Zevachim 110

We've all learned Kish, maybe even thought we understood. But now with his trademark depth and clarity and his signature uptempo daffomi style, Repsuri Bournestein uncovers the layers beneath the words, revealing a world of meaning, relevance, and beauty in every line. Where the deraim of the bass medish meets pushup shot. Discover the shear that's redefining how people learn Kumish. Reprly Bournestein's Kishar. Find it on the Lakewood Dafomi app or wherever this shear is being heard. Today's is and we will begin about 10 lines from the top of the two dots themed and regarding the Mishna discussed. where somebody was maz. He wasn't all of it. He was only says and the basis of the is because what's unique about those things mentioned in the Mishna is when they were brought in the mikdash they had to be brought in the entirety. So if the kay would be mic of the but not the entire if a would be m some of the but not all of the some of the but not all of the would not be his so you had to be m all of it. The question is does that mean that the only time is if you also are or of all of it or no maybe you have to be of all of it but at the end of the day if you're a even if it would be enough to say that you were there something that has and as a result you' be for the and that's stating that the Mishna said the part everybody agrees that if some of the got lost so you don't have all the and now you were what's remaining of the even if it's a gaz in that case everybody holds you're going to be potter meaning the is and the is where you have all the none of it was it's all in front of you you just were all of it so are you are you but if some of it is lost over there even the going to agree that you're not foray you're going to be It says the when the says that if some of the just picking as an example but really this is true for the so when the says that if some of it was lost and then you even only if some of it was lost in the md itself or would it be true even if some of it was lost what's the shamina do you say being that the moment you took the covenants out of the covenants became at this point what difference does it make if you're missing some of it you're not missing some of it it's possible anyways meaning theor assumes that the reason if you're missing some of the is now according to everybody if you is because that is possible meaning because now the is possible and the only time is if you do that's something that's roy to go but being that this is and as a result is it's no longer fit to be brought in as a result you're going to be for if it became after it left the it was anyways possible before it became it was and still there's a that even though it's possible like we saw in the beginning of the par still So at this point does it bother me that there's another there's a difference between is okay for all that despite the fact that but that's because it's at the end of the day I have the entire but maybe if it's where I'm missing some of it like I'm missing some of the etc. Maybe over there it's going to be different. I'll bring you a ride says that you're potter unless you're all of it. Meaning if you're not miff the entire coits, you're going to be potter. What do you see from there? You see that you have to have all of it. It's just that that you see from there that you certainly don't have to have all of it because if you don't have to be mac of all of it then then certainly there's no issue of how you bring we know according to there's no issues at all you don't have to be molivar is the is the big m when it comes to this the question is according to the that whole that you do have to be macro of all of it stating that if it was you're going to be potter again according to the you don't have to be macro of all of it stating that if it's you're going to be potter the question is if it became does it make a difference or not so the says no what I meant to say was that I heard from I heard that was only if it's that if it's missing that you're not going to be When we say that when it's doesn't mean even if it became after it was says no maybe it's talking about where it was say the says clearly that if it was and then you were everybody holds even you're going to be aren't we talking even about where it was says no how do you know that maybe it's talking only where it was and the last line of the if someone's meaning the were attached to each other says so somebody was so that's a bad thing that's but what was unique was that was attached to the isser being between the and the misbeh and the fire that's as a result you should be and the base of the question is that the only time is if you do it similar to the way it was done and being that there's a that there can't be a between the and the shouldn't be able to be a between the and the as well and the argument is that the bos should be a between the immac on the bos There was no on the there's no on the so the bus is just getting in the way. So it's just getting in the way between the and the it's talking about where you positioned it in a way where the buser wasn't in between the but with making direct contact to the as a result it wasn't maybe it was you could be the even without this perhaps the going to earlier in the in aish where says that in order to be you don't need to be on even if it's on a cell on an that would be enough to be what do you see from that there's no has to be you have to be something that's but in the physical the actual act of it doesn't have to be done in the same way that had you done aim it would have been as a result there shouldn't be a problem of why would there be an issue of because doesn't the have to mirror the pin the answer is holds that could be even on Iraq. Now you can't do Allah on Iraq. That's had to be on the so from the fact holds that he could do it even on Iraq. You see that does not have to mirror the law as a result there won't be a problem of says the whole question is a mistake. It's based on a faulty premise. You're assuming that the Ber would be between the im and the baser and the im are of the same men. that both meat are the same animal different one has a mitzvah the other one has a mitzvah but at the end of the day it's the same min and as a result there's a rule there's a principle I think if you do the back of the envelope arithmetic it would emerge the tasha shouldn't the it's between the and the in the case where someone was as a result The assumption is has to be split and just like as well. Frank Gomorra. Why? What happened to the Gomorra? Gave three. Only one of the three was it would sound like the that gave the first two did not hold of the of it's a little bit of a problem cuz who are in this? It's the it's the order that the gar brings them in. said it was only that said that it would emerge then that it's only of these three that holds would seem to hold that no was a good in other words even though it's the problem is there's a cloud that every time there's we passing like so based on you should walk away from this and think had to say it was only that said the problem is and there's a cloud throughout based on this other as well but based on the basic and that explained our it would seem to be a rav on one side on the other side and it's only that holds it's is we know is like when it comes to like when it comes to this is a question not of this is not now this is a question of and as a result would follow but the problem is and whenever this is so based on the should and we know the emphasis is the cash is even more the in a in a it's so the over there asks that the em is I found another so asks a serious seems to hold I have another holds now says that we've mentioned in a different context we'll mention the and that is that could be held that it's not enough when it comes to when it comes to for there not to be between the and there's actually a positive that says that the have to be on the fire. Meaning if all there was was a that said that there can't be a between the and the fire then you can argue that the is not a why because the problem is that the that says that you can't have a between the and the fire says more than that. It says not just that there cannot be a but that has to physically be on the fire. It could be you could hold meaning it's from today till tomorrow and it's true the is not between and but at the end of the day are the no it's not at the end of the day there's something in between now albeit that's something that's in between in doesn't have the capacity to be so in the laws of there is no but at the end of the day at the end of the day is not touching the mean that is not touching on the in and of itself is going to be apostles so it says in our between on the one hand and on the other hand is not whe and including held that the reason that did not want to dismiss this simply by saying is because they held that there's another in the it says with regards to the imm and that is that it's Not enough that there's no but have to physically be on the fire and being that they're not physically on the fire. Even though the thing that's being mafic is something that's not that just means it's no but is it physically they're touching the fire? It's not touching. Nobody can tell you touching the fire. Just because the thing in between is not a doesn't mean that they're touching the fire as a result. It's for that reason to come out to another. In terms of the is not a general at first glance this seems to be an international says no is a very it's a sh when there's a that there couldn't be anything between and the fire is it merely that you can't or is there a that the had to physically be on the if there's a that had to physically be on It's not going to make a difference to the brought in what's the question whether right if you have it's in the let's say fire is shooting up and it's and it's roasting the the context in was with regards to something touched the do you say that Abra was so there's no says what's if the of putting something on the is that it has to be physically on the fire then if there's in between it doesn't matter at the end of the day it's not physically but if it's merely that there can't be is never being that is never is not going to be an issue where we've spoken out raid like this in the past again opinion is with regards to a Gmorrah says is not it's the context that the Gmorrah says it is is a very caut when they used to bring the carbon pes that they used to plug the ammo that was the drain that would take all the liquids the blood and the water out of them out of the out of the and the reason they did it according to the was they wanted the camp to get dirty get messy and there was a for the to get dirty to get messy because asks isn't there a problem? We know the Mishna says in the beginning of the second parag that the had to be walking on the if he did it would be a problem. So standing on blood after he used to go to the mikvah on five times. So it says he would have to dry himself. The says the reason he had to dry himself was because the water would be between him and his big so and other say that this that the big day had to be on the bus of the is not a merely that you have to make sure there's no there was a that it had to be literally on the bus. If all there is is a that there can't be a water wouldn't be a between the big and the just like the blood wasn't a between the feet of the and the point is it has to be literally also there's no but at the same time is it alsar it's not albar so this is another area in where you find the same thing where you would think at first glance theor saying but really if you dig a little bit deeper theor saying something more than that just like there's a that said that the big had to be literally had to be literally that had to be literally on the fire and as a result the laws of are are secondary so at the end of the day there's still going to be an issue either If somebody had a the wasn't taken yet from the he was potter is he's going to be potter and the reason is is because you have to do kam in order for it to be. So if somebody was the without first doing the he's going to be potter what if the was done and then the ended up falling back into the he was he's going to be so we didn't start yet but we've seen enough to be familiar with the basics and that is the carbon was not a carbon it was made out of and sh and sometimes right that's what the cover of was the k would go he would do a kam we all know what kamsa looks like he would take the kit he would burn it on the mb the rest of this mixture was not put on the misb in fact you're not allowed to put it on the misb there was an isak tora on the rest of the mixture what was done with it was eaten in most cases it was eaten that was the shirim so the shior hadum was poured on the shirim in the context was eaten by the so what happened over here was somebody did so the did and now the the fell back into the and you were going to be in that case why do we say that the is to the so now there's no anymore on this if there's no fact on this so if there's no on this so you shouldn't be because the only time is if you something that has there's a mitzvah regarding the regarding the same just like when it comes to the there's no too when it comes to the there's no of what Rashi says what does it mean there's no when it comes to the so the rashi says it's based on where the gar learns from a not but rather avoid the Gmorra says. Which animal has more dam has more dam than the damasar? And still the refers to it as the dhamapar and the damasar. How could the even refer to it as the damasar? Didn't the damasar lose its identity? Did it become bottled to the dham? says the gar you see from here that something that's doesn't become ble incidentally who is that is not he learns it from the same but we hold is bottle as a result we what we take out of is not that there's no ble when it comes to two things that are the same by the way not to be confused with it's two completely different but we learn is the bottom line is two things that have to go can't be each other so if you have In our context, twoes a larger one and a smaller one. The larger one would not be the smaller one. So too when it comes to the where if the would become to the there wouldn't be a although there should be as it relates to it being buckled to the so that there should now be of the with regards to the entire if it's not buckled you still look at the as as having its identity it maintains its identity thus you're going to have the is for being milo the if it was bottled. So you don't have the you don't have the so you can't have an isak because there no isra on on the or on the entire the reason over here there's no is because of this if there's if there's no then the is included in this so had it also had a so there were two octarist there was of the so what happens if someone was only one of them says you're going to until you're the second half and this is but to the previous the previous Mishna discussed if somebody was there only but only part of it are you going to be are you going to be rebu says you have to be the entire thing it's the same rebel says you have to be even the sec even the it's not enough to be just for How stating that if one would be if one of them was done now you'd be for the second one because the second one is completing the job. So even though you only but that second half is because it was and as a result you're going to be so in order to be brought if only one of them you have to do Oh, a very that we're going to go through quickly. The and the were both burnt on the every single time a carbon was brought after the of the and the shirim of the ma was eaten by the kayan. If the and the leav were both not brought you weren't allowed to eat from the shir the of the and the to the like the was to the carbon and just like the was in addition to being it was also to go so to the of the wanted to know where there was two there was of the and there was the of the and you only did One of them assumes something happened meaning it's not all or nothing. The fact that you were the or the you for sure did something but he wanted to understand in Londes m half of the other one is m the other half rashi says that how you going to work that out touches on this so you'll probably have to m which half you want to be m but the point is one hakara could be m something it's m half or do you say no no such thing that one hakara M half but rather the one is only miklash it just weakens it everything so it somehow downgrades qualitatively the is of the entire but it's not like you say that if I did half of the half of the m that's enough to say that half of the are somehow going to be m so again assumed for sure it's not all enough that if you do one you're for sure being m he just wanted to know is are you being m quantitatively or qualitatively do you say quantitatively if I did half of the I'm m half of the shir we'll have to figure out how to know which half you're being m but half of it you're being m or do you say no it's not quantitatively that I'm not m anything qualitatively but qualitatively the of everything actually weakens says the let's try to understand this a little bit better we're going Which says that this Shil seems eerily similar to another Shil and also very we know has to take place during an you were doing an that's matter that's why is not even though it's an but it's not a matter even if old still the boss is going to be awesome. So you have to be doing it. The question is do you have to be maf you have to have the pickle during the entire matter or is it enough to be as long as I had in mind during half that's going to be enough for example you're bringing the where all four are and you during two of them but not during all four of them so is that not and hope and the says at first glance seems like a similar sh meaning how much have and the kindness made I think it's part that does something meaning it's matter half cuz if it's not m half then it's not a matter if it's not a matter why could I be m so the gmorrah says that this pit says the gammor that if he was going mayor it wouldn't be a sh because you would take on the most and that is And then the continues and the was going to that whole then maybe you have to insert the word maybe it's not something you're just not sure why is it quantity or is it quality is it matter half of it or all of it just go somehow weakens if your whole matter Then you see you can't be it's not a m maybe then maybe it does nothing mayor then it's maybe it's so if he was going to is it or is it or or maybe it's nothing says the garra and the garra continues and that's how it comes to our sug according to rebel that that you're not say you don't think anything of course at first glance I think sounds very much like that whole meaning it's why not and as a result maybe it's sure that the does something says the and this is the mas gone was going over here from the over here that hold that if you're just the or just the so you see there's some to the and he wanted to know what's that is it that's where he was in other words was clearing a sh according to a that holds that there's some kash for and the way the gumar comes out is in summation there's two tan and shass that hold There's the sug if you're for that you're going to be now walks into mish one day and he says I have a kak what we say works is it mish or is it mik college quantitative atively half of it becomes mut 100% glau kosher or is it no it's just mik all of it not half of it all of it somehow qualitatively the iser weakens so where do you find this concept that qualitatively something should be user but not so user I'll give you two examples number one so but there's no so when you do a there's malus and there's chorus and there's bdin and and there's everything but it's the according to one and all but it's just qualitatively it's not the same. Another example is in theor says that even though so someone does the second but it's not the real there's no malus there's no so again there's this idea of a miklish and that was the other side so says okay I have two raor who holds this in the you can't be declaring the shin to ram because is no sh it's because raesh he said that katim m is a m because you can be mafle in it you can't be mafle at first glance in a kat you can be maf in a m if it's a m must be mishi it's actually m it's m half and that's the be so you have no shame says but according to the there it's an because in you see for sure there's a but it could be It's college would be enough to say that if you be someone does some of the says if someone is he does with that was for onus He's too right. He does but not on he does say if someone is going to be this as well that's going to be the part of the topic of tomorrow's stuff and this is of course we finally see it inside ordinarily you assume is not but always brings from the facts that you see that must be Anyways, admission said three. Number one, if someone does with the number two and number three said here it's not rebel. So the g the go back and forth says that if you notice law is not mentioned this mission. This is the third Mishna with in in succession where the Mishna discussed this concept of where you were ma of something that you were supposed to be m in the first Mishna you had a just as one of the examples you only part of the in the in the second Mishna you had the you in both of those cases as long as you do says no you have to do everything when it comes to And there's no rebel. Now there is rebel is talking about rebel doesn't argue with regards to he doesn't argue with regards to the now just to be clear that's if someone of a carbon it's going to be because all you have to do is one only one even by We only one week is so only once is so that's everything right the whole of is that you the whole is so if you did part of it the if you did the not you're going to be but only one so being that only one is going to agree what was saying was that why did argue by the all five of them where has that done all this The par so all the active over there shouldn't be that according to the one is enough just like part of the is enough then part of the would be enough as well but should argue says you want to know didn't argue and it's based on another the context over there was the doing and of course he's bringing the which are two of the five and then it was so he has to go more blood. So what does he do? He can start from he can start from where he is. And even if there's only one z that still needs to be done, it's fine. You bring a new par and a new you sh it the whole nine yards. And now you take the dam and you do the one. So you see that you can bring a whole carbon for one. You know what that means? That means one is very very mean that it's very is going to hold over here that you're going to be said that if somebody does he's going to be and this next is a classic was going who holds that the mitzvah of says what it sounds like there's a man that holds that was only first of all it sounds like a very and number two it can't be what you can't bring a carbon you may be you're not bring the if there's no mitzvah you can't be mad so if you can't be mad it's always going to be if it's going to be you bring how they do mitzvah I we'll get back to this. But either way says the said I heard from who said this that he's going to say it says now the context over there is the sixth day of and the is going through the carbonas that were brought the last there was a sorry this is part of the special carbon the 70 carbonas that were brought onto And this was of course brought in addition to the carbon carbon oil was brought every day even on so the says so in addition to the it's said what's this the carbon was brought with but it's every single day twice when they brought the carbon there would be wine that was offered on with it. But it was one it was singular. What's in fact every other time the not every time but you have to go through these these most times the will say it's so why over here is it says we're talking about and there was a second that was brought and that wasn't that was you heard that said that if someone does he's that he's going that holds that is right at first glance it makes a lot of sense because you probably because he's going in the that's why you're going to be told I have two cautions number one if is that he holds like that the is it's sounds then like the Torah is comparing equating if so shouldn't you have the same as we know the wasiman here too there should be aim okay doesn't say anything about a share said if He holds like that is a it says by mean comparing it to the that was brought with it have the same if that's the case should have said shouldn't be additionally told if the is that it says in the par then shouldn't it be similar And just like was the whole year should also be the whole year didn't say that. He said why only on if someone's on a regular Tuesday as well because there's no way because if he holds like if he holds up that it says in the by the carbon referring to that means there has to be a heckish between and I have two riers he doesn't hold it as heish number one just like this. Number two, just like is the whole year should also be the whole year. And as a result it should come out that you should be even the whole year. Rebel never said anything about a and he said it's only therefore continued and said he said I think we forgot what said it's interesting said as much as with this that's not right now it's also that's not right now that's what we do need and it's true holds it but not he if it's there's no between doesn't have the whole year but is not the whole year bottom line is you said it's true must hold it but not like his but rather based on a asks a bomb a very obvious question and he prefaces the question with one word. So you know T is very bothered right there's there's there's right uses different adjectives to describe questions is a big and say is literally it's right so how do you understand the seems to be saying that according to that holds that the so has to parallel and just like the whole here every 365 days twice they would bring the carbon and together with it there were wine libations there was a we have to counter it with a little English so so too the was also 365 days a year Frank Ty is really I'm supposed to walk away from this thinking wasn't only it was the whole year everybody was only so held like and still although it's learned out from a that discusses the as well but the bottom line is of course the was only brought on and being that it was only brought on at the end of the day the only time you should be is on because that's the only time it's if you want to get lish if you before would be because it's if you want to give it a a lumba you want to have a spectag with a specific The names if it's possible that's the whole theme of so the bottom line is what in the world is the saying that can't go like because he held like nobody holds not even it's learned from a heckish okay it's learned out from a heckish it's still in the musen of sukis and we learned that it's of bottom line is says it's a very very I was actually to hear from from Yeshua inades they don't give brisk they stopped giving I was thinking I think we did come out the same thing but this is the brisket but bottom line let's be honest but uh they stopped she don't say she but this was in the beginning of kadesh where the two brought as And he said overall from said to the was brought every day. So they would bring the carbon that had to be brought and then they brought declared the mitzvah of was it or was it was it meaning that in addition to the that was brought with the carbon on sukus there was another that had to be brought this one wasn't wine this one was water but it was mean just like everybody understands that the is part of the carbon so too said was maybe carbon as well. It was part of the carbon. The den of the of the onus was not just to bring it with one type of but to bring it with a second type of as well and but the point is was maybe has nothing to do with the carbon maybe was the just like it's certain there was a mitzvah that's related to the that was the and now it just so happens that it was brought into the B and it was brought together with the carbon but that's more just the the details of how you the mitzvah but in terms of the underlying the to the mitzvah the source to the mitzvah it's not a but rather it's that was said and I'll tell you a few minutes number one could you do the before the carbon was brought if it's the carbon Then obviously you have to first bring the carbon and then you do the just like you couldn't do the before the carbon. So too you would be able to do the before the carbon. That's all true if it's then maybe you could do it right before the carbon. That's also considered being brought together with the carbon. Additionally said we know the says we learn from there. So there was that if the carbon was brought today and they didn't bring the they didn't have wine you can bring it in 10 days from now. There was no that the had to be brought literally at the same second together with the carbons. Even if you brought it on a later day, that too was going to be okay. Would would it be okay to bring the of the 10 days after the carbon was brought? If it's a it's just another type of then at first glance you can make the argument that just like the could be brought on a later date and maybe the could be brought on a later date as well. But if it's you can't shake wool 10 days after sukus so you can't do the 10 days after sukus as well said and this is the very a bridge version said that at first glance it should be between and right here according to the said that the describes the carbon where it says So the Tory is clearly equating it to so just like was part and parcel of the carbon is going to be part and parcel of the carbon as well. In other words, it's going to be but according to the then you can entertain another who said where do you see that it's carbon it's more if anything that would be said of the said that according to who holds that that that's Why did say you could do it even? What you going to tell me? because it turned out from that there's no has to be had to be but I'll find you. So you could do how so they brought the carbon and they didn't have and just like so when it comes to on this side it's also going to be so if you hold that the so then it's like we spoke out in if it's a then it has the same of the and just like the you can bring 10 days later you can also bring 10 days later that means possible to bring the even that's what said that you know is if it's not rather it's it has to be and that's the beer and argu again this is the very abridged version that's the first the second just to end on a lighter note and that is so we know that the mitzvah of ham was done on in the mikdash every single day. There's a well-known rashi in the beginning of the fifth over there is discussing the rash. Why was there so the reason that there was a was because there was a mitzvah of and the says so as a result was done with a tremendous it was related to this idea of is something that had to be and it's obviously something that's right because of there was there was such excitement. But not just that. So at first glance you have to understand Rash says that the purpose of was related to the mitzvah of why we getting so excited why is everybody getting so worked up because of the mitzvah of so much so that say you know who asks the goddess asks the he says a oneline But it gives a little bit of an introduction and that is a over there says there were four times a year that the world is judged. So we're familiar with the big one and that's inash right around the corner. But I'm skipping says the Why do we bring the carbon? You know why you bring the carbon on? Because is the so bring a carbon made of that's a school that the will have because the came from Why is there bring so that you're going to have the decent? So you want to know why there's a mitzvah? It's because on sukus when the was brought the world is judged for parosa. So the the for is on that's when we say we wait till because we don't want it to rain on but really that's cuz that's and for that reason we bring a carbon from what we want should be blessed and it's a school so to speak says the it comes out of that was going to bring the onto the world says that's why everybody was so happy. You know why everybody was so excited by the because everybody understood that through the there was going to be what? And they were so excited BECAUSE THIS WAS THE MOTHER of all school say this is from Hashem says bring I'm telling you you're going TO GET SO EVERYBODY WAS SO EXCITED BECAUSE THEY understood but they need to do something to make sure that it's going to be as it relates to as it relates to and this is what they're doing RIGHT NOW. THAT'S WHY they're happy. Unbelievable. So the all the excitement was related to I think it was related to gashi gashi gash it's the same word right that's what this is I think at first glance this what everybody was so excited about okay I don't think that's but but that's certainly what is coming to saying that the was related to the fact that we're doing the right now this is going to bring the of and that's why everybody was so excited but I think that perhaps there's even a little bit of of a deeper and that is that the says in the end of we're talking about you all know this doesn't say that anywhere in the it's really a combination of its here it says it says right listen carefully And then it says at the end why says is not the way people think it's a mitzvah I'll say that it is a mitzvah but says that's not what it is right It's not a mitzvah. That's not what the is saying. That's not distorting the If you think the terra is telling you that the mitzvah during the seven days is to be it's true. It's a but it's not the Ezra says the same thing. as ev says it's you're always going to be that if somebody's it's like a that you're always going to be. So it's clear that this that the Yidden got during the during the seven days in it wasn't just some that they had at that very moment. It was a that they carried along with them. It was something that they were able to take with them through the long winter through the yard. That was something that they were able to take with them. There was a there was a giveaway. There was a takeaway that you got from the B of Mik, right? You show up. So, you go to a nice, right, big uh party. So, usually there's something to take home with. There was a takeaway. You know what the takeaway was? You're going to walk away. You can internalize what's going on in the Bd that you're always going to be. This was something that the Jews had the ability. It's all you have to do is is take in what's going on and you have this promise that you're going to be able to and it doesn't say there's a promise of of that's not what it says. It says there's a promise that you're auto that you're for sure going to be. What's the isd they they were able to internalize clearly that everything comes from Hashem that that that everything comes from and if a person's able to take that with him and internalize that so his anxiety levels go down all his diggers start to dissipate and that's the that's 101 that's the that's the I was thinking that brings why was it called it's interesting there was there was a certain which made me think the marsh says that that the whole is related to it's related to marnosa. So on the one hand everyone's all excited because they just got a school of the but then again it's somehow related to so is this some really heisting idea could be the was so clearly that everything is from the that everything is from people go for schools for something it's like a hedge you know what do I have to lose okay so it's it's not a bad school it's not so expensive that's not the but is not when the school or the or the is is a hedge. That's nice. But again, that's not for but came with this with this clarity where every single that was there was to see in high definition that everything comes from that through the that's where the is going to come and that brought out this unbelievable. It wasn't just the oh wow there's going to be it's a that comes with this that is from and that's a much greater sim the fact that you know that and that there's a father in that's a and he can provide us with that's the greatest and that's not just a that lasted seven days but it's a that the were able to take with them as As long as if you took in that message, then there's a says