So the Gemara says here that one of the ways to explain the machloket between Rabbi Akiva and the chachamim, in which din? הזורק מרשות היחיד לרשות היחיד ורשות הרבים באמצע. Goes from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד, in the middle is רשות הרבים. Rabbi Akiva says chayav and chachamim say patur. So one of the ways to explain is that the machloket is between Rabbi Akiva and the chachamim, Rabbi Akiva holds קלוטה כמי שהונחה, and where is it talking about? למטה מ-י׳ or למעלה מ-י׳? למטה מ-י׳. And קלוטה כמי שהונחה means that when it came from the רשות היחיד and it passed through the רשות הרבים, it's as if stopped there. So you're chayav for what? Which melachah? No, which melachah? Hotza'ah, from רשות היחיד to רשות הרבים. That's why it has to be למטה מ-י׳. And the chachamim hold לא אמרינן קלוטה כמי שהונחה, ממילא we don't consider it as it stopped. So where did it stop? On the רשות היחיד. So really it's from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד, you're not chayav. What we're trying to understand now is what is the sevara for קלוטה כמי שהונחה? What kind of fantazya is this? It's flying in the air? No, it's like it stopped. Why is it like that? It's flying, it's like it stopped. So there are different ways. So let's just try to understand lechatchilah, what is the sevara? What is the sevara for קלוטה כמי שהונחה? Why to say קלוטה, לא אמרינן קלוטה כמי שהונחה you don't need sevarot, it's pashut! Why would flying be considered stopping? But to say that flying is considered stopping is very strange. What's the pshat? Now, maybe the pshat is when we look into what is the גדר of מלאכת הוצאה, and I mentioned this once before, מלאכת הוצאה has how many parts to it בכללות? Not not הוצאה והכנסה, הוצאה, how many major parts does it have? עקירה והנחה. You forgot one part. The הוצאה itself! The transfer of רשות, right? You have to pick it up in the רשות היחיד, then it comes into the רשות הרבים, to transfer from רשות היחיד to רשות הרבים, and then the הנחה, you put down over there. There are three parts. And this is one of the חקירות that all the sefarim talk about, which, and the Rebbe in that sicha of Va'etchanan mentions it in the הערה, which of the things is the ikar of the מלאכה? Which means, what is the גדר of the מלאכה and what is like we call a תנאי in the מלאכה? What is the גדר means what makes the מלאכה, the other thing you must have also, but this is the ikar. So you could learn the ikar is the עקירה and the הנחה, but there's a condition: when is an עקירה הנחה חייב? If it came from this רשות to that רשות. Or you could say the opposite: the ikar is the transfer. And that's how it would seem just superficially. הוצאה means you took it out from רשות היחיד to רשות הרבים. The Torah just says, we have לימודים or whatever way, that when are you חייב for הוצאה? If it started off with an עקירה and finished off with an הנחה. So you could learn that the הוצאה is the ikar, the transfer of רשות, or you could learn the עקירה and hanachah the ikar. Now, this could be a shtikel yesod יסוד for the machloket here whether we say klutah k'mi shehunachah. If you say that the hotza'ah is the ikar, and the akirah and the hanachah is just like a zaytike zach that you have to have, so here you could say there was the main part of the melachah was there: you took it from the רשות היחיד, you threw it into the רשות הרבים, the main thing was there, so therefore, even though if it didn't land כפשוטו ממש, but that's just not really needed so strict, so much, and therefore we would say klutah k'mi shehunachah. But if you hold that the עיקר גדר of the melachah is akirah and hanachah, so you're missing, it didn't stop! It's a like it's a theoretical hanachah, but not a real one! So if you need the real hanachah because that's what the melachah is, then klutah, lo amrinan klutah k'mi shehunachah, because it didn't stop. If you say the main thing is the hotza'ah, so the ikar of the melachah was there. And if the ikar melachah was there, so you could say even though it didn't, it didn't really rest, but klutah k'mi shehunachah, it didn't rest mamash, but it's enough to say that it's there. So that's not a real, it's like a beginning of a sevara. It's not a real sevara because we still don't know why should we say even theoretical. Aber at least it's, we would call it sometimes the lashon says karov el hasechel, it gets closer. Because if not for this, it's bichlal, bichlal makes no sense. You just think it's flying in the air, no, it's stopped. What do you mean stopped? You hak a tshaynik. What, so what does it mean airspace? What does it mean? But it's not. See, if somehow it stopped in middle of the air you could say stopped, but it's not, it didn't land on something, but it didn't stop at all, it's flying! But if you say we don't really need it, so it's something. Karov el hasechel, but not 100%, but there's something there to this sevara. So akirah and hanachah are really the ikar? We have a million questions why it's hotza'ah even without akirah and hanachah, we never have a question by akirah and hanachah without hotza'ah. And by hotza'ah without akirah and hanachah we also don't have. Never. Never. Mi-de'oraita, mi-derabbanan What do you mean, if I do the akirah, you do the hanachah So patur, because mi-de'oraita there's no such thing. Mi-de'oraita you have to have all three things, and without any one of the three you are not chayav, equally. All the discussions in Gemara is all mi-derabbanan. Mi-de'oraita they're all So we don't know, this is that klal which we have in every case where we have a few peratim in order to be chayav, or whatever. It's always the she'eilah, which of the peratim is the thing, and which one is the tenai? I don't want to go into this because we could get carried away with this gang, of this type of logic, in many other sugyot, that'll take us away from other places. But I don't know, it'll take too long to Just to bring an example that we have a few things that you need. You know what, I'll give you a simple simple, it's not simple, but listen to this.

We learned Bava Kama not long ago, you guys learned Bava Kama? This is not נוגע שבת, it's נוגע נזיקין. When your shor is mazik, you're chayav? Yeah. Why are you chayav? So there's a famous chakirah. The Rebbi has the chakirah, it's a famous chakirah, all the the the ליטווישע ראשי ישיבות, they all this is a the famous chakirah in Bava Kama, in the beginning of Bava Kama. Are you chayav because ממונו הזיק, because the shor belongs to you, something that's yours was mazik, you are responsible. Just like we all know if your kid breaks a window you're going to pay for it. I didn't break it. In halachah he takeh don't have to pay, I'm saying, it's something else, but I'm saying in logic of sechel you would pay. Why? Because it's your kid. The shor is yours. Then there's another din. When are you chayav? If לא שמר, if you didn't watch him. If you locked up the door and you watched him, and he and somehow someone broke the door or broke the door and you're patur. So there are two conditions why you're chayav. It has to be yours, if it's not your שור, you're not chayav. Also has to be that you didn't watch it. If one of the two is missing, you're patur. So here we have a chakirah, and that's what they all talk about. Which of the two is the reason you're chayav, and which of the two is only a tenai? You could say, you know why you're chayav? Because the שור is your money, you're chayav. Ela mai, if you watched it, it would be patur. So in order not to to be chayav, it's if you didn't watch it. Or it's farkert, you know why you're chayav? Because you didn't watch it. But when are you chayav for not watching? If it happens to be yours. If you didn't watch somebody else's, you're not chayav. So we I'm just giving an example where we have two dinim that in order to be chayav over there you have to have two things, but we always have a she'eilah. Could be they're both the ikar, the both reasons. Could be one of the two, and the she'eilah is which one? Lemashal they all bring from the, nafka mina is many nafka minot, we're not this is not Bava Kamma. Lemashal they bring a raya the Rambam. The Rambam in the beginning of Hilchot Nizkei Mammon, he says if your שור was mazik you are chayav. And you know what he says why? שהרי ממונו הזיק. So the Rambam lays down the klal, why are you chayav? Because your thing was mazik. Then you go in, but that's only if you watched if you didn't watch it, but if you watched it then there's a patur. So I'm saying, so obviously you could have the same thing here. We know there are three things to hotza'ah: akirah, hanachah, and the and the transfer, the hotza'ah. Same thing by hachnasah. You could learn that the ikar is akirah and hanachah, you picked it up in one place, and you put it on someplace else, you're chayav. Ela mai, lichorah you should be chayav even if you took it in the same reshus. So no, there's a condition: you're chayav for akirah and hanachah if it happened to be a second reshus. Or you could you're chayav for transferring to another reshus. When are you chayav? If you made it in the form of akirah and hanachah. So I'm saying if the ikar is the transfer of reshus, so you have the ikar here. By the קלוטה, you have the ikar, because it went into another reshus. So there, even if you didn't have the real hanachah, al kol panim it's easier to understand such a thing. But the real, but why are you for it chayav, lafoal it didn't rest. So lichorah the sevara could be like this: it's similar to another shita in something else, which we mentioned before, and there it's much more clearer, but it gives the same yesod. We mentioned before the shita of Ben Azai. What does Ben Azai hold? Who remembers what Ben Azai holds? מהלך כעומד. מהלך כעומד. When you're walking, you didn't stop, he says it's like you stopped. But you didn't stop! Hanachah means stopping. He says, no, if you're carrying something you walk out from this inside and you're continuing to walk, you're chayav right away. Why? Because מהלך כעומד. What's the pshat? אי you didn't stop? Ela mai, every time you make a take a step, it's a stop. It's Walking means, what happens if you take a step and stop, and you take a step and stop? Obviously you stopped. You're walking fast so you're doing the stopping fast, but it's be'etzem it's stopping. Now the same thing gonna think it's funny, but I think this is the closest pshat you could get. When something is flying in the air, you know what really's happening? It's as if it's stopping, stopping, stopping, but it's going so fast that you can't see it. Yeah. It's, I once, I once saw, this is going to be very, very funny, I once saw someone made a little book, not made, they had, I don't know who, a little booklet that when you go like this, you see the cat walking. No? You go like this, why? Each picture, actually that's how they made, used to make the comics, animated, that's what they used to do. That's how they did it, now it's computer-wise, computerized, now it's different. But they used to do it like that, they used to have every minute of what you see on the screen is probably a 200 pictures. So you make a picture, and it's a small picture, and then the next picture is a drop further, and then when you go fast, mamash it's moving. That's how the whole movie industry started. Be'etzem, if you want to go in Chassidus, this is the inyan of ratzoh v'shov. No? When you say that the way the Oibershter gives chayus to the world is ratzoh v'shov, he gives a constant chayus, we don't see it stopping. Chayus, and it stops, and chayus, and it stops. So it's not really stopping, but it's called ratzo vashov. It's going and stopping, and going and stopping, but it's going so fast that the stopping is so fast that you can't feel it stopping. But really, המחדש בטובו בכל יום תמיד מעשה בראשית, the Oybershter is mechadesh, every second is a new a new בריאה. So how come you don't die and wake get up again? Because it goes so fast. When something goes in the air, when it flies in the air, you know what the pshat is? The pshat is it's ke'ilu, really it's stopping, but why doesn't it fall down? Because it goes right away further. How does a plane fly? Why doesn't a plane fall? Going so So the she'eilah is, do we look at this, this is the she'eilah, the machloket here, do we look that when it comes into the air, it really, really in theory it stopped, and it went further, and it stopped, and it went further, that's the taytsh of flying.

In chassidut we have a machloket, in Kabbalah we have a machloket, a machloket on the קו. There is a קו, right? After צמצום there is נמשך a קו. There's a machloket, is it קו אחד ארוך, one long קו, or is the קו made of נקודות, נקודות, נקודות, נקודות, there are dots, dots, dots, dots ke'ilu, and that turns into one קו, and they're so they're dots, dots, they're so close It looks like In Kabbalah, there's certainly a nafka mina. Once, תשי״א, Purim, the Rebbe wanted to give someone l'chaim, and the guy was sitting across the room, and it was so crowded he couldn't get over. So he says to somebody, \"Please, could you pass it?\" Rabbi Mentlik, who stood right next to the Rebbe, and this was the first year of the Rebbe's נשיאות, got so upset, and he says to the guy, he used to talk like that, Rabbi Mentlik, \"Hm,\" that's how he used to talk, \"hm, דער אלטער רבי אליין וויל דיר געבן לחיים און דו בעטסט מען זאל עס דיר שיקן?\" The אלט, he said Alter Rebbe, \"Imagine the Alter Rebbe would be here, would you do the same thing? So the Alter Rebbe himself wants to give you l'chaim, and you're saying please pass it down.\" So the Rebbe heard him say it, so the Rebbe turned around and he said How did the guy have the chutzpah, the Rebbe wants to give you, and he's saying please pass it down? Come yourself! No, Rabbi Mentlik said, \"דער אלטער רבי אליין וויל דיר געבן לחיים.\" So the Rebbe, when he heard it, the Rebbe turned around and the Rebbe said, \"This depends on two שיטות in Kabbalah, if the קו is one קו ארוך, or the קו is also נקודות, נקודות. In other words, are all the רביים like one קו, it's all one, or they become one, but it's all made of נקודות, so you can't say the Alter Rebbe himself, what's a different נקודה?\" Okay, l'chaim, l'chaim. Okay, a kashya on this? Physically it's not, אודאי. The same thing קלוטה, when you throw something in the air it's also it does not stop. We're talking now, this is an abstract sevara, this is not a גשמיותדיקע סברא. It's not real בגשמיות, but it's really, really in abstract thinking it is like that. When something goes, when a car goes, yeah, בכלל everything is, it says in Chassidus everything is רצוא ושוב. A car goes, the motor is on, you know what it is? It's really banging back and forth. But if the car is made with a good motor, it's so goes so fast that you can't tell. What happened when a car is an old car and broken down? You could hear tick tick tick tick, the motor goes it, you could feel the move. That's how really, by every car it's like that. But it's made so fast, and they make it so good that you can't feel it. So anyway, we're getting It's a taitch, it's ke'ilu. It does l'poel, it doesn't stop. L'poel, the bike is going, but it's an ענין כאילו. The same thing like gave us here the mashal of walking. When you walk, it's the same thing, you didn't stop. You just continue walking, but since it's going so fast, so here, it's farshteit zich much less than the walking, but the נקודה is the same. In other words, according to the Rogatchover, he goes in these lines of this way of thinking that you could have it's one thing going and it's not considered stop, or you could say it's stopping and going, stopping and going, but it's going so fast that you can't see it. So m'meila, he says קלוטה כמי שהונחה. But when is this good enough? This comes after the hakdamah I gave before. The hakdamah I gave before that if you would hold that the עיקר המלאכה is עקירה והנחה, then it's hard to say that this theoretical stopping would be good enough. But if you're going to hold that the עיקר is the הוצאה, אלא מאי you need as a תנאי, so here you could say that because it's בעצם כאילו this is what's happening, that's enough for הנחה. So basically, you could say according to this that the machloket between Rabbi Akiva and the Chachamim whether קלוטה כמי שהונחה is this: What do we say? Do we say when something is flying in the air, do we look at it as if it's stopping and continuing, and stopping and continuing, but it goes so fast that it's flying? Or you say no, lechatchilah we look at it as flying, bagashmiyut it's flying, and that's it. So Rabbi Akiva will hold קלוטה כמי שהונחה, you look at it it's like it's going like this, so every time it stop. Ela mai, it didn't stop on מקום ד', that's exactly the Gemara's re'ayah. Rabbi Akiva holds, if you hold he says קלוטה כמי שהונחה, you don't need a hanachah on מקום ד'. But it did differ- it did stop according to the sevarah. This is the way we could learn the machloket in קלוטה כמי שהונחה. Okay.

Now, there is another way to say what the machloket is. The reason why, I mean lefo'al, it didn't stop, it's קלוטה, but if this is what you want it to happen, if this would be your ratzon, so there is a concept that Tosafot uses on דף ד עמוד ב, מחשבתו משווה ליה מקום. Your machshavah that you want, and you want this to happen, that makes it chashuv. And the she'eilah could be like this, and it's all I told you it's all based on the Meiri's lashon. And I'll say first what the sevarah could be, then I'll quote the Meiri to see to back it up. When you throw something and you want it to go from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים, that's where it's happening. Do we look at it that you wanted to be in the רשות הרבים? No. Well, you could look both ways. I don't want it here, I want it in the other רשות היחיד, but it can't get to the other רשות היחיד unless it goes through רשות הרבים. So you could look at it, mimeila I wanted רשות הרבים. I wanted it to go there, I wanted it to get there, and since there's no way to get there unless there is a רשות הרבים in the middle, I want it. So mimeila, so so if you since you wanted, if you're going to look at it that you wanted to be there, so even though lefo'al it didn't stop, but you wanted to enter that that space, it's as if it stopped there, because this is your ratzon made that this is what you want. To say because the Meiri says like this, I'll quote you the לשון Meiri. I wrote down the whole lashon of the Meiri. What's a case where you wouldn't want it? Huh? One second. You could look at the same thing that you don't want it. You don't care. You want the next רשות, you don't want the רשות הרבים. Okay, he says the lashon the lashon he says the one that argues on Rabbi Akiva he says like this, והרי לא נחה כלל, רבנן who say קלוטה לא כמי שהונחה, it didn't rest, וכוונתו אינה אלא להוציאה מרשות היחיד לרשות היחיד. He's explaining why don't we say קלוטה כמי שהונחה? Because your כוונה is not the רשות הרבים. Your כוונה is the second רשות היחיד. So the רשות הרבים doesn't have the חשיבות, mimela it's not called מונח. Now, if this is the way he explains the ones that argue on Rabbi Akiva, then what do we say, what does probably Rabbi Akiva hold, using his words? That we do look at that that his כוונה is the רשות הרבים. And if the כוונה is רשות הרבים, you could say that that's considered הנחה, because since it's coming into that רשות, and you wanted it to come there, see, we still have to add a sevara that's why is it considered like it stopped. But instead of saying the first sevara I said because he holds that the עיקר is the הוצאה and not the not the עקירה והנחה, I'm saying another sevara you could say that since this is his כוונה, it's enough to say that the theoretical stopping is good enough. The Chachamim will hold that we don't look at it that his כוונה is רשות הרבים, because that's not what he wants. He wants רשות היחיד. The only thing is that you can't pass through unless it's there. מה שאין כן רבי עקיבא will hold that we look as since that's the only way it could go through there, mimela it's as if you want it, and if you want it and theoretical stop, so your כוונה that that's what you wanted to go is משווה ליה מקום. Is he using the same sevara by like from before? So I'm saying that the sevara that I said right before is the is the נקודה, that since it's going, it's as if it's stopping, but is that good enough? It's a theoretical stop. So, before I said that that's good enough, why? What's the sevara the first way? Because the main thing is the הוצאה, and therefore the הוצאה is there, it's enough a theoretical stop. Now I'm saying lav davka. Could be you taka need the הנחה. Akirah v'hanachah is important, just like the hotza'ah is important. Still, he holds that the theoretical is enough, why? Because he The machloket is, do we look at the fact that you want it's there k'ilu you want it? And that's a שאלה בכלל. And the Rogatchover talks about this in many places. If you're trying to get to some place, and there's a way to get there, you have to get there through a certain way, but that's not your tachlit, is that considered part of your tachlit? The שאלה is, this is also called the part of the tachlit. Since you can't get there, so and the only way you can get there is so you want this also. This is part of your tachlit because of you want to get there. I'll give you an example. The Rebbe once The Rebbe explains in different places that this is be'emet a machloket between Rabbi Elazar and the chachamim in in Zevachim. What's the machloket there? There are four things which are called an avodah by a korban. Four steps that if you have a machshavah of pigul or pasul, it's no good. Which are the four avodot? Before kabbalah, there's shechitat hadam, shechitah, receiving the blood, holachah, walking with the blood to the mizbeach, and then what do you do with the blood? Spritz, zerikah. These are the four melachot, four avodot. Again, so the avodah is shechitah, nu, next, shechitah is an avodah, it's כשרה בזר, but it's an avodah. And if you have a machshavah of pigul by the shechitah, makes the whole pasul. So, shechitah, kabbalat hadam, holachat hadam, and zerikat hadam. There is a din that if you shachat next to the mizbeach, you don't even have to carry it. So really, you don't need holachah. The whole הולכה is because you want to get to the מזבח, and since you שחט it further away, you must take it. Is that called So there's a machloket between רבי אלעזר and the חכמים whether this is called an עבודה or not. What's the sevara why it's not called an עבודה? Because you don't really איי, לפועל you need it if you שחט it away. And that's only a ראיה. Even בשעת מעשה, even when you do need it, you don't really need it, you need to walk. It just happened to be that you're far, you got to walk. So, it's a הכרח, it's not really needed. שחיטה you must have, you must שחט, you must be מקבל the דם, you must שפריץ the דם, but הולכה, not. What's the machloket? So the רבי explains, the machloket is when something is needed, but not because you want it as the bottom line, as the real goal, but you must have it in order to get the goal, what din does it have? Does it have a din of an entity in itself, does it become חשוב or not? So, same thing here. Since what you're looking for is you're looking for the end, which is to take to the next רשות היחיד, the guy threw it from רשות היחיד, he wants to get to the רשות היחיד, but there's no way that he could get there unless it passes through the רשות הרבים, is that enough that he want Do we consider that he also wanted the רשות הרבים? If he wanted, then memeila, his מחשבה makes it חשוב, so the hanacha of the theoretical hanacha is good enough. Or you could say no, we look at it since he doesn't really need the רשות הרבים, he just happened to be that he can't get there, so he must go through, so memeila, if you hold it's not really called that he wants, so it's not something that becomes חשוב, and memeila, it has to be a real hanacha, and since it's not a real הנחה, קלוטה is הונחה. לא. לא אמרינן קלוטה כמי שהונחה. Because you need the real hanacha, because the fact that you want it is not called that you want it, so that it's not really there. K. So לפי זה, if a person throws from רשות היחיד to רשות הרבים, and he wants it in רשות הרבים, would you say that everyone would agree קלוטה כמי שהונחה? He wants to throw from רשות היחיד to רשות הרבים, and it never landed on the ground. The wind picked up, or it got burnt on the air, someone threw something at it, and a fire, and got burned, or something. Would you say, according to this sevara, even the Chachamim would agree קלוטה כמי שהונחה? Because the only reason they don't say קלוטה כמי שהונחה, we're saying, because that's not what he wanted, but if he wanted רשות הרבים... Now, Lahalacha it makes no difference, because the Rabbanan hold you need the מקום ד', and if it landed in the אוויר רשות הרבים, it's not מקום ד', so you're patur anyway. Good, but in theory the she'eilah, would the Rabbanan according to this sevara? So according to the previous sevara, it makes no difference what It's not enough. The fact that it's in the air is not enough, Rabbanan. According to this, be'etzem everyone agrees it's enough. The difference is, when do we say it if that's your kavanah? If it's not your kavanah, not. But if it's your kavanah, yes, but you'd be patur anyway. Okay, let's go vayter. I'm saying according to this sevara that the reason why we don't say קלוטה is not because be'etzem we don't say קלוטה, the Rabbanan don't say קלוטה כמו שנחה because we look at it that you really didn't want it to go to the רשות הרבים, but there's something that, and R'' Akiva says no, we look at it that you wanted it to go there. And if you wanted it to go there, we say קלוטה כמו שנחה. So what happens in a case where you takeh wanted it to go there, everyone agrees? You threw it מרשות היחיד לרשות הרבים. So it should be קלוטה כמו שנחה, you should be chayav right away in the air. And the Rabbanan would agree takeh. But I'm saying they'd say patur anyway because not ד' על ד'. It didn't rest on a, אין דא מקום ד', the חכמים need a מקום ד'. How can we be trying here with the whole thing is that we're trying to prove that קלוטה כמו שנחה is parallel with ד' על ד'? Not that. If you hold קלוטה, then mimeila obviously you don't need ד'. That's what the pshat is. So, but here we said we're going to deal with קלוטה, but they need ד'? Yeah. Baruch Hashem'. You just said if you hold קלוטה automatically it's considered resting on ד' על ד'. If you hold קלוטה and you're חייב because of that, then obviously you don't need ד'. We're saying קלוטה and you're פטור. Okay, let's go vayter. Okay. האב מיר אלעמענס attention? Yeah? צי נישט? Yes? Good. Whoever walked out can't have his attention. That's a problem. Okay,

Tosafot דיבור המתחיל אבל, the first אבל. Tosafot has a shaila: is מושיט חייב למטה מיו״ד? And that's what Tosafot is going to try to prove yes, and then says no re'aya. But the nekudah of the shaila is, that's what we're going to discuss at this point, is מושיט חייב למטה מיו״ד? We know מושיט is חייב למעלה מיו״ד. That if a person takes something from רשות היחיד into the next רשות היחיד בדיוטא אחת, next to each other, not כנגד זה, but he passes through רשות הרבים, למעלה מיו״ד which really is a מקום פטור, you are definitely חייב because that's how it was in the Mishkan. Fine. The shaila of Tosafot is: how is it if, what would be the din if you do the same מושיט למטה מיו״ד? At first glance, what would you think? Okay, I think you're both right. I would say on one hand, you're vadai חייב. מה דאך if you take it through a מקום פטור which is a nothing, certainly not. Or you could say farkert, if we learn מושיט from the Mishkan, that's where it is, and the Mishkan was למעלה מיו״ד, then למטה מיו״ד not. I mean, you could say either way. But that's This is This is the shailah of This is the shailah Tosafos has, all the Rishonim, everyone discusses this. Remember last time we mentioned this, someone mentioned it, he was right. How does mashma from Rashi? What you said? How does mashma from, I think so, how does mashma from Rashi whether למטה מיו״ד you're chayav or not? Does anyone have a raayah from Rashi? Oh, you said it, right? Oh, so you both said it. Okay, you give you both credit. Rashi says here: the מושיט מרשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים אפילו למעלה מיו״ד קיימא לן דחייב. So Rashi says אפילו. Rashi here, Rashi in Eruvin, other places, it says the לשון אפילו, which means not only למטה מיו״ד you're vadai chayav, למעלה מיו״ד you're not, so that's a raayah from there. Okay. Rashi in Eruvin דף ל״ג also writes the word אפילו. Tosafos over there writes like that. Okay. So the

Tosafos Chaim, you know written by Rabbi' Menachem Zemba, the Tosafos Chaim brings this Tosafos, brings the other places where it says אפילו, אפילו למעלה מיו״ד, and he brings the Meiri. And this is in סימן ד׳, אות א׳. Again, סימן ד׳ of the Tosafos Chaim. Yeah, Tosafos Chaim of Rabbi' Menachem Zemba. And he brings the Meiri says, and the Meiri says like this, 'cause we're looking trying to explain what's the סברא למטה מיו״ד, למעלה מיו״ד. So he says like this: what is the reason takeh why מושיט is חייב למעלה מיו״ד? It's a strange thing. Okay, we knew it from the Mishkan, but it's a סתם, גזירת ה- ...makes no sense. למעלה מיו״ד is not a רשות הרבים. So this guy basically took it from look from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד, and he passed a מקום פטור. What's the problem? Why is מושיט חייב? Nu, we made that we have your attention. Look, can get somebody who needs to here. Okay. So he says, you know why? Because if you're standing למטה מיו״ד, so when you take it למעלה מיו״ד, we look at it as if למטה מיו״ד. That's what the Meiri says. He says, because דיד, because it's אגוד בגופיה, your hand that takes it למעלה מיו״ד is אגוד, is connected to your גוף, which is למטה מיו״ד. Yeah, the person's higher, but he's standing on the floor, which is למעלה מיו״ד. Which he's standing on what is למטה מיו״ד, I mean. No, the person didn't קריכן in the wagon. No, no, he was standing outside and he took it from there. Oh, so he says, what happens if somebody is standing למעלה מיו״ד? So takeh there would not be a דין of מושיט. That the reason is because you're standing on the floor, which is למטה מיו״ד, on the floor, so when you're standing, so the hand is נגרר אחר גופיה, so we look at the hand as if it's going למטה מיו״ד, because you're למטה מיו״ד. One second, I didn't say that yet! I didn't get to that yet. The normal case is למעלה מיו״ד, the normal מושיט. Why are you חייב? So he says, because you are standing on the floor, you're standing למטה מיו״ד, you're taking from the רשות היחיד, and you're taking into another רשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים, so even though you're taking it למעלה מיו״ד דרך רשות הרבים, but since you are למטה מיו״ד, we look at it, that's what the Meiri says, we look at it as if this is למטה מיו״ד. And because of that, what happens if you takeh would be standing למעלה מיו״ד and you do the same מושיט? Taka would be patur, he says! Taka would be patur because the whole thing is because it's נגרר אחר גופיה. So according to this, if you're throwing it, and it's not coming from your hand, there is nothing to be נגרר, so it's למעלה מיו״ד, that's why you're patur. He's trying to explain the sevara why לא ילפינן זורק ממושיט. Why taka is זורק different than מושיט? So he says, pashut! מושיט, you're standing when using your hand, and you're standing on the floor למטה מיו״ד, and you're using your hand, which is your hand, so it's נגרר אחר גופיה, so it's as if the hand is going למטה מיו״ד, too. Not בפועל, but it's in הלכה נגרר as if you're doing it. And because of that, if you're standing למעלה מיו״ד, taka not. But when you're throwing something, and you're throwing למעלה מיו״ד, so the thing that's being thrown is not connected to you, cuz you left, you let go of it. So when it went into the רשות הרבים למעלה מיו״ד, it's not connected to you, so you should be patur. That's what he says. So he's explaining the sevara why לא ילפינן זורק ממושיט, cuz על פי שכל you could think, why not learn out זורק from מושיט? זורק from מושיט, if מושיט you could do, the same thing זורק, because we always know זורק hand or throw has the same דין usually. So he says, no, באמת it's למעלה מיו״ד, אלא מאי, the reason is because it's in your hand, and your hand is connected to you who is standing למטה מיו״ד. That's why you're chayav for מושיט. But because of that, what would be if it's זורק, you're throwing it, the throwing is taka למעלה מיו״ד, and therefore you are patur. That's the sevara: לא ילפינן זורק ממושיט. So the This is what the Meiri says. Says the Rav Nachman Zemba that according to this, would you assume that מושיט למטה מיו״ד is chayav or patur? Obviously, it has to be. Has to be what? Chayav. Has to be chayav! Exactly! According to the Meiri, the only reason why you're חייב למעלה מיו״ד, because be'emet it's like למטה מיו״ד. So when we're thinking when Tosafos has this sevara, is למטה מיו״ד מושיט חייב or not, so he says the so the Nachman Zemba says that according to the Meiri, we understand this sevara of that shita that למטה מיו״ד you're adrabah chayav. Ai, the Mishkan was only למעלה מיו״ד, and how do you get למטה מיו״ד? Says, let's understand the sevara of the Mishkan. What's the sevara in the case of the משכן למעלה מיו״ד? Because it's really בעצם למטה מיו״ד. So if it's really למטה מיו״ד, כל שכן. Now, this could answer another she'eilah. Rabbi Akiva Eiger asks a she'eilah here. He says, why wouldn't we say that this she'eilah whether למטה מיו״ד is חייב מושיט or not, is dependent on whether ילפינן זורק ממושיט? Isn't it? No, not at all. There's nothing to do. Tosafos has a שאלה בכלל: is מושיט, not זורק, מושיט למטה מיו״ד חייב or not? The original din is למעלה מיו״ד, the she'eilah is למטה חייב. Then there's another she'eilah: do we learn out זורק, is זורק like מושיט? Cuz מושיט is when you hand it over. If you throw it, is it the same din? So he says lichorah it should be connected, why? If you say ילפינן זורק ממושיט, know what you're saying? We're saying that even though in Mishkan was מושיט, we're not מדייק it should be exactly like the Mishkan. Doesn't have to be exactly in all details like the Mishkan. Cuz if you're gonna say it has to be exactly all details like the Mishkan, then why would you say זורק is chayav? The Mishkan was מושיט. So if you say ילפינן זורק ממושיט, it means that it doesn't have to be exact. If you say לא ילפינן זורק ממושיט, it means it has to be exact: מושיט is chayav and זורק not. Isn't that the logic, the same logic by the she'eilah whether מושיט למטה מיו״ד is chayav or not? What's the two sides whether מושיט למטה מיו״ד is chayav? In the Mishkan it was למעלה מיו״ד. Does it have to be exactly like the Mishkan to be chayav, or anything similar? So the Rabbi Akiva Eiger asks a she'eilah, so lichorah you should say pashut. If you hold לא ילפינן זורק ממושיט, that means you hold it has to be exactly like the Mishkan, then obviously למטה מיו״ד is patur. Cuz the Mishkan was למעלה מיו״ד, למטה was not. If you hold ילפינן זורק ממושיט, that means that we're saying that it doesn't have to be exactly like the Mishkan. The Mishkan was מושיט only, and we're saying ילפינן, we learn out זורק is the same, so it doesn't have to be exact. So then the same thing here, even though the Mishkan was למעלה מיו״ד, it could be למטה מיו״ד also. So lichorah this is a she'eilah he asked, why does Tosafot make a separate issue out of it? In the Gemara we have a machloket is ילפינן זורק ממושיט or not. L'chorah that's the yesod! If ילפינן זורק ממושיט, you should be חייב למטה מיו״ד also מושיט, and if not, not, cuz the same logic. Now, according to what we said before from the Meiri, is the she'eilah a she'eilah? No. Why not? The reason why we say a sevara why מושיט למטה מיו״ד is chayav is not because we say it doesn't have to be exactly like the Mishkan. Farker, it has to be exactly like the Mishkan, could be. But the Mishkan, we say that even למעלה מיו״ד is like למטה מיו״ד. Because, like we said, what's the reason what's like? Because it's connected to you who's standing on the floor למטה מיו״ד. So it's not it's not because we're saying it doesn't have to be like the Mishkan. Farker, we're saying it has to be like the Mishkan, and that's exactly the Mishkan we're telling you, even למעלה מיו״ד is למטה מיו״ד. Okay, so obviously למטה מיו״ד is chayav. So it's not like stam a See, if you learn stam a she'eilah, do we have to have it exact like the Mishkan or not? So then they're both exactly the same, whether זורק ממושיט, למטה מיו״ד from למעלה מיו״ד. But we're saying למטה מיו״ד has a different reason altogether according to this. You can say it's different because in one case we're trying to find out if throwing is the same as passing over, transferring from רשות to רשות, and the distance למטה מיו״ד and lower, even though it's a it's a different it's a whole different concept, why how are we learning out one from another? Yeah, we're trying to show that by the Mishkan... I can't argue with you because what you're saying the Sfas Emes says. Yeah, Sfas Emes says he doesn't understand Rabbi Akiva Eiger's kashya, and he says there's a different thing, because this is a she'eilah, Tosafot says here, רבי עקיבא סבר זורק דמי טפי למושיט. זורק and מושיט are so close, more than any other תולדה of הוצאה, he says Tosafot says here. That's one thing. But למטה מיו״ד and למעלה מיו״ד is a different story, so he says you can't compare the two. Okay, so the Sfat Emet says it, but obviously Rabbi Akiva Eiger feels that it should be the same. But according to what Rav Menachem Zemba says, we see why they're not exactly the same because this is a complete separate issue altogether. Okay. Let's go vayter. He's asking a kashya, yeah. He asked they should both be the same. If you hold ילפינן זורק ממושיט, למטה מיו״ד should also be, because it means that you can learn out, you could compare בערך. And if not, not. Why do we make it two separate issues? Okay. Now, let's go to the other nekudah in this inyan. Why do we say we have to learn if we learn out זורק from מושיט? Because in the Mishkan was only... You're right, the למעלה מיו״ד. No, no, not the למעלה מיו״ד. זורק or מושיט, what was in the Mishkan? Only מושיט. What does Rashi say here? דאילו במושיט, מיחייב, חייב. Why? דיליף, רש״י ע״ב on top, we learn out from the עגלות of the מדבר. What did they do in the עגלות of the מדבר? מושיטין את הקרשים זו לזו. They would pass the boards from one to another, and from the wagons, and the wagons הן, what were the wagons? רשות היחיד וביניהם רשות הרבים, ולא היו זורקין אותם. They didn't throw them. Why didn't, how do you know, maybe they threw them? So, Rashi says, שלא יתקלקלו. Shouldn't be broken, obviously didn't throw because it could break. This is one sevara Rashi says.

Comes the Chatam Sofer, the Chatam Sofer says that there is two more sevarot how we know that they didn't throw. Very heavy. So, here Rashi says because it should break. Rashi on דף צ״ו, רש״י on דף צ״ו says here, the last words of רש״י, והם מושיטין לאלו שלפניהם אבל לא זורקין. And Rashi says why? שאין עשוין קרשים נזרקין מפני כבדן. Because they're too heavy, you can't throw them. So, we have two sevarot in Rashi. Then we have a third sevara in a third sevara, and that's a Yerushalmi. Because it's not kavod for the קרשים to be thrown around. That's called ביזוי קדשים. It's holy things, you're going to throw them around? We don't even throw bread, we don't throw food. We don't throw food because we have respect for it, we don't. Certainly, you won't throw something, you won't take a Chumash and throw it. It's like I have a joke that once someone threw a Tanya, so someone says to him, \"Why are you throwing? What do you think, it's a Chumash?\" They laughed, Lubavitcher guy. Anyway, we don't throw things around which are chashuv, and therefore, you for sure they didn't throw it around. The question is besides the קרשים, there were other things that the Bnei Merari carried: the יתדות, the pegs, the מיתרים, which are the ropes, yeah. Now, like this: If you learn the reason they didn't throw it is because because it's it's heavy, these are not so heavy. If you learn because it might break, these won't break. If you learn because of ביזיון, then this goes on that, too. And that could be the machloket whether ילפינן זורק ממושיט. Because if it's ביזוי, then they didn't throw anything in the Mishkan. If they didn't throw anything, there is no such thing as זורק in the משכן מרשות היחיד לרשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים. But if the reason is because it's heavy, or because it'll break, then the other things they did. So, there was a זורק in the רשות in in the Only thing, how does that fit what Rashi says? What Rashi says here, שלא יתקלקלו, and Rashi is trying to explain the machloket whether we say ילפינן... I know, but lema'aseh there was a זריקה in the Mishkan. No, it's not because of ביזוי מצוה. If it's because of weight, if it's heavy, then they threw. Actually, certain things they threw, you don't have to learn out, but how do we know it? Cuz by the by the קרשים we know went on the עגלות, so we know it from there, but lema'aseh it was in the Mishkan. Basically, זורק was in the Mishkan, according to this. That's called learning out just like It's not learning out, it's comparing. Just like מושיט we have from the עגלות, from the קרשים, so too זורק, we can compare to that too, because we have it someplace else. Depends which words you use. It's not the word real the real word of ילפינן. I would like to start the next Tosafot דאמרינן. I don't know if everybody learned it, it's not such an easy Tosafot, but even if you didn't, We'll just give you some background, memeila we could go into it a little bit. Just one point of the Tosafos, because to go to the to learn the whole Tosafos. You know what? First we'll just go into the Tosafos itself with the Tosafos Yeshanim, one vort. In the second terutz of Tosafos, not to go into this, just Tosafos says that קלוטה כמי שהונחה, yeah, is a setirah to ילפינן זורק ממושיט. You can't learn both together. Think the logic of it. You cannot learn together you should hold ילפינן זורק ממושיט and zorek is chayav, and learn קלוטה כמי שהונחה. Think why, it makes a lot of sense. Moshit is למעלה מיו״ד, the regular moshit? If you say ילפינן זורק ממושיט, that means if you throw from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד למעלה מיו״ד over the רשות הרבים, you're chayav. If you hold קלוטה כמי שהונחה, you know what happens here? It went from רשות היחיד, it stopped in the רשות הרבים, which really is למעלה מיו״ד, it's a מקום פטור. Then it started again from the מקום פטור to רשות היחיד. Why would you be chayav? How could you ילפינן זורק ממושיט means that you're chayav for zorek. Which zorek? זורק מרשות היחיד לרשות היחיד דרך למעלה מיו״ד מרשות הרבים, you are chayav. That's טייטש ילפינן זורק ממושיט. If at the same time you learn קלוטה כמי שהונחה, it makes no sense! That means it was קלוטה in the middle. No, moshit is למעלה מיו״ד for sure. The question, good, so how would you have ילפינן זורק ממושיט למעלה מיו״ד, which is the real moshit? And you're going to say zorek is like moshit. Zorek like moshit means that you threw it from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים למעלה מיו״ד and you're chayav. But if it stopped there, so you, imagine if you make an akirah in רשות היחיד, a hanachah in רשות הרבים, then akirah in רשות הרבים, and hanachah next to רשות היחיד. For sure you'd be patur. So how could you be chayav if קלוטה כמי שהונחה? אלא מאי if you learn ילפינן זורק ממושיט, we must learn that קלוטה is not כמי שהונחה. So it never stopped in the middle. אלא מאי, it didn't go directly, it went through So the chiddush is that you can be chayav. But if you learn קלוטה כמי שהונחה it can't be, so that's what Tosafos learns. Tosafos Yeshanim on the side, in yours says here, אין זה קושיא. If you have the Oz VeHadar it's on the I guess on the side different, right? Tosafos ישנ- אין זה קושיא! Tosafos has a קושיא, how could you learn ילפינן זורק ממושיט if you learn קלוטה. Says no קושיא. דהא ליכא מר No, I mean, no, I'm sorry, I got the wrong yeah, I'm looking at the wrong one. Okay, here it's printed: אינה הכרחה. I'm saying on the side. No, on דף ד׳ עמוד ב׳ on top, אינה הכרחה. Tosafos is מוכיח, Tosafos proves that if you hold if you hold קלוטה כמי שהונחה, you cannot hold ילפינן זורק ממושיט. So he says that's not a re'ayah. דלא אמר קלוטה כמי שהונחה דמיא אלא להחמיר. You're machmir that if you threw it, you say קלוטה כמי שהונחה. If you threw למטה מיו״ד and it went through the רשות הרבים and it didn't stop there, we say you're chayav, because we're machmir, but not to be meikil. Tosafos is saying that if you hold קלוטה כמי שהונחה, you cannot be mechayev for ילפינן זורק ממושיט, you have to be meikil because it stopped in the reshut harabim. You don't say it. And he says a ראיה, דאי להקל נמי אמרו, if we always say קלוטה כמי שהונחה, even if it means because of that you'll be patur, I have a problem: אם כן, זורק ד׳ אמות ברשות הרבים, היכי משכחת לה? If you hold קלוטה כמי שהונחה always, how is there such a thing as being chayav for throwing ד׳ אמות ברשות הרבים? How? What's the melachah of throwing ד׳ אמות ברשות הרבים? Pick it up in reshut harabim, you throw it ד׳ אמות and it falls, makes a hanachah, you're chayav. But if you hold קלוטה כמי שהונחה, it means that the second it comes, starts flying, it stopped, it never went ד׳ אמות. It stopped, and cause if you walk ד׳ אמות or something, and you stop in the middle, you're not chayav. So if you hold קלוטה כמי שהונחה, you never The whole The whole melachah of throwing ד׳ אמות ברשות הרבים is not shayach. Is a ראיה Tosafos Yeshanim says that we that we don't say קלוטה כמי שהונחה to make you patur. We only say קלוטה כמי שהונחה in order to make you chayav. And in this case it's going to make you patur. You're patur from throwing ד׳ אמות ברשות הרבים because of קלוטה, because it stopped, so we don't say that. So besides to understand what the sevara is, we're not going to go into that now. So it's a she'eilah, what's the sevara behind it. Okay, we're not going to get into that. now. But this is the machloket between Tosafos and Tosafos Yeshanim. Tosafos holds, again, that we say קלותה כמי שהונחה, להקל ולא להחמיר, and therefore if you hold קלותה כמי שהונחה, you cannot hold ילפינן זורק ממושיט, because if you hold קלותה, you'll never could be chayav for זורק למעלה מ-י' like מושיט. Cuz there's a הנחה in the middle. And it's a הנחה and it'll make you patur because we say קלותה כמי שהונחה אפילו to make you patur, while Tosafos Yeshanim holds not. The shaila is, what will Tosafos do to answer the Tosafos Yeshanim's kashya? Tosafos Yeshanim has a good re'aya that we do not say that because of קלותה have it at the same time? But it says there's no one who's going to say קלותה כמי שהונחה and also say ילפינן זורק ממושיט. But the one that holds קלותה כמי שהונחה, forget about ילפינן זורק ממושיט, זורק ד' אמות ברשות הרבים, according to Tosafos that holds that you always say if you hold קלותה, you always say it, that מאן דאמר, how could that מאן דאמר hold that there is such a thing as throwing ד' אמות ברשות הרבים? It stops every אמה, or every half of an אמה, every quarter of an אמה, so never no such thing as ד' אמות ברשות הרבים. So Tosafos Yeshanim says, \"You're right! We don't say it to patur you.\" But Tosafos says, not like that. The same shaila really, how do you carry ד' אמות ברשות הרבים according to Ben Azzai who says מהלך כעומד? No? Cuz every one is a stop. Every time you step, so you never could walk ד' אמות. It doesn't hold that Same shaila. So, obviously, whatever answer there, you'll answer here. Tosafos on דף ו' עמוד ב', on דף ה' עמוד ב' says like this, has the she'eilah: Look at the fourth line from the wide lines, Tosafos דיבור המתחיל בשלמא. The fourth ובירושלמי פריך על דעתיה דבן עזאי, ירושלמי asks on that on Ben Azai's opinion, Tosafos בשלמא Tosafos דף ה' עמוד ב', ה' עמוד ב', yeah. The fourth of the wide lines: ובירושלמי פריך על דעתיה דבן עזאי: אין אדם מתחייב על ד' אמות ברשות הרבים לעולם? You can ever be חייב ד' אמות, דיעשה כמי שהונחה על כל אמה ואמה ויפטר? So he says: משני, I mentioned this once, משכחת לה בקופץ, if you jump. If you jump the ד' אמות. Okay. ובש\"ס דילן, our Gemara, לא חשיב ליה פירכא. Doesn't think it's a kashya. Why? Because it says in a זורק ד' אמות ברשות הרבים הלכתא גמירי לה. הלכה למשה מסיני! But even though על פי שכל you should be פטור because every step, but ד' אמות is a separate דין, that Torah the Aibershter said that you're חייב. That's all. Then he goes vayter: ולהכי לא מקשי עלה, that's what the Gemara didn't ask. Yerushalmi asks, but our Gemara didn't ask. וכן קלותה לרבי עקיבא, same thing, קלותה according to רבי עקיבא, אף על גב דכמי שהונחה דמיא, even though it's like it's landed, but בזורק ד' אמות ברשות הרבים חייב. ולא אמרינן, we do not say כמי שהונחה תוך ד' אמות ברשות הרבים. We do not say as if it landed in the middle. Why not? הלכה למשה מסיני, that's all. So mimela, and the same thing, so you have זריקה ד' אמות, you have So, so Tosafot Yeshanim doesn't hold like that. So according to Tosafot, there is no שאלה. The Tosafot Yeshanim's שאלה on on Tosafot, \"How could you say that we say קלותה כמי שהונחה even if it means because of that to be מתיר, to say פטור? Because if so, why aren't you פטור for all זריקה's ד' אמות?\" So Tosafot doesn't hold of it, but Tosafot has already answered it up further on, that this is a special דין of הלכה למשה מסיני, so you're חייב for ד' אמות. So you're חייב for walking even though Ben Azzai says and this Ben Azzai even though every step is a stop, and the same thing with קלותה. What did you say? Yerushalmi doesn't say it. Yerushalmi doesn't hold of this. Yerushalmi says the Tosafot Yeshanim would hold like the Yerushalmi. But it's not because of הלכה למשה מסיני. By Ben Azzai, it's because you jumped. He jumped. Tosafot Yerushalmi says that only time you're חייב if you carry ד' אמות, if you didn't walk. If you walk, every step is a stop. Jumping is the same thing. You stop in the middle of the air when you jump. Who says? Ben Azzai says you stop in the middle of the air? Who says? According to the the סברא that we said in the beginning Not talking about קלותה. According to Tosafot, how can you say So Ben Azzai, Yerushalmi takeh holds differently. Yerushalmi says that it's only חייב if you jump. Mimeila you never, cuz he says the מהלך כעומד means you you walked, and if you put your foot down, you're חייב. It's the same thing as throwing. When you throw something in the air, it stops every Ben Azzai doesn't hold קלותה כמי שהונחה. Yeah, according to Tosafot who says that. No, but not Ben Azai, goes according to Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Akiva holds קלותה, Ben Azai says מהלך כעומד. They're two separate דינים. But the kashya is on both the same. Okay. Very impractical to jump ד' אמות. ד' אמות is six feet. How would anyone do that? Six feet? You jump six feet? No, six feet? Fine. Go on, Pete, you want to begin? You say according to the machloket of like the means to the end, if that actually counts as part of it, like if רשות הרבים counts. You say that the Rebbe holds like that, like in the שיחה with Avraham versus the 40 years