Shabbos 124b: Muktzeh, Broken Keilim, Hachanah, and the Prohibition of Tiltul

Transcript

My question is, in Hilchos Hachanah, maaseh from Rashi, one is mukhan from Erev Yom, from the beginning when Shabbos comes in, there is no problem, right? Even if it loses its tashmish, why? Mukhan agav aviv, right? That's what the Gemara means. Once it's mukhan, it's mukhan. It can't lose. Even if it loses its tashmish, my kashya to you is that it's not agav aviv. The Mishnah is only when you have the two stam things. Once you don't have the—you're for that muksa can't be lechatchila Shabbos, and once something was not muksa, it can't turn into muksa. How can the Gemara call these things turning into muksa? Everything is muksa. Good, yeah, you with me? Okay, simple question. Pshat: when you take this, you can also take that, because this and that are mechubar, and even when they're not mechubar, they're connected. Mukhan agav aviv technically doesn't have to be that. Mukhan agav aviv could be this by making this, and muksa can't become on Shabbos. Something can't be once muksa and once not muksa, then the pshat is this could become muksa on Shabbos, even if it's separated from its original. That's one way of looking. My problem with that is the word agav aviv. Agav aviv bothers me. The other way to learn it is what the ... says. Mito, muchan agav aviv means this is takenah. This is, and this is only muchan, this when it was attached to this. When it's not attached, we'll say it's muchan because of the father. Do you see the difference? Now, do you see the difference? Do you see the difference now? Mito agav aviv means, mitah because of the father. Muchan means because since I was meichen the whole thing, right? Once I’m meichen the whole thing, you can’t become muktzah on Shabbos, right? Once something can’t become muktzah on Shabbos, then the pshat is this can never turn into muktzah, or ... like the ... thing. This has to do with the kli. This has to do with this. This is muchan. This is not muchan. And the only reason why this muchan is agav aviv, the same svara like mitah agav aviv. Can I ask you the side question? Yeah. ... shulchan aruch. Ready? Who’s going to take out the Shulchan Aruch? And then I asked you, kasha: what’s pshat muktzah l’chatchila Shabbos, huh? Not true. By sluka, you see it’s not muktzah. Yes. ... Oh. Meaning while we pass like Tanakama, right? Okay, but, right, so it's like Tanakama. Shuma vachaloi. Means like Tanakama. We don't pass. Comes from the Magen Avraham. He explains what's the pshat we pass like the Tanakama and not like Rabbi Yehuda. Explain. Look at the Magen Avraham. Magen Avraham. No, no, he explains the hechrach. Huh? Okay, while he looks for it, I'll speak it out outside. Magen Avraham says like this. Why do you need — you'll see in a minute — why do you need me'ein melachtan or just me'ein melachah? What's the difference? Why? What are they arguing about, me'ein melachtan? Huh? I'm going to tell you the Magen Avraham's pshat. Machlokes the Magen Avraham's pshat. Why is it the basis of me'ein melachtan? If something is...

Is it meimalachtak? ... He's speaking ... right now. ... Same case. If it's to have an eim lachtak, is there a nayla over here? No. If it's me'ein melachah, period, it's not melachtan, is there a nayla over here? We pasken nayla is ... Now read the Magen Avraham. ... The difference between melachah and she'eino melachah says is nayla, right? According to Rabbanan, it's not a problem of nayla, says the Magen Avraham. Therefore they need what? It has to be the original. According to Rabbanan, there's no problem. The Taz argues. Taz says no. Yeah? Says the Taz like this. So who's reading the Taz? ... Here. ... What did the Magen Avraham answer? That's from a kli. Shiluk klihu, azmuto l'taf. That's a kashya. That's what he asked in the Taz. The Taz on the Bach and the Rambam. You know, what do you mean? The Magan Avraham said, shiluk klihu had a kasha. Shiluk klihu tana kama, and Rabbi Yehuda is. Tana kama is lo. No, no, you're right, because Magen Avraham svara, he held that ... It's not nolad, actually. He said anything possible, maybe ... Even shiluk klihu, he's sure. Anything in ... Everything possible could come out. So even ... everything is. It's not ... Very close, remember. Again, what's the ...? Right. Very good. In the Mishnah, okay, come. The Mishnah says, the Mishnah says that according to the Tana Kama, what happens according to the Tana Kama? According to the Tana Kama, only melacha that it's mutar for is which melacha? Melacha, anything, forms this has melacha. What does the second sheetah hold? The second sheetah holds that no, it's only l'melacha, its original melacha, right? Says the Magen Avraham that what's the chiluk between the two shitos? Two shitos. Tana Kama is going to hold by it mutar. Even if it has any other purpose, it's mutar. Mashenkein, says the Rabbanan, Rabbi Yehuda holds by it aser. Therefore it has to be what? Its original melacha. Comes along the Taz and says, then there's a problem then. So how do we ever pasken like the Tana Kama if we pasken ...? Says the Chasam Sofer, even the Tana Kama. What's a ...? ... Even if it's melachah acheres, it's not a ... Let's take a case. Why is it not ...? Why is not ...? I have another pshat. Let's say a guy—here, let's say a guy, the Gemara says that what happens, that as long as it's ra'ui l'chasot bo pi chluchit, it's not muktzah, right? As long as I can do something with it, it's not muktzah. Comes the Rishonim and asks a simple kashya. It comes out, you have stone, rock, in your field, and these rocks is ra'ui l'chasot bo. If you go and you could cover a kli with it. We spoke about it, remember? Right? But you have stones, you have stones, you have stones. Why? Why can't you use the stones and say, this rock you use to cover—? They were not ... to begin. It's muktzah to begin. Why is that? You don't ... from here. Anyway, but let's go further.

How many times did I tell you? There's two sugyos of muktzah. There's one sugya of muktzah for the kli, called kli l'mitzto, that's one sugya of muktzah. That's the keli, right? Then there's another sugya of muktzah, which is tiltul. In the sugyas haGemara of our Mishnah, okay, the Mishnah is being dan two problems, okay? One we're being dan the din of kli, the muktzah of kli, and one we're being dan the muktzah of tiltul. When the halacha says, Hoyu mukhanin agav avihen, which muktzah are we talking about? Which chelek of muktzah are we talking about? Please, discussing the kli. Now, Hoyu mukhanin agav avihen, you have to learn that. That's exactly. That's kli. So whatever it is, it's kli. So the point is, the point is, when the Gemara says a kli is mukhan agav avihen, you know what the Gemara is discussing? Hilchos keli. That's what the Gemara is discussing, the hachinu, the hachinu. We're not discussing now where's a person sitting and thinking that I'm going to use this. That's in hilchos tiltul. That's a shaylah of tiltul, for a person, whether mechaven, he was not mechaven, to use this. That's in tiltul. When the Gemara is discussing... I understood the Ramban that says the whole zero of muktzah is tiltul. Maybe the... Father is kli, and hilchos keilim, this is a kli, so doesn't. I thought of a simple question. When you say the word mukhan agav aviv, what is that? What is the translation of mukhan agav? Not because it is עצמו mukhan, especially according to the Magen Avraham. Especially according to the Magen Avraham, adam yoshev u'metzapeh, that this should also have uses. It's not agav then. It has nothing to do with agav. That's very poshut. We're not discussing the muktsa of the object. You need a דין kli, and hilchos keilim, because halacha that a kli is not muktzeh, and everything else is muktzeh. Hayu mukhanim agav means even without even making it, it becomes mukhan agav aviv, because it's a kli. What's the translation of agav aviv? In the words agav aviv? The word agav aviv, the translation of agav aviv means because of father, which means it doesn't have any. Why? Adam yoshev u'metzapeh. Why not? The person was with this. I'm not talking about this as usually or not usually. I'm talking about in Hilchos Keilim, a kli in the halacha. If it didn't have a shem kli, then the problem was it would be halacha that it's not a keli. The keli is not ... it's not nital. It would be treif. I have in mind, in Hilchos. You're right, it could have, but the problem is it's not a kli, the Rishonim say. Agav Avim just tells me in Hilchos Keilim, agav Avim. That hachanah, that din of hachanah, that din of hachanah only works from Erev Shabbos. The tevilah to become muksa, that it could become muksa on Shabbos. The keli to become muksa can't become muksa on... Once it was a kli Erev Shabbos, it can never become muksa. That's what Rashi means, mishum kedei sheyavo. Mishum kedei sheyavo could also become muksa later, if there's no tzorech for it. Ein muksa l'chatzi Shabbos if it's in the kli. Once it's a kli before Shabbos, then there's no muksa l'chatzi Shabbos. When somebody loses his ... there's a halacha of tiltul muksa l'chatzi Shabbos. Ein muksa l'chatzi... That's the svara. Agav Avim is mukhan agav Avim. That's the svara of mukhan agav Avim. Meileh, this is the svara.

The pashut, the chazakah of the Magen Avraham argues is there was noilus in it, right? Whole proof is the safek, right? If you learn the pshat is that it has the old shem kli, then it's not noilus, right? That's what the Magen Avraham is saying. The Magen Avraham is saying, according to the Tana Kama, we don't care that it's noilus, right? Comes along the— It's in the kli. I'm not— same kli. That's what the Taz is saying. The Taz is tying back to the Magen Avraham. Even in the Tana Kama, that we're saying the sevara that even after the last shinui, what's the status of the kli with noilus, right? What's your shaila? Shaila, noilus. There's no problem of noilus, because mukhan agav avi meinus is the original kli. That's post-mukhan agav. It's like a continuation. If— what does it mean? Let's see, a vessel that it holds the handle, the handle of the broke. Let's say you have the thing foot broke, and the handle, the thing, the foot broke. Foot broke? Yeah, foot broke off. That's the whole story. If it's broke on Shabbos, it's muktzah. So it's a— What if it's not? What if it doesn't have to be raui to put it back under the—? No, raui for anything. Raui for anything. It sounds like the top and the lid itself are the same thing. Yeah? What's ...? ... That's what he means. Yeah, you with me? Good. It has the same parts. Magen Avraham makes kind of ... with a ... and ... Okay. ... The Taz says, what do you mean? We pasken ... That's the ... kind of ... that it's not ... Right? Because we pasken ... If you argue that it's because ... then it doesn't make sense. No, they're not arguing. They're arguing in this sevara. That it's definitely not ... The question is even if it's not. Exactly. That's what I'm telling you. That's the ... The shaylah is if you hold it's a ... That's how the Magen Avraham is learning, in my mind. ... paskening no, ... The ... is only in the hachanah. But if you learn it's the problem in the gavra, ... then you have to say ... That's what we say. That's ... because it's a kli. That's my point, because it's a kli. I'm telling you. No, we're not talking about what the problem was never the ... The problem was the kli the whole time. And where we see that in Rashi, the way the Gemara brings a kli ... Shabbos. You see, this sugya, the sugya is from the kli, because the lavi calls it a Rambam. But we're not allowed to carry muktzah because we make it outside. The Rambam follows after the actual maaseh. The problem is, there's no such... How are you explaining this? How can you explain this? No, because the problem, because l'maaseh has a preirah, you have a chanah. In your mind you're making... How can be... because of keli, the problem is. The problem is that this had never a hachanah of keli, never a hachanah, never a hachanah of keli. The hachanah, the person knew he's going to use it for anything. The problem is he doesn't have hachanah of the kli, and the answer is he has the hagalah. This sugya is... work on the pshat. The Gemara, we'll show you this sugya. I think it's very important to say two yesodos. That is...

So whenever a kli breaks, there are two things that we have to deal with. The first thing we have to deal with: is this kli new? Is this new piece new, or is it still a part of the old? Again, for this sugya, meaning, in order to give an introduction to this sugya, you'll soon see how it fits into the entire sugya, you got to know two yesodos. Yesod number one: do we look at the piece that's broken off, the shever, as an entity for itself? Huh? We didn't discuss the word nolad yet. Maybe it's the question of nolad, but we didn't. Again, is it new, or is it a part of the old? Kipshuto, on face value, that's the machlokes in the Mishnah, right? Meaning, the Tanna Kamma holds, me'ein melachah, huh? That's the Tanna Kamma saying, me'ein melachah. You don't need it should have its old melachah, as long as it has any melachah meaning it's new. And as long as it has any purpose, it's a kli, right? Ma she'ein kein, ma she'ein kein. Simple. Now, so again, the question in the sugya of shivrei keilim. We're going to learn this sugya b'li neder till mamash Shabbos. We're going to make Shabbos. We're going to make Shabbos, you hear? We're going to break it up into little pieces. And the question is like this: whenever you have a shivrei... Then we have a broken piece. The question is, do we have to look at it as a kli for itself in order for it to become not mukhshar, or do we have to look at it as part of the old kli for it not to be mukhshar? Pashut, zeh machlokes baMishnah. That is the argument. HaTanna Kamma is telling me, me'ein melachah, as long as there's any purpose. Meaning, we don't have to have the old keli. We don't look at the old kli. We get the old kli. We look at it as its own purpose, so it can be a kli for itself. Mash'ein kein, Rabbi Yehuda is saying we always have to bring it back and look to what? To the old kli. Melachtam. We always have to have melachtam, meaning the old kli. This is peshuto of the Mishnah. Now, the second thing that we have to ask, in the din of hachanah, every kli is עומד למוכן. There is mukhan for itself. This is not a kli. The Gemara is saying, Erev Shabbat that way or on Shabbat, without getting into the machlokes what day we're talking about, but somehow by hachanah the kli is good enough for the new kli. It's good enough for the new piece of the broken, right? The question then is, is it because the old kli was mukhan, and the mukhan of the old kli is good for the new kli? Because this whole thing, the whole object is the whole was mukhan, so all, it's part, so also mukhan, and as long as it has a purpose. Again, when you look at the Mishnah, you look at the Mishnah, you know right away that the name of this sugya is shivrei keilim. That's the name of the sugya. You have to write a sefer, you have to write a drash, siman, whatever, b'inyan shivrei keilim. This is shivrei keilim. This will be a broken pot, all right? Now, the first thing that comes to mind when you think of a broken pot, you could say one of two things. Either it's the old kli, and that's why it's not mukhan, or it's a new kli, but it's a kli for itself, and therefore it's not mukhan. Those are the two choices that you have to come and say why a broken piece of a pot is not mukhan. Mishnah is trying to tell me that it is a mukhan. So then you have to say, is it because it's the old pot, or it's because, what, it's a new pot and it's a pot for itself? Yes? Pashut, that's the machlokes in the Mishnah, Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbanan. The Chachamim learn it has to be me'ein melachah mini. It doesn't have to be the old. You don't have to look at the old kli. Who cares about the old kli? As long as it has any purpose, then itself is a kli. Mashenkein, when the Gemara brings Rabbi Yehuda, the Mishnah brings Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yehuda is trying to say, no, I always need me'ein melachtan, because it still has to somehow go back to the original kli. That's how you'd learn simple. The next thing that you have to ask yourself, if you're learning the Gemara to understand, is the din of mukhan.

The din that it is to pierce, right? Now we're saying that two things we could say. We could say that it's a new kli, or we could say it's the old kli. So then we have to figure out if it's a new kli, where is the muchan? Where is the preparation from Erev Shabbos? So without getting into the details when it became a new pot, just the concept of the pot was muchan, and therefore the broken is muchan, which the Gemara discusses, could be understood in two ways, which I told you happens to be a machlokes the Magen Avraham and the Chazon Ish, how to understand the muchan, meaning, do we say since the original pot is muchan, and this is a part of the original pot, this is also muchan? Or the entire entity that you were mechin, who cares if it broke off into a new pot, right? Let's say I was mechin all of this. So even though this now is not part of this, but this itself was already muchan because I prepared it. You're going to ask me a question—oh, so you're going to ask me a question I didn't know. That's the Magen Avraham. Adam yotzei b'muchan. But a person thinks to himself, even if, even if I wanted to, remain... No, the question is what hachana means. Hachana means because the father is muchan, the male child was already muchan because the child is part of the father. Or the pshat is because I already prepared the father, so anything that breaks away from the father was already once part of there. Now even if it's on its own, it's part of the father. So whatever hachana is on the father remains hachana for what? For the two, because it's one entity. Yes and no. It is, and we'll soon see how it is, okay? Those are the two you saw. The next thing you have to do in the— you understood this? The other pshat is that the emes, the father is mukhan for itself and the child is mukhan for itself. So how was the child mukhan? Because the fact is, then this was part of this, and I was meichin all of this. So then what happened? This was also already called mukhan. You want to know something? The funniest thing is, I was thinking right through my head, I was thinking, should I bring a Tanya Goler? And then I said to myself, you know what? Don't complicate it. The whole yesod of what I want to do for the next week is simplify the peshat of this Gemara. Yes, exactly the case of Tanya Goler, because since you meichin this and this was in it, you're not going to come and say this is a part of this, but it was in it. So whenever hachanah was on this, it already went for this too. Beautiful. I don't want to get into it, because I don't want to bring other examples. I want to teach you how to read here. Learn how to read, okay? Good? No good? The second one, I gave you the Marmokomos. Where are my old notes? They're here also. ... Bring me ... Did you find it? ... Okay, fine. Fine. Same ... ... Now, yeah? Okay, now let's begin. Let's continue reading now the Mishnah. The Mishnah comes and tells us. Okay, kli breaks, right? I need a kli, right? What happens? She's mehen mikalim. What do you need? What's the word imahen? What is that all about? You could say even if it breaks, it has nothing to do with imahen. You're allowed to move it for itself. It itself now is a new kli. No, now, except it's like one kli. So you make it now, even if it breaks. So the lashon of the Mishnah is mashma that somehow it's all one. Mikalim imahen means that the same way I could take this, with this I could take this. There's some chibur, there's some connection between the old kli and the new kli. So it says the Mishnah, right? Why is this? What's imahen? I know the old kli also can be moved. Why should it be nital? It works. The shivreihen is nital. No, it's nital itself. No, it's nital itself. It's not. Just what's imahen? What's the point of imahen? What do you need for? Imahen means with it. It's not with it, it's itself. You can take it itself. You don't have to take it with it, right? I'm asking, I'm asking. If it takes on its own...

Right, according to that, it's totally not true. So you have to see if it's true, unless we give it two things. It's not true. Okay, so now, why am I telling you this? Now we have to see there's a machlokes in the Gemara, the first two shitos in the Gemara. What is that? The Gemara has a question: is the machlokes of the Mishnah is b'erev Shabbos, or it's even b'Shabbos? The havamina of the Gemara was it's b'erev Shabbos. The maskanah of the Gemara is b'Shabbos. Now, if it's b'erev Shabbos, b'erev Shabbos, kena lo, kena lo, yes or no? If it's erev Shabbos, so what is the cheshbon of being metaltel this tree? Because it took on its own entity, right? So what's the ...? What was the havamina of the Gemara to learn that it's from erev Shabbos? In the Mishnah, ... im mahen, right? How could you learn that the Mishnah was talking about erev Shabbos? Right. It's separate. It's separate. That's what to talk about. That's no shaychus. So what was the havamina of the Gemara? What was the Gemara? The Gemara is ... The only word that we could have in my head, and I'm saying this simply because I want to show you that it's also not so pashut. Broke on Shabbos, and it's one kli, and it's muchan, and hachana, and the whole business, then I can see the word im yahad, which I'd rather we'll show you the sefer simple. Yeah, ... it's not so simple either. But the only place I can come and say the word im yahad is only on Shabbos. If it broke on Shabbos. If it broke on Erev Shabbos, then there's no shaylah. It's not im yahad. It's ... because it's ... that's all. That's the whole sugya. It's a sugya in Hilchos Keilim. A shever kli, you hear? A shever kli, that is it still called a kli if it takes on its own melachtan, or even if it's melachta... If that doesn't do with im yahad, that has no shayach to im yahad, right? If it broke on Erev Shabbos, it's a new kli, l'chol hade'os, right? It's a new kli. The question is, does it still have a shem kli? And the answer is, if it's melachtan or not melachtan, so what's im yahad? What's im yahad? Especially in the Tana Kama for sure not, right? Yeah, ... Tana Kama. What was the hava amina of the Gemara, that it could be that it broke on Erev Shabbos and still it has a chazakah of kli im yahad? How's it kli im yahad? How does that work? Question number one. Yes, that's a good question. Another thing you have to ask, according to Rabbi Yehuda, right, in the hava amina of the Gemara... Why should you need melachtan rishonah for Erev Shabbos? How did the Gemara think? What was the Gemara thinking already? Erev Shabbos. So then, here's to the one who's Reb Yehuda. I mean, what's wrong with Reb Yehuda if Erev Shabbos it has melachah acheres? What's wrong to take from another one? No, no, no. If thing breaks on Erev Shabbos, Gemara says, machloikes Erev Shabbos. So what's wrong with melachah acheres? What's wrong if it has a heter? How could Reb Yehuda, somebody the chacham, the תלמיד חכם—and you know what's so gevaldig about this kashya? The Maharsha. That's what's so gevaldig about it. So you can come and tell me the Maharsha asks a kashya. What do you mean? The Maharsha doesn't ask it right on Reb Yehuda. He asks on hatzalas eitz. And you see—yes. Machloikes, does it have to have...? You don't understand. What I'm doing now is it's real pshat. I'm not telling you chidushim. Believe me, there is not a person who knows how to learn, a talmid chacham, a posek, that learns the Gemara and doesn't ask these questions. These are simple kashyas. When you read it, what are you talking about? How could it be b'Erev Shabbos and Reb Yehuda says it has to be melachah rishonah? Who cares? What's wrong with melachah acheres? What's wrong to take...? I mean, what's wrong? It's a new keli.

Yeah, but it has—let's say it's melacha. But it's melacha. But it's melacha, it's right for something else, right? It's right to do something else, to let it be a kli because of that. Why not? Why not? Why not? What's wrong? No, it can't be machlokes Beis Shamai, so it doesn't make sense, the machlokes. Why should they argue that if somebody has, let's say—let's say somebody was fit to eat soup, right? Soup. It breaks, now it's a fork. So what's wrong with the fork? Why should Beis Hillel say, no, no, no, no, we don't like forks? Please, but... Who said short time? It doesn't mean... It means before Shabbos came in. That's what it means. Thursday, Wednesday. He has memories of... Not a lulav. What's wrong with turning it into a different kli on Erev Shabbos? What's wrong if you turn this into another kli on Erev Shabbos? Where did I get this kasha from? ... Try out a kasha. ... The ein masikin b'shiv'is. The next line in Gemara, okay? ... Mosi b'Eretz Yisrael. ... Matei. ... The ein masikin b'shiv'is, yeah. Masikin b'kelim, the ein masikin b'shiv'is. Then, ... when it breaks, ... firewood. Turn it to firewood. Turn it to firewood. Says the Gemara, ela b'Yom Tov. It has to be when? It has to be b'Yom Tov. ... The Gemara says, ... b'Yom Tov atzmo, b'Shabbat atzmo, it becomes ... agav aviha. This is a simple kasha. According to Rabbi Yehuda, according to Rabbi Yehuda, right, what's the halacha by Eruv Shabbos? You broke on Eruv Shabbos, you need melachtan rishonah, right? Masikin b'shiv'is kelim. Erev Yom Tov, no problem, right? ... The Gemara says, no. Masikin b'kelim, the ein masikin b'shiv'is kelim is only on Yom Tov. Yom Tov. Why? Because if it's Erev Yom Tov, the Gemara says it's no problem, because it's ... I thought you need melachtan rishonah, according to Rabbi Yehuda. Why does the Gemara only ask on Rabbi Yehuda? Say, but why does that bother? What happens to the—it's matzah, that it's a divrei hakol, that on Erev Shabbos it's mutar, latzdakah. Why can't you ask me from that? The Gemara says like this: Mafkinan d'keilim, okay, for loy b'shabbos. Only on Yom. That's when it broke by Yom Tov. That's only the joke on Yom Tov. Broke on Erev Yom Tov, a kamutza. Is that true? But that's not true according to Rabbi Yehuda, because according to Rabbi Yehuda, you need melachah rishonah. You can't just make firewood out of a keli. Right, so what is the raya over here? What is the raya over here? Only latzdakah. The raya latzdakah, not melachah rishonah. It's a question on Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yehuda, you say melachah rishonah makes it not muktzah. Says the Maharsha, I don't understand. So how can it be latzdakah? What happened to—you need melachah rishonah. How can it be divrei hakol? The Gemara seems—

Maybe the question is ... for ... Not because ... is to do a new thing now. It's firewood. The reason why it's good is because ... The reason why it's not ... is not a ... According to Rabbi Yehuda, that's wrong. It's not ... it's not a ... So which means that according to ... it'll be asur. So then why should ... Rabbi Yosi, it's no good according to Rabbi Yehuda? Oh yeah. How do we make ... it can't be because that makes sense. Even Rabbi Yehuda would agree on ... that it's mistaken ... Why is ... Yeah, but it's not ... Gemara, by ... okay, is not really attached to the ... On ... you have a cloud if you could burn. You don't want to make fire on ... Originally, when they started, the first thing, when it eitz is, it's la'asot. Then what happened? You went into the klal of kli, and now that it broke, so it's roi l'hasaka. You're back to roi l'hasaka, that's all. Havad that it's not roi l'hasaka, you never had roi l'hasaka. Why? Because on Shabbos, roi l'hasaka doesn't make it into a kli. So we have to look to get it back into its original form of kli, and therefore the machlokes then becomes, yet kli and not kli. That was what the Gemara is doing here, is that even according to רבי יהודה, who holds the only way it turns into a kli is when this came, the la'asot, we're bypassing that, saying, you know what, I don't even care about that, because it originally started off as a kli ... la'asot. Make a fire. You need to ... You got to treat firewood, wood. As soon as I chopped it off the tree ... In a way, he said. No, no, no, you have to problem was now that it was a kli, now that it was a kli, so the question is, what does it turn back into? Only if ... it could go back to its original state, and then the halachos to what its original state was. That's the ... That's the ... And he's right. Do you have to say it? No, I got to hold the ... big ... You're right, you're right. That's my kashya. I wrote it down. You want to hear? Come, send me my notes. My question to you is very simple. Okay, what are they saying like this? You'll have the kasha. I love... I love... What's the lashon of Rashi? What does... No, shehei kaimi. What's the lashon of Rashi? Why...? What's the lashon? I'm the lashon of the Gemara. ...eitzim b'alma nינהו. ...saka kaimi. Me'etmol ... kaimi. ...regarding Shabbos. Also, that's a teretz to Gemara. What's ... answers itself, because we don't say ... And that's the kasha.

And that's the most chashuv. If it was, it's a... ...rav... ...lefi ravnechemya. What's the chemya? What are you talking about? What's the chemya? Who said l'chemya? ... I just said. ... Pshat is, but on yontif, you want mechinah for that. I'm trying to explain to you, the only way we could say from the pshat is to give it a shem kli, but not for what you were meichen it for. What do you mean? You were meichen it for what it is, not for if it breaks, what it could be. The question is, does it still have a shem kli? And the answer is, by eitzim you don't need melachto l'issur to get on it to shem kli, as long as it's wood, because wood is always for that. But l'maaseh, wood, I was meichen it so I wasn't meichen my chair for firewood. I mean, a guy has a chair and it breaks, you can tell me I had in mind firewood? Why not? Now you hit it on the butt. I don't care. I don't know what you're talking about. I have no idea what you're talking about. Once it breaks, I can make it into any keli I want. I don't know what you're talking about. I'm not sure, I have no idea what you're talking about. This is what I wrote here: l'choira tzarich iyun, l'hakin yesh lo melachto l'heter, only if you can go back to the original. It's a new kli now. What's wrong with what it is now? You know when you have to go back when you have a problem with hachanah? Not only that, what if it's on Shabbos? On Shabbos, but on the weekday who needs it? I don't know what Shabbos talking about. That's what I'm telling you. It's my tack, and I don't say the mashal. Exactly. But if it's not clean, then you can never use it. Make up your mind. Is firewood a kli? Yes. Because if it's a kli, then it's turned into firewood. Who? Here's the special case. It is a kli for itself. Is firewood a kli? Is a kli. Why do I have to then go back? Why am I going back? It turns into a kli. But why? You need it. Okay, why do you need it? Exactly, makes sense. Mashal teretz doesn't make sense. If katcha was my katcha, this teretz doesn't make sense. What's this katcha? Katcha is teretz, Shabbos. Teretz is why you need it. Why do you need it for? Is it a kli firewood, then it turns into a kli. And where do you have to have kavanos? What kavanos do you need already? You know, guys, they're here. Here in the mukhan l'mzuman, last place, kli. What do you need? You need kavanos? What kavanos do you need? You know, imagine a guy comes into the store, yeah, just a beautiful mashal, right? A guy likes stories. ... yeah? Imagine a guy walks into a store and says, I want to buy some firewood. Know what the guy's gonna come and say? He wants firewood. ... firewood. Forget it, it's firewood. Leave firewood. What name? That's what I'm asking you. What wood is the piece of wood you use for fire? Are you wood? Shame, this is firewood. What name? That's what I'm asking you. Why do you have to be a ... before ...? You know what a ...? Any piece of wood that stands for firewood is not מוקצה, finish, end of story. And what's called firewood? What is firewood? There's a special halacha you did firewood. Special halacha you did. Burn it into firewood. One put firewood, it becomes firewood. You want to know something? How does... There's a... No. Yeah, because the original mess is firewood. Wood. But you don't stand... just, because any wood stands for burning, right? So then you have that after that also. Once any wood stands for burning, then... Ready? Yeah, I know that it says. But the problem is... Why do you need the...

One second. My question. Interviewers, the truth is, it's really the mashal question in the Gemara, the next line. It's really the mashal question in the next line, which means the mashal is that, what's the cheshbon of melachtan? The Gemara doesn't say melach; Gemara says melach acheres, right? Mashal is not really a melach. Morris says that according to Rabbi Yehuda, Erev Shabbos you'd be allowed to use it. It broke in firewood. Why? Because it's roi l'hasaka, but I still can be melachta l'rishonim. And pashut pshat in the Gemara is, as long as kanu kli on Erev Shabbos, no problem. L'choira, right? Because it turns into a new kli on Erev Shabbos. Says the mashal, no. It turns into its old kli, because since it originally started with firewood, it now again firewood. It turns into a new thing now. What do you need it? What do you need to kasher? The whole thing makes no sense. The whole thing makes sense. It happens to be firewood. Yeah, it's a new kli now. It turns into a new kli. Kamashma lan, it doesn't turn into a new kli at all. It turns into a new kli, no problem. The whole thing makes no sense. I want to show you another nekudah. We know that not so. If it has to turn into a new—how come it doesn't turn into a new kli? I'm not sure how great. This thing is great, it's great. You can use it for firewood. Why should it be firewood? What's firewood? It's firewood. What's firewood? I mean, is special halachos for firewood, for special shemen? I don't know, special... What is wood? I mean, but what is wood? Once it's wood, it's firewood. I don't know. Special, you know. So the first kasha we have. Now the she'eilah is like this: let's look at the Ritva. The Ritva is a major ... You want to take out the Ritva? Take out the Ritva. Masutra maskinan b'keilim. Yeah? Most ... Why can't we come and say that the case, the case of masikin b'keilim, ein masikin b'shivrei keilim, when it's not roi for nothing? Because what was the Gemara's kasha? The Gemara's kasha was, if it's from Shabbat, if it's from Shabbat, right? No, no, the Gemara's saying, the Gemara's saying ... What's kasha? If it's from Shabbat, so then how do we know, right, the Gemara's cheshbon of ein masikin b'keilim, it should be really what? Masikin b'keilim, right? Since this happened on Shabbat, and there's a ... So, ela ritva, maybe there's a chiluk. What is the chiluk? The chiluk would be like this: when do we come and say that it's muchan agav avihem? When it's something, if something there, right? So ein hachanami, according to Rabbi Yehuda, you don't need melachtan. But you need some, right? But where it's not ראוי for anything, maybe even on Shabbos it won't be good. This is kashya, yeah? Huh? This is not... I'm thinking. And the Gemara makes the question, אי מתיקין בשבתא כוון. So the Gemara, what do you mean, מוכן לגבוה? Yeah, but it has to be for something. It has to be ראוי for something. Says the Ritva. ולא מצי לאוקמי, שאין עושים שום מלאכה. It can't be that it doesn't do שום מלאכה, דאם כן, אפילו רבי שמעון לא הוה פליג עליה. You see further on, that Rabbi Shimon says—remember, the Gemara says Rabbi Shimon holds that you do מתיקין בקהלים, right? The Gemara makes three Tannaim. One man d'amar says, yeah, מתיקין בשירי קהלים. No, no, no, okay. The other one says no. The Gemara says, right? You got Rabbi Shimon? Says there is a Rabbi Shimon one and our. Simple kashya. Maybe the case is where it's not ראוי for... Well, the Gemara's question, אי מתיקין בקהלים, או בשבת מוכן לגבוה. Same Gemara, same question. The Gemara has motiv Rav Zutra. Rav Zutra asks the question, נו, מני אי מתיקין בקהלים, instead of תומת שבת, why not?

Let's do some chaps, right? Maybe the ... could be ... Yes, maybe it's talking about that it's not mukhan l'anything. Junk. Chaspa b'alma. The Gemara is trying to answer a kasha: why don't we say mukhan l'gavavihen? Oh, it's a Gemara's kasha, right? You know the Gemara? What's a ... kasha? What's a ... kasha? That's not his kasha. If it's ... why is it not ...? If it's broken, why are you not ...? Why aren't you saying mukhan l'gavavihen? That's his kasha. That's his kasha. Maybe actually not a kasha. This is one thing that we answer. Let's go to the next line. The Gemara says, No, really, really, really, really, I made a mistake. This time I'm telling you the truth. Now the Gemara is saying, No, really, really, this is really the real pshat. What's the real pshat, says the Gemara? Huh? There you go. That's because ... That's Gemara. Ela mai, behemes, Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbanan really argue when? BeShabbos. They really argue b'Shabbos, right? They argue b'Shabbos. That's really the argument. That's the machlokes. Hanakahamos what? Hanakahamos that you need what, as long as ein melachah, right? And Rabbi Yehuda holds ... What? Is that the Gemara? Now, right? That's the lashon of the Gemara, right? Ulus is noyladaf. That's the lashon of the Gemara. Now, so let me ask you a kasha. What's the kasha? What is the Rabbanan hold? Nolad mutar? No. What do the Rabbanan hold? It's not nolad. Again, before you even get to patch, how do you read the Gemara? The Gemara says the Tanakama holds muchan. Ulus noyladaf, meaning the Tanakama holds noylad mutar, or Tanakama holds it's muchan and it's not nolad. This we know if you would listen to the shiur previously, there's a machlokes of Tosafos and the Ramban on this. Tes? Tosafos is machlokes, Shoinim as well. Again, you know how to read the Gemara. Learn the Gemara. Let him read the Gemara. He says, no, you're 100% right, ... or hatzalah. Or hatzalah. So what does he hold? Nolad mutar or he holds it's nolad? This is the machlokes. Question: how do you read the Gemara? Somebody should—you don't know, let me give you something brand new that we can... Look, look, look. It's nolad, and the other one says it's muchan. So what does he mean? That what? That we don't hold nolad? Maybe nolad is... No, but it's not nolad. It's not nolad. This is arguing. You know, you're ... We showed them how to translate this Gemara, and I showed them in the halacha I brought as machlokes. I'm again, ... how to translate this Gemara. Okay? No problem. That's called a lav. Lav is—and I, you know my job. My job is to make it simple. I make it simple. I make it nice and simple because I only want to do that immediately. The rest you'll come by yourself. Yeah? One reads the Gemara that what nolad is mutar, and one reads the Gemara that what, that nolad is asur, but this is not nolad. Now let's talk again. And you can't assume the one that he brings first is... You can assume whatever you want. It's just machlokes how to read it. But he could be bringing first... Why use that? What are you talking about? Rabbanan, Tanakama. Tanakama holds that you're allowed to do even melacha cheres. Why? Because... I know it. I know it. Who says... Two ways to read it. Nolad? No. Nolad is mutar. Who says... Who says because melacha cheres makes it nolad? Just because it fits for something else does not mean it's nolad. That's right. We don't know how to translate Tanakama, okay? Now, I ask you a favor. Do me a favor. If you learn that it's nolad...

Okay, if you learn that no lad, right, and just you learn that no lad is mutar, could you go back? According to Tana Kama, right? I'm telling you, there's two ways to learn: either it's no lad and no lad is mutar, or it's not no lad. So let's take both opinions. I'm telling you the disagreement, how to read the Gemara. If you learn that it's mutar, that it is no lad, and just the Tana Kama holds no lad is mutar, what's the imahen in the Mishnah again? Imahen in the Mishnah again, even on Shabbat. Again, listen to me carefully. I was waiting the whole time to tell you like this: if it's on Erev Shabbat, then what's the imahen? It's a new kli. But if it's on Shabbat, I can hear how it's the imahen. I'm telling you, even on Shabbat it doesn't make sense, because if you learn the Gemara, the Gemara means no lad, so that's a new kli. So then how could it be imahen? What does imahen have to do with anything? I'm telling you, the Tana Kama holds like mutar. If you learn—I'm saying according to option number one, I'm breaking it up according to Rishonim that learn. You get? All I'm doing is like this: I'm reading, I felt like—please come back, talk to me about this. This is the question. You see, what I did was I read you the Mishnah, and you know what I said to you? According to the first way, that's on Erev Shabbat, what's the imahen? I said to you, but it's on Shabbat, I mean, maybe that's imahen. Now I start reading the next piece of Gemara about that it is on Shabbat. It also makes sense. It depends how you learn. If you learn like— If you learn like who? Like the Rishonim, that it's no lad in the Tanakama, meaning it's the Magen Avraham in the Tanakama. The way the Magen Avraham learns the Tanakama, that it's no lad and no lad is mutar. This no lad is mutar, not any, this one is mutar. I don't see. Tanakama says? That's it. Again, I don't see any more. I don't—what are you talking about? That it's not no lad. It's what, that what is it? It's really mukhan and not no lad, right? Meaning it's the old kli. Then I understand the Imahem. Again, the Chazon Ish tells me that why is it mukhan? It's only mukhan because it itself is mukhan, because you were meichen this, all the parts from it, but it's not anymore again. Again, it's not anymore. Even if it's not no lad, what is it? It's—no. No, it's because of the old, not with the old. Imahem is not because—agav avin means because maybe. That's—you can play around with the word agav avin. But once you learn like the Chazon Ish, the pshat is it itself, like I started this shiur, I told you, why is it mukhan? Because it itself is mukhan and it's not Imahem anymore. Again, what does the Gemara call? I understand Imahem means zeh im zeh. Im zeh mutar, but it's rov. In Hilchos muktzah, in Hilchos muktzah, ... biglal, echad, eizeh milsa, tatasim Imahem. It's not this. It has nothing to do. It itself is mutar. You want to know why it's mukhan? It's ... mukhan b'glal, but that's not what Imah means. I agree with you. I find the Mishnah. No, besides for wording, mylish doesn't make sense. I don't see what the Mishnah wants. Mishnah tried telling me the halacha, the reason for the halacha. I never saw a Mishnah that talks to me the reason before telling me the halacha. You know what the Mishnah should have said? ... These are the reasons, because ... no? I don't get it. I read the Mishnah and I'm saying to myself, wait a sec. Is the halacha ... imah, or that's the reason why? Imam already the reason, no? ... Whatever it is, it's nolad, it's mukhan, these are the reasons, right? Whatever it is, these are the reasons, okay? But what's the fact? Shouldn't the Mishnah not first...

I understood the Mishnah telling me the fact and the Gemara the reason, and said the Mishnah starts with the reason. That's the reason. Imai, only with imai it shouldn't be like that. That's the reason. Imai, in fact, you can be nightel separately also. It's not true. No, imai means the reason. That's all. Imai has to be the data, include anything. Just like the time of commoner, it's nitel... right, so then it's not. But say, so what's the nitel imai? It's only a svara. I ain't saying it's not even a reason either. So I'm saying whatever the Mishnah is, the Mishnah is addressing the reason that's halacha. Don't you think it's... Well, I mean, if I want to know that halacha, halacha is like this: Kol sherei keilim she'osin melachtan... What are you talking about keilim, nitlin, shidrei, between imai and—what is that all about? No, it's the nusach haMishnah. The Mishnah is talking the svara. Kol hakeilim that are nital, so the shvirah is nital imai because of mukhan. Oh, so now you're telling me a chiddush that any kli is not... that part of the Mishnah? I'm not— that's not a chiddush, that's nothing, right? What is it? Why it's not? But the Mishnah has to tell me kol hakeilim... What's wrong with just—yeah, but what's the point to kol hakeilim? Yeah, but what's kol hakeilim hanitlin b'Shabbos? That's the point of it. I thought it's not... The shevarim is not... Just say, shevrei keilim nitlin if it's osin melachtan. I mean, what—kol hakeilim hanitlin b'Shabbos. Like, what is that to teach you? What's the point of that? Oh, now you think Torah. Wait a second, now you think Torah. Slowly, slowly. Close the sefer, and then— no, don't close it. Put it, put it. You know what? Put on the music first. First the music. He thinks you're now. Now this is teaching. We need the information. It's nothing. The whole Mishnah is— you know what this Mishnah is trying to teach me? Shever kli. A shever kli. ... is finished. What's kol hakeilim? Kol hakeilim, shivrei keilim ... that's the reason of it. That's not that halacha, but that's the reason. But that's the reason. That's not that halacha. You want that halacha? Shivrei keilim, she'oiso ... halacha, ... finished. I'm telling you the same thing. Kol hakeilim— tell me, what is the— So that's this Mishnah. What happened to the first— the past two months? I mean, now we've been learning kol hakeilim, now we've been learning ... Then what is it? Explain to me, mah. What's the point of that? That's not even the point. The point is, is it melachto l'isur? No, it's not melachto l'isur. You want to know the svara? ... and aggav avihem and the whole business, that's the svara. It's not that halacha. The pshat is, that's not halacha. The svara. That's the svara, not that halacha. It's the whole Mishnah. It's so funny, and you know the funny thing? I said pshat in that Mishnah also. I asked thank God on that Mishnah too, the previous Mishnah. Ask thank God. You want to teach me that halacha, or you teach me the reason? Why start with the reason? It's mamash the reason. I want uvad. Uvad is with the tnai. What are you talking about? ... What are you saying? I have another kasha, very simple kasha. Notice Rashi says, yeah? Rashi says like this. Rashi says here: היו מוכנין ... הנביאים, מסיקין בכלים ביו״ט, שיראויין לטלטל, ויטלטלם ויתנם לתוך האור. What's the sugya? The sugya is to move it, v'taltel. Plus the question: are you allowed to use muktzah? No, of course not. We're not allowed to be metaltel muktzah. Tell me, what's the ... What's the Chasam Sofer? Remember that? Muktzah. Let's say I would use muktzah without even moving.

No, you can do it. Why, why, Rabbi? The muktzah of naila, not the sugya of naila. What's the... Rabbi, Rabbi, why? Rabbi, no, I think you can use it. Let's say you have a masor... Yeah, it's in the... That's not called music. That's called... and I'm there. Is there any connection? That's not called music. That's... If something was muktzah on Shabbos, right? If something was muktzah on Yom Tov, are you allowed to take it and burn it? Are you allowed to use the muktzah? No, of course not. Not. There's muktzah tiltul, right? You're not allowed to move the muktzah. But something which is muktzah on Yom Tov is not allowed to be used either. What do you mean? Let's say, I'm not mechalel. Okay, I didn't move it. Right, right. And he says it twice. Litakel, litakel... You're not allowed to burn it either. Let's say, you know what, I'm להשתמש wood, yeah? When it says ma sikin, the Gemara is talking about... the Gemara is talking about burning. What's the lashon in the Gemara? Burning. Burning it. The burning is אסור, not the muktzah. Rashi says the tiltul. Let's say I didn't move it. Let's say it's there. Let's say they take the chair, bro, and you know what? I make a fire on it. It's not moving. Is that muktzah? It should be asur. Muktzah. Muktzah. Burning it, I'm using it. You don't move, you don't use the muktzah. Stop. Just how do you use the ...? No, so, and the Gemara is ... You're missing. You don't even realize the whole Gemara is talking about putting it in the fire. We're never talking about putting it into the fire. Rashi comes along and says, You picked it up, you put it into the fire. You know, what about using it? You forgot about the ... of using it. Yes. That's ... same as ... It could be even ... I remember, same ... Everything is questioned. In other words, because even if the pshat is, even if you learn that it's the old kli, but it's heter tiltul not because of the old kli. It's because in itself it's מוקצה מחמת חסרון כיס. You would make him this also. Now, you ready? Let me ask you a simple question. Last question? Yes. Now, we're not talking yes, the answer is ... I beg you, let's learn the rest of the perek like this. Not hard. No, telling you, you know what it is? Because when I get the perek, you hear? One halacha you never take on. Original kli, for example. For example, if something is a kli שמלאכתו לאיסור, a piece broke off, does it become a kli שמלאכתו לאיסור also? Oh, it becomes a kli from a melacha. The ... Now you're טוב, huh? Now you see the beauty of this shiur? Shain. Not even ... Give me a minute. When you have a kli and a piece breaks off, what halacha does this new piece take on? This new piece take on. The old halacha? Shevirah keilim take on its original, ... the kli from the ... takes on the new halacha. No. What? ... Let's take a look how the Rambam tells me about a tanur. ... Halacha vav. Who wants to read the Rambam? This rabbi is a big ... But, tanur, right? What's a tanur?

What about tanur? Give me the case of tanur. Tanur. What's the tanur, rabosai? Keilim shebila'achto le... What happens to the shvarim of it if it becomes keilim shebila'achto le? It breaks. You know what happens to the new pieces around? It becomes keilim shebila'achto le. Let's take a look a little further. You know what the nafka mina would be? Are you allowed to take away shivrei... Are you allowed to take a tanur and become it itself? No. What about the shvarim? Let's take a look at the perek ha'din, siman shin ches, mitzvahs daled to daled. Shin ches, os yud daled. Rambam is clearly, keilim shebila'achto le, the shvarim become keilim shebila'achto le. But we see that it doesn't have its own halacha. It comes under the halacha. Unbelievable. Tanur keilim shebila'achto le. Yeah. Let's take a look. It's a broken piece. One piece. The piece that broke off. No. I can use this to cover the pot. It's going to become, it's going to become מוקצה, you hear? It is the מוקצה itself. I'm not—I'm not. I'm just... yesod. The yesod is like this: kol hakeli... The question is, what happens to the שברים of it? Do the שברים take on its original halacha? You want to know where this Mishnah Berurah is brought down? The Magen Avraham paskens like this in סעיף קטן י״ט, that it becomes a melachah. The Pri Megadim argues and says that every keli, the שברים remain keilim she'melachtam לאיסור. No, it's סימן שח״י, the Magen Avraham, and right there the Pri Megadim argues the side. One more fact, and then we're going to start answering. It's a simple question. The question is: פירוקי of שברי כלים, what happens to the shever? Does it take on its old, or does it take on a new? Okay? Machlokes. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, not yet. We don't know. Maybe, we'll soon see. Now, the next thing I want to ask you—one more. From the Rambam, it's mashma it takes on a melachah. It takes on it as a whole biur. I'm just telling you, in halacha it's brought down a machlokes between the Magen Avraham and the Pri Megadim. Now, let's do one more piece of information. U'vilvad—look at the lashon of the Mishnah: u'vilvad she'oisin me'ein melachah. Had a tameh hole, who vad, right? Any milah. What happens if the kiddo any milah? Kiddo is nothing. That's how the Tur, right? ... Yes, that's what happens if ... Yeah, got me, look, right? The bottom of the Tur, ... and if you look to a certain ... they go to ... Oh my goodness. Even if it's not ... anything, what? No, no, no, no, no, no, no. He says only one thing. He said like this: It's not going to become a kli heter l'gamrei because it has no tashmish, but l'maaseh, ... Go ahead, read it. Read it! Chiddush עצום here. When you read the Mishnah, the Mishnah is ... you can only move it if it takes ...

But if it has no melachah that should be used for, it's also .... No, no, no, not true. Not true. Mirah. Mirah. Oh. ... Sorry, just said the key word. ... You don't need a ... It's not .... That's .... Why are you allowed to stay ...? We're trying to say that it's never lost its ... That's what we're trying to say. Never lost its .... So why the question? Right. The Mishnah is trying to make you into a ... Make it like a ... we never thought that. Even if it has no purpose. What do I have to move? You ready? We're landing. Come, let's go. Move. Runway, runway. Everybody fasten your seatbelts. Put your seatbelt in upright position. Yeah. Return the headphones. Ready? We have a... We had on... Many times, there's two halachos of muktzah. There's one halacha of muktzah, there's one halacha of muktzah, which the side in the muktzah is, in itself is muktzah because it's not a kli. Hadavar hatzmud muktzah is lo kli, lo mukh, lo kli mukh, the etzem. That's real muktzah. Then even after something is a kli, then there's issur tiltul. Now a move certain object, okay? You can't use it, but you can't move it. Mainly you can't use it because you can't move it. The issur starts with the moving. One, the issur starts with the using, and the other one starts with the moving. We spoke about this many times. The ... and the other poskim is clear in the ... Now, there's one halacha of muktzah, the etzem. We spoke in Chasam Sofer about this, right? All the poskim focus. There's the etzem muktzah, nolad. Nolad is the etzem muktzah, it itself is muktzah. Then there's halachos of keilim. This are muktzah, even though they're keilim, ... keilim because of problems of tiltul, the only way to use... What they asked, they asked ... and they said ... Okay, now, if you look at the cheshbon of the Gemara, the Gemara is discussing both in Yevamos. You know where the Gemara switches? The Gemara is not sure sherei keilim and the machlokes, is it a machlokes in hilchos tiltul, or is it a machlokes in hilchos keilim of the ... Exactly what's going on. When the Gemara discusses רבי יהודה and the Rabbanan, that they argue on Erev Shabbos, so I ask you a kasha. I ask you a kasha, that l'choira, once it was for Erev Shabbos, then it itself is what it is, right? But the question then becomes a question of hachanah. There the shaila is a shaila of hachanah. It's a shaila of preparation. When it's on Shabbos, and the ...

Now there's ... then it's a ... It's a different ... of a teretz. In other words, like this. And again, what I'm going to do for you is like this. I'm going to tell you the teretz, and tomorrow we're going to have to come back the day after how we answer all the questions. We'll take another half. I'm just going to tell you again. It's a very simple thing. We're not sure this machlokes of Rabbi Yehuda and the Tanna Kama, when they argue melachtan and not melachtan, are they in hilchos hachanah? Are they discussing hachanah, or are they discussing the keli? Maybe it's not a kli. The Gemara itself is misapek in this, and those are the two shitos of the Gemara. First the Gemara said like this: on Shabbat, it's going to be good, while with agav avin. Why? Because the Gemara held with ... because the Gemara was ... No, that's why the ... and the question is going to be on Erev. In other words, they argue what is something mukhan, meaning in hilchos hachanah, what was the person mechin, ... or anymore. You see the difference? The Gemara says no. Really, the machlokes is on Shabbat. What is the machlokes on Shabbat? They're not arguing hachanah anymore. What are they arguing in? In keli. Keli and not keli, then the machlokes ... You see the difference? Again, the Gemara and the Mishnah argue. is we need melachah, melachah rishonah. The Gemara is not sure in which halachah they’re arguing. Are they arguing in din of hachanah, or are they arguing in din of keilim? The hilchos muktzah of keilim, the tinis not a kli in hilchos hachanah. So that’s what the Gemara is saying like this: hilchos hachanah, now we have a safek. On Shabbos it’s not a problem, because muktzah machmas gufo. In hilchos hachanah, you never have a problem because muktzah machmas gufo. Erev Shabbos, that’s a shailah in the Gemara, and you guys should say this because you know what you were saying. Because Erev Shabbos, even if you’re going to come and say the wood or whatever it is, huh? But you want mechin for that. That’s the whole shailah: what is a person meichen a shever keli for? Only for melachah or for anything else? In hilchos keilim it’s not a problem. Obviously take on its own shem kli. You don’t need to be mechaven for something to become a kli. You have to be mechaven on hachanah, and the question is what hachanah for? That’s what the Maharsha means. You know what the Maharsha, when he says the word hachanah? What he meant was that eitzim and firewood is muchan l’eilah. He says muchan; he never says kli. When the Maharsha gives his teretz and he asks the kasha, what do you mean, what do you need that it should be from the old wood? What’s wrong with the kli that now that you’re ready for wood? The question is, what is this muchan for? The teretz is since it was hachanah originally for firewood. Says the Gemara, it remains mukhan for firewood. That's the Gemara. Then the Gemara is chozer. The Gemara says, no, really it's not a she'eilah of hachanah; it's a she'eilah of hilchos keilim. Maybe it's not a kli. Says the Gemara, therefore machlokes is even b'Shabbos. Man d'amar, one man d'amar says, milachtan is otherwise; no. The other man d'amar is learning... Who? Mukhan. Also mukhan? It's not Shabbos. If it's not a kli, then that's a sugya. The hilchos keilim, in order for it to be a kli, it has to either turn into a new kli or its old kli. If it turns into a new kli, then the problem is noylad. That's where the shakla v'tarya of noylad comes into the picture. The problem is if the she'eilah is not a question of hachanah, but rather a question of keilim and muktzah, then the machlokes is... If it's a she'eilah of mukhan, then what happens? Says the Gemara, mukhan can only be a nigmerah melachto. Once it became mukhan Erev Shabbos, Friday night it's mukhan. But in hilchos keilim you have a problem, because it could be what, like I explained to you, it could be mukhan, but then it turns to not into a kli, and it becomes basar.

That's why Rashi, when he discusses the sugya of matzikin b'etzem, since which issur we're talking about, not the b'etzem מוקצה, but the issur tiltul, that's why Rashi discusses tiltul. That's why Rashi puts in sugya tiltul. Between the two leshonos of Rav Huna and Tanakama, are arguing in what מוקצה is shitas. Is it the מוקצה of tiltul, or is it the מוקצה when it's not a kli, it's asur b'etzem? The Tana Kama, meaning the first Tanna in the Gemara, the hava amina of the Gemara, we understood the machlokes that the shaylah is only in hachanah, not in keli. Keli, it is a keli. A. Z. H. B. You keep. H. Z. Don't. Don't. ... Z. ... Don't go, you're gonna go. ... Z. ... H. Z. ...