Menachos 26

Today's is and we are at the Mishna four lines from the top of so you could put an asterisk next to in that it's one D that's made up of about five longish so obviously we're not going to have the necessary time to be able to do what we should do and as a result we'll just do what we do either What happens if the of the became or they were burnt? They got lost. Bottom line is the is doing he has the in his hand. He's doing the he's walking to the and he notices that the are gone. Does that now make the apostle or not? says that it's okay. It's going to be accu it's going to be this sounds familiar. It's because it's come up many times most recently on brought this and which we'll see is technically the topic of today's as well or at least the first part of today's Rav said this that Yeshua says that is possible that's only if it If all the issu thought just from being mid what Rav said that the only time Rav was making a distinction between all the Shir and some of the Shir was with regards to but as relates to Vasar. It makes no difference if all of the vas or only of the either way the would be it would be possible. Again the Mishna said according to according to Yeshua comes Rav and Rav says that when it comes to where Yeshua says you know what it means but if there was only over there is going to hold its meaning he's making a between all the and some of the very nice but the is the only said it with regards to he didn't say it about he didn't say it out and asks if he holds that as long as you have something that's enough meaning if some of the but you have some of the it should be because it's enough they have some of the and if holds that shim is really not that's ra's understanding of Yeshua and it's for that reason even if mitas would be of would be a problem then how could Rob say so presumably the parrots to that is going to be what would be the difference between it's probably the it's yesterday's because whenever you're dealing with in a carbon you could always be based on the idea that was but if works form Then why doesn't it work for all the says really meaning understood that when said his that if you don't have the mean the carbon is possible meant if you don't have any of it meaning it's all gone but if you have some of it why then did only say it by the gave three cases the Mishna said in all three of those cases ra should have said it's only if all of the became Why did he only say really meant also? So why did he say that? He was picking the ratio. The first case of the Mishna the first case that the Mishna gave was comes along and says it's only if it was if it was some of the you're not going to have that. But of course he didn't only mean he meant nitma. He meant he meant saf. There's absolutely no difference. The point is Yeshua is that if you don't have the is only true if you don't have any of it it's all gone but as long as you have some of it it's going to be okay and says the in fact this is auh says any that has a of that was eaten or of which is also but it's the part of the meat that was put on the that's enough you're allowed to Let's say you only have a half and even if you have a half and a half, you still can't do they're not because the half of Z's was eaten. The half ZV was put on the And the reason is because they were both not eaten. And they were both put on the and if you're dealing with a and you want to know if you could do if there's the meaning there's no there's no but there's the even the entire you shouldn't do we're talking about why we mentioning the here says the we don't mean an ordinary we mean if this was a ze that had a that came along with certain such as the carbon had a that came along. What happens according to Yeshua if you don't have any B so you don't have any but you have the that came along with the carbon is that enough to say that you have something that's going on you could do that's what added and said even if you have the entire what's the comes all together with I would think that you should be like not that way so what's this B so this B ishu in the parallel case dealing with just like holds that if you don't have the you can't be the hold when it comes to if you don't have any or any you can't do the because to the what is to the and just like you need in the that in addition to being should also be m yeah we've discussed this many times already so you need that it's being m so when it comes to a you need that this should be matter something as well. So either it's being or it's being to go in the in the case where you have no bus and no it's not good but is very very clear didn't say you need all the bus and all the rais said you need a kaz if you have less than a kaz that's when we run into issues but if you have a kaz that's enough meaning what happens if some of it is gone but not all of it you have sh you have some is it raishu said that when it comes to shi so if it's murish when it comes to Ezra the same is going to be true when it comes to as well. So even though Yeshua was when it came to but he was mafarish when it came to and the principles are exactly the same. So Yeshua holds you need to be m hold it's enough that it's being mas so too that holds that you need the to be m it's enough as long as it's being m of that in and of itself would be enough. The truth is this of is really that's the we learned it together not so long ago. It's they argued Yeshua when it comes to what would be if it was you're missing some of the between the according to Yeshua that holds you need to have what happens if you're missing some of it is it okay or not and there it was and the over here from the I mean at first glance you have two that are discussing the same exact both by in it was the over here it's it's the great but the seem to not be talking to each other I mean these are two suggesting the same thing I saw in the from he says why is it that the over here doesn't even reference the fact that we discussed this not so long ago and over there was either way so the had mentioned that according of Yeshua who holds it. You have to have some bosser in order for this to be it doesn't necessarily have to be but as long as it's even if it's that went on such as that too would be good and asks from the following it says and says you really have to learn the right before that it says and right after this theory mentions. So you see from there that it's enough that you have that you need flesh in order to be able to do this. It's enough that now that says clearly which literally translates as the fats. It's a part of the animal that went on the misb. But it's not the only part of the animal that went on the misb. There was the theer and the those are parts of the anatomy of the animal. So the gumar's question is is if the says maybe according to you could do this if you have that was eaten and maybe it's not says the mash that way though from so the question then is and how do you know that even is enough to be able to do the say and how do you know that meaning where is because what did the say is not enough according to be able to do the said Only if you have the you can't do this. So the learn from the learn from there anything that's going to be that's going to be okay. Bottom line is you have two that teach me according to Yeshua that you need in order to do doesn't have to be it could be the one as well. On the one hand you have the Pik that says that teaches me enough. It also says we learn that anything that's meaning even the that's considered enough buser to satisfy the requirement of Yeshua of in order to be able to do this says you need these two one toain why we only have like said we only had the I would have Okay. Love is good. Had it said I would have thought even so maybe that should be enough for as well. That's why that no it has to be something that's part of the not the which only came together with the carbon exale. So the bottom line is is that this is just another place in chassis rebu meaning we know that the of a carbon's primary purpose was to accomplish what the carbon was supposed to accomplish was the maratza and the climax was the so to bring a carbon he hands the carbon over to the kayen. If the kayen does this and all the necessary prerequisites to this, then the person got kapar. If the didn't do this, he could do the nicest and the and then the is what it what it all hinged on when it comes to a was it was the equivalent thereof of so the primary purpose of the and the primary purpose of a was to be in addition there was a secondary function of zika and a secondary function of octar and that is that the zika was matter certain things that had been previously beyond was also matter. What was this matter? And the buser that went on. What was that matter? the those were also functions of the functions of the Rab Yeshua says Rab Yeshua says that the only time Yeshua says that the only time that the could be is if it's also being the only time could be is if it's also being m and as a result if I don't have any boss I don't have If I don't have any that means the dam and the respectively are not being m if they're not being matter they are possible the answer says no what does one have to do with the other it's very nice that as a secondary function this is also a matter and is also a matter but its primary function is to be and it doesn't need to be it doesn't need to be mirata it doesn't need to be and as a is that it's going to be okay as you would expect like Yeshua because whenever there's Yeshua is always like Yeshua is but we spoke out earlier in the we spoke it out at the time as part of a longer so was a little bit that there's a steer in the when he brings in the context of a carbon says I'm skipping to the end after he brings he says if all you have is less than you can't do the if you did do this meaning the rama is like that you have to have not just that if you did without there being a says the problem is that the so it's the Not and over there the rabbins again like this time in the context of says the rais says the rather what if the went ahead and he did he gets all the noise everybody asks the steer in the rama pass like Yeshua That part is consistent but where the steer is is what happens if the went and did this or he did the when it comes to the raam says when it comes to the over the says that it's going to be so we spoke out a terret for that I believe beer is repeating and that is said that it's in many places we know that the of the correlated to the So that the correlated to the and taking the put it into a that's going to be the next part of the daff correlates to that and then being correlated to the but that really serve two functions was of it was also of an ordinary meaning where would ink there's no ink says the in many places that and for that matter mirrored they mirrored the so essentially in the two it was one there was the and there was also the if that's the case every single time the has the he turns around and he sees what happened to the I have no I have I don't have any flesh of this carbon says it's not true because obviously the holding the if he's not holding the we're not having this conversation there's nothing to ask there of the can I be mocked with the so obviously there's a over here to the extent there's a there's aim if there's aim then there's always going to be so said that although it's true that said is when it comes to the but it's not on the same level as it is when it comes to it's possible to have in baser because the dam doesn't represent baser. So the has the dam it's in a he's about to do this he turns around I have no I don't have I don't have I don't have I don't have anything. So as a result that's and in that case where it's possible that there's absolutely no but the ra understood that even though it's true as with regards to but it can't be on the same level. The reason it can't be on the same level is because there's no such thing as a when it comes to because the itself represents it represents because it's always going to be if it's always going to be then how do you have now said is but at the same time the hel's a mitigating factor this and as a result although applies but it's only going to apply on a level but So the question is if it applies it applies if it doesn't apply it doesn't apply. So we can talk about that offline. It's beyond the scope of what we're doing right now. We have another full to learn together. Either way and the way explain but means what happens if a did the and he didn't put the into a so the setup of the by now we're somewhat familiar with was the would take in thearis he would put shem he would pour oil three times after the second time he did the third time was called it is that's not Right. So we've seen a lot of this already. Then the would do the was done from the he couldn't get any in. In fact, if he got a little bit of in the it became a so that would be a problem. He would take the after he did the put it in the which is the that's the equivalent thereof of when it comes to walk the be which is we just spoke at. It's also as well. So what happens if the and he didn't put the into he put it into or better yet he just walked the straight to the and he put it on the pos. It's a problem. You have to do the took the completely unrelated and he did the but he did it in two shots. First he was mocked or half the then he was mocked the other half of the says the Mishna is going to be but the first part of the discussion of the Mishna relates to the first part of the Mishna again if the took the and he didn't put it into he did but he skipped that step he didn't put into it's learned from the following theor when describing the says It's it's and it's what's this analogy between is it like or is it means it's like and that says that if the wants to do the of the he could do it like the was done by so the would be the boy take his finger and he would put it on the put the diamond on the he had to do it with his right hand it had to be done with his right hand but the point is it could be done and that's what the Torah is emphasizing when the Torah says that the is like a that if he wants to use his hand he could use his hand however it's like a that requires the right hand if he wants to do the and he even do it with his left hand what do you mean with your hand. I thought always has to be done with your right hand always is but the bottom line is you want to know what the is like. So it's true it's like an asham you there is a but at the same time you don't have to use a there's a concept of doing it with your hand which understood means you can bypass the second can't bypass the first but you could bypass the secondar you could just do the entire with just like the was done with says agrees with that is the way we're explaining it that you can bypass the second but whereas said that from a which has ramifications because it was like it needs to be done with the right hand just like had to be done with the right hand says you could do it with your hand but there's no meaning there's no that it has to be done with your right hand if you want you can do it with your not sure how that would or with the mica. The point is do it however you want to do it. Take the with your hand, walk it to the and find a way to put it on the I don't care. But the point is it doesn't have to be done with the right hand. That's the third that the had to be put into a secondar. What does then hold when he says it means that after it was put into the second do you have to take the and put the on the directly from the or could you take it out of the with your hand and then put it onto the and that's but everybody agrees says that the after the had to be put into so the bottom line is is we have a three-way we have A three-way really a three-way as it relates to the Mishna said very ambiguously is what does it mean both said means you can bypass the second you never have to take the put into a secondar mean the could just walk the straight to the and put it on the stating that was does it have to be done with the right hand or said that the you don't need the second is because the compared to the and just like the wasn't put on the with the was done with the of the so so too that the doesn't need a either then is it has to be like you have to use your right hand says that you don't need a and there's no and therefore you'd even be able to use your left hand it's a completely different he says of other holds that the had to be put into a what then is saying that after it was put into a you could take it out of the put on the that's in contrast to the who held that no you couldn't do that you had to take the from the you had to put it directly onto incidentally and safer has a whole explaining according to it's a brisk and safer it's a very lish piece it's really in this in the briskar's This was and really what he's grappling with the brisk is that why does hold that if you're going to do the with your hand it has to be done with the right hand throughout is holds fundamentally doesn't have to be done with the right hand I remember from yeshiva so there's a to the right hand so if there's to the right hand that's what the hold is supposed to be done with the right hand right there always to the to to the right hand holds not that way. It can be done with the but that is being done with the hand as opposed to a clich that you're only holding with your hand there even holds as to be done. So there's a classic brisker of but either way the gar now is going to ask questions on the respective says first that will put on doesn't matter if you did it with your hand your right and your left hand it's always going to be caution there's no den of how you had to put it on the just get it on the and you're the we need the was put whether it was going to be now obviously this is going to say because only holds that you don't need a and the is you see that it can be put on with your left hand so who said that even who holds but at the very least it has to be has to be the right hand. Let's start them funny. The way you're supposed to read the B is you don't read it. That would suggest that if you're using either your hand or it could be either with your right hand or your left hand. No, if it's with your hand, it has to be with your right hand. If it's with a that's where it could be. If the kamitz was done not from a kishar, so then bryo is going to say that according to some kasha. Now nobody holds that you could do kam not from a kishar. So what it's going to have to mean is that the m was put into a kishar then it was transferred from into another ki and the kit was done from there and that would be even though the kam is not being done from but as long as the ma was previously in a that would be okay but that's not part of the the part of the price we're going to need anyways. was done now from this is what we need but it was never put in the was never put into that's not a problem it's okay what's the you see clearly holds you don't have to put it into a again he never put the say apostle that's obvious And both say it's kasha. So it's a riot to the first two in the on the third that is that you have to put the into he just said you don't have to be from a soar says the price is said at the end the way you're supposed to read those words is from the time that was put in everything is cautious. I don't care how you get it onto the That's what was saying, but he was never saying that you don't have to put it into you from then. Listen carefully. Once you do, you don't need another and that's going to be enough. says before holds you only the second again it's says then it's okay so we're inserting words we're deleting words we're editing words but the point is we're mching here the not sure how to make sense of these seem to be is not that way I mean what's the price say once you do from you're done once you do and you put it in it's only then you're done I What if the did with his right hand and also smuggling and put it into his left hand? Put it back in your right hand. Meaning before you do the get it back into your right hand, what if the had piggle while it was in his left hand? It's going to be possible, but it's not going to be carus. You can't have avas piggle of chorus when it's in the left hand of the car. Once the puts the from his right hand to his left hand at that point the becomes the becomes possible. You can't just put it back into your right hand. It's possible once you take it from your right to your left is an issue. Because what are you supposed to do with the after you do the you're supposed to put it into a smile once the put it into his left hand. It's as if the dam was what happens if the dam is between the possible. So the same is going to be true say the if the if the is going to be between the and putting it into the parallels the and putting it into the parallels the kabala. So just like between and makes it possible so ends up on the between the and putting it into the is going to make it possible. And what does ritzbah mean? It doesn't mean the floor. It means it's not in the kisharis. It was somewhere other than where it was supposed to be. Avoid has to be bin. So if it's anywhere other than the min, it's going to be a problem. So says that if you do the kamit with your right hand, then you put it into your left hand. Just put it back into your right hand. What if you had a mash of a piggle while it was in your left hand? Whatever. But just put it back in your right hand and then you continue doing the no. Once you went from your right to your left, you can't put it back in your right because putting into your left is tent. And what's that? But what do you see from here? You see didn't have a problem of they had no issue that putting it from your right hand to your left hand creates a why probably because there's no when it comes to because you don't have to put it into a checkmate. There's no way to answer this says the by the way according to you have a from this price what's the hold if you did with your right hand you put it into your left hand you have to put it back in your right hand so you see that doesn't hold you need but you have to at least make sure it's in your right hand when you go to put it on the you need right why do you need your right hand for the reason you need your right hand is because it's that at the very least it needs says the so it's for sure because from the fact that there's no when you put it from your right hand to your left hand that's a that there's no that's you have to put into you have a for sure cuz you see that you have to get it back into your right hand that was says it according to say you don't need your right hand if you don't need your right Why you putting it from your left? Right. Rabi said you could put it on the miss. Okay. So is like from your right hand or your left hand. So you see uh you see that you don't need your right hand. There's no mean. He didn't learn. So so says I hear Yeah, you're right. I'm from this but I have a BA that supports me. Hector Right at the beginning of the garra the garra had brought a rise a what was the smoke and then he said whether it's your hand or whether it was a whether it was your right and whether it was left and the vers that says that you could put it up with your left hand and what did what did say no the way you read it is if it's your hand you write if it's It could be either your right hand or your left hand. But the bottom line is is the Gmorra answered that it's said to it's a tremendous. So it's true. You found a Bryer that's not like me, but I have a Bryce that is like me. That was a on the riot to me so that you can have a Bryson not like me. I have the T of the Messiah. It's for sure because if doesn't hold it's a riot for sure because holds that it has to get on the from the right hand. Is it a tuft on rab? It's a casher on. It's a Bryson not like but it's not means of is not because as much as this Bryce is not like him the simple reading of the Bes right at the beginning of the is like him. Thus although Rabian is an he can't take on a Bryce but if he has a then no worries either way. The last part of the was oh incidentally incidentally we have to at least acknowledge that the just discussed in the context of and brisk a tremendous in how nishbach works from this because understood that based on the simple understanding of how nishbach works really nishb should be unique and exclusive to aka so that as much as there's an equivalent thereof tok But still felt that the pussian understanding of how works should exclude spoke about this in great detail referred to the I believe it was on for sure that's the on the end of we went through we went through we had a little bit of a offline exactly how to understand but the bottom line is it's a fester and safer says the hikum So the says that the when he's mocked to the doesn't have to be mocked the whole in one shot if he wants he could do it he could do it says twice but not three times right I mean says two so like what what's this all based on really ising on two things number one could the be less than is it possible that the was ever less than number two held the minimum is always going to be two and the minimum is always going to be thus held that presumably the idea of being able to twice is because each is going to be each is going to have a for for because the be at least two if you break it into two each will be at least a that's why it's good but if you're going to break it into three then each will be less than a behold you can't have less than a it's possible to have a what does that mean that means if the Mishna says you could break it into two by definition each is less than a thus it's and if maybe you could do three you could do four there's no reason there's nothing pulling me in the direction of saying the said too it's for that reason the is going to be that according to it's something accomplished two things it was the It was the equivalent of the and it was also the mean it was the it was also the we have at what point in the of the as soon as the fire touches the at that point says no you need that the majority of the should have been consumed. Is it enough that it touches the makes contact with the fire or do you need I'm going to explain to you that says you need it's learned out from a par from all places the context over there goes up in smoke and the says the terror uses the word that's a kum word that's a lion And the it describes the this pillar of smoke. It's like the smoke that comes out of a fire. Now out of oven and an oven when it gives off smoke, it's not because the food that you put in on the fire that's in the oven just touched it. It's because it's right. That's why that's why there's this smoke. So if is described in the Torah as then that is the definition of thus it must be I heard from your name anything that has a to go on at night such as right was done at night is it was done at night. So those things have a to be on the entire night implications in discuss what about things who have a den to go on during the day had to be right had to be done during the day. How do you know that those things you could put up at night? So how do you know the things that have to go on a day you're supposed to put at night what do you mean well I'm reducting the you just said these are things that you put on during the day not at night right the gar is interrupting the bright just on what it means is these things that have to be put on during the day how do you know that they could be put on at any time during the day even literally as that's also good okay how do you know that those things are How you know that they have the same D to be on the all night. What do you see from here? You see that? We just need one part of this. Things that have a to go during the day such as that's could be put in literally you can wait as the sun is steady. It's 72 minutes. It's the very last second you are going to be good. What's the cash? The cash is if the definition of is it possible to be in such a short period of time like nobody said that you can't be right before you could be the right you can put the on the second before and you the it's not going to be you're fine. you have nothing to worry about it. That's not an issue. What we're discussing is when is for that you have to wait meaning is not saying there's no in as soon as the makes contact with the fire. It is it is considered a you won't have it could stay the and you have this bin of it remaining on the entire night. What we're saying is is that the physically not going to be until there's a said no the Mishna means literally Mish is discussing or that Brya is discussing things they have a to go on the MB during the day that if they were put on the MSB at night they have a dent to remain at night what's the if they have to be put on the during the day then how are you putting them on the at night it's talking about when you put it on during the And then they jumped off you. There's a dent to put it back on at night and leave it there all night. How could you say that explain the bryo that the rice is discussing? One of the things mentioned in the bry was and by there is no py. How do you know there's no piping by the meaning fell off from his back in to put it back on because it says and we learn from there says tyus take the word tyus out of that excel I think we're going to go with the lumbus over the light raid and maybe we'll speak out the light raid tomorrow. So the theme of today's daf is heart rate and lumbus. So just one more lundus which really touches on today's daf but it really touches on a lot of the sugas that we've learned together and it's a classic briskerov in safer in hila page 96. Either way, remember the troop from the Drio but uh the Drio discussed if it's okay to put on matas numbers, right? The Kadisha wanted to know the cemeteries, the unions, right? So, they cataloged the mat. They want they put numbers on it. Ramshik wrote chuv about not having any language other than on a mata and and the question is what about numbers? a number is okay. It's like 10 pages long where he discussed numbers and one of his rias is is the init screams about not putting not you know writing and you know blushing lies this was one of the things themes and in the city they have numbers on top screw up safe also has numbers you have page 96 on the right side and test on the left side but either way it's in the safe page 96 but we digress either either way so We discussed over here the Mishna said that you could take the and you could be that's going to be okay. We know this is says that if a would have a piggle even while he was doing he was being mocked to the he had a mash piggle but he didn't have the same while he was being mocked to the he had a mash pigle during the of one of the two is it avas piggle or is it not a mach what would be if a did in two shots he did like the Mishna says is okay and he had mach's piggle while he was being mocked half the but not while he was being mocked the other half of the is that going to be okay according to that holds and according to the old matter of course it's not going to be okay the question is that according to that holds so just like you could have a mach even if you weren't in sal maybe the same is true you could have a mach's piggle if you were during of even though you weren't methaging the other half of the now the truth is it's a sugar there's nothing to think about it's a sugar the says you know you have to be a for this not the says that according to that holds but at least you have to be in the entire so even though it's you could be mim but you would have to be in both of the payans in order to be able to have pigle meaning even that holds but at the very least You need an entire half a is worse than it's worse than being in the and not being in the it's based on that earlier in the made a beautiful in the so one of the cases that the brings when it discusses is the was doing and he had a pickle says the pigs that were done in the means avoid that were done on the means that were done on the so whether it was the first set the second set or the third set of that were done on if the it's going to be big accord it's not going to be and makes a deal says It sounds like that even according to a mayor that holds that but at least you have to have the in the first set or the second set or the third set's but let's say during one of the or one of the one of the it sounds like says that wouldn't be a mach and says what says you know what is it's because must think that one of The of Habad are the equivalent of and what if the of the are the equivalent of and just like mayor who holds on that you can't be if it was although the says it's today but at the same time the say that even so one has would be the equivalent thereof love of and the brisk and asks from another over there is discussing right at the beginning of regarding how many are when it comes to the brought on but is that every single carbon whether it was an or whether it was an asham or whether it was aim or whether it was a is long as the carbon was born only one says no that when it comes to the put you're going to need to say that holds if during one of the two that were put in it would be according to it but according to mayor that holds it would be for it's what's the difference between being in one of the two that were done on the says according to we're both according to versus feels he has a which is also in other places in where it's made after in a set but if you just one it wouldn't be enough and says it's so if The of the why are the two or one of the also not to when it comes to the that was put on says the brisk andov goes on to explain very beautifully and very eloquently a very very fundamental difference says the brisk that you need. The reason you need two is the two meaning a carbon in order for it to be brought needs. How many one by the bay holds it needs two. There's a den that in order for this carbon to be brought properly, you need not one, you need two. But the iss and of itself is fine. One is fine. Every carbon is fine. When it comes to here, you need two of those. One's not enough. You need two. But the iss when it comes to the he says the brisk over there. The reason you need a set is because each in of itself is only you need the minion themselves. Meaning one without the other is not a the is when you do all the requisite. If you do one is not just the carbon that the carbon doesn't have enough. It's this although it's being done in in multiple actions but really all these actions make up one of so that if you're missing you didn't do the actual holds but at the very least it has to be a complete so says that holds that you need two when it comes to but each is a zer for itself mean that each is for itself Even though it's according to that hold but when it comes to over there the is not the but the is of the need each other because if you do one and not the other you didn't do a complete if I didn't do a complete my says if I'm going to draw an analogy from shas as relates the best analogy I have is It's a it's a physical act but it's a because at the end of the day the of the is the entire and being that I only did half of it and each one needs the other as a result it's it's worse than one what it is is a half ano if it's a half a over there is going to hold now the truth is it's see the biscar inside and the biskar over there really says that I mean oversimplifying it. But the over there really says his not regarding all the but he says it primarily with regards to the on the head or which was seven. But the point is it was with regards to the that's what refers to it as it's regarding the matva. the mat had a that all seven haz made up one ho as opposed to the ho that were done where each one was an independent for itself. It's just that the carbon required one and another one and another one and then another one. But says what's the makar to this idea. I mean where's a company? You can't just make up such a so what's the to this idea? He says the is that we know used to count when he did the math. Why was he counting? He was counting because it was a unit. It had to be a unit. It couldn't be one and then another one. It's the minion. It's over there says the briskov that there's a giloid that there's a revelation there's a m that it's a package. Exactly. It's a set. It's a unit. It's seven that really make up one. One of the things says is unbelievable. one of the most garb in the entire is discussing that even though it's as relates to the whether the soul says you only need one like an ordinary says you need two but when it comes to everybody agrees that all listen to it says it says says about teach me that even though ordinarily one week is when it comes to all four says I would think only maybe only the part of the because you find that it's in other places from here we're bringing him a car in the PK that discusses is that the but one li would only teach me the mat right every also had that went on the so there was chev component and then there was the mat component so maybe only the matv is why would you think the because it's always of the mv so maybe it's the mva how do you know the m I have a second pos I'm skipping that was the gar the b of jumping to the garra is now going back and analyzing this part of the What's this? What do you find everywhere? Everywhere two places when it comes to the okay it says that's the and it says in the we know always means what does mean? It's referring to the where it says and then it says so I have a par of that tells me that says I have a le that tells me it's maybe it only means the maybe the seven that were done in the paras but you mean I know when it comes to the parad says I know when it comes to to the how do I know because it says always so maybe this is always also referring to the mountain what's worth doing with the other by the it says by the it says over here it just says it should be referring more to the mountain than to the valid like what's this for? What's how do you how do you even read the it's this says that being that you find maybe here it's also says does the garra mean what it's the match the lucky number seven that's what we mean oh it's seven seven you find so it's every time you find seven the seven days of the week so that we're going to stop playing the seven game right that what what is this what's how do you understand the there's something there's mv there's a magic tova Dr. Briskarov it's half of a fell this which is so cuz it's that every brings it from the m always had a minion you always had a count there was always every that if the was when it comes to you know which of the we're probably referring to we're probably referring to the because by the dominion which means that each needs each other one is so maybe that's what the is coming to tell me it's TELL ME WE'RE ONE WITHOUT the other is nothing because it's a dominion so that tells me it's a unit so if I find so say that all the are more by the than it is by the by any It's not a that's probably referring to the MV. What do you mean? Yeah. Because there's a minion and you find in other places where there's a how you understand the dominion. That means the dimminion's telling me garnished unless I do all of it. So you're right. There's no den when it comes TO A CARBON. THAT MEANS as long as I do one, IT'S ENOUGH. BUT BY MAN, IF I DON'T DO CHEV, I DIDN'T DO ONE. SO THAT WAS THE meaning that it should BE A MVA. IS YEAH IT'S BECAUSE IT'S NOT THAT THERE'S A magic to the number seven it's that HAS A DOMINION WHICH TELLS ME that without doing seven I don't have a so it's true one but here maybe all seven is one so maybe that's all the is coming to tell me maybe the it says over here is the same as the that the said by the as the said when it comes to the mira either way half of a fella the briskerv again page 96 it's worth seeing inside.