Menachos 38

Today's is and we are in the middle of the two. So the end of the Mishna still referring to the Mishna which discussed different things that are so the Mishna said regarding we've had and now a little bit about so what the Mishna say the Mishna says that the four meaning the tit that you have on the four corners of your are all of each other they together make up one mitzvah just like the par of so too as well argued and said that as it relates to it's different is mitzvah it's the four together don't comprise one mitzvah but rather each one is an individual mitzvah and if each one is an individual mitzvah there's no reason for them to be it makes sense they should be if they all need each other but they don't all need each other. As a result is that each one is viewed as an independent mitzvah. In other words, what's the between these said would be if somebody has a beggen and his sites were made out of wool. The was certainly made out of wool. So he has a begg linen. His sites are made out of wool. Technically, it should be a problem to wear that bag because we know it says in the shness you're not wear stating that of is of fact this is the is the wrote the part of is next to the par of to teach me that of is of this is the for a lot more about that in tomorrow but regardless what would be if somebody had titas on only three of the corners of his baguette the The beggot itself was made out of linen. Incidentally, Rashi says in the beginning of the next paric, we'll see this later in the D. The next paric is called and as its name suggests, it talks about the mitzvah of and Rashi says in the beginning that most back in the day were made out of so this idea of wasn't just some that was thought up in a B somewhere that was everyday life. The big were made out of pishim and the sits were made out of wool. Thus, you always running into a a issue. But regardless, what would be if you only had tits on three of the four corners, could you wear this beggot or not? If the four together make up the mitzvah, so you don't have the mitzvah. If that's the case, you being over the if each one's an individual mitzvah, then each one would be enough to be enough. would be what if somebody has a bag that has not four corners but it has five corners. Are you going to be sites or are you not going to be sites? And the way Rashi explains the Gar is a little bit of aesh struggle a little to properly understand Rashi. But what Rashi says is that if you hold that the four together are one mitzvah then it's that it's four that make up the mitzvah but not five. In fact, if you would add a fifth, it would be. Think about adding the fifth para to the fillin. If you add a fifth para to the not only would you make the problematic, it would be you'd be over because the is one mitzvah and it's made up of four. If you'd add a fifth min to your then you'd be over potentially. Why? Because you have a mitzvah of it's one mitzvah. It's made up of dollar meaning and now you just added a fifth m. So the same is true with tits. If it's all one mitzvah and you add a fifth, albe it because the beggar has a fifth corner, then you're not going to be but if each one's an individual mitzvah then there's no and not only is there no but it could be you would even be so whether a beg that has five which is later in it's something that comes up a lot in so the right now suggested maybe he's telling the if there are four mitzvah then there could be a fifth as Well, if the four make up one, then you would think that you can add a fifth. In fact, if you add a fifth, you'd be said a third. Somebody's wearing that doesn't have proper of carrying in. So what would be if this person was wearing a baget it wasn't meaning it didn't have four on the only three is it going to be not going to be if the three are at least mitzvah for themselves then you're not going to be you didn't get all four mitzvah but you got three out of the four mitzvah or two out of the four mitzvah one out of the four mitzvah if you hold that you need all four then you're going to be if somebody takes one of the corners of his baget and he cuts it. So he turns it into two corners. So he makes from one of his corners too. So that now he doesn't have four corners on his begg anymore but rather he has five said he didn't do anything meaning he didn't make his exempt from all he did was hold it a talis that has five corners. If somebody would fold the one of the corners of his bag, it say he would fold it up and maybe even tie it together. So although there's a corner there, but he just did something so that you don't see the corner anymore. He too did not make his baget exempt from say that it's easy to untie it, unfold it, and then you'll have the corner there. Even though right now it's folded and tied, it's we look at it as if it's not folded and tied. And the is that it's going to be viewed as a regular corner. So it's that there's a on that corner if it's not says the there's precedent. to such a concept a Mishna in Kalin the 26th per of it's talking about certain jugs that were opened and as a result that of the fact that they're open meaning they're torn they're not a proper kay thus they can't be says the Mishna that this is going to be true even if somebody folded them and tied them they're still going to with the exception of a certain tie. But the point is that most of these jugs that somehow got ruined if you fold them and tie them in some makeshift way, they're still going to be taught. Why they're going to be taught? Because even though right now they look folded, but it's so easy to unfold it. It's so easy to untie it that we don't look at it as if it's folded and tied. We don't look at this kaying similar idea with regards to sites. You want to make one of the corners of your bag and says by folding it and tying it doesn't work. It's so easy to undo it. It's command on this note. He said even a bigger even if somebody would sew his corner together. So he would cover up that whole area and he would even sew it. He was cuz this person clearly wants the corner of his bag. It's this corner cuz if he didn't want the corner of the baget he just chop it off. Why are you sewing over it? Seems like a big don't sew it just cut it off. You want it. Oh, you want it. So the is the so bottom line is whether the four are four mitzvah that's the or whether it's one mitzvah that's the of and the between that mentioned earlier would all follow stating that even though Yehuda said in the name of the is like but in the same breath says but FYI even though said it and he said in the name of the great it doesn't matter that's not is not like but rather is it's all one mitzvah so again refer back to the three that the Gmorra gave earlier in the to see how it plays itself out was once following it was It was one of the shabas before Yontiff. So we know the Yidden would convene in Sh and they would hear is about Y and it would take place specifically on Chabas during the week. It's not so easy to get everybody together but on Chabas that's a day of rest. Everybody would get together on Shabas. This took place on one of these shabas before one of the and Ravina is following Marbarashi if and one of the corners of Marraashi's beet cut off nowashi was he didn't notice who was following he did see it but he didn't tell him anything whereashi got home so he told him what happened and he told him he told him where it happened he realized you were walking with this bead this on shabas with only three corners for the last 10 minutes had you told it to me at the time that it happened I would have taken off my beggar says he said really so if somebody realizes that his begg is is ruined and now he has to take his beggot off it it can potentially be embarrassing and as a result isn't is even though this is a carrying wearing a a wearing a three corners not four. I understand it's very embarrassing but at the end of the day the says that could be the only time you say is with regards to one particular and that's the of saucer. So what's the says that has to listen to not just that the best of his times. The Gmorra says and then the continues and says you're not led astray from what the tell you. So the issue it's a because it says in the but what kind of is it? It's a that thou shalt not not listen to the it's a essentially affects laws of that type of which in its core is really related to there we say but carrying on chabas is is not the of it's not a that's related to the raon it's a regular it's one of the I mean that it's one of the so he said had you told me about it earlier I would have I would have taken this off either way he says he told it to him right away that the story was not that he waited until he got home and then he told my braashi what happened rather he told my braashi as they were walking and my braashi told Ravino Why are you telling this to me? Because you think that I'm supposed to take it off. Says it could be the story over there was where it was a cariston. I mean, there was a car and he would have been obligated to take it off. Either way, it's not clear whether he would have taken it off or wouldn't have taken it off. But what is clear is what it would have depended on. If what was involved was an isida, he would have taken the baget off. If what was involved was an then he would not have taken it off because the only time we say God will cover is if it's a that's related to an such as the of but as it relates to a regular a regular full-fledged you don't have this. If this was a regular then you don't have cover. If this was a caramelist which is a place they only now let it carry and then over there you would say God will cover. Now it's interesting that the gumar over here mentions the laugh of the refers to it as a but at the same time clearly in it has a and the ka is that whereas ordinarily you don't say god will cover but when it comes to the lab of over there you do say god will cover. Obviously whenever you see the word the first place your mind has to wander is to the right in the beginning with the talks about the love of and that's where your ADD is supposed to take you and the over there says that anytime a person he's also asks on if that's true that every single time a person is also then how is that we find throughout that there are kois between ano and for example isra is now the truth is in the ram's world we know the is that even though isra it's only that it's but it's only so There really is no difference between a suffik rice and a suffic dabon on a dissa level because even a suffon is a sufficer just were more when it came to a regular is rice and they were when it came to a to aer which is in its essence only. But the bottom line is is there are many differences in sha not just safik there are many differences in sha between an is and the cash is according to the rabb that every time a person is in is the also in the so it comes out that every should have the in place and one of the questions he asks is that it should come out that is more than an why because if someone's overidon somebody carries in a car on the case by someone's he's also if someone is someone's doesn't he's not over it's an if anid is a and an is only an should come out that an isid is more than an that's a very big that's a tremendous that when you're weighing and measuring what's more or what's less like for example in the you have to try to minimize the amount of a that you're going to do it's going to come out should be considered should carry it should have more value in terms of than an isa because every isidon has in the asks if somebody's He becomes he becomes why you should be pos because every time you're over isn't that so obviously there's so many but argues says there's no what then is talking about says it's talking about the for example that's learned out from It's that type of that which then means if someone's that involves one of the according to the could be that would be more on some level than something that's in the we've spoken out many times where is that something that's in the is more than something that's only learned out from the address and is right what the GRA says according So why did the have to stand with his thumbs in? Why couldn't he just walk into anyway? He's anyways violating the to enter. So just walk in shine. What's the problem? Why are you sticking your thumbs? says because although it's it's only a says you can't walk in with your entire the fact that you can't stick your thumbs in that's we'd rather you be than something that's that's in the other is otherwise in the that even though there's an idea you can't make a something that's in the but it's only something that's in the in the but something that's learned from You can make to be later maybe this should be just the opposite because if you have you also have the whatever you're dealing with tack on this is already we already digress too much but either way that's not what I want to talk about just to conclude the third so we learned already here with one and that is that the mention of the four is it one mitzvah Or was it four mitzvah and had three important each one touches on realis say somebody wears on what if you have a bag that has five corners. I mean these are all real hot button topics that uh button topics that the Gar is discussing. But regardless before it sits here, is that one mitzvah or is it four mitzvah asks? The context over there is the brings three in between where all three cases said or some have the mitzvah and said the first is the topic that it says in the so somebody's a little bit suspicious about his wife that you know maybe she's being involved in something promiscuous says the according to a husband has an obligation to warn his wife if that's what he thinks says no he's not obligated to do it it's only theor says is not let it be to a but for one of the seven he's allowed to in fact the says says it's a mitzvah so the same is never allowed to be mama to a but when it comes to one of his yeah with a m yeah that's what you're supposed to do says no is only a and then finally we know in went out after six years. But the says the it's avah says no just means that in contrast to who goes free after six years is what you can keep him forever. But it's nobody says that you're not allowed to be if you do the math there are three where according to it's avah according to reserved on 613 mitzvah. that holds that three three mitzvah are it's going to come out he's missing three mitzvah or you're going to have three more in other words says we know says so if this is an absolute number of 613 if I have three whether they're whether they're comes out that and off by three. In other words, either Rabi has 610 or Rabi has 616. But one thing is clear, there's six there three more mitzvah Rabika has Rabish doesn't have. And that can't be because there's an absolute number that we need to back into. It's mitzvah. It's 613 mitzvah. And says it's a cash really bother It's a it's not it's says you have to say they must you have to make sit down go through and etc etc and you're going to have to find somewhere three three mitzvah that according to mitzvah and are not mitzvah because you have to reconcile the number then in his parl says I have a degra discusses it in great detail. is the four are there one mitzvah or are they four mitzvah the say it's one mitzvah says it's four mitzvah it comes out has three more mitzvah in the mitzvah then have it's says missing three mitzvah and he doesn't know what the three mitzvah are it's that says that the four cities are four mitzvah it's not one it's that's it's one he doesn't have he doesn't have he doesn't have so what does he have he has four in the mitzvah of and that's going to be the now it's interesting that this asks is also the ram's raban asks it in the right in the beginning of mitzvah and he doesn't just ask it from these gmor right here but he asks it from many gumar is in sh and over there says of galdan says that the truth is is it so posh that there's 63 mitzvah everybody child every child knows 630 mitzvah right something we're taught from a very young age but the truth is is it so clear 600 what's the is a micro he says the word is shisha it's one of the few places in chassmor brings so the word tyra is bigatria 611 611 mitzvah we heard from but we know we are two from the so it's 611 from plus the two that we heard from together you end up with 613 woke up one morning had a so he said 613 mitz meaning the origin of this of was the Joshua itself or had a mess. There was a messiah going back that received 613 mitzvah. It just so happens and was there on 613 mitzvah and is merely a a rem to this messiah or maybe there was no such messiah he had asha there's so many that we have throughout this is another says because I found the med says that didn't just say but Hashem said if that's the case and you want to work it's going to be 621 because you're going to have 611 we heard from and then you're going to have not but if that's the case it's going to be 621 so if there's a mess there's a cab of then Raban says okay then it's not questionable that you can't argue it doesn't matter How many mitzvah you hold? We heard from Hashem on at the end of the day 613 to 613. But if really there was no messiah on 613. It's all based on this. So then the Ramban says there's and if you based on historical facts no less and if that's the case it's not 613. So it says that all these different and all it could be THIS IS REALLY WE'RE TAKING FOR GRANTED. He's so bothered by it. Why? Why is he so bothered? Because everyone knows 613 says I'm not so sure not so sure it's based on a if there was a but if it's based on a in fact there's a mag that clearly argues with the and if that's the case maybe there is no such thing as 63. So it's not a that you have three more according to you have three less. You'll find me shims and different tan throughout that have different than all the tanom agreed with. You don't have to reconcile with the number 613 because it's not muk that everybody holds of the number 613. But the truth is it's number one like you said there's so many throughout the to this number 613. But on even a deeper level, we know that the 248 the is the says it's connected the and there's an idea there's a that even the that the mitzvah correlate to different parts of the human body and through the mitzvah a person can get a tick in those respective body parts both on a physical level and on an isam level on a spiritual level as well. The swarm say that there's also a to just like there to the and every a of the go corresponds to an a of the the above my pay grade but the says as follows listen to this he was a doctor and he would heal people by giving people and he would be able to bring people back from truthful say that this is who said held that there is a magic to the what's the magic so he didn't just say this of he was tapped into the essence of and the essence of is is that every mitzvah corresponds to another e of the person and Every a of the goof corresponds to the a of the nephesh. And he was an he was a doctor. He knew how to correlate each mitzvah or each to the respective of the goof which goes back to the he was able to heal people that way. He was able to be make people be but it's the same. It's not a coincidence that they're both. It's but that's really the the pmius of it's between the so to say that there's no is it throws a huge wrench into a lot of the raid that we're very familiar with either way on that note we begin the next per the fourth peris is called and it very much picks up where the last peric left So once upon a time every pair of tites was made up of that were they were white that were today some are but once upon a time all were and the truth is it's it's based on the says of there's an idea of now how many of the are supposed to be. So we'll get to that. Rashi says right away that two of the two of the on each corner was supposed to be and being that we have eight on each corner but the eight really start with four. So it's really because they get folded over. So according to Rashi it sounds like the two which end up being four of your were made of so was four was four big not everybody holds that way but either way says to what if I have a baggage that has doesn't have one whereas doesn't have is today again according to some opinions as it relates to we always put in the together but there is an idea you could wear your without your and you could wear your without in theory the two are not of each other at first glance it would seem the says that the is not of the love And the is like says teaches me. We'll see what the Josh is in a minute that the Pik says, and the Torah says, so the PC says, now the Tory says The word the word is extra. We know already where you're putting the tit right where should you put the we know where you're supposed to put. You're supposed to put it and then we say again. So why do you have to mention? So Rebi held that from the word hakov that the Torah says for the second time we learn that the tites are supposed to be of the same min as the kaf. So whatever the kaf is that's what the titus is is supposed to be. And Rashi says that being that royalis were white. It's for that reason we refer to the tites as but the point is I don't think it's so much white but but the point is there's an idea that is supposed to be and says we're and as a result you have the of but it's learned that from the word which is extra. So it's not merely telling me that the tit are supposed to be on the because that already I know from what it's teaching me is is that the itself what what material should it be? So the is supposed to be but then the says in the same breath it's supposed to be. So you see there's an idea of there's an idea this is the word and then the says what's it says and we learn from there you have to have both the two together make up one they make up thus says I agree with everything you said I agree with that's you know love it says that's you know you're supposed to have both that's because it says means each one individually there's an idea so at first glance wouldn't it not seem that is because the said and said from the words that are going back both on the love that I learned from and on which is no could be the going to say doesn't mean they're not really rebi wrote the Mishna or gathered the information that makes up the Mishna. So Rebi is the author of the Mishna. I mean that Reb is the author of the Mishna. It seems a little to simply dismiss the Mishna by saying maybe the Mishna really does work with I the seem to blatantly contradict what said no when the Mishna says that it doesn't mean that they are we're talking about one in the process of making that you would have thought maybe is not and that is time you learn to love the mitzvah to first put the love on strings through the hole of the corner of the bag and then the strings on. But if you first put the then you put the love on but you're missing. What does it mean again? You're supposed to do the love and then the if you did the then the love on it's okay but you didn't do the mitzvah. Which didn't you do the love? Doesn't mean that if you did the first you kind of but you kind of love as if to say the only time you be kind the mitzvah of love is if you put the love in before the but if you put the before the love you the problem is you're telling me now if you want to make this work with rebi said that the other so if you're not then you can't either of each other no what the price means to say is you're missing a mitzvah but you did do the mitzvah. It's a long- winded way of saying that you the mitzvah mean the mitzvah you got. It doesn't matter if you put first the like you're supposed to or first then the which was the wrong way at the end of the day the mitzvah. If you put on that bag and you get the mitzvah of mitzvah is you didn't do the mitzvah of because there's a a mitzvah that's when you make the and that is first love and then that mitzvah you didn't do because you did first and then that's what we mean when we say that either way so what the saying is that when the mission says it doesn't mean they're not of each other maybe they are of each other because maybe the mission is going even according If the mish is not rebi then it's good. It means they're not m of each other. But we want to make the mishna work even with rebi. So maybe really they are of each other. What the means is that the s is not but the says that would only explain half of the explains when we say the love is not it means that if you put the before the love I mean love putting in the love is not putting in you could put without pulling love. So if I did the first then the love it's going to be okay. I love him. What does it mean that is not if I do you're supposed to put the love in first? So what what's the flip side of it? Mean it explained half of the equation and that is that even though it's supposed to be love and then okay so that's what the Mishna means when it says what about the other part. What does mean? Now that means the same thing just in a different where the talis was made out of what's the is if the talis was made out of then the min is then the would have to go in first. What's the why is it and is going to explain in a minute but let's speak it outside. Why is it that first and then cuz what's the what's the it says first then it says and then afterwards you say so being that it says first which teaches me and then it says that's how I know that first and then what if the was right let's say the entire talus was made out of what's the min then the is so the hold in then the should be first so what would be in that case if I put if I first put the love on so that's the flip side that's what the means when it says is of the love the whole is referring to the same thing of each other if you want to make the work with you could do that it's doable what we're saying is the ordinarily love is supposed to be before if you flipped it it's okay and if it just so happens to be a where the is supposed to be before the love and you did the love before the it's also no worries it's also going to be okay theor says I'll show it to you from aurish discussion between ley and so was sometimes referred to as rashi says is a meluda so why was king so rashi gives a very interesting reason because dal is like indeal is like and we know dinina do you So it's like so that's how became king. But either way it's a conversation for a whole another day. Don't sit down until you explain the following thing to me. It's our first line of the first. What does it mean? You know what it means? We don't mean as in linen. We're not getting involved in chaas now. just mean a regular bag where you put on the mitzvah is first to put the love on and then afterwards to put the it says first and then afterwards it says so that's to say that first you put the love and then you put that's what the means when it says means so he told him that explains that part of the what about the reverse he gave the same Sir over there what's the act of the ratio over here if you put the love on first it too would be okay said I have a problem with this so you're telling me that how exactly you make depends on the color of your bead so if your bead is white you do it one way if your beet is it's blue you do it another way so had a problem with that. So Rob said, "I'm going to play a different shit." Again, the Mishna says, "Make what does it mean?" The first possibility was it means they're just not of each other. You could have a or you could have a beggar that has no love. The says that's wonderful, but it be we want to make the mission work with Rebe. Okay, take two. The second possibility that the Gammorra said was it means in what does that mean? depending on the color of the baguette. If it's a bag, then you do first. If it's a bag, do first says, "But the color matters." I have a problem with that. Third, we're talking about where the got cut off. And Rashi says, "What we mean over here is it didn't get cut off all the way from the top, but beneath the knots, the hang down, they got cut off. And all you have is a little stump. We had this at the end of the previous paric. If the got cut off and all you have is the love or the love got cut off and all you have is that's what it means of each other. It means if you have a stump it's okay and it doesn't mess up the entire you see that stumps these little little tiny little strand of is enough. You don't need a grace. Okay. But I'm assuming a you do need. So what is the little bit of a share that you need? We had this regarding the so now we have it in the context that is what is the enough to tie a knot. If it's long enough that you can make a knot from it that's do you need that you should be able to take the string and knot it together with all the other strings or is it enough that you can make a little knot in the string itself? If you're going to knot it together with the other strings, it's going to have to be a little bit longer. Says take asked a different shim. What if the tits are very thick? So you have the it's very thick and because it's so thick, you can't make a knot with it. It's just very hard to kn it. But if it would be a little bit smaller, then you would be able to make a knot. It's for sure going to be because the whole point of it being long enough to be able to make a knot with it is is that it's nicker. It's a if it's thicker, then that is in it of itself av you don't need to be able to make a knot. Making a knot is not a it's a sim. You don't need to be able to make a knot. The point is it's a sim that it's it's big enough that it's a so if I have a thicker string although I can't make a mat with it says who the argues with who holds that and are really I'm sorry that holds the said who is the holds that it's not it's in the name of who said in the name who said in the name of there's no you could put in other words. So just to conclude with one so we're learning the of and now we're starting of so we just mentioned the Pik the Pik says that the purpose of the truth is that there's a later I don't know if it's a or it's that you know we're going to learn together but regardless that the idea of sites is is the Pik says it's it's a shir it's supposed to protect you from doing. It's interesting says that the same is true regarding the says a person has to be very careful with the mitzvah. By the way, the grip in his mitzvah says that this word in the is that we spoke out last week that muza is not a one-time mitzvah, but when a person has a he's constantly being says every time a person comes and goes, he's going to see He's going to see the remember the love that he has for Hashem and the love that Hashem has for him and it's supposed to wake him up. The Ram says that every time a person walks in and out of his house, you see a muza muzza, the Ram says this is supposed to be like the the alles says you're supposed to like this. The Ram says it's that even though the the is what it's supposed to be these are the same the says it's supposed to wake a person up. I love him. So even though you don't have like but the same theme when it comes to the it's interesting that the ra when he talks about fill in and this is imper gives a very similar says like this yesterday that is more than the Because as long as a person's wearing his fill who he's an humbles him. So yesterday we learned tomorrow that So that was a that a person who's wearing can't be which according to means no but the point is is that you have to have a certain while you're wearing a fill in it's a for someone that's ding how he needs to conduct himself but the ra says it goes the other way as well that when a person's wearing fillin it's actually a it's a school for a person to behave that way. Ram is not telling you what you have to do. The Ram is is stating, right? There's a there's a concept of of a person while he's wearing fill in addition to the obligation that you have to be that way. It sounds like from the Ram it also it gets you to that point. And then the Ram concludes with a punch line. says the rammed. The ram says they say about Rav who was then nobody ever saw him goes. Nobody ever saw Rav work walk for without and without. It's interesting that this you find in another place and that's the day is the over there is talking about the importance of not talking too much and a person shouldn't talk says they say about me that he never spoke Rav never said a superficial. He never said anything frivolous. He never said anything that wasn't necessary to say which by the way says the is what most people spend their lives doing. And himself never did it. If you look at the on that round that's if you take a look at the Gar says about as well that he was but as it relates to Rav says the Mishna this is the BV talking I have no idea where Ra got this from okay maybe I'll find it but as of now says the Mishna I do not know whether got this from so over the years of learning together we've spoken out different from that tried finding some but this is where it gets interesting and this is the we just mentioned another what we're learning right now the and the says And if you look in the Mishna does not wonder out loud where the Ram got that from and it's a LITTLE BIT OF A PROBLEM BECAUSE IT'S NOT a it's not a it's not a so where the ra got this from the day is I'll update you but right now I don't know where the ra got this didn't say anything. So it sounds like the Mishna knew what the was. You know this is the ask it's also beautiful and over there the trua was actually written to his son but so wrote his son and he discusses over there the we've spoken out some of the that says about that but that's not this morning's conversation But says is that the rabb says a very similar lion an eerily similar lion albe it in a different context and over there the didn't say anything says the you want to know why because the kmish knew the mart and even though it's true it's not a it's not a but it's a medish it's a medish that not everybody has and not everybody's aware of and it's called used to be so there's a medish that had that was that described 10us that Rav used to keep the ironically the balas wrote a pish he was once in an for he wrote a pish on the I had it once in my house but either way the rebba wrote a pish on this but there's 10 mil that ra if you want to see it inside you can take a look in the on rav but And is not under Ra. It's actually under R's real name which was it's right in the beginning of he brings it. It's he brings. So if you go through what was the 10th thing says the 10th thing he used to do is he was says this is obviously the he was always doesn't say where he got it from he got it from this this he must have had that the problem is Omra is not mentioned as one of these 10 and that it's not mentioned in one of these 10. Oh, he was wearing he couldn't be. Oh, very good. But either way, it's not what he says. So the bottom line is is that very good. So either way so in terms of the that but as far as say now the truth is that we've spoken about this that even though there's no never spoke of the table but so many of the shas that talk about not talking too much right actually [ __ ] are are but e we're talking too much right now but either way not just we'll end with one and that is it's interesting if you go through the so number four was very when he number nine had a beautiful voice so the the the has he used to go up to bear I guess that means so it's ironic that even though ra never spoke but he was the one that was but the I think in his say I've seen the differently He used to always go up to because he had a beautiful voice and he used to say it's interesting now everybody knows this wrote the yes is the mak where is the one that wrote we say it's the truth is the author it's going says you should say because is the one that wrote it and was was he had tremendous say so you see that his feel of was and as a The truth is also and a lot of is intertwined as well. This is also see to but either way so it's not just sits as a says you have the regarding you have the with regards to as well just end with the if you go back to that the very end right that's the big three so you have you have and you talk about the save a person from doing what are the says you want the mitzvah it's the liberation of Israel like I said and it's the big like the says and it's the like I said if a person has all three of Glory.