Zevachim 74

Today's is and we are 10 lines from the top of so we've been learning the eighth per also known as so you would expect to be somewhere it's actually tucked away in and really it's of but in the context of the first case of the Mishna was where there was a bunch of behemos that were hectish and it was into those behemos either one of the significance of which is these are animals that are the Mishna said even if the ratio is one bad animal to 10,000 kosher animals is and really it's in the two the first is that you don't say ordinarily if you have a it's sometimes there's sometimes sometimes sometimes but there's usually going to be a ratio where at some point you're going to say if there's so much in proportion to the is the is going to be so you would think that let the or let this hame be bottled to that are so the first of the is in the first really of the first is that there's no why is there no so we saw in the two either because and being that it's a minion it's not and the time of the is either of the discussing or the time of the in the lit is both complicated cases but straightforward principles and that is that if something is even if not everybody counts it but some people count it that was the very short and the very short that would be enough of a reason to say that it shouldn't be but there's also a secondh the second is that why can't we take one animal out of the and let's be makit under the assumption that it's probably from the roy animals that are not based on the of and the clarified that's if you would just pull an animal out that wouldn't work cuz for that you would say but says the why can't we scatter the animals let them all be separate so right now they're not all together find an animal be mak under the premise of the parish forget what happened to the parish and the garra after a little bit of back and forth said that in theory it should work. The problem is once you do that there's you may take it out of the voice without first scattering it. If you do that it's a problem because that's already which is said you can't do it. Essentially there's two in the Mishna. number one that there's no number two that there's no I've called the parish but another thing that emerged really if you summarize it is that really there could be an the would be scatter them then go take an animal be mak and it would be assumed that the animal that you're being mak is a ker animal based on the kapar it's only that you can't do it says the gur and that segus into today's now that the that you can't be m any one of these carbon. There's no there's also no parish. If you would be midi, it wouldn't work. Meaning what would be if this person went against the he scattered the animals and then he found one and he was mate it should really be because we should say called the parish parish. So this now should be why not on aa level he followed what he was supposed to do. The reason it's a problem is he wasn't supposed to do it. Why not? Because you weren't supposed to rely on you may do it in a way where it's going to be but what about if you did it already says Rob it doesn't work. You know why this is a because we know there's a says that once a carbon is once it's pushed away so to speak from it takes on a life of its own it takes on a of its own so that it becomes possible forever even if the circumstances change being rav and you would ask I have a I have 10,000 animals one of them is a shisk is there an he would say No. No. If he being that the ro would tell you you can't be makit even if the circumstances change later cuz you went and did something you really weren't supposed to do. You scattered them and you created a scenario where there is a cult. It's too late cuz now there's a noopsil. Forget about the taru voice. Forget about the that's now there's because once a curb is pushed away even for a moment for a fleeting second it creates a it's called so says of this Mishna is going to be true even if the circumstances change because of from a So the mission over there is discussing discusses and we're discussing and now the K doesn't know what to do. He doesn't know how to be this because and the first said that if you get it wrong even though ordinarily but if you get it wrong the carbon is going to be possible. It says there's no way. So if there's even one mixed up with 10,000 or one mixed up with 10,000 is why can't you wait for it to get a and be so speaks out because there's no pion. So as a result it's the equivalent of if it would be that was in one of it says that's only true would go and he would actually ask. So if you knock on the rod's door, I had 10,000 birds all one got. I don't know what to do. He's going to tell him you have to kill all of them. But if you didn't ask, you decided not to ask then is if you did all of them. So what's assuming half of them were and half of them were max because he at least got half of them right. If he did all of them again assuming half and half because the he got right that's supposed to be and it's only the he got wrong. Let's say there were two one and one and he did one is both going to be possible because I have to assume then maybe the which was supposed to go he did maybe that was supposed to go he did what's the problem the problem is this Mishna is not like because the Mishna says that if this would go ask he would tell him what am I supposed to do with this he would tell me you can't be but if the guy didn't listen to the he went on on his own and he was mocked with them then it could be it's going to be kasha for example if he did them all then if half were half are going to be if he did them all it's going to be the same thing I why don't we say that being that if you would ask the would tell him you can't be so just like said that once our not the which says that That being that is even if something changes later you figure that away. What do you do? You scatter them. So now it's called a part doesn't matter is it's possible because say the same thing when isn't this not like so says you know is going to tell you is going to say I agree I know that my is not like the kingdom and the mission of kingdom it's but you know why the mission of kingdom holds because he holds that can't be although is something called decoy is only applicable once the carbon was shuffled. So once the there was a and now we're discussing the dam of the carbon theim of the carbon. So then once it's ple even if the circumstances change later it becomes ple forever what we know as but a lime animal that was if something changes we don't say that once it was it was that's clearly what the time of the kingdom holds but says I know from my not everybody agrees with that there are holds even by my comment on the is going according to that then that's even if the circumstances change the is still going to bear says I'll ask you another I have a very very similar from aishna that's discussing not a but rather a everybody holds that li that animals that are dead have we learned in the following bishop says This is a mission later in the par that's discussing the same thing. This theme is really the theme of almost the entire par. And the context over there is we had carbon that were already a bunch of that were one of the was the other were not. So is he can't be m of any of them because now that there's a he have a problem said a phenomenal he said let's say the went did something he wasn't supposed to do. He brought one of the heads of these. He was one of the carbon. You're allowed to now be all the other heads. And the reason is as we'll see in a moment says that we're allowed to assume that the one that he was the was the so that there's no anymore in the voice. If there's no bum anymore in the voice, so you're allowed to go and be the rest of the voice. What's the cash? What happened to the being that was the you weren't supposed to be able to be? So why don't we say that the whole was and once the was how could the forget about the fact that maybe there's a maybe there's no once the is that you can't be this entire it takes on a life of its own that was and here you can't tell me that this is going according to the because we're talking about this is already after the says the is going to say the same parents that mission is going to like this is discussed maybe holds that there's never the context over there is that there were two that were brought in one was the other one was the and they had to be a pier so much so that if the at some point would die you would have to bring two new meaning let's say you did the for And before he did this and the dies. So is the dam of thee is possible because there always has to be two is argues says that the dam doesn't become possible. Even though the it's true you have to bring a new so that there's a mate for this but at the same time it does not disqualify the dam of the even though there was an interim period where the dam of thee didn't have a compadre right you didn't have the lazul it had died but bring it later and it's going to be fine I what happened to the why don't we say in that interim period being that there was no other it should all be possible what you see from here and that's the part that we need for our we're not learning. Now the part that we need for our is that there's a who holds his even this says according to will be going according to that hold is comment on the that once you have this it's true even if the circumstances change he was going according to that holds and that even the fact that you have a kingdom and a later in the would be and it'll say these are going according to did not accept these two premises. Number one, there's number two even by either way. So we mention this of the that's really going to be discussed later in the bar which is so theor is going to now discuss it in great detail. And this next daf is a is a gishmakaf. It's a very lishaf # we do what we do but really it's a black gum that requires a first there. It's not such a hard but there's some very very important principles related to the says the said who said in the name of this was attributed to somebody had a ring that was used to beautify. So clearly this ring is now and it was with 100. So a jeweler had all these rings. One of the rings he knows was and now one of the fell into the now we know that certainly it's a it's meaning there's no at all. So clearly all the now all these rings are going to be they're going to be what happened was one of the rings fell into the yama. So Ralph says an unbelievable once one falls into the because we have a to say that that the one that fell in to the was the so we have a right to assume that there's no anymore. So as much as there's a rab said it comes along with a tremendous and that is is if there's one in the that's a because it's if something happens to that the entire says we're going to see on at the end of the that this is not only true for the is going to say the same in the context of truma but the bottom line is that was says the askman said it in the name of who said in the name Ra was the one who was pedalling this he brought it into Bish as from our listen to the Mishna says that if you have and it was with 10,000 so what's why don't we say that once the the first animal dies that we're going to die so once the first animal dies everything should be mutter because let's assume the one that died is the is just like when one tabbas falls into the we assume that which one fell into the it was the one that was so why don't we assume that when the first animal dies the one that died was the one that was a prophets left to the rest of the he told him back as said I hear it's a good and really ra is going not like the even though but we know that it's only it's avithana meaning it's it's a license that he had but he used it very very discreetly so the assumption is that rab is not Mishna and says the but rav is going to be going like the rebel who himself argues with the Mishna. It's not a not like the cuz he has a reb it's the we had in the top of the this was said that if you had a whole bunch of different and one of them was if you can't be m of any of them if one was you could not look at be of the rest of them because we assume that the one that went on the misbeh was the one that was so the rest of the is going to be which is exactly one fell to the we assume it's the of one of the we assume it was the bottom line is is that has a so although it's true our way our says you can't just say let one of them die and assume the one that died was the one that was the problem was the no you don't say that but the says ra is going like rebelism But for if is going to rebel shouldn't ra had mentioned a very important caveat because said that said that even though said that if you were m the of one of these so you now have a right to be of all the other under the assumption that the one that was already was the so there's no problem anymore with this but he said did only meant if you're gonna be m of two at a time why two at a time sashi says because there's amigu Not the migu but the migu that you find in the rest of shas and that is that being that you're being m too and we know one of them is for sure kasher because there was only one set of one in this that was possible so mik one of them is kasher the other one's going to be kasher as well point is if ra is going then ra should have said that the only time if one of the boys fell into the yamelik I'm allowed to use I can benefit from the other is if I'm benefiting from two at a time so for example if I want to sell the tab. This is a jeweler. You could sell two at a time. You can't sell one. If you sell two, then there's that one of them is not for sure cuz we know only one was in the worst case scenario. So the other one's as well. I I should have said that meant two at a time because was going said if there was a 100. So what was the first said if one falls into the is all the are okay cuz we assume the number one number two same context. So he had 100. One of them is aashor. So that's a problem. The entire is going to be awesome. And now somebody went and he made two groups out of these 100. He put our 40 on one side and he put 60 on the other side. Said if one of the 40 now was separated from the 40. So something was pished from the 40. is it's okay. It has no ability to in itself it's if one of the 60 was in that case it's going to be a problem. Now what's the assumption? The assumption is cuz even though we know there was a tabass in the group of 100 but now that he made two groups out of it one has more than the other will assume that the tabas is in the group that has more rather than assume it's in the group that has less. So if one group has 40 and one group has 60. So the one that has 60 has more. So we're going to assume that the tabas is with the 60. It's not with the 40. So the tar of the 60 is the problem. Now the tar of the 40 is not the problem. So if one of the 40 is now pish, it's not a problem cuz we don't even assume it's in the 40. If one of the 60 is pish, it is a problem cuz we assume that it's in the 60. But the gum asks the very obvious question. Why are we not worried about the 40? Because we assume that it's with the 60 being that there's two groups. So we assume that the tabas went with the it didn't go with the this is a new type of capab. But we assume it went with the 60. It didn't go with the 40. Right here the was pirish. But either way, but what's the garishami that if that's the case, if something was persist from the shisha is if something was persist from the shishin, how many did it leave behind? 59. So let's assume that it's in the 59 and it's not this. So if you want to answer the entire 60, I get it, right? Because we could assume that the tabas is with the 60. It's not with the 40. But that's not what the priest said. That's not what Rav said. Rav said that if something was pirish from the 60, that one thing is going to be awesome because we assume that the tabas is with the 60, not with the 40. And now that something's pish from that, it's going to it's going to be a problem. The problem is that if you're willing to assume that you can subdivide this group of 100 and assume that the tabas is always with the then just like when you subdivided it from 100 to 40 and 60, you assume it went with the 60. When I now take the 60 and I remove one, essentially what I did was I made two groups out of it. One very large group 59 and one very small group one. But the bottom line is where should I assume it is? I should assume it's with the 59. So why are we saying that if the tabas was now pish from the 60 it's going to be a problem. So says you're right. Hello. What meant to say was that if you had a 100, one of them had a and now it was divided into two groups. One was 40, one was 60. the group that has 40 if that's not a problem. 60 is going to answer. Now if you would be pish something from the 60 then you would say that it's okay because essentially what he did was he made another group just like going from 100 to 40 and 60 we soon went with the 60 going from 60 to 59 we went with 59 didn't say that Raf said the 60 itself has an ability to either way that was so said you started off with 100 and now you made a group of 40 and 60 so what's the 40 is going to be the 60 is going to be made was said to heard about wasn't happy said he's saying cool. You're telling me that if the started off in the but then we took the voice and we subdivided it so to speak. We made it into a group of 40 and 60. We could assume it's not with the 40 anymore. That's too big of a for me to tolerate when it comes to the laws of because do you know said that even though when it comes to so I can hear such a in some other area in you want to tell to me regarding I can handle that but in there's no way this is going to be and therefore such is that You have a ru of it start off with 100 you can make 900 groups out of it. It doesn't matter is it's always going to be either way. Is that true? Right. And what was that being that is so therefore it doesn't matter how many voices it's in it's always going to be a problem. By the way, what else do you see from that held was only by it's a problem. He didn't have such a problem fundamentally with what Rab said in as much as that we're dealing with and by meaning from a raw standpoint was okay with it wasn't the bothered him it's the bothered I'll ask you a cup that was So and now it got mixed up with full of they're all awesome because what if one of them was and it was a with 10,000 and then that went it fell some one of the 10,000 went into another of another 10,000 all going to be so what is one from Rav to the contrary can I get a says, but really the Bryce says now usually when the says it's a very straightforward. So you'll say that even though is not to argue with but has the Bryce isn't as straightforward going to have to work with it a little bit. Either way, the time of says is something that was one of the six things that we didn't translate in yesterday's but one of the six things that the says and is so that even though is bottled but these six things are never bottled I bottle so one of them is fell into and we're discussing over here. It fell into a of 10,000 of the and then it went one of those 10,000 fell into a with another 10,000 is they're all going to be. No, it's not always true. The first 10,000 are going to be but if something was pish from that 10,000 even if it only fell to three then from three it fell into something else at that point it's already going to be what's the bottom line you have your which is an example of something that's not bled it's one of the six things that the hold is so that it's never bottled what if it was and then it fell into a second tar and then a third tar. Is it only the first that it's Iser or is it going to be all the because there's always that maybe the iser is the one that was pish from the first to the second and from the second to the third. So it's according to Yehuda it always is that's what it means it's even if it's in a second when equating to Yehuda said in the name it's only in the first that it's going to be meaning if it's into a 10,000 of but if it then goes from the 10,000 to another even if the other only had three for example three is enough to be but what's the bottom line is over here whether there's says the gar builds it up who's going like what was said that when it comes to was okay with that then maybe the second will be but and as a result not only should answer the original voice but it shoulder any subsequent as well. But the Quran says who going like is it going to who said that by for example other is it ask all the then why did only say why was problem with standpoint's problem should have been from a standpoint anything that's whether it's oral is not only is it the original is that it's aw but it's subsequent as well. So why was this comment only obviously doesn't hold any corrupt and if he holds like who said in the name of it even now why says the who said he said only the time you learn to the price of respect Mutterz the original Bryce that the Gumar brought to ask Aasha Mani who's going to be the T of that Mishna because that Mishna clearly is distinguishing between and surud hold even by it's going to be you're telling me holds that even though Sharim is mut but at the very least is and here we have a price that says that Zor is Mut Who's the town of that Mishna? must be its. So the gar who's going like the gar brought it sounded like the gar was going to have that was going like but at this point after the quotes this this is and the still hasn't been able to figure out who is because from that it sounds like the sha of whether something that's could be could answer in a second has nothing to do with it's a it's a general is something that is auva is what if one thing was pish from that is fell into another does the transfer over to the second and the third and the fourth or not okay that's that wasn't said that yeah but there's a between and and regular as far as we know both don't seem to be between and so the garra says you're going to have to say you know who is going to go according to says the garam Obviously he's going meaning he's going that there is a concept that even something that's only the original that are false but any subsequent it's really not going to stating that whereas held that it's true for and formul that from a fundamental perspective there's a between A and B and C. But at the same time that at the very least as it relates to I'm going to be like it's as if to say he held like in terms of but he wanted to be he wanted to be when it came to and he was being on which is true we don't have a that says there should be between what we have is say he was like and he when it came to like grab the digresses for a fleeting moment and that is that when the discussed the second so what was the second you had which is not it was with 10,000 of what's one of that now went into a second even if that second tu had three not 10,000 three and knocks out the whole taru asks. It's a nitpick, but it's a good one. Why three? You'll tell me because three meaning we want the minimum of right. All you need is two. As long as you have two connected, isn't that already going to be right? You don't need three of you need two to have right. So the says you're right. When we say three, we don't mean three with in in addition to the iser. You mean together with the iser and the hater you end up having three either way going back not a second terret to this kasha but a second ter to the original kasha holds that from to is going to be mut with the exception of who's he going like he wasn't of the previous he wasn't of the previous says you know it is it's says The context is that somebody baked bread in an oven that had wood of the bread is also if that bread was with other bread and then one of those breads left that and it was with other breads that all going to be even though it's true in that that's discussing we don't have a that makes this between but there is such a that said by it's going to be awesome so is going to say that I like in terms of the laws of second stating that there is a rebel that held when it comes to that is I'm going to go according to Rabi Ali either way exhale so before we go it's just it's just to point out what we just learned and that is a very important anytime you have a voice of where is that there's No is there's no whether it's the in the beginning whether you're dealing with that's the mission of the whether you're dealing with etc etc where you have it's in au of where there's no B what would be if one of one thing of this taru was pish from the taru and it now fell into another. Do we assume that being dedicated from a now that it's in another it carries along with it this that and it's going to entire and if something now left B and fell into the entire C is going to be even though the statistical chances at this point of there being is so remote it doesn't matter the assumption is going to be that being that there is a suffix that maybe there's a D or in this voice that's so the entire is B and C and maybe D and E and F are all going or to be also or maybe no maybe there's already a concept of what we know as fact meaning when I know for sure the is and this is okay that now the suffic everything I pick up there's no but I'll being that there's a regular suffic so therefore it's going to be once it goes into B maybe I have a right to look at it as a acts fake already because there's a suffix that maybe the is not in the taru and even if the is in the tarov maybe the one that I picked up is not the is right why is there a suffix maybe is not in the taru because I was only I only was pish one from the original taru so who said statistically speaking I probably didn't get it so the chances now of the me taking the is of taris b became very very thin and when I take one from taru b and I move it into tar the chances became even thinner so this is a shil not only in but this And that's why the is talking about and because really even if you want to tell me but that's true if we know for sure there's a in the original voice right again in the original where I have and I have I have I have I have I have so I know this I know this when I pick it up so there's a suffic maybe I have the maybe I have the now to be to be then there'd be no problem of suffic why because I I would say BL I would say but because there's no BL and because there's no parish so it's for that reason I have a but once it goes into the second is at that point already what's the two who said there's even in this cuz maybe the one that I took from say wasn't the is so at this point maybe it's maybe you look at it as one big suffix so this is where the lundus comes in this is where the thumb stuff line this is where you need a first there this is where you have to learn go through this properly but And there's a au element to this. There's also a a element to this. But the bottom line is is where this and there's no one thing was pish from this. It was now with other things. Does it transfer over this issue or maybe that's only true when I know but by the second where I don't know by the third where I don't know maybe over there is going to change. is who was he says doesn't matter how many it goes into it's always going to be a problem was was very very and then there's a who's maybe based on a rebel and that wanted to differentiate between this over there it's going to be either way the first that had mentioned as it relates to was also very big. It was in the top of where the gar is said in the name of who said in the name of if somebody has a voice of a bunch of rings. One is the desire the other ones are not and one falls into the so what was the was we all unbelievable we assume the will speak out in the coming days on this but speaks out right away it's based on the fact that the whole idea that is not is only it's not so being that this is anyways it's only so says if one of them is already out so you have a right to Because anyways dealing with an issue also speaks out that you can't take the ring and throw it in the brings that says that's a whole another conversation but the point is is it happened you didn't do and anyways dealing with why because really you have and this idea that is not only is so once one of them has added the picture. We have a right to assume that the one that's out of the picture is the rest of the is going to be says the another said the same exact in a different context. He was talking about says what kind of which was also one of the six things that were mentioned that are never bottle. So a sealed of wine is it's so that it's it's not bottle. It's one of the six things that are that are never. So what if it was it's going to be why? Because and now one of these fell to the read because we assume the one that fell was the one that was essentially he said the same exact said in the name of says the stating that we need the name of the and we need we only had maybe that's only that there's no meaning it's there's nothing you can do with you literally have to throw all of them into the there's nothing you can do with but when it comes to chum is matim what do you do if you have a mixture of and in your house what's the you sell to you can have from you just can't eat it if you're a so you can always give it to there's something to do with it so I would have thought that being that this mirin it's not such a heid so maybe let's not rely on this of we only had thought he was talking about something that's very so you had a that was now all of a sudden you're going to tell me it's why cuz one thing fell so if it's that one thing fell which is says and now the isn't there where it used to be h there's a missing you notice it right so that you notice it you'll understand why it went from you won't get confused and you won't come to be mazel in so maybe over there we allow this hater but which is not assuming somebody had a lot of I guess cheap rings but you it's not nicker where it's supposed to be so being that you don't see it you're going to be people will be mazal inu and maybe bad things will come from it so that's why we needed that it's true even by something that's insificant ificant like a ring and we needed that it's true even by which has said in fact you should just know that only I think he only said not like who said he only said which is for example if one falls into a whole becomes If one comes out of a tar and falls into the whole is going to be as well. If we could be when falls into a we could be when a comes out of a some was with 100. Now this is a stuma and being that it's a kuma even though you have 100 to one which is the sheer when it comes to chum right but being that was there's no way to do the open up one of the once you open up one of the now it could be if it's the one that's okay and even if it's the one that's true once the is It's it could be to the it's just that if the truma was it can't be ble right so open up one of the and at this point it's going to be okay stating that what you need to do is you have to take away this is a general that's a general when it comes to when it comes to and that is you always have to take out the equivalent thereof to the amount of truma that you have right let's say you have truma and there was an there was a taru so if as long as you have the right ratio the truma could But at the same time, you know, there's a little bit of trauma here. And the little bit of trauma that you have is not yours. You see, if if it's all yours, there's a problem. I'm not let it. Okay. So, if this now I could eat the whole thing, that's all the rate, but I'm allowed to go ahead and eat it. The problem over here is if I have a little bit of truma and was in with my how can I eat the whole tar? There's truma here. Forget the forar to eat. that became but what happened to the fact that part of this is part of it is not mine. So there's you always have to be so assuming that the B was 100 to one a perfect B. So you have to take out 100th of it. If the B was 200 to one say 200 times the truma you have to take out one 200th you have to set it aside but that you're not allowed to eat cuz that the assumption is doesn't belong to you. Bottom line is so you take away the meaning you call your local rabbi you ask him exactly how you work out a of he'll tell you what to do and and but the said was that you even though right now you had a that is incapable of a because it's one of the cases where we don't say there's an just open it up it won't be anymore if it's not anymore you don't have to worry about says said overall The way explain who explains the is right let's say you have a little bit of and you have a big of could you take the little bit of throw it into the and say okay it's you can't take a and pour it into your chicken soup because said so it's not bottle even though we know it does give off a little bit of taste and safer But the point is I'll put in a little bit of there right so so why can't I do that right said that if you're going to tell me that when something is it gives off no taste so if you have au of 61 minim where each one is equal it should taste like nothing cuz each min is bashim to the other 60 it's going to have taste so you see clearly even when something is bishim it has taste it's just it's not the said that the said if you kick the rice so it's going to be awesome so you decide I want to put a little bit So if how do you have a right to open up one of the you're taking a that doesn't have and now you're creating a situation where there is going to be right meant to say was that if one of them had opened then you could do the and you could drink it but you can't do you're right you can't do it it would have had to have happened on its own but if you do it it's going to be a similar It was not in 100, but it was 150 of and a hundred of them were opened. 100 were opened. You're allowed to take of each one of those 100 and you could drink. So what's the kaded mua here? one 150th cuz that's the ratio of to and then you're allowed to drink but the other 50 are going to be until you open them. So the ones that are open could be bottle being that they could be bottle. So you can drink them because there was one of to 150 of so you have the right ratio for a being that some are open those assuming are that if they were the chum would be okay you have to take off the so those are going to be but the other 50 are going to be what's the why is it different than the first it's a major we're coming full circle here in the d the is because why don't we say Just like when we had the 100 right remember the case and they were subdivided into two groups 40 and 60 what was the was we assumed that the of went with the 60 it didn't go with the 40 that was so let's assume the same thing have 150 and now I have two groups so to speak of the 100 and of the 50 have the why don't we assume that the truma went with the being that they went with the I have a hundred now that are enough to be math the one of truma So the 50 should be because we should assume that the chum went together with the not with the that's the punch line of the we don't assume that the truma went with 100 not with the 50 and as a result the whole is going to be user you could only take it with the but the other 50 are going to be 100% the speaks out that the gumar is what had said in the previous gumar so again this was a a gamarra Various touches on major major major principles.