Shabbos 3a: Hotza’ah by Two People, Akirah and Hanachah, and the Definition of Melachah

Transcript

Hainu ... ati lide chiyuv chatat, hainu also ... Ashrivam. It's much more like, like... No, it's each one has that. It could be long; that'll be much easier. Okay. Do we have a blackboard here? Akirat oni and akirat baal habayit, okay? Akirat oni and akirat baal habayit. Now, what's akirat oni? Give me the case, no? It's called akirat baal habayit. Now, what about akirat oni from the inside, huh? There's no such case, right? And akirat baal habayit, how do you have it? That would be a full melachah then. Who? Because then he's chayav min haTorah. No, he just does akirah. So then that's the case. So they could do opposites in halachah. What's the akirah? Yes, ... she'asu midrabanan. ... lomed haprimag. Halachot. ... Ati lide chiyuv chatat, lo yachol ... lo rotzim limnot. Lo yodea, lama? Okay. This is Rashi. Comes along Rabbi Yisso, and says, No, no, no, no. I don't like this two akiros, because it doesn't make a difference to me, akiros. What do I want? I want to learn shtayim, here, moshit. There's two moshits over here, yeah? What's the case of two moshit? No? Give me a case of two moshit. There's two ways. It can only go two ways, right? It can only go two ways. Either moshit in. From where? From outside? Moshit always has to be inside. So it's either the pshat is moshit, right, inside, or—I'm saying moshit can go two ways, okay? Moshit can go two ways. Or the baal habayis is moshit in inside, right? Outside also. The problem is, if you break it up, it's more than four. The problem is, if you break it up, it's more than four. I have to change my glasses, it's killing me. If you count akiros and hanachos from two people, it's more than four, right? That's the problem. If you count akiros and hanachos from two people, so then it's not two, it's four for each guy. Okay, so what are we cutting out? And the answer is, we're not looking at akirah and hanachah, but rather passing over the havarah. You see? Who? No, no, you see, that's what I'm saying. The maslim is the mashal. You understand? In other words, if you look at the akirah and the hanachah, then you could break it up into six pieces. But if you look at going over from one place to another, it can only go two places, one way or the other. And each guy only has one way or the other. That's Rashi. You got it? Yeah. That's Rabbeinu. If you break it up that way, then you have more than two, which is four for each guy. Because you don't have only two more for each guy. You have four more for each guy. Each guy can do an akirah and a hanachah, right? Each guy can do an akirah without a hanachah, or a hanachah without an akirah, but two types of hanachah without akirah. Who started the melachah? I pick it up, he took it from me. Right, that's right. There could be two akiros and two hanachos for each guy. No, for each guy there's one akirah and one hanachah. That's not true. There could be four altogether. Akirah, hanachah; akirah, hanachah, for each guy.

Not hanacha, nacha, akira, akira. Right, akira and hanacha, akira, akira, depends what. Okay. Therefore the problem is, it says only four, two more in the Mishnah. And the answer is, moshit. We're not looking at the akiros and the hanachos, but we're rather looking at the moshit. Meaning, it went from one place to another. It can only go two places. Place A to place... in other words, havarah mi'makom l'makom can only be two places. So each guy has two directions. The only has two directions. In or out. The word akira and hanacha makes it six. Moshit, mi'makom l'makom. Okay? You got it? Now, what is the Rivam? Read now the Rivam. Go ahead. It can only go two places, inside or outside. Okay, that's already later. We're not holding there. Let's just see what it says. Let's first see what it says. Listen to the fact. Right, so you're right, and you're saying good, but we're not holding there yet. First let's see the Rivam. What does the Rivam say? Go ahead. You don't understand, right? Lenny, maybe you can explain this, explain it. You take care of the problem that you don't want to say hanachos. What do you mean? Why don't you want to say hanachos? Why not? What's hanachos? Hanachos not us? It's also. Comes along the Tosfos, b'shem Rivam, and read it now. What does he seem to be saying? Read. The guy who took it in or took it out? ... Okay. ... Continue. Now, the first thing you have to make is to say, l'choira it seems that the Rabosai of Rashi and the Rivam in Tosafos is the same thing. ... So Tzemach wants to learn that Rashi and the Rivam is the same thing. The Rivam and Rashi, Rabosai, it seems to be the same thing. We don't look at that tircha and hanacha, but we look at the moshiach, and it can only go two directions. ... very famous acharon. He says there's one word in Rashi that Rashi stresses that the Rivam doesn't: meleya and reikanit. ... The Tzemach says if you look at Rashi and you look at the Rivam, they're saying the same thing. We don't go after that tircha and hanachos, tirchos and hanachos, because that's four. We go after moshiach, mimakom l'makom. How much is that? That's only two directions. Only a meshugach can go in five different directions, right? Normally, if ... right? You have two directions you can go, right? According to ... Oh, so one second. So the Rivam is learning—one second—the Rivam seems to be learning like Rashi. Comes along Rabbeinu Benes, you know, you can't learn like that, because if you look clearly in Rashi, Rashi made a chiluk between what? Meleya and reikanit. Rashi says, afilu meleya, afilu reikanit, meaning when you brought in your hand, there was nothing in your hand. It's still a case of patav alos, because ... Comes along Rabbeinu Benes, says the Rivam wants to say no. When you brought your hand in, it had to be meleya. It had to be meleya, to be chatzi, to come and say you went both directions, it had to be what? Davka meleya. That's how Rabbeinu Benes wants to learn. If you look at the Ramban, the Ramban already attacks Rashi's rabosai for this reason. The Ramban says Rashi's rabosai, how could you be patav alos if you didn't do anything? The guy stuck his hand in—stam, you didn't do anything. Yeah. The guy puts his hand in, takes his hand.

So, aleichem. He's waving it all of a sudden. Chasimah. You put your hand in a kanit. You put your hand in. What are you going to do? It's reikanit. You're pretending. Back to Rashi, and he says, Rashi's wrong. Rashi is, Reikanit mele'ah can be right. Okay. Now let's... Two akiros, acherim פירשו הנחות. You know what the case is? The exact opposite. Shtayim shein arba is not shtayim shein arba akiros, but shtayim shein arba, the extra two are hanachos. Why? He says, why? The hanachah hi d'atiya b'alma d'chiyuv chatos. Because the only time you can be chayav is if you did an hanachah. So the hanachah, the ati lidei chiyuv chatos, not in his case. Rashi learns the ati lidei chiyuv chatos is in this case. So in this case, the only thing that'll bring you lidei chiyuv chatos is what? Akiros. Acherim are learning, no. What, b'derech ha'olam, b'derech klal, when are you chayav? You're chayav by an hanachah. Once you... that's only that kachash. Only that kachash. V'hainu chidusho, d'hashmirah shehu patur af gam d'isa d'melachah. And the chiddush is that even though you did the hanachah, you're still patur. Now I have a reason for Rashi, you see? What did I ask you? I asked you a question. Why don't you want to say the other one? Good, you're right. Akirah asu lei chiyuv chatat. Hanacha. What is it? What's by hanacha? Right? Hanacha is the case where you're not going to be asu lei chiyuv. The chiyuv and the Ran is saying like this, the opposite. You want to say akirah is the opposite. We're only being modeh to what? The hanachot. We're being modeh to hanachot. Says the Ran, exact opposite of Rashi. Says the Ran, what's the pshat in akirah chiyuv chatat? When does the chiyuv chatat always come? The chiyuv chatat always comes at the end. It always comes after the hanacha. So, too, over here. And what's the chiddush, meaning what's bothering him? The question I asked you on Rashi, you bet's bothering the Ran. If they're both asur anyway, so why do you want to pick two out of the four and say only these two mentioned? Mention the full four of them already. That's the question. In other words, I mean, what's the difference if they're both asur? It's asur. Why? They're both asur. The Ran is bothered by this kushya; therefore he answers. So the answer is, the chiddushai dashmi'inan, shehu patur af al gav yis'asek b'melachah, aval akirah lo מידי. V'hainu d'matminan v'yis'asek b'melachah. But let's actually read. No, but listen to what he says. Mashenkein if a person did what? A person did only akirah, he didn't do anything, meileh, of course he's patur. Of course he's patur. Meaning that the Mishnah was moneh shtayim shein arba. Because there's a bigger chiddush in the halachos that you're patur. Who's like that? No, he's saying beautiful. What the Chidushei HaRan is saying is, Chidushei HaRan is bothered by a kasha. If they're both aser anyway, they're both aser anyway. So why are we modeh one without the other? What's the point of being modeh on the halachos without that kira if they're both aser? And the answer is because this, that this patur aval aser by hakirah, there's no chiddush in that, because you didn't do anything. Of course you're patur. You didn't do what you do. Hakirah. Hakirah is nothing. What's an hakirah? Mashen kein by hanachah— It's the exact opposite of Rashi. No, but you see that the nekudah is the chiddushoi, which means that he's bothered by the kasha, why do you say one without the other if they're both aser? And the answer is to teach me a chiddush, that by hanachah it's only patur aval aser. I don't understand the Ran. The next part of the Mishnah anyway tells me that hanachah is patur aval aser. Yeah. So back to the original kasha. The next part of the Mishnah teaches me the—

Okay, so halachos pasul. So what is the minyan? Take away the shtayim, okay? Because the shtayim are de'oraisa, finished, when you did a complete melacha, okay? Leave that alone. What is shehein arba? The problem is, says the Gemara, if you're going according to akirot and hanachos, technically you could break it up not into arba, two more, but four more for each guy, right? If you're breaking up akirah and hanachah, akirah and hanachah on both sides of the fence, on both sides, how many more do you have? Four more for each guy, correct? Says the Gemara, how are there two more extra here? So he explained this to you beautifully. No, hanachos—so he explained hanachos. Akirah from inside, akirah outside, akirah hat. Each case, each case that the ani and the baal habayis. If you look at it, akirah and hanachah, he could have done a half akirah inside, he could have done a half akirah outside, he could have done a half hanachah inside and a half hanachah outside. But that would be an akirah that is chayav. And learns that akirah d'asi lidei chiyuv chatos—I'm sorry, something which will come lidei chiyuv chatos, what's that case? Akirah. So be'emes, in akirot, the only two more you could add is akirah two for the baal habayis, two for the ani. So that's the two more, akirah. And why do we mention akirot? Because ukam lei— I asked you a question, but it's not true lahalachah. I mean, it happens to be halachot are also asur, right? Yeah, you hear the kashya? Halachot are also asur. Okay, so I said, let's wait a minute with this question. Comes along Rashi b'shem Rabbeinu Tam, and he says, You know what? You're right. If you're going to look at that kira, the halachos, then how many do we have? We have four for each. But we're not looking at kira and halacha. We're looking at going from one place to another place. That can only be two ways, and each side has two ways. Comes along the Rivam and seems to say the same thing, machnas u'motzi, right? Going in and out. So Chasam says that the Rivam and Rashi are the same thing, Rashi b'shem Rabbeinu Tam. Comes along the Magen Avraham, he says, Well, how can you say anything like that? Rashi comes and says clearly that's melacheh, koneh. The Rivam could disagree with the melacheh, koneh. He's going to learn that the only time you're chayav chatzi, meaning the patur aval asur, is when you did an akirah from outside with a yad melayeh. But if it's yadim reikanos, what did you do? And the emes is that the Ramban really asks on Rabbeinu Tam and Rashi, How dare you come and say if a guy stuck his hand and he's patur, he's patur aval asur, what did he do? Because it's the halachah melachah. But he didn't do anything. But the question is, he didn't do anything. He's going to go and then pick up, looks like it's the start of the melachah. That's a very nice lomdus, but l'maaseh he didn't do anything. Comes along the Ramban b'shem Acherim, and he says the exact opposite of Rashi. You know what the case of kachashuv of the Mishnah is? Hanachos. Shtayim shein arba is hanachos, before hanachos. Why hanachah? V'ati dechiyuv chatat not now. In general, every time you have hanachah, whether you oiver, you're oiver by the end. So the hanachah is ati dechiyuv chatat, that's the kachashuv. What's bothering the Ramban now? The question I asked you on Rashi. But sof sof, they're both asur, so what's the difference? She says something. Yeah, but I don't see l'maaseh they're both asur, so what's the difference? She says something in Hebrew. Because I would say that ... patur aval asur, anachos. I would say it's chayav. So kamashmalan, that's why it's moina this, because you did the hanachah. You did the hanachah. Oh. What? Why are you chayav? Why should...? Because l'maaseh did hanachah. L'maaseh did hanachah. And hanachah is חייב חטאת. So you see the lomdus of why each one says what they say will soon see. The only thing is the words that they say don't make sense. Why? Because sof sof, the Mishnah ביזוי case, where a guy did hanachah without akirah, and what happens? The Mishnah tells me you're patur. So what is the monea? What is the case of shtayim shein arba help me, or take it away from anything? Even if I didn't have the shtayim shein arba, would I think you're chayav chatat? No, because the Mishnah says clearly later that it's not that way. The Mishnah says clearly that patur, that hanachah patur aval asur. So what's the point of the shtayim shein arba? What do you need it for? What do you help? You have to count it, and the counting teaches it to me.

You know, I know you pasken halachos. The Mishnah tells me that in two minutes. It will be not more, not less. But it's not true. And he brings to the Baal HaMaor. You brought me a Rashba, you brought me a Rashba. Halachah, machlokes Baal HaMaor. And what? דלא כחצר אלא הכנסות והוצאות לרשות לרשות. כגון פשט בעל הבית ידו לחוץ ונתן העני לתוכה, או שפשט ידו ריקה ונתן העני לתוכה והכניסה בפנים. וכן פשט העני ידו מלאה בפנים, לקח... where the ani puts his hand... ונתן בעל הבית לתוכה, או שנתן לתוכה והוציאה העני בחוץ. Meaning, according to the Baal HaMaor, they're all included. Why? Because it's hachnasot v'hotzaot. Hachnasah v'hotzaah. Right, right. Again, read again, keep on reading. דלא כחצר אלא הכנסות והוצאות לרשויות לרשות. It's really two, it's four, but it's in two, because we look at it as one machnis and one motzi. Go ahead, keep on reading. Read it again. Read, read, read. כגון פשט בעל הבית ידו לחוץ ונתן העני לתוכה, או שפשט ידו ריקה ונתן העני לתוכה והכניסה בפנים, וכן פשט העני ידו מלאה בפנים ונתן בעל הבית לתוכה, או שנתן לתוכה והוציאה העני בחוץ. Meaning all four cases. Right, right. No, he says, right, and also. Or שפשט ידו ריקה ונתן העני לתוכה והכניסה בפנים. What's the last two words? Go ahead. No, he says he puts enters the hachnisah and hachnasah. Oh, שפשט ידו ריקה ונתן העני לתוכה והכניסה בפנים, וכן פשט... and then בעל הבית לתוכה, או שנתן לתוכה והוציאה העני בחוץ. Hachnasah v'hotzaah. There's only two cases of hachnasah and yetziah. But the cases that he brings, the cases that he brings are four cases. All four cases, meaning the two akiros and the two hanachos. Right? That's what it is. It's all four cases. Which are really two. It's all four cases. The other Rishonim are trying to cut off, meaning Rashi is trying to cut off the hanachos. The Ramban is trying to cut off the akiros. The Rashi b'shem Rabbeinu is trying to cut what case? What case? The akirah part of the maaseh. The akirah part of the maaseh, meaning the beginning. The motion of the machnis depending on the oker. And the Baal HaMaor is trying to say all four. We need the motion, the machnis, the oker, all four cases. What are they arguing? No, it's not. It's not the Rivam. The Rivam is machnis the motzi on each person, right? But you don't have with the akirah and the hanachos. No, you don't. Yeah, but he's not medayek on the akirah and the hanachah. How do you have one of the two? Give me the two cases. Right, so that's two cases, right? So you don't have four cases. You have two cases. Say, but each one has two cases. Each one has four cases. But because those four cases are really hotza'ah and hachnasah, so it's two. He needs to say it's two, which is two more, which are really four, which is eight, which is eight altogether. Huh? That's sure it's the Mishnah. Avad it's four. It's four, which could break into another four. That's what you want to say. There's no such thing. That's not what it means. What it means is, hotza'ah can come to chatos with a kiyum on the other. That's what you want to say. Who? And the answer is, you're right. But it's really two, which is eight. Two, which is four, which is really eight, but it starts with two, which is four.

Exactly. It's all another way of saying it. Are you gone yet? Are you gone yet? You with me? You with me, Avram? Soon you're gonna get enjoy. Soon you're gonna enjoy. This is the hard part. Now we're starting the easy part. Okay, let's go. What the Baal HaMaor is saying is all four cases, pashat and akar, and akar and pashat, all four are included in the word to. You know why it's included in the word to? Because you're a machsir and a motzi. Now, what other Rishonim are arguing in? A. And B, what do we do with the kashas? L'maaseh, it's all off. So what's the game? What's the game that we're playing over here? You know what I think the teretz is, rabosai? I'll tell you what I think the teretz is. Rashi learns, what's the taich in akirah? When you make an akirah, is akirah a condition, or is akirah part of the melachah? If you read Rashi, Rashi says clearly, and I saw the Tosfos Chaim is medaik this from Rashi, but it's an open Rashi. Akirah is part of the melachah. It's the beginning of the melachah. It's a condition. It's the beginning of the melachah. That is the melachah. The melachah began, according to Rashi, you know where? With the akirah. That's the beginning of the halachah. That's the beginning. What are the Rabosai? The Rabosai are saying a big yeshut. Rabosai are saying, we don't look at the akirah and the hanachah, the moving of the object. And from the lashon is techilas hamaaseh. It's a maaseh, it's not techilas hamaaseh. Notice the words, the words of the Rabosai. He once said techilas hamelachah. The other one says techilah selah. The ma'aseh is mavir mirshus lireshus, yeah? The melachah began from where? According to Rashi, in the beginning, from the akirah. According to Rabbeinu, that's not true. Akirah is only a condition, yeah? And since it's only a condition, what's the ma'aseh? What's the guf ha-ma'aseh? Moshit. Okay. Now let's understand the Rivam klapi Rabbeinu of Rashi. If you learn that akirah and the hanachah is the melachah, that that is the melachah, can a person come and say that he was oker yadoi without anything in it, that he should be patur? No. That's nothing. You didn't do it. But if you learn that it's the ma'aseh of mavir, so you have to do something. You put your hand in, and then you took it out. When does the act of maavir begin? When you put your hand in. It's empty. It's empty. Who cares? Who cares? Maybe it's like you have a truck that has to take the sand. Can I ask you a question? Can I ask you a question? If you're driving the car to the bank, is there a ...? He doesn't do anything, but he's driving the car. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The guy put his hand in. That's right. ... The guy put his hand in. ... Where's the beginning? Where's the beginning of being motzi? ... bring my hand in, even though it's ... Why? I thought. I put my hand in to take it out. When did I start? The ... benet, magen afot, and he says, Wait a second. We're not done the person. What are we done? Even if it's a din in the ma'aseh, but it's legabei the chefetz. He says, Therefore, if it's maleiah, then I could hear where it's techilas hama'aseh, but if it's reikanit, if it's empty, so legabei the chefetz. The mice is nothing.

Havar v'tcheifetz. Let me, havarah. In other words, like this: if you learn that it's an akirah is the melachah, that's Rashi. Akirah is the melachah, from place A to place B. That's the melachah. The melachah is to go from place A to place B. So techilas hamelachah is the akirah. Mashenkein the Rabbeinu was learning, no, no, no. It's the ma'aseh ma'avir. So meileh, when do we do the ma'aseh? Even if it was meikanes, even if the hand was empty, the ma'aseh started already. Comes along the Magen Avraham and says, does the Rivam learn like that? Maybe not. But the Rivam is saying, no, we're going to be dan what? We're going to be dan the person. But you have to know what, legabei what, legabei the cheifetz, the person. It's how much did this person go and make an akirah and hanachah. It's a little bit like Rabbeinu. It's in the yesod, he agrees with Rabbeinu. Comes along the— no, I'm saying, comes along and says the same thing. Let's take a lashon of how the Rivam brings it. What's the case? He was moishit and machnis, but chaser ma'at. You saw the lashon? Ma'at. He's missing a little bit. What's he missing? Oy akirah, oy hanachah. What kind of lashon is that? When you're patur mita bunkers, you're missing a little bit. You didn't do the whole melachah, right? You did half. The teretz is it's not half and whole. According to Maran Benet, it's you. You're not allowed to be ma'avir. What are you missing? You weren't ma'avir enough, that's all. It's a tenai. How much do I have to be mavir? I have to be mavir a kzayis. According to Rashi, if you don't have that kiur, you don't have that melachah. Are you chaser mat? You're missing the whole thing. You didn't do the melachah. You need shiur. Maybe, according to Rashi, ... I see the lashon. ... I don't know why people don't pick up on this lashon. Chaser mat. You're missing a little bit. You should have been chayav, but it's not. Bad try. What kind of sixty-five? What are you talking about? Could you imagine a guy who comes with a half a hat into the shul? Walk around with a chatzi kova, chatzi... chatzer li'maat. You know, yagidu alecha, chatzer lecha... lo yomru alecha chatzer lecha mat; yomru alecha chatzer lecha... right? According to Rashi, even if it's shiur, but the pshat is that is the melachah. The melachah is from place A to place B. So therefore the akirah becomes the problem. My daas, I'm telling you something else. I'm saying, according to Rashi, the actual taking from place A, that the cheftz went from place A to place B, that's what's asur. So when does the melachah begin? From the akirah, mi'makom zeh. Mashenkein according to Rabosai, you know what you say the melachah Shabbos, melachah tzorech? That the mavir. I took it. I had a ma'aseh. I did an act of being mavir from place to place. You know what, hilchos hamas, it says Rashi, even if I took an empty... my boysa, say Rashi... even though I took an empty hand, I started the maaseh. There's no other way for me to be motzi unless I was machzis my yad. So meileh I'm chayav on the maaseh already, for the mach... There's no way for me to be a motzi unless I was first machzis my yad. The only way, there's only one way for him to be motzi, if he was machzis his yad. So in maaseh, he already started from the fact that he put his hand in, even erev kani. Comes along the Magan Ben, and he learns that the Rivam doesn't learn like that, meaning the Rivam is learning, the Rivam and Tosafos is learning that even though the maaseh is what you're chayav for, but it's not lafukei the cheifetz. The maaseh, the pshat is the maaseh of the maavir cheifetz, so it can't be without the cheifetz. It has to be with the cheifetz. You're right. He takes a little bit of Rashi. Exactly, he's putting the two together. Comes along the Ran, and what does the Ran learn? The Ran is... Listen to what the Ran is saying. The Ran is saying like this: every time you have an akirah and hanachah, right?

And you learn like Rashi that the melachah is akirah and hanachah, right? What's the chisaron, that it went out from here or it went into here? You're saying there's no difference, right? The stipler's daas is for a she'eilah. The emes, the stipler's daas is for a she'eilah. Every time a person is oiver hotzaah, what was the issur, that it went out from here or that it came in here? But it depends, it depends. Now, l'choira it shouldn't really make a difference, right? But from what we say, it depends. Now the emes is, this Ran is quoted in the Rashba. The only difference is the Rashba, when he brings the Ran, he adds two words: hanachah shehu ikar hamelachah. I don't know why the stipler is ... pusha Ran. Obviously, in every hotzaah the Ran was learning, you know what the main part is? Shezeh hegi'a l'makom zeh. Lo sheze yatza mi'makom zeh, ela shehigi'a l'makom zeh. Zeh b'makom shezeh lo haya lifnei Shabbos. Listen carefully. Comes along the Ran and he says a ... Since that din of the melachah, mah she'ein kein the din of what? The din of akirah is just the tenai. But the etzem halacha is the hanacha, so I would be mechalek between akirah and hanacha. I would say this: we only did an akirah, chaser la tnai, patur aval asur. Masha'ein kein, by the case of hanacha without akirah, guess what? You’re still doing a melacha. Why? He has the ikur melacha. It has to come from akirah. Komashmalan. Huh? Right. Komashmalan. Komashmalan. Even though the ikur melacha is there, says the Ran, even though I could have got through it without it, I would have thought that it should be chayav. Komashmalan, there’s a tenai, soif soif there’s a tenai. Now I understand what the Ran means now. What the Ran is saying like this: shnayim shehein arba. Remember I asked you, what’s the translation of shnayim shehein arba? And I told you the first shiur. What does shehein mean, gazru or hosifu? That’s what the Ran is saying. Avad in the Mishnah you’re chayav for hanacha without an akirah. Of course you’re chayav for akirah without a hanacha and a hanacha without an akirah. But does it fit into the lashon of shnayim shehein arba? The only one that fits into shnayim shehein arba is hanacha, hanacha without akirah, because by the hanacha without akirah you have hotza’ah, you see? In other words, the shehein arba can only be the halachos. Akirah without hanacha, it’s asur, but it’s not hotza’ah. That’s what the Ran is saying. Vechidushai, I asked you what soif soif the Mishnah says. What does the Baal HaMaor learn? The Baal HaMaor learns kevaldik. What's the taitch? He's saying that you know what the yesod of the melacha is? Akirah and hanachah. The akirah and the hanachah is. But that's already chayav. The akirah and the hanachah is. Each chatzi has to be chatzi of the complete akirah and hanachah, and you can't take one without the other. But it's like Ran, right? So he translates, the meaning is four, because which is really four. Two, which is four. It's a full melachah. According to the Ran, he learns that the full melachah really is hanachah. According to the Ramban, the melachah is hanachah. It comes with the tenai. The tenai is. That's to come with akirah. It's a full melachah, but if you do half, you did a half of a full. Why does the Ramban ask on Rashi and Rabbeinu? Rashi and Rabbeinu, that learns that it's maaseh, and even yad yerei kanis, comes the Ramban, he says, how could it be on a yad yerei kanis you're chayav? What's the Ramban's kasha? No? But what's bothering the Ramban? The shitas. The Ramban always learned that it's maaseh of cheftz.

It's not maaseh of hotzaah, it's maaseh of cheftz. See the difference? What's the issur? The issur, the maaseh of motzi u'machnis, or masa shel hacheftz. So you can't be chayav on akirah b'yadai. Says the Ramban, what are you talking about? Even me that I agree with you that it's not techilas hamelachah, the akirah, I don't hold of akirah and hanachah. Remember, we learned the Ramban. But I hold it's masa, and what is masa? Shel hacheftz. I can't. So how can yadai reikanos be chayav? He says, but shitaati, who are you talking about, rabosai? You Rashi, rabosai, is who? It's my shita, that it's not techilas hamelachah. So what is it? It's masa shel hacheftz. But it's masa shel hacheftz. It's the carrying of the cheftz which is asur. So how can it be techilah? How can you have techilah by just putting your hand in, yadai reikanos? What does Rabosai say? No, it's the maaseh of motzi. Motzi u'machnis. So how do you have a motzi? It started by putting my hand in. It's like shechitah to pesach, one side to another one. But, but according to the Ramban, one is b'yadai reikanos, so one is not b'yadai reikanos. According to the Ramban, the Tosafos learns it's not yadai reikanos. Even if it's done... It's only if it's yadai maleah, then you're chayav. Then you'd be chayav on half. But it's a chiddush in melachah. ... then you're chayav mid'rabbanan. On a yadai maleah, yadai reikanos, it's unbelievable chiddushim. Harei, בין שניהם, between the two of them, they did a melachah. Now let me ask, where do the words shnei pturim come from? I mean, what is shnei pturim? Now, are you quoting a Mishnah? Are you quoting a Gemara? I mean, what? How does this Gemara start? I mean, pshat, pashut pshat. If I could teach this to a little boy, to a child in the yeshiva, this is one of the yeshivahdik you have to learn. Pshat, you know what you do? Make believe you're teaching it to a fifth grader. You can't come and say, That's what it meant. You have to teach it, right? It has to make sense, right? But it says in the Gemara, shnei pturim. Is that what, a Mishnah, Gemara, braisa, svara? What is it? Those two words. And l'choira it's the words of the Mishnah, no? I mean, I don't know where else. I mean, where else is the conversation till now do we have the words shnei pturim? So l'choira, when the Gemara says, v'loy savdu melacha mi'beinayu, the kasha must have been on the Mishnah, no? I mean, l'choira, again, shnei pturim. Both are patur. This is the way the Gemara starts: shnei pturim. Now I don't know how else this would read. The Mishnah only mentions something which is asur dei chatas, something which is asur dei chatas, v'loy kachash. Shnei pturim. What's shnei pturim? I mean, what else? Now, I don't know. I just, I'm sure you think it's strange I'm asking you this. Normally when we ask a question on the Gemara, don't we make like two dots or something and we bring shnei pturim? We bring the Mishnah like it's a... Every time we have a... It's two dots, two dots. It's two dots. Continuation. So it's a kli. And the halacha is a continuation to the previous. Now you know what I'm talking about, right? I'm just showing you the text of the Gemara. How do you read the text of the Gemara? Normally, if there would be a question on a Mishnah, you would bring two dots. Then you would bring the lashon of the Mishnah, and then you'd ask a question on those two words. Says Tosfos, Stam pturim, v'hasam b'melachah b'meidayu, eina koyamas Mishnah. It's not going back on the Mishnah. It's not going back on the Mishnah. Why? Sheharei shenei pturim, hainu pashat aniyah gedolah u'sminah. Because this, that it says, v'shnei pturim, is pashut aniyah gedolah u'sminah, k'boi l'kaman. The Gemara speaks about it later. Ela, kol yamai d'kaamar pturim d'asur b'hichiv chatos v'kashya, aval chatos d'let bo, ela shnei pturim k'dekatani masnisa. Meaning that when the Gemara says that we only mention something she'yavo lidei chiyuv chatos, right? Huh? Like rather the Mishnah says the halacha, but it's not going back on the words, v'shnei pturim, right? Anybody learn Tosfos? Yes. So the mashal says, what's the pshat?

Why is it that way? Why does Tosfos learn that's not going back on the Mishnah? The Maharsha says because it could be talking about stam pturim, both okrim. Both people did akirah, stam pturim. Tosfos goes that the akirah is an hachah, or, I don't want to say the akirah, but whatever you're chayav an hachah. Therefore, the word stam pturim means both people are oker. Baal habayis shakach, and ani shakach. Because then there would be a kasha: who says they each חייב? Stam doesn't mean oker u'maniach. Says the Maharsha, stam pturim means both okrim. Here, because the question is, that person would be a kasha, because since you can explain it, echad hakar v'echad hanicha, and it's not talking about stam together, so therefore it's not a kasha on the Mishnah anymore. That's how the Maharsha explains. Meaning, technically speaking, this can't be a kasha on the Mishnah. Yeah? You learned the Maharsha? You saw? Now you understand it? You still don't understand it? Okay, so let's say it again. The words stam pturim, Tosfos is going back on the word in the Mishnah when it says stam pturim. The way the Gemara reads, it should have been a two dots. The words stam pturim on the Mishnah, we should have asked the question: how can it say in the Mishnah stam pturim, right? L'maaseh, if you take what Tosfos explains, that the word stam pturim could fit in as a result of the last two words of the Gemara, where the Gemara says, chiyuv... The ati ba, ptur is the ati l'chiyuv chatos, right? A ptur that could come to a chiyuv chatos. The question is, so why is it patur? Why isn't that itself חייב? Meaning it's ati, right? That's right, and that's what the Gemara is saying. And since, right, and that's what we say, that you don't have a chiyuv chatos. Shnei pturim. You see that there's both patur. That's the thing. You see that the case is only you could come, but l'maaseh you don't have a chatos, right? Which means is that you won't come with a chiyuv chatos. Or you will come or you won't come, right? But the way it is now, nobody has a chiyuv chatos. You see, shnei pturim. How's he going to wear ...? The lo ati l'chiyuv chatos, that's why shnei pturim. What means that's why shnei pturim? Why? No, no, I don't see. I mean, even ... all the Gemara is saying is that you see from the case that these two guys, the ptur, patur of the losers only because ati lidei, it will come to a chatos. Masma the way it is, they're not chayav chatos. Right now it's not a chiyuv chatos. That's what you see from here, right? Shnei pturim. It's ati lidei, but not chiyuv. Right now, it's ... So the question is, the Tosafos' words is going back on the Gemara. Yes. Why does Tosafos feel that the question was not on the Mishnah? The answer, says the Maharsha, because when it says shneihem pturin, the shneihem could be talking about two people who were oker. Baal habayit that did the akirah by himself is patur, or the ani who did the akirah is patur. Right, but that's not the point. The point is that the oker is patur. When the Mishnah says shneihem pturin, we could have learned that it meant both people who were oker. Okay, so read it. Right, but there's okerim, hatakah patur. The Mishnah is talking about the okerim. Right, and that's what the Mishnah says, shneihem pturin, so therefore it can't be a kasha on the Mishnah anymore. That's the Maharsha, okay? The Pnei Yehoshua, yeah. You're right, but the case of the Mishnah, when it says shneihem pturin...

It doesn't have to be such a case. We could have learned—we could, not that it is—if really it's talking about the two people, one oker and one meniach, but we could have said that the Mishnah is talking about referring to the two okrim, and that's why stam pturim, and therefore there would be no question. That's why Tosafos addresses his question to who? To the Gemara, and doesn't address it to the Mishnah. That's how the Maharsha learns. What do you mean, you cannot say this? No, he's saying you have to explain the two okros. What do you mean, you don't have to explain two okros? The Mishnah could have been meaning that it's talking about shneihem okrim, and therefore it's not a question anymore on Tosafos. When it says stand, who are the shteihem? One oker and one meniach, right? It could have meant shneihem, both the baal habayis oker. So therefore Tosafos wouldn't have a question on the Mishnah. Does anybody understand that? Says Tosafos the Gemara's question is on the din and not the Mishnah. Why? Says the Maharsha, very simple why. Because what would be the question? How could it be stam pturim? The answer is because you misunderstood the word stam in the Mishnah. The word stam is not talking about how oker and how meniach. Stam could mean, could mean, oker v'oker, and that's why pturim. But if stam shasuyos hamachot would be chayav. Therefore, instead of asking on the Mishnah, sheyecholim letaretz es haMishnah, stam sho'el al hadin, because the Mishnah's stam doesn't have to mean the oker and the meniach. Exactly. Says it mentions all the cases. It says stam pturim. So you could say the stam is the two people who are ikur, instead of the stam, the ikur and the miut. Because then the word stam pturim isn't true. Maybe that's why you're patur. Eino chanami, the meniach is chayav chatos. Right. It says clearly it's a dochak. Yeah. It's a very dochak. And the way the lashon goes, stam is going on the ikur and the miut. Says the Pnei Yehoshua, dochak. Yeah, it's a dochak. This comes from Mari Trani, the Rishon. Marit? Mari Trani. The Marit? No. Marada. No, Marit. Mari Trani. It talks about two or three cases. That's how he explains. And the second case talks about two or three. And in that it says stam pturim. Right, the pashut stam is going on both. Pashut pshat is stam pturim is every case of the mis is stam pturim. He wants to say it's only two cases. So he says there's a dochak here. V'lulei divrei haTosafos, yeah, there's a dochak gadol. It says the Pnei Yehoshua. Yeah, it says the Pnei Yehoshua. It's a big dochak to mashma. Yeah, no, the mashal, mashal pshat Tosafos. V'lulei divrei haTosafos, ... pshitas lashon ... stam pturim, lo matzinu lehachshir. De'ikar lemeimar d'matzis b'meizid, airi, d'chayav, u'ptur nain lei mi'shum malchus. I could have said that the word patur in the Mishnah means patur mimita umi malkus. So you can't ask me a kushya of v'avad melachah b'einayu, because you won't be mechuyav what? Malkus. Why? He makes a whole cheshbon over here, yeah. You can't give each guy half a malkus. You can't give each guy a half a mita. Why? Rashi never said the word chatas. Rashi speaks of chatas. Rashi learns, Rashi, and if you notice, Rashi stresses the Rashi before. You notice the Rashi before that whenever it says the word patur, what is it referring to? Mechatas, kol yom uv'shogeg. I didn't understand, why do you have to write that? What's the gezeirah here? No, don't say... Why? Because the problem was with korban. So the whole kasha, v'avad melachah b'einayu, this sugya was only referring to the korban, the issur, not the chiyuv malkus and mita. What's the gezeirah, the chiyuv malkus and mita? To do a half can never be חייב.

What's the pnei Yehoshua saying? Pnei Yehoshua is, right? What? No, he's saying like, misa mikan, misa malkus, he can't be. She'ein shum sevara l'chayev l'chol echad misa malkus shelo asa melacha shleimah. Oh, he says like this: Ma she'ein kein, ma she'ein kein, mid'ma'aseh patur d'asya chiyuv chatzas, kachas ma'aseh, sis ayir b'shogeg l'nichatas, v'haho matzya shapir. And on this it asks, amai shnei peturim? V'sad melacha minayu, im kein yaviu shnei korban echad. From pnei Yehoshua. I took out note—you know why I got note from the Pnei Yehoshua? Because the taste. The Rashi says clearly, when Rashi speaks about lo asu b'chiyuv chatzas, lo asu b'chiyuv chatzas, right? What does Rashi end off? That the word chiyuv has to mean what? Korban. Yeah? What does Rashi end off? The chiyuv has to mean korban. I didn't understand, why does Rashi bring—what's in the, I mean, what's in the gezeirah? I mean, why is it in the word chiyuv means chatzas? What's in the gezeirah? And the answer is because we're learning it up in the Mishnah, where the Mishnah says shnei peturim. On this the Gemara is kashya, shnei peturim, why? Let him bring a korban. That's why Rashi says it. You understand? Yeah, yeah. No, you don't understand? This is a big doichek. Why? He says the Pnei Yehoshua, he doesn't explain, but this is what he means. I mean, the pashut shnei peturim means the oiker the meniach. That's the pashut pshat in the Mishnah, and that's what the case is. To learn it's only talking about two of the four cases. It's a big doichek. Says the Pnei Yehoshua, lulei, lulei, I would say pshat like this. We're talking about chiyuv chatos. On a chiyuv chatos, you could ask me a kasha here. On a chiyuv chatos, you could ask me a kasha: why should they both not bring a korban? Vayisabdu melachos mibeinayhu. I say to you it's again mita and malkus. There's never hava amina, never hava amina, v'yisabdu melachos mibeinayhu. You can't give a guy half a malkus and half a mita, right? The Mishnah, when the Mishnah says shnei pturim, I could have said, you know what shnei pturim means? Mimita umimalkus. Mimita umimalkus. That's why Tosafos says the kashya is not on the Mishnah. I'm explaining. That's why Rashi says that the sugya here is referring to korban. Why? Because since the next Gemara asks a kashya, since the next Gemara asks a kashya, v'yisabdu melachos mibeinayhu, the Gemara's kashya can only be on korban, not on mita and malkus. So that's why Rashi says that whenever it says the words chiyuv and patur, it's referring to korban. Why are you saying that about mita and malkus? The punishment, the chiyuvim. He did half. He only did half. He only did half, right? You can't do half. What are you going to give him, fifteen malkus? What are you going to do to him? Had to give him a whole, he only did half. Yesha. כתוב בגמרא מפורש. You can't—it's thirty-nine or, that's it. Unless he can't keep more, but if he could keep more, it's thirty-nine. That's it. You can't stop playing games. You can't come and say he deserves more or less. You don't do that. It's not—because not, we learn from a pasuk. Malkus is thirty-nine, finished. Half a mita. Could you imagine we give you half a mita? We're gonna beat you till you die. What's half a mita? Together they buy one korban. Shutafim, they make a korban b'shutaf. That's what he wants to say. Obviously it's a little bit of a problem, but that's what he wants to say. Gimel. He says yeshua, and he says, chatas. Okay, so I'm pointing out to you with this, I understand already why Rashi, in the previous Rashi, when he discusses, לא תיםדי חיוב, he stresses—what does the word chiyuv mean? Korban. Notice, ואמה הארץ מעצמו. What's the next Rashi? What does Rashi say? Chatas. So why does Rashi use that? Chasugya, של שניים שעשו is only what's they get to the korban chatas. Only they get to the korban chatas. You see? Always Rashi.

That's what I'm telling you. Rashi learns that the Mishnah is Toma chatos. Tosafos, the Pnei Yehoshua says that—no, that Tosafos was learning that the Mishnah could have meant mitah and mamon also, and therefore could have meant the Mishnah. Then, Rashi could have meant the Mishnah. According to Rashi, could have meant the Mishnah, right? Good? Yes. But you see something in Rashi, because Rashi stresses, the ארץ בתולת... What do you see from Rashi? Chatos. Why does Rashi need that for? The sugya of shnayim she'asu is a sugya of what? Of korban. It's not a... Okay. Now, let's move on to the next part of Tosafos. I'm sorry. So says Reb Akiva Eiger, a third reason why the kash is not in the Mishnah. Why? Listen how Reb Akiva Eiger asks it. Here: מכל מקום תמוה, למעשה תמוה, why? הרי באמת הקושיא מתניתין. The Gemara didn't ask it on the Mishnah. Yeah, but l'maaseh, same kash on the Mishnah anyway. What's the difference? You're right. It could have meant the Mishnah. Why? Because you could have answered, but l'maaseh the Mishnah is not referring to that. When it says stam patur, yeah, but when it says stam patur, l'maaseh the Mishnah, who's patur? Everybody's patur, right? L'maaseh, stam patur means the kash is still a kash, right? Says Reb Akiva Eiger like this: ואני לא נסתייעתי, דמתניתין יש לומר, דבפסח ידעי לחוד, דנחת לה עני מתוכי, דנמצא דידי של בעל הבית נחה וירגיעה. Because if she is the ani mimenu, yesh loimar d'ani patur. The Mishnah's two terutzim is a different type of a case. It's taka not we stopped the melachah m'beinayu. The baal habayis stuck his hand out and it stopped. Once he stopped and the ani took from him, hanachas gufo, hanachas cheftz. Mimeila it's like the baal habayis. Okay, here. So mimeila, therefore the question of the Gemara could have been on the Mishnah. You saw Reb Akiva Eiger? You saw it? Read the Reb Akiva Eiger, you'll do it, yeah? Huh? Okay, so tonight there'll be time. Plenty of time. Why? There's a case where it's not yisabdim melachah m'beinayu, because the pshat is he took his hand out and it stopped. Once it stopped, when the ani takes it, הוא התחיל מחדש. The question on the— so what's the problem? Let me tell you what the problem is. L'maaseh, is Reb Akiva Eiger trying to tell me that the baal habayis is chayav? Chas v'shalom. I mean, he's not going to be mechalek halachos which aren't true, right? Not if he keeps— not if— so then the case of the Mishnah is not that case. In other words, what's the case of ha'ani patur, right? The case of ha'ani patur and the other guy's patur. What's the case? According to there's no such case. So is Reb Akiva Eiger making up that there's no such thing as half? Is that what he's trying to tell me? Halacha, the ... thing. Yeah, but that's not true, right? ... You can't be mechadesh things that aren't true, right? It means not לומר, you tell me that if a guy stuck his hand out and the ani took it, he's chayiv. What does Reb Akiva Eiger mean? All Reb Akiva Eiger means, avada, avada, hu patur, harishon patur. סוף סוף לא מיחשב באמת יש פה הנחה. אבל מה שנוגע להתעבדה מלאכה מביניהו, what's nogea to Shnayim she'asu melachah echad, את זה כבר יכולים להגיד שזה לא. Avada, it's not pshat the baal habayis did the whole melachah, because then he'd be chayiv. What does that mean? What is he saying? He's telling me that all the cases of Mishnah are chayiv. But gabei ... מלאכה מביניהו, שניהם שעשו, says Reb Akiva Eiger, we can look at it that it's not called shnayim she'asu in the Mishnah. Hama? Both did the entire thing together, between the two of them, ביניהם, בין שניהם נעשית מלאכה שלימה. The way Reb Akiva Eiger is making it sound, the baal habayis is chayiv. Yeah, but it's not true. I mean, listen, don't make—it's not lahalachah. I mean, if the ani took it from the baal habayis, he's patur. So what does Reb Akiva Eiger mean? לגבי—

Svara of na'asis milacha l'mafreya. Megabi that, we could come and say there's no such thing in the Mishnah, and the Gemara's question of na'asu melachah b'meizid is only on the Gemara, not on the Mishnah. That's what you have to say Reb Akiva Eiger means. The what? No, because in the case of the Mishnah, the case of the Gemara is talking about all cases, at lei chiyuvs where you mamash did half. The case of the Mishnah you could come and say is where each guy did the whole thing, but not that he's chayav for the whole thing, because then it's all the cases are chayav. This is what Reb Akiva Eiger wants, and he writes at the end, v'ein nachon. You know what I think in this Reb Akiva Eiger is a big yesod, and let me tell you why. You'll do it tonight, you'll work on this Reb Akiva Eiger. You see from Reb Akiva Eiger what's the geder of hisa'vdu melachah b'meizid. It can't be one. It can't be two parts of a whole, but it has to be mamash that together they did the melachah. Huh? Don't say chatzi shiur, don't say chatzi shiur. Don't get into shiur melachah. It can't be Reb Akiva Eiger saying, v'hisa'vdu melachah b'meizid, to be chayav — the havah amina of the Gemara — to be chayav for shnayim she'asu can only be where l'maaseh they did together one whole melachah, not that each one did a half and together the melachah is done. You tell me. You tell me. Ad rabah, you tell me. Am I right in this Reb Akiva Eiger? Could Reb Akiva Eiger be telling me that baal habayis is chayav for sticking his hand in and he only took it? No. No, how do I know that? How do I know that that's not chai? Because the Mishnah says he's patur, right? Right? So that's not what rav Kiveiger means. So what does rav Kiveiger mean? That the Gemara's question of shneihem chayavim, let them both be chayav, let the oni be chayav, here's the Mishnah, because in the case of the Mishnah, hu asah melachah beinayhem, ela hu asah v'hu lo asah. Legabei chiyuv avadah, shneihem asur, and they're both patur. Legabei the din of shneihem lihyot chayav, what do we say? Echad asah v'echad lo asah. Huh? If they're both doing the melachah, they should be chayav. That's what rav Kiveiger is saying. rav Kiveiger is trying to say they should be patur. Chefetz. I mean, l'maaseh the job was done, right, between the two of them. But if you look at the maaseh, if you look at the act, you could come and say the maaseh hotza'ah was done completely al ydei this guy. If you look at the chefetz, if you look at the totza'ah, avadah the totza'ah was not done al ydei shneihem. But if you look at the maaseh hotza'ah, rav Kiveiger is trying to say the maaseh hotza'ah was done through what? This is what rav Kiveiger is trying to say. The chiyuv comes from the totza'ah. So therefore, in totza'ah, the baal habayis wasn't meniach, right? Just because he put his hand out means he wasn't meniach. So therefore he's not chayav. L'maaseh he didn't do the totza'ah. The totza'ah is not there. Still, the ani took it from him and still put it down. The what? The what? Right. Mashen kein in the maaseh, the maaseh was already done. The maaseh hotza'ah was already done through who? The baal habayis. What's the geder shnayim she'asu? Shnayim sha'asu. What's the din of shnayim sha'asu? The din of shnayim sha'asu is a din in ma'aseh. If you take a look, if you take a look, they both did, meaning, hamelachah na'aset al yedei shneihem. Well, ma'aseh, either you did or he did it. And the answer is, if the pe'ulah, if the act, were both b'shutafus, then there's halachah of shnayim sha'asu. Right, that's what I'm explaining to you. I'm explaining to you that the chiyuv, the chiyuv, you taka patur. The Baal HaBayis taka bechayav for this, for what's—l'maaseh chayav. But what's the geya? Because the halachah of what? The halachah of shnayim sha'asu, we don't care about the chiyuv. We care about the ma'aseh. And what's the geya in the ma'aseh? Shnayim sha'asu. That's what I'm saying, it's not shnayim sha'asu. You got it? And all you need to understand? Okay.

What should I do? I have to look. What should I do? We can't repeat over a thousand times. We get to chiyuvei Shabbos, in chiyuv, the halacha is, l'maaseh you have to look if the chetz went from place A to place B, not l'gamrei without the oni. The din of hanachas gufoi, hanachas cheftz, I will show you in the sugya when we get there, is a din in maaseh. In the tosefta you can't come and say it's hanachas cheftz, huh? No, because chiyuv is— no. L'gabei chiyuv, that's what I explained to you, l'gabei chiyuv we don't say hanachas gufo, hanachas cheftz, because hanachas gufo, hanachas cheftz is in the maaseh; it's not a din in the metzius. In maaseh we say the maaseh is hanachas cheftz. Metzius is not hanachas cheftz. So forget the— also, also, now we can come and say hanachas gufo, hanachas cheftz. In the maaseh, we'll forget the act. Which we want to say, shnayim she'asu chayav or patur, we could use hanachas gufo k'hanachas cheftz. That's what I'm showing from here. That's the second side. That's it. Yeah? Aval chatzitzah, ela shnei pturim ... Now, v'lo parich — let's talk — v'lo parich sheyischayev ha'rishon. The Gemara was never that the first guy should be chayav. Who should be chayav? The second guy. Because he's definitely ... That's why the Pnei Yehoshua says it's lulei divrei haTosafos. Why? Because since he's really only talking about the second guy anyway, so what was the whole kasha that the Mishnah we talk about mita? He can't divide it in half. The shailos for the last guy anyway. The shailos for the guy that finished it anyway. That's why he says lulei. Pnei Yehoshua says it's not for this part of Tosafos. I would have said that Tosafos asked not on the Mishnah for this reason, but l'maaseh it's anyway on the last person anyway. He had no problem with the mita. It's only one person anyway. Technically the kasha could have been on the Mishnah. That's what Pnei Yehoshua says himself. He says, lulei divrei matnisin, I would have explained Tosafos like this. Okay, now what's the point of Tosafos? The point of Tosafos is that the last guy should be chayav. Now why? Why should the last guy? Let's read together. Why? Says Tosafos, Ein svara — there is no svara here — sheyischayev ha'rishon, that the first guy should be chayav, here. Al yedei ha'sheni asah melachah, v'gamar melachah, yischayev ha'rishon. Ela ha'sheni kaparus, shechayav al pi sheyado nigmerah melachah. Now, what is Tosafos's svara? If no svara, it doesn't make sense that the first guy should be chayav if the second guy finished. What is Tosafos? If you look at the... Now, the Rashba says clearly, sof melachah. That's how Tosafos said. That's how Tosafos said. Tosafos seems to be saying that it's not a svara that the first guy can be chayav for. Tosafos says simply, ikar is the hanachah. Meaning, this is the melachah. Once you do hanachah, it's like... The question is, what is Tosafos? In other words, does Tosafos mean that ikar is the hanachah, not the akirah? No, he doesn't say that. And it bothers me very much with people. All the years, every time I learned this, I remember my chavrusa, he says, 'Tosafos means the... hanachah.' I was so upset at my chavrusa. I said, 'You know something? Why don't you read it? Why don't you read it instead of talking? Read. Did Tosafos say the ikar is the hanachah?' No. Tosafos says svara, that the rishon can't be chayav for the ma'aseh of the sheini. The answer is very pashut. Why? You can only be chayav for the thing that happened, okay? Totza'ah. It has to be done. It has to be done. Once it's done, then you can say the doer finished it and he got it done. But the reisha, even though he was part of it, b'shaas when he visits, it still wasn't finished yet. It was not. Like a masaya. It was no chilul Shabbos yet. A masaya. Saying bikur is nothing. Bikur is the Gemara. Could the ... say such a svara? No, because it's maaseh. It's maaseh. Each one does what he does, and that's it. ... that words.

The maskan is what? It got its tosfos. So once you learn a tosfos, it's not a sevara that the first guy can be chayav for it. Tosfos, yes. No, no, you're saying it doesn't make sense. Ein sevara Tosfos. That the first guy should be chayav for the ma'aseh of the second guy. If you will follow after the tosfos, he never will be chayav on the second. The guy didn't do anything. Who cares what he did? You take a look at the Rashba. Rashba learned that the ikar is—remember the sugya before—ikar is the hachnasos, because the hanachah is the ikar, he says. V'hainu, says the Rashba, this is why the Gemara asks a kasha: is avzo melachah b'einayu, that what? That the second guy should be chayav. Meaning, you learn like Tosfos, but for what reason? Because the ikar is the hanachah. That's where it comes from. The Rashba learns in the sugya before, remember, to manachnasos. That's the chiyuv chatos, hachnasos, hanachah. Omer haRashba, v'al zeh, lachein al zeh maksha Gemara, v'idach melachah b'einayu, peirush the guy who did hanachah should be chayav. No, it can't be. It doesn't make sense. The Rashba—Rashba's saying that, like Tosfos, that the Gemara is saying is avzo melachah that the second guy should be chayav. But the sevara of it is like the Ramb, because what? The ikar is the hanachah. Look at the Ramb, he finished the melachos. No, he did the whole—that's ikar melachah. You're saying Rashba is explaining Tosfos. He cheated the main part. Mashenkin Tosfos. But he said mashenkin Tosfos? No, the Rashba said—maybe he's explaining Tosfos. He doesn't bring Tosfos. That's why Tosfos. The Rashba says the ikar is the hanachah, v'lachein maksha Gemara, says the Rashba. That's why the Gemara says is avzo melachah b'einayu, that the second guy should be chayav. But in the beginning, from the Mishnah, you cannot learn what? You see Rashba. Rashba is saying, since we're looking on the hanachah, because of that we need— This whole question was only in the hanachah. It doesn't have nothing to do with the Mishnah. When the Gemara discusses is avzo melachah b'einayu, Tosfos learns hanachah. Why? And for other peshat should be chayav? Razba, because he did the ikar. The problem is, Tosafos himself says differently on Tzadik Gimel. Take a look at Tosafos on Tzadik Gimel, d'amar ... here. What does Tosafos say? ... What does the pasuk say? Says Tosafos, the second Tosafos. Oh, it's coming to me, mema'et, ... It's not two דברים together, right? And that's why you're patur. That's the chiddush of the pasuk. Go ahead. What's the hava amina of Tosafos? Okay. So there you don't need a pasuk. The pasuk is to tell me ... ... Why? Thank you. Hava amina. What's the hava amina by ...? No. So according to Tosafos, is it hanachah or akirah? Akirah. Tosafos. What does Tosafos say? It says that the hanachah should be chayav. Here Tosafos in the hava amina is not what should be chayav. I have many rishonim attached, many rishonim, and Tosafos is still in Tosafos. Nothing worthwhile repeating. ... Rabbi, ... יש ... כזאת אישה. ... ... It's only when I was in Lakewood. No, I asked a group of guys learning. I asked a group of guys learning Shabbos, and I showed this to them. ...

What I want to show you, this little preparation for tomorrow's shiur. No, more, a few more. This is question number one for tomorrow. I want to show you Tosfos HaRosh, how he learns a little bit different than this Tosfos, how he brings it. Look at the Tosfos HaRosh. Go ahead. What does Tosafos say? Katav ot echad, v'katav ot echad, pshita shepasul. Pshita. Why is it so pshita? If I told you, Tosfos HaRosh always, what does he do? He brings his Tosfos, and he's more ... than the Rosh. Let's see the pilpul of the ... Let's see the pilpul of the ... No, Rosh. Rosh. It's ... over the Tosafos. ... Like we do in Tosfos, the Rosh did it a little bit. People don't understand it. That's how the Rishonim learn. Yes, that's the big difference. They took a Tosfos and they learned up pshat. Tosfos ... pshat. Go ahead. First ... What does Tosfos ask? What does Tosfos ask? ... meaning what? ... that's called chati shiur. Shiur. Here it's what we're talking about, shnei asukim b'melacha achas. That's why over here you need a pasuk. Here he answers how he explains. What's the difference between Tosfos and Tosfos HaRosh? If not for the Tosfos, how would I learn Tosfos? I would learn like this. When two people write an ot, I have nothing to do with you. My ot has nothing to do with your ot. When you wrote an ot, right, and then the other guy came and wrote a second ot, it's two different ma'asim. I wrote an ot, you wrote an ot. You're writing of an ot has nothing to do with my writing of an ot. It happens to be al yedei shneihem. The fact is, it went from place A to place B al yedei shneihem. Tosfos is looking at the Tosfos. The Tosfos is, there's a chatzi shiur, there's a shem shiur. It's not for this Tosfos, oh, like Reb Akiva Eiger, very pashut. Over here, the pshat is this ma'aseh was nis'aseh al yedei shneihem. Ma she'ein kein by the otiyos, the ma'aseh wasn't nis'aseh al yedei shneihem. Hu asah ma'aseh, ואני עשיתי מעשה. By Tosfos, yesh poktiv al yedei shneihem. See the difference? Right. Why go? Basar ta'amia amarit, right? Shnayim she... Tosfos learns that it's a pasuk pretty much meyuchad for... right? Zeh keva zeh miniach. My question to you is like this. After the pasuk. After the pasuk. Will the Radva hold that the ikur is both? Again, havamina was, תשבי חייב ... not that akirah says the Radva, because the ikur is anochah. So what's the ...? Kamashmalan that the ikur is both? Or kamashmalan that even though the hanachah is ikur, you can't be chayiv? Did it change the din, like, or it just...? You want to say one is before, one is after? Hear my question? Huh? Both. Both. Still. So what's the chiddush? The chiddush is kula, meaning you got to do the whole thing, or the chiddush that this is called the whole thing. We're having now a new chiddush, that what's called the whole melachah is the ikur v'zeh meniach. You need akirah and hanachah. Another—what? No, but does that change because of the pasuk, or the maskanah is takah the ikur is takah hanachah? You have to know what the pasuk does then. You have to know what the pasuk does, and you know ... from there, because ... What are you saying? I'm saying, I'm telling you, those are the two. You keep on repeating over the two ...

Because if a maaseh in maaseh, you can do the whole thing. That's like ... with. Shnayim shasos did in maaseh. That's like ... If the din of shnayim shasos did in maaseh, so l'gabei chiyuvim you can come and say the ikar is hanachos still. If you learn that shnayim shasos you did in chiyuvim, so then what changes shnayim shasos? What's the teretz of the Gemara? The teretz of the Gemara is that that's the whole melachah. The hav amina was ikur melachah was the hanachah, so mashma the ikur melachah is both. That's what we're talking about. What changed from before ma'amarot me'asotah and what changed after? In amarot before and amarot after, what? The difference is before you had ... now you have ... So chazer, you'll chazer. You understand what I wanted? What changed? So it depends what you learn shnayim shasos. If you learn shnayim shasos, so if it did in the maaseh, kamashma lan it did in the techilah. So what's the din in the techilah? You can come and say that was the maskanah. But if you learn that there was never — that wasn't the change. We always knew the din in techilah, but this was ikar. So what was the teretz of the Gemara? That both become the ikar. If you look at the afikei yam, very chashuv sefer, afikei yam. We have an afikei yam over here, siman daled. The afikei yam in siman daled proves that you can't learn patur without hanachah, hanachah without akirah. There's no such thing. They're both a chelek of one melachah. In other words, you can't ever say there was such a hava amina. Would there be chatzi? It could be chatzi. Taisfos haRosh. Chatzi. Kula. Yeah? Good, good. Okay, you're gonna do all this for tonight? You have work. Taisfos haRosh. So, patur, patur from korban. I asked you a pashut question. Why does Rashi—what's the nega? How did this come into the sugya? How does this change anything in the sugya? Mazeh mosif, mazeh megarea? What's the nega? So I said with the Pnei Yehoshua. That's what I said yesterday. Do I like it? No. I don't think it's pashut pshat. Misa, malkus, mamon, I don't know. I mean, it's a shtikel pilpul, no? You're saying that because I would say maybe it's about mita, and mita you can't divide. I mean, it's a whole sugya over here, no? Okay. Right? Yesterday we used the Pnei Yehoshua. Today I'm gonna show you beautiful why Rashi said it. Let's go to the next question and see how everything fits in. Tosafos brings down why Rashi has to speak out the—the yuvin of pטurim of Shabbos l'gabei korban. And even in the next Rashi, I mean, what's the hadgasha over here? Why is it so— I mean, say whatever. I mean, who cares? In the sugya, shnayim she'asu, it's davka din of chatos. I mean, what are you saying already? So the Pnei Yehoshua learns because in mita and mamon there was never even a hava amina of shnayim she'asu, right? Because you can't give half to each guy. I'm saying, therefore the sugya and the Mishnah and everything can't be talking about only chatos, because legabei mita there would never be shnayim she'asu. There was no sugya over here of shnayim she'asu and halfs, and the whole thing is not negea. The guy did the whole thing, he gets malkus, and if he doesn't do the whole thing, he doesn't get malkus. Say there would be no sugya. The whole sugya says the pnei Yehoshua, because a korban, and you could buy a korban together with somebody else, and it's a big chiddush to buy a korban with somebody else. I don't know what he's saying. Okay. Tosafos chiddush that you could buy a korban with somebody else. I don't know. I don't know, that's a big chiddush. You buy a korban with somebody else. Yes, let's take the Rashi's lashon in the pnei Yehoshua. The pnei Yehoshua wants to learn that the Mishnah could have been—says the Rashi could have been talking about only a korban chatos. Mameila, technically, technically, the mashal, according to the Rashi, Tosafos's kasha could have been directly on the Mishnah. Tosafos's kasha could have been on the Mishnah. Okay. I bring you over Reb Akiva Eiger. Reb Akiva Eiger learns that this case that Tosafos asks a kasha, this that Tosafos asks—

I'm sorry, this says the Gemara has a kasha, Tosafos can't be on the Mishnah. Says Reb Akiva Eiger, why not? Why can't this kasha of the Gemara, ... be on the Mishnah? Says Reb Akiva Eiger, because the case in the Mishnah is where the balabayis stuck his hand out and he stopped. Once he stops, so he did the whole hotzaah. But the oni comes and takes it from him, the oni did the akirah. But after already the ma'aseh was gamar, finished already. Says Reb Akiva Eiger, therefore you couldn't ask on the Mishnah. Really, you can't ask on the Mishnah. What's the kasha? ... The Mishnah is not a case of ... So I actually asked a pashut question. I mean, it's not true. I don't say Reb Akiva Eiger is making up halachos over here. What's that? What's the ...? I don't say. The Mishnah tells me clearly that one guy did half and the other guy did the other half. Reb Akiva Eiger knows that one guy did the whole thing and the other guy did nothing. The Mishnah comes and tells me that it's patur aval asur because he did half. Yes, so then the case is that they didn't do one a whole and the other guy nothing. So we answered this, we answered, and we're going to explain the answer that we gave yesterday. But just remember the question I asked from Reb Akiva Eiger, okay? Then I came and I asked you another question. Over here Tosafos says the hava amina was that the one who did the hanachah should be chayav, but the one who did the akirah, there was never hava amina that he should be chayav for shnayim shasu. So says Tosafos over here. I asked you, but Tosafos says the exact opposite. Tosafos says, I would think from the pasuk here, without the pasuk, not Tosafos, that the one who did the akirah without the hanachah... He'll be chayiv. And so Tosafos is nosa v'nosen. There's nosa v'nosen. Then I asked you another kasha. But you don't see the kasha, because Tosafos says clearly the guy who did that kiur can never be chayiv, and Tosafos is over here the opposite. The guy who did that kiur, that hanacha, would be chayiv. That's not there. That's Tosafos Gimmel. Then I point out to you that Tosafos over there, here, that Tosafos over there speaks out that's different than koisev ois achas v'ois achas. He wrote one ot and he one wrote one ot, right? If I ask you a kasha — I mean, a kasha, but I was moireh to you that the pashut pshat is what? That over there by ot in ot, our acts have nothing to do with each other. It wasn't the pshat is I wrote and you wrote, and depending on both of us, on the two of us, there was a writing. Ma she'ein kein by hotzaah, l'maaseh the cheftz was taken out between the two of us. Tosafos wants to learn like that. Tosafos wants to learn that the pshat Tosafos over there, there's in between ois achas, two oisos, and the halacha of shnayim shehotzi is this is a chatzi shiur and this is a melacha bein shneihem. This is called a chatzi shiur and this is a melacha bein shneihem. By each guy wrote an ois, that's called each guy did a chatzi shiur. Ma she'ein kein over here, because each guy did half of the shiur. The shiur is two, and each guy did one. That's right, but the full letter is not chayiv. You need two letters to be chayiv. So each guy did a chatzi shiur. I see, well that's a different shailah. Chatzi shiur is — okay, we're not holding there. This is what he says. One is a chatzi shiur, and he says that the other one did a melacha bein shneihem. Therefore, by the melacha bein shneihem is where you need the pasuk. The melacha bein shneihem is where you need the pasuk. Okay. Why does toisfos have to be meyshev that? What's the... what's the learning pashut? The difference between two people riding an ox, my act and your act have nothing to do with each other. Mashenkein by the case of...