not intending, that's not what you want. But the אמת is it could be not מתכוין and still צריכה לגופה, you still want it. It's אינו מתכוין. We still אינו מתכוין means you're not מכוין to do, that's not why you're doing the מלאכה, not for what purpose. You're not pushing the thing, you're not squeezing out the wine because you want to squeeze out the wine. But we're only doing it because like a בדיעבד, since you're squeezing anyway, might as well catch it. But the fact that you say might as well catch it, makes it צריכה לגופה. Add it up. You have another He says כיוצא בזה. If you have other cases, I'm sure you could figure out other cases the same way. So where is where is the אינו מתכוין? Where is the אינו מתכוין? You do something that you're מכוין for היתר, לפועל a איסור comes out, and that איסור you're happy that it's happening, even though that's not why you're doing it. You're not doing it for that for because you're not מכוין to do it. Okay, we we hear you hear the נקודה. Now you'll find cases, אדרבה. Let's let's go ווייטער, let's go ווייטער. While we're at the subject for אינו מתכוין with with a מלאכה שצריכה לגופה, so the רבי explains a very interesting יסוד in the basis of the מחלוקת between רבי יהודה and רבי שמעון, that רבי יהודה holds דבר שאינו מתכוין and מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is מדאורייתא מותר and אסור, and רבי שמעון says מותר. So the רבי explains it very interesting in חלק ז׳, פרשת בחקתי, based on a ראגאטשאווער, בנוגע a different דין of רבי יהודה and רבי שמעון. There's a מחלוקת between רבי יהודה and the חכמים, ah? Explain the reasoning behind why רבי יהודה says חייב and רבי שמעון says פטור by both of these cases. What's the נקודה, יסוד of the מחלוקת? There's a מחלוקת between רבי יהודה and the חכמים someplace else, בנוגע ביעור חמץ. And that's the ראגאטשאווער's style. He takes two סוגיות which have no connection, ביעור חמץ and מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, you know, what kind of connection does it have? And brings out its נקודה. Well, רבי יהודה and the חכמים, which רבי שמעון, one of the חכמים, we'll we'll see. And he says a שיטה with רבי יהודה and רבי שמעון in a different place. Let's start. How do you destroy חמץ? There's a דין of תשביתו, you have to destroy חמץ. How do you destroy it? Burn it. So there's a מחלוקת. רבי יהודה says, אין ביעור חמץ אלא שריפה, the only way you could burn it. חכמים say That's besides ביטול, destroying חמץ. What do the חכמים say, how do you destroy חמץ? He says, מפרר וזורה לרוח או מטיל לים. You could take the חמץ, break it up in tiny, tiny pieces, throw it in the air, now it doesn't, or throw it in the ים that no one could ever get to it, no one could have anything from it. So he says that the נקודה of their מחלוקת is like this: The תורה says תשביתו, destroy it. There are two types of destroying. You could destroy, and this is the ראגאטשאווער's שפראך, his his style, you could destroy the עצם, it's not חסידות, it's it's נגלה, you could destroy the עצם, and you could destroy the ציור. You could destroy the thing itself, or you could destroy just the ציור means that the shape, not only shape, the accessibility to it, the using of it, sometimes they use the word השתמשות. So you have two things: you have the עצם זאך, the thing itself, then you have the things that it's accessible to you. רבי יהודה holds when the תורה says תשביתו, what's called destroying if you destroy the עצם thing? The only way you could destroy the עצם thing is by burning it. Because if you break it up, it's still there. You throw it in the ים, it's still there. אלא מאי? You can't use it, you can't sell it, there's nothing you could do with it. The ציור is נתבטל, is נשבת. So רבי יהודה says that what's תשביתו? When the תורה says destroy, it means destroy the עצם, so there is no other way but שריפה. But חכמים say, which includes רבי שמעון, that even if you destroy just the usability, the ציור of it, it's also called destroying, and you're מקיים the מצוה of תשביתו. And the ראגאטשאווער says this is לשיטתיה of רבי יהודה and רבי שמעון someplace else. When it says והשבתי חיה רעה מן הארץ, the אויבערשטער says לעתיד לבוא I'm going to destroy חיה רעה מן הארץ. So רבי יהודה says he's going to destroy, the אויבערשטער will destroy these wild animals. And רבי שמעון says no, the animals will stay, he'll destroy them that they will not be חיות רעות, they will not be wild anymore. So the ראגאטשאווער says it's לשיטתיה. רבי יהודה holds when it says תשביתו it means the עצם, so when it says והשבתי חיה רעה, it means the עצם, the animal itself, finish, no more animal. And רבי שמעון, who is a part of the חכמים who holds that by תשביתו it doesn't mean the עצם, it's just the ציור, so here also, the עצם of the animal will stay, the ציור, the behavior of the animal will become נתבטל. This is the ראגאטשאווער. Comes the רבי and he says, I remember when the רבי said this, it was a פארברענגען that came after the אוהל. The רבי came from the אוהל, and there was a sudden פארברענגען, and that's when the רבי spoke this ענין. Near the end of the שיחה here, in שיחות חלק ז' פרשת בחוקותי, it was, start here it says י\"ט כסלו - וישב, this was, doesn't mention. There's another פארברענגען came after the אוהל. Anyway, the רבי explained like this: I'll say בהמשך to the ראגאטשאווער another מחלוקת רבי יהודה and רבי שמעון by שבת, that what? That מחלוקת of these two דינים: דבר שאינו מתכוין רבי יהודה says חייב, רבי שמעון says not; מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה רבי יהודה says חייב, רבי שמעון says not. What's the גדר of a מלאכה? The גדר of the מלאכה, this was the חידוש of the רבי. It's all based, it says וביום השביעי תשבות. You understand? תשביתו, same שורש. והשבתי חיה רעה מן הארץ. So the שאלה is what is called תשביתו? When it says תשבות, you can't do a מלאכה. Why can't you a מלאכה? Because you have to rest. Resting is the same thing, because destroying means getting rid, you have to get rid of the מלאכה. So the תורה uses the לשון תשבות. Now, since it has the לשון תשבות, and that's called a מלאכה, that if you don't keep the תשבות, you're doing a מלאכה, the שאלה is if you did the עצם המלאכה but you didn't have the ציור. If you hold תשביתו means that you have to get rid of the עצם, so in order to rest it means you have to get rid of the עצם of the מלאכה, not to do the עצם מלאכה. And if you hold תשביתו means just the ציור, by מלאכה also, if you do the עצם מלאכה, but you just don't have the ציור of the מלאכה, it's also called that you didn't do מלאכה. What's the עצם of the מלאכה and what's the ציור? So this is the חידוש of the רבי: The עצם of the מלאכה is the מלאכה itself. You do, you take a מלאכה, you write, you make a חריץ in the ground, I mean that's a מלאכה. What's the ציור of the מלאכה? The כוונה! The תורה says by שבת there has to be מלאכת מחשבת, כוונה. So כוונה, if you do the מלאכה with the כוונה, you have the עצם of the מלאכה and the ציור. So what happens if you're missing in the כוונה? You don't have the כוונה. This is the מחלוקת. רבי יהודה says even if you don't have the כוונה, that means you don't have the ציור of the מלאכה, but you still did the עצם המלאכה, what does רבי יהודה say? חייב. If you don't have the כוונה, that means what are you missing? The ציור, but you still have the עצם. So רבי יהודה says if you have the עצם, you didn't get rid of it. Just like by חמץ, if you broke it up, threw it away, you don't have the ציור, but you have the עצם, you still have the חמץ and you're not מקיים תשביתו. Same thing, you're not מקיים תשבות if you have the עצם המלאכה. It's still called you have the מלאכה. So even if you're missing the ציור, which is the כוונה, then you're still חייב. Comes רבי שמעון and he says: No, I hold that as long as the ציור is not there, you're מקיים תשביתו, the same thing here, as long as you're missing the כוונה of the מלאכה, you don't have the מלאכה, because without the ציור means you got rid of the מלאכה, you got תשבות, you rested from the מלאכה. And these two דינים: מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, which means it's a חסרון in the כוונה, you're not מכוון to do what the מלאכה is for. אינו מתכוין is the same thing, you're not מכוון to do the מלאכה. So רבי יהודה says you're still חייב, and רבי שמעון says you're פטור. So it comes out that these two דינים go together, and it's all based on one נקודה, and the רבי brings in the הערות there from the פני יהושע באריכות, that he goes in and he says that the נקודה of both דינים is based on מלאכת מחשבת, and מלאכת מחשבת is the כוונה, which is the ציור of the מלאכה, and therefore this is the מחלוקת. The only thing I'm going to finish off, and I'm not going to go further because it'll take too long, if so, how could you פסקן in one like this and in one like this? How could שמואל in the גמרא or the רמב״ם פסקנ׳ט אינו מתכוון like ר׳ שמעון? So I'm asking, the רבי in the הערה asked that, yes. If you if you hold that the עיקר is to get rid of the עצם, then in both cases you have to say you're חייב. If you say getting rid of the ציור is enough, so in both cases you should be פטור: אינו מתכוון and and מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה. Why is it that the רמב״ם or שמואל in the גמרא says סבירא ליה כרבי יהודה כרבי שמעון by אינו מתכוון, וסבירא ליה כרבי יהודה by מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה? And that's exactly how the רמב״ם פסקנ׳ט. It has to be something in something in addition, something that they hold. It's definitely connected to the ציור and עצם, there's no שאלה, but certain things may be... So I'll read you just one just to answer it. I'll read you one line of the הערה here, because the רבי asked the שאלה here, after he gives this whole ביאור he asked the שאלה on himself. He says, ומה ש, and this is the middle of הערה י״ט, ומה שלפי מסקנת הש״ס, according to the end of the גמרא, בדבר שאינו מתכוון סבר לה כרבי שמעון, שמואל holds like ר׳ שמעון, ובמלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה סבר לה כרבי יהודה, how could that be according to my ביאור, the רבי says. So he says, one יש לומר בב׳ אופנים, so I'll just read you the second one, the first one is not so clear. That the second one is like this, that according to שמואל, תשביתו means ביטול התואר, you have to get rid just of the ציור. The עצם doesn't matter. And therefore he פסקנ׳ט by אינו מתכוון like ר׳ שמעון that you're פטור, because it's not called a מלאכה. אלא דסבירא ליה ובמלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, מכיון שהוא מכוין, לפועל you are מכוין to do the מלאכה. אף שכוונתו למלאכה אחרת, your כוונה is for a different purpose, but you're מכוין, יש בה גם צורת המלאכה. שמואל holds that you even have the ציור! שמואל holds like this: to get rid of the ציור is good enough to say that you're not חייב. He holds that מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה you still have the ציור also. Because the bottom line is that you're still מכוין to do the מלאכה. אלא מאי, it's not for the כוונה what the מלאכה is usually done for. So, we hold that it's also called missing the ציור, because סוף כל סוף it's lack of the כוונה, and שמואל holds in this part you do have the ציור. Okay, this is נוגע בזה. And the same thing with the רמב״ם, obviously. No, the רמב״ם the same thing, he holds like שמואל, the רמב״ם פסקנ׳ט like שמואל. Okay, that's נוגע בזה, let's go ווייטער. Huh? Yeah, the רבי is amazing. And if you understand it, it's even more amazing. You get it? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So how do you say מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה has a ציור? Because it does have כוונה. What's the difference between אינו מתכוון and מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה? אינו מתכוון you're not even מכוין for that second thing, for the for the מלאכה. That's No, שמואל holds that. We're talking בעצם the רבי himself was מסביר ר׳ שמעון himself holds that if you're אינה צריכה לגופה you're missing the ציור. But שמואל can hold that he holds that because לפועל you're מכוין, you still have the ציור also. So בעצם if you don't have the ציור it's not חייב, but this is considered according to שמואל, and the same thing according to the רמב״ם we'll have to say. The רבי doesn't mention the רמב״ם. There are many, many הערות there in that page and it's כדאי to look it through. If you have the time, look it through and it just gives you an insight into the whole thing. כ״ז, I'll tell you, I think page 191. Yes, לקוטי שיחות חלק כ״א, yeah, it starts on page 190. And actually, שיחות has before, the תשובה is on page, with חמץ, with this, on page 189, goes into this and the רבי is מחדש the דין of תשביתו, with all the הערות here with the פני יהושע, with a whole אריכות here. In other words, if if you want to repeat want to repeat someplace this page with the הערות and everything, that will take that's a פלפול for an hour and a half just to repeat what it says here in the טעקסט. Even though it's one page here. I once heard from when מענדל וועכטער became a ליובאוויטשער, you know who מענדל וועכטער is? Yeah, used to be a סאטמאר real strong סאטמאר חסיד, he was a רב and then he became a ליובאוויטשער. Then he had all these צרות in this thing, anyway, so I once spoke to him and he was the main תלמיד of the סאטמארער רבי. Once the סאטמארער רבי was sick and he couldn't come to שול, so he didn't get an עליה שישי, they asked him who should they give his עליה to? So he said give it to מענדל וועכטער. Then, at that time of course his best... Even when he was a ליובאוויטשער? No! Oh, this is to show how strong סאטמאר he was. So once I was speaking to him, so he tells me these words: The סאטמארער רבי'ס ספר, main ספר is called ויואל משה. So he wants I used דרך אגב he was tells talking, so he says to me, \"In one הערה in לקוטי שיחות there is more לומדות than the whole ויואל משה.\" So in this one page here, such לומדות, and such things in this ענין... So that's... How do מתנגדים How do מתנגדים do what? Deny the greatness? Oh, that's... How do they miss it? That's a good That's It's just ממש arrogance? How do they miss it, though? Yeah. Okay. This is not a פארברענגען. So, I actually want a שיחה שיעור. It's not a פארברענגען either. Yeah, it's a השקפה question. השקפה question. Okay, let's go weiter.

Since we're talking about מתנגדים, that הרש״ש here let's goes into says a certain line which does not fit with anything, it does fit I mean, the רבי is מסביר the whole ענין. Yeah, הרש״ש though, they got to take like Yeah. Yeah. And in ליובאוויטש actually, they would tear out his פירוש from the גמראs. What? The בחורים The קנאים בחורים. Yeah. So here he says like, huh? Didn't he do anything, he was a מתנגד, that's all. I mean, but and he lived not so long ago, I mean, he lived he's in the when the בחורים in ליובאוויטש a hundred years ago, so they were he lived סתם he was already lived then yet, or just lived 15, 20 years before that. So he was a And he wasn't even a רב, he was actually a businessman, but he's a big למדן. That's for sure. No one could deny he was a big למדן. And he has certain I saw a book written by his son, his name was was what was his name? הרש״ש? שמואל? שמעון שמואל? The עצה is, look it up. Yeah? I think I ripped out the page. Okay. Anyway, his name was שמואל שטראשון. Once the רבי brought him by a פארברענגען, the רבי said a certain ענין and then he said, \"און מיט דעם ווערט פֿאַרענטפֿערט די קשיא וואָס שטראשון פֿרעגט.\" Didn't call him הרש״ש, \"וואָס שטראשון פֿרעגט.\" So I once saw his son, he had a son called מתתיהו, he wrote a ספר, and in the ספר he writes the greatness of his father. So one of the greatness he writes about his father, his father on every דף in ש״ס he has something to say, which is true, besides six דפים in the whole ש״ס. Then he says, the greatness of his father is also that he brings everybody. There are six places in ש״ס where he quotes Mendelssohn. The guy that made Reform? Yeah, the the top אפיקורס, Mendelssohn, who started the whole he's the beginning of the Reform movement, so he quotes him. Quotes him as like an authority? Yeah! \"וכמו שכתב החכם\" I looked it up. I look I was very curious when I saw it. I looked up. Yes, \"וכמו שכתב\" he calls him \"החכם Mendelssohn\". Mendelssohn is the one that was the maker of the of the Reform. The חתם סופר writes against him he wrote Mendelssohn wrote a פירוש on רש״י. A פירוש on חומש and רש״י. In the פירוש itself, you see no trouble, but he So the חתם סופר writes that not only are not allowed to look in his פירוש, you can't look in the פסוקים of the חומש that's printed together with his פירוש. That's what he writes. And he refers to him as רמ״ד. His name was מענדל משה מענדל, משה מענדל, I think, משה, and \"ד\" is דעסוי. He came from the city called דעסוי. So someone asks the חתם סופר, \"If you write so bad about him, why do you call him \"רב\", רב משה מדעסוי?\" Says, \"It's רשע!\" That's what he answered! \"It's not ר', it's not רב, it's רשע!\" he said. Anyway. So הרש״ש brings him. So the חסידים had But anyway, but the הרש״ש here, going back to another ענין now, we finished with the ענין of מתכוין. And when the גמרא says that in the משנה we only count those פטורים דאתי לידי חיוב חטאת, what is that? So רש״י learns, what does that mean? עקירה. Yeah, עקירה. So the הרש״ש, I'll read you the הרש״ש. He says like this, \"נראה לפי עניות דעתי,\" why אפס does he count only the עקירה? He says, \"לפי מה דקיימא לן חצי שיעור אסור מן התורה.\" Since we know a דין, when you have איסורים you have a שיעור when you're חייב. What about less than a שיעור? We spoke about that the other time. What's the דין? It's a מחלוקת, רבי יוחנן וריש לקיש, the הלכה is חצי שיעור is אסור מן התורה. \"והוא הדין איסור שבת.\" In שבת there's also חצי שיעור אסור, and he brings רש״י. In other words, by שבת, you have certain things to carry when you carry, there's a שיעור of how much you have. Anyway, so you're חייב. No, it's not No, פטור אבל אסור means אסור מדרבנן. It's נפקא מינה to know, when it says in שבת, \"פטור אבל אסור\", it means פטור מדאורייתא, אסור מדרבנן. חצי שיעור is not like that, חצי שיעור is פטור from עונש and אסור מן התורה. It's enough extension of this, we can't get into this חצי שיעור here. So he says, משום הכי שבקא להאי אגב חצי שיעור. Okay. What's the reason why חצי שיעור is אסור? So he says, in the גמרא יומא it says, because חזי לאיצטרופי. The גמרא in יומא says, I mentioned this the other time, why is חצי שיעור אסור? Because if you do a half of the שיעור, let's say let's say חזיר you can't eat The שיעור is a כזית. If you eat a half a כזית, חזי לאיצטרופי, it might get combined with another half, so if the half is מותר and then you'll eat another half, it'll be אסור. That's why חצי שיעור אסור. So he says, וזה לא שייך רק בעקירה. It's only by עקירה. This whole חשש of maybe you'll combine it and come into a full-fledged איסור is only by עקירה. So according to that, אתי על נכון דמתניתין דחשיב רק איסורי דאורייתא. So he says it makes sense why we only count עקירות, because if you make an עקירה, it's a חצי שיעור. And if it's a חצי שיעור, it's אסור מדאורייתא. See if you do הנחה only, there's no חזי לאיצטרופי. You can never combine it with another, because it's finished. The one that does the עקירה, he says, is חזי לאיצטרופי. You could combine it with further, and what will be? You might do a full מלאכה. That's why it's a חצי שיעור, and it's אסור מדאורייתא. Exactly. See, based on what we learned till now, what kind of חצי שיעור? It's אסור מד- the משנה is אסור מדאורייתא? When it says in the משנה פטור, פטור אבל אסור is אסור מדאורייתא? What are you talking about? It's אסור מדאורייתא? It's all פטור אבל אסור is all מדרבנן. He wants to say it's חצי שיעור. Why is טאקע an עקירה itself without not חצי שיעור? Because רש״י holds that עקירה is by itself, it's good, it's No, what did we explain? What did the רבי in ואתחנן חלק י״ד, that famous שיחה which I mentioned a hundred times? It's חצי מלאכה. חצי שיעור means you did the whole quality of the עבירה. Just the quantity was less, like even on שבת, the איסור of writing is two letters. If you wrote one letter, you did the full-fledged concept of writing. The כמות, the איכות, the מהות of the דין you did. The איכות you did. That's חצי שיעור אסור מן התורה. But when you did half of the מלאכה, it's only אסור מדרבנן. So what's he talking about? Unless we're going to try, I'm not trying to פארענטפער him, but let's say you could פארענטפער he meant it's close to חצי שיעור. Why is עקירה, because it has some some quality similar to חצי שיעור. But he doesn't say. He says it's אסור מדאורייתא. The משנה only counts איסורי דאורייתא. So you're not allowed to pick up anything in your property whatsoever on שבת No, and take it out, without putting it down. What? Picking it up and taking it out, but even if you didn't put it down. Oh, you mean taking it out? Yeah, but you took it out. You didn't do the הוצאה. That's what you can You picked this up, it's no problem. I'll give you an example of חצי I'll give you an example of חצי מלאכה which is nothing. I'll give you an example, and you're going to laugh at it, but it's a good example. Actually תפארת ישראל uses it once as an example in משניות. בשר בחלב. If you put meat and milk together, טרייף. So you can't eat meat because it's חצי שיעור. Because if you're going to combine the meat with the milk, it'll be אסור, so you shouldn't eat meat, you shouldn't eat milk, because it's חצי שיעור. Does it make any sense? Why not? Like I said you'll laugh. Why are you laughing? What's the problem? Why not? Pathetic. Why? It's a joke. Why? It's not the פשט that you had, if you eat let's say בשר בחלב, to be חייב for בשר בחלב you need a כזית. Let's say you mixed milk and meat, and you only ate half a כזית. You have the whole quality of milk and meat, the איסור is there, just missing the quantity. Here, you never made up the איסור. You're missing the quality of the איסור, because the איסור is the mixture of בשר בחלב. Same thing, the איסור is עקירה and הנחה. So if you only עקירה, it's Right, there's no it's not If that's so, I would say the איסור is to eat meat if you mix it with milk. It's not true. The איסור is the mixture. If you have no mixture, you don't have the איסור. Same thing here, an The רבנן אסר it. That could be. The רבנן could אסר things which are מותר completely. So the רבנן אסר חצי- So So what is So מדאורייתא you're allowed to eat and then drink a cup of That's something else. You're allowed to because it's not cooked together. That's a different story. That's different how the how the איסור is which way. I'm saying, but meat itself is not חצי שיעור, it's nothing. It's even a joke to mention it as an example. But I said the תפארת ישראל mentions that example that it's like בשר בחלב. But since what he says it's אסור מדאורייתא, okay. That will get all That's will אַראָפּ פֿון מאַרקעס, as you say. Nobody realized that? Nobody thought of that? What should I tell you? I don't know. If you learn the שיחה in חלק י״ד, you see clearly how it's חצי מלאכה and this and that, so and then you look at the רש״ש and you say, hey, what's he talking about? But בכלל, a lot of times he says good things, I have to tell you. He says he says סברות, it's good סברות. He's not holy, so someone makes mistakes, it's no problem. The רש״ש? Yeah.

Okay, let's go ווייטער. Now that we're talking about this עקירה that רש״י says, that what is טייטש, what is טייטש פטורי דאתי לידי חיוב חטאת, רש״י says means what? עקירות. So let's go into that. Here we have רש״י, רש״י'ס פשט, אתי לידי חיוב חטאת. Then we have who's פשט? Who would you say is next? Who would you say next? ריב״א. רבותינו. רש״י brings his רבי'ס, another פשט. Before we get to תוספות yet, רש״י brings his פשט, עקירה. Then רש״י, רבותינו אומרים: פשיטת יד לפנים, the one that sticks his hand in, whether it's full or or empty. You stick your hand in and then the guy puts it in, and then you take it out. So since you stuck your hand in, that's Even if you made a הנחה, you didn't make the עקירה. Let's say the עני from outside sticks his hand in empty, and the בעל הבית is holding something, and he and he takes it from and and the בעל הבית puts it into him. They're both פטור. What did the עני do? Which part? פשיטת ידו? He did הנחה, but we But that He put it in his hand. But that hand, cuz he Yeah, the other guy put it in his hand. So the בעל הבית made the עקירה inside, gave it to him, he took it and made הנחה. According to רש״י, which of the two are we counting? עקירות. So the בעל הבית. According to the רבותינו רבותינו, who are we counting? The one that stuck his hand to the other רשות. The one that stuck his hand, or the one that pulled it out? Well, he stuck his hand to take it, no, the one that changed רשות. Are we counting the part of The one that he took out, yeah, cuz he took it. But even though it's הנחה. How is this related to תוספות? We're going to discuss, we're getting to this. So we have רש״י's פשט, we have רבותינו of רש״י פשט, then you have the ריב״א's פשט, and then you have the ר״ן's פשט. Now, what does the ריב״א say? The ריב״א say says what? Let's look inside by the פירוש ריב״א. Where is it here? פירש ריב״א: דתוספת היינו איזה שפשט את ידו ומכניסו ומוציאו. Right, the one that takes his hand in and does the the transfer of the רשות. Right? Now, לכאורה, it's the same thing as רבותיו של רש״י, right? In the case that I gave, that the עני's standing outside, sticks his hand in empty, בעל הבית puts it in and he takes it out, according to רבותיו של רש״י, we're counting who? The פשיטת יד, the guy that takes it out. The עני or the עשיר? The עני. עני, עני, עני, עני, עני, עני. According to רש״י, we're counting the בעל הבית cuz he made עקירה, right? According to רבותיו של רש״י, who stuck his hand in? The עני. The עני counted. According to the ריב״א, who are we counting? The the בעל You say עני also? Either one, both. What does the ריב״א say? We're only counting one. The עני. The עני, the same thing as רבותיו של רש״י. It does matter, though. So, the question is, what's the difference between the two? Why does that have to be The bottom line is it's the same, but it's not. A lot of times we find in the גמרא a לשון that you hold like him, ולא מטעמיה, but not for the same reason. It's not רש״י רבותיו של רש״י used the לשון why you count the עני in this case? What does רש״י say the לשון, נו? It's פשיטת יד, why? התחלת המעשה. תחילת המעשה, that's what he says. Because you started. It's not because רש״י doesn't say because you're the one that made the transfer of the רשות, because you started, even though you stuck your hand in empty. רש״י says clearly, ריקנית. That's רש״י. רבותינו אומרים: פשיטת יד לגבי שניהם, בין מלאה בין ריקנית, empty, היא תחילת המעשה. וההוא הוא דקחשיב. That's what you're counting. And if the בעל הבית lifted it before he stuck his hand in, then that's תחילת המעשה, no? No, well, that's not תחילת המעשה of the מלאכה. That's nothing. That's like picking up this the look-up like you said With intention to give it to him. Doesn't matter. But לפועל, what you did is nothing. And then when you you're giving it to the guy to take out, that's when your problem starts. So you לפועל there's an עקירה there, but an עקירה that's not nothing till the מלאכה is done. So לפועל, it comes out like this: so we have these two פשטים, but the second and third פשט, the רבותיו של רש״י and the ריב״א, saying the same fact that you're counting the one that stuck his hand in, so according to the ריב״א, why are you counting him? Because he's the one that transferred the רשות. In other words, he takes it back. He's the one that gets it from the בעל הבית, takes it out, so he's the one that transfers it from the רשות היחיד to the רשות הרבים, or the same thing the other way. And רבותיו של רש״י say a different word: תחילת המעשה. So it's באמת one פשט, but you could count it as two because there are two different reasons. Then you have the fourth פשט. Why is that תחילת המעשה? What happens if the guy What what part of it is תחילת המעשה? Because he stuck his hand in? He stuck his hand in. What if the guy did an עקירה before he stuck his hand in? So he has an שאלה already. Saying it's not that's not תחילת המעשה of the מלאכה, because when the guy picked it up, it's nothing yet. It's like picking up something in the house. When I stuck my hand in, it's nothing yet. Yeah, exactly, but it's No, it's sticking in sticking into the רשות. All right, I'm allowed to stick my hand You're in one, you stick your hand to another. I understand, but there's something's happening here. There is a transfer there there's going from one רשות to another. Here, there's ממש nothing. Picking up a ספר and here is nothing. Here, סוף כל סוף, this is the beginning, more beginning than that. Meaning when he puts his hand in, that's already Because yeah, it's תחילת המעשה. But this guy could also, he said, he could have intention to pick it up and to take it out. But still, the while there was nothing that has to do with איסור. Here, there is already something in your mind that has to do with איסור because you stuck your hand from the outside to the inside. First of all, right. So there's something there already, it's more תחילת המעשה. Now, the ר\"ן says another פשט. What other פשט is there possible? Because, why, what? הנחה! I mean, all all possible פשטים are here. Or you count the עקירה, or you count the הנחה, or you count the תחילת המעשה, or you count the the the transfer. I don't know if anything else possible. So let's look at the ר\"ן. The ר\"ן says, it's a small print, he brings he says he brings these פשטים, then he says What's the סברא? What's the סברא? עמיר קוקן מיר זעהן וואס איז זיין סברא? Here, in the דפוס פשוט, I don't know in your גמרות how it is. Okay. וניחזי בפירושו, he says there's a מחלוקת in the פשט אתי לידי חיוב חטאת. רש\"י פירש דפטורי דאתי לידי חטאת היינו עקירות, שאין תחילת המלאכה, אבל הנחות, not. אחרים פירשו, that's the פשט that I said, אדרבה, הנחות כחשיב. Oh, now you ask, why is הנחות called אתי לידי חטאת? Before we look at further in the ר\"ן, can you think of a סברא? That the הנחה is the one that we count. That's called אתי לידי חטאת. Because he's what's causing the first guy. Because that's that's פארקערט, that makes even easier to understand. There's רש\"י. Why? דהנחה היא דמעשה בה לידי חיוב חטאת. Usually, when you're חייב חטאת, when do you get a חיוב חטאת? When you make the עקירה? When you finish the מלאכה. That's what תוספות says. Or you finish. As it says, because because this guy never is going to finish anything, it's טלטול בעלמא. That's it, yeah, right, but that's but בפועל, the קשיא is this is טלטול בעלמא, but according to the ריב\"א, it's also not חייב חטאת yet. When the guy sticks his hand in, he's not חייב חטאת yet. It's חייב by the הנחה. So why is that more, but that's the עיקר. See, there are two things: is the is the פשט עיקר המלאכה that brings you to חטאת, right, or physically, פשוט, the last step that makes you, at that point you become חייב חטאת? Right. It's like saying when a person eats a כזית of חזיר, you get מלקות. At what point, what makes you מלקות? Every little piece is part of it. But the bottom line is, בגשמיות, when you take that last bite that makes it a כזית, that makes you חייב. But still, when you do the הנחה ברשות הרבים, in this case you're not חייב בחטאת anyway, but what is usually makes you a חייב חטאת? והיינו חידושא דתנא. Yeah. And he says that's why the תנא tells you פטור, the תנא that אף על פי שעל ידו נגמרה המלאכה, that's the חידוש that we're counting the הנחות. אבל עקירות לית ליה חשיבא. According to this פשט of the ר\"ן, of the אחרים, you don't count עקירות. Why not? דפשיטא דפטור, דלאו מידי קא עביד. Which is not like תוספות. תוספות's קשיא is טלטול בעלמא, but תוספות's קשיא טלטול בעלמא is only in one case. תוספות's קשיא on רש\"י is that in a case where the guy picks it up inside and the other guy puts his hand in and he and he puts it into his hand, according to רש\"י you count the עקירה. So תוספות asks: that case, what did the guy do? He just picked it up. He picked it up inside. He didn't do anything, the other guy took it from him. Right. He asks the קשיא not only on that, and that's only on that case. What about the other case? רש\"י Where you picked it up רש\"י One second, you did the עקירה. When you did the עקירה and you put it outside, He did the whole thing. so then you תוספות wouldn't have a קשיא. It's not טלטול בעלמא, Right. even though you didn't finish it off. Doesn't matter. The ר\"ן's קשיא is on all cases. Why? Because he says לאו מידי קא עביד, סוף כל סוף, you never came to an end. הנחות is always the end. Yeah. It's a question on רש\"י. So that's why he holds that what's the עיקר, what is אתי לידי חיוב חטאת? דהנחה. Because the end is what you're חייב for. That's it. Wait, one second. Everyone agrees according to רש\"י it's possible. According to רש\"י it's different. Yeah, good, he's bringing up a very good point, a very good point. There's a that there is a חילוק in טייטש אתי לידי חיוב חטאת. What does אתי לידי חיוב חטאת mean? רש\"י learns אתי לידי חיוב חטאת means you might come to a חטאת. If you start off with an עקירה, You might come like what? Yeah, you might forget, you might finish it off. So אתי לידי חיוב חטאת means this case can come to a חטאת. So which is the case that you might come to a חטאת? הנחה. No, if you didn't do the עקירה, it's עקירה. The ר\"ן learns אתי לידי חטאת is not that. That in another in the regular case where there is a חיוב חטאת, this is the part that makes it. Which part makes it? דהנחה. Okay, let's go ווייטער. Even even even תוספות and and between רש\"י also, so they all learn that it's not it's not in this case. Right, right, that's not in this Yeah, the other ones are also, exactly. רש\"י and רבינו תם and the ריב\"א, it's not אתי that this case will come to a חטאת. Right. According פארקערט, according to רש\"י, it's this case. Yeah. According to them, yeah. Okay, let's go ווייטער. Let's go. נו. I'm trying I want That next שיעור we should be able to go to the next piece of גמרא already, so we should get through with this. Okay. One interesting thing, even though it's going to be going back a little bit, תוספות בר, okay, if we didn't finish everything, maybe we'll still have next שיעור a little bit of בעשיה זו, but תוספות בר, yeah. What does the שמועס say? That wherever it says in שבת פטור, what does it mean? פטור אבל אסור. Except בר, except? Three cases. Comes תוספות and תוספות asks a קושיא, the first קושיא: It says that you're allowed to, that if you if you extinguish a candle when a sick man, when a person is sick in order he should be able to sleep, what does it say? You're פטור. Now, the גמרא says, when are you allowed to do that? Even if it's not סכנה? No, only if סכנה. מוקי לה בחולה שיש בו סכנה. Only if סכנת נפשות. So תוספות says, if it's a case where there is a סכנה, it's מותר, because it's פיקוח it's מותר. So then we here we have a, because אין לך דבר שעומד בפני פיקוח נפש. So here we have a case where the גמרא uses the לשון פטור, and it's פטור ומותר! So תוספות answers, that's that's obvious, פיקוח נפש, obviously everywhere. What was the הוה אמינא of תוספות? This is a lot of times what we try to do in this שיעור is when there's a שאלה and a תירוץ, what was the הוה אמינא? Couldn't, sometimes we could see two sides, so we know what they thought לכתחילה. Here, isn't this תירוץ such a simple תירוץ? Everyone knows, I mean פיקוח נפש has a separate דין there, is is it so so obvious that it's פטור ומותר. You would have thought So no, we know for sure it's פטור ומותר, but the שאלה is it's so פשוט, the הוה אמינא the the מסקנא is it's so פשוט that that not even part of the deal, part of the And the הוה אמינא was it's not so Why is it not so פשוט? So I just want to say one ווארט which could like There is a שאלה, a חקירה in אחרונים based on the לשונות of the ראשונים. And again, the רבי talks about it באריכות in different places. This דין that פיקוח נפש דוחה כל התורה כולה, or פיקוח נפש דוחה שבת, is it דחויה or הותרה? What does that mean? הותרה. You're guessing. There are two ways to learn and there are ראיות לכאן, ראיות לכאן. What's the difference דחויה and הותרה? דחויה means, you're דוחה, it's טאקע חילול שבת, but, in order to save someone's life, you have to be מחלל שבת, so you are מחלל שבת. Or there's a לשון given someplace, imagine if somebody is sick and to save his life you have to, חס ושלום, cut off his foot. You still cut off his foot and you can't say it's you didn't cut off his foot. No, I'm not saying about שבת, I'm saying בכלל if a person is sick and you have to cut off his foot, do you do it or not? Well, someone will say, \"Well, there's nothing wrong, nothing wrong happened.\" For sure something terrible happened! But if you weigh the two, which one is worse? It's worse to die, so therefore it's worth to cut off a foot. Isn't that what it says Same thing here, that, actually it's today it's connected to today's חת״ת. In today's תניא, what does it say in today's תניא? It says, פיקוח נפש נעשה היתר, if you eat טרפה, when it's פיקוח נפש נעשה היתר, and then in brackets is the word גמור. It becomes real היתר. So the רבי is מדייק, why is the word גמור in brackets? Because it's not so גמור. Cuz it's not really 100% מותר. So why should you So the רבי brings this example. The רבי used the example like if you doctor tells you have to cut off your foot in order to save your life, it's still terrible, you cut off your foot, it's a terrible thing you did, but it's worth it. Same thing could be פיקוח נפש. פיקוח נפש means, to save the person's life it's worth to do חילול שבת. You were מחלל שבת, but you had to מחלל שבת. There's some people that say it's worth it and then there's some people that say it's דוחה. Oh, that no. Worth it means it's דוחה! דוחה means you did an עבירה, you did a terrible thing, but it's still pushes away, this is more important! So when you have a conflict between two things, should I save the guy's life or should I and and not be מחלל שבת? Or should I and be מחלל שבת or should I not be מחלל שבת and let the person die? So there's a conflict here. It's טאקע a conflict. And this which side wins? Obviously. Save the person's life, that's the דין, okay. But that's called דוחה. הותרה means that when it comes to פיקוח נפש, it's מותר! It's not אסור. The רמב״ם says both לשונות, he says נדחה and then he says that חילול שבת, to do a מלאכה for פיקוח נפש on שבת is like doing a מלאכה in the weekdays. So it seems like it's הותרה. That's why the רמב״ם we don't know exactly. So the רבי has all kinds of שיחות about it. So you have דחויה and הותרה. Then there is a new thing, a third דרגה, that the רבי has a third דרגה, that it's not even הותרה. הותרה means that because of פיקוח נפש, this becomes מותר. Not it's pushing away, it becomes מותר. It's part of שבת. Then he says it's it's part of keeping שבת. It's a מצוה It's not this In other words, if you'd ask שבת, What should you do? It's it's not what should you do, if you'd ask שבת, oh yeah right, maybe, \"What should you do?\" So normally Normally שבת would say, \"Don't be מחלל.\" Then comes you ask פיקוח נפש what should you do, פיקוח נפש answers, \"You do it.\" So it's a fight between שבת and פיקוח נפש. It's like they say ר' חיים בריסקער on יום כיפור when people were sick, they used to ask him questions, so he was מחמיר not to, you shouldn't have to fast. Later years he stopped, he started being מקיל. So people asked him, \"Why are you מקיל in הלכות יום כיפור?\" He says, \"I'm מקיל in הלכות יום כיפור? I'm מחמיר in הלכות פיקוח נפש!\" Not מקיל in הלכות יום כיפור. So, but that's still two things that are fighting, so either you could say one pushes the other, or one is מתיר the other. The רבי's חידוש is that שבת itself says, in other words, if you'd ask שבת, it'd say be מחלל שבת. And why? So according to the אור החיים because חלל עליו שבת אחת because by being מחלל today you'll be able to keep many other שבתות. Anyway, so we have these two things. So maybe the פשט in תוספות is like this: the הוה אמינא of תוספות is that it's דחויה. When תוספות asked a שאלה לכאורה, how could שמואל say that there's always פטור אבל אסור when I find a case פטור ומותר? And the answer is that's not, that's not part of this because that's so פשוט. If it's דחויה, it's not so פשוט. אדרבה, הלכה is you're allowed to do it. The הלכה is מותר, אבער at least you can't say פשיטא ליה that you can't even mention it. And the answer is הותרה. ממילא it's it's טאקע מותר ממש, or באמת you could go even further. The answer is not מותר. The answer is it's part of שבת. And if you want to go further, the רבי is saying, not only it's part of שבת, he has a fifth דרגא. That's the way you keep שבת. That's Now, even if you say it's part of שבת, but why is it part of שבת? Because שבת would tell, why will שבת tell you? Because חלל עליו שבת אחת כדי שישמור שבתות הרבה. If you save his life, he'll be able to keep for next twenty years every שבת. So it's worth for שבת, so שבת says, \"Yeah, go ahead and do it.\" But still, what comes out according to that, that as far as today's שבת, it's like a חילול שבת. Because for other שבתות, so generally שבת worth. The רבי says even for today's שבת he has a סברא. Why? Because the, it brings, what's the ענין of שבת? The ענין of שבת is to show that the אויבערשטער loves the אידן. Saving a איד's life is the same thing! So, by doing this, you're actually accomplishing what שבת wants to accomplish, so that's ממש the highest דרגא. So you could say either way: the הוה אמינא was דחויה and the answer is הותרה. The הוה אמינא was דחויה or and הותרה, the answer is the third דרגא. Or you could say the הוה אמינא was the three דרגות and the answer is the the fourth דרגא, the answer is the the fifth fourth דרגא, I mean, that it's ממש שבת itself. That's ממש. How do you have a הוה אמינא that that it's all three דרגות? Well, what Because לפי ערך that דרגא, לפי ערך the highest דרגא, it's still called that it's a חילול. There's one I kind of like There's a חידוש that it's not really even פיקוח נפש. Only in the case of תוספות it's worth it. It's פיקוח נפש, it's just not this wool, it will not save his life. But that's still that's still kind of like a חידוש because you're you're making someone be מחלל שבת for not even be Okay, we get it that there's like a היתר that it's You know what? You know what? You're saying a very good פשט. Nothing to do with what I said, but you're saying a פשט that the חילוק between the הוה אמינא and the מסקנא could be this: the הוה אמינא was that it's a חידוש, and the מסקנא is that even that is a דבר פשוט. Because it's a further, it's a big extension from... Because it's Very good, very good, very good. Yeah. All right now! Who brings that? Bobby? Huh? Seriously. Thank you. Did you try with Rosenberg? I don't think so. He's like, tell your siblings I only have two keys though, so it's not like See you, too. Stop it, stop it.