There's כמה ענינים in this סוגיא here that we still have to finish, just go to a few ענינים. Number one: When the גמרא is first tried to answer that when he asked, when רבי אבא בר אבא asked are allowed to take out the bread, so גמרא asked, גמרא wanted to say a פשט that it means לאחרים. He put it in בשוגג, other people saw, and the שאלה is are they allowed to do this עבירה in order the עבירה of taking out the פת in order to protect him from doing a מלאכה דאורייתא? So on that the גמרא answered: מתקיף לה רב ששת וכי אומרים לו לאדם חטא כדי שיזכה חברך? Do we tell a person חטא כדי שיזכה חברך? That's the גמרא's קושיא. So it comes out from the גמרא that you're not allowed to. A person cannot do an עבירה to save somebody else from doing a bigger עבירה. Comes תוספות, תוספות asks a קושיא from עירובין. In עירובין we see that רבי says that a חבר, a תלמיד חכם, is allowed to do a small עבירה to save the עם הארץ from a big עבירה. What's the small עבירה of the תלמיד חכם? He's taking off תרומה שלא מן המוקף, not taking it off when they're together. What's the big עבירה of the עם הארץ? He's going to eat טבל. That's a that's מיתה בידי שמים, fine. So תוספות answers that here it's different because it's נעשה על ידו. Over there in עירובין it's נעשה על ידו. The עבירה came because of him. He gave him, he opened his basket and said, \"You take.\" So if he will eat טבל, it'll be actually his fault. So ממילא when it's your fault, then you're allowed to.

The ריטב״א gives a different תירוץ. And the ריטב״א says he is מדייק in the גמרא. When the גמרא says, \"וכי אומרים לו לאדם,\" can we tell a person do an עבירה כדי שיזכה חברך? That means בית דין cannot tell a guy to do it. So if a guy will ask a שאלה by בית דין, בית דין will פסקן you can't do it. But if he doesn't ask the שאלה and he goes ahead and does it, he's a good guy, it's okay. So if a person does a small עבירה in order to protect someone else from a big עבירה, that's fine. And that's the פשט he says in the גמרא עירובין. ניחא ליה לחבר דליעבד איסורא קלילא ולא ליעבד עם הארץ איסורא רבא. ניחא ליה, it's right for a חבר without asking. Don't come and ask the שאלה. In Yiddish there's an expression: אז מע פרעגט א שאלה איז טרפה. Don't ask שאלות. Okay, that doesn't mean you should not ask שאלות, but that means sometimes you have that if you're going to ask a שאלה, they're going to say, \"Don't do it.\" על דרך, where do we find in חומש that if you ask they tell you don't do it, but if you don't ask you're allowed to? פינחס. It says קנאים פוגעים בו. הבועל ארמית, if someone is is is marrying a גויה, you're allowed to kill him. The גמרא says, \"הלכה ואין מורין כן.\" הבא לישאל, if you come and ask what's the דין, what what do you ask בית דין, they say you're not allowed to. But if he doesn't ask, he's allowed to do it. So we do find things like that. So he says the לשון here in the גמרא is, the גמרא should have said a simple לשון. It should have said, \"מתקיף לה רב ששת וכי מותר לאדם לחטוא כדי שיזכה חבירו?\" Could you do an עבירה for somebody else's benefit? Why does he say, \"וכי אומרים לו לאדם,\" such a strange לשון? \"Do we tell the person to do it?\" is a ראיה from here that the only thing is that we can't tell him. Wherever we're not telling him and he's doing it himself, it's fine. That's what he says. תוספות obviously doesn't hold like that, because if that would be תוספות's שיטה, תוספות would have answered that. I mean, there would be a simple thing, that there's no איסור to begin with. What's the קושיא from עירובין? So there's basically a מחלוקת between תוספות and the ריטב״א, or other ראשונים, it's not only תוספות, other... ראשונים also ask the same שאלה and give the same answer like תוספות, that the reason why over there you're allowed is because it's בא על ידו. But they don't answer because he didn't ask. A סימן that they don't hold of this תירוץ. So there's a מחלוקת between the ריטב״א and תוספות and other ראשונים. How do we think רש״י holds? What would you Which words in רש״י can we find to be מדייק? Like who? Why? But the גמרא says the לשון \"say\". What does רש״י do more than that? When it says in גמרא \"לאחרים\"? \"אחר שראה ובא לפנינו לשאול לרדותה כדי שלא יבא חבירו לידי חיוב חטאת.\" רש״י says here that the case is that he's coming to ask, \"What should I do? I just saw my friend put in the bread, and if I leave it in another 10 minute 5 minutes, he's going to be עובר an איסור דאורייתא, so he's asking am I allowed to take it out.\" And then we're saying, \"No, וכי אומרים לאדם.\" So from the fact that רש״י האקט אריין the words which he didn't have to, \"בא לשאול\", why couldn't he say \"אחר שראה ורוצה לרדותה, can we or can't we?\" So רש״י's לשון is משמע a שטיקל, not 100% a ראיה, but it's משמע that רש״י holds like like the ריטב״א. Okay,

so you could say רש״י and the ריטב״א on one side and תוספות on the other side. Now, let's understand רש״י Okay, the ריטב״א's שיטה, maybe רש״י's also if רש״י holds like that. What's the difference? Why is it, ממה נפשך, or you're allowed or you're not allowed? See, תוספות will hold you're not allowed. The גמרא says you're not allowed to do an עבירה to help somebody else, even though it's a small עבירה and he does a big עבירה. But if you're going to make a חילוק if you tell him or not, so ממילא where the גמרא says by פסח by by פנחס I mean, there it's הלכה למשה מסיני. The whole thing is הלכה למשה מסיני that you're allowed to That's the whole story. What did פנחס ask משה? משה didn't know what to do when they saw the מעשה of זמרי בן סלוא. So didn't פנחס came over, \"Didn't you tell us הלכה למשה מסיני, you told us it's from the אייבערשטער that קנאים פוגעים בו, you're allowed to.\" So he said, \"Okay, you said it, go ahead and do it.\" He didn't פסק a פסק. But here why would there be a difference? What we need is a סברא. What is the difference between the two? Now the חילוק עפ״י Have to think of a סברא, but just simple: if the בית דין פסקנ׳ס that you're not allowed to, you're not allowed to. In other words, בעצם in logic should he be able to do it or should he not be able to do it? Yes, should. In logic, not according to הלכה, in logic In logic, you should be able to do it. You're saving somebody from a real big איסור and you're going to do a small איסור, so you should be able to do it. אלא מאי, we're saying it's not logic, the בית דין will the תורה the בית דין will פסקן. If בית דין פסקנ׳ס, then the logic doesn't work, because when the בית דין פסקנ׳ס, it's a חטא. If you do it without בית דין פסקנ׳ינג, then you can look at the כוונה why you do it. No one is allowed to do an עבירה, right? The same two people, you can have one person do רדיית הפת, he did a real full-fledged איסור דרבנן. This other guy did רדיית הפת to save this guy from עבירה, so we're saying עפ״י logic he should be able to do it. Why? Depends on his כוונה. If a person מן הצד looks at them and doesn't know the difference, what does he say? They're both the same. How come you say this guy did an עבירה, this guy didn't do an עבירה? Why not? Because depends on the כוונה. He was מכוון to do take out רדיית הפת, this guy was מכוון to protect somebody else from an עבירה. If you're מכוון to protect someone from an עבירה, that takes away the איסור. In other words, we're weighing two איסורים, and we're taking it away. Why are we taking it away? Nice, but why? Because that's why you did it. You're מכוון, you מכוונ׳ד for that person, so the עבירה you're doing is not a real עבירה. When do we say that if your כוונה will play a role, if בית דין never פסקנ׳ד that it's אסור? If בית דין פסקנ׳ס that in this case it's אסור, you can have a million כוונות for good, it won't help you. בית דין said it's אסור. But as long as בית דין didn't say it's אסור, and you're going and do it and your כוונה is פשוט to save the person, then there's a סברא you can do it. So it's not not so פשוט, that's why there's a מחלוקת here. But I'm just trying to explain רש״י. I mean the תוספות and the other ראשונים will hold makes no difference. If it's אסור it's אסור. And the ריטב״א, maybe רש״י will hold no, that it depends what the כוונה is, and that whole כוונה is only if it the בית דין never made an absolute איסור, like they didn't absolutely say it's If they say it's absolutely אסור, then no כוונה makes a difference. Okay, that's one thing. Let's go ווייטער to something else, another ענין. This is a א זייטיגע ענין, but isn't there The אלטער רבי's שולחן ערוך הלכות שבת,

I'll give you The מגן אברהם writes in סימן תרנ״ה. תרנ״ה talks about הלכות לולב. What happens if a person doesn't have an אתרוג? I have an אתרוג, and I know there's a friend in a different town that doesn't have an אתרוג on on סוכות. He says you're allowed to send with a גוי this אתרוג to him, even though you're doing something wrong because you're sending a גוי to go חוץ לתחום. You're not allowed to go חוץ לתחום. Anything you're not allowed to do, you can't tell a גוי to do, אמירה לעכו״ם שבות, you can't tell him to do it. So he says you're allowed to tell him to go to send because the guy doesn't have an אתרוג. And he says, but that's only if the guy who doesn't have the אתרוג didn't have any money to buy an אתרוג, so he doesn't have. So it's not his fault, he didn't have any money to buy, he doesn't have an אתרוג, so I'm able to do it. But if the guy could have bought an אתרוג and he didn't, then the guy is פושע. He's a פושע. And what does תוספות say here? When do we say that you're allowed to do a small עבירה to protect some to help somebody else to do to not to do an עבירה or to do a מצוה, when can we do it? Only if לא פושע. And in this case, the other guy was פושע. So the other guy was פושע, you can't do it. So again, this is the דין of the מגן אברהם. So he says that this דין goes according like תוספות says that there's this דין of אין אומרים לאדם חטא בשביל שיזכה חברך, that you cannot tell a do an you shouldn't do an עבירה to help him, it's only if פושע, but if not פושע, you could. And therefore, if the guy, I'm repeating the דין again, if the guy could have bought an אתרוג before יום טוב and he didn't buy it, this guy is a פושע. If he's פושע, I don't have to and I'm not allowed to do the עבירה of telling a גוי to go חוץ לתחום in order to help that איד. איי דערביי er won't בענטש אתרוג, too bad, אין אומרים לאדם חטא בשביל חברך. But if the guy was not פושע, so then you're allowed to, because if לא פושע, you're allowed to do this. That's the the that's what the מגן אברהם says.

Comes the משנה ברורה in שער הציון in in the same סימן, he quotes the מגן אברהם there, and he asks a שאלה on the מגן אברהם, and he says, \"I don't understand. Forget about this the איד who has the אתרוג. What about the איד who doesn't have the אתרוג? He was פושע. Let's say he was פושע before יום טוב, he didn't buy an אתרוג. But now that יום טוב came and he doesn't have an אתרוג, is he allowed to tell the גוי, 'Go and get me the אתרוג חוץ לתחום'?\" Not for somebody else, for himself. He needs the אתרוג, and he knows in the other town where there's חוץ לתחום he could get the אתרוג. But he can't go חוץ לתחום to bring the אתרוג. He's going to send a גוי to go bring the אתרוג on יום טוב. It's only a שאלה, it's not a שאלה of carrying because it's יום טוב. שבת we don't בענטש אתרוג. So it's יום טוב. But יום טוב there's a איסור going חוץ לתחום. Can he tell the גוי himself? So he says, definitely he could. He needs an אתרוג now, and he's allowed to do it. Because when do we say אין אומרים לאדם חטא בשביל שיזכה חברך is only you can't do for somebody else, but for yourself you could. If you want to do a small עבירה to protect yourself from a big עבירה, you're allowed to. No wonder the ראיה is to it is, he doesn't bring this, I'm saying what the ראיה is. If the גמרא means the same thing by both, just like you can't do an עבירה for somebody else, you can't do a small עבירה to help him, you shouldn't be able to do yourself either. So how come the גמרא didn't ask it right away? The גמרא only asks the שאלה after the גמרא answers, \"לאחרים\", the גמרא asks, \"how are you allowed to do it?\" Right away in the גמרא in the beginning, when we didn't know it's לאחרים, when the גמרא thought there's a שאלה can I take out רדיית הפת to protect myself from אפיה? So the גמרא should have said, \"certainly not!\" וכי מותר לעשות עבירה קלה to get an עבירה to save yourself from עבירה חמורה? The גמרא didn't ask that, why? Because the גמרא knows that yourself you're allowed. When it came to doing it for somebody else, that's when the גמרא had the שאלה. So it comes out here like this. So he's asking, the guy himself is definitely allowed to send a גוי, even if פושע. So he says, he asks the שאלה, since כל ישראל ערבים זה בזה, I have to see that another איד put בענטש אתרוג, basically there's a חיוב of מבצעים of מבצע אתרוג, so I have to see that another איד has to do and מצות אתרוג. So my חיוב and his חיוב is the same. Why don't I have a חיוב like that, too? I basically have a חיוב, he's saying. Just like I could be why could I be מוציא somebody with a ברכה when he has to make the ברכה? מטעם ערבות. If כל ישראל ערבים זה בזה, and the אלטער רבי actually uses the לשון in one place, כל ישראל ערבים זה בזה means that when he didn't do the מצוה, to a certain degree, I have that I as if I didn't do the מצוה. So he asks, בנוגע this case where it's sending to get an אתרוג, so I have a חיוב to do it to get him the אתרוג. So if If he could do it himself, why can't I do it? That's the שאלה, and he doesn't answer. He says צריך עיון, צריך עיון on the מגן אברהם, why why he doesn't, what's what's the שאלה? What was that? Louder, louder. That's something else, if he, that's of, that's of שומע כעונה. But it's something, not only about ברכות, I could make a ברכה even though I did the מצוה, he didn't do it yet. Why? Because a ברכה לבטלה, see. What you're saying is right, if I have to do the מצוה and he has to do the מצוה, so when I make the ברכה for myself, you could be יוצא. But if I don't have to do the מצוה, I did it already, you didn't do it, I can make a ברכה for that מצוה for you. It's a ברכה לבטלה for me! It's not, because when I say קידשנו במצותיו וצונו לשמוע קול שופר, and I heard שופר, I could do it, because if you didn't hear שופר, there's a lack in my שופר, and that's something that I have a חיוב. So ממילא it's like me. That's what he asks. Now let's see in סימן ש״ו. That question you say, were you just asking on the פושע part? Yeah, on the פושע part, yeah. That's, the שאלה is why in the case where he's פושע you can't, since he himself could, so why can't I do it also? Who said this thing, you said? The שער הציון. There's, the, in, in the משנה ברורה, in his, the משנה ברורה, I showed you last time. He has three parts: he has the משנה ברורה, then he has ביאור הלכה, and then he has the שער הציון, and it's all from him, but he, differently, made in different parts. So this is a ראיה for מסייע? 100% ראיה for מסייע, no question. To a מתנגד it's a ראיה because the משנה ברורה says it. Right, that's what I'm saying. Yeah, here. In סימן ש״ו,

something similar. This is a, this is a, a מאדנע דין, because if we're gonna follow this דין לפשוטו, then a lot of things we're allowed to do. No, to, I mean to save another איד. מי שנודע לו בשבת שהוציאו נכרים את בתו מביתו להוציאה מכלל ישראל. If you found out on שבת that גוים came, kidnapped your daughter, and they want to השמד her, want to convert her to, to become a גויה, מצוה לרוץ לדרך פעמיו, it's a מצוה to go, להשתדל בהצלתה, to save her, ויצא אפילו חוץ לי״ב מיל, more than 12 מיל, זה תחום מדאורייתא, ואפילו אם יצטרך לעשות מלאכה גמורה להצלתה, even if you have to do a real מלאכה, ואפילו בספק אם יצילנה. So you're allowed to do everything. Why? מפני שענין זה הוא כפיקוח נפש שמחללין עליו את השבת אפילו ספק הצלה, that's the דין. Like פיקוח נפש, if someone is, life is in danger, even if you're not sure, you'll save. שאין לך פיקוח נפש יתר מזה, this is the biggest פיקוח נפש, שלא תצא מכלל ישראל. What's going to happen? They're going to השמד her, they'll keep, keep her she'll become like a גויה, תחלל שבת כל ימיה, she'll do, מחלל שבת all her life. ומוטב לחלל, it's better you should be מחלל one שבת rather than her מחלל, שמטעם זה, that's the reason for פיקוח נפש. Okay. Then he says, ואם אינו רוצה להשתדל בזה, so if the father doesn't want to do it, because he doesn't want to מחלל, כופין אותו! We force him. והוא הדין אם אינה בתו אלא בת או בן איש אחר, that's a daughter or son from somebody else, אף על פי שאינו קרובו, not even a קרוב, ויש יכולת בידו להשתדל במצוה זו, and you could work on helping, אף על פי שהוא ספק אם ספק אם יציל, if you're not sure, כופין אותו, we force every person להשתדל בכל מה שאפשר אפילו בעשיית מלאכות גמורות אם יצטרך להם. If you have to do מלאכה. Then the אלטר רבי asks the שאלה, but can a person do a מלאכה בשביל שיזכה חבירו? So the אלטר רבי says: ולא אמרו שאין אומרים לאדם חטא כדי שיזכה חבירך אלא כשחבירו פשע בזה, the other guy's at fault, ועל ידי פשיעתו בא לידי אונס אחר כך כגון, only through פשיעה it happened. למשל, which example would you give? Case of... over here. כגון שהדביק פת בתנור בשבת, he gives that example, if you made the, ונזכר קודם שתאפה, and he remembered before it was baked, שאף שמותר לרדותה מן התנור שלא יבוא לידי איסור חמור ממנו, even though he himself could take it out so he should save himself, אסור לאדם אחר, he says clearly, he himself is allowed, but somebody else can't, כדי שלא יבוא חבירו לידי איסור חמור של אפיית הפת בשבת. Why? כיון שחבירו פשע במה ששכח, he, the other one is פושע that he forgot, it's also a פשיעה, and he put it in. אבל כאן זה שהנכרים רוצים לאונסה להוציאה מכלל ישראל לא פשע כלל. The fact that they was kidnapped, it's not his fault. וממילא you're allowed to do anything to save the other person. So he makes a clear חילוק, that לגבי yourself, even if you're פושע, you're allowed, and לגבי somebody else, you're not allowed. He says this is only להוציא מכלל ישראל, but if it's to do, one עבירה, not. But לפועל we see, what do we see from this, this דין? This דין we see that there is a difference, even though yourself you could do it, but somebody else can't do it for you. Which means that this is the כלל. So what was the the the שער הציון, the משנה ברורה's שאלה? How come by the שופר over there, if he himself, even though he was פושע, he is allowed to send the גוי? Right? Because the אלטר רבי says it clear here also, that התפייס בטענה, where you were a פושע, which would tell you the other person cannot do it, could he do it? Yeah. Yes, even though he was פושע. So we see that even though you're פושע, you could do it. Nevertheless, someone else can't do it if you were a פושע. That's basically the נקודה of the מגן אברהם. That even though the guy himself who doesn't have an אתרוג is allowed to do an עבירה to אמירה לעכו\"ם, tell a גוי go through י\"ב מיל and go חוץ לתחום, bring me the אתרוג, because he himself could do it, somebody else can't. איי, כל ישראל ערבים זה בזה. So we have the same שאלה here. כל ישראל ערבים זה בזה. So why does he say that only if you're not פושע? In other words, he comes out to mean אלטר רבי, if this guy who's caught, kidnapped by the גוים, it's his fault, you're talking wouldn't be allowed to go get him. איי, what's a חילוק? If he's allowed to do himself everything to get out of the גוים, why can't somebody else? As soon as there's a חילוק, as soon as this whole thing of פושע makes it so that there is a difference. איי the שאלה כל ישראל ערבים זה בזה, it's פארט not the same. As much as כל ישראל ערבים זה בזה, it's not the same. It's not, and this דין was only said if you're doing it for yourself. Maybe you can say that there's a difference by a מצוה than by a sin, because in the case of a לולב, a אתרוג, he's doing a מצוה, but here it's a איסור. Somebody let someone do a מצוה for a good thing cuz it benefits everyone, but by a איסור, it's on themselves. What do you mean it benefits everyone? איסור also. But every every Jew, I don't know, it's different. So you're asking or you're answering? No, I'm answering. In a No, you're not answering, you're asking, making the קשיא stronger. No, that's his his שאלה. His שאלה is why shouldn't there be the same? לכאורה over there you should be allowed to. You want to say there's a חילוק from here. There is a difference. Yeah, but I'm saying who says you have to say the difference? There's a possibility to say the difference. See, every time you say a ווארט, a ביאור, a סברא, you have to what are we going to gain from it? Will it answer a קשיא or not? If you sometimes could say, you know, maybe the סברא is like this. Why do you want to say such a סברא? Because if I say the סברא like this and like this, I'll answer a קשיא. או, so say the סברא. What happens if I say maybe the סברא is like this, ממילא I have a קשיא? So don't say the סברא and don't have a קשיא. That's it. It's a דרך like the the רבי once I think I think the רבי used this לשון once. We find a לשון יש לתרץ בדוחק. It's not even such a good תירוץ. Did you ever hear יש להקשות בדוחק? Maybe the פשט is like this, ממילא I have a קשיא. Don't say the פשט, and don't have a קשיא. To an answer, so I'm saying what you're saying is a good סברא if this will answer something. Here we're trying to פארקערט. I'm saying what you're saying makes the קשיא. I'm saying let's not make a חילוק and say this is the same. And just like over here we see that we do the אלטר רבי here, and this is not only the אלטר רבי, I'm just quoting the אלטר רבי, makes a difference between doing it yourself or somebody else doing, so over there also, wherever it is, makes there's a חילוק. I just want to mention something else, which is an interesting thing here, in this דין. Is the guy who didn't buy the אתרוג before יום טוב, is he called a פושע? Yeah. You said it. If he could afford it or not. No, he could afford it and he didn't buy it, is he called a פושע? Yeah, didn't we just say he is? He said if he could afford We said he is. Not not אלטר רבי. Said that מגן אברהם. The שאלה is, is he a פושע? Why is he a פושע? Is there a חיוב on a person before the מצוה comes to make sure that when the מצוה comes you have to do it? לכאורה you could look differently. Is there a מצוה ערב סוכות of of אתרוג? No. There's no מצוה. The מצוה is סוכות. So ערב סוכות there's no מצוה. Comes סוכות, if you have an אתרוג, you bench אתרוג. If you don't have an אתרוג, you're an אונס. אונס רחמנא פטריה. Is it the שיחה I'll tell you so there's a long אריכות in חלק ל\"ה in פרשת וירא. Said ביום הראשון. Who says? That's the שאלה. Yeah, not I I spoke about this שיחה, it's נוגע to a lot of places in גמרא. We had it I don't think we learned that שיחה, but I spoke about it in the שיעור. You said it's in ל\"ה? חלק ל\"ה, פרשת וירא, very interesting, it's a נגלה שיחה. But the רבי there with all the הערות, big הערות, it's רבי יוסף ענגיל's חקירה. Is there a מצוה before the time? Is there a מצוה today to eat מצה on פסח? Yeah. I didn't ask if there's a מצוה today to eat מצה. No, there's no מצוה to eat מצה. But do I have a חיוב today to eat מצה on פסח? Maybe not. Who says? פסח will come, we'll have a חיוב to eat מצה. Who says we have a חיוב today? The נפקא מינה will be, what happens if a person has a שופר ערב ראש השנה, he has the שופר, and on ערב ראש השנה he goes and breaks the שופר? Is it a איסור of breaking a שופר? You're not allowed to break a שופר? I mean is it a Is it דאורייתא, דרבנן, what is it? I can break a שופר. It's no holiness. Comes because I broke the שופר on ערב ראש השנה and comes ראש השנה, I don't have a שופר. Am I called מבטל מצות עשה בידים? or not? Today I could do what I want. What's today if I break a שופר? Same thing ערב ראש השנה. And ראש השנה I don't have it, I have to try to get, and if I don't get, I'm אנוס, אונס רחמנא פטריה. So the רבי has a whole אריכות there, and he brings על כל פנים the סברא is that you are חייב. It's not, he brings like about קרבן פסח, all kinds. Is there a חיוב before פסח to be in ירושלים in order to be not to be בדרך רחוקה to be able to have to bring a קרבן פסח? All these cases. So the רבי brings all kinds a whole אריכות there בנוגע this ענין, but No, no. A whole year. A whole year. This a דין דאורייתא if anything, and there's 30 days is called דרבנן. First in the הערה the רבי wanted to make a מחלוקת אביי ורבא. Just to make it interesting, just as כדעה this, that what happens if a person leaves his house let's say eight months before פסח, knowing he's going to come back back on פסח, does he have to be בודק חמץ before he leaves so when he comes on פסח he shouldn't have חמץ? It's a מחלוקת אביי ורבא. If you leave within 30 days you have to, but what about before 30 days? And if the if you say it's only 30 days, that means מדרבנן, מדאורייתא not, because מדאורייתא there is no such thing as 30 days before פסח. So there's a מחלוקת אביי ורבא. אביי says that you don't have to, and רבא says you do. And the רבי explained what's the מחלוקת, this is the מחלוקת. The מחלוקת is, is there a חיוב of פסח, is there a איסור חמץ eight months before פסח? An איסור חמץ of פסח? If there is, I have to make sure now not to do the איסור then, so I have to take care now. But if you say there's no איסור חמץ, the איסור חמץ is when פסח comes, so now I have no חיוב. When I come back Just like what happens if חמץ falls into your house on פסח, what do you do? You burn it on פסח. No, on פסח he says every year פסח is an איסור, the שאלה is is there a חיוב before פסח? Is there anything that I have to do before פסח to make No, anything I was talking about בודק חמץ. Anything to do, do you have to do anything to get rid of the חמץ on פסח if you leave before, let's say, five months before? Right, so who cares? Why can't I do? What I did today is no problem. Today has nothing to do. If today there is no מצוה, then whatever I did, I broke the שופר, so who cares? What's wrong with breaking the שופר? The רבי says למעשה he says it is. אבל there's a lot of סברות not like that. I just want to say one thing על פי חסידות, if we're talking already you know this ענין, if we learned that there's a חיוב every day of the year to do every מצוה, so when we always say that all מצות are נצחי, know what that means? What is נצחי? Every מצוה is נצחי. נצחי means it's forever, it's always. What do you mean it's always? שבת is always? שבת is only one day a week. פסח is always? It's only eight days a year. But if you hold that the whole year you have a חיוב, ממילא it means that you have a חיוב of every מצוה every second of your life. There's no such thing as a moment when not that a certain מצוה doesn't apply. ממילא מצות is תורה is every second. If you hold the other way, then certain מצות only come It's still then the נצחי will be in פשוט פשט that means that it'll never stop. It'll never stop, every always forever פסח you'll have to eat מצה. But at this this way it's much deeper פשט in נצחיות. Yeah, so everything is a מצוה תמידית. Not עובר you're No, why are you עובר? You're not עובר. If you would break a שופר today, and because of that you won't be able to have a שופר, and if you wouldn't break it you would have, you were עובר. Every second of the year you have a חיוב not to eat חמץ on פסח. Not מקיים, we're not מקיים the מצוה, we're just not עובר, that's something else. I'm saying, but is there a חיוב? Here we're using the guy who didn't buy the שופר the the אתרוג before, and he had money, as a פושע. If you're going to learn the other way, he's not called a פושע. So from this דין, just as דרך אגב, it seems like we have a ראיה that there is a חיוב or there isn't. That there is. If you call him פושע, that means that there is. No, the דין of 30 days is is מדרבנן. When we have a דין of 30 days, that's even if you plan don't plan to come back on פסח. That's something else. The גמרא says אביי said that if you plan not to if you plan to come back you only have to be בודק 30 days, אמר ליה רבא if you plan to come back אפילו מראש השנה נמי. And that's why רבא changed. רבא said that if you plan to come back on פסח, no problem, for sure you whenever you go you have to. If you plan not to come back, then there's a דין of thirty days. But the מחלוקת seems in a case where you do plan to come back, אביי still holds you don't. That's why we sell our חמץ. No, you sell the חמץ to the גוי, we we בודק חמץ anyway, we we בודק it and מבטל, we sell. Okay, that's another ענין. Let's go to our ענין then. No, let's start with this with this, maybe, I don't know if we'll get to it otherwise. Okay,

תוספות דיבור המתחיל מיבעיא קודם שיבוא לידי איסור סקילה. What did the גמרא say? וכי אומרים לאדם חטא? No. Is a person מותר to take out So we don't answer that question? Huh? Do we answer that question? What? From the משנה ברורה? Yeah, I'm saying we see from this דין that that there is a חילוק between yourself and yeah, exact. The משנה ברורה is אסור. No, in that other דין. So see in another דין a סימן that's the כלל the חכמים made. So if you see in the one דין you ask a קשיא, you see in another דין It's not, but it's the same thing, it's also in מגן אברהם. It's also? The מגן אברהם. Yeah, but this is based on this is this is not just the מגן אברהם. He brings whole more, look look in the מראה מקומות. Okay, so so the גמרא's What? Can I ask a question? You said before about the like if the front of the picture is No, so I said from this דין it seems like it is. No, the רבי also says the same way, that it is the time before you are חייב. So the חפץ חיים didn't know the other פוסקים that said that agreed with the מגן אברהם? I I don't know. You bring a שדי חמד, right? Yeah, yeah. I mean, it seems like the חפץ חיים probably knew that there was other people He would have answered that also. I don't know, look through it, maybe something. So, so the גמרא said at the end: הדביק פת בתנור No, before that, the גמרא asked, when רבי asked: Are you allowed to take out the פת if if someone put in the פת בתנור and we're not talking about אחרים, we're talking about yourself. Are you allowed to take out before you come to איסור סקילה? פרעגט תוספות: What what's the גמרא's שאלה if you're allowed or not? Which משוגענער is not going to do it even if you tell him don't take it out? He shouldn't take it out, and and then what will happen? He'll die, he'll get killed, yeah, he's going to do it! אוודאי not. Rather surely he he So what's the גמרא's שאלה? So תוספות answers that if the חכמים would tell him not, yeah, there will be no איסור סקילה. What's the re- and he brings a ראיה from the three cases of ערל, הזאה, ואיזמל, העמידו דבריהם במקום כרת. Okay, what is the פשט פשוט in תוספות? Why won't he get סקילה if the חכמים said don't take it out? He's an אונס. He's an אונס בדברי חכמים. That's the פשט. He's an אונס, he's forced. על דרך משל, if somebody tells, let's say someone puts in the פת בתנור, and let's say the דין is you're allowed to take it out. And he this and he wants to run, אוי כאפט זיך, he wants to do תשובה because he's going to get killed otherwise, he wants to do תשובה, he runs, he wants to take it out. Someone comes and ties his hands and doesn't let him take it out. Do you think he'd be חייב סקילה? No, he's an אונס, he wanted to do it. So ממילא, this is the same case here, that's the פשט פשוט, he's an אונס בדברי חכמים. A ראיה תוספות bring to this, or an example, is from those cases where the חכמים said, למשל, don't sprinkle the פרה אדומה on this guy. What'll ממילא happen? He'll be טמא. מדאורייתא, he could sprinkle. מדאורייתא, he could be טהור, he could bring the קרבן פסח. The רבנן said, \"Don't do it,\" and because of that, he can't bring the קרבן פסח. So we see the חכמים, and will he get כרת? No. A סימן he will not get כרת because the reason is happening because the חכמים said so. So לכאורה, דארף מען פארשטיין, what's the How could you compare the two? Very simple difference. Over here, by the bread, that's his fault! He did something. He put it in when he shouldn't. He put it in במזיד. It's a bad guy! Over there, does did the guy do anything wrong? The guy is טמא. Came שבת, they could spritz the water on him, the the פרה אדומה on him. חכמים said, \"Don't do it.\" He didn't do anything wrong! So there, since the whole reason he's not going to do the right thing, he's not going to bring the קרבן פסח is because the חכמים said, therefore he won't get כרת. But if he put it in, now the חכמים, so the חכמים He became טמא in the past, it's a פשיעה. No, what do you mean? So that's not פשיעה, that's not something that he did. We're not talking whether it's a fault or not. It's nothing wrong in becoming טמא. There's nothing wrong, he didn't do anything wrong. You could become טמא. Here, he did something wrong, so maybe here it's not. So the שאלה is, what is the ראיה from those cases to this דין, that just like over there by the ערל, הזאה, ואיזמל you will not get כרת because it's the fault of the חכמים, so the same thing here. Besides this, the main שאלה is not how you could bring a ראיה from there. The שאלה is why טאקע will you not be חייב? And that's where this whole שיחה, this whole thing comes in. I don't know if you learned it or not, but let's go through this maybe fast, בקיצור. This is a נקודה here.

The רבי quotes the רמב״ם, where the רמב״ם says that פרעה, why was פרעה punished for the מכות? When the אייבערשטער said by the last five מכות, אני הכבדתי את לבו. I'm going to not let him. So, he's an אונס. So, אונס he could be פטור. So, the רבי says, what's the פשט? ובלפועל, no, so the sorry, the רמב״ם answers that you know why his heart was hard? That was a punishment for him not wanting himself the first five. So, in other words, the fact that his heart was hard is his own fault. And since it is his own fault, he could be punished for it. That's the רמב״ם. So, the רבי in the הערה asks, and this falls into the category, the רבי says, הערה 43, בנוגע לעונש יש לתרץ, how פרעה was able to be punished, you could answer, let's skip the brackets, שהוא על דרך הדין תחילתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס חייב, that if somebody hurts, is מזיק somebody else, or somebody else's property, so, if you do it if you do it באונס, there's a one דין. If you do it בפשיעה, משל, not a מזיק, let's say a שומר. That this the real case. A שומר who watches something for somebody else and it gets lost, what's the דין? Is he חייב or פטור? Let's go through the דין. A שומר חנם, for everything besides פשיעה. שומר שכר, חייב for גניבה ואבידה except אונס. שואל is חייב באונסין also. But a שומר, whether he's a שומר חנם or a שומר שכר, is חייב if it was פשיעה. But if it's אונס, they're both פטור. What happens if it started off בפשיעה and finished off באונס? What דין does it have? למשל, the classical case in גמרא by המפקיד, which we learned last year. המפקיד is a case if it was a guy was given something money to watch. Where did he hide it? He hid it in a hut, someplace in the forest. Now, it's the safest place for גנבים. No גנב is ever going to think to look for money hidden in some hut which is It's a the worst place because it could get a fire, it could get burned. So, if someone puts money into a if you give me something to watch for you, and I take the money and I hide it in a hut and it and it catches fire, what would you say, am I חייב or פטור? I'm a פושע. The case the גמרא tells us is a guy put it in and the end was it was stolen from there. So, it's תחילתו בפשיעה, what he did wrong was a פשיעה, but the end was אונס, is he חייב or פטור? So, there's a מחלוקת, and the הלכה is תחילתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס חייב. In other words, even though it ended up באונס, but we consider it על פי הלכה as a פשיעה. So, the רבי says the same thing is here also. פרעה, אוודאי תחילתו בפשיעה. The first five was בפשיעה, he didn't want. And the end, the other five were באונס. But the אונס came as a result from the פשיעה. So, תחילתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס is חייב. ממילא he's חייב. What about according to the מאן דאמר תחילתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס is פטור? How will we answer the קשיא on פרעה? So, the רבי continues, if you have the paper, look inside, וגם למאן דאמר שתחילתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס פטור, לא יוקשה עליו ממה שנפרע מפרעה, there's no קשיא. Because even if in a case that I gave before תחילתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס is פטור, this case is different. כי יש לומר דשאני בנדון דידן, דמכיון שמה שנאנס אחר כך זה עצמו בא מחמת פשיעתו שבתחילה, אי אפשר ליפטר עצמו בטענת אונס. The whole אונס came as a result of the פשיעה. In the case that I gave with the guy who hid, it started off with a פשיעה, it came with an אונס. Is the אונס a result of the פשיעה? No. It's a result of what he did, but they're two separate ענינים. The פשיעה is for fire, the אונס was for גניבה. But over here, the אונס is a direct result from the פשיעה. Why did the אייבערשטער force him not to let out? Because he was a פושע in the first five. Let's look at the שולי הגליון. Look at the bottom here. Do you have a copy? No, that's not a question, he's answering that even according to that מאן דאמר, it's still חייב in this case. Then the רבי asks, ואף שכל תחילתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס הוא כשהאונס בא מחמת הפשיעה, every case where we say תחילתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס is only if it's מחמת הפשיעה, והיכא שבא לא מחמת הפשיעה סבירא ליה לכולי עלמא דפטור. He wants to say that even the case that the example I gave from the גמרא is also called מחמת הפשיעה. Why was it there? Why did it get stolen? Because He put it in as a פשיעה, but the רבי wants to be מחלק in that גופא. Hello? From from Sterling Street? Let me I'll give you his number. I'll give you his number to call him. Hold hold on one second, I'll give you where to call him. Hold on. Just one second. The number is 917-822-9719. So the רבי wants to be מחלק between a regular case, and this case is even worse. And look what he says: היינו דוקא this is a very, very דקותדיקע חילוק. You know what דקותדיקע means? Very fine, fine חילוק, so much so that at the end of this whole חילוק that the רבי makes, you know what he says at the end? ועדין צריך עיון. It's still not sure that it's solved. It's very What does he say here? היינו דוקא כשהמעשה שאירע באונס בא מחמת פשיעתו. The case of the example of the גמרא, the מעשה that happened באונס came Why was there an אונס? Because he was put it in there where it shouldn't, which was a פשיעה. מה שאין כן בנדון דידן in the case of פרעה שהאונס גופא מה שאין לו בחירה הוא מחמת פשיעתו. Here it's not like two separate It was in the place, it came because of the פשיעה. Here the אונס is a result of the פשיעה. Over there, it's not the fact that this is bad for a fire, that's why there was an אונס of גניבה. Here, because you did פרעה did the פשיעה, that was the punishment was the fact that there was an אונס. And he gives an example, והרי זה כדוגמת הזורק חץ לאחר שיצא החץ מידו אין בידו להחזירו, אין שייך לפוטרו מטעם אונס כיוון שהוא עצמו גרם לזה. Imagine a guy shoots an arrow, throws a rock, and he says, \"I should be פטור because that was an אונס. After I threw it, all right, that was a פשיעה, I threw it, but then now it's out of my hands. Now it's not my fault. It came there by itself.\" Could a guy say that? It's an אונס! Because the אונס is a direct result of פשיעה. The same thing with פרעה, the רבי says that. Okay, what's נוגע here is not learning שיחות, we're not learning פרעה. The bottom line, we see from here this כלל, that if you have an אונס which comes directly מחמת פשיעה, according to everybody, there's no מחלוקת, it has a דין of תחילתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס חייב. In our case, when this guy put it in, he was a real פושע. The אונס of the חכמים is what? Is that they don't let you take it out. But what what is the רדיה, the איסור רדיה that's there, the fact that there's an אונס, comes directly because you put it in. So לכאורה this is a direct אונס מחמת פשיעה. So what should be the דין? Even though the bottom line, you're an אונס now, why don't you take it out? Because you're an אונס, but why isn't this תחילתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס, and what should be the דין? חייב. So the שאלה is, how does תוספות say that in this case you certainly won't be חייב? Why? Because you're an אנוס בדברי חכמים. It's not! You are a פושע. I, תוספות has ראיות from the other places? Those cases are not פשיעה. פשוטע זאך, we know if the חכמים they'll tell you not to do it, I'll give you an example. I gave you an example before, if a person puts it in and then decides to take it out and someone ties his hands, we said, you think he'll be פטור or חייב? פטור. What happens if a person puts something into the oven, פת, in such a way that the oven will lock and he won't be able to take it out? And later, when he put it in, he'll scream, \"Oy, I want to take it out, but I can't, I'm אנוס.\" Oh, so why I, now סוף כל סוף, it's the same thing like throwing the arrow! You threw it! You caused it! You put it in in such a way that it won't be able to That's called an אונס? Same thing here, you put in the פת causing the רדיה, causing need the need to רדיה. And the רדיה is אסור. So the fact that you So your פעולה is a direct connection to the fact that you can't take it out, to be אנוס. So even though you're אנוס בדברי חכמים, the דין should be that it should be חייב. Why does תוספות say פטור? Now, the truth is that רבינו חננאל No, the תוספות ישנים says basically that this is the חילוק, according to one תירץ, this is the שאלה. The שאלה he asks, he says that it's I'm not going to go through the whole thing, he says: אי נמי היא גופה קא מיבעיא ליה, when the גמרא asks התירו to take it out or not, אי התירו, דאם did they allow him to take it out, דאם לא התירו, he'll be חייב טאקע. One side is he will be חייב. And he says, ולא דמי לההיא דפסחים, כיוון דפשע. פאקערט, he says the גמרא שאלה is הא גופא, will he be חייב, and ממילא we tell him don't we we we therefore therefore we were מתיר, because if he won't be מתיר, he'll be חייב. איי, over there the חכמים said that you can't do the הזאה or whatever and you're not חייב, over there he was not בפשיעה. או דילמא, hey, לא התירו, because even though פשע makes no difference. But the שאלה is, why doesn't it make a difference? לכאורה, if פשע, there should be a real difference. So לכאורה, you have to say like this, a סברא to say like this, the difference is whether the אונס is a דבר גשמי or the אונס is a אונס that's like a הלכה'דיקע אונס. That's the חילוק. אונס by a דבר גשמי means that when you did the פשיעה and the אונס is a direct, if גשמיות'דיקע fact that you can't do, change it, is by אונס, but it's all directly because of you, that means that you look at your פשיעה is the אונס, you caused the אונס. Here, you could take it out or not, בגשמיות. Yeah. The fact חכמים אסר'ד you, you could look at it as not as a direct thing, that's like a side thing, because when you, like the example I gave you, put it in in a way you can't take it out, so your putting in is locking it so I can't take it out, that's not called an אונס. When you throw it, you בגשמיות can't take it back, so when you threw it, you knew that this is it. But here, when it's not because of what you did, it's like the חכמים came with a new דין. It's a דין so there you could say it's not the same, and therefore, even though it's a direct result of your פשיעה, but it's not called direct because it's done, it's because what חכמים said, which is like a new a דין that חכמים put on this case. Or you could say something else, and this is I think a a a a טיפערע ווארט, and it's a better ווארט. The whole איסור here and the whole חיוב is because of a הלכה, because of תורה. It's not like the תורה says that for doing this you're חייב, and if the if the חכמים would tell you, well, you put it in, don't take it out, it's not the פשט that the חכמים you're going to do something wrong. If the חכמים tell you take it out, that means that in this case there's no איסור to begin with. See? If we're saying there is a, there's a דאס א פשיעה איז א איסור, אלא מאי, you're allowed to do the איסור, or we say the חכמים tell you, \"Keep it in because we're holding you with an איסור,\" so we're talking here in other words, put it like this. When the חכמים say that you're let's say if the if they would say, \"Don't take it out,\" the רבנן made the דין don't take it out, it's a דין תורה. I'm starting from the other side now. It's as if saying that the baking that you're doing is not really called an איסור an איסור, even though this is איסור דרבנן, this is דאורייתא. Normally we learn, if you don't take it out and it'll bake, what will you do? You will have done an איסור, and you're חייב for the איסור. אלא מאי, you should not be חייב because you're an אונס. I'm saying no, it's not in not the פשט תוספות means you're not going to be חייב because you're an אונס, פשוט פשט is like that, אונס not an אונס, if the חכמים say don't take it out, then you didn't do the איסור of אפיה. Since this is part of the איסור תורה, then it never was an איסור. That's the שאלה, if the חכמים allowed you to take it out, if you don't take it out, you're חייב, because it's איסור אפיה. If the חכמים said you're allowed to take it out, then since that basically based on the תורה, what they have a right to do is that ממילא this בעצם you didn't do an איסור. If we're saying you did an איסור, אלא מאי, we want to call it איסור באונס, an איסור באונס, you could say in this case the אונס doesn't help because תחילתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס, and especially in this case. But I'm saying the היתר of that the reason תוספות says, תוספות, if you look at it, never mentioned the word אונס. What did תוספות say? תירץ ריב\"א, דאם לא התירו, לא מחייב סקילה, כיוון שמניח מלרדות כדי משום שאנו אוסרין לו, because the reason you're not taking out is because we're not letting you, and therefore you're not חייב. Why? תוספות could have said or should have said, הרי נאנס הוא, he's an אונס, חכמים don't let you. If תוספות would say that, then we have a good קושיא, but in this case the אונס doesn't work, because it's תחילתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס. תוספות לכאורה, you could say means not that because it's an אונס, the reason is because if the חכמים say don't take it out, there is no איסור אפיה, and it is a case where we do find like that in other cases that if you do it because the חכמים said Because the the the תורה says what the חכמים said, you're not עובר. I'm just giving you an example from הלכות חמץ ומצה again, הלכות פסח in the אלטר רבי's שולחן ערוך: If a person finds חמץ on פסח, what should you do with it? Cover it. On יום טוב, you have to cover it. Why can't you burn it? Because it's on יום טוב, it's מוקצה. There's a one שיטה says we're talking about it's איסור דאורייתא, that you weren't מבטל it. Let's say it became חמץ'דיק on פסח or you weren't מבטל it. So one שיטה says, ממה נפשך, it's מוקצה. Who cares about מוקצה? You're עובר an איסור דאורייתא! בל יראה ובל ימצא! Do it. The other שיטה says, no. Since it's מוקצה, too bad. You can't touch it. So then you're not over. So it's considered that it's not חמץ? The שאלה is then then the אלטר, but but לפועל, what do you mean it's it's מוקצה, but you're going to be עובר בל יראה ובל ימצא? So the אלטר רבי says, because the חכמים said you shouldn't do it, you will not be עובר בל יראה ובל ימצא. Now, it seems from the אלטר רבי that it's not because you'll be an אונס. You could say the same ווארט there, also: Since the חכמים don't באמת, what happens if a guy wants to burn his חמץ, and someone holds his hands and doesn't let it? He'll be עובר בל יראה ובל ימצא? You're an אונס! I want to burn it. Same thing here, the חכמים are tying your hands. So the אלטר רבי is משמע it's not like that. It's not because the חכמים are tying your hands. It's because the whole דין of בל יראה ובל ימצא is if if if you're able to have it, but if the חכמים say keep it, then you're not עובר בל יראה ובל ימצא. So if you're not עובר בל יראה ובל ימצא, why? Even though it's איסור דאורייתא, and you're doing the רבנן said it's מוקצה, so we see from here this כלל: That if the רבנן say don't do it to protect yourself from the איסור, then there is no איסור. Same thing here: If the רבנן said don't take it out, then there is no איסור. So it's not a פשט you're פטור because it's אונס. That wouldn't work, לכאורה. It's because it's no איסור. There's another example in the beginning of כתובות, but it also talks about אונס. It says if a person in olden צייטן, when a guy got married, first came קידושין, when did he get נישואין? A year later. A year, 12 months later. The moment that the he gave נישואין, 12 months later, the husband is מחוייב to support her. Then the גמרא says in the beginning of כתובות, what happens if the date, the 12 months are up on a on on on a Monday, let's say, and you can't get married, it says בתולה נישאת ליום הרביעי, so the husband has to start supporting her from here? No, and the husband does not. What happens if the day comes and the husband decides he doesn't want he doesn't want to get married yet, he's not ready? We tell him, \"Too bad. Today is the day. You have to start supporting her from today.\" But if it came on a Monday, you can't say, \"Well, you got to support her from today because the day is up.\" He says, \"It's not my fault.\" Then the גמרא, what happens if he got sick? Not because it came it came טאקע on the right day, he couldn't marry her because he's sick. So the גמרא has a שאלה, but then the גמרא says, on one hand, just like over there, if the day came before Wednesday, you have to you don't have to support her because of אונס, here you're also an אונס. Then the גמרא says, \"No, there's a difference. Over there is אונס בתקנת חכמים, and here is not.\" What's the difference? They're both an אונס. So one of the פשטים there is, if it's אונס דתקנת חכמים, the day never came! It's not that פשט that the day came, and you're חייב, אלא מאי you're an אונס. You're not חייב to marry her till the next day, till the till the Wednesday. מה שאין כן, if you're an אונס, באמת the day came, you're an אונס. So, I want to use this same as an example, that if it's אונס דחכמים, it never happened. You're never עובר. And that's why it's not the same like the others.