So first time, and what would I do? I would take out my list, look at the names, and anybody who wasn't there, make an announcement. I would say, \"Is this בחור here? Is this בחור here?\" And then that the בחור heard about it, the next day he was there. Every time was like that. Same thing by the שיחה שיעור, would look around, if anybody was missing, would announce his name. Then I thought if the בחור wouldn't want it to happen again, he didn't want his name to be announced officially as a as a missing סדר. You know, I got a little older, I decided not to do it. The בחורים didn't get older, because every year the same age. It's זמן, it's זמן, true, I asked Benzy to come in the beginning of the שיעור to look around who is missing, who is sitting. We will do that, okay? He should get the list. Okay, we started something last time, but we just didn't get too far into it, so we're going to continue it. That was the מאירי's קשיא. What I also used to do a lot more is something like this, I would turn around to a בחור and say, \"You know, tell me, נו, what was the מאירי's קשיא that we spoke about last time?\" You like it better? Like it better which way? The way it is, without being asked questions. I like it better also for a different reason, but not for the same reason. Maybe we should institute it again. Okay. Maybe next time we'll do it. Now you weren't, until now you weren't warned, אין עונשין, that's not, an ancient, but אין עונשין אלא אם כן מזהירין, okay. So the קשיא the מאירי was the גמרא says that if you a person stuck his hand out at night, so we said you can't so the גמרא said that what at the תירץ כאן ל כאן ביום כאן משחשיכה, that if he stuck it out at night, then they אסר him to take it back. Why did they אסר? Because he did an עבירה, he stuck it out. So the גמרא asks, \"Maybe it should be the opposite? Because if he'll drop it, if it happened during the day and he drops it, there's nothing, no איסור דאורייתא, but if he stuck it out during the night, at night already, so he did a real עקירה on שבת, now he's going to drop it, there'll be an איסור דאורייתא.\" So the גמרא's לשון is he'll be חייב חטאת. That's what the גמרא says. משחשיכה דאי שדי ליה, איהו חייב חטאת. Comes the מאירי and the מאירי asks the שאלה that how will he be חייב חטאת? We know the דין by a חטאת is that you have to have When are you חייב a חטאת, if the מלאכה or the איסור that you did is שוגג מתחילתו ועד סופו. And then there is the דין that if פסק like the רבנן who say that יש ידיעה לחצי שיעור. That if you have שוגג in the beginning and שוגג at the end, but in the middle there was a ידיעה, you're not called a שוגג throughout the whole time and you are פטור from a חטאת. למשל the the classical example, what was one you want to bring an example of somebody does an עבירה בשוגג is חייב a חטאת, you give the example of someone who ate חלב. For eating חלב בשוגג you're חייב a חטאת. But how much do you eat to be חייב a חטאת? To be a שיעור. A שיעור כזית, there's a שיעור כזית. So the גמרא says, what happens if he started eating, he ate, let's say, half of a כזית and he didn't realize that it's חלב or forgot that that חלב is אסור. Then he reminded himself, \"Hey, what did I do? I just ate half a כזית and חלב is אסור.\" So he remembered and then he forgot again and ate the other half. So if you look at it technically, it was תחילתו בשוגג וסופו בשוגג. But there was a ידיעה in middle in middle of חצי שיעור. So the רבנן say יש ידיעה לחצי שיעור. It's called a ידיעה and if it's called a ידיעה, what's the דין? If it's called a ידיעה, what is the דין? You're not חייב a חטאת, you're פטור from a חטאת. Why? Because it's called ידיעה. So he asks the שאלה, how did the גמרא say over here that this guy who stuck his hand out, and we're going to tell him don't bring it back, so we're saying it's חייב a חטאת. If he's חייב a חטאת means that he did it בשוגג. So what happened here? He stuck his hand out בשוגג. Now he's asking a שאלה, \"Can I take it back?\" What does that mean? He realized that he did something wrong. So how is he חייב a חטאת? אלא מאי he might forget again. Because if he doesn't forget again, it's definitely פטור from a חטאת, what are we afraid is he's asking and we'll tell him keep the hand there, he'll keep the hand there and he'll forget that it's שבת and he'll drop it. So it's תחילתו בשגגה, סופו בשגגה, but there was a ידיעה in between, a ידיעה in between. Now that's the שאלה of the of the מאירי. When the גמרא says, yeah, פארקערט, the גמרא says משחשיכה ליכ- משחשיכה דאי שדי ליה אולידי חיוב, לא לינקטינהו. Why? Because if דאי שדי ליה אתי לידי חיוב חטאת. If he stuck it out בשגגה, the גמרא says if he drops it, he's חייב a חטאת. Why is he חייב a חטאת? Because he will have done a full מלאכה. Which is the full מלאכה? He picked it up in רשות היחיד, made an עקירה, stuck it out into רשות הרבים, and he drops it into רשות הרבים, so it's a full מלאכה. How is he חייב a חטאת? He did it בשגגה. Obviously, if not בשגגה not חייב a חטאת. Because when he picked it up, he didn't realize it's שבת. But for sure the case is where in the middle he knew. He knew in the middle. So just like if you find out the middle of eating the חלב, you find out, even though you didn't know לכתחילה, and at the end you forgot again, but if you had a ידיעה in the middle, it takes away the חיוב חטאת, so it should take away the חיוב חטאת here also. And the מאירי answers that this דין of יש ידיעה לחצי שיעור is only in a case of חצי שיעור. That you ate חלב and you didn't eat the full שיעור. Why? Because חצי שיעור אסור מן התורה. So ממילא you're already in middle of the איסור. You're not חייב כרת or במזיד or a חטאת for חצי שיעור, but it's אסור. The דין of a שיעור is for the punishment or for the קרבן, but the איסור is there already, because we פסקן like who? Who's the מחלוקת by חצי שיעור between? ריש לקיש says חצי שיעור מותר מן התורה, רבי יוחנן says חצי שיעור אסור מן התורה. We פסקן like רבי יוחנן, so חצי שיעור is אסור. So by חצי שיעור when he ate a half of the שיעור, which he did already the beginning of the איסור, and he knows then, so in middle of the איסור, in middle of doing the איסור, he had a ידיעה, that ruins it. But in our case, what where was the ידיעה here? In the middle. In the middle between what and what? Between between עקירה and הנחה. He picked it up בשגגה, he forgot it's שבת, but he picked it up, took it out. Now he remembered that he shouldn't have done it. Then he forgot again, and he dropped it. So here the ידיעה was between the עקירה and הנחה. מדאורייתא, did he do anything wrong yet when he when he realized that? He took it out from here and put it out. מדאורייתא, there's no איסור in עקירה without an הנחה. It's not like חצי שיעור, which מדאורייתא אסור מן התורה. חצי מלאכה is מותר מן התורה. מדרבנן they made the איסור, so the whole משנה here where it says that you're not allowed to do an עקירה itself or an הנחה itself is דרבנן. So the ידיעה that came, came not after when he already started doing the איסור. וממילא, here that ידיעה doesn't count, and it doesn't spoil and you're still חייב a חטאת. That's the that's what he said last time. This is how far we went, we got into the מאירי. Then the מאירי continues: How come we find by another case where it's not like this? It says if a person carried two אמות ברשות הרבים בשגגה, then he continued two more אמות במזיד, then he forgot again and carried two אמות בשגגה, he's פטור from a חטאת. Why? Because there was a ידיעה in the middle. But לכאורה we just finished saying now that since מדאורייתא the עקירה itself is not a real איסור, not no איסור at all, so the ידיעה that you have in the middle doesn't count. So how come over there it does count? No, we're not going according to בן עזאי, this is according to us. You're asking a good שאלה, but it's not a good שאלה at all. Sounds like a good שאלה. It's the middle, it's חצי שיעור he did have. Is the חצי שיעור of two אמות אסור מדאורייתא or מותר? So why So what are you answering me? He says, by חצי שיעור of אכילה, where it's אסור מדאורייתא already, so there we say if you had ידיעה after you did a certain part which was אסור מדאורייתא, that ידיעה spoils it. Here the שיעור of the two אמות is not אסור מדאורייתא. You're allowed to, even מדרבנן! Pick up and carry. That's a different שאלה, why didn't the רבנן make a דין of חצי שיעור? Good, we're not getting into that, I think I mentioned it once about that the שיעור of ד' אמות is not the דין of חצי שיעור, less than ד' אמות we're allowed to, even מדרבנן they didn't even make an איסור. So here לכתחילה you're allowed, לכתחילה you're allowed to pick up something in the רשות הרבים, carry it two אמות, three אמות, less than four אמות, put it down. No problem, מדאורייתא, מדרבנן you're allowed to do it. So there is no, so לכאורה over here the ידיעה was also, and it was after an עקירה. It was after an עקירה. But we said now עקירה is not אסור yet. So how come here the מאירי himself asks, how come over here we say that it does spoil the קרבן, you cannot bring a קרבן?

And he says that this is only by the דין of העברה, not by הוצאה. He's מחלק between the מלאכה of הוצאה מרשות היחיד לרשות הרבים. Over there we say that if you did just the עקירה, it's not part of the מלאכה yet, and it doesn't count. מה שאינו כן, if you did the same thing by the העברה of ד' אמות, there it does count. What's the הסברה? So here, the תוצאות חיים, written by the תוצאות חיים, the ר' מנחם זעמבא, in סימן, I'll tell you, סימן ז', yeah, he לכאורה asks the שאלה, what's the difference, טאקע? Why here, by the הוצאה, we say that because the עקירה is not אסור yet מדאורייתא, so you didn't do anything אסור מדאורייתא, so the ידיעה doesn't spoil it, and by העברה we do? So we must say, and this is what some people say, that when we say whether the עקירה is part of the מלאכה or not, is a difference between עקירה of הוצאה and עקירה of ד' אמות ברשות הרבים. עקירה by הוצאה, there we say, is an עיקר, and an עקירה by ד' אמות is not an עיקר, because ד' אמות, the main thing is the שטח in between. What's the difference in the מלאכה of הוצאה? Is there any שטח, space, that the עבירה is carrying a certain space by הוצאה? No. No. Getting over the border. That's nothing, that's not, that's just changing the רשויות, that's not. מה שאינו כן here, the whole idea of the ד' אמות is the space, is the ד' אמות. So here when you did this, when you carried part of the space, you are doing part of the מלאכה, even though you are not חייב yet. And מדאורייתא and even מדרבנן you're not חייב. But here, when you had the ידיעה in middle of the two in middle of the four אמות, you actually had a ידיעה middle of the פעולה of the of the מלאכה. By ד' אמות, you're not passing through a property? אוודאי not. It's רשות הרבים. You picked it up in רשות הרבים, walked ד' אמות and put it down. So here, the whole מלאכה is the ד' אמות. So if you carry and you had a ידיעה middle of the ד' אמות, did you have a ידיעה middle of the עיקר מלאכה? Yes. That's why here, it's called a ידיעה middle of the מלאכה. מה שאינו כן by the case of הוצאה, so here the main thing is not the going through, the main thing is the עקירה and the הנחה. And since the עקירה is not חייב, so the main thing is the הנחה לפועל. If the main thing is the הנחה לפועל, so as long as you didn't do an הנחה and it's not אסור מדאורייתא, it's not called a ידיעה within the מלאכה. So here the ד' אמות, the the carrying in between is the עיקר, and if that's the עיקר, ממילא there's a ידיעה in the עיקר המלאכה, and when you have a ידיעה in the middle of the עיקר המלאכה, at the עיקר העבירה, you're not It's not called a שוגג the whole way. מה שאינו כן by ד' by by by by הוצאה, it's different. Yeah, yeah, we're going according to this סברא now. Some טאקע say by הוצאה also the עיקר is עקירה. Actually, in the שיחה that we always quote, the רבי says there, according to some שיטות say the עקירה is the עיקר, and the הנחה is the עיקר, and there's all kinds of שיטות. But now we're going that this חילוק would be. But the the ר' מנחם זעמבא himself gives a different תירוץ. He says that the ענין of עקירה and הנחה that we have by הוצאה, why do we need עקירה and הנחה? Because that's how it was in the משכן. Where do we get the מלאכה of העברה ד' אמות בכלל? הלכה למשה מסיני. Has nothing to do with the משכן. The גמרא says later, where do you know that you can't carry four אמות in רשות הרבים? הלכה למשה מסיני. So it comes out like this: why do we need an עקירה and הנחה by ד' אמות? See, ממילא the הוצאה was in the משכן, and in the משכן was ד' was עקירה and הנחה like like תוספות says, so ממילא you need עקירה and הנחה. Why do we need עקירה and הנחה? So obviously the הנחה No, הלכה למשה מסיני was a מלאכה of העברה. We'll see in a second exactly. The מלאכה, you can't carry ד' אמות. The reason is probably because it's not the דרך. Didn't רש״י say that? רש״י on דף ג׳ here, in the רש״י עקירה גופא, ידו דלא ניחא, so רש״י says הלכה כהוציאו וליוקמה, ואין דרך הוצאה בלא עקירה והנחה. But by the הוצאה itself, the real הוצאה, you could say it was in the משכן, מה שאין כן by ד' אמות is because it's that's the דרך. So, he wants to say like this. So, by the עקירה, by the מלאכה, by ד' הוצאה, since it was in the משכן like that, this is part of the מלאכה. עקירה is part of the מלאכה. It's part of the מלאכה, but a מלאכה part it's מותר. So, your ידיעה doesn't count. By ד' אמות, it's not part of the מלאכה. The only reason you have to have עקירה is because that's the דרך. What is the מלאכה? To carry ד' אמות. And here you had a ידיעה in middle of what the עיקר מלאכה is. Because there it's הלכה למשה מסיני. The only שאלה is what did הלכה למשה מסיני say? There are two ways to learn the הלכה למשה מסיני. When הלכה למשה מסיני said that העברה is ד' אמות is אסור, you could say two things. You could say הלכה למשה מסיני said העברה ד' אמות is אסור. You could say הלכה למשה מסיני said העברה ד' אמות is a תולדה of הוצאה. If he said it's a תולדה of הוצאה, then whatever applies by הוצאה would apply here, too. Obviously, he learns הלכה למשה מסיני is just a דין of הלכה למשה מסיני. Okay, this is Let's get back to the מאירי itself. The מאירי said that according to רבי יוחנן, going back a point, let's finish with this, going back, that according to רבי יוחנן חצי שיעור is אסור מן התורה, that's why, if you have a ידיעה in the middle, what does it do? It פוטר's you from חטאת. It's late. What? I know I'm right. I don't need your הסכמה for that. The גמרא says a לשון, רבי יוחנן said to וכי לא ידענא דשפיר קאמינא? The גמרא says that רבי יוחנן, when ריש לקיש passed away, רבי יוחנן was completely Last year we learned בבא מציעא, רבי יוחנן went crazy פשוט. So they got him another guy to learn with him because he missed ריש לקיש. So the guy was learning with him and every time רבי יוחנן said a דין, he said תניא דמסייע לך, I have a ראיה that you're right. So he screamed at him, וכי לא ידענא דשפיר קאמינא? You think I think I don't know I'm right? I know I'm right. So that I need you to tell me I'm right? ריש לקיש used to ask me קשיות and tell me how wrong I am and we used to argue, that's what I want. וכי לא ידענא דשפיר קאמינא? Anyway, so he says that the reason why did the רבנן say, you have to hold cup here, why did the רבנן say that if you have a ידיעה in חצי שיעור it spoils a חטאת? Because חצי שיעור is אסור מן התורה. If חצי שיעור would be מותר מן התורה, then it wouldn't spoil it. So now we have a קשיא. So the תוצאות חיים has a קשיא on ריש לקיש. He says, since it's already אסור, so it's really part of the thing. And in the middle of doing the מלאכה, you had a ידיעה, ממילא it's not the whole thing בשוגג. But if you had a ידיעה while it was still not אסור, so then in that case it doesn't spoil. So then he says we have a קשיא on ריש לקיש. ריש לקיש says חצי שיעור מותר. How does that fit with the דין that יש ידיעה לחצי שיעור? That if you have a ידיעה in the middle by חצי שיעור, what happens then? It spoils from a חטאת. Why? The whole reason, he says, the מאירי, why it spoils from a חטאת is because it's already אסור. So isn't that a ראיה against ריש לקיש? The fact that the רבנן say חצי שיעור יש ידיעה that spoils the חטאת is against ריש לקיש. Now ריש לקיש and רבי יוחנן were what? תנאים or אמוראים? What were they? אמוראים. How could they argue whether חצי שיעור is אסור or מותר? Because we don't find anywhere a תנא who said anything about it. Because whenever you find a תנא, a משנה, a ברייתא, a תנא who says a דין, the אמוראים can't argue. So the פשט is, why is there an argument? Because we have no The moment we would bring a דין of a תנא or a משנה to one way, that would prove he's right and that guy's wrong. Here we have a משנה against ריש לקיש. The משנה, the תנאים, the רבנן of the תנאים say יש ידיעה לחצי שיעור, that if you'd have a ידיעה in middle, it spoils a חטאת. And according to the מאירי, the only reason it could spoil the חטאת because It's אסור, so how could ריש לקיש say מותר? It's a קשיא on ריש לקיש, a ראיה ריש לקיש is wrong. Because this is in retrospect, that at the end of the full מלאכה, if there was a ידיעה in the middle, it cancels it, but not that after half a מלאכה it's אסור? דער בחור זאגט גוט. רב נחמן זעמבא answers this תירוץ. ברוך שכיוונת. He says ריש לקיש learns like this: יש ידיעה לחצי שיעור means you had a חצי שיעור, then you had a ידיעה, then you did another חצי שיעור, and you finished it off. Everyone agrees that if you have a full שיעור, it's אסור. So now you did a full מלאכה. In middle of doing the full מלאכה, because after you finish with the second חצי שיעור, is the first חצי שיעור אסור or not? Because if the first חצי שיעור would remain מותר, you can never be חייב, because the second חצי שיעור is a separate חצי שיעור. אלא מאי, when you finish with the second חצי שיעור, it makes the whole thing אסור, even the retroactive, even the first חצי שיעור. So ריש לקיש says you have no ראיה against me, because לפועל it later becomes אסור. When I say חצי שיעור מותר מן התורה, ריש לקיש says, if you only ate a חצי שיעור. You ate a חצי, because רבי יוחנן says it's אסור. רבי יוחנן says you cannot eat a חצי שיעור, even if you don't finish it off, you cannot eat a חצי שיעור. ריש לקיש says you can eat a חצי שיעור, because a חצי שיעור he says is מותר. אה, you have a ראיה that יש ידיעה לחצי שיעור, that if you have that's only and it shows that it's part of it? יא, ודאי, later on it turns into part. Later on it turns into a part, it becomes part, the first חצי שיעור is part of the מלאכה. So it's part of the איסור. If it's part of the איסור, the ידיעה spoils it. But what he says I'm saying, חצי שיעור מותר מן התורה means only a חצי שיעור. Only שאלה that I have, which I don't think we're going to get to answer it, how come by עקירה and הנחה we don't say that? When you finish the הנחה, doesn't the עקירה also become part of the מלאכה? And what are we saying? That the reason why it is is because it spoils it. Why does it spoil? Because it's אסור, I mean, it spoils because it's אסור. Because a חצי שיעור is אסור, but now we're saying חצי שיעור could be מותר. So the פשט is חצי שיעור is אסור even according to ריש לקיש. אה, ריש לקיש is חצי שיעור מותר? Even according to ריש לקיש, after you do the whole עבירה, then the first חצי שיעור is אסור. That's what he means. But then the question is how come by עקירה and הנחה we don't say it? Okay, I don't want to get too complicated here, so we'll leave it at this. The bottom line, we understand what רבי יוחנן says, we understand what ריש לקיש says, and we understand the מאירי, and see what the תוספות חיים says. There's so many פרטים that we could get into to קוועטש זאכן what the פשט in רבי יוחנן and ריש לקיש, but it's not this סוגיא here, so okay, let's go weiter.

Okay. Let's go to the תוספות ישנים that I said we should learn. The גמרא wants to prove, answer רב ביבי בר אביי's question. What did the גמרא say? How do you answer the question? If you're going to hold משחשיכה, if you put your hand out at night, we didn't allow you to take it back. We said אסור to take back, even though what? You'll drop it and you'll have an איסור דאורייתא. Nevertheless, the רבנן said we want to קנס you, we couldn't care that it's going to bring you to איסור דאורייתא. That is פשוט what? רב ביבי בר אביי's question. What was his question? If you put in פת on שבת, if you take it out it'll save you from an איסור דאורייתא, but the רבנן said you're not allowed to take out the פת on שבת, the רדיית הפת. Did the חכמים in this case allow you in order to protect you from איסור דאורייתא? So from our גמרא that we see that the חכמים said, \"We don't care, we אסר you from taking it back, and we don't care you might come to איסור דאורייתא,\" that shows that the רבנן disregard. If they want to make an איסור, they disregard the דאורייתא. So the same thing by the פת. If they made an איסור רדיית הפת, they disregard the fact that by keeping their איסור and you'll keep the bread in, you'll be עובר איסור דאורייתא. That's what the גמרא says. Comes the תוספות ישנים and asks a שאלה, פרעגט דער תוספות ישנים, well the רש״ש says it later, but the תוספות ישנים asks, ואם תאמר, let's look inside: היכי היכי תפשוט? How do you prove from that דין to this דין? הא דרב ביבי ודאי אתי לידי חיוב חטאת. Maybe by רב ביבי the רבנן did allow you to take it out because there if you leave it in, it is definitely going to come to a חטאת. It's not a פשט maybe. While over here what's going to happen? You leave your hand out, very possible you'll come to a חטאת, maybe not. So maybe over here where you're not sure you'll come to a חטאת, the רבנן said, \"We keep our איסור.\" But when you're sure going to come to a חטאת, maybe the רבנן did not. How do you bring a ראיה? So he answers two תירוצים. The first תירוץ is a very בעל הבית׳ישע תירוץ, ויש לומר דהכא נמי ודאי, it's ודאי, דאי אפשר למינקט ידיה כל היומא. You can't keep your hand all day, impossible. So it's also about it, the same thing, they're both ודאי. It's a practical תירוץ, a בעל הבית׳ישע, I mean, it's not like a למדנ׳ישע הסברה תירוץ. It's a, it's a different ענין. The second one will be a הגיונ׳דיקע תירוץ, a תירוץ of שכל, a תירוץ of סברא. Here it's פשוט a practical, that's what I call, we call it a בעל הבית׳ישע. It's a, it's a simple, practical thing. Did you, the הוה אמינא was that it's not for sure, no, no, I'm telling you it's very You probably will But still, how long can you do that? The רבי was the only one that was able to stand and give כוס של ברכה for 7 hours and hold his hand like this. The normal human being can't do that. Do it for 10 minutes and see what'll happen. Oh, you'll throw it down. I'm afraid you'll throw it down. Why, of course. You'll see, yeah, and you'll throw it down because you won't be able to hold it anymore. And even the רבי, sometimes it happened that after כוס של ברכה, when he got home, he had to take ice packs and put it on his shoulder. By dollars also. But dollars is not as hard as, as כוס של ברכה. By dollars he just gave. כוס של ברכה, you, you held the cup, to had to fill up the wine, and then you went like this, and then you went back to it, to fill up its That also. That also, yeah. I don't remember if it was in the ear. But not in public, public, no one saw. The רבי, was it, do that, you would think that nothing happened. Anyway, but like this got So the first תירוץ of the, of the תוספות ישנים is that you're for sure, it's the same. Then the second תירוץ: אי נמי נראה לי להשוות דרב ביבי I think that they are compared. The קשיא was they're not the same. So you know what, before you read it inside, let me tell you outside the פשט, which I you learned it מסתמא, so I hope you understand it, but it's not the words are not so clear, let me explain it. What he's trying to say is that even though by the רב ביבי the case of the פת it's ודאי and the case of the with us it's not ודאי, but in proportion to the דרבנן, they're both the same. By the the איסור דאורייתא that you're going to do by the פת is a ודאי איסור דאורייתא, which is a strong which means 100%, so it's 100%. The איסור דרבנן is also a strong איסור. What does that mean a strong איסור? The רבנן had an איסור רדיית הפת. When did they make איסור רדיית הפת? In this case? By everything, you made a general איסור רדיית הפת. So there's a real איסור. In order for the רבנן to say in this case you're allowed to do it, you know what they would be doing? Taking away a set, established איסור דרבנן in this case. Take by us, טאקע the איסור דאורייתא is not that not not 100%, it's only 90% that it'll happen, not 100%. But on the other hand, the איסור דרבנן is also 90%, because the רבנן never made an איסור, they're first thinking to make an איסור in this case. So this is the גמרא's ראיה. If by a case where the איסור דרבנן is not established yet, we nevertheless want to establish it even though it's an a possibility 90% that you'll do a איסור דאורייתא, so when you have an established איסור דרבנן, it'll work even against a ודאי איסור דאורייתא. In other words, the proportion between the two, the the connection, even though they're different, but they're different side איסור דאורייתא, side איסור דרבנן. The קשיא of him was the איסור דאורייתא by the case of the bread is a worse איסור דאורייתא than here. So he said, \"Yeah, true, but the איסור דרבנן is also worse.\" So ממילא they're equal. Let's learn inside. Because we never had an איסור like that. We're thinking to, the רבנן in this case No, but not like this. It It should be other cases. This איסור that we said to take it back is a new איסור we're trying to make now. רדיית הפת is not a new איסור. רדיית הפת is a general איסור already there. רש״י also says the same thing, more or less. Let's look here inside. אי נמי נראה לי להשוות דרב ביבי, אף על גב דאתי ודאי לידי חיוב חטאת, by רב ביבי, even though ודאי, מכל מקום איכא חדא טיבותא, there's one better, which means one stronger for the דרבנן, דאיכא איסורא ברדייה, there's a there is already an איסור for for רדיית הפת. אבל הכא נמי So ממילא this is similar to here, אף על גב דלא אתי ודאי לידי חיוב חטאת. The חיוב חטאת is not a ודאי, but לית כאן איסורא בחזרה, there's no original established איסור by taking back. ממילא they're equal. So we have these two תירוצים. And רש״י later on, רש״י doesn't ask it, a קשיא on the הוה אמינא, but in the מסקנא, why טאקע can't we be פושט if we say כאן בשוגג כאן במזיד? Why can't we be פושט רבי ביבי? What did רש״י say? Not from מזיד and not from שוגג. So רש״י said the same סברא. במזיד you can't take back, there's no ראיה because maybe because you're not sure you're going to do it, like he says. And בשוגג, that we do קנס, there's also no ראיה, why? What did he say, בשוגג? No, because he didn't do no איסור במזיד, so we didn't קנס on it, a different kind of איסור. Okay, this is the two תירוצים that we have here. Okay. There is another תירוץ given by the רש״ש. And he said, even by us, where it's not for sure he'll do the איסור, so what is it? In the case of us by the hand, it's a ספק דאורייתא. It's a ספיקא דאורייתא. What's the דין by ספיקא דאורייתא? לחומרא. And a ספיקא דאורייתא is worse than a ודאי דרבנן. So, if the רבנן will tell him don't take it in, and he will take it in, it's a ודאי, it's an איסור that the רבנן made ודאי. A ודאי דרבנן is, he says, is, a ספיקא דאורייתא is worse than a ודאי דרבנן. And therefore, that you might drop it. So he says, if we said that even though there's a ספיקא דאורייתא, we're allowed to אסר it to him, because even though it's a ספק he might come to an איסור, so the same thing, he says, would be by, by the case of, we could compare the two, because over there also the same thing. Because by the case of the פת, it's a ודאי דאורייתא. But what's the difference? Here also, the דרבנן'דיקע דין is not as strong as a דאורייתא, as the ספק דאורייתא. So there also, the דרבנן'דיקע דין of the רדיה is not as strong as the איסור of baking. So if over here we allowed, the רבנן kept their דין even though it's against a ספיקא דאורייתא, so על פי שכל, the same thing, the רבנן would keep their דין against a ודאי דאורייתא. That's what he says. I have a few problems with this. Yeah. Why? Number one: is this a category of ספיקא דאורייתא? No, we don't know what he's going to do, that's all. It's not a ספיקא ד-, ספיקא דאורייתא means there's a ספק, is this אסור מדאורייתא? We don't know, is this אסור מדאורייתא or not? And that and that itself could be two types of ספיקא דאורייתא: you can have a ספק במציאות, we don't know if this is a case where the תורה אסר it, or we don't know, ספיקא דדינא, we don't know what the הלכה is. But it's a ספק that we have. Here, it's a ספק what the guy is going to do! That's not called a ספיקא דאורייתא. So how does he compare and say, since it's a ספיקא דאורייתא, a ספיקא דאורייתא is always stronger than a ודאי דרבנן, and nevertheless, the ודאי דרבנן is stronger here, we didn't allow the, the רבנן, so the same to by דאורייתא. It it doesn't fall in the category of ספיקא דאורייתא. This is not a ספיקא דאורייתא. It's a ספק to us what he's going to do. But if he does it, he'll do it ודאי. If he doesn't do it, ודאי it won't be. It's not a ספיקא דאורייתא. That's number one. Number two, who says that a ודאי דרבנן is less than a ספיקא דאורייתא? Maybe a ודאי דרבנן is stronger than a ספיקא דאורייתא? Yeah. You know what? Let's look inside, let's see exactly his לשון. We'll see how he says it. You also have the רש״ש, you could also look him up. Not all the גמרות have it. Here, he says like this: התוספות ישנים הקשו, התם ודאי אתי לידי איסור דאורייתא, והכא אינו אלא ספק. ונראה לי לישב, דזה פשוט דספק דאורייתא חמור מודאי דרבנן. Certainly is. And he brings a ראיה. You have to look up the ראיה, to see how the ראיה works. ולכן, כיון דחזינן הכא דהעמידו דבריהם נגד ספק דאורייתא דחמור מיניה, הוא הדין נגד ודאי דאורייתא. And he brings a לשון הגמרא in יבמות, מה לי חומרא זוטא, מה לי חומרא רבה. ספיקא דאורייתא is worse than a, stronger than a דרבנן. A ודאי דאורייתא is even stronger, but what's the difference? They're both stronger. I'm saying, there is a famous חתם סופר which says that a ודאי דרבנן is stronger than a ספיקא דאורייתא. ודאי not. ובמילא the קשיא of תוספות ישנים What does he bring a ראיה לגבי what? There is a דין that if someone dies ביום טוב ראשון, someone dies on יום טוב, you could bury him on the second day יום טוב through גוים. בכלל you could bury him on the second day יום טוב. Why? Because יום טוב שני של גליות is only מדרבנן, the second day יום טוב, and מדרבנן you're allowed to. זאגט דער חתם סופר, and he brings all kinds of ראיות, that שבועות this דין doesn't apply. Why? Because the reason we have two days שבועות is not a ספיקא דאורייתא, but it's a ודאי דרבנן. A ודאי דרבנן is stronger than a ספיקא דאורייתא. Why do we have two days יום טוב always? Because originally where it started we weren't sure is it today יום טוב or tomorrow יום טוב. So they had both days. So it came from a ספיקא דאורייתא. שבועות, was there any ספק which day יום טוב it is? Okay, but it's based on ספק. The דינים are there because of a ספק. Not a מנהג. It's a מנהג of the גמרא, it's a דין דרבנן, but it's all מיוסד על a ספק. But when those days when they had a ספק which day it's יום טוב, did they have that same ספק on שבועות? Why not? Every יום טוב is counted from ראש חודש. So פסח, which is counted from ראש חודש ניסן, there were places that by 15th day of the month they still didn't know which day was ראש חודש. If they didn't know which day is ראש חודש, they didn't know which day is ט״ו. But שבועות doesn't depend on ראש חודש סיון, it depends on ראש חודש ניסן, depends on פסח. By the time שבועות came around, every place in the world knew when פסח was, when ראש חודש ניסן was. So they you don't need to have two days יום טוב. Oh, sure. Sure. Yeah. Every חג. חנוכה? But they so the so the רמב״ם has this שאלה: So why do we have two days שבועות? So what the רמב״ם answers: It's not a ספק. The רבנן wanted שלא לחלוק במעדי, there shouldn't be differences between one יום טוב and another. Imagine if פסח will be two days, סוכות two days, ראש השנה two days, שבועות would be one day. So the רבנן decided to make two days. So it comes out that שבועות is not a ספק דרבנן, not a ספיקא דאורייתא I mean. It didn't start from a ספיקא דאורייתא. What did it start with? A ודאי דרבנן. And he says a ודאי דרבנן is stronger than a ספיקא דאורייתא. So we see clearly that it's not the way he says that a a a ספק דרבנן דאורייתא is stronger than a ודאי דרבנן. Okay, but he does bring a ראיה from the גמרא, you have I didn't look through it. You have to look through maybe we'll see if that's a And I think if I'm not mistaken, I think the חתם סופר brings that גמרא. We'll have to look through it. What? No, it's not a ספק, it's ודאי דרבנן. ודאי דרבנן, that's exactly That's why he says it's more חמור. That's why here you can't If a person dies on יום טוב, you can't bury him on the second day because you're עובר איסור דרבנן. אה, on the second day פסח also עובר איסור דרבנן, but that איסור דרבנן came out of ספיקא דאורייתא. So it's not בעצם a ודאי דרבנן, and this is בעצם a ודאי דרבנן. That's why this is. Now, the Uh? Yeah. Actually, the רבי brings it in a שיחה. I told you once, if you learn ליקוטי שיחות you'll know everything. The רבי in a שיחה brings the חתם סופר in חלק actually חלק ד׳ שבועות, he brings that חתם סופר, that שבועות is more חמור, the second day. רבי עקיבא איגר has a different תירוץ on the שאלה of תוספות ישנים. The קשיא of תוספות ישנים was that לכאורה over there it's much more חמור, by the bread it's much more חמור than by the case of the hand, because there it was for sure going to be עובר איסור, he know. So he says yes, on one hand over there it's more חמור, but on the other hand, here it's more חמור, וממילא they equal out. Why is it here more חמור? Over there Right, over there it's a שב ואל תעשה, you're not going to be doing anything. See, you guys are okay, כאַפּינג תירוצים of רבי עקיבא איגר and it's fine. What's the case over there? If they tell you, \"We keep our איסור דרבנן,\" and what will what will they tell you to do? \"Don't take the bread out! Sit back! Don't do anything! You'll be עובר איסור דאורייתא.\" But you'll be עובר איסור דאורייתא in what form? שב ואל תעשה. You're not going to be doing an איסור דאורייתא. Over here, what are we afraid? Which is What's going to happen, how is the איסור דאורייתא going to be? He's going to drop it. He'll be doing a קום ועשה. So as much as there is a חומרא over there of being of being ודאי, there's a חומרא over here of being a קום ועשה. So ממילא they equal out, and ממילא they're the same. The שאלה that I have, which is you have to think into this is to see, is it called over there by the bread a שב ואל תעשה? It's not so I'm not so not so clear to me. I'll tell you why. Because you put it in. Why are you When a person puts in something in the oven to bake, why is it What did he do to be חייב? What did he do to be חייב? He put it in. The putting in makes him חייב? No. No, ודאי, if he takes it out What are we talking about? If he takes it out he's not חייב. So he's חייב for what, when it gets baked? When it gets baked he's not doing anything. So why is he חייב? He's a גורם? A גורם you're חייב if you cause a גורם? Because the the putting in and since if you leave it in it's going to by itself bake, if you don't do anything it's going to bake, so when it does bake, we כאילו נימא, we combine, we take what you did in the beginning and say you baked it! א, you didn't bake it. You just put it in raw and nothing happened. So what do we see from here? If you do If you do a איסור דאורייתא בשב ואל תעשה, you're not חייב. If you don't do anything. You're only חייב if you do. So how are you חייב for baking? Because you put it in. Even though the חיוב comes when you baked it. So when it get when it gets baked, when it gets baked, we're considering it that you baked it! Because if you wouldn't consider it that you baked it, wouldn't be חייב. So how does the how does רבי עקיבא איגר consider this a by leaving it in a שב ואל תעשה? If you will if you will leave it in, it'll be a then it'll turn into a קום ועשה. Your doing will be what happened later. I hear what you're saying. Maybe he doesn't mean it's a full-fledged שב ואל תעשה. It's a lesser maybe than over here. Enough to make Maybe. Maybe. Doesn't sound like it, so. Okay, let's go ווייטער. Well, we have here this שאלה whether they allowed to take out, התירו ליה לרדותה or not, if they allowed. Okay, can everyone

please wake up? Wake him up. We're going to discuss now the עצם ענין of the איסור רדיית הפת and תוספות'ס קשיא. The גמרא'ס שאלה is can Did they allow him to take the bread out to save him from an איסור of baking? So what what does תוספות ask? What's the problem? What's wrong with taking out? It's not a מלאכה! And תוספות answers, it's also מדרבנן. A שבות, and the שאלה did they allow the שבות. This is a big טומל here, the ראשונים, starting all the way from the רי\"ף. Was the רי\"ף after תוספות, before תוספות? Nu, who wants to tell me when was the רי\"ף? Before תוספות, before the רמב\"ם, after the רמב\"ם? And the רמב\"ם and תוספות? Who was first? One place in ש\"ס תוספות brings the רמב\"ם. Calls him רבינו משה בן מימון. But the reason they don't bring him is because they were different countries. The רמב\"ם was in מצרים, this in France or Germany, and they didn't have much contact so they didn't So רש\"י lived in in France or something, Germany, so called these are אשכנזים, the רמב\"ם was a ספרדי, so they didn't have much contact. So that's why they didn't know. But the רמב\"ם was first, this was later. רש\"י was before the רמב\"ם. That's why the רמב\"ם writes in one of his letters that I plan I had planned to make a פירוש on גמרא. אבל, this French guy, he got me before. הקדימני הצרפתי הזה. So you're right. This French this Frenchman wrote before me, so he chapt, ער איז געכאפט. Anyway, the רי\"ף was from the first ראשונים. Much before תוספות. The רמב\"ם was a תלמיד of the ר\"י מיגאש and the ר\"י מיגאש was a תלמיד of the רי\"ף. And the רי\"ף was a תלמיד of a very famous guy. Someone more famous than him. רבינו גרשום מאור הגולה. Yeah. Why is he famous? He made the דין you can't marry two wives, נו, he's the one that made the דין, he made the חרם. He made the חרם you can't divorce your wife by force. Never read the book מאור הגולה from the פייוול נאוואלעץ? America's gave it out. So the רי״ף brings the שאלה, and here is the whole thing: there's a רי״ף here, the בעל המאור who took upon himself a task of fighting the רי״ף, fights against the בעל המאור. Then you have the רמב״ן who took upon himself a task to fight back against the בעל המאור, and he called his ספר מלחמות ה׳, because he's going on מלחמה, he called it, and he tries to defend the רי״ף. And then we have the ר״ן who doesn't like the רמב״ן'ס פשט and he gives his own פשט. So the רי״ף here asks says that on this דין of of רב ביבי בר אביי, he says מקשו בה רבנן. הא מילתא מקשו רבנן, the חכמים asked a שאלה on this. Now when he writes רבנן, he means the ראשונים before his time yet, which means the גאונים maybe. They asked a שאלה: What did the גמרא mean to say that you you if you're מתיר רדיית הפת in order to save him from a from the מלאכה of of baking, רדיית הפת is not אסור, the גמרא says the same קושיא as תוספות, חכמה ואינה מלאכה. Yeah? So then how come here the whole שאלה you could do it is because to save himself from the איסור? You could do it anyway. בלאו הכי you could do it, it's no problem. So he says they answered all kinds of תירוצים, and I don't like their תירוצים and I'm not even going to bring them, he says. I'm going to give my תירוץ. He says this is the תירוץ: אף על גב דרדיית פת בתנור חכמה ואינה מלאכה, לא שרו ליה רבנן. The רבנן still did not allow it. איי the גמרא says if you if there's a fire or something if you don't have food for שבת, you're allowed to take out from the oven three for three סעודות? Says so אלא היכא דשכח פת בתנור וקידש עליו היום, when you left the bread, forgot the bread in the oven and it became שבת, דמציל מינה מזון שלש סעודות לשבת you could save משום כבוד שבת, the רבנן only allowed to take that שלש and אפילו הכי בעי לשינויי, and even that you have to make a שינוי. Like the גמרא says later, תוספות bring, לא ירדה במרדה אלא בסכין, you can't do it with a regular spatula, you have to do it with this knife. אבל רדייה דלאו לסעודת שבת, if you're going to take it out סתם bread not for סעודת שבת, לא שריוה רבנן, the רבנן didn't allow אפילו על ידי שינוי, not even if you change. ורדייה דהכא, and here when we want to take it out, is it for the purpose of the סעודה? Because I need the bread? It's not, לאו לסעודת שבת היא. Why not? Maybe I'm going to eat it? You want to take it out before it bakes. The whole purpose is you want it not to bake. You got to think The whole לא חזי לאכילה. The שאלה is if you don't want it to bake, so you shouldn't be עובר, take it out when it's raw, so you can't eat it. So then it should be אסור. You're not taking out. So only we're it's מותר על סעודת שבת and even that only עם השינוי. אבל משום הכא לא שריוה רבנן משום שלא יבא לידי איסור סקילה, only for איסור סקילה. That's what it is, that's what the רי״ף says. So the רי״ף has a קשיא, לכאורה it's מותר, and he has a תירוץ that it's still אסור. K, yeah? No, he says it's not for כבוד שבת, it's not for סעודת שבת. You're taking it out why? Because you don't want to be עובר an איסור, not because you need it for סעודת שבת. And he says it, and that's a הכרח, so לכאורה in the case where you would use it for שבת you should be allowed. Here it's not, you can't use it anyway. The whole היתר doesn't apply here. The שאלה is, are you allowed or not if there's no היתר? The answer is yes, there is a The question is, is there another היתר? What's the היתר? You shouldn't come to the איסור. That's how he says. So this is basically almost like תוספות. Comes the בעל המאור, a very one line one-line thing. אבל מה שכתב הרי״ף that they asked a קשיא, and it's not a מלאכה, how could it be אסור? So he says one line: אין לקושיא הזאת לא טעם ולא ריח. This question that the רי״ף asked, hat נישט קיין קלעפ, makes no sense. The לשון has no לא טעם ולא ריח. Huh? The בעל המאור. So so he says for sure we know that when the גמרא talks about it, for sure it's not a מלאכה. שאילו היתה מלאכה, היכי דחינן מלאכה מפני מלאכה? What do we think, it's a מלאכה? So would the גמרא have a שאלה, can you do one מלאכה to save yourself from another מלאכה? Obviously that's not what we're talking about. אלא ודאי מפני שאינה מלאכה אלא חכמה, הוצרך להתירה. So even when they were מתיר it for whatever reason, it's knowing that it's not a מלאכה. And So we know it's we know לכתחילה it's not a איסור דאורייתא. It's only a חכמה ואינה מלאכה, and the רבנן had to find a היתר in the case of שבות דשבת, obviously, it's also מדרבנן. ולא היה דבר זה כדאי לו לכותבו. The רי״ף shouldn't have wrote it, because it's such a דבר הפשוט! That was his קשיא and תירוץ, it's so simple! You have to write that? It's a a simple thing that it was אסור מדרבנן, because you know it would never never had a הוה אמינא it's אסור מדאורייתא. So when the גמרא discusses whether you're allowed to for שבת or not, it's all מדרבנן. But there is a איסור דרבנן! So that's what the גמרא שאלה is here, can you do the איסור דרבנן? The the רי״ף has to write that? Comes the רמב״ן, and the רמב״ן has a תירוץ, not to go into this, a little bit more complicated. Comes the ר״ן, I wanted you to learn the ר״ן, I don't know if you learned the ר״ן, if not, but you should have learned it. And the ר״ן, I'll tell you the נקודה, although we're not going to learn inside because it's late, the ר״ן comes up with a פשט, he says the רמב״ן answered a פשט in the against the בעל המאור to defend the רי״ף, I'll I'll write something different than the רמב״ן. Not a hundred, but a little like the רמב״ן, but a little bit different. But his ווארט is here, what the ר״ן says is that this איסור of רדיית הפת is not even a regular איסור דרבנן. A איסור דרבנן on שבת is a has a title called? What's it called usually, a איסור דרבנן? A שבות! This is not even a שבות. This is אסור מצד עובדין דחול. עובדין דחול means it's not it's work that you do usually in the weekdays, and what happens is, that's what it says a לשון in in in פוסקים, if you're going to do on if you're going to be allowed to do on שבת עובדין דחול, you won't be able to see a difference in שבת and the weekdays, you'll be able to do half of the things. So in order שבת should be ניכר that you're שובת, that you're resting, you have to the חכמים said you're not allowed to. But that's not a real, same level of איסור. And that's what he says. And he brings he says when the גמרא says that you're allowed to do it with a שינוי, he learns פשט in the גמרא. The גמרא says you have to try to be משנה as much as you can. So he says, you know what that means? What happens if you can't be משנה? You could do it normal way. Because it's only עובדין דחול. That's the שאלה that they asked. Since they knew it's not דאורייתא, not like the בעל המאור that said that maybe a סברא it's דאורייתא. It's not דאורייתא, there's no question about it. It's definitely a דרבנן, but even in דרבנן גופא, they asked a שאלה. It's a שוואכע איסור דרבנן. What kind of איסור דרבנן is it? עובדין דחול דרבנן, so it's nothing. So the שאלה that he says that that that's פשט in the רי״ף. The question that the רי״ף asked that the the רבנן asked is it's only a עובדין דחול, so what's the problem here? Now that he answers that even the עובדין דחול, they also only were מתיר for what? For סעודת שבת. And this is not סעודת שבת, that's they they weren't מתיר. That's what the גמרא is asking, were they מתיר or not? So he's saying it's definitely a שוואכערער איסור, but it's not a איסור דאורייתא. Now, the רבינו חננאל says the opposite. The רבינו חננאל, hopefully you learned it, says that the שאלה here is רדיית הפת, if you're allowed to take out in order not to be עובר a איסור דאורייתא, is when it's a איסור דאורייתא to take it out. איי, the גמרא over there says it's a איסור דרבנן? So he makes up a חידוש. When is it a איסור דרבנן only? If it's baked. Then מדאורייתא there is no מלאכה here, so you could take it out. If it's raw, and here we're talking about it being raw, the שאלה is you want to take it out before it bakes, so to prevent you from the איסור דאורייתא, if it's raw, to take it out is a איסור דאורייתא. If it baked, you're חייב סקילה, or חייב חטאת whatever it's שוגג. No, not then. We're not worried about That's no No, that's for sure that the גמרא is only talking before it was baked. The גמרא is talking before it was baked, and the גמרא asks, can you take it out? So we're saying, what's the איסור? איסור דרבנן. He wants to say that the שאלה of the גמרא is, can you do the איסור דאורייתא of רדיית הפת to prevent you from the איסור דאורייתא of אפייה? Now, that's a problem. First of all, didn't the בעל המאור say clearly you can't do one מלאכה from another מלאכה? That's one thing. But I'm asking, I wanted just to explain why is this a איסור דאורייתא? Because it's raw. And the לשון he says here is: ויש אומרים כי רדיית הפת האפויה היא חכמה ואינה מלאכה, אבל רדייתו בעודו עיסה, when it's still dough, קודם שיקרמו פניה, מלאכה היא. And he says practically, הלא תראה, he says you could see that. You could see if you have a baked piece of bread in the oven, you can take it out very easily. If a piece of dough stuck to the oven, because dough it's much harder. Then and what מלאכה is it? He says the מלאכה כמי לש. Like you're kneading. Oh, because in a way you're So it's complete opposite. The ר\"ן says that it's a very, very שוואכע מלאכה. He says we're talking in a case where it's a איסור דאורייתא. He's saying the only שאלה is according to רבינו חננאל, if it's a איסור דאורייתא, what's the סברא that you should be able to do the מלאכה to protect yourself from the מלאכה אפיה? Why is this מלאכה more סברא to be עובר on this מלאכה than the other מלאכה? So it must be we've got to figure out according to רבינו חננאל that even though it's a מלאכה דאורייתא, but in this case, you wouldn't be עובר a איסור דאורייתא, and that's why we have a הוה אמינא maybe you could do it to prevent a איסור דאורייתא. Why wouldn't you be עובר? So I just want I'm not going to finish it, I just want to tell you, the key could be in these words. If you look at רבינו חננאל, he adds two words: ומתקנו ואינו מקלקלו. He says, why is it a איסור דאורייתא? Because you're מתקן. Normally, taking out לכאורה you could it's called מקלקל. You put bread dough into the oven and you take it out, you're ruining it. Says, no, it's called מתקן. Why is it? And why does he say it, and all that, this could be the key: that the מלאכה is מתקן, and in this case, you won't be מתקן. Whatever it is, I'll explain it next time.