The Gemara here in Shabbos דף ד' עמוד א' going into דף ד' עמוד ב' we have at least one of the ways the Gemara explains a certain מחלוקת between Rabbi Akiva and the חכמים is whether we say קלוטה כמי שהונחה. This is the case where the Mishnah says if someone threw something מרשות היחיד לרשות הרבים מרשות היחיד לרשות היחיד ורשות הרבים באמצע, he threw something from רשות היחיד and it landed in another רשות היחיד and the רשות הרבים was in between, רבי עקיבא מחייב וחכמים פוטרין, רבי עקיבא says you're חייב, the חכמים says you're פטור, and the Gemara explains one of the ways is Rabbi Akiva holds קלוטה כמי שהונחה and the רבנן say לא אמרינן קלוטה כמי שהונחה. What does that mean? Rabbi Akiva holds קלוטה כמי שהונחה that when something comes into the airspace it's as if it stopped there, and therefore if you throw something from רשות היחיד and it goes through the רשות הרבים and it didn't stop there and it continued to another רשות היחיד, but because it came into the airspace of the רשות הרבים, כמי שהונחה, it's as if it stopped. So לפי זה you made an עקירה in the רשות היחיד, you threw it from the רשות היחיד and it came into the airspace of the רשות הרבים, it's ke'ilu it stopped. So לפועל you made an עקירה in רשות היחיד and הנחה in רשות הרבים, so you're חייב. The חכמים say you're פטור, they say לא אמרינן קלוטה כמי שהונחה דמיא. No, if it comes into the airspace is not enough for it to be considered like it stopped, mimela you did not make an עקירה in רשות היחיד and הנחה in רשות הרבים because it didn't stop in רשות הרבים. Where did it actually stop? In the second רשות היחיד. So it's from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד, so you're not chayav. That's one of the ways the Gemara explains here. Then the Gemara has another way to explain the מחלוקת, but the way the Gemara puts it, that according to the second way everyone holds קלוטה כמי שהונחה, the רבנן also, the מחלוקת is in something else, ילפינן זורק ממושיט. But according to the second way everyone holds that when it comes into the space there it's קלוטה כמי שהונחה. But the first way is that there's a מחלוקת Rabbi Akiva and the חכמים, and that's the way it seems that he was פושט, that the מחלוקת between Rabbi Akiva and the חכמים is whether we say קלוטה כמי שהונחה. So we have one thing here in the Gemara, a מחלוקת between Rabbi Akiva and the חכמים, Rabbi Akiva says קלוטה כמי שהונחה דמיא and the חכמים say we don't say קלוטה כמי שהונחה. Tosafot in Tosafot דיבור המתחיל דאמרינן, the second teirutz, not to go into the kushyot and everything, but the second teirutz Tosafot says that קלוטה כמי שהונחה, if you say קלוטה כמי שהונחה, it's a סתירה, it's a contradiction to be able to say ילפינן זורק ממושיט. ילפינן זורק ממושיט means there is a דין of מושיט, special דין, amongst the איסורים of carrying on שבת there is a מלאכה called מושיט. It's all a תולדה of הוצאה, but it's מושיט. That if you pick something up in רשות היחיד and you pass it, you don't throw it, you pass it over the רשות הרבים, put it down in רשות היחיד, you are חייב. What about if you throw it? So the Gemara says there there are two סברות. There's a סברא ילפינן זורק ממושיט, that we learn out זורק from מושיט. Just like if you pick it up in רשות היחיד and you pass it over רשות הרבים into the next רשות היחיד you're חייב, because that's how it was in the משכן, if you throw it, it's exact same way. And another מאן דאמר says not. The משכן had מושיט, so מושיט you're חייב. If you throw it, you're not חייב. זאגט Tosafot, these two, ילפינן זורק ממושיט and קלוטה כמי שהונחה, don't fit together. Why? Because מושיט, the original דין of מושיט, is למעלה מיו\"ד. You carried it, you carried it, you held held it, and you passed it from רשות היחיד over the רשות הרבים into the next רשות היחיד, but it's למעלה מיו\"ד, higher than ten טפחים. Higher than ten טפחים normally in רשות הרבים, higher than ten טפחים is a מקום פטור. So when you passed it from רשות היחיד to the רשות היחיד over the רשות הרבים למעלה מיו\"ד טפחים, you passed over a מקום פטור. Nevertheless, we learn out from the משכן that you're חייב. But if you throw it from a רשות היחיד to a רשות היחיד over רשות הרבים למעלה מיו״ד, you threw it over a מקום פטור. If you hold קלוטה כמי שהונחה, that means that where it goes when it comes into the air space, it landed, it stopped. So if you throw it from a רשות היחיד to a רשות היחיד over למעלה מיו״ד of the of the רשות הרבים, and you say קלוטה כמי שהונחה, so it landed, it stopped in the מקום פטור. So it's not like מושיט. מושיט, when you pick it up in a רשות היחיד, and you pass it over רשות הרבים, even though it went over the מקום פטור, but it didn't stop there. So here you're chayav. But if you throw it, it stopped in the in מקום פטור. How could you be chayav? So Tosafot says you can't work these two together. The only way you could learn ילפינן זורק ממושיט, that we learn out זורק from מושיט, and if you throw it over from a רשות היחיד to a רשות הרבים over the מקום פטור, over the ten טפחים higher than the רשות הרבים, you should be chayav, is if you don't hold קלוטה כמי שהונחה. We don't hold that it stopped in the middle, then it's exactly like מושיט. It went from a רשות היחיד to a רשות היחיד over a מקום פטור, but it didn't stop there. But if you hold קלוטה כמי שהונחה, that means it stopped there. So Tosafot says you can't have both together. Cuz if you hold קלוטה כמי שהונחה and therefore you're chayav by coming into the airspace, in the case of מושיט, if it's זורק ממושיט, you should be patur, because the same logic that it stopped, in this case it makes it patur, because it stopped in the מקום פטור.

Comes the Tosafot Yeshanim, and Tosafot Yeshanim says, \"No! It's no raaya from there. You could hold ילפינן זורק ממושיט, and you can hold קלוטה כמי שהונחה. איי, it stopped in the middle, we say קלוטה כמי, it stopped in the מקום פטור, וממילא it should take away the איסור?\" So he says, \"קלוטה כמי שהונחה we only say להחמיר, not להקל! We only say קלוטה that it stopped if that stopping will make you chayav. But if you're going to say it stopped and because of that stopping it'll make you patur, we don't say it! Umimela, you can't tell me that if you hold קלוטה and you throw it over the מקום פטור, over the רשות הרבים מקום פטור, you should be patur because of קלוטה. קלוטה can't make you patur. קלוטה can make you chayav, but not make you patur.\" And he brings a re'aya. If you're saying קלוטה כמי שהונחה makes you patur also, how in the world is there such a thing as throwing ד׳ אמות ברשות הרבים? We know that one of the melachot is if you pick something up in רשות הרבים, and you throw it, and it goes four אמות, and then it falls in רשות הרבים, so there's an עקירה and a הנחה in רשות הרבים, and ד׳ אמות, you're chayav. How could you be chayav? If you hold קלוטה כמי שהונחה, when it came into the air, it stopped! Imagine you carry something ד׳ אמות ברשות הרבים, but you stop every אמה. You walk and you stop, you walk and you shouldn't be chayav because it's not you're only chayav if you have ד׳ אמות in a row, but if you stop in the middle, not. If you hold קלוטה כמי שהונחה, it means that when you throw it, it stopped. So how is there ever a possibility of being chayav for throwing ד׳ אמות ברשות הרבים? Ela mai? We say קלוטה. Those that say קלוטה hold of קלוטה, but not לפטור! By the ד׳ אמות, if you'll say קלוטה, it means that you won't be chayav. We don't say קלוטה in order to patur you. So we have a machloket here between Tosafos and the Tosafos Yeshanim. Tosafos says that we say קלוטה even to patur you, and that's why Tosafos says that if it flew over If you threw something from a רשות היחיד to a רשות היחיד over the through the מקום פטור, you can't be chayav because קלוטה will make you patur. Since it stopped in the מקום פטור, you'll be patur. So Tosafos learns you could say קלוטה even to make you patur. And the Tosafos Yeshanim says no, you don't say קלוטה to make you patur. Now according to Tosafos, what do we do with Tosafos Yeshanim's kashya? Tosafos Yeshanim asked a good she'elah: if you say קלוטה כמי שהונחה אפילו to make you patur, how could you ever be chayav for throwing ד׳ אמות ברשות הרבים? So Tosafos answered that already. Not here. Tosafos later on on דף ה עמוד ב, Tosafos asks the and דף ה עמוד ב Tosafos asks the she'elah. You're coming back? Tosafos asks the she'elah, and Tosafos answers that the Gemara says that ד׳ אמות ברשות הרבים is a halachah l'Moshe miSinai. It's a special din. Ein hachi nami, normally you could say קלוטה, by ד׳ אמות, the Torah made a special din that you're chayav, halacha l'Moshe miSinai made you patur, umemeila you're chayav. He says, וכן קלוטה לרבי עקיבא, אף על גב דכמי שהונחה דמיא, בזורק ד׳ אמות ברשות הרבים חייב, ולא אמרינן כמי שהונחה תוך ד' אמות. We don't say הונחה. אי, normally we say, coming back? Yeah. Even though normally we say קלוטה, but here we don't say it, it's halacha l'Moshe miSinai. But the bottom line is that we have a machlokes here, that the Tosafos Yeshanim says that we don't say קלוטה להקל, because with saying קלוטה it's as if it stopped, umemeila you should not be chayav because of that, that we don't say. And Tosafos says we say if you say קלוטה, you say קלוטה. Okay. So we have two things so far. One is a general machlokes whether we say קלוטה כמי שהונחה. Rabbi Akiva says we say קלוטה כמי שהונחה. If you throw something and it comes into the air, it's as if it stopped. Rabbanan say we do not say קלוטה. The second machlokes we have in that גופא, machlokes between Tosafos and Tosafos Yeshanim. Tosafos says we say if we say קלוטה, we say it all the way. We say it in every case, wherever it comes in the air, we say קלוטה. If that'll make you chayav, you say chayav. If that'll make you patur, you're patur. And the Tosafos Yeshanim says no, you only say קלוטה if it makes you chayav, but to make קלוטה make you patur, we don't say. So number one, we have to understand the first thing: what's the sevara of the machlokes whether we say קלוטה or not? Or better said, it's not the she'eila what is the sevara of the machlokes, what's the sevara of Rabbi Akiva? Why in the world should we say something that's flying in the air, we say it like it stopped? Where in the world do we get this from? Flying in the air, it's not stopping. So the Rabbanan we understand, לא אמרינן קלוטה כמי שהונחה, we don't say flying in the air it's stopped. But Rabbi Akiva says yes. Why would Rabbi Akiva say that? What's the logic behind saying that it's stopped in the it's flying in the air as if it stopped? That's one שאלה.

Now, there are some that want to explain that the מחלוקת Rabbi Akiva and the Chachamim whether we say קלוטה is connected to the Tosafot on דף ז' . Tosafot on דף ז' , the Gemara there talks about case like this: if somebody threw something, okay, I don't know if we can use a ספר for this. Okay, it's for Torah. If someone had a לבינה, someone was standing in רשות הרבים, picked something up and threw it and it landed on, got stuck to the wall. There was a wall under ten טפחים, because if it was higher than ten טפחים, it's not a רשות הרבים, it didn't land in רשות הרבים, because רשות הרבים goes only up to ten. But you threw it and it landed on the wall. So it says you're חייב. Why are you חייב? Because you picked it up, you threw ד' אמות ברשות הרבים, so you made a עקירה, stopped here and it's in the רשות הרבים, sticking out, it's in the רשות הרבים, so you're חייב. The question is: if it fell on this and it landed, which is כלפי רשות הרבים, it stopped taka, but on what did it land? On the air! It got stuck to the wall, but why is this is the רשות הרבים, and it landed here, but the bottom what's the bottom of this חפץ? Let's say a sticky thing, it stuck, a sticky it landed, but on the bottom of it is air. How could you be חייב when the דין is that it's only חייב if you make a הנחה on a מקום ד' ? הנחה has to be in a place of ד' . If you threw a ball and the ball this is this thrower, and the ball landed here, the sticky ball and it got stuck to the wall, so it landed in the רשות הרבים, but it's not it's not on a מקום ד' . So why are you חייב? So Tosafot brings a מחלוקת between the Rabbeinu Tam and the Riva. The Rabbeinu Tam says: you know what? You know when you're chayav? If this is ד' על ד' . Even though this is the wall, it didn't land like this, on top, because if it landed on top it would be a different din. It landed like this, so it's landed in the אוויר רשות הרבים. From where to where is ד' על ד' ? This. Uh? No, it's למטה מיו\"ד. But this part, let's say למטה מיו\"ד, this is למטה מיו\"ד, this part, this wall has to be four by four, and since it landed on the wall, it's considered it landed on four by four even though where did it land? In רשות הרבים, which is the air. But nevertheless, this ד' על ד' makes it that it landed on ד' על ד' . The Riva says no, this does not have to be ד' על ד' , even if it's less than ד' על ד' . But what? Since it landed in the air, it's רואה פני הקרקע, this this thing that landed is looking down and is over the ground, so it's as if it landed on the ground. These are the words of Tosafos. The first teirutz in Tosafos says: אומר רבינו תם, דאם נוח למעלה... צריך שיהא בפניה ארבע על ארבע, has to be ד' על ד' on the face, here. And then the ריב\"א אומר, ריב\"א פירש דאף למ... לא בעי שיהא בפני הלבנה והכותל ד' על ד' , you don't have to have it, דכי... כיון שרואה את הקרקע, חשיב כמונח על גבי קרקע. Since it's רואה פני הקרקע, it's like it landed on the like it's on the קרקע, and if it lands on the floor, there's no such thing as ד' על ד'. The floor is the רשות הרבים. How else did it land? It got stuck. Otherwise, it would fly off. It must have been, the Gemara says, דבילה שמנה, a thick, a fat fig, a date, which landed, so got stuck. Chewing gum, a guy had a big piece of gum, and he threw it, and it landed, or the ball had a little bit of glue on it, and it landed. So here we have a machloket. According to the first pshat of Rabbeinu Tam, we say that it landed, and it's chayav, but it needs to be ד' על ד' here. Why? אי, it's רואה פני הקרקע? Rabbeinu Tam holds that doesn't help you. The fact that it sees the ground doesn't help you. Ela mai, what? It has to mamash it landed on this, so this has to be ד' על ד'. And the Riva says, no, we look at it as if it landed on the ground. So they want to say that this is basically the machloket between Rabbi Akiva and the Chachamim. Rabbi Akiva says that since it's רואה פני הקרקע, since it sees the ground, it's as if it landed on the ground. So when it goes through the airspace, and there the air is over the ground, it's as if it landed on the ground. And the Chachamim say, we don't say such a thing. We don't say it's as if it landed on the ground, because we don't look at this רואה פני הקרקע. Seeing the ground doesn't help it. Mimela it didn't land. So this is one of the ways they explain the machloket, which is hard to say מכמה טעמים, and it's not exactly the same thing. I don't want to just spend time on saying why it's not exactly the same thing. But what I'm trying to say is back to the she'elah: what is the sevara of the machloket whether we say klutah k'mi shehunach or not? In other words, even if you didn't כאפ all the details I said, you still can continue listening. The she'elah is a very simple she'elah: the Rabbi Akiva holds klutah k'mi shehunach. It's flying in the air is like it stopped. Sounds like a joke! What, what do you mean it stopped? It didn't stop! Can eynreden a ma'aseh that it stopped? It did not stop! So why is it called a hanachah? Then we have to understand the second machloket, machloket between Tosafot and the Tosafot Yeshanim. And here again you have to Tosafot is not hard to understand. Tosafot says that if you say klutah k'mi shehunach for whatever reason, it's as if it stopped. Whatever it is, if because it stopped you're chayav, you'll be chayav. If because it stopped it'll make you patur, it'll be patur. If it stopped, then it should be the same thing, לחומרא ולכולא. What's the sevara of the Tosafot Yeshanim that when do we say the sevara that in the air it stopped? If that will make you chayav, lehachmir. But if it'll make you patur, we don't say it. What, what's the logic here? Then there's another thing here. The Ramban says on this Tosafot, Tosafot said that if it flies through למעלה מ-י' and you say קלוטה, it should make you פטור, because it stopped in the מקום פטור. The Ramban says למעלה מ-י' we don't say we don't say קלוטה. Also argues on Tosafos, but he says we don't say קלוטה למעלה מ-י'. If it goes למעלה מ-י', we don't say even if you hold קלוטה כמי שהונחה, but it's only in the רשות הרבים. In a מקום פטור, we will not say קלוטה, because it's a separate רשות. And from Rashi is משמע the same way. Which Rashi? So if we look at the Rashi, it's כדאי to look inside, we look at the Rashi. Rashi says, on דף ד' עמוד ב', the first Rashi on דף ד' עמוד ב', Rashi says that the מחלוקת is בנוגע between Rabbi Akiva and the חכמים is למטה מ-י'. The מחלוקת is whether we say קלוטה כמי שהונחה if it went למטה מ-י'. Because אילו למעלה מ-י', if it would be higher than י', לאו אויר רשות הרבים הוא, אלא אויר מקום פטור הוא. It's the אויר למעלה מ-י' is אויר מקום פטור. And then, if I would write the Rashi, I would write it like this: and if it would be למעלה מ-י', you couldn't say חייב. Why couldn't say חייב? Even למטה מ-י' you'd say חייב because קלוטה כמי שהונחה, as if it stopped in רשות הרבים. למעלה מ-י' you wouldn't be חייב. What would you say, why? Because it stopped in a מקום פטור, so you shouldn't be חייב. That's not what Rashi says. Because in למעלה מ-י', אפילו קלוטה ליכא. There is no קלוטה. What do you mean there's no קלוטה? We don't say קלוטה למעלה מ-י'? Why not? It should say we say קלוטה, but you're פטור. In other words, the bottom line would be the same, that the Gemara is telling you למטה מ-י' because of קלוטה you're חייב, למעלה מ- יו״ד, even if you hold קלוטה, you're פטור. Why? Because it stopped in a מקום פטור. Rashi doesn't use those words. Rashi says למעלה מיו״ד there is no קלוטה. Why is there no קלוטה? If whatever the logic is, if you say something that flies in the air is considered it stopped, wherever it flies, it stopped. The difference is, what is that place? Is that place a רשות הרבים, you're חייב. If the place is a מקום פטור, you're פטור. But why does Rashi say אפילו קלוטה ליכא? So Rashi is telling you that there is no דין קלוטה כמי שהונחה למעלה מיו״ד, which is like the Ramban. Question is, why? So if you remember now we have three she'elot here. Not קושיות, three things that we're trying to understand. What's the מחלוקת, what's the סברא קלוטה כמי שהונחה, and after we know what the sevara is, what's the other sevara not? What's the sevara of the מחלוקת between the Tosafot Yeshanim, why does Tosafot Yeshanim say that we only say קלוטה להחמיר and not להקל? And what's the sevara of the Ramban and Rashi that קלוטה, even if you hold קלוטה, it doesn't apply in in a מקום פטור, only in only in a רשות הרבים? מקום פטור, you won't say קלוטה? If you say it stopped, it stopped wherever it is. So to understand this,

so number one, I'm going to give a shtikel הקדמה. And anybody heard sometimes shiurim will know that this is standard. Anytime we find in the Gemara something, one thing is like something else even though it isn't, we right away have three ways of learning it, which basically is the two main ways, and then there's one in the middle. Best place is, you know already from שליחות. שלו של אדם כמותו, כמותו. The שליח is like the משלח. The שליח is not the משלח. The משלח is Reuven, the שליח is Shimon. Has a different name, looks differently, he's a different person. Nevertheless, the Torah says the שליח is like the משלח. So we have basically the two ways, there are three ways, but basically the two. One is, yes, the Torah is mechadesh that the שליח becomes the משלח. The second way is that the Torah is not mechadesh. The שליח does there's the third way, but the other extreme: the שליח is not the משלח. The Torah says that even though he's not the משלח, the din is like as if he were the משלח. And this is a she'eilah that and so this chakirah, every time we have two things that one is like the other, there's always this she'eilah. Now we say this, in one of the sefarim שער הישיבה גדולה I have a list, a random list of 35 places, 35 35 in Likkutei Sichos, where the Rebbe in different inyanim has this she'eilah in different things, which one thing is not. Just to give you an example. תוספת שבת, time before Shabbos where you add. It's not Shabbos. It becomes like Shabbos. Nu, which way is it? Does it become really Shabbos, or it's not really Shabbos? You have anything that you have. When we learned in קידושין, שוה כסף ככסף, what is the peshat? טעם כעיקר. All over, we have. Is it did it become like that, or the Torah says אף על פי it's not, it's not. That's the taytsh כ. By the way, the Rogatchover has a she'eilah when like this, in order to be chayav to eat treif food, you have to eat a kezayit. But if you eat a whole a whole insect, which is a גאנצע בריה, you're chayav even if it's small. So he has a she'eilah: is the peshat this becomes like a kezayit, or even though it's not a kezayit, it's still chayav? It's the same she'eilah that he has. Same you can have in everything. When we say ב' דברים אינן ברשותו של אדם ועשאן הכתוב כאילו ברשותו, חמץ בפסח and בור ברשות הרבים, it's not yours, but it's like yours. Does it become yours or not yours? You can go on and on and so many things where this is, and this is this is one of those things. קלוטה כמי שהונחה. So you could have two ways. You could say the peshat is that קלוטה is הונחה. And you could say a different way: קלוטה is not הונחה, it has the same דין as הונחה. And I'll put it in different words, and I'll say the the basis behind it, I'll say soon. The while, I'm looking around, the two guys who walked out, I didn't see them come back yet. They said they're coming back, but they're not back yet. Oh, not the Where? Where? No, like I said, I see that the shiur, right in the beginning, gives a person שיקול שקול, so you never know. Vifl zenen? What's the difference if they come back or not? Oh, that that that's a big nafka minah. Nafka minah is if they stay by the shiur or didn't stay by the shiur. That's a נפקא מינה לפועל. Okay, wait, I didn't I didn't say anything yet. This is just a hakdamah. In other words, if you say, let's say כמותו ממש, That means to do something you have to do it yourself. To be mekadesh a ishah, you have to be mekadesh a ishah. If you say the shaliach could do it, that he is כמעשהו ממש, that means that you have whatever positive thing you need for him to do, that the שליח becomes that. The other way is the pshat, it's not chiyuv, it's שלילה. You know what שלילה means? There is a problem if you if the guy himself doesn't do it, there is a problem. Comes the Torah and says that if you make the guy into a שליח, the Torah doesn't care if there's the problem. The Torah takes away the problem. If a person, Reuven wants to be מקדש a אשה, he has to be מקדש a אשה. If someone else goes and is מקדש a אשה for him, you don't have him. But if he makes you into a שליח, the Torah says we don't care if you don't have him. That's the second way. It's take not him, but if you made him into a שליח, the Torah says we don't care if it's not him. The first way is no, the Torah cares, it has to be him, but the Torah says it became him. So the first way is that it becomes that thing ממש באופן חיובי, in a positive way, and the other way, שלילה takes away the chesaron. But you don't have the might, you don't have it, but there's a chesaron if you don't have it and it takes away. The same thing we're going to say here. There are two ways to learn, but you have to have a basis for each way. Stam you can say ווערטער, which makes no sense and it's mai nafka mina. But the two ways are, and then I'll explain why. One way is, as I will explain, that קלוטה is הונחה. The Torah says, yes, the חכמים said קלוטה becomes הונחה. That's like the first way, שלוחו של אדם כמותו באופן חיובי. And the other way we'll see is no, קלוטה כמי שהונחה doesn't mean that as if it stopped. What does it mean? And I'll explain why, but I'll say what does it mean? It means if it didn't stop, you got a problem. If it didn't stop, you didn't have הנחה, so there's something missing. Comes the הלכה and says, קלוטה כמי שהונחה, that it's not missing. We don't care if it didn't stop. You see the vort? It's not קלוטה כמי שהונחה and he still doesn't, I don't explain why, but you'll see that soon. But this way is the pshat, not the פשט קלוטה is טייטש it stopped. That's pretty weird. It's in the air and it stopped. No, it take didn't stop, but it has the same din as if it would have stopped. In other words, we don't care that there is a problem that it didn't stop. Normally, if you make an akirah and you don't have a hanachah, there's a problem, you're missing your hanachah. Here, קלוטה does is not missing an hanachah. That's טייטש כמי שהונחה, not that it's like it stopped. There's nothing wrong if it didn't stop, just like if it would have stopped, it would have been chayav, in this case, if it didn't stop, you're still chayav. Now let's understand the two ways, why would it be one way, what would be the other. So let's start from the second way. To explain why is it the How could you say a pshat, if we could get to such a pshat, that would be the best, because to explain קלוטה is as if it stopped, it's it's funny. It's flying in the air and it stopped, fantasias, such a fantasy, where do you get this from? If you could explain the second way, טאקע בפירוש didn't stop, but the Torah says has the same din as if it were stopped because we don't care it didn't. Why? So let's first get to understand why do we need an akirah and hanachah. Obviously, if you want this is the דרך הלימוד בכלל, if you think. You want to explain is it like it stopped or not, let's see what's hanachah, then if you know what hanachah is, then we know if it stopped or not. So we've been going on for on and on from the beginning of the year till now that what's the inyan of akirah and hanachah? Be'emet hotza'ah is a melachah geru'ah. Hotza'ah is a problem. Hotza'ah is missing the real quality of a of a melachah because there is no change. Nevertheless, it's chayav and it's a melachah. Why is it a melachah? Sof kol sof there is no change, so what do we say why is there hanachah, why is there a melachah? So I explained many times that's why we need an akirah and a hanachah. Akirah means something is laying, it's not just laying there, it's מושרש. When you pick it up, you're uprooting it from its place, from its reshut. You're taking it out, so you're taking it away from that reshut and you're putting it in the next reshut, and then when you put it down, you are משריש it again כאילו נאמר you're putting it down again into another רשות, וממילא כאילו there is a change. That's what we've been saying is the inyan of akirah and hanachah. Lichorah, you could ask a shaylah on this. Why do we need hanachah also? Why is it not enough if you do an akirah? If the whole purpose is to make that change, the moment you pick it up from reshut hayachid and you're uprooting it, and you're taking it out of the reshut hayachid, and you're bringing it into the reshut harabim, it's already a change. Why is that not good enough? If the whole thing is a change, why do you have to have a double from akirah from here and putting it down in the other רשות? Likhorah, the akirah itself should be good enough because you are doing something, you're taking it away from the רשות And you're putting it into another רשות, so you wouldn't משריש it in another רשות. But there's definitely a change. Imagine בגשמיות if it would be, בגשמיות if it would be planted and you tear it out, it's a melachah. So here, בהגיון, I wouldn't say the word ברוח, בהגיון you're also making a change. So likhorah when you make that akirah, you take it out into the next רשות, enough! The moment it comes to the next רשות, you should be chayav. Why do you need a hanachah? So, I will explain a possible sevara. Since you picked it up with your hand from the first רשות, so when it's in the first רשות it's in your hand, and now you're taking it out to the other רשות, and it's still in your hand! So mimela ke'ilu it never really left the first רשות, because when you picked it up in the first רשות and it came into your hand, it was still in the first רשות. And now it's still in your hand. It's כאילו נימא there is still a המשך to what you did in the beginning and you didn't let it go. When you put it down and you took your hand away and you put it down, so now you have a full fledged change. But here, if you picked it up and when you picked it up it was in your hand and it was still in the first רשות, and you continued, it didn't really leave 100%. Al derech, I'll give another dugma, everything is a dugma an example, by a get. What's the din by a get? If a person has a string attached to a get, and he throws the get to the woman, and she holds the get, and he holds the string, and it's not going to rip I mean and you could pull it back, so what's the din? She's not divorced. Why? The Gemara says, but what's the what's the chesaron? It's not called, no, it's called נתינה, not called כריתות! By a get it says it has to be cut off. You didn't cut off. גם she got the get, but you didn't cut off. Why didn't you cut off? Because there are strings attached! There's a string that's attached, and you never let go of it 100%. Why? Because you had it in your hand, and you still have it a little bit in your hand. Even though you gave away the get. I'm just using this as an example, that's an halacha in הלכות גיטין. But the לשון הגמרא is it's not called cut off, it never left you 100%. So when you pick up a object, so even though you picked it up and you were oker it, but you're oker it and it's in your hand. So now it's in in the first reshus still, never left the first reshus since it's in your hand, and the position of it being in your hand you're continuing, and it's still in your hand. So in order for it to be a full fledged change, you have to put it down. Okay. Oh, one second, we'll get to that in a second. Oh yeah? Okay. I don't know how to play chess, but that sounds good, sounds like a good mashal. Yeah.

לפי זה, the only reason you need hanacha is not because you need hanacha, you need hanacha only because without the hanacha there is something missing. Akira, we said, you need to have an akira. Hanacha, all you need is that if not, it never really left the first reshus. לפי זה, what happens if you throw it? So it left your hand! If it left your hand, you דוקא don't need a hanacha. So the akira and the going to the other reshus should be enough to be chayav! You don't need hanacha, because you don't really need the hanacha. You just need the hanacha in order to take away the problem of it being in your hand. But in this case, you have no problem, because it's not in your hand! And that could be the pshat in קלוטה כמי שהונחה. The second way, not that it's hanacha. The second way we said קלוטה כמי שהונחה doesn't mean that it's like it stopped. It means that we don't care it didn't stop. You're חייב אף על פי we don't אף על פי it didn't stop. And that's the pshat, you can learn that way. So the fact that you picked it up and you threw it from the reshus you made the עקירה ברשות היחיד and you threw it into the רשות הרבים, so the moment it came to the רשות הרבים after a regular akira, you should be chayav right away! That's taytsh קלוטה כמי שהונחה. That's one way to learn קלוטה כמי שהונחה, that it's not because it made the hanacha. That's the second way, that it's taking away the חסרון, but not מעשה ממש, not that it's rested. Then we have the other way, which I mentioned in the שיעור, you could learn that קלוטה כמי שהונחה means it really rested. Ai, it sounds pretty strange, so I explain now a sevara that when something goes, the she'eilah is how do we look at it? באמת, everything is made up of נקודות נקודות. Everything is made up of רצוא ושוב. When it flies in the air, it's באמת, what's happening is you can't see it, it stops every split second, even less than that. You just can't see it, so it goes so fast that it looks like it's going. על דרך, it's not the same, על דרך like Ben Azzai. What does Ben Azzai hold? מהלך כעומד. That when a person walks, every step he takes, even though he's walking, every step he takes is considered a הנחה. Why? Because walking means step, ai, he never stopped, but that's made up of stopping. When you put your foot down, as you go, you're stopping, but you're going so fast that you can't tell the stop. That's different. I know, that's why I said it's only a דוגמא, it's not the same. Here, it's not exactly the same way, because here it's actually flying in the air. But flying in the air is made up of like that, because when you have a lot of dots moving on, it turns into one long, long stretch. I don't want to go into the more fantasies of it, like שאר סברות of you have, he says in in in עולם ההגיון, when you have a שטח, it's made up of נקודות בכלל, even when you walk. It has all kinds of things in שכל, how to abstract thinking. But this way you're going to say like this: באמת, you need a הנחה. Every time that you're חייב, you need an עקירה and an הנחה. And קלוטה כמי שהונחה, when it flies, it's like it stopped. When you're holding it in your hand, it's not, because it's in your hand. But if you throw it and it's flying in the air, קלוטה כמי שהונחה. Tosafot says in the hand it's not like that. קלוטה כמי שהונחה. Now let's go according to both ways. What would be the מחלוקת between Rabbi Akiva and the Chachamim? So let's start first way. Rabbi Akiva holds קלוטה כמי שהונחה. What does that mean according to the first way? That the reason why you need a הנחה בכלל, because otherwise there's a problem, it never really left the first רשות because it's still in your hand, so when you throw it and it's not in your hand, then it's enough. What would the Rabbanan hold? Maybe the Rabbanan hold not like that. The Rabbanan hold the second way. They hold that you need הנחה for a הנחה, so flying in the air is not הנחה, according to that way. Or you could say a little different: that according to this first way, the Rabbanan agree that you don't really need a הנחה, and the only reason you need a hanachah is because otherwise it's connected to before, because it's still in your hand. And still they say we will not say קלוטה כמי שהונחה. You know why, you could say? Because we said the chesaron of the hand is because it never really left the first place, because it's still in your hand. When you throw it, we can look at it the same way. How does this thing fly in the air? It has the כח הזריקה. You put in the כח הזריקה into the into the object. Learn a Chassidus! You you put in your koach into it, and as long as the koach lasts, it flies, and when does it fall? When the koach wears off. So the Rabbanan will look at it and say that be'emet, just like when you carry it with your hand you need a hanachah, why? Because otherwise it's still connected to you, because it's still in your hand. If you threw it, it's the same problem. Rabbi Akiva says, no, that if you threw it, it's already disconnected from you, and memeila you have a full-fledged melachah, a change. You picked it up, that's the עקירה, and you threw it, and it left you, and it went into another רשות, that's enough to be chayav. And the fact that it's flying because you threw it is still disconnected. And the Rabbanan say, it's still called connected, and memeila you still need a real hanachah, and that is not enough. And you still need to take not a real hanachah, you need to make sure that the connection is not there anymore, and that's only by putting it down. So according to the first way, back to this, קלוטה כמי שהונחה means כמי שהונחה that it's not really put down, but we don't care if it was not put down. According to the second way, what's the מחלוקת between Rabbi Akiva and the Chachamim? Rabbi Akiva holds that when it's flying in the air, it's as if it's constantly stopping, and memeila there is hanachah. So the second way, everyone holds you need to have a הנחה באופן חיובי. This is a הנחה באופן חיובי, it actually stopped. איי, the problem of ד' על ד'? So the Gemara takeh says, according to Rabbi Akiva, you don't need ד' על ד'. That's the ראיה. But it stopped. And the Chachamim, they say, well, in theory, in הגיון, it stopped, but בפועל, it didn't stop, and therefore, the Chachamim say we do not say קלוטה כמי שהונחה. If it's based on Yeah, but depends which הגיון. There's the הגיון of physically picking up and taking it, and then the הגיון of something that's not ניכר at all. It's not the same. No, היגיון, but what kind of a היגיון? In the היגיון you have many דרגות. You have very abstract and you have a little bit abstract. The fact that we say that picking it up is called taking it away from the שורש is a shtikel היגיון, but still you're picking it up from the רשות. This is such a far-fetched היגיון that you could say this you say and this you don't. So what I want to say is that the Tosafos Yeshanim will hold the first way, and Tosafos will hold the second way. If you hold the first way, that what's the פשט קלוטה כמי שהונחה, that you don't need the hanachah because it's not in your hand, so there's no problem. So there is no הנחה חיובית. There's nothing that you did as hanachah. And therefore, it only works להחמיר, not להקל. We understand why. It only works that if you had an עקירה and you took it out, and you already had the שינוי רשות. So normally you're still missing, here you're not missing anything. But a hanachah is not a positive thing that happened here. By throwing in the air, the קלוטה is not a positive thing that happening. To patur you, you have to have a hanachah. To If you have a chiyuv, and we want to make you patur from the chiyuv, there has to be something that you're doing to make you patur. But we're saying according to the first way, קלוטה כמי שהונחה doesn't mean you made a hanachah. בפירוש didn't do anything. אלא מאי, there's a change in the רשות. The עקירה is good enough. So if עקירה is good enough, you're chayav for that עקירה. But in the case where we need the hanachah to make you patur, there is no hanachah. According to the first way, there is no הנחה חיובית to say that when you did this, you are patur. וממילא, he says, you can't have קלוטה כמי שהונחה can not make you patur. When can קלוטה כמי שהונחה make you patur? Means that something is chayav and you did something to take away the chiyuv. You did nothing! There's no So the second way is, yeah, like that. The second way we're saying that when it came into the air, it's as if it landed. So you did a hanachah, and when you do hanachah, you're taking away the chiyuv that's there. You could take away the chiyuv. So it could make the chiyuv and break the chiyuv. But if you're saying it's not a real hanachah, ela mai, it's no problem, the chiyuv is there already. Okay, the chiyuv is there already, so it doesn't take away the chiyuv. So you're machmir because you don't need it. But if you want to use it to patur you, there you have to have something to do to take away the chiyuv, and that doesn't work. And this is the sevara, so we have like this. When we ask the two she'elot, what is the difference, what's the machloket whether akirah whether קלוטה כמי שהונחה or not? And the second she'elah, what is the sevara of the machloket in Tosafot Yeshanim, now we have it. The מחלוקת Tosafot and Tosafot Yeshanim is what is the peshat in קלוטה כמי שהונחה? That according to the Tosafot Yeshanim, קלוטה כמי שהונחה doesn't mean there was a hanachah. But there wasn't, and we don't care. Umemila, when to patur you, it doesn't work. מה שאין כן תוספות learn קלוטה כמי שהונחה means that there was a hanachah, so it works for to patur you, also. And therefore, according to Tosafot, it poter's you. Now לפי זה, we'll understand the sevara of the Ramban and the sevara of Rosh, that they learn like the Tosafot Yeshanim. That קלוטה כמי שהונחה does not because there was a hanachah. קלוטה כמי שהונחה is because the fact that you picked it up and you threw it and it came into another reshut already is enough. You don't have to have a hanachah. But that's only good if it came into another reshut. So the akirah is good enough. What happens if it didn't come in another רשות? Then the akirah is not good enough yet. In other words, קלוטה means that the fact that came into the other רשות is good enough. What happens if it came into a מקום פטור? Now מקום פטור is not another רשות. U-mimeila, there is no קלוטה there. If you learn the other way like Tosafot, קלוטה כמי שהונחה, whenever it flies in the air, it stopped. So wherever it is, if it flies in the air of a מקום פטור, it's stopped in the מקום פטור, and you're patur because it's מקום פטור. But if you're saying, \"No, it didn't stop, ela mai, by קלוטה, you don't need a hanachah because the change of רשות is good enough.\" There's no change of רשות here, because it came into a מקום פטור. And that's what Tosafot and the Ramban learn, that you don't say קלוטה there. Not that you're patur, you don't say קלוטה, because the whole concept of קלוטה doesn't apply, because it came to a מקום פטור, which is not a רשות. Now that's not so pashut. There is a she'eilah we have, and we spoke about it once before: Is a מקום פטור a רשות or not? You remember we spoke about it? There are two ways to learn: You could say a מקום פטור is a רשות, but a רשות הפטור. Or you could say a מקום פטור is not a רשות. Whichever way we're going to learn, it makes sense. If a מקום פטור is not a רשות בכלל, then vadai it makes sense that the only time you don't you say קלוטה, when it came to another רשות, and you don't need the hanachah. But in the case of when it came to a מקום פטור, it didn't come to another רשות, because a מקום פטור is not a רשות. So, therefore, we can't say kelutah there. Not we can't say you're patur because it's kelutah it stopped in a מקום פטור. It didn't stop because kelutah never stopped. Ela mai it's enough, in this case it's not enough. Afilu if you're going to learn that a מקום פטור is a רשות, ela mai it's a רשות that's patur, also makes sense. When is it called a shinui by throwing it in the air? When it came from this רשות to an opposite רשות. Then it's a change. But if it comes from this רשות to a רשות that you're patur, it's not a רשות הפכי, so it's not a real change, so we don't say kelutah. So whichever way we're going to learn in the geder of a מקום פטור, but according to this, we will not say kelutah in a case of a מקום פטור, because there is no change, and kelutah doesn't mean there is a hanachah, it doesn't mean it stopped. It means that there is, without stopping, there is a change. And there is no change because there is no other רשות. Wait a second, if it goes to כרמלית, then it would not necessarily be considered kelutah? Probably, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah, mistama. מקום פטור, כרמלית is a מקום פטור מדאורייתא, yeah, yeah. Takeh wouldn't say kelutah. This is all according to the peshat of the way we're learning in Tosafot Yeshanim, which explains the other vort. Tosafot Yeshanim brings a re'ayah to his din that you don't say קלוטה להקל. The re'ayah is from ד׳ אמות ברשות הרבים. It's the same thing over there. Why don't you say קלוטה ד׳ אמות ברשות הרבים? Because there is no change. Kelutah is not a peshat that it stopped. Kelutah is the peshat that you picked it up and you you changed the רשות. When you pick up something in רשות הרבים and it goes into the it's רשות הרבים and it continues traveling for one אמה, for two אמות, what kind of change is there? There's no change. How could you say קלוטה? If you learn קלוטה which means it stopped, then takeh you got a problem. According to it you got a problem. After every אמה or every half an אמה, it stops, so why are you חייב? So according to it, it's a problem. What's the answer? הלכה למשה מסיני, Tosafot has no other answer, and takeh it's a problem. Mah she'ein kein according to Tosafot Yeshanim, it's no problem because there was no change. The whole thing of קלוטה means that we don't need a הנחה because there's a change. The only time is a change is if it goes to another רשות. Going from in רשות הרבים גופא, you're picking it up and it's going like this, and it's all this, there's no change. So you're not So it doesn't do anything. There's no קלוטה there. The only time it could be a change is if it goes more than ד׳ אמות, so maybe takeh, maybe we'll say קלוטה. If you throw throw something in רשות הרבים and it goes more than ד׳ אמות and it got burned in the air, takeh maybe you're חייב, because it got into the air, it came in a different רשות, it left, and that's called in a different רשות. After ד׳ אמות, the Baal HaMaor, the famous Baal HaMaor that is considered like a different רשות, you're takeh חייב. So when the when the Tosafot Yeshanim brings a ראיה, it's not just a a ראיה from a זײטיקע זאך that we see that להקל we don't say it, because over there, otherwise how is there ד׳ אמות זריקה ד׳ אמות ברשות הרבים? It's more than that. The ראיה is from the שכל there. Why takeh is the דין don't say קלוטה by ד׳ אמות זריקה ד׳ אמות ברשות הרבים? Because there was not You can't say קלוטה. קלוטה doesn't mean that it landed. קלוטה means that the fact that you did the akirah and you made a שינוי רשות, that's enough. There was no שינוי רשות here. The exact same thing here, Tosafot he says, בנוגע אל למעלה מ What does he say, למעלה from י׳ טפחים, there is He says you can't say kelutah. So he uses the לשון because it's lehakel, it's not the word lehakel, because you can't say kelutah there. And this is how Rashi learns also, we can say that's why Rashi says that למעלה מיו״ד there is no kelutah. לפי זה, it comes out, oh, we've come to the last 10 minutes, I see. 10 minutes is it's not enough time to explain what the next piece I want to say, so I'll say it as I try to say it bekitzur. So, it comes that there is a machloket between Rashi and Tosafot whether we really need a הנחה באופן חיובי or הנחה באופן שלילי is enough. According to Tosafot, you have to have a הנחה, because in order to have akirah, in order to have a שינוי, you have to pick it up and you have to put it down. According to Tosafot Yeshanim, the Rambam we're saying, according to Rashi, there is no דין of הנחה that you must have a הנחה. If you don't have a הנחה, you got a problem. So it's a הנחה that you got to make sure that you don't have the missing הנחה. Whatever you're you're missing something if you don't have. This will explain another machloket between Rashi and Tosafot, but this is later on, a shvere סוגיא in the Gemara. But כל שבת is shver. You know, you see the Gemara we're learning now, דף ד׳ is דף ד׳ עמוד ב׳. Shvere Gemara. Comes to דף ח' with כוורת'ס, it's pretty hard over there. But there there's a מחלוקת רש\"י and Tosafos. I mentioned in the shiur once before, if you pick up a כוורת, a beehive, or the same would be any box, which is 10 טפחים high and 4 טפחים wide, and you pick it up, and you throw it ד' אמות ברשות הרבים, you pick it up from the floor, and you throw it. So the Gemara says if it's if it complete has this shiur, patur, you are patur, you're not chayav, even though you threw it ד' אמות ברשות הרבים. Zogt Rashi why are you patur? So Rashi says because it's a רשות לעצמו, any box that's 10 טפחים high and 4 by 4 is a רשות היחיד, it's its own רשות. ואנן ממשכן גמרינן שהיו זורקין מחטין למלאכתן ולא היו זורקין רשויות. We don't find in the Mishkan that they threw רשויות, a whole רשות they threw? So if you throw a רשות, you're patur, that's what Rashi says.

Comes Tosafos, Tosafos says a different pshat why you're patur if you threw it. Listen to this, this is, and this also, this Tosafos over there, דיבור המתחיל רחבה, is a very, a gaon'dike Tosafos, that Tosafos deals with abstract thought thinking. S'past farn Rogatchover aza Tosafos. שהכוורת עצמו נעשה רשות היחיד כשתנוח. If you pick up this כוורת, you're picking up a רשות היחיד. You're throwing it in the air, it flies ד' אמות ברשות הרבים, it lands. As it lands, it turns back into a רשות היחיד. See, when it's in the air it's not a רשות היחיד, so it's flying in the רשות הרבים. You started off with a רשות היחיד, you threw it in the air of רשות הרבים, and it landed. So and mimela it is והוי כזורק מרשות היחיד לרשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים. And what's the דין over there? פטור, כדאמר לעיל, דלא ילפינן זורק ממושיט. So ואפילו לרבי עקיבא דאמר קלוטה כמי שהונחה, הכא פטור. Why? Because דכל מקום שתנוח חשיב רשות היחיד, because wherever it'll land it'll be רשות היחיד. So the reason you're פטור he says because you threw a רשות היחיד, so it started with רשות היחיד, went through the air of רשות הרבים, came down, so it's מרשות היחיד לרשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים. And Tosafos טייטשט אזוי because דחשיבי כאילו נחה אחר שנעשה רשות היחיד. The הנחה happened כאילו after it became a רשות היחיד. Follow? In the air it's not, then it fell down. As it landed, what are you חייב for? When it makes the הנחה. When it makes the הנחה, as it lands, two things happen here: when it falls, it turns into a רשות. In the air? No, רשות can there is no flying רשות. A רשות is when something is standing in the רשות הרבים and has that שיעור. So when it landed on the floor it became a רשות היחיד, and you did the הנחה. What came first? So Tosafos says כאילו נחה אחר שנעשה רשות היחיד. The הנחה that we want to make you חייב for is after it became a רשות היחיד. U'mimeila it started off רשות היחיד, the עקירה was a רשות היחיד, went through רשות הרבים, then it landed after it became רשות היחיד, so when you did the הנחה it already is a רשות היחיד from before. Why? Why do we say it landed became a רשות היחיד before it landed? So mimeila the הנחה you did was a הנחה in רשות היחיד. There are two things we said here. The הנחה has to accomplish two things: make it into walls of a רשות היחיד. So we're saying like this: the הנחה that we want to make you chayav for came after it's a רשות היחיד, so mimela you can't be chayav for that hanachah, but the hanachah to make it into a רשות היחיד, that came first. Why? What's the logic here? It's a מאדנע זאך. You could say maybe גיטה וידה באין כאחד, sometimes we have two things happen at the same time, but that doesn't apply here, we're not going to get into the details, it's too late. But the she'eilah what is the logic here? Understand the she'eilah, it's mamash a מאדנע תוספות. This like I said is a ראגאטשאווער'דיקע type of thinking. It fell down and became a רשות היחיד, two things happened: when it landed and it became munach, it's a רשות, and you're chayav for hanachah. You say no, first it became the רשות, through what did it become a רשות? Through landing, so there was a hanachah already! So there was a hanachah it became a רשות, and then happens the hanachah to be chayav, and mimela it came after it became a רשות, so you can't be chayav, because you can't be chayav for רשות היחיד. What's the logic? Now I understand why Rashi doesn't learn like that. Because it doesn't sound right. So Rashi is a different thing, because they threw רשויות, and in in in Mishkan they didn't throw רשויות. So I want to explain like this: We just kept on saying the whole time that according to Tosafot the hanachah does not have to be a real hanachah. No, farkert, according to Tosafot hanachah has to be a real hanachah, I'm sorry. According to Rashi and the Tosafot Yeshanim, the only reason is hanachah because otherwise you're missing something, you have a problem. According to Tosafot, you must have an הנחה באופן חיובי. You must in order to be chayav, it must land באופן חיובי, that makes the chiyuv. When we say that the הנחה makes it into a רשות, that makes it into מחיצות, for that you don't have to have הנחה חיובית. For that, it's enough the fact that it's not not an הנחה. There's a re'aya from Tosafot here on דף ז עמוד ב, where Tosafot is מחלק between the מחיצות of a סוכה and the מחיצות of שבת. And the way it comes out from Tosafot here and Tosafot in סוכה, that by סוכה you need מחיצות, to have a סוכה you need מחיצות באופן חיובי. And by שבת, in order to make מחיצות for the רשות, you don't need it. It's only, here doesn't say, in סוכה Tosafot says, למנוע רגל הרבים, that there shouldn't be people able to walk, not that you need מחיצות. So it comes out like this: that the fact to make it into רשות היחיד, you don't need באופן חיובי it should have an הנחה it should last to become a מחיצה, as long as it's not not a מחיצה. To make the חיוב הנחה according to Tosafot, we said, you must have an הנחה. Not according to Rashi. According to Rashi we say that's also something that you don't really need, it's just to take away the fact that it's with a hand. So that's what Tosafot says. What comes first, again in היגיון, in abstract thinking? The fact that it's not not a מחיצה, or the fact that it becomes a מחיצה? There's two three things, three stages. There is no מחיצה, and then there's a stage where there is not no מחיצה, and then there is a stage where there is a מחיצה. Right? What comes first? B'foal it comes together. When it becomes a מחיצה, two things happen at the same time. Now that there is a מחיצה, it's not not a מחיצה, and it is a מחיצה. But in היגיון, the positive part is a step further. In היגיון, first comes that it's not not a מחיצה, then it's a מחיצה. And that's why, and that makes, then Tosafos makes sense. We're talking about two things: you're throwing this and it becomes a רשות היחיד. How did it become a רשות היחיד? Through through landing. For that, you don't have to have the fact that it actually landed, it should not be considered not landing, and that's enough. And then to be chayav, you have to have it landing, that comes later. So according to Tosafos, it became a רשות היחיד, then you did the הנחה. It became a רשות היחיד through landing, but not through the real landing, through the שלילה'דיגע. And mimela, what comes out, that it's רשות היחיד through רשות הרבים to רשות היחיד because your הנחה of chiyuv came after it became רשות היחיד. But that all goes l'shitatam of Tosafos, that the הנחה is a חיובי'דיגע הנחה. If you'd learn like the Tosafos Yeshanim, kashya, that even the הנחה is not a חיובי'דיגע הנחה, then what's the chiluk between the הנחה to make it a רשות or the הנחה for the איסור הוצאה? They're both the same. So why would we consider this that the הנחה of the איסור came after it became a רשות through the הנחה? So Rashi can't learn like that. But Tosafos goes l'shitatam. Tosafos does learn like that. But it all fits to how you learn the peshat in הנחה, whether it's הנחה חיובית or הנחה שלילה that you take away the חסרון if you don't have it. I found a good place for the word היגיון is conceptual idea. Okay, maybe. Sounds sounds something. There was one thing I didn't understand. You said that the, what Rabbi Akiva would hold according to Tosafot, I believe...