The Gemara here on דף ג, שבת דף ג, the Gemara asks a שאלה בנוגע the Mishnah, where it says that if one person does an עקירה and the other person does the הנחה, they're both patur. So the Gemara asks, שניהם פטורין, why are they both patur? והא איתעבידת מלאכה מבינייהו! But after all, between the two a melachah was done. This guy did the עקירה, and this guy did the הנחה, זה עוקר וזה מניח, so between the two a melachah was done. So why are they both patur? And the Gemara answers, 'cause it says in a ברייתא, רבי אומר, there's a פסוק that says מעם הארץ בעשותה, so we darshan from the word בעשותה, בעשותה means you do it, that means you're doing the whole melachah. So we darshan from here, יחיד ועשה אותה, חייב. If one person does the melachah, he's chayav. שנים ועשו אותה, פטורין. But if two people do the melachah, you're patur. Which means, if one person does an עקירה and one person does the הנחה, so ein hachi nami, the melachah was done, but it's done by two people! Between the two, a melachah was done. So from the פסוק בעשותה we learn, you're only chayav if you do the whole melachah, not you an עקירה and the other guy the הנחה. And then the beraita adds another expression: יחיד ועשה אותה, חייב. If one person does it, the melachah, he's chayav. שנים ועשו אותה, פטורין. If two people do the melachah, they're patur. And Tosafos says that these two לשונות really mean the same thing, even though the Beraisa tells us two things. Because you would have thought, it's possible, if not for Tosafos, one would have thought that the Beraisa is telling us two things. There are two possible ways a melachah should be done between two people: One could be Reuven does first half, and Shimon does the second half, like in our case, Reuven does the akirah, Shimon does the hanachah. So the melachah was done between the two, but one did the first half, one did the other half. Then there's another way it's possible for two people together to do, and that is, they both together do the whole melachah. They're both holding on to the same thing, they're both holding on to the pe- to the object, and together they both pick it up in the רשות היחיד, both together take it out, and make an hanachah in רשות הרבים. So here also you have a case where the melachah was done between two. So normally we could have learned that this is the pshat in the Beraisa. The first expression, when it says העושה כולה ולא העושה מקצתה, that you're only chayav if you do the whole thing, not if you do part, that's the first case. You're not chayav if you only did akirah and the other guy did the hanachah. Same thing, the other guy is not chayav because he did only the hanachah, not the akirah. And the second pshat, the second ענין, יחיד ועשה אותה חייב, שנים ועשו אותה פטורין, would be the opposite, would be the second case, that if one person does the whole thing you're chayav, but if two people together do it, you're patur. Zogt Tosafos, it's not true. Both mean the same thing. The second לשון, which says יחיד ועשה אותה חייב, if one person does it he's chayav, if two people do it you're patur, does not mean to tell you that if two people together do the whole melachah you're patur. That's not what it means. It also means the same thing, that only if one person does the whole thing, but if two people do the melachah, meaning one does the first half and one does the other half, you're patur. Ay, and the re'iyah is because if it would be the other thing it would need another limud, whatever, it's not noge'a the re'iyah. Then Tosafos says, but then why does the Gemara, the Beraisa tell us, say the same thing again in a different לשון? Zogt תוספות, the לשון is ואינו אלא כפל מילה. He's repeating himself, that's all. He's saying the same thing twice. So we obviously have to understand, what is the purpose in כפל מילה? Why does he repeat himself? Tosafot has a re'ayah that it's a repetition, it's not a new case, because if it would be a new case, you would need another pasuk, and here we only have one limud, בעשותה. But the question is, why taka does the Gemara do this? Why does the Gemara repeat? repeat it. That's one thing.

Then there's another thing. The Avnei Nezer in in I'll in I didn't write it down the מראה מקומות, in Orach Chaim סימן פ\"ה סעיף קטן ד', and the Gilyon Maharsha here, who's the Gilyon Maharsha? It's not the Maharsha. That's what? It's not a student. What's the ראשי תיבות מהרש\"א? The first, the regular Maharsha was ראשי תיבות שמואל אידלס. Who was איידל? Who was אידל? His mother-in-law. Mother-in-law. Why was he called by his mother-in-law's name? She supported him, yeah, she gave him a lot of money. The רבי once compared him, same thing, why we call ר' Pinchas Reyeses. Chasid of the Alter Rebbe, ר' Pinchas Reyeses. רייזע was not his mother, it was his mother-in-law. But she was rich, she supported him, she gave him a lot of money, that's why he became rich. Anyway, but that's not the Gilyon Maharsha. The Gilyon Maharsha is It's not the ר' ר' שמואל אידלס. It's The א' is not אידלס. ר' Shlomo Eiger, ר' ר' Akiva Eiger's son. And that's also Maharsha, מורינו הרב. So they both, the Avnei Nezer and Gilyon Maharsha, ask a setirah in Tosafot. In the further part of Tosafot. Tosafot says that when the Gemara asked that because the melachah was done between the two, so there's a full melachah, so why are they both patur? So the she'eilah is, so who do we want to be chayav? If one guy does the akirah, and another guy does the hanachah, and the Gemara says why are they patur, obviously the Gemara wants you should be chayav. So who should be chayav? So Tosafos says there's, for sure, no hava amina that the one that made the akirah should be chayav. Because the one that made the akirah did the akirah, let's say he did the akirah and took it out, but didn't do the hanachah. He never finished the melachah! He He did that part, and he walked away. Why would he be chayav? There was no melachah done in his part! The she'eilah of the Gemara is, maybe the one that did the hanachah should be chayav, because he finished the melachah. Tosafos says, וליפריך שיחייב הראשון, דאין סברא דעל ידי השני שעשה הנחה וגמר המלאכה יתחייב הראשון. The second guy finished the melachah and the first guy is chayav? What the first guy did is not complete melachah yet. אלא השני קא פריך שיחייב, דהואיל ועל ידו נגמרה המלאכה. So Tosafos says that the she'eilah is not shayach as a she'eilah on the first guy, because why would he be What sevara to be chayav? The second guy, that's where we have a she'eilah, maybe he should be chayav. So they ask a she'eilah that this is a setirah to Tosafos דף צ\"ג עמוד א'. Actually, I noticed in some of the other Gemarot, I don't know if other Gemarot, they have on the side, it says a הערה on this, עיין לקמן דף צ\"ג ע\"א תוספות ד\"ה המעביר חד. So they, ווייס איך, they're they're being מעיר this shaila. Tosafos here says like this, a small Tosafos. The Gemara says that we have a פסוק to teach you that זה עוקר וזה מניח you're patur, because you didn't do the whole melacha. So Tosafos asks a shaila, why is it that only by זה עוקר וזה מניח we need to tell you we need a special פסוק to tell you you're patur, which means that if not the פסוק, you would think it's chayav. How come by other melachot we don't have that? למשל, Tosafos says, זה כותב אחת ובא חבירו וכותב שניה. כתיבה is writing. What's the shiur of writing כתיבה? Two אותיות. So what happens if one person writes one אות, he didn't do the complete melacha, and the second guy writes the second אות? We don't have a special פסוק to tell you you're patur. Why not? If by זה עוקר וזה מניח we need a special פסוק to tell you you're patur because we would have thought you're chayav, so then why by writing we don't need such a thing, we should also have a פסוק to tell you? Obviously we don't need a פסוק. So Tosafos says, that זה כותב אחת ובא חבירו וכותב שניה לא איצטריך קרא, אלא הוצאה. Only by הוצאה, where one guy does the עקירה and one הנחה you need a פסוק to tell you, because we would have thought that you're chayav. Because by הוצאה, דהוה אמינא ההכנסה והוצאה הוא דקפיד רחמנא. By הוצאה, I would think that the main thing is the transfer of רשות, the taking out and taking in. וליחייב אפילו בלא הנחה. And therefore I would think you're חייב even if you didn't make the הנחה. As long as you made the עקירה and you took it out, you should be חייב, because you did the main part. So lechora, from here it comes out, Tosafos not comes out, Tosafos says it clear, that there is a hava amina that a person only did the עקירה and did not do the הנחה and he should be חייב. Tosafos by by us, seems to be very clear that there is no such hava amina. Tosafos says it makes no sense, דאין סברא דעל ידי השני שעשה הנחה ויהיה חייב הראשון, that the first guy, because he didn't do the הנחה, there is no סברא he should be חייב, because he didn't finish the מלאכה. Because part the מלאכה is through through הנחה. And over there, Tosafos says very pashut that there is a hava amina, if not for the פסוק, I would have said that the guy did the עקירה is חייב, even though he didn't do the הנחה. So they ask this סתירה. So we have this actually, these two שאלות here. Now what we're going to do is, to get to this, we're really going to go through again and be mosif more פרטים into things we've been speaking before. You're coming back? Good. So he went to get a chair? Good. No chairs there? The chairs there, you can get there. Okay.

So, we're going to get back to the inyan of הוצאה being a מלאכה גרועה. I told you in the beginning of the year you're going to hear you're going to עד שיצא מאפכם, you're going to hear this constantly. This is one of the fame the the major ענינים in first פרק, and later on in המצניע and הזורק, where we talk about הוצאה, the inyan of הוצאה being a מלאכה גרועה. הא. And what did What does the And based on that, we're going to come back to this sugya. But let's start with a שאלה. Tosafos on דף ב עמוד ב, דיבור המתחיל מי לא עסקינן, Tosafos learns: You also don't have a chair? Okay. Tosafos says that when the Mishnah in, later on in כלל גדול lists, when the Mishnah lists the list of the ל״ט מלאכות, it only lists the אבות, even though all the מלאכות have תולדות also, it only lists the אבות. One מלאכה Tosafos says means the תולדות also. The Mishnah says המוציא מרשות לרשות. One of the מלאכות is if you take out from the רשות to the רשות. The Mishnah does not say המוציא מרשות היחיד לרשות הרבים. Doesn't say you're taking out from the רשות היחיד to רשות הרבים. It says from one רשות to another, which automatically, Tosafos says, includes both: הוצאה and הכנסה, cuz both of them are taking from one רשות to another. So Tosafos asks the shaila: why עפעס דוקא by this מלאכה of הוצאה the Mishnah in the list of the ל״ט מלאכות writes it in such a way that it should include the תולדה also? הכנסה we learned is a תולדה, and we went through that shiur once that תוספות על כל פנים שיטה is that הכנסה is a תולדה, and Tosafos and and the Mishnah who it says המוציא מרשות לרשות includes הכנסה also. So the Mishnah is telling us the אבות מלאכות, one of the אבות מלאכות the Mishnah writes it in such a way that it should include the toldah of הכנסה. Why? Why by other avos melachos the Mishnah does not say anything about the תולדות, and by הוצאה it does? So Tosafos's answers is very simple: ותירץ ריב״א דבכל שאר תולדות, אם היה רוצה לשנותם היה צריך להאריך במשנה. Imagine if we want to write a toldah of something else. Let's give an example: even extra words, הזורע, one of the תולדות is one of the avos is planting, planting a seed. Then there's another melacha which is like by pruning, if you cut the trees in order for it to grow better, so in order to include the the toldah of זומר, which is pruning, he had to add a word. He had to say הזורע and then הזומר. So there, he had to add words, so he didn't want, he's only talking about the avos. By הוצאה, he didn't have have to add any words in order to include הכנסה. By just writing the לשון המוציא מרשות לרשות, which automatically includes הכנסה, so why doesn't he do it? That's why he said אבל הכנסה, because it's called הוצאה, כיילו ליה בקיצור. It goes בקיצור. This is Tosafos's תירץ. The Rashba gives a different תירץ. The Rashba says that because הוצאה is a מלאכה גרועה, this is the only melacha I would have had a hava amina has no תולדות. I would think it has no תולדות. Davka only by this melacha, because there would have been a sevara by some people it has no תולדות, cuz it's a מלאכה גרועה, so the Mishnah has to tell you there are this toldah is a toldah, there are תולדות. But by other melachot, we know there are תולדות. What's the reason there shouldn't be? So why doesn't Tosafos answer this? Lechorah, you would say, Lechorah, Tosafos also holds that הוצאה is a מלאכה גרועה, that's what we've been learning the whole time. So why doesn't Tosafos answer? Bepashtut, it would seem that Tosafos holds, when we say it's a מלאכה גרועה means that's why I wouldn't know it's a מלאכה, and I need a pasuk for it, that's what Tosafos says in דף ב, but after I know it's a מלאכה that it's like every מלאכה, every מלאכה has toldot, why shouldn't this have a toldah? That's a pashtut. מלאכה is גרועה is only I would not know it's a מלאכה, so the Torah had to tell us. Fine, so now the Torah told us, so we know it's a מלאכה. Every מלאכה has a toldah, why shouldn't this have a toldah? So you can't tell me because it's a מלאכה גרועה, I would think it has no toldot. So what's the Rashba's sevara? He says, I would have thought it has no toldot because it's a מלאכה גרועה. But Lechorah it should be that after we know it's a מלאכה, we shouldn't care and it shouldn't need, it shouldn't, it should be no havat amina. ובכלל, what is the difference between Tosafos and the Rashba, why Tosafos feels that this is not a good terutz, and the Rashba says this is a good terutz? And also, obviously we have to, not a kushya, but just to understand, what is the sevara that because it's a מלאכה גרועה, it shouldn't have toldot? What's the peshat? I would think it's a melachah, and because it's a מלאכה גרועה, zogt der Rashba, I would have a hava amina it has no toldot, and that's why the Mishnah has to tell us that there is a toldah. Because I'd say, so it's a מלאכה גרועה, but לפועל it's a melachah, what what's the sevara being a מלאכה גרועה, it shouldn't have toldot? So let's get back back to the inyan of מלאכה גרועה. And I don't want to sound like a broken record, but I will, if you know what records are. I'm sure you don't even know if you ever saw a record, I'm sure you not, nowadays they didn't even see a tape. Now it's, but it used to be a מציאות המורגשת years ago, at least, so long ago, at least 20 years ago. Cuz now every month is a שנה, נעשה like a תקופה. So at least 20 years ago they still used to be records. Anyway, a broken record used to come, the needle would come and it would repeat again the same thing again and again and again, never finish. So I'm trying to repeat again. What's the גדר of a מלאכה גרועה, we explained? מלאכה גרועה is because the and melachah means that you're creating something, but not a real creating, but you're changing the מצב. The only melachah that there is no change is the melachah of הוצאה. All you're doing is taking from one רשות to another, there's nothing that's happening in this object. It's not like you're cooking, it changes the object, now before it was raw, now it's cooked. You're writing, before there was not written, now it's written. Here it's only changing the רשות. Then I said also, lichorah, so if it's takeh a מלאכה גרועה, if it's takeh no change, why is it a melachah? So we said that that's the reason why we have to have עקירה and הנחה. And the עקירה and the הנחה is what makes it into a change, because like I said, in הגיון, in in in in abstract thinking, when something lays down on the floor, it's not only laying there, it's like בטל, becomes מושרש, becomes like enrooted into this place, so it becomes part of it. When I pick it up, I'm as if I'm tearing it out from its place, and when I put it down, I'm like putting it back and like planting it back in. So, in הגיון, it's a מלאכה גרועה. In הגיון, in in in it's it's a מלאכה גרועה.

But I want to add more to this inyan of this being a מלאכה גרועה, what the meaning of מלאכה גרועה is, based on the שיחה in ואתחנן חלק י״א. Hopefully, you all learned the sicha, you know the Rebbe there explains that there are three, I'm I'm making it bekitzur, three מדרגות. There is such a thing as a chatzi shiur, that you do the full, full melachah, but you just chatzi shiur, like the example we said before of writing, there's a din that you're chayav only if you write two letters. If you write one letter, it is a chatzi shiur. You did the whole איכות of the melachah. The melachah was done completely, not a part of the melachah. The melachah is writing, and you wrote. There's a shiur, a quantity, how much you have to write in order to be chayav, that's chatzi shiur. What's the din by chatzi shiur? חצי שיעור אסור מן התורה, it's de'oraisa. Then you have עקירה without הנחה or הנחה without עקירה is not חצי שיעור, חצי מלאכה. You didn't do the complete melachah, it's not that you did the whole melachah, but you missed in the quantity of how much, you didn't do the full melachah, the full melachah is עקירה and הנחה. And then the Rebbe is מחדש another case of קשירה. The whole, the whole sicha there talks about קשירה, it's a hadran on Shabbos about קשירה, the melachah of making a knot. And the din is that de'oraisa, you're only chayav if you make a double knot, if you have in mind it should stay forever. If you make a knot and you have in mind to take it apart later, de'oraisa it's not chayav, מדרבנן it's asur. Nevertheless, the Gemara says that if it's צורך מצוה, if you need to make a knot for a mitzvah, if it's a קשר שאינו של קיימא, if you didn't have in mind to stay forever, which is only אסור מדרבנן, צורך מצוה, you're allowed. Well, this is the חידוש of the רבי, that this is another מלאכה that depends on kavanah. This is this, the רבי in an הערה on this ענין says על דרך like מכה בפטיש, then he brings the מרכבת המשנה says the same thing by צידה, and the רבי says that he's wrong, so the רבי adds to מכה בפטיש, he adds the מלאכה of קשירה, exactly. Yeah. Yeah. So let me explain. The דין is that if you make a קשר שאינו של קיימא that's not to stay forever, which is only אסור מדרבנן, if it's לצורך מצוה you're allowed. So the רבי asks, why is that different than עקירה without הנחה? עקירה without הנחה, which is only אסור מדרבנן also, but if it's לצורך מצוה it's still אסור. What's the ראיה it's still אסור? The מפרשים say that why did the Mishnah give an example of a עני and a בעל הבית? Because why would the בעל הבית give something to the עני, because he's poor, it's tzedakah. You would think that in order to fulfill the mitzvah of tzedakah you're allowed to make an עקירה without הנחה. That's why the Mishnah says that even if you make עקירה without הנחה in that case, it's פטור אבל אסור, אסור מדרבנן. So why is it that by קשירה, if you're not מכוון for a קשר של קיימא, which is also אסור מדרבנן, but לצורך מצוה it's מותר? So the Rabbi says that קשירה is even less than עקירה without הנחה. So you have חצי שיעור, which is not חייב, it's אסור מדאורייתא. Let's go even a step before: if you do a full thing, a full מלאכה with a full שיעור, you're חייב. If you do a full מלאכה with a חצי שיעור, you're פטור, but it's אסור מדאורייתא. If you do a חצי מלאכה like עקירה without הנחה, it's אסור מדרבנן, it's not אסור because it's not חצי שיעור. If you do a קשר שאינו של קיימא, within דרבנן גופא it's even a lesser level. Why is it a lesser level? So the Rabbi is מסביר there that by עקירה without הנחה, so you did part of the מלאכה. You didn't do the whole מלאכה, so it's not אסור מדאורייתא. If you do the whole מלאכה you're just lacking the שיעור, it's דאורייתא. You didn't do the whole מלאכה, but בפועל part of the מלאכה you did! You did an עקירה! The מלאכה is עקירה, הוצאה and הנחה. You did עקירה, so you did part. By keshirah, if it's not mechuvan to have a קשר של קיימא, it's bichlal not a melachah! It's not even part of the melachah! Because he says like this: what's the melachah? The melachah is to tie two things together. If you tie two things together without wanting to keep it forever, it's not called tied! Even while it's tied it's not tied! And in the הערות he brings ראיות. So mimela you didn't even do part of the melachah! Ela mai, you took two threads and you put them together. So imagine you take two threads and you go like this, you just touch them together. That's nothing! Same thing, even if you tie them together, but if you didn't have in mind to have it forever, then it's not a melachah at all! This is what the Rebbe says. So lichorah, I just want to understand, it's not so pashut, this חילוק that the Rebbe makes. If you do an akirah without hanachah, is there any, is the melachah done? No. So why would we say it's a half a melachah? It's not half a melachah either. Why can't you say the same thing? The melachah is if you do akirah, hotzaah and hanachah. If you only did an akirah, so you didn't do the melachah! Why is that a חצי מלאכה? I'm not asking a kushya, this is not a she'eilah, I'm just trying to get to something. I'll tell you why it's called חצי מלאכה: because בגשמיות the melachah is made up of different steps. Vadai that the melachah doesn't happen till you finish the melachah, till then it's not a melachah. When it finishes, then the whole thing is a melachah. But בגשמיות, when you make an akirah, you are doing part of what it takes to make a melachah. That's why it's called חצי מלאכה. That's why the רבנן אסר it as חצי מלאכה. So why is it by קשר not like that? Even though you need kavanah to make the מלאכה, but how does the מלאכה happen? בגשמיות! You take two strings and you tie them together. That's part of what בגשמיות is the מלאכה. And you have in mind that it's to stay forever, you got the full מלאכה. So putting it together, why is that not part of the מלאכה at all? Why is this less than עקירה without הנחה? Because without it it's not a מלאכה? Without הנחה, it's also not a מלאכה! Ela mai, it's part of the מלאכה, בגשמיות, even though in הלכה מצד דאורייתא he didn't do the מלאכה yet, but because this is the סדר, this is part of a מלאכה, we call that חצי מלאכה and דרבנן אסר it. So the same thing by קשר שאינו של קיימא! When you tie the two knots, the two things together, it's part of the גשמיות of how the מלאכה is done! So I want to say the pshat a little bit deeper, a little pshat in the sicha, which could be that this is pshat in one of the הערות in the sicha, and the pshat in the sicha has to be like this: the difference between עקירה without הנחה לגבי קשר שאינו של קיימא, the chiluk is, עקירה and הנחה are completely connected. Based on what I said before, what is the ענין of the מלאכת הוצאה? It's a מלאכה גרועה. It doesn't have any שינוי. What makes it into a שינוי, at least בהגיון, not בגשמיות, is the fact that you're עוקר it from one place and you're putting it on another place. So the עקירה and the הנחה make the שינוי. So I want to say that לכאורה this could be the peshat: they're not two separate inyanim. The hanachah is a perat in the akirah, and the akirah is a perat in the hanachah. What's teitch akirah? You're taking it away from here, and you're changing it from here. When is it considered that you really took it away from here? When you put it down someplace else. If you didn't put it down someplace else, what's the peshat? You didn't really עוקר it completely. See, if it's, we're talking about a גשמיותדיקע thing, so picking up is picking up. But here, we're talking be'etzem it's picking up means nothing. You picked it up, so? Didn't change. Ela mai? Behigayon there is a change in the reshut by taking it. So I want to say that if you pick it up, and this is a change, it's not a change yet. When is it considered a change? When not only did you take it away from here, but you put it down someplace else. So now it's a real akirah. And the same thing פארקערט: when is it a real hanachah? That means that you put it down to a new reshut. If it didn't come from an akirah, which means it didn't come from another reshut, you just put it down, let's say it came from the air and you put it down, that's not really a change. From nothing, from no status to becoming a hanachah is not a real change. If originally it was in one reshut, you took it away from the one reshut and you put it down in the other reshut, that hanachah is a real hanachah. So akirah and hanachah are really intertwined, they really go together. Mah she'ein ken the kavanah by kesher and the ma'aseh, that's two separate things. אודאי one is noge'a to the other, and therefore, so by the akirah without hanachah, when you did an akirah, you already started doing the hanachah. Because an akirah is the beginning of the hanachah. When you did the hanachah, you are continuing the akirah. So because it already has in it a perat, a part in the whole melachah, that's why it's called chatzi melachah. Ah? No, but here it's not a shiur. Here it's not shiur. Here I'm not saying it's a shiur, I'm saying what the תוכן of the melachah is. It's not amount. The whole melachah of שינוי is an איכותדיקע זאך, it's not a... not a כמותדיקע זאך. It's איכות of what makes the איכות of the melachah. Um'meila, so again, this is what I'm saying. So the Rebbe says by קשירה, it's nothing. The kavanah, without a kavanah, it's nothing. איי, it's beginning, you can't have a מלאכת קשירה without having that part, so it's also a chelek, it's also חצי מלאכה? No. It's a חצי מלאכה that has nothing to do with the second half. This is the גשמיות, this is the שכל. This is the kavanah. Um'meila, since it's two separate things, and we know that part is nothing, part of איכות, did you ever hear a part of איכות? כמות, you could see this is part of... in איכות, or you do the whole איכות or part of it, or no איכות. That's why the chiluk, someone asked what's the chiluk between chatzi shiur and בשר בחלב? Mentioned it the other day in the shiur. Why isn't eating בשר should be asur as chatzi shiur? Because there's an איסור בשר בחלב, this is half. Ela mai? It's not it's not a shiur. But it's part of, but that's part of something, no? If the בשר בחלב together go together, together it's asur, so part of it should also be asur. It's a joke. Why? Because it's a new איכות. בשר בחלב is a new... I don't want to get into יורה דעה here, but in Yoreh Deah we learned the only case where everyone agrees that חתיכה נעשית נבלה is by בשר בחלב. Rabbeinu Ephraim says everything, not this. I'm not going to explain what it means. But by בשר בחלב, it's not like you have בשר and חלב and together it's אסור. It becomes a new מציאות. So you can't say בשר is half of the איכות. If you don't have the second half, you don't have anything. It's not the pshat בשר is a shtikel part of בשר בחלב, because that's what it is, בשר בחלב, it has בשר and חלב. Because when בשר בחלב is a new איכות, that's nothing. So the same thing here. By the קשר, doing the קשר, making the קשר without a kavanah, because it's a separate inyan, and it's nothing to do with the second half, so it's part of the איכות, part of the איכות is nothing. But by עקירה and הנחה, עקירה and הנחה go together. עקירה is part of the הנחה, and הנחה is part of the עקירה. Umemela, when you have it, you have part of the whole מלאכה. בהגיון, not בפועל. And it's takeh not חצי שיעור either, but at least there is more, that's what the Rebbe you could say means, and it could be this is the pshat in one of the הערות. Which הערה number there? Someone has a חלק י״ד? I'll tell you which which הערה I mean. הערה 19. הערה 19. It's still not the 19. It's which הערה? Oh here, הערה 33. Okay, I don't want to read it now. היינו דאף שהיכא שיש בדעתו שהוא קולע לעולם, נחשבת פעולת הקשירה עצמה גם כן כחלק מהמלאכה, הרי הפירוש בזה וחסר הדעת אז גם פעולה אינה כלום. Look at הערה 33. It's possible I don't know if it means this, but it's possible. הערה 33. So al kol panim, what we're really getting into is this inyan of what it means מלאכה גרועה, that מלאכה גרועה is that it's missing the shinui, but the fact that it has an עקירה and an הנחה adds at least בהגיון, במחשבה that there is a גדר שינוי in the person, it's a mental shinui. And as I mentioned last time, we find I don't know if I mentioned it in the shiur or not, we find sometimes even in halacha that a mental thing is considered as if it's a גשמיותדיקע thing, לגבי קנינים. So we find al kol panim, so mimela this could be here too that this is the pshat in מלאכה גרועה, and that's why sof kol sof it is a מלאכה. This will give a little understanding why pshat in Rashba why if it's a מלאכה גרועה we have a hava amina that there is no תולדות. And according to Tosafot there is no such hava amina. Tosafot gives a different terutz. Tosafot doesn't say there's no hava amina because it's a מלאכה גרועה you should think it's no תולדות. He gives a different terutz because it's bekitzur. This goes back to something else I said once before. We said that there is a she'elah whether the אבות and תולדות is בבחינת טעם or סימן, if you remember, meaning to say that the reason why the תולדה is חייב because of the אב, is the אב a siman to the toldah because this av is chayav, mimela anything similar is it's a siman which kinds of things are chayav and this is similar so it's chayav, or it's a reason why it's chayav? What I explained it means like this: when you say an av is chayav, why is the av chayav? Is it because of the תכונה that it has, because of the quality of the of the of the melachah? If that's the peshat, then the toldah, which has the same quality, is also chayav. So that's a geder of taam: the reason why the toldah is chayav because the av is chayav. The av is not a siman to know which one is chayav, it's the reason, because the whole av is there for a reason. What's the reason? The reason is because it has a תכונת מלאכה. And I'll say it again, because if you look stam in the מלאכות המשכן and you say we took out ל״ט מלאכות for the מלאכות המשכן, this is the only things they did by the Mishkan? They did a million things when they built the Mishkan! Why did they pick out these 39? They looked into the Mishkan and they said, it's not everything that they did by they built the Mishkan is a melachah. They walked from one place to another should be a melachah? Anything that they did which we understand has the quality of what a melachah is, which is the quality of of shinui, that they took out. Mimela it comes out that the reason for these all ל״ט מלאכות is the תוכן of what it is. Mimela when something else is similar, it's also it's also asur. And you can't say it's a siman that it's not because of the תוכן. There's no such thing. If it wouldn't be because of the תוכן, these מלאכות wouldn't be asur. The only melachah I explained last time that is lav davka because of the תוכן is מלאכת הוצאה, which is not learned out from the משכן. Remember the teshuvah of Rabbi Betzalel Ashkenazi? Who was he? Whose רבי was he? The Arizal's רבי. What did he write? Shita Mekubetzet, okay. So, the Rav Betzalel Ashkenazi says the חילוק between the the the Tosefos Chaim, Rav Chaim Zemba, being based on Rav Betzalel Ashkenazi teshuvah, says that הוצאה is different. הוצאה is not learned out from from the משכן. הוצאה is learned from a pasuk. So, הוצאה is the only melachah where you could say it's it's not because of the תכונה. The reason it's asur, because the Torah אסר it: אל יצא איש ממקומו. It's not that the חכמים figured out a melachah; the Torah said the melachah is asur. So, mimaileh, it's lav davka because of the תכונה. So, if we're going to say that this is not because of the תכונה, because it doesn't have the תכונה - why it doesn't have the תכונה? Because it's a מלאכה גרועה - so if it doesn't have the תכונה, so could be the Torah just אסר it, not because of that. Ela mai? לפועל, we learned out that it is a melachah. But sof kol sof, it doesn't have the real תכונה of the melachah. If it doesn't have the real תכונה of the melachah, what could be the result? That it has no תולדות. The only reason it's a תולדה is because we look into this melachah of of זריעה, let's say, and we think, what's זריעה? You're taking and you're making something grow, you're changing. Nu, farshteit men alein that anything which is also making grow, not זריעה, but נטיעה, you plant a branch rather than a seed, or you prune it in order to make it grow, and it has the same תכונה, so it's asur. מה שאין כן, if something is not there because of the תכונה, it's asur because the תורה אסר it, who says it has תולדות? Either something that has similar, like הכנסה is similar to הוצאה. Who cares if it's similar? It's not because of what the תכונה of the melachah is, that's not why it's asur, because it doesn't have the תכונה. It doesn't have a תכונה. So, mimela, it's asur, why? Because the פסוק said. So the poss- so the כלל is אין לך בו אלא חידושו, and the תורה said הוצאה, so why would you think הכנסה? לפועל, אבער, we said it does have a תכונה. It's not a תכונה enough to be able on our own to figure it out, we need a פסוק. But לאחר הפסוק, we said it does have the תכונה. Ayei, what is the תכונה? So we said, the תכונה is the עקירה and הנחה. And that is ke'ilu you did make a שינוי. But it's not a real תכונה. It's a תכונה בהגיון. בגשמיות, no one sees a shinui. You pick this up from here to there, there's no shinui. It's only a שינוי בהגיון. The שאלה is, is that fact that it does have the תכונה enough reason to be sure that it has a toldah? If it wouldn't have a תכונה in any form or shape, it wouldn't have a toldah. If it has a תכונה, 100%, a regular תכונה of a melacha, then it has a תכונה, anything it has a toldah. Here we have something that's in between: it has a תכ- it doesn't have the תכונה בעצם, it does have a תכונה א ביסל, עפעס א מחשבה'דיקע תכונה, but it's a תכונה. So, Tosafos says, sof kol sof, since we know that it has an akirah and hanachah, mimayla it does have a תכונה, if it has a תכונה, it has a toldah. So there is no sevara to say that it shouldn't have toldot, because it is like every other melacha. Till we got to it, took us time, because we we couldn't see it, we had to find a pasuk, but לאחר we have the pasuk, and we have now, like I said in the beginning, what happens? We figure out that it has a תכונה. And if it has the תכונה of melacha, and anything that has a תכונה of melacha has a toldah, so then why does the- can't say that because it's a מלאכה גרועה, it shouldn't have toldot. What did the Rashba say? Why does the Mishnah have to tell us a toldah of hotzaah? Because we would have thought, since it's a מלאכה גרועה, it doesn't have a toldah. So Tosafos says, it's not true, because לפועל, it does have the תכונה. איי, טאקע לכתחילה we would not have known that, because the תכונה is eppes a shvache. But לאחר we have a pasuk, and it tells you and it has עקירה והנחה, which is a הגיונ'דיקע שינוי, ממילא now it's like every melachah, and there's no need for the Mishnah to tell us that there is a toldah, we understand. Ma she'ein kein, the Rashba will say that sof kol sof, it's not a real תכונה, because עקירה והנחה is not really really a change. What is it? It's a הגיונ'דיקע change. So, ein hachi nami, לאחר we have a pasuk, it's enough to teach us that this is a melachah. But to say עד כדי כך that it should be a toldah, I have a hava amina not. The the Rashba doesn't say that that it doesn't have toldot, vadai it has toldot, because it does have תכונה. But the שאלה is, is that at least a sevara why we would think somebody could make a mistake and think there is no no toldot? So that's what the Rashba says, this teirutz, that why does the Mishnah have to tell us הכנסה by הוצאה, the toldah of הוצאה? Because this is a מלאכה גרועה, we on our own would not know it. Because it does- because he says it doesn't have a תכונה. It has a a הגיונ'דיק... And again, if since it's a weak תכונה, and it's not סתם weak, it's בפועל, בגשמיות, it's not at all, there's no shinui, it's a shinui in in your mind, it's a mental shinui, the way we look at things, the way it's a, so that is in between. So, automatically, as soon as we say it's in between, right away we could understand there are two two ways to look at it. You could say Say, well, it's not a real תכונה, so maybe it doesn't have toldot. Okay, a sevara, ממילא need to tell you. Or you could say, but sof kol sof it is, so why, so we don't have to tell you. So right away we could see, to understand the difference between the Tosafos and the Rashba in that ענין. The bottom line what we're getting to here is that it's a מלאכה גרועה, and it's doesn't have the real תכונה. Doesn't have the real תכונה, in other words, would mean it's missing in the איכות המלאכה. That's what it is. It's missing in the איכות המלאכה. Where do we have an example of somebody doing a מלאכה and not being chayav because he is missing in the איכות המלאכה that he should could have done? שנים שעשוה. What's the reason when two people together do a מלאכה they're both patur? Why? Because the מלאכה is one, and they both together did it. The fact that the other guy helped me do the מלאכה took away from me doing the full מלאכה. I took away from him. And it took away from mimela what the מלאכה stands for cannot be contributed to me attributed to me completely, because he took away part, I took away other part. That's why there's an interesting din which if you don't understand, it would seem the opposite, it's like a ipcha mistabra. Later on we're going to learn a, a Mishnah, by the case שנים שעשוה. So the din is like this: if זה יכול וזה יכול, they're both patur. Which means like this: they did the מלאכה together, each one himself could have done it, lafo'al they did it together, then they're both patur. If זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול, if each one could not do the whole thing together the whole מלאכה and together they could do, they're both chayav. Lemashel, you have this a big a big piece of wood, lehavdil, it's a sefer, and they both held it and made עקירה, walked out with it, and put it down. If each one could have picked it up himself, then they're both patur. If both each it's so big that no one could have picked it up himself, and only between the two you could do it, they're both chayav. Now, at first glance, people would think the opposite: if each one could do it himself, then he did it, because he could have done it himself, so when he did it, it should be attributed to him, and the other guy also. If he couldn't do it, why is he chayav? If he couldn't do it himself, so he lafo'al didn't do it by himself, so he should be patur. The din is opposite. If זה יכול וזה יכול, they both could do it, they're both patur. If זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול, they're both chayav. What's the sevara? The sevara is like this: if you both could do it, that means that the fact that the other guy helped you, he took away from your connection to the melachah. Because if not for him, you would have done the whole thing. Memeila, he took away from things you could have done. So memeila he made that your connection to the complete melachah is missing. Mah she'ein kein if זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול, he didn't take any way thing away from you. L'poel, you did the whole melachah together, and you did your best. It's not a pshat you could have done more. If not for him, you would have done more. You couldn't do more, זה אינו יכול וזה אינו יכול, so he didn't take away from your connection to the איכות המלאכה, memeila you're both chayav, because l'poel the melachah was done, and you were involved in the whole melachah, and you did your best. The guy didn't make you miss. In other words, I'm trying to say that this שנים שעשוה, the reason you're patur is because you did you have no you don't have a connection to the whole complete melachah. זה עקר וזה הניח is the same thing, the way I'm saying. What's the problem זה עקר וזה הניח? That you're missing in the איכות of what the melachah is. So memeila you could say like this: the kashya was Tosafos says that the Mishnah the Baraisa means both expressions mean the same thing, זה עקר וזה הניח. כפל מילה, it just repeats itself. The she'eilah is why does it repeat itself? So you could say the second lashon, in this case it means זה עקר וזה הניח, but that lashon really is used in other places for both together doing the whole melachah. What's the lashon? The second לשון, יחיד ועשאה חייב, שנים שעשוה פטורין. Shnayim, when is what's the lashon usually? שנים שעשוה פטורין, if two people together do it, they're patur. Here, Tosafos doesn't mean that. But why does the Gemara use that lashon? Because the Gemara wants to give you to understand, not only the halachah, to tell you the halachah that if זה עקר וזה הניח, you're patur, we learn out from בעשותה, if you עשתה כולה you're chayav, but עשתה מקצתה you do only part, you're patur. It wants to tell you what's the pshat behind it. It's al derech like you have in the case of שנים שעשוה, so uses for this din a lashon of שנים שעשוה. Why they say it's al derech like שנים שעשוה? Why are you patur? Because Because that person took away your connection to the איכות המלאכה, so the same thing by זה עוקר וזה מניח, because you're missing the whole איכות of the melacha. Why? Because the איכות of the melacha is, since it's a מלאכה גרועה, what's the איכות of the melacha? Picking up and putting down, and especially where I said before that each part is a chelek in the other. So you're missing, you started off and you made the עקירה, which is part of the הנחה, and you didn't finish it. So you're missing in the איכות המלאכה. So how does the Gemara explain that you're missing the איכות המלאכה? Because the Gemara is telling us like this, we're going with the sevara, we all know, כאילו נימא like this, we know that שנים שעשוה פטורים, we're not dealing with that here. We want to tell you that not only שנים together do it are פטור, זה עוקר וזה מניח is also patur. And he's telling you why, because it's the same idea as שנים שעשוה. So mimela this answers why the Gemara mentions this פרט. Now, if we're going to say that the Gemara here knows the din, goes with taking for granted the din of שנים שעשוה פטורין, and all we're doing is trying to say that that זה עוקר וזה מניח is a בחינה, כאילו like שנים שעשוה, we could understand that there is no stira between this Tosafos and that Tosafos. Tosafos on דף צ״ג עמוד א׳, that Gemara is learning out two dinim: זה עוקר וזה מניח is patur, and שנים שעשוה פטורין. That means the Gemara there doesn't know yet that שנים שעשוה פטורין, we're learning it השתא. Our Gemara we said goes לפי האמת, that שנים שעשוה פטורין. So if you know already שנים שעשוה פטורין, Tosafos says there is no hava amina that that guy with the עקירה should be, because the guy with the עקירה has no shaychus to the whole איכות of the melachah to begin with. In other words, where is there a chiddush that you're missing in the איכות המלאכה? By the הנחה? The guy does the הנחה alone or the guy does the עקירה alone? The guy that does the עקירה alone is less chiddush, why? Because the melachah was never finished. Mah she'ein kein the guy does the הנחה, you're finishing, so here we're telling you that אף על פי כן you still don't have the whole איכות המלאכה because you didn't do the עקירה. So here, when we already know שנים שעשוה פטורין, it means that if you're missing in the איכות of the melachah you're patur. So here there is no hava amina for the guy of the עקירה, because he's ad-raba missing, it's pashut that he's missing the איכות המלאכה. The chiddush is that even the guy who does the הנחה is also missing the איכות המלאכה. And it's also similar to שנים שעשוה פטורין. Mah she'ein kein over there, where the Gemara doesn't know yet the whole דין of שנים שעשוה פטורין, so maybe if you're missing the איכות of the מלאכה you still should be chayav. So Tosafot says over there, over there there's a hava amina, אפילו if the guy does the עקירה without the הנחה maybe should be chayav, because over there we don't know this whole יסוד yet, 100%, that missing the איכות המלאכה is patur. We don't know yet the דין of שנים שעשוה. Mah she'ein kein here, if we're talking that we know שנים שעשוה, and that's why the Gemara brings it in to make it as an example to teach you זה עוקר וזה מניח is like שנים שעשוה, so we know שנים שעשוה, so here the Gemara can't have a hava amina for the עקירה. Here the Gemara has an hava amina for the הנחה. Mah she'ein kein over there, where we don't know yet שנים שעשוה פטורין, could be a hava amina for the הנחה also. Davka the הנחה, because the עקירה is at all had no בכלל the מלאכה wasn't even done, so certainly you don't have the איכות המלאכה. But הנחה the מלאכה was done and you did the הנחה, and הנחה is a המשך to the עקירה, so maybe this is still good. So he says no, you're still missing the הנחה, as long as it's not fully, you're still missing the איכות המלאכה. That's in our Gemara. The Gemara over there, because we don't know שנים שעשוה פטורין, so it could be that even if you don't have the איכות is נישט געפערלעך. So Mimela could be the עקירה also. Doesn't mean davka the עקירה. Doesn't mean davka, no, it means even the עקירה, could be הנחה also, yeah. But this is all connected to the fact that by a מלאכה, הוצאה is a מלאכה גרועה. And what's the pshat a מלאכה גרועה? That it's missing the איכות המלאכה, it's missing the shinui, but there is a shinui on the other hand. The shinui is the fact that in הגיון it has to do with your brain. This is a מלאכה that has to do with your brain, that you're in your brain, in your mental, because sometimes it's something that's mentally this way, it is בפועל, but it's but it's not, it's only in הגיון. So based on that you could say like this, you could explain based on this whole nekuda a few, two things just for just in kitzur. Tosafot on דף ה׳ עמוד א׳, and Tosafot brings if we had more time I'd explain the whole Gemara, but it's too late. But Tosafot says from the ר״ח a din like this: if a person is standing in רשות הרבים and he picks something up from the floor, and he carries ד׳ אמות in רשות הרבים, stands in one place, doesn't walk, takes his hand and makes takes ד׳ אמות and he puts it into his other hand, puts it in the other hand, he made a הנחה, so So דער ר״ח says, כהא דכי משניס ליה מימיניה לשמאליה, דאף על פי שהעבירו ד' אמות, פטור. Why? To put it into the hand is an הנחה. He did some, he did a regular מלאכה, why didn't he? He carried ד' אמות, he made an עקירה, he made an הנחה, and it went ד' אמות. And if he would put it into someone else's hand, let's say, he's chayav! If someone is standing there, he picks it up, carries ד' אמות, and puts it in someone's hand, he's chayav, it's ד' אמות. No, walking, he didn't walk now. No, walking you have to make akira and hanacha. מלאכת, it's מלאכת העברה, מעביר ד' אמות. Huh? If he does, if he stops, then that's called. The guy picks up something, and walks, and then puts it down, and carries it ד' אמות, he's chayav. The guy picks up something and doesn't walk, just takes it ד' אמות and puts it in someone else's hand. Right? His arms, or you're holding with a stick, I don't know. Well, it could be, קשיא א מציאות. And you took it, and you put it down in someone else's hand, you'd be chayav. But if you take it and you put it in your own hand, you're patur. What's the difference? Because there's no shinui here. If the whole thing is that the akira and hanacha makes the shinui, it's from you to you. It's על דרך, if you remember the other time I explained, why does the Yerushalmi learn that by מושיט מרשות היחיד לרשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים, you're only chayav if someone receives it from you? And there's another shita in Yerushalmi, you're only chayav if you exchange it. What's what's the logic behind it? Why? Why? So I said the reason is pashut. If the whole reason, if the melacha, why is it a melacha? Because there's a change from רשויות by akira and hanacha, and that's the a a a הגיוניקע change. So, Yerushalmi says if it's מרשות היחיד לרשות הרבים, נו, at least there is an הגיוניקע change. But from רשות היחיד לרשות היחיד, where's the change? At least you have to have somebody else, so it's at least another person. Same thing the other shita in Yerushalmi is you have to exchange it, to make the shinui more practical, that's all. Same thing here: if you take it and you take it over to someone else's hand, it's ד' אמות and there's a change. And what's the change? It came from you to him. And from you to him, and there's akira and hanacha, mit ale zaken tsuzamen, nu, iz doch epes faran a melacha. But if you're picking it up and putting it into your own hand, you're back to yourself, then the the change is much less, so that's why you're takeh פטור. That's how you can learn pshat in דער ר״ח what דער ר״ח says. But it's all based on this נקודה that it's a מלאכה גרועה and it's a change, but only a change in היגיון. Now, based on this סברא that it's only a change in היגיון, it's a it's a מחשב׳דיקע זאך. So you could explain another thing.

Bichlal iz angenumen, taytsh't es ר' Chaim, ר' Nachum Zev talks about it, that the שיטת Rashbam is on Shabbos there is no חצי שיעור. Because the Rashbam in Bava Batra דף נ״ה עמוד ב׳ says that if you carry out less than a כגרוגרת, less than the שיעור of something that you're carrying, he says it's not אסור מ- it seems like it's not אסור מדאורייתא. It's not a מלאכה! Because by Shabbos there is a דין of מלאכת מחשבת. It has to be a חשובע מלאכה. Less than the שיעור is not חשוב. So it comes out that even though חצי שיעור is by other things, by אכילה, and maybe even חצי שיעור by other by by other things, but by Shabbos there isn't. Because by Shabbos there is a special דין of מלאכת מחשבת. That's what it seems from דער רשב״ם over there in Bava Batra. But then they bring that Rashi seems to be arguing, because Rashi on דף ע״ד, when the Gemara says that you're not allowed to bake less than a שיעור, there's a certain amount that you're חייב if you bake, but then the Gemara says וכי מותר לאפות פחות מכשיעור? Can you bake less than a שיעור? So from that, for Rashi you could learn, what did the Gemara mean? Vadai you can't, but maybe it's derabbanan. According to the Rashbam the way they learn, he says by Shabbos there's no דין חצי שיעור אסור מדאורייתא, but the רבנן אסר'ט it. So when the Gemara says are you allowed to bake פחות מכשיעור? It could be derabbanan. But Rashi doesn't say that! Rashi says like this: וכי מותר לאפות פחות מכשיעור? נהי דחיוב חטאת ליכא, you're not chayav a חטאת, איסורא מיהא איכא. There's an issur, and he says an איסור דאורייתא! How do we know? דקיימא לן חצי שיעור אסור מן התורה in פרק בתרא דיומא. So it seems like there's a machloket between the Rashbam and Rashi. That's what they all seem to learn. But be'emet it's possible, I don't know if it's good or not, I mean just as a as a thought to throw in a thought, adrabah, שלוג עס אפ, don't say it's right, I just That could be it's not. The Rashbam didn't mean that bichlal by Shabbos there's no חצי שיעור. He meant davka by carrying, davka by הוצאה. Because he was talking about הוצאה. Rashi could be even admits to the Rashbam that by הוצאה there is no חצי שיעור. Rashi is talking about by baking, it's a different melacha. So the reason why there is a din why the Rashbam holds there is no חצי שיעור by by by הוצאה, because מלאכת מחשבת, הוצאה is the one that needs the מלאכת מחשבת. Because the גאנצע מלאכה of הוצאה is a melacha of מחשבה. Be'etzem it's not a מלאכה. What makes it into a מלאכה? Because a מחשבה in your mind, an היגיון, that's a מלאכה. So here, since it's a whole מלאכה, so the מלאכת מחשבת, if it's only half of what you have, and by Shabbos, by in this case the מלאכת מחשבת is נוגע to the מלאכה of הוצאה, because the whole מחשבה, the whole מלאכה is a מחשבהדיקע מלאכה, so then the Rambam says then there is no חצי שיעור because it's missing in the מחשבה. Mah she'ein kein other מלאכות which have nothing to do with this שכל, with the היגיון, so there takeh, maybe there is no מלאכת מחשבת, this איסור מלאכה, וממילא there there could be חצי שיעור. So it's lav davka you don't have to say there is a מחלוקת between Rashi and the Rambam. Could be the Rambam and Rashi hold the same thing, they both agree that there is מלאכה, חצי שיעור by Shabbos, in the Torah, but by הוצאה is different, but it's all based on this נקודה that הוצאה is a מלאכה גרועה. In other words, what what I'm trying to say, you'll hear it from me again and again and again, the one of the יסודות in whole all the a lot of ענינים here which will be נוגע later to the Gemara, בנוגע the מלאכת הוצאה, סיי in this פרק, סיי in פרק המוציא, פרק הזורק, a lot of things are nogea, their outcome of the fact that it's not a real melachah, and the whole melachah is based on the fact that a person it it it's in in היגיון, which means in machshavah, this is something that changed because I took it away, umimeila a lot of dinim will change. And the same thing לגבי this din, that it's really a חצי שיעור, but by הוצאה there is no דין חצי שיעור. Even if it's totally you don't you're not aware of it, you push a stroller, it's still a it's still called machshavah, you know, even b'shogeg? Right, right, right, but that's, machshavah means what's... The idea of, היגיון. It's it's an abstract thinking.