Rav Kornfeld AMV"S

Tosfos 2 D"H Pashat states that 2 posukim are needed for hotzah one for the bal habiis and one for the ani. However on 96: the gemorah asks haknasah manalan and answers it is a svarah michdi mirishos lirshos hoo mah lee aphokie mah lee aloi. Tosfos there D"H hotzah states that the hotzah being discussed was in the miskan and there D"H haknasah states that the haknasah being discussed was in the miskan. However Tosfos here on 2 states that the haknasah that was in the mishkan was of the ani who lifted the beams from the ground to the wagons while on 96: Tosfos D"H hotzah states the hotzah in the mishkan was putting the beams down from the wagon to the ground which is the hotzah of the bal habias. Therefore we see that haknasah of the ani can be derived from the hotzah of the bal habais. Once we see that even haknasah of the ani can be derived from the hotzah of the bal habis certainly hotzah of the ani should be derived from the hotzah of the bal habias. That is, the haknasah of the ani is two steps removed from hotzah of the bal habias a) its the ani (standing in reshus harabim) and not the bal habias (standing in reshus hayachid) and b) its haknasah and not hotzah, while hotzah of the ani is one step removed from hotzah of the bal habias only differing with respect to a) i.e. where the person is standing and not b). Once we see that even haknasah of the ani is a malachah deriviable from the hotozah of the bal habias it is lechorah a kal v'chomar that the the hotzah of the ani is a melachah derivable from the hotzah of the bal habias. Furthermore according to Tosfos here one cant object to this and say the fact that its not in the mishkan overrides this logical deduction because Tosfos here asks the question since haknasah was in the mishkan why is a svarah needed for haknasah and answers its for the haknasah of the bal habias which wasnt in the mishkan. Thus even Tosfos here agrees a svorah is sufficient even without the specific action being in the mishkan (although Tosfos 96: haknasah seems to imply both are needed). The logical reasoning described above would seem to follow directly once the svorah mah lee aphokie mah lee aloi is accepted.

Furthermore the svorah can be reversed also and derive the hotzah of the ani from haknasah of the ani with mah lee aloi mah lee aphokie. This argument combines the Tosfos here and on 96:. There appear to be differences between the two for instance there Tosfos says both a svorah and being in the miskan are necessary to learn haknasah from hotzah and here he seems to say that a svorah or being in the mishkan is sufficient. If one assumes that there Tosfos needs both because he is learning hotzah of the ani from haknasah of the bal habias while here he states either is sufficient because he is learning haknasah of the bal habias from hotzah of the bal habias and haknasah of the ani from hotzah of the ani then my question would be answered but Tosfos on 96: in D"H hotzah refers to the Tosfos here in reference to malacha geruah so it would seem that all these Tosfos are to be treated together at least in part.

Yashur koach again for your marbitzi Torah, Kol Tov,

Yehudah Relis