Or the פשט could be preventive medicine, that the לחש is nothing to do with צידה. The לחש has to do with a רפואה. And now we know there's a איסור רפואה on שבת. The רבנן made a איסור, you're not allowed to take medicine on שבת, because if the snake bit you and you say this לחש, it'll help it cure, or it'll stop it from biting, that's like preventive medicine. And you're not allowed to take medicine on שבת דרבנן. There's a איסור דרבנן on medicine on שבת, and the reason the גמרא says is if you're going to take medicine, a גזירה שמא ישחוק סממנים, you might come to grind herbs to make a medicine, so the רבנן said you can't take a רפואה on שבת. So you might think that when you say this לחש it's a problem, you can't do it because it's רפואה, so that's what the גמרא tells you, לוחשין על הנחשים, you are allowed to, it's not called רפואה. Not like רש״י. Again, רש״י learns that it's telling you that it's not אסור מצד צידה, capturing, trapping, and the באר שבע learns the חידוש of the גמרא is it's not אסור מצד רפואה. And then he says, I'll tell you, this is the reason why the טור, when he brings this גמרא that you're allowed to say a לחש on the snake, brings it in סימן שכ״ח. In שולחן ערוך, there are two places. סימן He says the טור, the שולחן ערוך. סימן שכ\"ח is a סימן that deals with the הלכות of רפואה. Now, we all know the סימנים of how the שולחן ערוך is divided all started with the טור. The טור made up the different סימנים, different הלכות in different סימנים. The בית יוסף is a פירוש on the טור, and בית יוסף wrote his own שולחן ערוך, but he followed the same סימנים and סדר of the of the טור, and then the אלטר רבי also wrote his שולחן ערוך following the same סימנים. So you have סימן שכ\"ח, there it deals with רפואה, הלכות of רפואה. סימן שט\"ז, I'm saying it slow so you should keep, because it might be confusing, so you have to keep this in mind. סימן שכ\"ח deals with רפואה. The קאפיטל, the סימן is a דין חולה בשבת, the הלכות of a חולה, of a sick person, רפואה. סימן שט\"ז has all kinds of הלכות. The הלכות of צידה, the הלכות of not being able to trap on שבת is in סימן שט\"ז. So the דין that you're allowed to trap, like שמואל says by us, there are three דינים which is פטור ומותר, you're allowed to trap the snake to prevent him from biting you, that you're allowed to do it, that's written in סימן שט\"ז, because there he talks about צידה, there he talks about capturing, so he says there's no problem, you're allowed to capture because it might bite you, you're allowed to capture it. The הלכה that you're allowed to say the לחש on the snake, the טור is the באר שבע brings, says it in סימן שכ\"ח. Why does he say in סימן שכ\"ח? סימן שכ\"ח deals with רפואה. So he says, because the טור learns like I learn, that the whole דין is, you might think that you're not allowed to do it, you're not allowed to say the לחש because it's a רפואה, so it tells you it's not a רפואה, don't worry, it's no problem. So where does this belong? It belongs in סימן שכ\"ח. So he says this is a ראיה like he brings to his פשט that the טור, he says, learns like me, not like רש\"י, has nothing to do with, because if it would be the דין to tell you that it's not צידה, there's no problem of צידה like רש\"י, it would have been in סימן שט\"ז, because there it talks about the דינים of צידה. The other דין that you can, you're allowed to capture, that says in סימן שט\"ז. So this is in סימן שכ\"ח, and ממילא, he says, I have a problem with the בית יוסף. The בית יוסף, who's the פירוש on the טור, who later wrote the שולחן ערוך, but when he wrote the פירוש on the טור, in סימן, and keep in mind the numbers of the סימנים, סימן שכ\"ח where the טור brings this דין that you're allowed to say a לחש, the בית יוסף brings what רש\"י says: ואין בזה משום צידה. The בית יוסף explains the טור, that the טור tells you the דין that you're allowed to say the לחש, זאגט the בית יוסף, you know what the טור means to tell you? What's the חידוש? Like רש\"י says, because there's no צידה. So the באר שבע says, I don't understand the בית יוסף. If the טור learns like רש\"י, then he would have written it in סימן שט\"ז. The fact that the טור writes it in סימן שכ\"ח is, so the חידוש is that it's not רפואה. So how could the בית יוסף bring in רש\"י, that the באר שבע says? So he says that the בית יוסף, like he has a קשיא on the בית יוסף, why would the בית יוסף bring in רש\"י that the חידוש of the דין of the לחש is that it has no צידה, he says it on the טור, when the טור brings this דין in סימן שכ\"ח, which is a דין of the הלכות of רפואה? Okay. The bottom line, what we have here is, if we want to analyze what the באר שבע said, he has two קשיות, that's two שאלות he has. Number one, two שאלות on רש\"י: if you're going to learn that the חידוש of the לחש is צידה, that it has no דין of special, no איסור of צידה, so the first שאלה he asks, why would you have to tell us that דין? If the דין we know already that you're allowed to capture, it shouldn't bite you, obviously you're allowed to say the לחש. So how could you tell me that it's telling you a חידוש that it's not צידה? And the second שאלה is that if it is צידה, why does it written in סימן שכ\"ח? And if you're going to learn it's טאקע צידה, it should have been in סימן שט\"ז. הא? I know, we know, we're going to get to that. Right now I'm just saying what the באר שבע said. So the באר שבע is asking these two שאלות: number one, why is this צידה? Why do you have to tell me that it's not צידה? Must be something else, because it can't be telling you it's not צידה, it's obvious it's not צידה. You're allowed to capture כפשוטו. And the second שאלה is that if it is צידה, what is it doing in סימן שכ\"ח? Why isn't it not in סימן שט\"ז where it deals with the הלכות צידה?

Now this שאלה, באמת, we transfer on the בית יוסף, and on the שולחן ערוך. The בית יוסף, when he wrote the שולחן ערוך, in סימן שכ\"ח, he writes, The same thing that he wrote in the בית יוסף of the טור, he writes: you're allowed to say a לחש on the snake it shouldn't bite you, and the reason you're allowed to because it doesn't have the איסור of צידה. Why did he write it in סימן שכ״ח? So the קושיא is, obviously the בית יוסף, the מחבר in שולחן ערוך learns like רש״י, because he says, אין בזה משום צידה, so he's learning that the חידוש is it's not צידה. So why did he put it in סימן שכ״ח? Why didn't he put it in סימן שט״ז? And באמת the same שאלה is on the אלטר רבי. The אלטר רבי brings the same דין, and the אלטר רבי also says like רש״י, and he says it in סימן שכ״ח. Let's read the אלטר רבי, it's נוגע to know these דינים. It's נוגע to know what the אלטר רבי says. סעיף נ׳, סימן שכ״ח סעיף נ׳: לוחשין על נחשים ועקרבים — you're allowed to say the לחש on the snakes, on the scorpions — בשביל שלא יזיקו, so they shouldn't harm you, אף על פי שאין רצין, even if they're not chasing you, but it's possible they're not chasing you now, but they might chase, ואין בכך משום צידה. The חידוש is, and don't worry, it's not a איסור of צידה. ואפילו להמחייבין במלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, even those that hold מלאכה שאינה צריכה, and I'll explain that that's נוגע to the further. But לפועל, the אלטר רבי says the לשון, the reason, the חידוש of that you're allowed to say the לחש, because it's not צידה. Where does he put it? In סימן שכ״ח. Which the באר שבע's קושיא is a good קושיא. See, the באר שבע doesn't ask it as a קושיא, he uses it as a ראיה. He said, a ראיה that I'm right that it's not צידה, but it's a different thing, רפואה, from the fact it's in סימן שכ״ח by the טור. And he says, and therefore, you can't add the words אין בזה משום צידה. If you write it in סימן שכ״ח, you can't add the words צידה, because it has nothing to do with צידה. But לפועל, we see the מחבר does it, the אלטר רבי does it. So we have a קושיא now on the מחבר, on the אלטר רבי. First of all, what's the חידוש that it's not צידה when you're allowed to actually trap itself? And that דין that you're allowed to trap, the אלטר רבי says also, and that's in סימן שט״ז. Let's go back to סימן שט״ז, סעיף י״ז. In סימן שט״ז, there it talks about צידה. I'll read you there: ואפילו לכתחילה מותר לצוד, לכתחילה you're allowed to capture כל מיני רוחשין ורומשין, all these creepy crawlers, שדרכן להזיק, that could be מזיק you. You're allowed to trap it, כגון נחשים ועקרבים, snakes, וכיוצא בהן. And even if they don't kill, even if they're not chasing you. You're afraid maybe it'll chase you and might bite you, or it might bite somebody else, whatever. And he says that you're allowed to do it, and he goes in the reason why, which not, I don't want to confuse now, but he says you're allowed. That he says in סימן שט״ז. And in סימן שכ״ח, there he says that you're allowed to be לוחש, say the לחש on the snake, and there he says because it's not צידה. So what's it doing in, why is it not in סימן שט״ז? And what's the חידוש? The second קושיא of the באר שבע: if he says in סימן שט״ז you're allowed to capture them actually, so certainly you're allowed to say the לחש. לכאורה, to answer רש״י, and to answer the שאלה on the אלטר רבי, and the שאלה on the מחבר, well, לכאורה you could say that this is the פשט in רש״י, and this is the way they all learn. What is the reason why are you allowed to capture an animal, a snake, it shouldn't bite you? לכאורה, it's capturing, it's a איסור דאורייתא from צידה, why טאקע are you allowed? So the גמרא says, תוספות brings it, and תוספות brings it here, because it goes according to רבי שמעון who holds מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is not אסור מדאורייתא, he's פטור מדאורייתא. What's a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה? So we know there is a מחלוקת between רבי יהודה and רבי שמעון. When you do a מלאכה, but the purpose of the מלאכה is not for what such a מלאכה is intended. And the classical example, there are a lot of things, but the classical example: one of the מלאכות is digging a hole in the ground. It's מלאכת חורש, you can't plow, you can't dig in the ground. The normal intentions of this מלאכה, and the way it was in the משכן, was in order to make a hole. If you need a hole, that's the מלאכה of חורש. What happens if a person digs a hole, but he needs the sand? He doesn't need the hole, he needs the sand. He means to dig the hole, not that it's a mistake, he wants to dig the hole, but the purpose, the צורך, the need, is for something else than what the מלאכה really is. That's called a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה. So you did a מלאכה, but not לגופה. There's a מחלוקת here תנאים. רבי יהודה says מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה חייב. If you dig a hole in order to get the sand even though the צורך of the מלאכה normally is to make the hole, it's אסור מדאורייתא and you're חייב מיתה, or כרת, בשוגג you're חייב a חטאת, אסור דאורייתא. רבי שמעון says מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is פטור מדאורייתא, it's פטור אבל אסור. When you catch the snake, the מלאכה, the regular מלאכה of צידה is if you want the animal. Coming back. If you catch an animal because you want the animal, if you trap a snake because you want the snake, that's a מלאכה צריכה לגופה, so you're doing the מלאכה 100% because you want it. If you're catching the snake you don't need the snake, you just don't want him to bite you, so you trap him here so he won't get there, you put him a box over him so he can't get out so he won't bite you, so you're doing the מלאכה of trapping, you actually did the מלאכה of trapping, but it's not צורך גופו, it's not for the purpose of what the מלאכה is. So in a case like this, according to רבי שמעון, it's not אסור מדאורייתא, but it's אסור מדרבנן. But because you might get hurt, so the רבנן were מקיל so much and they said it's מותר. That's the פשט in ר' ישמעאל. Since it's only a איסור... if it would be an איסור דאורייתא, there's no such thing because you might have צער and you might get hurt you're allowed to do a מלאכה דאורייתא? You ever hear of such a thing? The Conservatives say that. If it's not so convenient, and it'll bother you, then you're allowed to do חילול שבת. We know you can't be מחלל שבת in order to prevent you from צער. But if it's an איסור דרבנן, the רבנן in their איסור could put in whatever clause they want. So they put in a clause in this דין that since it's only אסור because we made it אסור, משום היזק we said it's מותר. That's the reason why it's מותר. Then there is a further case which we'll get into a second, but this is the original the way the גמרא says and what תוספות brings it. So it comes out like this: צידת נחש is a מלאכה. It's a מלאכה of צידה. The reason it's מותר is why? Because it's a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, because it's a מלאכה that's not done in the intentions the way the מלאכה is. And nevertheless it's and it's מותר, not only פטור, but it's also מותר because of צער, because of היזק. What רש״י is telling us פשט in the גמרא לוחשין על הנחש, that you could do a לחש, so רש״י says אין בזה משום צידה, that this is not even in the category of צידה. It's not the פשט that this is צידה, but צידה which because of the circumstances you're allowed to do, it's לכתחילה not צידה. The קשיא of the באר שבע was, what's the חידוש that you're allowed to do it? It's no צידה? You're ממש allowed to trap and there's no צידה? No, this is a different גדר. This is even better. When you say you're allowed to trap in order it shouldn't bite you, what the פשט is, it's a מלאכת צידה with a היתר. It's like there's a hole and it's patched up. And this is the חידוש, this is much better, אין בזה משום צידה. It doesn't it has no צידה. Why? Because the way it seems that when you say the לחש, you're not capturing it, you're not trapping it, you're saying a certain לחש. If you say a certain לחש, what's going to be the result? The snake will stop, I don't know, I guess that's how it works. I don't know nowadays we don't know what this means, but those days, the snake would stop in his place. But you are not doing something to trap him. That's the חידוש. So the באר שבע שאלה was, לכאורה, why is it, what's the חידוש אין בו משום צידה if you're allowed to trap it ממש? Trapping ממש you're טאקע allowed because the this type of צידה is allowed, and here אין בזה משום צידה. It's a חידוש. And that's could be what the אלטער רבי learns also, that's what the בית יוסף learns. And because of that they didn't put it into סימן שט״ז. סימן שט״ז deals with צידה, or things which are מותר משום צידה. But things which are not in the category of צידה, that's a different חידוש. So בדוקא he didn't put it, they didn't put it in there to tell you this: אין בזה משום צידה, that it has nothing to do with צידה בכלל. So where does it belong? פארקערט, not in הלכות צידה. It could have been there too, but in order to stress the point that it's you should not think that it's in the category of צידה, so he says אין משום צידה, you put it someplace else, which fits to רפואה, because after all it's protecting you from getting hurt, so it fits into רפואה to put it in there. But the main thing is not where he put it, where he did not put it. Ah? No, that's why he טייטשט us אין בו משום צידה. And he says you're allowed, obviously it's no רפואה. He says clearly you're allowed, לוחשין. No, but he says, he says you're allowed to. No, no, he says אין בו משום צדה. רפואה is לכתחילה איסור דרבנן, צדה is איסור דאורייתא. He says, but this is not בכלל has nothing to do with with צדה, and that's the חידוש. Now לכאורה, even though it would seem that it's not so. Why? We have this, what I'm trying to say is to לחלק between the two דינים. The דינים that you're allowed to trap the snake, that's מותר even though it's צדה. But it's a צדה that's מותר. This is trying to say אין בזה משום צדה at all, the case of לחש. But if you look at the two סימנים, the two places in the אלטר רבי, one might think that they're really saying the same thing. Let's go back to that סעיף where we said before, in סימן שט״ז, סעיף י״ז, where it talks about trapping it. So the אלטר רבי, I'm not going to read inside, because I see it's getting late, it's going to take too long. He says, why are you allowed to trap? So first he says the reason is because כיון שאין צדן אלא בשביל להנצל מנזקן, you're capturing it not because you need the snake, because you want to protect yourself from getting bitten, it's a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה. And מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is only a איסור דרבנן, we פסקן like that, and in the case of היזק, the רבנן said מותר. Then the אלטר רבי comes and asks a שאלה. Oh no, and he continued: אף שכל מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה פטור אבל אסור מדברי סופרים, here they were מתיר מפני חשש היזק הגוף. Okay, then he asks a שאלה: What about those people who פסקן that מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is אסור מדאורייתא? Who is that? Who? No, that's that's in גמרא. Who in the פוסקים? The רמב״ם! Yesterday in the שיעור spoke about it. The רמב״ם is the only one that פסקנס מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה like רבי יהודה, that that's חייב מדאורייתא. So according to him, there shouldn't be a היתר of צידת נחש, because the whole היתר of צידת נחש is because it's a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, which is only אסור מדרבנן because he פסקנס like רבי שמעון, ובמילא the רבנן were מקיל by היזק. Ah? So according to the רמב״ם that it's מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is also אסור מדאורייתא, so according to him, what's the reason that צידה is מותר? And לפועל the רמב״ם פסקנס that this צידה is מותר. So the אלטר רבי continues: ואף להאומרים שמלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה חייב עליה, even according to those, meaning the רמב״ם, that מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is חייב, ואין מחללים שבת במלאכה גמורה של תורה בשביל היזק הגוף, and since it's אסור מדאורייתא, there's no היתר to say because you might get hurt, you're allowed to do a מלאכה דאורייתא? No such thing! אלא בשביל סכנת נפשות, if it's a danger of your life, but otherwise not. מכל מקום כאן—so the רמב״ם the אלטר רבי says like this: כאן, כיון שאין צדן כדרכן, here, since you're not doing the צידה in a normal way of trapping, אלא מתעסק בהם שלא יוכלו להזיק, you're doing it in a way just to stop it from being מזיק. How? כגון שכופה עליהם את הכלי, you put a כלי over it, מקיף עליהם, you do make a circle around them, קושרן, you tie them שלא יזיקו. So that's a different סברא. So it's not doing the מלאכה in a normal way. Oh, when you do a מלאכה not in a normal way, it's never אסור מדאורייתא. So here, if you're doing it trapping him not in a normal way, it's also only אסור מדרבנן, ובמילא לפיכך התירו לעשות כן, they were מתיר אפילו באלו שאין ממיתין אבל מזיקין, even those who don't kill you, במילא it's no סכנת נפשות, you're allowed. So the אלטר רבי goes through the whole thing, gives a reason why normally you're allowed to do צידת נחש, because it's a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, and therefore it's מותר because of the היזק. Then he continues, and even if you hold מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is חייב, here it's also מותר. That's how he says באריכות, as you read as you heard me read it. סימן שכ״ט, where he talks about a לחש, he goes very בקיצור, but seemingly it's almost like telling us what he said before. לוחשין על הנחשים ועקרבים בשביל שלא יזיקו, you're allowed to, ואין בכך משום צידה, and there's no צידה, ואפילו להמחייבים במלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, even according to those who hold מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is חייב, you're still allowed to do it. What would you normally assume? What's the what's the אלטר רבי saying? He's repeating what he said over there, but very very בקיצור. He doesn't have to repeat the whole thing twice. What did he say over there by capturing actually trapping the נחש? He said clearly, you're allowed to do it, and even if you hold מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is חייב, you're still allowed to do it. and he explains why. Here he does the same thing, he says you're allowed to be the לוחש, and that's not צידה, even if you hold מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה חייב. So לכאורה you would think that it's exactly like over there. So what I'm trying to say, it seems like what I said that it's a different דין altogether is wrong. I tried to say over there it's צידה, צידה which is מותר. Here it's not צידה at all. But if you look superficially that this really is basically the same thing like over there, just בקיצור. And it seems like it seems, it's not I don't know if that's what they meant, the new שולחן ערוך, and they made the new הערות and everything, it looks like that's how they learned, that they're combining, connecting both דינים. Here he says in the beginning he speaks about trapping the נחש, and he says the whole אריכות, and over here he's just repeating it בקיצור, and really it means the same thing like over there, that that the reason is because of whatever he said over there, and also if you hold that מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, etc., etc. The only שאלה is the אלטער רבי usually when he does such a thing, if he refers back to a different place where he went into אריכות, he usually says כמו שנתבאר. Sometimes he says worse, sometimes he doesn't. It would only be normal that the אלטער רבי should have said here, after he says the small line here, that you're allowed to do the לחש, and it's no צידה, and even if you hold מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה חייב, כמו שנת... he should have given the reason. איי, he doesn't have to repeat the reason, at least say that I explained the reason over there: כמו שנתבאר בסימן שטז. The אלטער רבי doesn't do that. It's a פלא. Not only that, if you look at the מראה מקומות, not the new מראה מקומות, the original מראה מקומות printed on the side, who wrote the מראה מקומות? So the רבי said more than once: maybe the אלטער רבי himself, but we're not sure, maybe not. But the לשון the רבי used: על כל פנים, אַ בר סמכא. The one that wrote it knew what he was talking about. So the side says one וואָרט here at the end of this סימן: עיין סימן שיו, סעיף ז. עיין means look into סימן שטז. סימן י״ו, שיו, same thing as שטז. What's there to be מעיין there? The way it seems, it's exactly the same thing like over there. So all the side should have said: ראה סימן, look there, you'll see the reason. עיין means look into it. Look some What What's there to look in? It's very פשוט. I think that it's if if that's what they meant when they wrote the modern that it that it's the same thing, I think it's a mistake. I think there are two different דינים, and that's why it's not written as סימן שטז. Over there, the אלטער רבי goes into אריכות that you know why you're allowed to do it, because it's a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה. And even if you hold it's מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is חייב, but here if you do it not a normal way, that's why it's מותר. Here the אלטער רבי is a different דין, he's not referring back to there. He says to do ללחש, אין בזה משום צידה. It's nothing! And then you don't have to give a different reason if it's מלאכה שאינה צריכה חייב or not. See, over there he gives two reasons: if you hold מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is פטור, then the reason is because היזק הגוף, מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה you're allowed. If you hold like the רמב״ם מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is חייב, you give a different reason, because it's not כדרך. Here the אלטער רבי doesn't give reasons, he just makes a statement: it's not צידה, and therefore according to everybody you're allowed to do it. Why? Because it's not צידה, it's nothing! And that's what maybe he means: עיין! Look back there, you'll see the difference. Not עיין, look back there, because if it's just to look back there to figure to know the reason, you don't say עיין, you don't have to be מעיין. עיין means זיי מעיין! Like everything else, he says ראה, or should have He says look, and I'm try I think it's פאַרקערט. עיין סימן, look there, you'll see what it is. Here it's not like that. And here it's a דין that it has nothing to do with צידה בכלל. That's the חידוש. Don't think it's צידה, it's not צידה. Why? Because you're not doing anything, you're saying a לחש. Saying עפעס a certain You know, the לחש sometimes don't even make any sense. If you learn the גמרא, all these לחשים, these are words that don't קלעפּ אַ וואָרט צו אַ וואָרט. When you say a לחש against a שד, against this, it's nothing. So it's not צידה! That's why You might think it's maybe צידה, because after all, he's stopping. He says, no, it's nothing. Over there, it's not nothing. Over there, it's בפירוש צידה. אלא מאי, if you have מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה פטור, it's מותר as because it's דרבנן משום היזק, and if not, not. If it's מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה חייב, then it's a different reason. Here you don't have Here he says it and doesn't say כמו שנתבאר because it's not כמו שנתבאר. Fine. So לכאורה you could learn like that פשט in the אלטער רבי, and you could learn like that פשט in רש״י, that when רש״י says אין משום צידה that's what he means. So it comes out according to this that when the גמרא says by us you're allowed to capture, trap the נחש, it's צידה, צידה המותרת, but it's a מלאכת צידה, but in a form that it's מותר, and over there it's nothing. לכאורה it's not like that, לכאורה you would say.

לכאורה I have a problem with this whole פשט. because לכאורה I'm going to try to show that even the צידה that you do trap is also not a מלאכה of צידה at all. I'm trying to say that by the trapping of the נחש, when you trap it, it's a מלאכת צידה, and לחישה על הנחש is not צידה. I'll show you לכאורה, and obviously I'm going to try to show that it's not true, but לכאורה it'll come out that trapping it by putting down something on the נחש is also not מלאכת צידה at all. Why? So here we have to go to another thing. It goes in our גמרא the two things go together: צידת נחש and מפיס מורסא, opening the pimple. And normally פשט in the גמרא the reason why they're both מותר, because it's a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה. A מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה we פסקן like רבי שמעון, and therefore it's only דרבנן, and the רבנן were מתיר because of צער, צידה דנחש, צידה דמורסא. באמת, what's the מלאכה? It's מכה בפטיש, if you open a hole in your body, you're make a תיקון, and it's a איסור דאורייתא. But since it's not with the כוונה, you're not for the intentions of what the מלאכה is, it's a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, and that's only we פסקן like רבי שמעון, that it's only מדרבנן. So if you have צער, you're allowed to do it. The קשיא is according to the רמב״ם, just like we said the אלטר רבי asks by צידת נחש, who holds מלאכה שאינה צריכה חייב, why are you allowed to, the same thing by מפיס מורסא. The רמב״ם פסקנס by מפיס מורסא also that you're allowed to do it. But if the whole reason you're allowed to do it by מפיס מורסא is because it's a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, וממילא it's only דרבנן, so the רבנן were מתיר משום צער. But the רמב״ם who holds מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is דאורייתא, so why does the רמב״ם say מותר?

So the מגיד משנה asked that שאלה. And this is actually what the אלטר רבי said, what he said before is referring there, okay? In פרק י׳, הלכה י״ז, המפיס מור המפיס שחין, he calls it שחין, if you open up a a pimple בשבת, if it's in order to open the the opening like the doctors do, you mean then it's חייב, it's מכה בפטיש, שזו היא מלאכת הרופא, that's a מלאכה. ואם הפיסו להוציא ממנה ליחה שבה, if you open it up in order to take the pus out, הרי זה מותר. The רמב״ם says מותר. Comes the מגיד משנה, he says, \"I don't understand.\" It's a long מגיד משנה. And he says, \"What How could you say it's מותר?\" Quotes the גמרא, וראיתי מי שהקשה על רבינו שפסק בשני אלו (the רמב״ם פסקנס side by צידת נחש and side by מפיס מורסא that it's מותר) הירו בסוף פרק זה (for the גמרא says clearly that the reason it's פטור מותר, because מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is פטור) ואחר שרבינו פסק, since the רמב״ם פסקן like רבי יהודה, מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה חייב, why aren't you חייב by these two? Okay, so the רמב״ם so the מגיד משנה says like this. So he says, let's read the words, ונראה לי בתירוץ זה, שרבינו ז״ל (that the רמב״ם) סבר yeah, what's the reason? He says, he brings a ראיה from the גמרא, כשהוציא כשהוא when you do it להוציא ממנה ליחה, if you open the hole in order to take the pus out, אין זה גמר מלאכה. It's not a מלאכה בכלל, ואי אפשר לו לומר דחייב במכה בפטיש או בגמר מלאכה בשום פנים. You can't consider it a מלאכה. What does he mean? So what he really means is, he explains himself later in הלכה כ״ה, and he says an interesting ווארט here, so you have to listen to this very carefully. Let's see. No, not פרק י״ב הלכה ב׳. You have to be very careful here. Have to listen, ממש it's a very געשמאקע ענין. But the מגיד משנה is going to tell us a כלל like this: when it comes to the מלאכה of מכה בפטיש, if you don't have the כוונה כוונה to do the מלאכה of מכה בפטיש, of fixing, finishing the כלי, it's not the פשט it's a מלאכה without כוונה. It's not a מלאכה בכלל. He writes here, נראה שכל שאינו מתכוון by מכה בפ- by תיקון כלי, if you're not מכוון to do it, אין ראוי לומר בפסיק רישא. I don't want to go into the פרטים. It's נוגע maybe, I will say it. The point is, and then I'll explain what it means, by every מלאכה, and I'll explain this, you have to פשוט the הגיון of it, every מלאכה, when you someone going to ask you, what's the מלאכה? You're able to describe exactly what the ציור of the מלאכה is. Someone will ask you, how Describe to me מלאכת כתיבה. Take a pen, and you write. מלאכת בישול, you take a pot of food and you put it on the fire. מלאכת הבערה, making a fire, we know what it is. If someone asks you, describe to me the מלאכת תיקון כלי. What is the ציור of What is the מלאכת תיקון כלי? There is no answer to this question. There is no ציור to תיקון כלי. כלי could be anything in the world! Any פעולה that you do that with this פעולה you're finishing the object, the כלי, it's a מלאכה. Take that מכה בפטיש, you take a hammer and you give a bang. What's wrong with banging with a hammer? I mean, it's מוקצה, it's something else, but you give a bang on the table. If you take the hammer and you bang it on the כלי because through this you intend to finish the כלי, then it's an איסור of מכה בפטיש. So what makes the banging of the hammer into a מלאכה? The כוונה! It's not a פשט it's a מלאכה by itself. If you're מכוון could be you have intentions for the מלאכה or you don't have intentions. It's not a מלאכה! I could tell you, you know what מכה תיקון כלי could be? Going like this. If the way things are done that the last finishing touch to the object is making a blow, if you give that blow for that purpose, you are חייב מיתה! So you have two people, one guy is tired and he goes blows, and the other guy blows the same blow. This guy is חייב מיתה, and this guy did nothing! What's the פשט? Because תיקון כלי is such an exceptional מלאכה that there is no ציור. What makes the פעולה you did into a מלאכה? Your כוונה. If you didn't intend to do it, then it's not תיקון כלי. Not the פשט it's a תיקון כלי that's מותר, it's not תיקון כלי! This is what the מגיד משנה says בנוגע תיקון כלי בכלל. And therefore he says, אינו מתכוון, okay, it'll take too long. So now let's go back to מפיס מורסא. This is what the מגיד משנה is telling us. Why does the רמב״ם hold מפיס מורסא is מותר? Not because it's a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה and there it's מותר, cuz the רמב״ם פסק'נס מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is חייב. He holds it's מותר because if you didn't intend to open the hole for the purpose of making the thing, which is fixing, the moment you didn't think it's fi- it's not a מלאכה! The רמב״ם holds a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is אסור מדאורייתא. But in this case the רמב״ם holds it's not even a מלאכה בכלל. That's what the רמב״ם says, that's what the מגיד משנה says. Let's go back again, the words he says, now we'll understand. וטעם מפיס מורסא גמר מלאכה להרחיב הפה. וכל שהוא מוציא ממנו ליחה, if the purpose is to not to finish it, but to take out the ליחה, אינו גמר מלאכה. Not that it's a גמר מלאכה without כוונה, there's no גמר מלאכה. אי אפשר בו לוא יבוא לחייב מכה בפטיש. You can't say it's מכה בפטיש which is גמר מלאכה. No way, it's not מכה בפטיש. That's מפיס מורסא. Then the מגיד משנה adds, וכן צידת נחש. The same thing when you capture, the other דין when you capture a נחש, the same thing, שאינו צד כדרכה אלא מתעסק בה. Since you're not doing it כדרכה, you're מתעסק, it's also מותר, according to the רמב״ם. Now, what does that mean? Comes the the כסף משנה and the מחצית השקל on the to- on the the מגן אברהם, and he says what the מגיד משנה means is the exact same thing, that צידת נחש is the same thing, that when you capture a נחש without the intention of capturing it, it's not a מלאכת צידה בכלל. Because we see that the מגיד משנה puts the two together. By תיקון כלי, by מפיס מורסא which is תיקון כלי, he says clearly that if you don't have כוונה for תיקון כלי, it's not a מלאכת תיקון כלי, and he finishes וכן צידת נחש, so the the כסף משנה learns that that's the פשט in the מגיד משנה which explains the רמב״ם, that צידת נחש that you're allowed to capture in order not to get a היזק, If you didn't intend for it, it's not מלאכת צידה, which means that the מגיד משנה learns that מלאכת צידה and מלאכת תיקון כלי, מכה בפטיש have the same idea. That's how they learn.

The רבי in ליקוטי שיחות in חלק י\"ד, which I'll mention again like I mentioned the other times that this is a שיחה before you learn הלכות שבת, מסכת שבת, you have to learn through this whole שיחה. And the רבי goes on to say that there is another מלאכה which is similar to תיקון כלי, that if you're not מכוון, it's not a מלאכה בכלל. It's not a מלאכה without כוונה. And he talks about קשר, you're not allowed to make a knot, but the knot מדאורייתא is only if you intend that it should stay לעולם. So the רבי learns that if you don't have that intention, it's not the פשט so it's a it's a מלאכה of קשירה without כוונה, it's not מלאכת קשירה. And he says here על דרך בנוגע where is it? Oder here, before, ובדוגמת מה שכתב המגיד משנה, which מגן אברהם brings, בנוגע למלאכת תיקון כלי שאם לא נתכוון לתכלית זו אינה בגדר מלאכה כלל, and in the שולי הגליון at the bottom, the רבי says that ישנם הרוצים לומר, someone to say the same thing בנוגע צידה. Who is that? The מרכבת המשנה. שבלא כוונה לצוד, אין זה בגדר צידה כלל. Why not? Because צידה means if you're trapping it to get. So the רבי brings that. Now let's stop for a second. If we're going to learn like this, why am I bringing this in before we go further? It comes out that מלאכת צידה, that you're allowed to, I mean, the fact that you're allowed to capture this animal not to be מזיק you, the snake, why are you allowed to? Because it's not a מלאכה בכלל, according to this. אליבא דזה, what I said before is wrong. I tried to say before that if you are capturing, you're covering up the נחש, you're allowed to do it. Why? Because it's טאקע צידה, but צידה which is מותר. מה שאין כן in the case of לחש, that's a different גדר, that's not מלאכת צידה at all. And that's why the two separate things. But now it seems I'm wrong, because now it seems that צידה is also not בגדר מלאכה. So צידה, even the capturing is in a way which is not a מלאכה, which is similar to the לחש. So how can I say that the whole thing is different and this is no אין זה בגדר צידה כלל, because it's only a לחש, there's no צידה, אינה צידה כלל. מה שאין כן this is yes, that's why the אלטר רבי and the מחבר makes it into two separate סימנים, etc., etc. But here we see it's not like that. Here we see that it's בפועל צידה and even by צידה it's also no מלאכה, that's what the מרכבת המשנה says פשט in מגיד משנה. So I'm trying to tell you that the רבי argues on the מרכבת המשנה! And the רבי writes, he brings the מרכבת המשנה that צידה is also the פשט that if you don't have כוונה to capture, to trap, it's not צידה, זאגט דער רבי: אבל אינו כן! Doesn't say וצריך עיון, doesn't say a lot of times the רבי writes on somebody לא זכיתי להבין, I don't understand, he says, you are wrong. Okay, maybe this goes to the מרכבת המשנה. מרכבת המשנה lived in the time of the בעל שם טוב, a big, big מתנגד. The אלטר רבי never wanted to look into the מרכבת המשנה. He didn't want to hold it in his hands. Once he needed to see what he says on the on the רמב\"ם, so he asked the שמש to open it up and read it for him. He didn't want to look in. So maybe on the מרכבת המשנה, but I think in this case it's more than that, because I'll show soon that according to the אלטר רבי it's בפירוש not true what he says. But the רבי says it's not true and he brings a ראיה, not it's going to take too long to bring this ראיה. So he says clearly that by צידה it's not like that. If you don't have כוונה to trap, it's still trapping, because the fact is you trapped. אלא מאי? You're not having the כוונה. So ממילא by צידה it's not like מפיס מורסא. By מפיס מורסא, טאקע the reason why you're allowed because it's not it's not it's no מלאכה, it's not בגדר. צידה, if you trap it, it is בגדר מלאכה, אלא מאי, you're allowed. If you say צידה is בגדר מלאכה, now my חילוק makes sense: by regular trapping it's בגדר מלאכה but you're allowed, and by לחש it's not בגדר מלאכה at all. And and it's clear the אלטר רבי holds like that, because if we're going to look at the two places, side by מפיס what the אלטר רבי writes on מפיס מורסא and what the אלטר רבי writes by צידה. So I'll read you what he writes on מפיס מורסא. מפיס מורסא in in סימן ש\"כ ח' סעיף ל\"ב: המפיס מורסא בשבת, he says, I guess you're not allowed because it's תיקון כלי. Yeah. Okay. But in the case, why are you allowed in the case of this? Because since you're only doing it for the ליחה, so it's a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה. A מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is only אסור מדרבנן, you're allowed. ואף להאומרים מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה חייב עליה מדאורייתא, מכל מקום כאן, and the אלטר רבי says what the מגיד משנה says. The אלטר רבי says, כיוון שחיובו הוא מתיקון המכה, since it's תיקון כלי, אם כן, כיוון שאין צריך לתיקון זה, when you don't need it, ואינו מתכוון לזה, and you don't have כוונה, even though it happens by itself, אין זה חשוב תיקון כלל. Not the פשט that it's a תיקון without כוונה. If you don't have in mind, it's not תיקון כלי. והרי זה כאילו לא עשה ולא כלום. אלא מאי? There might be a גזירה, מדרבנן might be a גזירה, but because of the צער, they took it off. So by by מפיס מורסא, the אלטר רבי, when he explains the רמב\"ם, he says those that hold מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה חייב and מפיס מורסא is still מותר, so he quotes the same thing that the מגיד משנה says, because it's not תיקון כלי. Let's see what he says by צידת נחש. By צידת נחש, when we quoted that you're allowed to, then he says what about those that hold מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is חייב? מכל מקום כאן, by צידת נחש, you're allowed. Why? If you would hold like the מרכבת המשנה, what would you expect the אלטר רבי to say, why? Because since it's not מתכוון to capture, it's not a מלאכת צידה. He says something else: כאן, כיוון שאין צדן כדרכן, since you're not doing it the normal way, אלא מתעסק בהן, you're only getting involved, it shouldn't bite you, by putting a כלי, etc., לפיכך התירו לעשות כן. They meant So the אלטר רבי says clearly that by צידת נחש it's a different reason. So obviously, he doesn't learn like the מרכבת המשנה learns. And that's probably why the רבי says, אבל איני. The פלא is why the אלטר The רבי doesn't bring that the אלטר רבי says a different פשט. And he doesn't בכלל bring that the אלטר רבי quotes the מגיד משנה. Doesn't say his name, but that's the מגיד משנה. So we see according to the אלטר רבי, that's not the פשט, that צידה is not like that. And the רבי has a clear ראיה from the אופן הדין that it's ממש I can't see how the מרכבת המשנה makes this mistake. But the רבי doesn't bring the מחצית השקל says the same thing like the מרכבת המשנה, that by צידה, if not it's, cuz he brings the אופן הראיה that it's not like that. So what's the reason by צידה not like that? איי, the the the מגיד משנה says explains the רמב\"ם, so he said there he says first that by מפיס מורסא the reason is cuz it's not תיקון בכלל, it's not not a מלאכה. Then he continues: וכן צידת נחש, שאינו צד כדרכו אלא מתעסק בו. So normally you would learn that what he means is, the same explanation I gave by מפיס מורסא, the same by צידת נחש. And the אלטר רבי definitely learns not like that. It can't be. וכן, also, says is also מותר for a different reason. Why is it מותר for a different reason? Because you're not doing it כדרך, not because it's not a מלאכה at all. You're just not doing it כדרך. So this is how we will have to learn in the אלטר רבי פשט in in the מרכבת המשנה in the in the מגיד משנה. And and the רבי says clearly that by צידה you can't say it. One of the ראיות the מחצית השקל brings to his פשט that צידה is the same thing, that it's also because it's not a מלאכה בכלל, because if it's not a מלאכה בכלל, if no, he says, if the reason would be because not because it's not a מלאכה, because like I said, because you're doing it שלא כדרכו, he says the שולחן ערוך should have said that you're allowed to do this צידה if you do it not the normal way. Since the שולחן ערוך doesn't say that, a סימן that it's not a מלאכה בכלל. The אלטר רבי we just read, just בפירוש does say it! So בפירוש the אלטר רבי learns that צידת נחש is a מלאכה even if you're not מתכוון. And the reason, according to the רמב\"ם, is allowed to do it cuz it's שלא כדרכו. So according to the way the רבי learns and the way it's clearly, I can't see any other way, clearly the אלטר רבי learns like that, it comes out that צידת נחש, that you're allowed to trap the נחש, why is it מותר? Because you're doing it differently. Do we say that it's not a מלאכה at all? No. Oh! So ממילא, צידת נחש is a מלאכה, אלא מאי, a מלאכה that's מותר. So now it makes sense what I said before, that you could be מחלק. צידת נחש the אלטר רבי says is מותר, and he says it in the הלכות צידה, because it is צידה! And he tells you all kinds of סברות why it's מותר, this סברא, that סברא. By לחש, אין זה משום צידה כלל, בכלל not צידה! And that's That's why the אלטר רבי doesn't go into פרטים that you have to do שלא כדרכו whatever. He makes a clear דין, and it's according to everybody, אפילו if you hold מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה חייב. So my שאלה was, I tried to make the לכתחילה in the beginning of the שיעור to make a חילוק between these two דינים. But I asked the שאלה, how could you make that חילוק, that לחש is no מלאכה at all, מה שאין כן צידת נחש is a מלאכה, but it's מותר, when צידת נחש according to the מקבץ המשנה in משנה פשט in the מגיד משנה, it's also no מלאכה, they're both no מלאכה. So I'm saying now, דאס איז ווי ער לערנט. וואס מיר לערנען, וואס מיר ווייסן the אמת in פשט, the way the אלטר רבי says and the way the רבי says, and again I'm wondering why the רבי in the שיחה here in the הערה when he says it clearly doesn't bring the אלטר רבי and it's a clear אלטר רבי לערן. I can't see any other way. אלטר רבי says clearly a different reason why מפיס מורסא versus צידת נחש. מפיס מורסא he says because it's not a מלאכה בכלל. If you're not מכוון for תיקון כלי, אין זה תיקון כלי כלל ולא עשה שום מעשה. But צידת נחש he says because you're doing it שלא כדרכו. It's a different לשון. So according to that, צידת נחש is a מלאכה of צידה. אלא מאי it's מותר or because it's מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה, and according to the רמב\"ם because you do it שלא כדרכו. מה שאין כן לחש, אין בו צידה כלל. And that's why this is put in סימן שט\"ז, this answers the קשיא of the בית שבע. The דין of צידת נחש is put in סימן שט\"ז because there it talks about צידה, because it's צידה. In this is put בפירוש not in שט\"ז, to tell you it's not צידה, and he says אין בו משום צידה. Where did he put it? He had to put it someplace, so he put it in הלכות where it talks about the רפואה, because after all it's in the same category because you're trying to prevent a היזק, so you're trying he shouldn't bite you, shouldn't get hurt. So he put it there. But it fits, because this is no מלאכה at all and this is a מלאכה. How do you explain the מגיד משנה says it's מותר? No, that he says it's מותר because it's שלא כדרכו, he says, I'll read you the words: וכן צידת נחש שאינו צד כדרכו אלא מתעסק בו. So the מקבץ המשנה learns פשט that's what he means: since it's not כדרכו, that means you're not מכוון, במילא it's no מלאכה. But he didn't say it. But in here you could never know. In the מגיד משנה itself you could learn both ways. But you see from the אלטר רבי clearly that he says a different thing, that it's שלא כדרכו. And again, the מחצית השקל is a ראיה that that's what he doesn't mean, that the מגיד משנה doesn't mean because you're doing it שלא כדרכו because then the שולחן ערוך should have said. So I don't know, maybe the בית יוסף holds different but the אלטר רבי clearly says that it has to be שלא כדרכו. So במילא according to the אלטר רבי it's a different, here it's בפירוש, but the רבי ראיה, if you look, learn the שיחה, learn this הערה, learn the שולחן ערוך and see the ראיה, it's a ממש such a שטארקע ראיה that I can't see how anybody can learn differently, it's so פשוט. And במילא you can explain the difference between these two הלכות.