Menachos 45

Today's and we are at the Mishna on the bottom of today's being learned. So the topic of the last few weeks has really been things that are of each other and things that are not of each other. It began with example from there digressed to say either way on the top of return to the regular program which is the laws of and says theim. So there were certain carbonos that were really made up of a cocktail of animals. And what the Mishna is saying is that all the different animals that together made up the particular carbon were of each other. The let's say there was enough money in the funds in the mdash to buy all the necessary. But if they would spend the money to buy all the necessary pim they wouldn't have any. The other option is they can bring less and have says easy answer. It's better to have even only one but have with it rather than bring all the necessary and not have any at all. So just to get a little bit of a a tom of today's daf. So as mentioned there was certain that were really made up of se several animals. Just to give one example a carbon was brought and this is the that we l every says as follows a carbon was brought. Now usually when you think of a carbon you think of one animal that somebody said this should be anah and that is the says theory. This was made up of 10 animals. It was made up of two one and seven. So it was made up of one two bulls, one ram and seven sheep. And together these 10 animals made up the carbon. If you go through and pin and other carbonas as well. So there were many carbonas that weren't one animal but rather they were made up of several animals. And that's the background to the Mishna. says the for example of the that made up this one carbon says stating that says when the says which particular carbon is it referring to is it referring to the carbonus that were brought on sus can't be because in the para of the musafen of sukis the terra uses the wordishbot the terra uses the word kishb and those are two of the magic words that mean so as we've seen going through and there are certain words that mean is one of them and being that the uses the word when talking about the musen that were brought on it means that the carbonas that were born on were the says so clearly The mish is not referring to those. Allah says they maybe it's referring to the that was born to the mafen that were brought on that are mentioned in also known as right where are the para of the mafen mentioned it's in so maybe it's referring to those says it can't be it says there weren't two there was only one is we just mentioned the parish It was two pin one and seven and the Mishna said so obviously that's not what it's referring to it says maybe what it's referring to is the carbonus that were brought on but not the ones mentioned in parish which was the carbon but rather the carbon that's mentioned in paras and in par which is the terra talks about the carbon of we'll see more about that on. So we'll go into that more properly then. But together with the there were animals that were brought as well and the Tyra says one two and seven over there there were two. So maybe when the Mishna says that's what it's referring to says but it can't be. You know why? Because over there the uses the word which is another one of the words that means. So, we're a little bit stuck over here. When the Mishna says, what are we referring to? We can't be talking about we can't be talking about the Muslims that was born and because it was only one and the Mishna says we also can't be talking about the the cocktail of animals that were part of the carbon that was brought together with because we know that was its says really it's referring to the carbonas that were brought on that are mentioned in paras not the ones mentioned in paras the ones mentioned in par I how could it say It says what it means when it says or the it means that the aisle of par wasn't the paras meaning the says in paras that you had to bring two alum and the terra says in par's pin he had to bring one isle and the alim respectively were brought forth different reasons was part of the it was part of the carbon that was brought together with the in part of the carbon there would have been that the of the par and the of is the of the not says the but if that's the case then when you read the Mishna it reads a little interesting because if that's the is when a Mishna talks about not being it means even the came along together with the one carbon are each other but when it says it's but by the each set of are because the one is that was brought on as part of the MF is only one is so there's no conversation about being not be of itself and the were born in par of each other. So it comes out that when you say and are of each other, it means something different for than it does for that seems a little interesting. But the says no no doesn't bother me. It could be when it says it means one thing. When it says, it means something else. Means that the necessary were not of each other. When it says what it means is that the of paras were the aisle of paras and aisle of paras the of paras either way says thear as follows there's a inco is describing the carbonos that were brought ones and says as follows she should bring a kim It should be six. Now at first glance this is an absolute pal is describing the brd onesh he says one par six sheep and one. Now if you look in paras when describes the cabonas that were brought ones has a different list said not one par but two not six seven the only thing that's consistent is the one says the say one know that if you couldn't find two par you should bring one So you're right knew that it says in par that it's two par not one par. Why did mention should have said two paras was describing scenario. Let's say you don't have two par all you have is one power is not and as a result you bring the one power that you're able to bring then said six we know it's seven says how do you know if you couldn't find seven you bring six only said six that's either seven or six how do you know if you couldn't find six you should bring five or if you couldn't find five or if you couldn't find four. How do you know that even one is enough? That says bring as many as you could possibly bring. So why does it have to say six? Let it just say I'm going to know that even though the says seven as part of the but just bring as many as you can says you know why the mentioned six to teach me that you should bring as many as possible meaning would have been a that if you're not bringing seven then just bring one nosh there's a mile of six there's a mile of five there's a mile of four there's a mile of three so even though it's seven. If you can't bring seven, you should bring six. There's an in to bring six now. But the evidence you can't bring six, it's but either way. So there's three that describe how many you were supposed to bring as part of the you have that mention seven. That's the then you have a that says six to teach me that if you can't do seven bring, but bring as many as you can. And then you have a that even one is going to be okay. says, "How do you know that they're of each other?" Now, Rashi is bothered by the obvious question. I thought we just said they're not of each other. We just said there's two extra that teach me they're not of each other. What it means is is that the only time they're not of each other is if you don't have them. So, if you only have six, bring six. And it's not that you don't have seven. If you only have one, bring one. And it's not that you didn't bring seven. But if you have all seven, then you have to bring all seven. And how do I know that? another that describes. So again is describing uh carbon that was brought ones specifically which is Nissan and he says Nissan you should bring a par and that par should bring a carbon cap. Now we already established that even though seems to be describing one par when he talks about the muses really it was two par and the reason he said one par is to tell me that the par not that if all you had was one p that would be enough but here there's another issue you know what the issue is refers to this carbon as a if you look in the parish the clearly says It wasn't it was so how could say it's referring to and said that I'm so bothered by this I don't know what it means and we're going to have to wait for to come and this is another way of saying so to speak we're going to have to wait for to come and to tell us in this because said I don't understand this is describing a Muslim that was brought onesh where there was a power being brought as a there was a power that was brought every but it was now by the way there was a bris as part of the carbon we read it but that was a here we're talking about a par so is a goat a par is a bull it's not the same animal so is talking about a par that's which says he says no it's not fair let me tell you the rest of the story we know that in the times of which was which refers to of parasi fame uh an episode in the that we went through in great great detail in the end of but the bottom line is is that a special carbon that were brought. They were known as the carbon and one of the carbonas was there was a pirate that was born as just like there was the same thing played itself out by in the times of Ezra and that's what this par is referring to when said about a power that was that was brought he wasn't referring to the musafen the musen are he was referring to a special carbon that was brought think of the muim that were brought It somehow itself it repeated itself in the times of Ezra. Now Rashi says that he seems to be saying is that the was describing the brought me as if was talking about which of course is a very very big because we know we speak this out very often that wasn't describing that was describing right there are many that talk about the of course the talk about the The say from is referring to about he that says that these are describing thought that was describing wasn't describing bottom line is and really had to understand this said I have no idea said no that Pik that talks about a par which is a I thought the was this was a one-time event. It was it wasn't every and it was that brings these two opinions said that this we're going to have to wait Ezra heard what he told him. He told him they gave him a that you should be cuz you gave me was very bothered with this you know what to do with it and he said we're going to have to wait for but that's he wasn't comfortable with that but when he heard what told him he said and he gave him this is of course another example of the historian. So we know that the first real history work that the and used was the was written by the of course in addition to what the says whenever there's like in addition to being the great London and the great tamudas was also a historian and he wrote to say this is just Another example if you look out for you'll see a lot of rabioises in sh that are mentioning historical facts this is talking he told them I have to give you a history class you don't know there was azra and that's what this is referring to says the on the topic of that at first glance seem to contradict the number one describes the carbonus that were brought every and instead of two part he says one power instead of seven talks about six. The Gar reconciled it. And then we had another P that says they brought a P that was I thought the P was an another that at first glance seems a little troubling in that it would seem to contradict a school said like this. Wow. says you should know is now we know there's a par that talks about that are relevant to a mar etc. So there's certain that relate to because of the kadusha that they have they have a special but seems to be saying that only a is not allowed to eat as if to say a regular is allowed to eat the obvious question the same who didn't understand the previous said I don't understand this either we're going to have to wait for this says no it's not you don't have to wait till it's not such a spare didn't mean to say that only but rather what he meant to say was that even would have been what would have been otherwise I would have thought it's I would have thought that never had it had malika technically would render an animal in a veil So you see that are allowed to eat something that theoretically should be they're allowed to eat that merely. So you would have thought in the context of so in the context of they should be able to but not to think that saying that only another that first glance would seem to be very very mysterious. The Pik says talking about a carbon that was brought on the seventh day of Nissan. Seventh day of Nissan. What what carbon was brought on the seventh day of Nissan? And he says not just that this carbon should be from an ish a person that's a sha and he's a pesi like from a foolish person. Very very cryptic at first glance. said this guy understand. So it's interesting said regarding the two previous that this said I'll explain to you. You know what this is describing? This is describing the parel of fame. It's referring to a case where seven did a and by the way even if it's not of even though you don't have the popular vote but if you have the electoral vote as long as of the qualifies for the so when it says we don't mean the seventh day of the month we mean seven of the what does mean such They took they said it's what does that mean this is describing the rule of the par is that the majority of saying even if it's the majority of the as is mentioned it's in the beginning of but the bottom line is is that if the majority of doic And it came about where that's something that's really is you have to bring a carbon. So this next is like a postcript to everything we just said. So the Gar went through several that seemed to contradict the we reconciled the stating that was a little uncomfortable the said but the bottom line is it's clear that at first glance would seem to contradict the and we have to work them out. So said in the name of Rav, I'll tell you something fascinating that there's a year his name was because were it not for him would have been hidden because there were so many that were contradicted in the that wanted to put it big. They wanted a hideafask and we wouldn't have it again until would come and what did he took a lot of oil went to an addict and he denim and it's only because of that we have today incidentally what very very famous thing happened in that attic of that was of course the setting of the dvar these takers bash basil that I don't have an ability to be to argue with of course that relate to some of the most important that we have in our history that I'll discuss in great detail either way in the end what would be if it's and you have to bring two par and you have enough money either to bring two and one what are you supposed to do said you better bring one part than two part. We know this from a it says again it says and the seems to be describing how much of the had to bring together with the animals was very bothered. He said is a measurement and it seems to say that the same measurement was brought for and for and for we know it's not true. It was different measurements of depending on what the animal was. What he means to say is if you had you had the choice to bring many and no or one power let's say it's better bring one power then bring all the part without same is true for the other animals. In other words, what the is saying is not that the measurement is the same for all these different animals. We know they're different for the different animals. What the Mishna means to say is is that in the event you have a choice to not bring the full measurement of or to bring it we want you to bring its full measurement. So apha over here doesn't mean the measurement called apha it means its measurement and you want to bring the full measurement. So we mentioned earlier at the beginning of the DAF albeit very briefly the carbon that was the and the is really the topic of the next and a half. So what was the onus? We know there was a special carbon that was brought and it was known as the two breads. So for example you had the carbon the carbon had on it was a carbon that involved as well. It was the now we know that on which in is the second day it's the first day of there was a carbon that was brought the carbon was a and it was made up of you count 49 days also known as on the 50th day they would bring the which was also a but whereas the carbon came from the came from the says that the when they They were on the maj of a carbon that was going to be just like the carbon comes from the came from that was the mad of but after 49 days of preparing for they came to the point where they were on the and that's why the carbon was together with there were animals that were brought as well the says in paral seven sheep, one paren and two rams. So it was seven sheep, it was one par and it was two rams. Now this is very similar to the carbon musf that was brought on the carbon musf also had seven kim but whereas in the mus had two pim and one is over here it was two and it was one either way now in addition I'm sorry in addition to this seven one par two which together with the carbon there were two other carbonas that were brought there There was a sire that was brought which was a carbonas and then there were two there were two sheep were brought and those were carbon now the two sheep are known as the unique because it's the only carbonim that was a shmade and they were brought together with the breads and as we'll see in the special relationship to the breads so although together with there was an that was made up of 10 animals there was a kas that was the and then there was these kips these two that were theim but the relationship ship between the schlamim and the breads were more than the relationship between the and the kas and the breads. One example is the schlim you had to do together with the breads. So the schlama would be picked up together with the breads and there was a mitzvah of to wave it almost like you shake your so in the same context there was a mitzvah of together with the and the was noa done with the and the was done with the we're going to see later also that the was not the so there was a very very special relationship between the and the The together made up the that was brought with and the was that was not and was of them meaning if you have the you don't have the you could bring the if you have the you don't have the you could bring the stating that that's only true for the it wasn't true for the but had a special relationship how so The was and the was of the in other words holds the was what mattered. So if you had the you could bring the but if you didn't have the you couldn't bring the everything depended on the so you could bring the without the but you couldn't bring the without the I disagree meaning I agree there's a special relationship between the just the opposite from the way you have it everything hinges on the according toanis everything hinges on the on the so if you had the you could bring the but you don't need the for the so you could bring the without the you can't bring the without the said I'll prove it to you for 40 years they brought without says that's part that there was no midbar because for you that grew they didn't have that grew when the yidden were in the midbar says all they had was mud quote such a rash we don't have this rashy here but says that rashi said the reason they couldn't have brought a in the mid because they only had one is not true they had more than but the bottom line is a whole different discussion but says I'll prove to you that this without because when they had and they didn't have so it's going to be that way said I'm going to be Bananas bananas. I agree with bananas that the main thing is the you need the for the you don't need the but not for his reason. What was bananas's reason? He proved it from the 40 years in the midb. 40 years in the mid they had but they didn't have says that's not true because all the mentioned also known as all the were born in the midbar whatever was born was not born in the midbar so meaning being that the are mentioned in ter they weren't born in the midbar it's when they came to said If his reasoning is wrong, that's not the right. Then how do I know you have the he says it's back in the envelope because we know in order to eat of a carbon you need to do an M something has to be m so for example that was eaten in a carbon the was the mate this what's going to be if you don't have the there was no part of the that was born there's no in it to be mate and it's part of a carbon and it could only be eaten if something's mate. So if you had the kipsis the teris will be mounted but if you don't have the kips there's nothing to be mim now the kips itself it's baser becomes it doesn't need to be m so you don't need anything outside of the kips to be mad but you need something outside the to what is that that's the bottom line is says I agree with bananas but bananas said that the is the and there's no if there's says and I agree with Benadus but bananas came up with a whole reason it's because when the midbar they had the kips they didn't have the it's not true when the midbar they didn't have the kips either because everything that's mentioned in they didn't have the reason is more of a reason because he needs something to be m and if there's no is nothing to be male all the carbonas that are mentioned in par's all those that are supposed to be brought the and the you're supposed to bring it together with the but at the same time the says you bring the it's not says stating that and the fact that the somehow makes them is that you learn like that the 40 years at the midbar being that they couldn't bring they didn't bring any of the animals They didn't bring the 10 animals that made up the the one star that made up the kas. They didn't bring the they didn't bring anything take out the words says the is it possible to say that the seven that are mentioned in par that were brought on are the same as the seven that are mentioned in paras that were brought on meaning when the in talks about the animals that were brought together with the it mentions amongst other things seven that came as part of the in paras when the talks about the musf and the also mentions Are they the same seven? So the says it's not that way because look at the in it's two one in it's one and two. So it's that they're not the same. It's very different. Paras is all a tough that's ancillary to the carbon is the these animals are there to support the whereas in paras they're born these are the says kind of midbar and there's a big because we just said that whatever was mentioned in par wasn't born in the midbar if the seven and are not the same as the that are in. So it's true the ones that are mentioned in Emma weren't brought in the midbar but the ones that are mentioned in were brought in the midbar says part of maybe the part are not the same maybe it's the same seven it's just the part that aren't the same but the say being that the are different it's the are different also say how do you know the part of the tell me what do you mean how do you know because here it says one part two and there it says two one two one says Maybe the way you read it is as follows. Maybe you have a choice. You have a menu. If you want, I'll pick the two par one isle option or I'll take the one par two option. But the says no. It's not only that in one it's one par and two alum and the other one it's two par one aisle. The seder the way the terror presents the animals are different as well. And being that the way the terra presents the animals are different as well. That's a that they must be different. One last on the one hand on the other hand that even though the brought with and you could bring the without breads you could bring the breads but there is an equal relationship between the and the one is of the other but they're not both of each other which is of which is the you need without there's It really boils down to a parish that says it says and means and it's an extra teach me that something in this par is I just don't know what says it says in And it says regarding the so from the word to the word that what's in the says it's the bread from the meaning it says another in with the word and there it's talking about the the animals now it's a different animals there it's talking about the seven that made up the is going to learn that the made up. But the bottom line is according to I learned ye from Tiana to teach me that the breads are according to Mananas I learned from to teach me that the sheep are which sheep not the seven that are the ready in the beginning of the bride to tell me those are but rather the two sheep that make up the why did bananas learn ye from to teach me that the sheep why didn't he learn from to teach me that the bread's So says that's an easy answer. It makes more sense to learn than doesn't really matter famously from two words that don't even have the same. He made from the word to the word and he said both mean the same thing. And he made you see words don't have to be identical to learn. Why can't you learn from say very easy? It's true. He was to the world that by the way is the authority when it comes to himself is the one that said from two words that aren't even the same words. But that's only if there's nothing more similar. But if you have two options, I can make a A or I can make B and one is the same word. The other one's not the same word say is a better than the Gar now the reverse who learned from Tiana. Why didn't he learn says the because he didn't want to learn from because two different part of it goes to the cayen it's although actually this was kadash but still part of it went to the was kadash right but it went to the as opposed to the which is what that other year was referring to because it's referring to that other that didn't go to So he'd rather learn than is saying alternatively a different holds that and hold that has nothing to do with but it's the itself that says the word it says and this word means the question is what's the or Which part of the animal went completely to the had no that's you that's what's the bread it says just the opposite it's talking about which part of it goes and part of it goes to the is going to answer and it said then you would be right. It's the it says there's no what does that mean? Really, it's referring to something that went completely to the Why does it say? Because the way the was always and the of an animal that was a carbon was it went and the says they were always from the but the bottom line is it's not regardless we have a very important between and understanding again this will be the topic of the next as well. The context over here is the that was brought on. It's a very special carbon that was brought once a year on it was similar to the carbon. But whereas the carbon was a carbon that came from this carbon came from and together with there were many animals that were brought. There were seven, one par and two that made up an there was a goat that made up a and then there were two sheep that made up a those sheep were very unique for two reasons. Number one, it was the only schlum in history that was brought to me. Anyways, we once spoke out of Shagasaria about that. But there was one schlam that was a carbon this number two although ordinarily is this was and they all came together with the stating that there was a special relationship that these two sheep had with the that didn't have the the sheep are the or the is of the sheep it goes one way it doesn't go the other way the question is which was of is between the it's a was what was important. If there was there was if there was no there was no according to the was what mattered. If there was there was there was no there was no bottom line is in terms of the source of the it comes down to a that says it's in the is a magic word it always means it's just very unclear in the what's the is and that was meaning that it means that why his way and bananas and their way either it's based on how to make or it was based on the so as it relates to raid we're learning the sug of more generally the sug of tits. So the mitzvah of tits in its perfect form is when somebody wears a becket with talo and he has fringes that are first knotted then braided and then hanging from the four corners of his baguette. But we are some of theim are white and some of theim are blue. The to the fact that the are supposed to be made of two different colors is the says learned that the word teaches that the are supposed to be so whatever the material whatever the color of the actual corner of the bag it is It's that material, that color that the tites are supposed to be. Rashi says most of the beadim back in the day were white. And as a result, Kazal learned from here that the are supposed to be white. Additionally, the Pik says that's pretty straightforward. They're supposed to be. Hence it's from the fact that the says which suggests white which suggests that we know that sits in the perfect form is supposed to be made up of both and of stating that the opening verse of is meaning in as much as it's true that is in his perfect form is made up of love and but at the same time let's say somebody has or somebody has and not he's still in the beginning of he lays out the basic concept of inim says what emerges is that there are two mitzvah that are included in this one general mitzvah and that is number one that on the corner of the bag there should be same material same color that's emerging from it additionally you should take a foreign object and you should affix it you should attach it to the bagot how do I know these two ideas. It says that's how I know additionally it says goes on and he describes if someone has and not love on you put on the love and you and if somebody has you put on that and you even though we just said that the is of the and the stating that they're not two mitzvah. Rather, the two together make up two parts of one mitzvah. So that if somebody would wear a talis that has only or only or better has both only one mitzvah said we learn from there that there only one mitzvah. In other words, the ram is addressing, he's binging, he's grappling and struggling a little bit to the extent that and to the extent that there are two mitzvah. So you would think that if you wear love and you wear you're actually two mitzvah says that's not the case. There's one mitzvah called tits. Within that one mitzvah of tits, there are two submit mitzvah and if somebody goes and he wears the tit with the even though he's being two sub mitzvah but he's only being in one general mitzvah and as a result in mitzvah he's going to be one mitzvah. This this is a little bit tricky and love one mitzvah. Is it two mitzvah? It's two. The ram says, but in terms of kitzvo, it's really only one. One thing is for certain and that is that there's a mitzvah to wear and there's a mitzvah for the tit to be made up of both and stating that going back to the seventh century that's a very long time ago Jews for the most part have not been wearing even though it's a mitzvah even though it's part and parcel of a mitzvah that we saw say is sh connected call even though it's a mitzvah that's a gateway for au since the 7th century Jews have not for the most part certainly not until recently been wearing the question is why it's a very simple short answer it's because kazal say that the had to come from some sea aquatic creature known as the and the nature of what exactly the is was something that was nellan already didn't know 100% what it was and because they didn't know what the was so it was for that reason there was no ability there was no capacity to go ahead and to produce the in fact there's already a parl where the so this is already a medish says today all we have is because the was hidden. It's also a in the end of where you find that we're already talking about how the wasignas or the wasnas. So to the extent that there's no there's no and if there's no there was no ability to go ahead and to produce the there was no ability to properly go ahead and be this mitzvah. Now you'll ask the says the says it has to be blue. So why can't I figure out some other way to dye the tits is blue. It'll be right. I'll get whatever I need to get out of my blue color and as a result I'll have exactly what it is I need. It's a good but it's a theft is right here in the of and the says it in already told us that if you want to be in the midst of it has to be if it's not it's going to be it was exactly what was and it was for that reason people stopped wearing so here's the question bismanu nowadays we're already kneedeep into the 21st century where there have been incredible advancements in technology in archaeology ology. It's probably fairly likely that we may be able to have a good idea as to what exactly the was and exactly how was produced. The reason by the way is because this was something that was mass-produced. So to the extent that it was mass-produced, it probably left a footprint somewhere. So the question is a do we today know what exactly the was and as a result can we today go and make the and make the mitzvah of is great again where we'll be m the mitzvah exactly the way we were supposed to be mitzvah I think it's a fair question the second question is does it matter if we knew with 100% certainty that what kazal somehow forgot 1300 100 years ago. We today know what that is and we know what the is and we know exactly how to make the would that mean oh perfect. So it would be now we could go ahead and be the mitzvah or being that this mitzvah is something that we didn't have for so long at some point it gets grandfathered out and at this point even if we know exactly what it is we would not be able to this inion these two questions are going to be the topic really of today's raid so Hazal told us a little bit whating was there are some clues and really the the biggest clue is a right here in it's a it's a looks like the sea the way the explain it the of it is similar to that of a fish it emerges from the sea once every 70 years And with its blood they would make the die and being that this is something that was so rare it emerged once every 70 years it was considered to be very very expensive. So the price it gives us a few cryptic clues. Number one is number two it's which sounds like it's not a it's only it's fish don't usually emerge from the sea. This is something that emerges from the sea. It's only the was made from the dam from the blood of this and being that it was something that was hard to come by. It was something that was very very expensive. Talks a little bit about the adds another clue. Rashi says the would emerge from the sea and would go to the mountains. But the one that says that didn't say is that it was there's another it's too mentions and says what was the it's a it's a worm it emerges from the sea and initially All you see is one and then the rest of them somehow come. So Rashi here also says that it's right. But Rashi adds that it's a now where Rashi get the idea that it's a says it's so it's not really a fish. It's only a fish. Oh, it has to be something else. And Rashi defined it. Rashi gave us a description. Rashi says that there's another that gives us a very very important clue and that is the is going on the says were in the so the clothing that they wore grew together with them and the explains it with a mush the think of the as the grows its shell grows along with it. It was in that same vein that so the seems to be saying very clearly that the whatever exactly it is has a a shell. Bottom line, the Gomorra says that the is and it's with its that we make the Rashi says that when we say it's what does that mean? It's says in that it was explaining the only and then we have that says that it had a shell. Regardless what exactly the is a picture of it, its exact species that never gave us. But at the same time, there are some hints and there are some clues as to what exactly it might be. It's interesting that there's also many references in Kazal as to where the was found. The first one is on a parish. It's talking about the bra that mobu gave the different specifically and one of the things that told was that you're gonna have treasures that are going to be buried in the sand of your what exactly is this referring to says three things number one which is tuna number two number three you're going to be able to find these fine crystals so we know that talks about the fishermen. They used to go and they used to catch the and it says where did they catch them? They used to go by the sumo of Tur was the ancient kingdom the ancient land of Ty t yrea going all the way to there's a peri talks about how the yidden had they had they had all these fancy dyed objects and they came from the e alisha from the islands of Alicia and if you look at the mafar the e alishia were the greek islands and they ostensively came from from the Mediterranean Sea which borders those Greek islands. The bottom line is Kazal also gave us clues in terms of where exactly we might be able to find the so we have clues as to what the is and we have clues as to where we might be able to find the but an exact description and with you know perfect coordinates of where you can now go find the so you'll be able to that's something that kazal never gave us bottom line from the seventh century already somehow the exact nature of the eluded kaz and it's for that reason y didn't stop being mai in this very very very fundamental mitzvah fast forward about 1200 years to the 19th century in the 19th century there was a little bit of a his in terms of trying to figure out exactly what the nature of the tus was why exactly I'm not 100% sure I saw something very interesting in a book called the rear is blue which was written by Dr. Barak Sturman. He suggests and I think it makes a lot of sense that it could be this emerged from the vik between Kalisher and the GDO is at the time in terms of wanting to bring back the and bringing carbon again bisman. So this is something that we've talked about extensively but Kisher felt that the time was right to maybe stop bringing carbon and he wanted to bring a carbon and he lobbyed Israel. There are three chuvas that we have for written to Kisher. There's a chuva in that was written to Kalisher. The very first chuva of Ether and his was written to Kisher. And this kiodua was a a movement that was marish and at least at the surface it looked like the really reckoned with this havina of maybe we could bring carbon bisman and trying to work 500 suggis and kacham and be able to make it happen in we were going to bring carbono bisman it meant we would have to have kanim that we're going to wear the big day kahuno we're learning the paras right now it's parasav we know that one of the ingredients, one of the materials of the big kahuna was which means that if we're going to go ahead and we're going to do the we're going to have to have as a matter of fact in one of his chis to hiser told how could you think that we could bring carbon today we don't know what the is so if we don't know what the is we don't have we don't have this whole idea is dead on arrival now there's actually a very interesting discussion in the it's whether or not had to be the source of the that was used for the big day. Meaning this that we read earlier in the in that says that the only time is if it's talking about regarding the it's not talking about the and all the different materials that were used for the big and the truth is a little bit of a sh the was used for the biguno did it also have to be or did not have to be rashi in the beginning of everyone knows it's rashi says well it was it came from But maybe he held not that way. So that's a little bit about what's going on where schol said so what we don't know what the kilazin is it's not the end of the world but the bottom line is this put into the consciousness of the raon that I wonder in the 19th century there were already advancements being made there's some that's going to be able to help us figure out what exactly the is either way in the late 19th century there was a great goyan who decided to take it upon himself to bring back the mitzvah of this great guy his name was he was the rebba and this aid of his became so part and parcel to his identity that maz this is known as none other than the balhatas now the story of how the balatas went about trying to uncover The law is very very interesting. In 1887, there was a big impressive, one of its kind, never before known to mankind aquarium that opened up in Naples, Italy. It was called the Aquario Dinopoly. And the Reba felt that if there's any place you're going to find, that's the place it's going to be. So, he literally left. Just think of this. He leaves Poland and he goes to Naples, Italy and he pitched the tent there for months and literally every morning first say the second day the night say he's in the aquarium and he's talking to the zoologologists and the chemists and all the different scientists and he's trying to uncover see if he can figure out what exactly the was. Fast forward after spending a very very very long time there the believed that he found the and the was none other than the cuddlefish. It's a type of squid and he felt that for sure for sure this is the he sat down and he wrote a safer and another safer another safer. He named the safer and he started his big movement of going telling the world that I found the and as a result we can do this mitzvah again properly. We could be mim the other of the mitzvah. It says even though together only make up one mitzvah but there's another component of this mitzvah that finally were able to be mim and in his mind he literally discovered gold. In his mind he found the kles and made it his life's mission literally to go and to tell the world what it was that he had found. Now it's interesting that when the Reba found the cuttlefish and you know started analyzing it scientifically there was one very very big problem. It's a very big problem. As a matter of fact it was a huge problem and that is that this substance that the cuttlefish secreted that ultimately the I believe was the was brown. It wasn't blue. So if it's brown it's sort of dead on arrival, right? It's actually interesting. The cuttlefish in German is called the tinten fish or in English it would be called the inkfish. And the reason is because there's like an ink like dye that it secretes when it feels like it's in danger. And that inklike dye to the felt very very much like the but the problem was it was brown. So he consulted with different chemists and basically what the chemist told him was is that if you add certain ingredients and you add different uh substances and you expose it to different elements then the brown is going to turn into blue and that's what answered this big glaring issue and that is it's not blue it's really brown but it was because of this that the at the end of the day was able to make his case and he went ahead he ran with it he had gone to the aquar Ario dopoly in 1887 by 1891 theim were already mass manufacturing the and it was being sold all over Europe and Ku some Israel believed in and other Israel were agnostic and the others that believed that it wasn't the real thing and this created one of the great controversies of of really modern Jewish but the bottom line is is this is the the very brief version of exactly how The reb came about discovering what he believed was the the cuttlefish. Fast forward to 1914, a great genius and also an academic by the name of Raisk Isaac Herzog who would become the first chief rabbi of the modern state of Israel. So he was in school and he decided to write his doctoral dissertation on what's called perforology, the dying of purple in ancient Israel. So perforology believe it or not is a study that talks about the ancient dyes and he was intrigued by the reba claiming to have found the and he decided that he's going to delve into it a little bit more. He did a lot of research. He too consulted with archaeologists and with zoologologists and with chemists and what he concluded was that the redba had been fooled a little bit. The cuttlefish secreted an inklike dye which made it at the very least a basis for a compelling case that this might be the problem is it was brown. It wasn't blue. What made it blue? So when you added different ingredients that's what made it blue. Which by the way the said is fine because we know the we learned it together where the says he told him right you bring the law and you add and as a matter of fact in in says when the talks about exactly how they make the he says and you put in it. So the fact that it required these foreign ingredients that didn't impress the rabb that was a wasn't a cuz that's exactly where told is the recipe the rabb brings it in but but and it was a big problem said that he's spoken over with chemists and the chemist told him that if you take these that you're adding to the cuttlefish's uh brown inklike secretion and you add it to so many other things you're going to end up with the same coloras which meant that there was nothing inherent and intrinsic about the cuttlefish where if that was added with these other it turned into because there was so many things that were able to do the same thing as a matter of fact it was the sim in his mind that was creating the had nothing to do with the fish and nothing you could take a herring and maybe do the same thing it had nothing to do with the fish and if that's the case he believed that the cuttlefish cannot be the he wrote a 200 plus page dissertation making his point and really the the argument that Rafer made seems to have stood the test of time and it's for that reason that even today where there's a big movement both pro and con it's not the Now to be clear there are people that believe that the is the realis way above my pay grade from the hashkafer perspective from the perspective and certainly from the zoology perspective but the bottom line is that for the most part razag's dissertation seems to be really the final analysis in terms of the way the world at large has accepted the kas which means that it's a fascinating footnote in Jewish history. It for sure was the inspiration for everythingless going on in the world today. Makes for Gishmakade. But at the same time, at the same time, most people that are even prois don't believe that the was the realis. They do not believe that the cuttlefish was the So what exactly was the So it's interesting. Rabbi Herzog in his dissertation said that he believes that is actually not a fish. It's a snail and it's a snail that belongs to the family of the Murik's snails specifically the infamous Murik's trunculus. Now he wrote a whole dissertation again this is the safer of that piece explaining why he believes it's the Murix's trunculus. did a very very thorough job. But it's actually interesting because at the end of his thesis he ended off with a and the reason is because as much as in his mind the murk's trunculus seemed to be what he thought was the but there's a problem and the reason is because the mur's trunculus although if you take out its secretion you can create a dye and the dye has qualities but it was very purplish. It was like a purpley dye. And said that the is not just blue, it's blue and it's which means it's sky blue. And if that's the case, he said that as much as Liby that this is what it is. And based on his secular research, he's he's pretty confident that this must be what it is. But it doesn't with the most basic about and that is that it has to be sky blue. And if you look at it, it's purplish. And if that's the case, and that's pretty much the way he left off his thesis in 1914. And that's pretty much the way he left it in terms of his understanding when he would write about it and lecture about it and be asked questions about it when he passed away in the year 1959 stating that fast forward. And this is some point after he had already passed away. There was a discovery that was made and it was made almost by by accident by some chemist that really changed everything and I'm just going to read it from the book the rearest blue again that was written by Dr. Baruk Sturman. So reading page 126, one page. As we saw earlier, in the 1960s, the famous Israeli archaeologist Yigel Yadin had turned to Adelstein, someone that he mentions earlier in the book, for help in analyzing some of the textiles found in the digs at Masada, including the bundle of purple wool, which the archaeologist speculated might be authentic. Now, it's purple, but he speculated that it might be authentic. It turned out not to be the case, but to find and shrink Adelstein, nevertheless, he developed a lasting interest in the ancient purple shellfish dyes and particularly in the Jewish on a visit to Israel that had decisive consequences. He asked two professors for help in researching the topic. Aayud Span, a marine biologist from Hifer University and Ado Ellner, a die chemist from the Shanker College of Fashion and Textile Technology. Sner was particularly well suited for the task since as a young chemist he had worked with woe dying in his native Poland before immigrating to Israel because of the unavoidable rancid smell that accompanies dying with snails conducted his experiments near an open window. So usually scientists they conduct their experiments in labs right but it smelled so bad this guy that he felt that he he was suffocating. So he goes to an open window. That seemingly insignificant choice of location led to a groundbreaking observation. Eller gathered the snails, extracted the glands, and collected the dark purple dye. He applied the standard techniques used in a wo dying, adding the necessary chemicals to put the dye into solution. He immersed the wool, and after removing it, he watched it turn from greenish yellow to its final permanent color. As expected and as all scholars and chemists have claimed for a hundred years, the wool indeed took on a purple U on cloudy days. That is, but when working in bright sunshine, ner saw something quite different. The trunkulus dye produced a beautiful sky blue color. Furthermore, the azour color of the wool that emerged from the brackish liquid was fast and lasting. It didn't fade, nor did it change its color. Elner researched the chemical processes taking place in his sun-drenched dye mixture and discovered that while in solution, the dye molecules are less stable than when in their natural condition. Ultraviolet energy, such as found in the rays of bright sunlight, can break the bonds that attach some of the atoms to each other within the dye molecule. These photochemical processes alter the purple and red constituents of the Murix's extract and leave primarily indigo which is of course pure sky blue had solved the riddle. The bottom line is years after Rafertzog had suggested his thesis but he was stumped. He had this because at the end of the day it's purple it's not blue. By mistake, this scientist, Vizak, Ado Elner, literally by mistake went and he put this dye by the sun, exposed it to ultraviolet sunlight, and then incredibly the purple converted to blue, and it was a lasting blue. It didn't fade, it didn't change color. There was no way to revert it. So this process, this chemical process was something that was so significant and it turned into a perfect indigo which we know that's the color of the it turned into an absolute purple and really in the minds of many certainly in the scientific community this really proved it was Rabbi Herzog's thesis and the felt the murk's trunculus based on the scientific methods that scientists use to make their arguments seems to be the kilos. So I think it's Kadai to pivot now and talk a little bit about that aspect that part of Rabbi Herzog's thesis and that is the argument that is the the Murik's trunculus. The first thing that I think is critical to understand if you want to objectively go through this is that the is not something that was uniquely Jewish. Right? So the idea of wearing tits is something that's uniquely Jewish. Although back in the day a beg was not uniquely Jewish. People wore begott them of arbac and fet is saying take your beggar of arbakano and put sites on it. But just the concept of is not something that was uniquely Jewish, right? People used to dye their clothing. As a matter of fact, the idea of dying was something that was considered very very Sovy would dye their clothing. So that if somebody that was a pedestrian, you're just a regular guy, a push dimension, and you went and you dyed your clothing or even one string of your clothing or one strip on your clothing. You were literally somebody that was going to be because it was understood that only the royals were able to do this. By the way, by the way, how do we know this? So there's a million secular sources for this. As a matter of fact, we have today from the the code of laws of the ancient Romans, we could show chapter and verse where it says very clearly that no person that's not a member of the royal family shall be caught wearing something with a blue dye or a purple dye or any of these dies. So, we know for a fact, but it's a you know what is? It's in this week's par. This week's par the says big day and the rabban says that what does it mean that the big day so he says that all the big day were big day on some level in the next this is something that we're going to talk about in great length so I'm picking up in middle of the Raman ONE EXCERPT AS it relates to even the colors of the even today. There's no person that would have the audacity and the to go ahead and wear this color unless he's a melivan. I'll prove it to you even further. You ready for this drum roll? What was the malus? It was says the that went out. What's the first thing mentioned? He wore because that was a royal garment. IT'S A FACT. THIS IS THE WAY IT WAS. AND THAT'S why because he's wearing this is a very important point because was not something uniquely Jewish. It's not oh we have this ritual we came up with this Indian that we take a little bit of was something that was common now it was common amongst the royals and the aristocrats but at the same time it's something that was out there which by the way will now lend even more credibility you would think to what the scientific community has to say on the topic and the reason is because they're not opining on something that was uniquely Jewish they're talking about something that existed or something that was pervasive back in the day the royals wore on their beg and the yidden would take this one fringe and they would put it on the corners of their bag. But the bottom line is again this is a very very critical almost introductory point and that is that the is not something that was uniquely Jewish. Now this gets really interesting that is believe it or not Aristotle Ram quotes Aristotle throughout the Moa but Aristotle believe it or not wrote a book I think it's called the book of animals has some not such uh not such original name but I think it's called the book of animals and in his book of animals he talked about different uh creatures that were used to secrete some liquid that ultimately was used by the royals for their dyes. And he refers to an animal called the porpura. That's what he refers to. He refers to an animal called the perpaura. And he says from the purpura we create these purple dyes and these blue dyes. It comes from it comes from the purpura. What is a perpa? The scientific community believes 100% the papura is a snail. Specifically they believe it's the murk snail. So this animal that Aristotle was uh describing that he said was the source of these ancient dyes was in his mind the propura. It gets more interesting because the prov have put together a whole a list of different who when describing they actually use the word there's a ra who quotes we don't have this but the ra was one of the one of the and he quotes with the says what's the we saw this in yesterday's d It's been uses the word uses the word propura from he uses the word perpura. So the scientific community understands that perpura is what it's a muric snail. Aristotle already wrote about in his books. This is an old Indian that goes back a very very long time. And now we have Israel that when they talked about the they actually used the word perpura. So it's almost a layup, right? So the perpa is the the murk snail and it's something that was discussed widely in secular sources and and here we HAVE THAT ACTUALLY USED THAT WORD. They use the word pura. So you would think 1 plus 1 equals 2. You almost know that the perpa is the the mur snail. We mentioned earlier the garmental we mentioned. We mentioned rashi. There's another rashi. This rash is the also mentions and oni right which is a plural for says rashi limates. Sarashi we know spoke old French and very often he helped the reader know exactly what this uh archaic in that he's trying to describe is Rashi says you want to know what the is it's lemmates bas if you look up lemmates in old French you know what it is it's a snail already told us that you want to know what the limates is it's a snail and the truth is it's that we mentioned earlier because that has a shell right just like the line. It has this naric that grows together with it. So, so too this is the same thing that it it right the clothing used to grow. But the bottom line is is that we know Kazal said that it's not a fish. It's only right. As a matter of fact, it's something that can live at sea, but it's like Rashi Adamilla and Sanhedrin. And we also know it has a shell. It sounds a little bit like a snail, right? Oh says it's a snail, right? And here you have that said it was theura that Aristotle already wrote about which we know is a snail. By the way, another thing that has done and that is I don't know if you've ever done this but in the old city. So there's the Armenian quarter, right? One of the four quarters is the Armenian quarter. And there are people there that speak a fluent Aramaic. By the way, it's highly recommended if you have an opportunity to take a tour guide. I went there with Rabikil Goldhava, but uh he's uh he's tremendous. Sure, you gabber could do it as well. But the bottom line is is that if you go to the Armenian quarter, you could uh actually meet people that speak of fluent Aramaic. So they have videos of the showing them the Murik snail and they ask them, you know, how would you describe this? They say it's a, you know, that's what it is. So apparently even for those that have a mur of exactly how to speak Aramaic they refer to it as they refer to it as the snail. There's another interesting again secularish source to this and that is in the tarash right what's known as the septrogant. So in the so what is that but the garra says it was a that he took all the and he put them into separate rooms and he told them to be the into Greek and they were all and they all made the same shino now we don't have a a internally in terms of what the mash look like we don't have it's not something that we have but in the secular world there's very much a mess in terms of this what they refer to I don't know if I'm pronouncing this right deceptant but the bottom line is is they have some sort of uh mur on it that goes back thousands of years and on the word on the word they write it's a d that comes from the pura which again we know we've identified as being the murale so there's there's some pretty compelling evidence there's some pretty compelling evidence that the is a snail I mean almost unavoidable evidence by the way I've heard the kasha ask so what did the balless What did Reba do with the fact that you have the propuros maybe didn't know I don't know you have to go through his farm was I mean the balis was a goyan on the same level as any of the of the 19th century just to put into perspective right 19th century was and and the was was up there the cover that all the gave him was on the highest highest level but you know the fact that rashi says limates and the fact that it has a shell So obviously he had a he had a mush with this a little bit but the bottom line is is that it feels very very compelling that is the propur I mean we have and the and the ravi they all say it was the papura we know the papura today is the mur snail and based on that it it seems pretty pretty confident that that we're on to something that that this is the mir Now, there's a few other points that need to be spoken out, I think, in order to appreciate this a little bit better. Number one, the only aquatic creature that's known to the scientific community today in the year 2026 that has the ability to secrete a liquid that will turn into some indigo looking dye that's going to have lasting uh qualities is the Murix trunk list. there isn't another one. It's the only one. So, we've narrowed it down to one just from a scientific perspective. Now, it doesn't mean that there isn't another something that exists. But in terms of what we know now based on modern ideas, this is the only thing that we're aware of which again for sure bolsters this. It's not checkmate, right? Because we don't know what we don't know. But at the same time, it's it's it's pretty compelling when you add it to what it is that we already know. But there's another argument that's been made and that is let's say the murk's trunculus is not the let's say there is something else. Let's say this is a mistake. Let's say it's it's not the so the kasha then becomes how comeal when they talked about the and they were so worried about the fakes right they were worried about the kalon how come they never address the fact make sure you don't use the mur trunculus right because it's a ta the ta says it has to come from the and if it doesn't come from the it's going to be a problem why did THEY NEVER EVEN ADDRESS THIS HOW come this was not something that even bothered them. So there are a lot of people that feel that that's a very very strong argument that must be they were aren't they weren't aware of anything else and if that's the CASE THIS MUST BE THE ONLY THING MEANING IT HAS TO BE THAT the only thing that they knew that can produce this was either the either the Mur's trunculus or the CON the Murcunulus is the real one. the kali's a fake and that's the fake that they're going ahead and addressing cuz if you're going to tell me that it's not the murk's trunkulus and it's some I don't know some other thing well then they should have said don't use the kalan and don't use the mir's trunculus either FROM THE FACT THAT IT WAS never addressed that in of itself might be a riot now the truth is is that a ria it's it's for sure not a riot number one how come they didn't address the kas why didn't they address the cuttlefish that's a little bit of an interesting but was so wrong that they didn't even feel that they have to address it it's my own a I think it's a good a additionally additionally I saw Schlman Miller Schlita in auva he says that let's be honest until recently we didn't even that the mur trunculus can produce the rabbi left his dissertation because at the end of the day they couldn't figure it out it was purple it wasn't it wasn't now they understood why aristo would have spoken about it because it had this purplish dye quality so there's no question why he would have talked about but it couldn't have been artis why couldn't it have been artisal has to be has to be a sky blue and this wasn't a sky blue this was some purplish color and it was until this elner who right until he figured this out so all of a sudden now we know about it but maybe just like we didn't know about it until recently the ancients didn't even know about it so you want to know what kazal did in Bavar because this was not something that was popular nobody no one was handling with this and as a result it was it was ever. Why didn't they address electricity? Cuz there was no electricity. So they didn't address this either cuz this hadn't been discovered yet at the time. Yeah, they knew about the porpuro. They knew about the murkiness, but it was purple. It wasn't blue. And as a result, if it wasn't blue, it's for that reason it wasn't used. stating that stating that I think you can walk away from the sugly high level of confidence like that it's the murk's trunculus and that's the and you know we pretty much found our smoking gun again you have it being described by kazal as a snail we know it's like it's not we know it could be at sea we know it can also it can right go mountain climbing. So we see already it's not just a fish. It's only by the way the murix looks like a fish. If you look at a picture of it, it literally has the asum of a fish which is what kazal say which in of itself is actually very interesting. You know what does it mean that it's so that they all say today it's very hard to find because what it does is it somehow is able to uh camouflage itself at so if you try catching it they're not easy to catch and as a result it's what does it mean that it's the cash everybody asked what do you do with the fact that it's said the already you know addressed that extensively he said means it's hard to come by it's it's it's a rare find but believe it or not even before the already wrote in the I'll say it could be but he says it's not something that's going to be anymore. Either way, this is something that was addressed already by the it's probably more of a than meant to be taken literally. But again, the bottom line is describe it as described it as having a shell. We know that they refer to it as the propur which Aristod already wrote about and he was clearly referring to the Murex. We have the fact that Rashi says limates and limates we know is a snail. It's in the as being a a snail. The Armenians today will refer to it as a for whatever that's worth. But the bottom line is there is some that the is a snail. By the way, here's another interesting one. Where is the found where it was found? It was found near Ty, right? by Ty and Khifa. So, you ready for this? The archaeologists have discovered coins that go back to the times of uh Ty, right? When Ty was in its heyday, when it was a very important part of the world and many of the coins have in them embossed and engraved a picture of the Murex, literally a picture of the Murex, showing that it was a very important part of its economy, right? And because it was such an important part of its economy, that's why it's there. We mentioned that it's found by the Greek islands, right? That's the Mediterranean Sea. They have found millions and millions of these murk shells, millions, mammish millions of these shells by uh by the Mediterranean Sea. Well, since Aristotle talked about how the Greek royals used to wear the different dyes that came from it. But the bottom line is there's so much scientific evidence that seems to point in the direction is it 100% no. Are there cashes on it? 100%. But at the same time, if you wanted to make the argument based on Gre scientific method and even based on GR that you found the it definitely sounds like you have every right to do so and it sounds like you're probably very very very much on to something. But here's the next part of this and that is does it matter from a perspect which again it feels compelling. Does it matter? Does it matter or doesn't honest? You say what's the shism? Of course, it's going to matter. How could you negate a mitzvah? We know how to be a mitzvah. It's your So when he was lobbying, what he believed at the time was the he showed it to all the Israel. And there's many different anecdotes in terms of how different Israel reacted. There was some that reacted. Wow. They couldn't believe him. They made a and they were so excited. The Marsham wrote that he wanted to be buried with the because he was so convinced that this was the real and they say the I don't know. I didn't uh research this myself but that for sure were majorly for sure they were mass-producing them by the tens of thousands. So there were and they took upon themselves 100%. One of the anecdotes they say is that went to and he asked him to put on the he says the the belt doesn't do it and if the belt doesn't do it I'm not going to do it. I'm not doing something that the belt doesn't do. So they said the Reb went to the window and he saw there was a water carrier that was walking outside. So he called him over. He said he comes to the window and he says, "Let me ask you a question." Right? He looked at him. He says, "I don't know what you're talking about." He turned to and he told him the says everybody the WHOLE WORLD KNOWS IT'S HIS NO IDEA WHAT I'm talking about. He said when talk about the belt they mean people that know people that are holding in the sun they're the only ones. So he said if you're going to wear it and I'm going to wear it and the other and the others are going to wear it then the belt will have done it. What do YOU MEAN THE BELT doesn't do it? when we define develop this is what we mean but either way he sent this to a lot of but the one that responded in the most way not surprisingly and really this is the for all the people that will tell you I don't care if it's the or it's not the I'm not wearing it was the basi the balevi responded to to the balas and the basi told him there's no messiah on. And if there's no messiah on, we're not going to wear. Now, to be clear, Bas told him other things as well. One thing Bas told him is that say that it was hidden. So, if it was hidden, it sounds like it doesn't exist anymore. Now, you can be a facic on that. Hidden maybe just means it's like punked hidden. Hidden that it's hidden, that no one's allowed to find it. And by the way, just because it's hidden doesn't mean you're never going to be able to find it. Some of this is free. It's mashed for a little bit. It's hidden until good. There's another that told him which by the way he said it all by thinking the name of the but where the says in the parish of the said why does the interrupt the with the It should have said why you putting in. So the said it's because we have but we don't have that part of the mitzvah that's why we interrupted and we interjected the word in the middle of the so it's said that it's not supposed to be again that you can also be how many were we missing it that means it's never going to come back again but that wasn't the BI was there's no messiah and because there's no messiah even if it's the real he said we're not going to put on now what does it mean what's the what does it mean there's no messiah what does that mean there's no messiah now there's an now there's a mess now we know how to do the mitzvah truth is there's a understanding of it and there's a hashkovic understanding of it the understanding of it is is that if there's no ms how to do the mitzvah you can't do the mitzvah we can only do a mitzvah where there's a mess of how to do the mitzvah. If there's no how to do this, you can't do the mitzvah better to do the mitzvah. There's no to do a mitzvah where there's no clear how to do a mitzvah. The reason we do mitzvah is not just because it says in the to do mitzvah. It's it's on the mitzvah. And if there's no ON THE MITZVAH, THAT'S A FOR there to be no and no obligation. It's but if there's no on the mitzvah, there's no there's no obligation to do the mitzvah. That's one pish in there's no messiah means that tat didn't do it t didn't win fillins so I'm not wearing fill that's not what it means no messiah means there's no messiah how to do the mitzvah and if there's no how to do the mitzvah I don't know how to do the mitzvah and I'm not going to be to do the mitzvah either but there's a hashki component with it as well and that is so integral to y we can't shepher and the minute we cher with even if we're being even if wow I'm going to do a mitzvah it's expensive I'm going to do something ahead haven't done in the past, but now I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to do it. Well, if I go ahead and I do that, what's here? Maybe maybe somewhere else. And it goes all the way back to and the minute we start deviating from that would have probably said the minute we start deviating from our messiah, well, at that point, at that point, we're risking everything. And it's not the possibility and maybe the probability that we got the right that I should do a mitzvah because the minute I do that I'm risking everything says in his most integral in the entire this is what keeps the sacred this is what keeps it intact and it's for that reason the bi held could be a right maybe you're right but he wasn't a small he didn't even want to meet with the they say it was because in his mind this whole Indian it was dead on arrival because in we don't have any tradition of doing this and as a result you can bring me all the in the world as as far as he's concerned it wasn't going to be you know one of the big arguments people make when it comes to the what do you have to lose it's pure upside you have nothing to lose and by the way what's the makar that you have nothing to lose because even the garra says that if you put on and ask right so let's say it's wrong let's say it's the fake you didn't lose anything you didn't lose anything right that's one of the big arguments what do you have to lose would say what do you mean you have to lose the you're losing this you have a lot to lose right the other people say it's so based on that you should have to do it that's you do already said that the only time you say is when if you're going to M you know for sure you're being mitzvah. But to the extent that even if you're still not sure you're being the mitzvah it's this has a million caches on it. But this is a famous then in that instance in that case there's no fake. As a matter of fact there are people that argue that if you wear today and you don't could be could be because you're not doing the mitzvah in the appropriate way and you know how you're supposed to do the mitzvah. But again the the the real yeshiva terror to all these kashes is the bi there's no messiah on it and if there's no messiah there's no messiah and it's not just a heritage I don't do what my father didn't do that's not the is that is something that we observe and it's for that reason to the extent that there's no I'm not to could be I'm not even supposed to but the bottom line is that's how this plays itself out. So here's the final analysis lanas dy and that is it sounds like the the case to be made of the murk's trunculus being the is very very compelling. Again, discusses on it, but it's it's very very very very very very very compelling. stating that the counter argument is kay let's say it is let's say it is doesn't necessarily obligate me to go ahead and do it which makes the controversy like all controversies fascinating but uniquely fascinating because really the two sides of the argument are not even is it the or is it not the I think most people think that's what the argument is it the or is it not the and listen we know that we're and we're and we know that don't wear and didn't wear right we all know but at the same time what's interesting is is I think to the layman the tooth is it or is it not and I think it's easy to be convinced that it is stating that if you understand the argument albeit from the from the which by the way trickled itself down to the way the manu and from thear went about this. It was with that messiah. It's not even about that. It's not about is they weren't his fault because at the end of the day, we're not going to go ahead and we're not going to do a mitzvah. We're not going to do a mitzvah that there's no messiah on. Truth is that really these two again it started in the 19th century. There's so much from the whether it is or isn't the there's so much from the that's a to the modern uh debate and the modern controversy because let's be honest there were so many that wore the so if the wore it and the wore it and the wore it and there were tens of thousands of that wore it so you're going to tell me of it of course of it there was so many that wore it but then again the from coming from the base of the whatever there was so many that felt not that Anyway, obviously if somebody's not going to win sits, it's going to be that's also going to be fine. So again, for sure for sure the precedent was set by the controversy. Two ways of looking at it and remember there's two components to this controversy. Is it the or is it not? Does it does it even matter? And these are the questions that we started with. I think we're ending with the same questions to a to a certain degree albeit hopefully coming from a little bit more of an intelligent and intellectual perspective. The bottom line is we should talk we should be to finally have the the true nature of the revealed so that all will be able to wear the will be it'll be we'll all be wearing the same which will bring us to where we're supposed to be. Amen.