Zevachim 92

Today's D is B and we are in the beginning of a new per the 11th per of Peros. So the topic of Perk Datos is different related to the dam of a carbonos. And I believe that it requires a little bit of an introduction in the spirit of humir. If you reanalyze the parish of the carbonos in the beginning of Vayikra, it's interesting the Torah tells the story of the different carbonos in the Torah twice. It says it in par and then it says it again in paras. As a matter of fact, paras the beginning of it is very much the sequel to what is the beginning of parikra. If you go through very high level, the introduces the concept of carbon by talking about the carbon then the goes to the carbonoid. The third carbon mentioned is the carbon. Then the terror gets involved in the carbas and it goes through every single type of carb the bring the even talks about the and then the talks about the carbon. So it's really five sugo theim the and the beginning of paras really starts in the same way the beginning of parishes started the Tory again goes through these five categories of carbonas the order is different in the beginning of par who discusses why the order is different but the goes through the the and the when the Torah introduces each one of the five carbon theor starts that's how starts then it's you look at they all say that in what's happening is the Torah introduced the of the carbon but every carbon has additional this the of the with all the and then there's the of the and then there's the and the that for whatever reason the terror did not include in the initial parish of parishes but rather waited to the second paras and that's so parish we'll talk about the name of the carbon what animal the carbon can be brought from is it a zer is it ana you have to do There's aarim if it's a it involves aar etc etc etc in each one of the of the respectctor gets filled out. So now I know all the of the and all the of the all the of the all the of the all the of the this is just being maedra doing what we do in the world of just to see these a little bit more clearly now as it relates to all thees is every unique to but doesn't apply to carbon is it only for the so the truth is some of these are unique to the respective parish of others really all carbonas I'll give you the best example in the world in the parish of is of which we know of course is carbon terra set this denim that I learned from the fact that the terra set but the bottom line is it's not unique to right so really Each one of the that are mentioned in the par here in the beginning of par you have to ask yourself you have to learn the you have to look in the kayan you have to learn the gar to see whether or not it's going to be exclusive dka to the parish in which it's written or it could be the terra wrote it in that specific parish but really it's aav and it's going to apply broadly across the entire spectrum of carbonus or maybe some carbon honest. But the bottom line is each one is really our peric is going to focus very much on theim that are mentioned in parad regarding the and the reason is because it's going to discuss some of the additional that were not mentioned in paras that are only mentioned in this para of so I think the really is to go through those and then bashem over the next several daffin We're going to go through the all these different. So it's the following are the laws of don't I know the of the already from parishes? Yeah, that was the introduction. But now I'm going to tell you all the of the carbonas. Number one, the place that you're supposed to shack the carbon is the same place that you should that is and the reason is so we know that the carbon that's it didn't say anything about that regarding the we fill out that number one number the he had the it had it be eaten which is in the there's a few things that you see in this pic number one that in contrast to the carbon which was the carbon was eaten again this is not news to anyone I hope but the carbon was eaten number two who ate it a little misleading because the sounds a little bit like after that he had to eat it. But the says that's not true. Really, every was allowed to eat it. Additionally, it had to be eaten inside and the reason is because the is not let if it leaves it becomes possible. Third, anything that touches the of a carbon becomes what does that mean? What it means is in the event that the carbos was and it's in a situation right now where it has the ability to be well then the would be that in the event that something for example or something else would go ahead and would touch the it would now take on the status of the soas and it's only and it has to be eaten a Well, if that's the case, then in the event that somebody is going to go and somebody is going to eat from the now that touched the it's going to have to be governed by the same exact. It's the next words in the Pik that we really need in the event that a little bit of a carbon is going to go on a bag is that beggar needs to be washed. Now, it doesn't just need to be washed because it's not nice for the co doing the avoid to do the avoid with a blood stain on his uh bag. The dinos is an avoid of some sorts. As a matter of fact, the says the can't be shipped out to the cleaners, but rather it something that had to be done. It had to be done in the as well. Another in the event that a will be cooked in an earn has to be broken. Let's say the would be cooked in a kali that was made of copper, not of earthn weird. then you don't have to destroy the kali but what you do have to do is some form of and the specific form of which is going to be discussed in our paric is what's known as another that has to be eaten only by males and only by which we already mentioned finally any whose dam is brought into the with the intention of doing some sort of the carbon becomes ple you have to burn the carbon in a fire. It's interesting. We know this. It's come up a lot as we'll in one second. If you look at the Ramban says, you know what this is saying whose is that the are supposed to be done not but rather on the what's known as the you not let the bosser of that garbon because they're also known as the of the pimeio which were the paramount catastrophic, right? They're also known as the animals that had to be burnt and that's the next two words in the rather than need it, you would have to go ahead and burn it. So the Raan says what that is saying is it's going to right before that that when it comes to the was eaten albeit by but that's only true if it's a who is going on the who is supposed to go on that instead that's going to have to be burnt in the fire. Stating that for this of course. So just like this, the opposite of that is and states that if you have a whose dam is supposed to go on and you now take the dam of that and you bring it inside the dam becomes pos and as a result now the of the which ordinarily you're allowed to eat you will not be allowed to eat the it's considered ple and being that it's considered ple it's for that reason it is something that would have to be burnt either way a whole board of related to the carbonas included in the par of there's two that are going to feature very very prominently in the sug that we're going to learn right now one even more so than the others let's just go back highlight it for a minute and then we're going to dive right in the pik said Anything that touches the buser of the car to the extent that the buser of the is in a situation where it has the ability to be see 101 the is that that touches the boser of the is going to take on the status of the next that in the event that a little bit of the dam of a is going to go on a begg of a so the is that the begot itself is going to require kibos but not just send it to the cleaners but the kibos is going to have to take place in the itself this of as we're going to see in the coming up now is true only if The coyan did a kabolo on the dam and after the kabalo but before this the dam went on his beggan in the event that the coyan would go and he would she the animal and then blood would spritz from the kas on his beet there's no of the kadesh in the event that the co did this and then he has the or whatever he got a little bit of dirty there'd be no of the moes is true only after the cabal not when it went directly from the and only before the lumbus is that if you have whose den is to go on the misbeh this is critical and instead of it going on the mak it goes on the beggar of the ken that dam is what the said the dam that the ken didn't do a kabala with yet was not to the point where it has a d to go once you do it well there's no den anymore to put the dam where this is and the only time it's when there was already a but before meaning where the dam is in a situation right now where the is with it on the where instead of the happening on the it ended up on the is there's a lot more to talk about the is going to do a lot of that talking for us and on that note a little bit of a long-winded introduction but I think it was that spritz on the co has to wash his bag and now this says the is true for all we'll see a lot more about that in the but for now let's take the at its work this is true for allo which is a little bit of says insishna you know why because if you look at the clearly talking about what type of kas How do I know that? because the POS says right there were a few shout outs to the so if that's the case it sounds like the par of as much as it's like a super inclusive para but at the same time sounds like it's talking da about the and if that's the case you would think that maybe the only is if it's not the case and the pio is another way of saying the ones that were not eaten because all the were also the the were the ones that had to be burnt and the is because it says and like we said is mashma It's a very very inclusive word and this inclusive word is even the which seemingly is not really mentioned in this parish that's any that is ple meaning if the dam is possible you can't do a with it well then if the dam would fall on the back it wouldn't require kibus and it doesn't matter if the dam was once then it became possible or if it was never cauter either way that is going to be the It was an example of that's possible. It was once it became right or it was but it became or it became what's an example of that was never right as soon as you did the was dead on arrival or if apostle did the in all these cases the dam never became right you need a cabala in order for it to become kasher and the cabala was done already by a apostle or you need for the dam to be this week and this was done by. So those are examples. Obviously there are other examples but those are examples of where you would have of that did not have. The bottom line is the Mishna opens up with two related to number one even though the isma that it's talking about the also known as where's the because it says just look at the context so many related to you could have thought that all the in this par all the only introduces the parish like we mentioned. This is very very general and as a result it's going to be true for all even the second is the only time of the iss but to the extent that the dam was possible then there's no and it doesn't matter if the dam had a kosher or if the dam did not have a kosher we can see in the really but inn it doesn't matter if the dam had a kosher or if the dam did not have a kosher what's in the second of It's what we mentioned also in the introduction of requiring is dam as a tob if instead it ended up on the but the extent that the dam was pos so obviously it had no to go so it's not going to be subject to says the gar the mishna said so what's the first Half of the three one more time and meaning even though from the itself it would suggest that it should not be referring to all at the same time the word is that true. If it's true that the word is then should be that of should also require who said not I'll tell you who said not said not why you would think that should require it says in the para of the word and the word ze is an exclusionary word and it's and it tells me that there's a parish of that's not every single which is not it's not the but the bottom line is how could you tell me that is the Mishna said that is Marba so if you're telling me to is Marba And even though based on the should not be included in this but because therefore I include it. So then should also be included. Are you going to tell me it says who cares? If it says also the iss of the opinion that the word trumps the word ze. Well if that's the case then it should be true for the as well. So the now is going to take three attempts to really reconcile this that why would it be that is from the word yet from the word the first is from tell the says it says the And it sounds like the parish of is talking about that are subject to the is and being that it's not subject to so it's for that reason that it's not going to be included. So it's true but it's only but the says the why don't we say I understand the Mishna had said that really the seem to be talking about a specific type of stop but if you're going to tell me now that the reason is because it says and is not from the I don't care it says but at the end of the day it says Well, if that's the case, you should say it says should be excluded. But the says I can't because at the end of the day, I do have the word. Well, right. I have should also be included because it says Tyrus. Mar says true, but at the same time, you also have the in saying that there's to be to be or better. There's a word that would suggest boy and there's a word that would suggest. The word that's is the word that's is if you look at themselves it's a little bit tricky because themselves are that we're talking specifically about the not and not why because it talks about I'm sorry that it says so clearly we're talking about Additionally, it sounds like we're talking about the and not the because it says and now I have a rig the ribo really would be everything but I have a m that tells me I can't be mara everything. So really what I'm left with is that I have to be marba something and I have to be m something right. So again, let's just get this one more time. the the itself sounds like we're talking about a very specific right not because we're talking about and not because we're talking about stating that I have oh tyrus would be m everything could be mund things why not but I also have so the me is telling me that I can't be m everything so I have these two in question number one the number to the I know to be marba one and to be the other. I just don't know which the came out that we're gonna be the hence the how do you know says that that's the way it should be why because that that's why you should be because the had a lot of things in common with and here's the list number one they're both right they're both behemoth they're both animals as opposed to number two they both involve number three they both required but number four the both required cababala with a clich number five both of theirs dam had to go in the very unique place where the dam of had to go on the corner of the misbeh the both of their were done with the finger. It had to be on the on the point of the Ken the additionally they both had parts of the animal that had to be burnt that went and by the way this is in contrast to the has none of the above right is not a doesn't require there's no there's no there's no there's no there's no there's no Karen there's no and there's no who was completely eaten So there's a whole list of things that the pimus has in common with the which makes it likely then that if you're going to be marba something similar to the would be the candidate but the other I can make the argument there are certain things that the has in common with the and that is number one they were both born right that's a big one that both of I'll hold it from his back. Additionally, also they were eaten the was eaten was eaten as opposed to the that was not eaten. So because you have a list of like 10 things to the to compare the you should compare those two. Maybe compare the because they're all so similar in how many things? Two things, right? Right. It's almost hard to ask this question with a straight face. Just because you have 10 things, but I have two things. I'm Yeah, I have 10 things and you have two and being that one list is much longer than the other list. So, it's for that reason that's the one that we're going to be mar either way. Okay. The first we have a little bit of a steer the parish of seems to be just based on the context of talking about whose was born stating that stating that we're marba where even the was brought on the misbe the reason is like the mishna said because it says stating that despite the fact that it says we're not really cuz we're not and the reason is because the BR says it says so in as much as it says but countering the There's no is talking to oneas and is talking to the other katas. That already is arbitrary. We're picking and choosing that. This is the way to pick and choose it. The answer to that is the Garra says it's because there's so many commonalities between the and even though there are commonalities between the did not have in common but at the end of the day and it's for that reason this is the direction that we go. This is the first number two said I'm going to tell you how knew to be from and to be the one that was from the says. So one of the many in the parish of the word in it of itself is a little bit exclusionary which has matched And if that's the case, there's one type of that's eaten that's going to be included in this. But there's another type that's not and it's from here I know that the is a of what? It's a me on a that was eaten the was eaten the one that wasn't eaten. That's how I know to be again the was that if I have to be so am I not also the course it says so what do I need for if you're telling me that itself is a should be but so why do I need to be says he loves the word. I could have always thought that is not really a it's look at Rashi Rashi says it says that's just the just the dict of the is the appropriate way of saying it and there's no there's no lemur to be had over here once I have z so z tells me that I know independently that there's a asha to be had the question is where should that mia Should go on or should go on the is the it's the that's going to say oh I know there's a from I'm just not sure what to be so will be the will tell me that what I'm supposed to be is at the end of the day you want to know why we're being but we're not being the it's not because one is better this has more similarities this has less similarities it's because I actually have a mocker to Because I know the mi is supposed to be of a carbon that was and of the two options over here only the was as opposed to the was not a third shot. Oh my crow. He said I see the situation. So when you learn the Mishna 100 out of 100 times, this is where you learn the Mishna. And even though the itself is talking about what type of how do I know that stating that is I have a that tells me that is going to be included in this as well. says that's really not what's going on in the Mishna a little bit, but as we'll see, Ra is going to do some surgery says, right? It's the teaches me. So it says and said the P is talking about the D of that requires not but requires H. Now which dam required H. It was the dam of the that went on the MB. Right? So we know there's nuances in terms of how exactly the D went on the MB. There's ha, right? These are often interchanged and considered to be synonyms of each other. But when you learn the suggest, they're they're actually pretty nuanced. Now the dam that went on the way the Torah describes the dam going from the hand to the is through. And if it says that word in the parish of well that means that the par of that's talking about that was supposed to go on. So if that's the case, you want to know why that went on that's it requires it's because the parish is talking about that. Now the GRA is going to interrupt the program. So before we're going to see Rab's whole buildup and how he learns up the whole line, the Gar jumps on this and the Gar says now the Bach changes the gear say it's not but rather it's how could you say that? Read the Mishna. The Mishna said that the para of was talking about is the of the not. So the Gar says that is referring to the so one of the that were mentioned in the parish of was now that para is talking about right first of all you're cooking the food right so you're eating it what else are you cooking it for but besides that says the next says So we're clearly talking about where it was. So what the G means to or what the Mishna means to say is that even though the is for sure talking about because there are only such but that's true that's true but as relates to the is the talking about that was supposed to go asks another problem by the way, right? The opening words of the what does it sound like? That's and even if you tell me that it's just the opposite is talking about the but okay so according to how do you read the way you read the even though the general parish is for sure talking about and specifically speifically we're referring to but when it comes to it's not it's there it's for sure talking about the and in fact it's talking about the stating that the are included how do I know that is from the word that's how I know to be so all did was he answered the original kasha that how do I know that are included in the maybe you should say just like maybe it should be as well what's the terret the terret is you can't be parish is talking about now if that's the case what is being soas is being so rabbit didn't really help us that much because all he did was is he just shifted the blame a little bit. So now we just have to figure out why is being so says if you're telling me that at the end of the day according to you say that's what the is talking about but it is coming to just like Right? Maybe also should be not included. Right? No, but I have actually the other way around. So the say it makes sense. It makes sense to be he's going to say exactly what said in the name of just in the reverse. This is a good one, right? You should be So wouldn't it make more sense that that's what should be included when the name of that maybe you should in we should be he was trying to compare to what to so there he had two things that they had in common number one it was and number two it was in world we're comparing it to the so over there it's not right so what would it be it'd be something else and by the way is a really good Why? Because that's what the says. The says so it's certainly that you should be but the says stating that I hear what you're saying that list is longer and being that that list is longer. It's for that reason that's what we're going to be. This concludes the longer first part of today's just to make a very very quick we're discussing the of and the said that even though this is in the parish of but at the end of the day it really does not include in it all in fact it relates to the but it does not relate to the right that's the way it it plays itself out is why so the like this theor said that really based on the it sounds like the is talking about number one that was eaten which would exclude the who's one of those because those were burnt and also it's talking about that required. that's the case that would exclude stating that it says the word is a very inclusionary word and as a result oh everyone's included everyone is invited why because it says the word yeah but it says the word and therefore is mite and from there saw this little bit of a struggle this tug of war I know to be I know to be m I have to figure out what to be and what to be and really the way it plays itself out in the way we get to the mas there's no shas everyone arrives in the same destination just three highways to get there. The destination is we're going to be but in terms of why we arrive and how we get there there were three. The first was Rishlokish in the name of Kaparo who said at name of Barapar who said a good name for Kachchin but in the name of Barap who said that at the end of the day the is way more similar to the is and as a result if we have to be something be something else it makes sense that that's the thing that we should be raised that I actually have a gloy that the thing we're is is that was eaten because it says no has to be something that was eaten. Oh, if it has to be something that was eaten then for sure the one is because of the two that's the one that was eaten was completely burnt. And then finally Rabb said that I see it just the opposite. I see that the par as it relates specifically to this detail is talking about the that was born and he speaks out even though the par of is notif we mention right so for sure sounds like it's talking more about but this says oh that's the parish is talking about says that went on. Now you end up in the same place sort of because why? And the answer is what said in the name of because that one is a lot more similar. Either way, the DA is going to conclude with a few fun shilas. This is some real uh brisk shas. We're just going to do what we do and we'll see. It's going to tie it into the Mishna and that's why we're talking about this right now. But Rababin had the following question. that that the took the which has the diamond inside of it obviously and he brought it into the does it become or does it not become so the background to this is a that we mentioned in the introduction to the what's known as right so what would be if was brought inside is there or is there not? What's the shar? Do we look at the damas inside the of the as being inside a and just like if you would take the dam of aar and you would bring it into the would become possible should become possible as well. Maybe we look at the dam inside the of the as if it was in the of the and if that's the case the says and we so in the event that the would take the animal before the and he would put it into the then he would take it out the d would not become possible. It's only possible when it's of the question is the of the is that like the or maybe it's different. What would be the it should be different? So the is the is because by a be there was a there was a cliches by if there is no there's no cliches. So there's to say that the sav of the behemoth is in lie of the cliches. We look at it right now as if it's in the being that if the dam of the be was in a clich and it would be it would be possible. So it could be the dam in the be we look at as if it's going to be possible. No at the end of the day it's in the and if the d of the behem is in it doesn't become possible. So by the it wouldn't become possible either from a what would be if the after the was done all of a sudden it jumped and it entered the and then it came out it's going to be so this is almost the exact case that we're talking about it's talking about where the animal was jumpy after the malik. It entered the and then it came out but it says it's right. So it's checkmate. Perfect. You have a that says it's the truth is the is saying just the opposite because you know what it sounds like? It sounds like the only reason it's because it was because it went in on its own. It sounds like the would actually bring it inside. In that case it would already be possible. Now if it would be ple if you brought it inside so then there's a that the opposite is a that really if you bring it in it's going to be now what would be the difference if I brought it in or if it went in on its own what's even the right if you're making a if it went by itself but if I brought it who cares right if an animal's do I care how it was so why would I care how it was so rashi says the reason is because the when it talks about it says And even more than that, you brought it in with the intent. You know what it sounds like? If the dam went in on its own or if the dam went in notes, then the wouldn't be there. That would be a good reason then to distinguish between, well, did it go in on its own or did I bring it in? But here's the bottom line. If it went in on its own and then it came out what does it sound that there is according to you go back and learn that entire in the same context over there in the same neighborhood the is talking about we know says and then it jumped to then it came right back to it's going to be cautious now you're going to make the same oh it's there so when it comes to going from to right to another part of the so for sure there's no dick to be had over there okay now why then did it say so it's like a funny just say sounds like you're opening yourself up for a dick here right so why talk in a way that's misleading The reason it said is because there is a to be had that's emphasis but it's a different the if it was going to be but if it was then it's going to be even if it was only right I didn't bring it outside it went out on its own I don't care at that point it's going to be and by the way you want to make a in make the What? If you brought up because it could be if you brought up it's also going to be posh. What then is the dick that's to be had? The dick that's to be had is that you if you yourself would have brought it or sorry if it by itself would have gone outside then it would have been possible because for sure doesn't discriminate. We don't care how it went in outside. At the end of the day, if it went outside, it went outside. But the bottom line is we thought there was a to be had. Really, there is no to be had. That was first second child. This is the one that's going to circle back to our doesn't get more than when you see the word, right? So what would be if the C did Malik would have and then all of a sudden the dam was nishb from the of the onto the floor and then he quickly gathered up could he go ahead now and put it on the or can he not put it on the what's the so let's speak it out first glance we know is right wrong sometimes before the isle nishb is going to be kosher. So here's the question. What would be that was do we look at it as if it wasab. So do you look at as being a cliche is a so IT'S GOING TO BE no it's by a regular it's so what's the difference if it's a or if it's going to be the words that the chooses to pose this question is this when it comes to but is the gather of there being no when it comes to that theor wasn't what does it mean the wasn't a cliches because we view Rashi says because we view that the sabber itself is like the because you have it and therefore maybe the says no you put into it's going to be possible And therefore it's going to be possible. And the way Rashi explains the punch line of this is that if putting into a cliches is going to be ple then nishbach is certainly going to be possible because nishbach can't be better than if you put it into a kicharis. So putting into a kicharis is going to be possible. Nishbach is for sure going to be possible. So I just want to highlight one thing. Again we're not doing this now but I just want to highlight one thing. We spoke out at first glance a very of is it or is it not what's the is going to be possible. So maybe here it should be possible. But then again by so maybe that's why it's possible. Over here there's no dinkabal. So maybe it's the tantamount to being from the way the gumar speaks out the tutum is a little different right? It's a little nuance. It's not that super highlevel mahalik that we suggested you'd be able to approach the shil. The gumar is to the gumar's just for the sake of accuracy is the first side of the gum is that maybe we view the asiches and the ver is because we view as the so it's the other iss and the way rashi explains if aaris is poss Then came to be possible as well. Either way on my so I have a what's my is from the beginning of paramas and that's why we're discussing this right now. What does say I'm sorry from the right in the beginning of the par you would have thought it says the word. Now, if you're going to tell me that is possible when it comes to listen to this is all the colliding. Why do you need to tell me the word to be that there's no of because oh I have a m in the par it's poset you know why it's posh because the minute the dam is over the ear space of the bag it's as if it's on the bag there's a concept of so it's as if it's on the bag if it's on the bag it's ple Once the dam is ple at that point it's not subject anymore to the laws of dam it has to be dam so if you're going to tell me that there's when it comes to then why do I need a p to tell me that there's no damos by typically it's anyways dle because it's in the of the which makes it must be there is no but the said there's no and the reason there's no is because I could always tell you maybe the case of we I need the is talking about where the dam never went on top of the earpace of the bag but it went from the straight onto the bag. It it literally it touched it. It was and being that it literally touched it. It never became in between. So it was never not that's why I would need to come on to one last shy ley had a sh who did he asked the shil from soar doesn't say but some have the gear what would be if went on a bag and then it went from that be onto another so the shil is is that second kibos or not so what's the shibus do we say that once it went on the first be it required kibos being that required kibos it doesn't have the ability to make the other bag require kibos. The way Rashi explains is very because once the dinner this dam is that it's kibos so it's not lazo anymore. So if it's not so when it touches the second it doesn't have the ability to be the second kibos because the dam could only be kibus when it's maybe that that was the shil. So rebi told him back this is a shila ton kibos for sure requires kibos. Wow. And he sent him out of shock. I'm going to tell you why. If that goes on a if you want to go ahead and be it's then it's going to be okay I hear that we were under the impression that being that it's so now is but you can tell me that is so then for sure it's going to be okay. And by the way, just to be clear here, we're talking about a uh regular damas of a right. We're not talking about because that never requires kibos and it's obviously talking about where was right. So you don't have because if it wasn't there's anyways no. So it was so it's a regular you would think other than the fact that maybe it requires but that's said if it's still going to be fine because I don't like that even though it's true doesn't require that was the safe of the but if you remember the Mishna said it doesn't matter if the dam But not everybody agrees with that hold this right you had a proper being that you had a proper cababo therefore there was already a sobi said to me it's not a I mean asked but the end of the day told him it's not a why is not a sh because if then it's for sure good it sounds like ley was working with that is possible cuz like Rashi explains if it needs kibos it doesn't sound like you're allowed to do a haz and he rebi went there and he said even if is going to be pos but I hold not like even though reb is the author of the Mishna I don't hold like the Mishna I hold that if it had a is then it is and if that's the case in this case for sure is going to be kos either way what's the second half of the d so it intersected a little bit with our but really the second half of it discussed different is related to number one is there or is it not another if it was from the is it considered or is it considered the last sh was very much and that is that second beggar would require Why keep us or not? Tomorrow's D look at the top of the we're going to start with another and we're going to continue along this theme for the next several D from Russia.