Let's see. The guy is missing. Okay. Here in the Gemara on דף ז', going back to the Gemara of קרפף, which actually we once spoke about it about this inyan, I want to show you, doesn't hold this, sorry, just, so we actually spoke once about this nekudah in one of the other shiurim, not in the shiur klali, and we're also going to touch upon things which are in the other shiur, also not shiur klali, that we spoke about yesterday, תוספות חקק, so it'll come a lot of things will come together here. But anyway, here the Gemara brings what Ulla said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: קרפף יותר מבית סאתים שלא הוקף לדירה, ואפילו כור ואפילו כוריים, הזורק לתוכו חייב. מאי טעמא? מחיצה היא, אלא שמחוסרת דיורין. What Rabbi Yochanan says is a din that if you have a big area, open space, the size of two סאה, and that's called a קרפף, that's more than two סאה, that has a wall around it, but when you made the wall, it wasn't made to live in. It wasn't made לדירה, you didn't have a house in it, or you didn't even have a house attached to it. למשל, the yard here in the back, I'm not saying the shiur is a סאתים, but let's say that yard, which is empty space, is not what we're talking about, because that's הוקף לדירה. This is a yard of a house. There's a house here, and this is a yard of the house. We're talking about like a park, which is a complete empty space, and it's not made לדירה, but it has four walls around it, and the walls are ten tefachim high. What's the din inside this קרפף? So Rabbi Yochanan says that this is a רשות היחיד. Because it's like any רשות היחיד. It's an empty space with four walls, that's a רשות היחיד. But because it's לא הוקף לדירה, because it's not made to live in, the Chachamim made a gezeirah, an extra chumra, that it also has the din of a karmelit. And therefore, you're not allowed to carry inside more than ד' אמות. In a regular רשות היחיד, like in here, if you take from רשות הרבים in here or from here to רשות הרבים, you're chayav. But inside, you could carry more than ד' אמות. But by a קרפף, even though it's a רשות היחיד, and as Rabbi Yochanan says the לשון הזורק לתוכו חייב, if you throw in from the outside into this קרפף, you'll be chayav, but nevertheless, it's a כרמלית, the חכמים make this as a כרמלית. And let's read Rashi here: ואשמעינן, so רבי יוחנן teaches us, דאף על גב דהיקפו יותר מבית סאתים ולא הוקף לדירה, even though this surrounds a very, very wide area, which was not made to live in, שאין בית סמוך לו קודם היקף, there was no house next to it before you made the walls, ולענין טלטול לתוכה הוה כרמלית, inside you cannot carry, it's like a כרמלית, כדאמרינן בעירובין שאין מטלטלין בה אלא בארבע אמות, inside you could only carry ד' אמות like a כרמלית, אפילו הכי מדאורייתא רשות היחיד היא. מדאורייתא, it's a רשות היחיד, והזורק מרשות הרבים לתוכה חייב. If you throw from רשות הרבים into this קרפף, you are chayav, because it's a real רשות היחיד. אלא מאי, has a chumra of a כרמלית. This is the way Rashi explains Rabbi Yochanan, which Rabbi Yochanan makes it very clear that this קרפף is a רשות היחיד. There's no sheilos, he says clearly the words הזורק לתוכו חייב. Chayav means not asur. Chayav. Chayav means that this is a real רשות היחיד, and if you throw from רשות הרבים into this קרפף, you are chayav. Comes the Gilyon HaShas here on the side, which is Rabbi Akiva Eiger, and he says: עיין לקמן פ' עמוד א' ברש״י ד״ה הוא שיהא בו חיוב, ובדף צ״ט עמוד ב' ברש״י ד״ה הוקף לכרמלית, וצריך עיון גדול. And as we always know, whenever Rabbi Akiva Eiger asks a צריך עיון גדול, it's a samadike קשיא. Whenever he says צריך עיון is a קשיא. Rabbi Akiva Eiger צריך עיון גדול, so let's look, what is the קשיא? The קשיא is that in these two places that he quotes, Rashi seems to be saying that it's not a רשות היחיד, which is against this Gemara of Ulla. What is the case? Let's look in the Gemara on דף פ'. תנו רבנן: הוציא חצי גרוגרת וחזר והוציא חצי גרוגרת בהעלם אחד חייב. We know that you're only חייב for הוצאה if you carry out an object which is the size of a גרוגרת. What happens if you carried a half a גרוגרת into the רשות הרבים? So דהא ודאי you're פטור, it's חצי שיעור. Then, before you realized your mistake, you carried the other half. You are חייב. Why? Because l'foal within one forgetting, סוף כל סוף you carried a whole גרוגרת. בשתי העלמות פטור. If you forgot and carried half, you reminded yourself, then you forgot again and carried another half, then you're פטור. רבי יוסי אומר: בהעלם אחד לרשות אחת חייב. Even בהעלם אחד, you're only חייב if you take it into the same רשות, into one רשות. לשתי רשויות פטור. If you carry it in two רשויות, you carried a half a גרוגרת into one רשות הרבים. Then, before you realized your mistake, you carried another half a גרוגרת into another רשות הרבים. So here you are פטור. If you carry it in the same רשות, half and then another half, we combine the two halves, and it turns into one, and if you did a whole גרוגרת, you're חייב. But if they're two רשויות, then it's considered two separate מלאכות, and therefore, it's not one, it's half and a separate half, you're פטור. אמר רבא: והוא שיש חיוב חטאת ביניהם, אבל כרמלית לא. When are these two רשות הרבים considered two separate רשות הרבים? If there is a separate You coming back? When do we say that this is five after, 10 after one. Yeah, good. When do we say that it's two separate רשויות and me-meila you are פטור? If in between the two רשויות, the two רשות הרבים's, there is a רשות which had you carried into that, you would be חייב a חטאת, which is what? A רשות היחיד. So, if there is a רשות היחיד in between, let's say you have one רשות הרבים, and then you have a רשות היחיד, and then you have another רשות הרבים. So, the first half a גרוגרת you carried into the first רשות הרבים, the second גרוגרת you carried in the second רשות הרבים. Because there is a רשות היחיד in between, it separates the two, and they're called two separate מלאכות. If there is not a רשות היחיד in between, but there's a כרמלית in between, it doesn't separate, and the two רשות הרבים are still considered one. Let's read the Rashi. So, Rashi says: והוא שיש חיוב חטאת ביניהם, when is it considered two separate רשות הרבים? If there's a חיוב חטאת, שמפסקת ברשות היחיד, they're separated by a רשות היחיד. אבל אם היה כרמלית מפסיקן, if in between the two רשות הרבים there was a כרמלית, and Rashi gives an example, what's a כרמלית? כגון קרפף יותר מבית סאתים, או בקעה. If you have this קרפף, this yard, and the קרפף which is bigger than two סאה, which in our Gemara which we know that if a קרפף which is bigger than two סאה, even though it has walls, it's a כרמלית, that doesn't separate between the two. But the question is it's a רשות היחיד really. Tosafot in our Gemara we say that a קרפף like this is a רשות היחיד. There's an additional chumra that the Chachamim made that it's also a כרמלית. Farkert, l'chumra it's a כרמלית too. But it's a full-fledged רשות היחיד! Didn't Rabbi Yochanan say if someone will throw in from רשות הרבים into this קרפף, what will be the din? He'll be chayav! Which means it's a real רשות היחיד. So, how in the world does Rashi say that if you have a קרפף in between the two רשות הרבים, it's considered that you had a כרמלית in between, and it's not מפסיק? It's a peleh! Tzarich iyun gadol! Let's go to the next Gemara. This is what he says, דף פ, then he says דף צ''ט עמוד ב. Let's look in the Gemara דף צ''ט עמוד ב, Rashi over there. It's not a kashya on the Gemara, it's a kashya on Rashi. Gemara didn't say anything what is a כרמלית. Rashi gives an example what's called a כרמלית which doesn't separate, is a קרפף יותר מבית סאתים. דף צ''ט עמוד ב, another Gemara: בעי רבי יוחנן, Rabbi Yochanan asked a she'eilah: כותל ברשות הרבים גבוה י' ואינו רחב ד' If you have a wall in the רשות הרבים that it's 10 high, but it's not four, the thickness of the wall is not four, what is it? What's on top? It's not four. It's a מקום פטור. והוקף לכרמלית, but this is a wall around a כרמלית, ועשו רשות היחיד. Now, this wall made the כרמלית into a רשות היחיד, no? Because now you have a wall, four walls, and inside you have ד' על ד', so now So this area inside became a רשות היחיד. וזרק ונח על גביו, and you threw something and it landed on the wall, not inside, but it landed on the wall. מהו? מי אמרינן, do we say כיון דאינו רחב ד' מקום פטור הוא, since the wall itself is not ד', it's a מקום פטור, או דילמא כיון דעשיה רשות היחיד כמאן דמליא דמי, since this made, this wall made the whole area into a רשות היחיד, so it's as if it's solid, and even on top of the wall is a רשות היחיד? אמרו ליה, קל וחומר, לאחרים עשה מחיצה, לעצמו לא כל שכן? If it's able to make this area inside into a רשות היחיד, so it itself shouldn't be? Fine. On this din, the Gemara says that you have this wall surrounding a כרמלית. So Rashi says, בכותל זה הקיפו בקעה שעושה כרמלית. This is a wall that surrounded a כרמלית. What's a כרמלית? It surrounded a בקעה, ועל ידו נעשית רשות היחיד. Through the wall it became a רשות היחיד. And Rashi gives an example, כגון שהוקף לדירה. You made it a רשות היחיד because you made a wall and you're living there. אי לא הקיפו בו אלא בית סאתים, or it's smaller than the size of two סאה, then it's a רשות היחיד. But if it would be more than two סאה, it would remain a כרמלית. Rashi says, what's the example of making this wall around a כרמלית? It's if it's a קרפף, and you made the wall around it less than two סאה. Mimela, you made the כרמלית into a רשות היחיד. In other words, if it would be more than two סאה, you would not have made it into a רשות היחיד. But Rabbi Yochanan said, we just said before Rabbi Yochanan said, that if you have, even if it's more than two סאה, if it has a wall around it, it's a real רשות היחיד. It has a chumra of a כרמלית, but it's also a רשות היחיד. So, the R'' Akiva Eiger, and over there גופא he also asks, עיין לעיל דף ז' עמוד א' וצריך עיון. So we have this problem that he asks: How does Rashi in these two places say that a קרפף more than סאתים is a כרמלית? As far as we know from our Gemara, it's also a כרמלית, it's a chumra of a כרמלית, but it's definitely a real רשות היחיד.

Comes the Mitzpe Eitan, and the Mitzpe Eitan answers a very interesting answer. He quotes a Yerushalmi, that in Yerushalmi we don't hold like Rabbi Yochanan. The Yerushalmi holds that this is not a רשות היחיד. The Yerushalmi holds that if you have a wall around an empty area which is not made to live, not made לדירה, more than two סאה, is not a רשות היחיד. Argues with Rabbi Yochanan. So now we understand, he says. Rabbi Yochanan takeh says it's a רשות היחיד, but Rashi paskens like the Yerushalmi for whatever reason. So when Rashi himself brings an example for a כרמלית, so Rashi could bring an example of this קרפף, because Rashi holds that it's not a רשות היחיד, it's only a כרמלית. Rabbi Yochanan said that if you throw into it, you're chayav. So the she'eilah on this peshat is, I mentioned it in the other shiur, this is a good teirutz for דף פ', but not for דף צ״ו. Because in דף פ', it's a Gemara, beraisa, and Rashi explains the beraita, and he gives an example of what's called a הפסק of a כרמלית between two רשות הרבים's. So he gives this example because he holds it's a כרמלית. But on דף צ״ו, who asked the question there whether the wall itself becomes a רשות היחיד? Rabbi Yochanan! How could Rashi within Rabbi Yochanan's words say that this is a כרמלית, not a רשות היחיד, when Rabbi Yochanan doesn't hold like that? I just want to add another thing. Be'emet, the Mitzpe Eitan brings another Gemara, another Rashi, which is also a קשיא לכאורה, which רש״י משמע that a קרפף is a רשות, not a רשות היחיד. Here it would be a קשיא, but Rabbi Akiva Eiger doesn't bring it. And that's Rashi in Sukkah דף מ״ג. And I'll read the Rashi, what Rashi says. Rashi says here, the Gemara says you don't blow shofar, you don't bentsch esrog if it comes out on Shabbos. Why? גזירה דרבה, שמא יעבירנו ד' אמות ברשות הרבים. You might want to learn how to do it, carry it to somebody, you might carry it ד' אמות ברשות הרבים. So רש״י made it a קשיא. Why are we only afraid you'll carry it four אמות in רשות הרבים? Why aren't we afraid you might carry it from רשות היחיד to רשות הרבים? Why עפעס דווקא העברה ד' אמות? Why aren't you הוצאה? So רש״י says, הוא הדין דמצי למימר ויצא מרשות היחיד לרשות הרבים. Gemara could have said that too. אלא שברוב המקומות וענינים אמרינן יש לחוש להעברה דארבע אמות. But we see that wherever the Gemara has a chashash of carrying, it's always ד' אמות. ואין לחוש להוצאה, not. Why? כגון, he says, אם היה מונח בכרמלית, because a lot of times You don't start off in a רשות היחיד. A lot of times when you have the shofar, or yeah, but it might not even be in a רשות היחיד. It could be in a כרמלית, אי בקרפף, אי בגינה, דאין כאן איסור הוצאה דאורייתא, ויש כאן איסור העברה ברשות הרבים. So if you're going to start off taking it from a כרמלית to the רשות הרבים, you're not over an איסור הוצאה מדאורייתא. But what would you be over if you carried ד' אמות ברשות הרבים? So Rashi, when he gives an example of a כרמלית where would you will not be over a איסור הוצאה דאורייתא, what does he say? קרפף. So see, Rashi says קרפף is not a רשות היחיד. But that, Rabbi Akiva Eiger doesn't bring that kashya, and בפשטות, I can tell you why: because Rashi doesn't say it has a wall. It's a קרפף that's without a wall. Now, the שאלה: can the word קרפף be used if it has no wall? In our Gemara, the Gemara wants to say that if it has walls, you call it קרפף, you can't call it בקעה. What did the Gemara say? עולא, מאי טעמא לא אמר? אמר לך: אי דאית ליה מחיצות, בקעה קרו ליה? קרפף היא! But it doesn't say anywhere that if it doesn't have מחיצות you can't call it קרפף. So could be Rashi just give an example of a קרפף, and he doesn't even say of a shiur of two סאה, a קרפף is like a בקעה, and that takeh is a כרמלית. From that Rashi, we don't see clearly that it's talking by a קרפף with walls. We're talking here a קרפף What? The other two Rashi's are definitely with walls because it says it's בית סאתים. It's more than בית סאתים. And that's talking there's a walls around the בית סאתים. Those kashyot are strong kashyot. But according to him, bichlal, he says, according to him, another kashya will be answered. Tosafot דיבור המתחיל אילימא asks a kashya on Rashi: when the Gemara says that when it says that כרמלית goes up to ten, the first hava amina in the Gemara is maybe it means that only if it has מחיצות ten, it's a כרמלית. And the Gemara proves that it can't be. Zogt Tosafot: how could the Gemara have such a hava amina? That if it has מחיצות ten, if Rashi says it's a קרפף which has מחיצות ten, so then it's a רשות Then it's a כרמלית. Tosafot says if it has מחיצות ten, it's a רשות היחיד! The Gemara should have asked right away: it's a רשות היחיד! So he says, according to what I'm saying, it's not a פשוט'ע קשיא, not everyone agrees it's a רשות היחיד. That's why the Gemara doesn't ask it. But anyway, his pshat is a shvere pshat for this reason: because if he says that Rashi disagrees with Rabbi Yochanan, and he paskent like the Yerushalmi, how could he say it in דף צ\"ט when he's explaining Rabbi Yochanan? Then there's another peshat that's said by the Shpat Emet in our Gemara, the Chasam Sofer on the other Gemara's, says an interesting peshat. He says there are two case, two kinds: if a קרפף a קרפף means it's שלא הוקף לדירה, when you made the walls, it wasn't made to live. It wasn't like you had a house and then you made the walls around a big, big yard. If you have the house lechatchila and you made a yard, that's a רשות היחיד, no כרמלית, nothing, no chumrot. What happens if you make an empty space not to live in? And that's how it stays. It's a קרפף without a house. That is a כרמלית, and that's not a רשות היחיד. If you have a קרפף that's made with walls not for a house, then you added a house after you made the walls, that's when Rabbi Yochanan says that it becomes a רשות היחיד. So it's not a taut that every time there's a קרפף יותר מבית סאתים is a רשות היחיד. And it looks like it fits to Rashi's words, because Rashi says here, what's this קרפף that's a רשות היחיד? היקפו יותר מ... ולא הוקף לדירה, it's not and רש\"י adds: שאין בית סמוך לו קודם היקף. The house wasn't made before you made the walls in the yard. Obviously, it means, but that it was made later. So when does Rabbi Yochanan say this din? If you made a קרפף, and it's not a כרמלית It's not a רשות היחיד. Then you open then you made a house there. Now you turned it into a רשות היחיד. But it didn't lose the chumra of a כרמלית from before. If you didn't add the house to it, it's not the פשט הוקף קודם לדירה, הוקף בלא דירה, there's no דירה there, then it's a כרמלית. So the other places where Rashi says a קרפף is only a כרמלית, and that's why it's not a separation between because it's not a רשות היחיד, it's not a separation between רשות הרבים because it's not a רשות היחיד, that's talking when there is no house there. Sounds like a very good pshat. The sheilah is, aber, does the Alter Rebbe agree with that? Now, from the Alter Rebbe is mashma not like that, but it's not muchrach. I'll say clearly, it's not muchrach. The Alter Rebbe, סימן שנ\"ח, סעיף ז', that's where he talks about a קרפף. So first he starts off like this: in סעיף ו he speaks about a קרפף. That if you made a קרפף, but if that the קרפף was built, the wall around the empty space was built in connection to a דירה, to a house, so full-fledged רשות היחיד, there's no shaychus. לפיכך אם הקיפו מחיצות ואחר כך בנה בו דירה, if there were מחיצות around the empty space and then you added a house to it, או שפתח לו פתח מביתו, or then you opened a door from your house to it, lo ho'il klum. So it doesn't do anything. From Rashi's lashon it's mashma that if you add a house later versus there was no house before is the same thing. Now it's not a real hechreach in Rashi in the Alter Rebbe because lemaaseh what is takeh the din, according to the Sfas Emes, according to Chasam Sofer, what is the difference if you added a house or you didn't add? Before you added a house it was only a כרמלית. What's the din by a כרמלית? You can't carry from a רשות הרבים into it. You can't carry ד' אמות in the כרמלית, you can't. You can't do anything anyway. When you added a house, you also can't. What's the difference? Now it becomes not a דרבנן, now it's a דאורייתא. Now if you carry in from the רשות הרבים into it you're חייב מן התורה, what are you חייב? A חטאת. Nowadays there's no חטאת. Lemaaseh there is no difference because we can't do an איסור דרבנן either. מאי נפקא מינה איסור דאורייתא, איסור דרבנן? So in Gemara's time there was a difference; this was חייב חטאת, this is not. Lemaaseh for us, לא הועיל כלום, it didn't do anything. So could be the Alter Rebbe means that, that Lemaaseh didn't do anything. There was no house before, there was איסורים, and it was a כרמלית and you couldn't carry into it because it's a כרמלית. Now you can't carry into it because it's a רשות היחיד. Good. The לשון though is not משמע so. If you say לא הועיל כלום, if the Alter Rebbe would hold that this turns it into an איסור דאורייתא, I don't think he would write לא הועיל כלום. Yeah. If you do what? If you מפריש מעות לחטאתו like the לכשיבא משיח ברוך הבא, the Alter Rebbe in Shulchan Aruch never goes into this that in this case if you did it you have to write in your book לכשיבא משיח יביא חטאת שמנה. Could be a hundred times the Alter Rebbe could write it; he doesn't write it. So Lemaaseh, but still I don't think this is the true. I think what the Alter Rebbe says לא הועיל כלום means לא הועיל כלום, there is no difference, because it was a רשות היחיד before also. And the Alter Rebbe doesn't learn like they learn. But in that case we come in with a kashya on Rashi. So how does Rashi learn over there that it's a כרמלית, not a רשות היחיד, when here Rabbi' Yochanan says clear it's a רשות היחיד? So I want to come into another נקודה here.

If you remember once before I explained when it comes to a רשות הרבים, I explained there are two types of רשות הרבים. There is a חפצא of רשות הרבים and then there is a דינא of רשות הרבים. There are certain areas which is, this area is called a רשות הרבים. And then there are certain areas where it has a din like a רשות הרבים, and that's not... If you remember I explained the difference between מבואות המפולשים. You have these מבואות, these streets which are open on both sides to רשות הרבים, which are also רשות הרבים. And then you have סרטיא ופלטיא גדולה, you have a big square. And I tried to explain, based on the Chacham Tzvi, that a big square which has all the people, that's a חפצא של רשות הרבים, that's a רשות הרבים. The מבואות המפולשים has a דין רשות הרבים with all the dinim. If you carry from a רשות היחיד into there you're chayav a chatat because it has a דין רשות הרבים, but it's not the makom is not called a מקום רשות הרבים. What was it based on if you remember? We find by כרמלית. By כרמלית the Gemara asks, how come in the beraita it says a כרמלית, so it says ים, בקעה, איסטונית והכרמלית. And the Gemara asks, you all remember the Gemara, what is he adding with the word והכרמלית? So the Gemara answered קרן זוית הסמוכה לרשות הרבים, the corner. Comes the Baal HaMaor if you remember and asks, not he asks, he explains that the peshat is that the real כרמלית is a קרן זוית. When the rabbanan made the concept of כרמלית they only made it because of this קרן. This קרן זוית is very, very close to רשות הרבים. It's by the רשות הרבים, people walk there, ela mai it's not so convenient because you get stuck. But that's what the chachamim meant to asur. All other כרמלית he says is משום לתא דקרן זוית, because they already made a קרן זוית into a כרמלית, so they made other things into a כרמלית too. What the עומק עומק הפשט I think in that מאמר is that what is the cheftza of a כרמלית? What is a רשות דרבנן made a רשות of a כרמלית? That's קרן זוית. All the other כרמלית have a din of a כרמלית, but we can't call it a cheftza. למאי נפקא מינה? Well, certain things will be nafka mina, but אפילו not, if you remember I brought the שיחה in חלק כ״ז, where the Rebbe says גבי certain things that way it's בעצם מדאורייתא and then there is not, so even though they're both the same din and then the Rebbe says at the end, וצריך עיון למאי נפקא מינה. That was even the Rebbe said, \"I don't know nafka mina.\" And still he's מסביר by an עבד עברי, remember, and by ספירה, all these different things that the Rebbe says. So, the same thing here also. I don't know if there's nafka mina by כרמלית, whether it's a cheftza of a כרמלית, or it's a din of a כרמלית. But by רשות הרבים, there was a nafka mina, I said. Remember the nafka mina? מבואות המפולשים, if you close the gates at night, it's not a רשות הרבים, and by אסטרטיא ופלטיא, even if you close the gates, it's a רשות הרבים, because this is בעצם a רשות הרבים. Remember I explained? רשות הרבים has two גדרים. You have to have מקום של רבים, and has to belong to the רבים. אסטרטיא ופלטיא has both gedarim, so it's a real חפצא רשות הרבים, and מבואות המפולשים does not belong to the rabim, but it has הילוך הרבים. Since it has הילוך הרבים, it's a din a רשות הרבים, but not a חפצא רשות הרבים. And, therefore, there are different dinim. It's a נפקא מינה לדינא. What I really want to get to is not that. This is all hakdamah. I want to say the same thing is by רשות היחיד. There are two gedarim in רשות היחיד. There is a place which is a cheftza of רשות היחיד, and there is a place which is a דין רשות היחיד. A place where there is a cheftza this heiß, this makom, this object, this area is a רשות היחיד בעצם, and then there it's not a רשות היחיד, but you can't carry into it, and if you carry, the person will be chayav. If you want to use the real classical words, is it the din in the cheftza or din in the gavra? Is it mitzad the cheftza of the place? Why are you chayav? Because you went and you carry into רשות היחיד, or it's a din on the gavra, if you carry into this area, you will be chayav?

This could be meyushav on something that Rabbi Chaim Brisker writes in the Rambam, in on the Rambam in Hilchot Shabbat, let's see the הלכה, פרק י״ד הלכה א׳, where the he asks a kashya on the Rambam, whatever, but he explains a Tosafot on דף ח׳. And I will go into that Tosafot now, even though it's going to take a shtikel while, but it's going to be anyway a good hakdamah to when you get to דף ח׳, because we're going to learn soon kuveret, and that's a hard sugya. This whole דף is known as a hard sugya in Shabbos, it's the sugya of כוורת, דף ח׳ עמוד א׳. I don't mean to scare you, but I do mean to scare you. I mean, you should get ready for it. And there there is a machloket in Tosafos, דיבור המתחיל ורחבה, is a machloket between Tosafos, and seems like Rashi and Tosafos learn the same thing here, against the Rabbeinu Chananel. The Gemara there says, if you take a, and I'm that's why I'm going to explain the detail, so you should be ready for the Gemara. So, everybody could listen, even not for the shiur, just to be ready for the Gemara on דף ח׳. If you throw a kuveret, if you throw a beehive, which basically you're throwing something that's round, and you throw it and it lands, and the Gemara says, if it's ten tefachim high, this kuveret is ten tefachim high, and it's six tefachim wide, from one end of this, the diameter of this circle is six tefachim, you are patur. If it's less than six, you are chayav. And Rashi explains, what's the cheshbon here? Because in order in order to be a רשות היחיד, it has to be four by four. In order to be four by four within a circle, what does the diameter of the circle have to be? It's a little bit math. If you have If you want to have a square of four by four, the אלכסון coming from one corner to the other, how big is that? If it's four by four from here to here, from here to here, how much is it from the corner? It's five? Five? We'll look in lashon of רש״י, כל טפח בריבוע טפח ותרי חומשי באלכסונא, and two fifths. So, it's one and two fifths. So, if you want to have four by four and you're talking about a circle, in order to have a a square into that in that circle, this the the from one corner to the other has to be five, and since you need four, and each one is 1 + 2/5, so if you have four, you add 2/5 more. So, how many fifths do you have more? Each tefach needs 2/5 of a tefach in the diagonal. So, if each tefach needs 2/5, how much is four tefachim? 8/5. How much is 8/5? Now you have calculators, Eight-fifths is one and three-fifths. So you have four and one makes it five, so it's five and three-fifths. So the circle, the diameter of the circle has to be five and three-fifths. Why does the Gemara say six? Okay, let me just finish the pshat and therefore if it has the shiur of four by four and you throw it, so Rashi says that's why you're patur because you threw a רשות. You didn't throw an object. Since this object is ten tefachim high and it has the shiur, inside the circle it's a square of a shiur of ד׳ על ד׳, so when you threw it, what did you throw? a reshut. Throwing a reshut you're patur. You're only chayav if you throw an object. That's why you're patur. Tosafot says a different reason because when you threw it and it landed, it landed from a reshut hayachid to a reshut hayachid. Fine. But we're not getting into that point at this moment. So the question is: Why does the Gemara say you're patur only if it's six? You should be patur if it's only five and three-fifths. Already you should be patur, it's already ד׳ על ד׳. So Rashi says: You're right. אביי לא דק. Abaye wasn't medayek. He mentioned six to be machmir on you, to be more, you should be more careful. But really when is it really patur? If you throw five and three-fifths, you're already patur because already it's ד׳ על ד׳, so it's already a reshut and if you throw reshut, you're patur. That's what Rashi says and Tosafot quotes Rashi and agrees with Rashi. Tosafot says Rabbeinu Chananel has a different peshat. So Rabbeinu Chananel says: The walls of the כוורת are a tefach. What we need in order to be a reshut hayachid, it has to be hollow. The area inside the walls has to be four by four. So by a circle how much has to be the diameter inside to be four? Five and three-fifths. Now if you're going to count the walls, each the wall is a tefach, so you have it on both sides. So what makes it into a reshut hayachid? If the כוורת is six. So he says exactly six, has to be six. Because why? Because in order for this to be a reshut hayachid, you can't have from end to end, from the beginning of the wall to the other side of the wall, five and three-fifths, because then you won't have hollow five and three-fifths. And to be a reshut hayachid, it has to be hollow five and three-fifths, u-vemela, you have to have six. Why can't the wall be less? A כוורת usually is a tefach. If it's thin then it's less. Just a tefach. A fifth of a tefach. I said a tefach, I meant a fifth. Yeah, one, I meant one-fifth. Yeah, I meant one, not a tefach. A fifth of a tefach is each wall, I'm sorry, a fifth of a tefach is each wall. Yeah, a fifth of a tefach, so you have inside the minimum that you could have to be four by four is five and three-fifths plus a fifth here and a fifth there, that's why you need six. זאגט Tosafos: I don't like, ואין נראה לפרש רבינו חננאל. It's not true because the walls are part of the reshus. Which Tosafos is this? The first רחבה. The first רחבה. So at the end ואין נראה לפרש רבינו חננאל. דעובי חוליית הבור מצטרף נמי לכל הבור לארבעה. The wall itself is part of the reshus. משום דחזי למנח עלה מידי לאשתמושי כדגמרא that what could be, since if you want to put a board on top of it, let's say you have an area which is four by four, let's say a square four by four but including the walls. The hollow is not that. You could take a board, put it on top and on top you're going to have a whole reshus of from end to end four by four, so inside is also considered a reshus. So he argues on the Rabbeinu Chananel. So again, the Tosafos learns that we don't need hollow four by four, you could count the walls as part of the four by four. The Rabbeinu Chananel says that you have to have inside has to be four by four, not outside. What's the Rabbeinu Chananel going to do with Tosafos's kashya when he quotes a Gemara where it says that since you could put a board on top and it'll be straight from end to end a whole flat straight area of four, so then the whole thing is considered four by four? So Rav Chaim answers that Rabbeinu Chananel will say: You're right. On top, taka it's a reshus hayachid. If you would put something on top, it'll be a reshus hayachid, but inside is not a reshus hayachid. Who says this? Rav Chaim. Rav Chaim Brisker in Chiddushei Rav Chaim Halevi on the Rambam. So here we have a machloket between Tosafos and the Rabbeinu Chananel. Tosafos learns that since on top you could make a ד׳ על ד׳, so the whole thing inside is also ד׳ על ד׳. and it's all a reshus hayachid and the Rabbeinu Chananel says no, on top will be reshus hayachid inside not. This sevara of their machloket בפשטות could be based on what we spoke yesterday on תוספות ואם חקק בו ד׳ על ד׳. What is there the case? The Gemara says on דף ז׳ עמוד ב׳ that if you have a house, a room, which inside from the floor to the ceiling is nine tefachim only. The ceiling itself takes up a tefach. So inside is not a reshut hayachid because the ceiling because there is only a space inside of nine. So what's the etzah? Inside on the floor you dig a four by four area of a טפח, so from the floor the new floor the lower floor till the ceiling will be ten. So the whole thing becomes now a reshut hayachid. פרעגט תוספות א קשיא, we have a similar din by sukkah. By sukkah it says like this, if you have a sukkah that's not ten, and the sukkah has to be ten טפחים from the top to the bottom. You should dig a hole in the floor and a טפח and now you'll have ten. But there the din is that it becomes a סוכה א כשר סוכה if there is not more than three טפחים from the hole inside to the wall. Then we say the whole sukkah is called ten. But if but in our Gemara by Shabbos it doesn't say that. By Shabbos all you have to do is the room like this and this is only nine, some place in the middle make a four by four square of a hole and it could be a lot from the walls, the whole thing becomes a reshut hayachid. What's the difference? And Tosafos answers and I'm not going to go into but the nekudah of Tosafos's answer is as I explained yesterday. By sukkah there is a din of a wall. You have to have a מחיצה, there's a דין מחיצה. And the דין מחיצה, so if it's less than three in between, so the wall by the side of the hole plus this nine is connected. It's לבוד you have one ten. But if it's further there's no צירוף, you don't connect them and therefore you don't have a wall. And the wall has to be there because it has to be סמוך לסכך. Tosafos doesn't פירש what about Shabbos but Tosafos in sukkah does פירש and Tosafos says אבל Shabbos the whole דין מחיצה is מניעה למנוע את רגל הרבים, it's only to take away the רגל הרבים which means in simple words by Shabbos there's no דין מחיצה. There's no דין מחיצה that you have to have a מחיצה. It just that to explain what does it mean? It means like this. You could have is the מחיצה the reason what makes it into reshut hayachid or into whatever you make it on the Sukkah? Or that's only a siman? In other words by Shabbos whatever is used for a יחיד is a רשות היחיד. You have to have a siman where it ends or where it is. But it's not that the wall makes the רשות. While by Sukkah the wall makes the Sukkah. Which means in other words the wall by Sukkah is a chiyuv, which means it's a positive thing. The wall by Shabbos is a שלילה. But the wall by Sukkah you must have a wall to be a Sukkah. That's a din. Shtelt a vant, walls there are no Sukkah. Shabbos if you don't have walls it's not it's not a רשות היחיד. There not only if you don't have it's not a Sukkah, it's a din to make a Sukkah you have to have walls and there is a difference. In which you cannot have no walls. By Shabbos the vort iz you cannot have without walls. But here you must have walls. So על דרך the famous chakirah which I mentioned many times the Rebbe brought many times from the Rogatchover. בנוגע you have to eat קדשים inside Yerushalayim. בתוך החומה inside the walls. So he asks a she'eilah, is it a din that you must eat it inside the walls or is it a din you're not allowed to eat it outside the walls? Lemai nafka mina? If the walls are thick and it's in between there's an opening in the wall and you're standing in middle. If you have to eat it בתוך החומה inside you're not yotzei because you didn't eat it inside. If you're not allowed to eat it outside, לפועל this is not outside. So the same thing here is it a chiyuv or is it a שלילה? Must you or must you have walls or you're not allowed to have it without walls? ובמילא א? דאס איז די נפקא מינה נו? Whether it has to be ג׳ טפחים close or not. If you have to have a wall which is by Sukkah, so since the wall is only nine you don't have a wall. You have to be מצטרף these two so it has to be within three then it's lavud. By Shabbos there's no din of a wall. Just you need to have it shouldn't be not. So there you don't have to have it should be together. This is Tosafos. Tosafos Yeshanim gives a different teretz. Tosafos Yeshanim says you know what the chiluk is? between Sukkah and Shabbos is, the case of Shabbos you have ten טפחים outside. You don't have it inside, but you have it outside. You have because we said that it's nine חלל, the ceiling takes up a טפח. So if you look from the outside, you have ten טפחים. Over there, even outside you only have nine. So when you have only nine outside, so you have no wall to begin with. So what do you have to do? You have to make up a wall. That has to be within three. Here you don't have to make up a wall, the wall is there already, cuz outside. Ela mai, it's not enough. To be משלים what it's missing, you have to have inside the four טפחים, and therefore you don't have to have it close ג'. The fact that Tosafos Yeshanim does not answer the same teretz as Tosafos, and Tosafos is a ראיה Tosafos Yeshanim does not agree with the Tosafos like Tosafos סברא. Tosafos said that Shabbos, there's no דין מחיצה. It's a שלילה, it's not a chiyuv. Tosafos Yeshanim doesn't learn like that. Tosafos Yeshanim, no, it's a chiyuv, you have to have a wall. And since you have a part of the wall outside already, so to finish it finish it off, it's enough inside. But obviously we have a machloket here. Is the wall by Shabbos a דין מחיצה that you have to have, or is it a שלילה that you don't have to have? Based on this machloket you could say is the other machloket, whether it's enough if it's inside ten. Tosafos learns that you don't need the wall a din wall. The wall is למנוע הרבים. So you know what it is? So the outside is enough to be considered together, only in the width, not in the height. In the height Tosafos speaks about why in the height is different. But why is it enough? Tosafos learns that if you have walls, and the walls are thick, and inside the hollow part is not four by four, but together with the thickness of the wall it is, Tosafos says that's called a רשות היחיד. Why? Cuz the whole purpose of the wall is למנוע הרבים. The whole purpose of the wall is that out- to separate between the רשות הרבים. So it's enough if it if from the outside to the outside it's four, it's good enough. If you learn that there's a דין of a wall, that the wall makes up the רשות, that the wall makes the רשות, the רשות is inside, so there you have to have four by four inside. In other words, I'll say another word which will make it even clearer. You know what the real machloket is really תלוי? In another vort. When we speak about a רשות היחיד, is the floor the רשות היחיד and everything on top is אויר רשות היחיד, or the whole אויר that's רשות היחיד, not the floor? If the אויר רשות היחיד and not the floor, then there is no מקום מסוים, you have to have walls to to to make it. If the floor is the רשות היחיד, you don't have to have walls, this area is an area, then it's a סימן how far the area goes. So it comes out like this, that if you hold that you need walls, if you need walls then you have- and means that the רשות היחיד is the אויר, you have to have אויר full אויר. If you hold that the vort is the רשות היחיד is the the floor, and this is just on top, if the floor is רשות היחיד, then the floor is there, and the outside of the wall is enough to separate למנוע רגל הרבים. So I want to just explains, all I'm saying here now is that this explains the machloket between Tosafot and the Tosafot Yeshanim, and the Tosafot and the Rabbenu Chananel. So that's why Tosafot learns that we do count the walls, and if you have from end of the wall to the end of the wall ד' על ד', even though the hollow part is not, it's a רשות היחיד. And the Rabbenu Chananel learns it's not a רשות היחיד unless there's a hollow part, because of this. What I really want to come to a conclusion and say a different vort, based בהמשך, that even the Rabbenu Chananel doesn't hold that inside, in the case where it's not hollow ד' על ד', that inside should not have a דין of a רשות היחיד. If you would carry in from the רשות הרבים into that area, which is not ד' על ד', but together with the walls it's ד' על ד', he would also say you were חייב. What he says is it's not a חפצא of רשות היחיד. Since I came to a expl- explanation that there are two types of רשות היחיד: there's a חפצא, this is a רשות היחיד, and then there is something which has a דין of a רשות היחיד. This is really the מחלוקת Tosafos and the Rabbeinu Chananel. Tosafos learns that if it has ד' על ד' including the walls, this is a full-fledged חפצא ד... This מקום is a רשות היחיד. The Rabbeinu Chananel says this is not, on top will be, but the object whole thing itself is not a חפצא of a רשות היחיד. But it would be חייב.

What's נוגע to this Gemara over there, it's a big מחלוקת. Because over there, the reason you're פטור according to Rashi, because you threw a רשות. If it's not a חפצא of a רשות היחיד, you didn't throw a רשות. This is a place where if you would carry, you would be חייב, but the area is not called a רשות היחיד. So, in other לגבי other דינים, whether you carry inside you're חייב or not, Rabbeinu Chananel say you're חייב. In this case, it would not be enough to make you פטור, because why are you פטור? Rashi says, because when you throw this כוורת, which is four by four, you threw a רשות היחיד. Zogt der Rabbeinu Chananel, if it's not hollow ד' by ד', you didn't throw a רשות היחיד. איי, you're saying himself he could be מודה that this is a דין רשות היחיד, but לגבי this din, it's not a חפצא רשות היחיד. And even the way we learn according to תוספות, that the reason you're פטור over there, because when it lands, it's landing in a רשות היחיד, if it's not a חפצא of a רשות היחיד, it didn't land in it's not considered landing in a רשות היחיד. So, bottom line, what it comes out from here, all I'm trying to get really is, this is just a hakdamah to the next Gemara, is that there are two things: there is a real רשות היחיד which is called a חפצא of רשות היחיד, and then there is the din of a רשות היחיד. If we say it לגבי here, and you'll be hearing more about this not now, but that I think in certain situations חורי רשות היחיד are also not חפצא רשות היחיד, even though it's a רשות היחיד. The Gemara also on דף ז' עמוד ב' where we're all learning now, a hole in the wall in the רשות היחיד has a din of רשות היחיד, but it's not a רשות היחיד, not always is it a רשות היחיד. It could be it's a דין רשות היחיד, but not a חפצא רשות היחיד. But al kol panim, there are these two things. What I want to really say is this: that a קרפף יותר מבית סאתים שלא הוקף לדירה, which which Rabbi Yochanan says is a real רשות היחיד, אלא מאי? דחכמים דאחמירו בכרמלית. That is not a חפצא of a רשות היחיד. It has a din of a רשות היחיד. Why? Because it's לא הוקף לדירה. One of the things in רשות היחיד which makes a חפצא is it has the walls, and it has the shiur. There are two things: there's a שיעור רשות היחיד. What's a רשות היחיד? There's shiurim! I call the shiurim, if it has walls ten high, ד' על ד', there's a שיעור רשות היחיד. Then there is also the תוכן of the רשות היחיד. What's the תוכן of the רשות היחיד? תשמיש היחיד. Since this is not made לדירה, it's not really the תשמיש of a רשות היחיד because it's not דירה. Ha? You can, but it's not made for that. It's לא הוקף לדירה. What do you mean you can't? Not to carry, but you could use it. Now carry, that's a חומרא. Now we'll say why did the Chachamim make it into a כרמלית? I'm saying what's missing here? What is missing in this רשות היחיד? What's missing is מדאורייתא, it's a רשות היחיד מדאורייתא. But even מדאורייתא it's not a real רשות היחיד. Why? Because it's not made לדירה, so it's missing one of the conditions of רשות היחיד. But nevertheless, since it has the shiurim, it has a a a a din of a רשות היחיד. But it's not a real רשות היחיד. It's not a חפצא of a רשות היחיד. Ha? It has a חפצא רשות היחיד also? That's just because we don't need more, because even if you just have the walls. Ha? Oh, but it's תשמיש, נו. It's תשמיש, people use it. You can use inside, you can put things inside. Okay, because people use it to to משמש like you Okay, that's another, we have to go into another that's that's what's noge'a to Tosafot. Is the משתמש דבני רשות היחיד ובני רשות הרבים, and that's going to be noge'a to that second half of Tosafot. So I didn't go into this, this we'll get into that Tosafot. So if so maybe we could say this: that a קרפף יותר מבית סאתים with the walls around it, which Rabbi Yochanan says הזורק לתוכו חייב, is not a real רשות היחיד. It's a דין רשות היחיד. Which maybe this is the reason why Rabbi Yochanan uses an interesting lashon. If I'd be Rabbi Yochanan, I would say קרפף יותר מבית סאתים שלא הוקף לדירה הרי הוא רשות היחיד. Why does he pick הזורק לתוכו חייב? If you throw inside, you're חייב. And I don't mean to ask why does he say הזורק, one of the bachurim asked why does it say throwing, why doesn't say carrying? It's a good she'eilah, why throwing? But I'm not asking throwing or carrying. Why doesn't he say general din, this is a רשות היחיד, finished? He wants to tell you it's not a רשות היחיד. Lema'aseh, if you throw in, you're חייב. הזורק לתוכו חייב. But it's not a real not a חפצא רשות היחיד. What do we gain by saying that? Lichorah, this could answer the קשיות on Rashi. The קשיות on Rashi were from these two places, on דף פ׳ and דף צ״ט. What's on דף פ׳? The Gemara over there said that if you carry a חצי גרוגרת in one רשות הרבים, and then another חצי גרוגרת in another רשות הרבים, so if there is a הפסק of a כרמלית, it's called one. It's not a הפסק. If it's a הפסק of רשות היחיד, that's called a הפסק and it makes it into two separate מלאכות. You could say: when is it called a הפסק? If the place that's מפסיק is a רשות היחיד. If the place that's מפסיק is not a רשות היחיד, אלא מאי the גברא, the person who will carry will be חייב, that's not called a הפסק. We're talking here a din in the place. Now we're not talking, we're talking pashut what kind of place it is. Is this the same place as this? You have two רשות הרבים's, but there is in middle a הפסק. Are these two the same place? When is it מפסיק? If the place that's מפסיק is a רשות היחיד. That has to be a חפצא של רשות היחיד. If the place that's מפסיק is a place where if you would put into it you would be חייב, that's not called a הפסק. And that's why Rashi over there gives an example of כרמלית. Not that Rashi holds that if you have a קרפף, it's called a כרמלית and not a רשות היחיד. It's not a חפצא של רשות היחיד. Let's look in the in the לשון of Rashi. And that's why the Gemara also says the לשון here, והוא שיש חיוב חטאת ביניהם. Meaning, the place is a place called חיוב חטאת, not a place שהאדם חייב חטאת על זה. This is a place, a קרפף you'd be חייב חטאת, but the מקום is not called a מקום של חיוב חטאת. And I'll tell you in simple words: a place which is a חפצא של רשות היחיד, that place is a place which carries a חיוב חטאת. A place which is not a חפצא של רשות היחיד, you know when the חיוב חטאת starts having a שייכות? When the guy does it! As long as no one does it, there's no חיוב חטאת here. And that's what the Gemara means: if you have a מקום של חיוב חטאת. And Rashi says, what does that mean? והוא שיש חיוב חטאת ביניהם, שמופסקת ברשות היחיד. It's מופסק with a רשות היחיד. אבל אם היה כרמלית מפסיקן, if it's a כרמלית, not a רשות היחיד, even though you might be חייב, כגון קרפף יותר מבית סאתים, a בקעה, even a קרפף יותר מבית סאתים is also, it's a רשות היחיד in דין, but not a חפצא. And therefore here, it's enough that if it's מפסיק, it's not called a real הפסק, because the רשות is not a רשות היחיד. It's like a, it has a דין of a רשות היחיד. That's בנוגע דף פ׳. And when you go to דף צ״ט, what there the Gemara also, what does the Gemara want to say there? The shaila is, if you have the walls, and the wall itself is a כרמלית, but it makes the area into a רשות היחיד. So Rashi says, when is it making it into a רשות היחיד? If it's not בית סאתים. Which means Rashi learns if it would be bigger than בית סאתים, it wouldn't make the place into a רשות היחיד. אי, even more than בית סאתים is a רשות היחיד? There it's נוגע to the shaila whether, the לשון of the Gemara is לעצמו, לאחריני עביד מחיצה, לעצמו לא כל שכן? It's a din of making it into a מחיצה. If it's not a makom which is a חפצא של רשות היחיד, it doesn't make it into a מחיצה. It's not making the place, it's making the din, not the place. The whole svara in the Gemara is since it makes the place into a רשות היחיד, so mimela it also has a din of a רשות היחיד. If we're saying if it's more than בית סאתים, it's not making the place into a רשות היחיד. The place, even though we're saying if you're throwing you're chayav, but it doesn't mean the place is a רשות היחיד. We call it a רשות היחיד because all the dinim will apply. But you're not using the מחיצה to make a רשות היחיד, because it's a din on the גברא now, but not on the חפצא. Umimela here also Rashi could give an, say that if it's more than בית סאתים, it takeh is not, it's not called making it into a reshut hayachid. אי, what do you mean more than בית סאתים, if it has walls it's still a reshut hayachid? Yes, there's a din of reshut hayachid, but it's not a reshut hayachid. Umemela, that's how you could answer Rashi. So you answer the, we answer the kushya from the Rabbi Akiva Eiger, that these two places, it's all based on one נקודה. The whole אריכות I gave with the כוורת, with all this, is just to bring out where we could apply this also, besides other places, חורבה רשות היחיד, this concept of a chiluk between real רשות היחיד, cheftza or not. It's not going to be only here, it's going to be בנוגע חורבה רשות היחיד, and I'm going to explain it also b'noge'a later on the Gemara רקק. I have this gang, that there are two גדרים in reshut hayachid, and it's noge'a to many halachot. But, and that's the basic thing I try to bring out here, umemela I want to apply it to the case of קרפף also. קרפף is not a reshut hayachid, even though it has a din of a reshut hayachid. Reshut hayachid. Umemela, you could answer that in these two places, it's only if it has a cheftza of a reshut hayachid. I just want to add, since there's another minute here, that we said b'noge'a a כרמלית it's the same thing, right? Farkert, כרמלית is the whole מקור to this whole idea, that the Baal Hamaor says that a כרמלית a קרן זוית is the כרמלית, and everything else is not a real כרמלית. So, I want to say based on this, we could answer a kushya in Rashi. Not kushya, pshat in Rashi. Rashi by כוורת, which is נוגע again to the Gemara כוורת, and Rashi says why if it's ten and four and you throw it, you're patur, because you threw a reshut. And you're not chayav for throwing a reshut, you're chayav for throwing an object. פרעגט Rashi, \"And if it's less than four by four? I mean if less than ten, I mean, it's also a reshut! It's a karmelit!\" So, throwing a karmelit, that's what Rashi asks, \"ואם תימא בדלית גביה נמי רשות לעצמו דהא שמו כרמלית היא?\" And Rashi answers, \"No, ההיא לאו מדאורייתא הוה רשות.\" It's not a real רשות מדאורייתא, only derabbanan. What's the hava amina of Rashi? What's the maskana? Rashi didn't know it's only derabbanan? Rashi thought deoraita it's a karmelit? Everyone knows a karmelit is not. So, wants to explain different, you could say all kinds of sevarot here. One sevara you could say, there's a concept called קנין דרבנן מהני לדאורייתא. If the rabbanan made it into the reshut, the hava amina was maybe it becomes a רשות מדאורייתא. And Rashi answers no. Or you could say the hava amina was, we have a she'ela whether the rabbanan has an השפעה on the chafsa, know the famous, the Rebbe with the Alter Rebbe with Tanya with this. I want to say something else now. The hava amina of Tosafot- of Rashi was that every כרמלית is a רשות is a חפצא of a כרמלית. That's what we learned. So Rashi asks, Rashi knew it's דרבנן, but a רשות דרבנן is also a רשות, became a רשות! So Rashi asks, if you throw a כרמלית, you should also be פטור because you're throwing a רשות! And the answer of Rashi is this is not a real רשות. When is a real רשות of a כרמלית? Only, only קרן זוית. Every other כרמלית, like this thing which is less than ten, not ten high, it's a כרמלית, but it's not a רשות כרמלית. It's not a it's not a חפצא of a כרמלית. Not a חפצא of a כרמלית, that's why in this case, you are חייב. It'll work out. Square root of 32. The diagonal of four of a 4x4 would be the square root of 32, which is which is which is more than 5.6. It's 5. ... A drop. 5.65.