In Tosafot, he went למסקנא דאמרינן קלוטה כמי שהונחה. Okay, genug genug. תוספות במסקנא דאמרינן, so Tosafot in the second tirutz nu, the second tirutz Tosafot said that קלוטה כמי שהונחה is a setirah to ילפינן זורק ממושיט. If you hold ילפינן זורק ממושיט, that means if you throw it from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד going through רשות הרבים למעלה מיו״ד, you're חייב. Just like מושיט from רשות היחיד to רשות היחיד going over רשות הרבים למעלה מיו״ד you're חייב, so ילפינן זורק ממושיט, you're also חייב if you throw it. But then you can't hold קלוטה כמי שהונחה. Why not? Because if you say קלוטה כמי שהונחה, that means when it was flying over it has הנחה במקום פטור, so you can't be חייב. So obviously you do not hold, if you say ילפינן זורק ממושיט, you cannot hold קלוטה כמי שהונחה. Tosafot Yeshanim, as we spoke about Tuesday in the shiur klali, holds that it's not you don't say it there. But then there's the Ramban, the Ramban which I mentioned also, which the Ramban says that למעלה מיו״ד we do not say קלוטה כמי שהונחה. And it seems from Rashi like that also. Rashi doesn't say it clearly, but Rashi says that אפילו קלוטה לית, there is no קלוטה למעלה מיו״ד. So we spoke about it, let's speak about it from a different angle a little bit. Bepashtut, the machloket between the Ramban and Tosafot—again You going to the shiur? Yeah. Oh, good, good. The Ramban and Tosafos argue, the Tosafos holds למעלה מיו״ד we say קלוטה, it's possible we can't say קלוטה, no, the Ramban says we cannot say קלוטה למעלה מיו״ד, and Tosafos says that we can. So, if you look in the lashon of the Ramban, the lashon of the Ramban is why don't we say קלוטה למעלה מיו״ד? Because it's a separate רשות. That's the lashon he uses. למעלה מיו״ד is a separate רשות, and it's not connected to the ground. That's the word he uses. And it's not connected to the ground. That's the reason why? Which, that's why we cannot say קלוטה there.

So I want to explain what what b'pashtut it means. The Ramban seems to be learning קלוטה means when something is flying, why do we say קלוטה? Because we consider it as if it's laying on the ground. And if it would come on the ground, we'd be laying on the ground, so anything that's, let's call it רואה פני הקרקע, if it looks and it sees the ground, that's why we say קלוטה. Therefore, if it's higher than יו״ד, higher than יו״ד is not connected to the ground, because the connection to the ground is the רשות הרבים, this is not, so there is no דין קלוטה. In other words, he holds not that קלוטה in a מקום פטור is patur, like Tosafos would say, there's no קלוטה! Because the whole מושג of קלוטה, he has a new pshat. It's not the two pshatim which I said in קלוטה in that שיעור כללי. Comes out that it's connected to because קלוטה, why do we say קלוטה? Because it's atop of the ground. Over there it's not on top of the ground. Because it sees the ground? Because it's on top of the ground, which it sees, it's facing the ground, therefore it's as if it's there. But that's only in an area which is connected to the ground. What area is connected to the ground? Till יו״ד טפחים. למעלה מיו״ד טפחים, not. Lefi zeh, what does Tosafos learn? Tosafos קלוטה is not because it's connected to the ground. קלוטה is a din in itself, that when it's flying in the air, whichever explanation we'll give, it's flying in the air, it's כאילו it's נקלט, כאילו it's grabbed there and stopped. Not because of the ground. If that's the reason, so what difference does it make if it's in י', למעלה מי'? If the logic, whatever the logic shall be, but if it's flying, we look at it as if it stopped. So here, it stopped in רשות הרבים, if it's למטה מי'. If it's למעלה מי', it stopped in מקום פטור, but it stopped. That's how it seems the peshat. But does it always stop? Yeah, it's that's - it's called a stop. That's like פשט, קלוטה כמי שהונחה, קלוטה באוויר, going through the air is as if it stopped there. So wherever you do it, you - wherever it went, it stopped. If it's למטה מי', it's רשות הרבים, if it's למעלה מי' it's מקום פטור, but it stopped. While the Ramban learns it has to do with the קרקע. And I want to explain a little bit the omek of what this means. There is a she'eilah or חקירה וואס you could קלער. When we talk about רשות הרבים and רשות הרבים עולה עד י', עד עשרה, what is the peshat here? It sounds a little bit, you know, it's all the same. Is the peshat the ground is the רשות הרבים? This is the אוויר רשות הרבים? And we constantly Rashi uses the לשון a lot of times that till י' is אוויר רשות הרבים, is the air of the רשות הרבים. So you can say like this: be'emet the רשות הרבים is the floor. Anything till here is the אוויר on top of the רשות הרבים. But אוויר on top of the רשות הרבים is like רשות הרבים. Or you could say the אוויר is this - this is the רשות הרבים. רשות הרבים is this אוויר. This is the רשות הרבים. According to the first way that the אוויר is this is אוויר רשות הרבים but the bottom - the רשות הרבים really is the קרקע. You have a floor outside which ever what and it has the qualifications of a רשות הרבים, that it's 16 amah wide, whatever the quick qualifications are. The floor is the רשות הרבים. Anything laying on the floor is laying on top of the רשות הרבים. And that din of this avir is also on top of the רשות הרבים so it has a din of the same רשות הרבים. According to the second way, lechatchilah, this is רשות הרבים. The floor is not the רשות הרבים. But when something lays on the floor, why are you chayav? Because it's sticking out from the floor, so it's in the רשות הרבים. So it comes out like this: to say the pshat of kelutah according to this.

According to the first way that the - according to the first way that the ikar is the karka, it would seem that when we say till ten is אוויר רשות הרבים, it's similar to the din of lavud. What does lavud mean? Lavud is anything that's within three tefachim of the ground. It's as if it's laying on the ground. That's the din. Where do we take the din lavud? Where - where do we have the idea, where do we - with the egg? Halachah leMoshe miSinai, exactly. It doesn't - no pasuk. We know כל השיעורים, all the shiurim of kezayit and kebeitzah and revi'it and lavud and all these dinim are all halachah leMoshe miSinai. So the fact that anything within three tefachim is called laying, halachah leMoshe miSinai. Similar to that is a din of up to ten tefachim. That up to ten tefachim is like lavud. So just like if something would be laying within three tefachim, Tosafot in אילן talks about it, Gemara later, it's as if it's laying on the floor. Why? That's the din of lavud, that within three tefachim is considered as if it's there. Mashal by a Sukkah where he said if you have lavud, two pieces, and with - there is less than three tefachim in between, what's the din? It's considered as it's closed. That's what they say a story that once a guy made a Sukkah, a למדישע סוכה, full of holes, but it was kasher because it was always less than three, and he went to sleep in the Sukkah at night, he put on his watch and at night a ganav came and stole his watch, stuck his hand in and stole his watch. The ganav was an am ha'aretz. He didn't know the din of lavud. Had he known that it's lavud, he how could he - he wouldn't have stuck his hand in because it's really closed. But that's the din, that there's a din of lavud. So anything as there is closed. Anything that's next to the floor three tefachim is the floor. So there's a new din that anything within ten tefachim is like the floor. That's the teitch of קלוטה according to this peshat, that קלוטה means that it's connected to the floor just that the whole metziut of the ten amah - ten tefachim is - it's ten tefachim of the floor. The other way that we say that it's not because of the floor. The floor is nothing. What's the What's the reshut harabim? 10 tefachim, the אויר, that is the reshut harabim. So here you can't say the reason why if it's coming in the middle of the air is because of the floor. Is because of the floor? Because it's on the floor? No, because it's within 10 tefachim, which is within reshut harabim. Now, the difference between the two ways would be according to the first way, if it's on top of the 10, can we say קלוטה or not? No. No, because the whole idea of קלוטה is that 10 tefachim of the ground is like it's the ground. On top of 10 tefachim, is not the ground. And the whole metziut of קלוטה, like a person says like this, you know, within lavud, within three tefachim, it's lavud, so four tefachim should also be lavud, makes sense? The whole din of lavud is three טפחים, that's all. The whole din din that this is on top of the רשות הרבים, that means that this is connected to the ground is up to 10, higher than 10, it's not connected. So why in the world how in the world can you say קלוטה? But if you say the second way, that it's because it's flying in the air, the air itself, and it's not laying on the ground, the air is the רשות הרבים, but it didn't stop in the רשות הרבים. Mimela the other way you say because it's close to the ground, it's as if it laid down. But here we don't say that. The second way, pashut, 10 טפחים is רשות הרבים, and it flew through the רשות הרבים. Why do we say קלוטה? Because we say קלוטה כמי שהונחה. So what's the difference if it goes through there, or it goes on top? The difference is this is רשות הרבים, so it stopped in the רשות הרבים. This is מקום פטור, it stopped in a מקום פטור. But you cannot say, this is the machloket between the Ramban and Tosafot. The Ramban says the whole din of קלוטה is connected to the ground. Why is it connected to the ground? Because the whole din of the 10 10 טפחים רשות הרבים is the ground. The whole thing, there is no such thing as this is a רשות הרבים. The ground is a רשות הרבים. This is not a רשות הרבים. This is אויר רשות הרבים. It's the אויר on top of the רשות הרבים, and anything that's on top of the רשות הרבים is connected to the רשות הרבים. So we can't make up our own דינים, it's only 10 טפחים. But the second way we're saying it's not this is the אויר. This is the רשות הרבים, so the רשות הרבים is אויר, has nothing to do with the ground. So here it's flying through the רשות הרבים, here it's flying through a מקום פטור. So they're both the same. Here you're patur, here you're chayav. But the idea of קלוטה is, yes? So then when is there ever קלוטה according to according to the opinion when it's flying through, I'm saying why do we have to say the words קלוטה כמי שהונחה when it's flying through a according to the opinion that holds that the whole space is is רשות הרבים? So what do you forget קלוטה כמי שהונחה, the second it's passing through, that's it. That's that's the teitch of קלוטה. I'm saying you don't have to stay You're you're you're saying it so good. That's what he means. According to this peshat, קלוטה כמי שהונחה means this you don't even have to come into the קלוטה, but it's just on technicality that when it goes through there, it's as if it stopped because this whole this is רשות הרבים. Okay, so according to the Ramban, you hold that According to the Ramban, he says at the bottom, the floor is the רשות הרבים. And therefore, and 10 tefachim is connected to the floor. Higher than 10 tefachim is not connected to the floor. Then you say it's מקום פטור. It's a makom, that's teitch מקום פטור. And therefore there's no קלוטה there, because the whole metziut of קלוטה is because it's coming to something that's connected to the ground. Mah she'ein ken the second way, it's not like that. Which seems to lead you to another nekudah here, to another nekudah, which is gonna, I know it's gonna be like more confusing, so it's not even kedai to Okay, let's stop this. No, it'll be a whole arichut, whatever, look at the sichot, but it's gonna be geshmak. Very geshmak. So let's do it! But it's gonna take away and we're never gonna get כאטש היינט פארטיק, whatever you call it. I'll just say the words bekitzur. When we have the מקום פטור on top of the 10 tefachim, is this מקום פטור considered, why is it a מקום פטור? Because it's on top of the 10. The 10 is, what's the problem? On top of the 10, not. Or is it a מקום פטור because it's too far from the floor? Oh, that doesn't have the koach. No, too far from the floor is not a רשות הרבים. That's the So that's connected to what I said before. So again, so basically like this, we have a floor, we have three things here. We have a floor, we have 10 tefachim, and then we have on top of 10 tefachim. This top of 10 tefachim, do we look at it that the reason why it's a מקום פטור because it's too far from the floor? Yeah, 10 tefachim of the floor is close to the floor, that's a רשות הרבים. If it's too far from the floor Is the rule that No, in this case, that's the din. The din is that because it's too far from the floor, it's מקום פטור. Or you say no, it's not because it's too far from the floor, because it's on top of the רשות הרבים. It's over it's outside of the רשות הרבים. If you say the רשות הרבים is the floor Right, and it's too So this is 10, 10 of the floor is רשות הרבים, this is too far from the floor. According to the other way, a רשות הרבים is this, it could be a hair away, so then why, it's a hair away, but that's the thing, it's outside of the gevul of the רשות הרבים. Where do I get such an idea that you could look at this third part, again, three parts: the floor, 10, higher than 10, that you look at this, is this on top of the 10, or is this on top of the floor, but too far? That's what Where do I get this from? Just to be Bekitzur. Look at the Sichot,

I remember the Rebbe said this by a Farbrengen, it's a הערה in Likutei Sichot, but the Rebbe said it. He said a לשון in Rambam, which is not נוגע שבת, נוגע בית המקדש, but a very interesting לשון. Listen to this. Places became empty. There's just more chairs today. More, no, no, but the Gemarot are still there. So anyway, let's We have in the Beit Hamikdash, we all learn Rambam, we all learn Hilchot Beit Habechirah, especially in the three weeks, so we all know the structure of the Beit Hamikdash. How was the structure of the Beit Hamikdash? You had the building, right, this is the building. Around the building, this is the עזרה, right? What was in the building? Not to spend time on the Beit Hamikdash, but it's good to know anyway. What was in the building? What? Three compartments. It was a building. There was first was the front was the אולם, היכל, קדש קדשים. What was here in front? It's called עזרה. So here you had עזרת כהנים and עזרת ישראל, the big, big, here you had עזרת נשים, right. What was around here? How was עזרת נשים, was it? No, first was עזרה, this is all the way, no, this was towards the end, and this this part had different This is the עזרה. The מזבח was right here outside. What was around here? A wall, a wall. Let me ask you: if I ask you, when you describe the Beit Hamikdash, how would you write, say it? You have in middle you have the היכל, or the whole the the the building, around the building you have the עזרה, then you have a wall around How would you say it? A wall around the עזרה. You have the building, you have the עזרה, then you have a wall around the עזרה. So the Rebbe was medayek in Rambam, the Rambam says a very strange thing: You have the building, then you have the עזרה, and then you have a wall around the building, but far away. The building is already a building. No, no, but you have this So the the Rambam considers this wall not a wall around the building, around the עזרה, it's a wall around the building, removed. That's what the עזרה is there for, it's just because it happens to be that there's space in between the building. No, עזרה had the מזבח, the עזרה had a function, it's not a חצר. Like I said, normally when you would explain this, you would say you have the building, you have the עזרה around the building, and then you have the wall around the עזרה. That's what you say, no? You have the the building here, you have the playground or whatever, you have the the yard, and around the yard you have a fence. That's, you ever say, a מאדנע זאך, you have the building, you have a yard, and around the building you have a fence 100 feet away. It's cause we leave the doors open. I'm saying, not not just saying, it's like the same thing, because those those gates are only there because we're leaving this door open. If those doors were locked, why? B'foal we have a fence around the yard, that's what it is. Anyway, the Rebbe was מדייק, and the Rebbe said that the Rambam is trying to tell us that the fence around is not a is not a גדר of the עזרה, not around the עזרה, it's around the building, ela mai, removed. What nafka mina? חילוק how you call it? That's the nafka mina, cause you're not If a person donates money to one part of the בית המקדש, you can't change it. If he donates for the היכל, you can't use it for the עזרה. Now if a person donates money for the היכל, can he use it for this wall? Yeah. So if you Rambam would write normal that this is a wall around the עזרה, and if you donated money to the היכל, you can't use it for this wall. But now that Rambam says this part of the Heichal, ela mai, it's removed from the היכל. Fine, so what we see from here, the Rebbe is מחדש עפעס א נייע ענין here that you could have three parts here. It's exactly like we have here. You have Did the Rebbe say that it's the same, the Rebbe said that it would work here too, or? No, no, no, if the Rebbe would say it, it would be good, I'd be happy, cause then it's No, I'm saying it, I'm saying based on that, that we see over there, you have three parts: you have the building, you have the part, the the area around the building, then you have an area around that. So there are two ways. Pashut pshat, the way you look at it כפשוטיה, that it's part, it's around this, around around the עזרה, and the Rambam, the way the Rebbe is מדייק, learns that it could be far away, it's still considered around this far away. So I'm using the same idea בנוגע here. You have the same three things here: you have the קרקע, you have the י' טפחים, and on top. Is this on top considered like you would say כפשוטו here that the עזר— that the wall is next to the עזרה, so the same thing here, the top is next to what? Next to the י׳ טפחים, the higher than י׳ טפחים, the area is next to י׳ טפחים. Or you could say, the way the Rebbe says over there, that the third thing is around this, ela mai it's far. The same thing here, the higher than ten טפחים is around the floor, but it's too far from the floor. So according to one way, it's connected, like we had before, it's connected to the it's higher than the ten tefach— higher than the reshus harabim. But if you learn that the ikar is the קרקע, so you have two things, both of them are are just like here, the עזרה is around the building and the wall is around the building. Here too, the קרקע is the bottom, around that קרקע, on top of that קרקע, you have two things: you have ten tefachim and then you have higher than that, it's also around the קרקע, but too far. So, it seems like Rambam holds like Ramban. I'm not saying if you hold it over there, you have to hold over here. I'm just saying the dugma, the the same logic you have over there you have here. It doesn't mean that's that's the way one there you have to hold it like that, but it fits. The logic that he says there fits there to the Ramban. Okay, let's go weiter. Huh? What about the other logic? Is the way you'll learn without, the pshat pshat. Pshat you say reshus harabim is until here and all of a sudden reshus harabim stops? Yeah. Exactly. That didn't seem like, it would seem like reshus harabim is placed down here, suddenly it's floating around. Why, I don't know. Maybe that's This is reshus harabim is the avir. This is a reshus, the whole this is a reshus. I mean, I could say it either way. Okay, let's go weiter. Huh? The Ramban holds that the ikar is the floor. Right. That the ikar is the floor, that's reshus harabim. And then you have on top of the floor, and then this is on top of, also on top of the floor, but too far. But if it's too far from the floor, you can't say קלוטה, because the whole idea of קלוטה is because it's close to the floor. Lavud is three tefachim to the floor, then there is a din of ten tefachim to the floor, and then on top of that, you're too far from the floor. So there is no דין קלוטה, because the whole קלוטה is depends on the floor, the Ramban says. Where do we get this חלל? Probably it's a halachah l'Moshe miSinai also. This whole idea of ten tefachim is it's probably an halachah l'Moshe miSinai. Like, the לשון in the Gemara is this, כל השיעורים... What's the end of that statement? Halachah l'Moshe miSinai. Anything that's a shiur, whether it's ten tefachim, or whatever it is. Okay, let's go weiter. Could Moshe get so far away from Sinai? Moshe was on Sinai itself. Gemara says, מעולם לא ירדה שכינה למטה מעשרה טפחים. Okay, let's go weiter.

The Gemara weiter, after the Gemara brings Rabbi Akiva, Rabbah said that the Mishnah that says you don't need ד׳ על ד׳ goes according to Rabbi Akiva who holds קלוטה כמי שהונחה, the Gemara asks, ודילמא הנחה דלא בעי עקירה בעי? From Rabbi Akiva we only see that you don't need hanacha on ד׳. But akirah we still don't know. And memeila, you can't bring a raayah from Rabbi Akiva to our Mishnah, because our Mishnah says that hanacha and the akirah don't need ד׳ על ד׳, both of them are at hand. What made the Gemara feel that that only hanacha doesn't need and akirah needs? What does Rashi say? Because if akirah would also not need ד׳ על ד׳, what would be the din? You'd be chayav two! You'd be chayav one for hotzaah, and one for hachnasah. Comes Tosafos and Tosafos asks a kashya on Rashi: Your whole raayah you have that hanacha is different, akirah might need, is the fact that you're not chayav two? Maybe there's a different reason why you're not chayav two. Because you can't be chayav for... אב ותולדה, תולדה במקום אב you can't be chayav, that's why! So you can't be chayav for hotzaah, and then chayav for hachnasah also. Okay. That's Tosafos's kashya on Rashi. Therefore, Tosafos changes. Comes the Tosafos Yeshanim, and Tosafos Yeshanim says that doesn't see Tosafos's kashya as such a strong kashya on Rashi. Very small words, very few words: איזה קושיא כל כך? Tosafos's kashya is not such a strong kashya. Why not? דהלא לא קאמר, והעקירה ודאי בעי, אלא דילמא קאמר. These are the few words that the Tosafos Yeshanim uses. The Gemara didn't say for sure that there is a chiluk between akirah and hanachah. The Gemara just says, maybe. That's that's the Tosafos Yeshanim words. Now who can tell me peshat in Tosafos Yeshanim? Because, it's not sure. No. So, of not, yeah good, peirush. U'meimeila, you're right you just said Tosafos Yeshanim's words. It's more mistaber to say that that he... More mistaber? No, not more mistaber, it's possible... U'meimeila, what's the problem? You're saying right, but I just want to hear concrete, bring it down l'maaseh. What were we supposed to say? What is he supposed to say? I'll tell you. What are you looking for? Since it says only dilma, u'meimeila, peirush, no, you got a פירוש דער גאון, a peirush what what he's asking on Tosafos. Maybe and therefore Why not? So why are they fighting over it if it's a dilma? U'meimeila You can't say medayek from No, you're saying that's I want to say everyone is saying right. I just want to I want to u'meimeila, maybe since it's a maybe, since it's not vadai So why are you trying to prove that it's vadai, that it's achat, that it's shtayim shehein achat? Don't worry about it, it's okay. Fine, we give up. A question could be a maybe. Yeah, what do you mean by that? Even if it's a maybe, it's a question. Tosafos says that Tosafos says that you know why you're not chayav two? Maybe for a different reason. Not because עקירה needs ד' על ד'. Maybe because אין חייב על תולדה במקום אב. You're right, yeah, so teirutz Saying that it could be, you could say a question like that. And everyone else is saying the same thing. Right. Okay, I'll teitsh es, I'll show you what I mean, and then you'll see what I then you'll know what I wanted you to say. Hear? Then you'll find out. And you'll see basically what I'm going to say, you all said. But you have to have the the the expression to explain it. The Gemara says from Rabbi Akiva is no re'aya that עקירה doesn't need ד' על ד'. When you say no re'aya, doesn't mean that we know for sure. Maybe yeah, maybe not. What does a re'aya mean? A re'aya is a proof. A proof means that there is no other way. If you have maybe the peshat is like this, maybe it's from here it's chayav because of this, maybe not, so I can't prove it to you. Maybe yeah, maybe not. All the Gemara says, you tried to prove to me that Rabbi Akiva holds that you don't need ד' על ד'. So the Gemara is saying it's not a proof. We see that Rabbi Akiva says you're chayav one, not two. If you're chayav only one, let's think, why are you not chayav two? Maybe you're not chayav two because תולדה במקום אב you're not chayav. Maybe you're not chayav two because עקירה needs ד' על ד'. So the bottom line is that there is no proof that he holds that עקירה needs doesn't need ד' על ד'. If there is only one way to explain why you're not chayav two, let's say if there would be only one way to explain why aren't you chayav two, because you cannot be chayav for this for עקירה because because עקירה needs ד' על ד', and there is no other way to explain why you're not chayav two, then we see clearly that Rabbi Akiva holds עקירה needs ד' על ד', right? Because that's the only way you could say. If akirah doesn't need ד' על ד', why aren't you חייב הוצאה והכנסה? The fact that you're not chayav two shows that akirah needs ד' על ד', that's why you're not chayav for the second one. The moment you have two ways to learn, so we have no re'ayah. So the moment we have no re'ayah, so maybe, maybe the reason is because akirah, maybe not. So we takeh don't have a proof that Rabbi Akiva holds akirah needs ד' על doesn't need ד' על ד', but we have no proof either way. So what the Gemara asks ודילמא, maybe the reason why he's not chayav two, maybe the reason he's not chayav two is because akirah needs ד' על ד'. So what is Tosafos asking? Maybe not. You're right, maybe not, but maybe yeah. At least we have no re'ayah. That's what Tosafos Yeshanim is saying to Tosafos. What's your problem? Maybe the reason you're saying why you're not chayav two is not because of this, it's not because akirah needs ד' על ד' and you don't have it, maybe the reason is because you're not חייב בתולדה במקום אב. Right, maybe, maybe not. But there is still a maybe that akirah, maybe the reason is because maybe the reason is because akirah needs ד' על ד'. So do we have a re'ayah that Rabbi Akiva holds akirah doesn't need ד' על ד'? No. And that's the Gemara's קשיא. The Gemara is saying we asked a shaila, we know you need ד' על ד'. You want to tell me there is an opinion that says you don't? Which opinion did you show me? Rabbi Akiva. So Rabbi Akiva, we know for sure הנחה doesn't need ד' על ד', that's for sure. Because he says קלוטה כמי שהונחה doesn't need, that's for sure. The other one we don't know. Since he says you're not חייב for two, maybe עקירה needs ד' על ד' and that's That's why. You're telling me maybe not, maybe not. But we need a proof. The Gemara says, in order to answer why you don't need ד' על ד', we have to find a מאן דאמר who says that עקירה doesn't need ד' על ד'. We didn't find it. So he's saying to Tosafos, I don't understand what your problem is. You're telling me maybe the reason is because you're not חייב תולדה במקום אב? You're right, I agree with you, maybe. But maybe not! It's only and the Gemara's קשיא is דילמא, the Gemara's קשיא is you have no proof. And what does proof mean? ודאי. You have no proof ודאי that Rabbi Akiva holds עקירה does not need ד' על ד'. I have no proof the other way either. See, if we would say we have proof that he holds עקירה doesn't need, then Tosafos is right. You have proof that עקירה needs doesn't need needs ד' על ד'? That it needs ד'? We don't have proof. Maybe and you're saying that that's the reason you're פטור? There's no proof. Maybe you're פטור because תולדה במקום אב you're not חייב. But we're not looking for a proof that עקירה doesn't need, we're just saying you have no proof that עקירה doesn't need, we don't know! So that's what he says to Tosafos. He says איזה קושיא. Farkert, what I have a problem now is why is it איזה קושיא כל כך? It's not a kashya at all! Tosafos' kashya is no kashya. The Gemara, all the Gemara wanted to say, you have no proof that Rabbi Akiva holds that עקירה doesn't need ד' על ד'. הנחה we know for sure he holds. No, we don't know. We're not sure if he holds. Rabbi holds, we're not sure what Rabbi Akiva holds. Maybe! So maybe Rabbi maybe Rabbi Akiva holds the fact that you're not חייב two and you're not חייב for הכנסה could be for two reasons: it could be because of תולדה במקום אב, could be because you need ד' על ד' and you don't have, so we don't know. Since we don't know which one it is, we have no proof either way. So we have no proof that Rabbi Akiva holds עקירה does not need ד' על ד', we have no proof that he needs that it does need. So the Gemara says, we're looking for a מאן דאמר that you could tell me clearly, for sure holds עקירה הנחה doesn't need ד' and עקירה doesn't need ד' על ד'. And the Gemara's kashya is from Rabbi Akiva you have no re'aya, because דילמא maybe Rabbi Akiva holds that עקירה does need, and maybe that's the reason why he says you're not חייב two. Maybe not. So what's Tosafos asking? Maybe not. Maybe not, but it's still it takes away the proof. Because there's a possibility, it takes away the proof. So that's what Tosafos My she'eilah is the opposite, why does he say איזה קושיא כל כך? It's no Tosafos' kashya happens to be no kashya at all. Obviously there's something. Huh? What do you mean different meaning? No, but the Gemara doesn't say the proof. Yeah. Yeah, so why does Why would you think Rashi says that? Yeah. Right. Tosafot is looking like that. Yeah. Exactly. So what is it? So let me explain. What he's saying is right. Why is it not קשיא כל כך? Because לכאורה Tosafot doesn't make sense. Tosafot say maybe it's because So I'll tell you. I'll explain what it what the is, you have to go a step further. If there is no סברא דארף האבן קאפ, we have to use our heads. If there is no sevara to be mechalek between עקירה and הנחה, let's say there is no logic, there is no sevara to make a chiluk that הנחה doesn't need ד' על ד' and עקירה does, there is no sevara. And then we look at Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Akiva makes a chiluk between the in this case between a הוצאה you're chayav and a הנחה and הכנסה you're not chayav. So Tosafot learns peshat in Rashi that Rashi, על פי פשוטו, is saying there is no sevara to be mechalek. If there is no sevara to be mechalek, then what's the sevara why you're not chayav two? Because of תולדה במקום אב. If there is a sevara to make a chiluk, so you can say then I don't know, maybe the reason is because there is a logical sevara to make a chiluk, and that's why he says you're not chayav two because you're not chayav the second one because עקירה might be different than הנחה, or maybe the sevara is because you're not חייב תולדה במקום אב, could be either way. Tosafot learned in Rashi, Rashi didn't give any sevara why עקירה should be different than הנחה. So it seems that Tosafot learns in Rashi that the only reason Rashi has that there is a חילוק in Rabbi Akiva in עקירה and הנחה because there is no other explanation. There is no sevara. על פי שכל, I'll never make a חילוק in עקירה הנחה. That's what Rashi seems to be saying. Rashi doesn't give a שכל why, but the Gemara says, דילמא הנחה לא בעי, עקירה בעי. Rashi doesn't say, well, because there's a sevara. Rashi says, because I see that! I have no other choice. I see that he says you're חייב one not two. So there's no other choice. פרעגט Tosafot, what do you mean there's no other choice? There is another choice, and if there is another choice which makes sense, and to make a חילוק in עקירה and הנחה does not make sense, so what is it? The one that makes sense. That's why he asks on Rashi. He assumes again, he assumes that according to Rashi there Rashi didn't give a reason why there is a חילוק in עקירה and הנחה. And the only reason the Gemara even brings up such a concept that maybe הנחה doesn't need and עקירה needs is because I have no ברירה. He says you're חייב only one, and you're not חייב for the second, and I have no other ברירה, why? It must be because עקירה is different than הנחה, not because I understand. זאגט Tosafot, if that's the פשט that there is no sevara, I have another reason, and that makes sense, so obviously it's the other reason, it's not this. And if that's the and if it makes sense the other reason and this has no sevara, so then the Gemara's kashya is no kashya. See if you would learn that the Gemara's kashya is maybe הנחה doesn't need and עקירה needs is על פי שכל, I have a reason why עקירה is worse than הנחה. And if it's worse, and the fact that you have by הנחה that you don't need, no re'aya for עקירה. But if I have no sevara, the moment we find by הנחה, what should be the din by עקירה? Exact same way. But if azoy, how come you're chayav two? So there must be that there's הלכה למשה מסיני, I don't know, there's a din, a חילוק in עקירה and הנחה. But because I have no choice. Comes Tosafot and says, I don't know what you're saying to Rashi. There is another sevara. There is a sevara to say because of תולדה במקום אב. So, and there is no sevara why עקירה is different from הנחה בנגיעה ד׳ אמות, בנגיעה ד׳ על ד׳. So obviously this must be the reason. And then the kashya that the Gemara asks falls off. Cuz the kashya the Gemara is only based on this din, but not על פי סברא. That's how you have to learn pshat in Tosafot, in order to answer the the Tosafot Yeshanim's kashya. But to answer what the Tosafot Yeshanim learned, is that Rashi does have a sevara. You follow? If Rashi will see, and Rashi has a sevara without the re'aya, this is just a ra'aya that the sevara is true. There is a sevara why עקירה should be different than הנחה. And there are כמה וכמה סברות. Rashi didn't mention it, so Tosafos feels that Rashi doesn't hold of any sevaros, just a ra'aya from here. What kind of sevaros do we have? So, once before, if you remember, I mentioned that sevara already. I mentioned a sevara, pshat in Rashba. Remember, on דף ג׳ עמוד א׳, the Rashba brought this this din? Here, דף ג׳ עמוד א׳. And the Rashba says that when the Gemara has a she'eilah of עקירת גופו כעקירת חפץ, I'm just reminding you because by the test you'll have to remember the Gemara on דף ג׳ also. So the Gemara has a שאלה עקירת גופו כעקירת חפץ, so Tosafos says, what about הנחה? What did Tosafos say? It's not supposed to be Huh? What did Tosafos say? When the Gemara asks is עקירת גופו כעקירת חפץ, what about הנחה? Sure. Not the sure, the same she'eilah. What the Gemara said, the Gemara meant הנחה also. Comes the Tosafos Yeshanim and brings the Rashba that the Rashba says, דהנחה פשיטא ליה. And he says why? Because הנחה גופיה, for הנחה it's easier to make הנחה than the עקירה. And a ra'aya he brings from this Gemara that the Gemara says, דילמא הנחה לא בעי, עקירה בעי. And I explained then what's the chiluk in הנחה and עקירה, if you remember? You're taking away the ישנות. Oh, something that's there already, to break it is harder than something that's not there to make it. So there is a logic why עקירה is different than הנחה. So when Rashi says here, peshat in when the Gemara asks דילמא הנחה לא בעי, עקירה בעי, רש״י has a sevara. And if Rashi has a sevara, that could be the reason why you're not chayav two, but it's not an הכרח. Could be not, but at least there is no re'aya that הנחה עקירה also needs doesn't need ד׳ על ד׳. So if you have a sevara, we understand the Tosafot Yeshanim's kushya. So Tosafot learn peshat in Rashi that there is no sevara, and the whole kushya of דילמא הנחה לא בעי, עקירה בעי is based just on the din. So Tosafot, if you have no sevara then it must be because that you don't חייב תולדה במקום אב. But Rashi himself, and the way Tosafot Yeshanim understands Rashi, Rashi has a sevara, ממילא there's a possibility of both ways, and the moment there's a possibility of both ways, there is no proof that הנחה, עקירה doesn't need ד' על ד', that's the Gemara's she'ela. So again, so one sevara why עקירה is different than הנחה we just said now, what is it? That to make it is easier than to break it. Then there are other sevarot that we have.

The Gur Aryeh was written by maybe it is, Rafael? Who wrote the Sefer Gur Aryeh? תלמיד of the Rashi? He said, is that the person who had the the גלגול? The גולם. No, the גלגול. Maharal. The Maharal of Prague. The גולם guy. Yeah, that's who he meant. Maharal of Prague wrote it. Okay. What's his He says like this: He says that when you put something down, you are machshiv that place. Connected to תוספות אלא אמר רב יוסף. על דרך, when you put something down, you are machshiv, you want to put it down here. You're putting it down. When you pick something up, is the place that you're taking it from important? No, opposite. Sometimes you have that you don't davka take it away from there. Usually when you take something from here because you want to bring it some place else. So, what's the important part? The place you're bringing it to or the place you're taking it away from? The place you're bringing it to. That's the sevara, he says. Maybe you don't need ד' על ד' when you put something down by hanachah, because you're putting it down, so that putting it down and wanting to put it down makes chashivut. That's why that doesn't need ד' על ד', because it's chashuv in itself, the fact that you intend to put it down. But the place that you're taking it from which is not chashuv, that's something that doesn't have the chashivut, mimeila that in order to be a makom chashuv has to have has to have the ד' על ד'. Be'emet, this is a sevara, listen to this, this is a sevara that the Baal HaMaor says, here in the Gemara in the back, to answer Tosafot's kushya in the next in the next Tosafot. In the תוספות אלא, תוספות asks the she'eilah: Rav Yosef and Rabbah come to find out who's the one that holds you don't need ד' על ד'. Rabbah says it's Rabbi Akiva, Rav Yosef says it's Rabbi. Why do they need anything? He asks. Why don't Rabbah and Rav Yosef in a different Gemara Eruvin hold that מחשבתו משויא ליה מקום, that machshavah makes a makom. So you know what the Baal HaMaor answers? Tosafot gives a different terutz. The Baal HaMaor says this: מחשבתו משויא ליה מקום only fits to hanachah, not to akirah. And we're looking now for akirah also. Why does it fit only to hanachah? He says this vort: when you put it down, you want it to be down here. So, מחשבתו משויא ליה מקום, that makes that this is a makom chashuv because that's what you want. But ah? How does it apply by akirah? He says how it doesn't. Okay, we'll have to We'll get to that Tosafot. We're not talking about that Tosafot yet. We're discussing I'm just bringing this in as a re'ayah or a dugma to what I'm saying in the previous Tosafot. So in the case of akirah No, Tosafot brings a case of akirah also, רוק. Yeah, that's what he's asking. So when we get to the Tosafot, we'll discuss that. But I'm saying we'll have to look into the Baal HaMaor. But I'm saying, but he makes a chiluk, but by akirah, since the place you're taking it from is not important to you, ad'rabah, you're taking it away from there, the place is important? So mimeila over there, we don't say מחשבה משויא ליה מקום. So this is basically another סברא על פי שכל, not because we have a re'ayah from the din, another sevara why hanachah will not need ד' על ד', and akirah will need, because akirah you need to make it chashuv, because if it's not ד' על ד' it's not chashuv, and your machshavah doesn't make it chashuv. But hanachah, you could say you put it down makes it chashuv. Then there Then there's another sevara that's brought down, takeh from the Rashba, not the same Rashba that Tosafot brings, the Rashba in the ראשונים, the Rashba. He says to finish something off, which is similar to what I said לגבי before, but it's not exactly the same, to finish something off is easier than to start off. I said it because you make it from something nothing. So therefore, hanacha, which is finishing off, you whatever you're doing, you picked it up, this, and now you finished, you put it down, that is easier to accomplish than the other way. And therefore, there's a sevara to say that hanacha doesn't need four by four, and akirah does. So you can learn that Rashi goes along with all these sevarot. Okay, that's let's see, looking at the time, let's go vayter for just start off a second. Not nogea, I want to start the next next Gemara already.

When the Gemara brought, after the Gemara asked, it's no reaya from Rabbi Akiva, because hanacha, maybe hanacha doesn't need, but akirah needs, so we brought Rabbi. And then we started with the first case of רבי, זרק ונח על זיז כל שהוא, so obviously you don't need ד' על ד'. Comes Tosafot, and Tosafot asks, same question, that likhora we have the same question. Really we should talk about the Tosafot before, but I just want to stop for one minute, so a תוספות זרק. Likhora, the same kushya. All we see that if it landed on a זיז, that's hanacha. How do we know akirah? That's Tosafot's kushya. And what's Tosafot's terutz? You could have asked it. But then Tosafot says a whole kushya later, and at the end what does Tosafot say? No, you could, but the Tosafot says according to the Gemara there. The bottom line, what does Tosafos say? When is there a svara there's a chiluk between akirah and hanacha? If it doesn't need anything. If in the air it's considered stopped and there's nothing under it, so you don't need ד' על ד', you don't need anything. So then the Gemara says maybe hanacha doesn't, akirah does. If you hold that it needs something, but it's enough a כל שהוא, then there is no svara to make a difference between akirah and hanacha. When the Gemara asks that שאלה, that's Tosafos's terutz. The Gemara asks the שאלה here before when we're saying Rabbi Akiva holds it doesn't need ד' על ד', where do we see it? קלוטה כמי שהונחה. It doesn't need anything. It doesn't have to be not on a ד' על ד', it doesn't even on an inch, it doesn't have anything. So the Gemara says such a thing, maybe only hanacha doesn't need, but akirah does. But Rabbi we don't see he doesn't, he says you don't need anything. What do we see the best in Rabbi? At at at most, what do we see? That he needs a זיז כל שהוא, something, but it isn't ד' על ד'. So if you need something, then there is no svara to say that maybe hanacha needs only a little bit and akirah doesn't, akirah needs full full. There it's not. That's That's what Tosafos says. Right, right, so the so but the שאלה, what does Tosafos mean? What's the svara? Why if it needs a כל שהוא, you can't say hanacha is different? So if you give all the sevarot, we we've said some of the sevarot before, makes no difference. Obviously, there's a different svara why. So here you have the Chatam Sofer and the and the Sefat Emet, they all say a peshat, you know the Maharam, what's the difference? Why if it needs כל שהוא, it's not? And I'll tell you in one word. If you need a כל שהוא, obviously, you need a makom. But a כל שהוא is considered makom. The moment כל שהוא is considered makom, then why would akirah be different? If you don't need anything, that means you don't need a makom. Maybe hanachah doesn't need a makom and akirah needs a makom. But if you say it needs a כל שהוא, so it definitely needs a makom. Ela mai, a כל שהוא is considered makom. If כל שהוא is considered makom, so what akirah needs a makom then. So then both would be the same. Okay, we'll be mamshich next time. Quick question. When you explained the Rambam and Rashi in the beginning about do they hold that the ground is the reshut harabim? You said that, so according to Rambam, Ramban. Ramban, when it's above it, it's counted as a separate The floor, everything is the floor. Right, so So till here is connected to the floor, and this is too far from the floor. And then Tosafot is whole So, Tosafot says no, this has nothing to do with the floor, the air is the reshut harabim. So what's he, so what does he call it? Not too far, what does he call it? So then this is on top of this This is, why? Because this is this is an avir on top of this avir. Okay. Thank you. You know what? I should respond. Go check. Do you have Sue's number? Freezing in here. What did you do? Don't. Betcha they don't know they don't remember Tower Air. They don't know how good it is. Tower. Oh wait. Mendel, is there a store in here you'd like to go to? 43, 44, 45. How many wipes do you have? I had twelve. What did you guys buy last night? Why is that not functioning? I don't know why it's a big runaway. Get him out today. Mirror door. Oh yeah, yeah, mirror door. Yeah. Nu? Better than the last 10 years. Archie! Whatever you decide, that's what we're going to do. זה הלכה. Iz di halokhe.