Menachos 23

Today's and we will begin three lines from the top of so we know that the standard carbon was made up of soy and there were however some that did not have any oil most notably the and these time at the cross said that being that uh is bringing a carbon because of an a that he did the was also involved at the very least in something very questionable. It's for that reason we don't want their bono respectively to be beautiful. So the Tory says that although the standard Mina had she their is not going to have she stating that says the what happens if the went and he put some oil on the does that now make the carbon or not look at says yeah it's going to be possible says that not only is it not going to be possible but you should know says that there was an idea to put a little bit of oil meaning even though the says But still said they would put a little bit of oil on even the what would they do? They would take the before it was put on misbehav that will go onto the so that says not only is it okay if there's oil on the but it's in fact how say you were supposed to put a little bit of oil on the says what that means is that you shouldn't have the same amount of oil like an ordinary but to say that there was no oil at all that's not true says that they used to make sure that there was a little bit of oil on it and if they did then certainly it's going to be okay was just the opposite says there was no idea that there should be even a little bit of oil on the not just that Even holds is going to be possible from a very between which was the topic of Shabas that's supposed to be dry at first glance a that doesn't have any oil that got mixed up with a mah that's supposed to be have oil and say you can be that you says you not let it be that what's the beer and the again that was the topic of but for now all we need is one my seems to be discussing a case where there's a it's dried there's not supposed to be oil sounds like a that's an example of a that has no oil that was mixed with ava again an example of a carbon that does have oil and there's a whole issue over here. There's a shah are you let to go ahead and be mak are you not allowed to go ahead and be macar and it's mash that the issue of whether you can or cannot be mak is a product it's a function not only of the but of the as well. It sounds like there's something wrong with the mas right now because of the fact that it was with the oil. Now the only thing that could be wrong with it is is that it now has oil meaning the terrorist says and now this does have oil. What's the according to that holds the is not allowed to have any oil who holds apostle I understand why there's a between how to treat this because being that you have a that was it has oil on it that's a problem it disqualifies but according to who holds that in fact said that they used to put a little bit of oil on. So what's the problem? Why is there an issue? Now the truth is we're not going to go into this now but asks the obvious question to says that maybe the issue in that is not because of the maybe the issue is because of the maybe the issue is the meaning to the extent if you remember yesterday's d that there's a issue over here then what's happening is some of the oil of the is now becoming part of the so there's two issues now with this you have two and both of them are technically a little messed up the which isn't supposed to have oil has oil. The which is supposed to have oil doesn't have the amount of oil it's supposed to have because some of its oil just transferred over to the now the is not with regards to a that's missing oil. That's a earlier that's a that doesn't have as much oil as it's supposed to have. It's possible that's not supposed to have oil that has a little bit of oil. Is it a problem or not? Is asking what's this? What you do with this is let's say there's oil now. It's okay to have oil in the is going to say a very simple terret. The issue in that Mishna wasn't the issue in that was the and the now has less oil that it's supposed to have is certainly going to be possible. It's kasha calls it a t. It's a very obvious kasha on the gar. But regardless, the Gmorra's question is based on the fact that the assumption is that and the issue in the previous was related to the fact that you have with it was that has oil now based on the oil. It's a problem. It's according to it's very good. But according to it's not so good. So the says when the Mishna says it doesn't mean it's not what we're talking about. We're talking about two that do have oil. However, there was different proportions of oil to silus depending on what kind of ma was being brought. Specifically, if a par or an idle was being brought when a min accommodated came along together with that carbon, the level of oil relative to the silus was less than if the ma was being brought together with the sheep. Thus the of the is considered a relative to the that came along with the simply because from a proportion standpoint there was less oil in the that came with the part of the than there was in the but the point is we're not discussing that was if the Mishna was discussing that was it could be wouldn't be because what's the problem from the perspective There's a little bit of oil. Who cares? The had a little bit of oil. This was something else. Is he dealing with a that has oil and that has a very specific predetermined amount of oil and now that the so the of the have more oil than it's supposed to have proportionately speaking and the has less oil than it's supposed to have. Now you're dealing already with that's the core of the issue. The says how could you say that that's what is referring to that when it says it doesn't mean but rather means there's a says but then there's another case in two cases the first is you're right but then there's another one what's the second case must be so you see clearly that is even by the you see there's an issue with having a little bit of oil says no really it's one case of and is one long winded case I how does that work it's the BC is saying is part of bottom line is never discussing you have no that has a little bit of shem would be possible What happens for took the So he did the is made up of soy and she right you have the soyus that's mixed up together with the oil. He then squeezed the oil out of the algabim and now he wants to take the together with the soyus and the oil and put it on the and beak. Could you be mak or not? On the one hand you have everything. You have all the ingredients. You have the entire kits. On the other hand, it's not in the natural state of the way the kits are supposed to be. The is supposed to be you do the and you take the the put it directly on the here. What he did was he squeezed it out. So the question is is it okay or not? What's the do we say that being that everything is sort of attached to each other via the so it's okay or maybe not. Isn't there precedence to a similar context over there is the 13th of and the context over there is the if somebody is something he builds them and he takes and he serves it up to Hashem is but there's a has to be what happens if someone is milo and a of a but a itself didn't have an it was missing the share but there was a bone and the bone was mashed in the is that enough to say that the person is because being that the bone even though there's no on the bone but when it's attached to the it's considered part of the thus you are with the being that it's attached so it's similar You want to know whether or not it's what's the analogy in our case as well where everything is attached. You have the with the and the even though it's not in its natural state but it's all at the very least it should be. So the question is whe isn't it says no I can hear and I can hear was think pondering that maybe even though that's over there that's you want to tell me that the bone is considered to the meat of the animal that makes sense cuz they're really want and it's that's the animal they it's born that way but oil and which are completely different maybe I don't know maybe he could say in the other way maybe regarding that case and and even in he had the why because that's when it comes to a bone which is about it could be that when it touches the fire it's going to separate and if the separates the is you're not to put the back on the so as much as the iser and it's attached to the but at the same time there's of which means that if the bone as a result of the heat of the fire somehow detached itself from the rest of the animal there's no obligation to take it and put it back on but the oil which even though physically is not one together with the butically it's very much bound to it because you have to have the oil together with the order. So maybe over here it's to say or maybe no says in other words as it relates to again ordinarily the is taken directly from the what happened here was the squeeze the oil out of the but he was together with the he put the and the oil that was squeezed out of the on top of the now it's all do you say this way or do you not say isn't there for such regarding whether for the says yeah but it's not the same because you can hear it both ways on the one hand the and the have from the standpoint in that they're one min they're both part of the same animal that's more of as far to The flip side you could also argue you could say that the and the even though physically they're one but from standpoint they're very different because the doesn't really have a when it's attached to the so there's a may be on the but if it gets detached you're not obligated to put it back on there's no as opposed to the which are physically not one and the same one is flour the other's oils two completely different entities but at the same time from stand you do have to put them together that's what The garra says and the gar ends off with a take exhale. So before we go just one and that is that we're discussing over here and what's unique about the is the says what happens if a little bit of oil got on the is that a problem or is not a problem. That's really a good sha because ordinarily a mah had a very specific prescribed amount of oil that was supposed to be in it relative to the amount of silus that there was. In fact, if there's too much oil, it's possible. If there's too little oil, it's going to be possible as well. So here where there's no D to have oil at all where the says what's if there was oils says it's going to be possible said not only is it not possible they used to put a little bit of oil in it says the that just means that it's not the same as an is usually very rich with oil. this ma the amount of oil that's there is going to be much smaller relative to an ordinary but that's clear that a did not have oil why not doesn't give a reason stating that time in the gives a reason and it's mentioned throughout that being that this person that's bringing the is by definition that allows him through the carbon to opt into the carbon of Dali Dallas and to bring this but the point is he's a and that he's a we want symbolism in his carbon of the fact that what he did was very very bad and that he sinned and as a result whereas an ordinary carb and we want it to be beautiful there's an Indian of all to the contrary when you bring a carbon you have to make sure right there's so much symbolism in carbon is that you're feeding and you have to do it in in the most optimum beautiful way that's true but over here it's This is an exception to the rule that the carbon over here is a we don't want his carbon to be too nice. So we have to walk that balance and we say it's for that reason again that the carbon of the was made out of siren wasn't made out of because she acted like a therefore we give her which is siren. That's why there was no ones because the and she didn't act like the that's why we don't have to have the point is is that a carbon that's being brought for a singer for a so we go out of our way to show symbolism over the fact that this person did a vera and and this isn't an ordinary carbon it's an carbon for a bal I thought it was interesting because the truth is you find the garra says that why is bren the same place that the carbon would have brought says to the you know why because we don't want to be may to bal Because a Yid's going to come with a carbon. He's going to give the animal over to the Kahan. You know, you were allowed to stand in the they're going to see where the carbon is being brought. If there was a special place where the carbonas was brought, everybody would realize that this person is a so not to be the so the is is that they would bring the kas in the same exact place they brought the in fact to ask that if that's the case why is it was always and was always in a so because he's going to walk into a with an animal that's in a everybody's gonna know that this person did say the tail covers right discusses it but the point is that you see that to the contrary that we're going out of our way to protect on some level this val and it's for that reason we don't da make his go in a place that's going to be different than any other carbonas we spoke out remember from the we know that there was a that went around the circumference of the it was on the midpoint of the every single carbon's dam had to be had to be on the lower half of the misb there was one carbon whose dam had be whose carbon was the why the said because the is doing the person bringing the carbon is about he didn't and he's bringing now to do so we show this person that's bringing the you want to know how everybody else's goss goes there's no dam that can stand where the dam of your carbon stands. You know why? Because nobody can stand where you stand. Because beautiful from but I found the wrote a safer called and who of course is I mean the whole rama is on the so if there was ever a and here you have a two volume work called that's where the goes through every single detail of it's It's unbelievable in there discussing of which is the whole the context of which is is would go on to be is you have to be it has to be it's related to maybe right we it's a whole par that we learn together either way the Ramad discusses why is it that it's only by that you have But every other carbon be it an oil or an it doesn't matter what kind of carbon is every other carbon doesn't have this. It's only that has the says there are more and I quote you want to know why has it all the carbon because the dam of the is more colorish than the dam of other carbonas. You know why? Cuz who's the carbon? It's about and says and therefore the dam of his carbon is more than the carbon brings. It's very nice. had to bring that's wonderful to the so this is regardless so on the one hand you find with the but then again you also find with the it'sen because we want to protect him I guess is say you always have to have your And that's really the way you deal with baluva. Right? On the one hand, when somebody comes to do chuva, you have to you have to be mar that's your with your right hand. You have to be more of a than a but there is also an idea of small and it seemed to be symbolic if you try to reconcile all the when it comes to the and that on the one hand there's an idea of time but at the same time he's there's an idea of small but at the same time you also have the idea of but I found another if you look at the next the very right here in so it's what we just spoke at says I just told you a very nice reason why it's only damas that's kibos but the dam of all the other carbonos don't require kibos and the truth is says the rama that I have a kasha because we know that one of the other carbonos was a carbon specifically an asham tali when did a person bring an asham to tali if he had a suffic whether or not he to bring a carbas that's when he brought an says to me the tal and theas are eerily similar one is born the other one's born but it's essentially the same a so the person who's bringing anali is the as the person that's bringing albeit with the difference that one person knows for sure he did an aa and the other person is not 100% sure whether or not it did an aa that if the isos because then why is the also not I'll read it to you inside so how much do you have from the when it comes to chuva what comes to mind is the raind if you want to go down this road is what talks about should when he gets older on a verus that he did big kusai because he read a little bit of kapar right the vagian with the gumar in Sanra cut in part three or four maybe I'm not sure which one it was but uh so you have a ram with regards to chuva but it's more of a that has a little bit of a more chuva implications but here you have doing a lot of The reason is a person can only do chuva properly if he knows that he sinned. But if a person only has a suffic if he did an he's not 100% sure that he did an it's only a suffic by him he's not going to have the same level of it's for that reason says that the element of is only manifest in the it's not manifest in the dash because even though this person is also doing cha bring in the carbon says the you could only properly do if you know that you did enough. And the truth is is that the Ram in the beginning of so magnum opus on literally as follows. when you sit down to do chuva. So the ram was starting you would expect the to begin telling you how to do chuva. It's not how the RAM starts. The RAM says that before you do chuva, there's something else you need to do. Says the doesn't matter what the is whether it's an essay, whether it's a essay, whether you did it or whether you did when you sit down to do chuva, write your but one second, you have to know this before you start doing chuva. We'll talk about we're going to get told that says the but right now there's one premise you need to know. You need to work on before you start to do chuva. The first thing you need to do is you have to say what's right. That's that's what V is. Now, if a person doesn't think what he's saying when he says vi then it's whatever it's just part of the truth. It's a technical process. You have to clap your chest the left side. Boom. You know that that's what it is. But of course, that's not what Vid is. Vid is is something that much deeper than that. Vid is is that you're acknowledging that you did an Ara. You're acknowledging that you have an issue. It's as says that is what the is the you need before you sit down to do is you have to say hi my name is so and so and I have a problem that's how it starts that's the first step of the 12 steps because if you don't start with that then you're wasting your time that's one of the but the it's more than just one it's It's the it's the it's the intro. It's the prerequisite. You can't have without because the first thing you need to be is you have to know you did an a says a person that knows for sure he did an he brings the his cuz it hasn't but a person who's not sure he's a little bit insecure about whether he did the by the way when you talk about knowing you have a problem it means you know you did an a and you understand the impact that your a is having on your life and your haz and your haba because if you must know you did an aa but you don't fully appreciate the ramifications and the implication of the aa that you did. you might as well not even know you did the AVA. The whole point of the first step is recognizing that you have a problem, not just recognizing that I did an Ara. It's recognizing the impact that the Ara is having on you regardless. That's the And calls it. He says, "What's this? What's this that is tucked away in the laws of that we're somehow but either way this [ __ ] was supposed to be given last night by the way but regardless it's this idea that it has to be that's what is all about it's it's recognizing that you did a and understanding hering is their hering the implications of that in If a person does that says the now you're ready to start doing it. Either way on that note we have a very lish second half of today's two that got mixed up. So really the topic of today's and yesterday's daf is when meets. So that's essentially what's going on as we're going to see in a in a moment. We'll see more about this in tomorrow's. But at first glance, what the Misha seems to be saying is that if all of the was so you don't have any part of any one of the two as an independent entity for you to be able to do. So then the two is not going to be possible. If however only part of the got mixed up, but there's of each one of the that you can do a sheer commit with. So then each one of the it doesn't bother me that some of the iss but there's enough of a and that I could do a regular from the part that that wasn't and I could do a regular from in that case everything is going to be okay second what happens if and now theates was with a complete you can't Let's say you did the one that already had the meaning. It's okay. Obviously, it's not okay because the only way you get is if you so there was two. One was the other one was the entire again they were they got mixed up. That's the theme of the DNA. So they're and both of them were put on the do you get? So the one whose had it ready, he gets kap. The fact that his was together with the other doesn't impact his ability to get kap and being that the was done and now was done albe it in a state of tu that doesn't bother me. He's going to get kapar the other ma that is going to have to bring a new carbon because his ma was burnt on the without a was burnt without a kam obviously he doesn't get kap and the third case of the mission is what happens if a did and now the was together with the of that again you're not allowed to be motored and here it's it's a real isser because you're not allowed to of death. But if you then there's no reason that the person who has this shouldn't get the fact that the is in a state of voice together with the carbon with of another isn't a reason that this person shouldn't get. So before we start the next we just have to over the basic gist of yesterday's that was and which really has global ramifications. So although it's in the but really and this next part of areis that are related to and that is a that although we know there's a that if two things together in a voice so there's of learned from anytime you have a voice so of for example so of this hat there the entire becomes mut even though there's aer inside this that's the ofu that everybody is familiar with saying that as a that the only time you say is if the two things the is and the so to speak are of of two different species they're different ingredients they're different meaning so if you have two different things that when the together so you have but if it's is say that even stating that have a different and the say that two things that have a to go on them can't be with each other and both said in yesterday's with regards to the was that and the said that these two even though at first glance have nothing to do with each other they actually have a lot to do with each other because really if they boil down to I don't understand the describing that says that the is going to take and say so if there's more than there is why don't we say that the issue I don't understand this said you're right ordinarily there'd be bit in this case there's no ble you know why because dam is like bottle. The say no is bottle. You want to know why there's even though it should have been bottled to the are both they're both things that go in the zoo. So with that backdrop says the a very very So somebody had one piece of and two pieces of now we know also has to does not have any toma. So what happens if you have a mute of neo and a ra of one piece of two pieces of as it relates to says so we're discussing now we're not discussing we want to know if this has an ability to be or not says the reason is because it's not possible for the to ever become how could something that become the veil being that it's not possible for that's why does so if you have one piece of meat that's two pieces of meat that's the even if it's a will not be able to and the reason is because it's possible for to become from a perspective because what happens if the becomes what happens if it goes bad it spoils once Once it spoils, it's not royal. We know that the says learn from here one of them is that as long as it's the status of as it relates to but once it's not anymore it doesn't have that at all. So it's actually possible for become that it's possible for become it's for that reason can't be so could be nea but can't be interesting. So says that can't be the reason is because no could become it's too similar to because it could become how would it become from a perspective it could lose its ability to contract if it becomes because it only has the status of as long as it's said to but I see it just the opposite said bottle says what's saying is I hear where you're coming from. I agree there's an idea that if two things are different but they could be the same then maybe that's a reason that there shouldn't be but whereas you say that the is the status of the meaning if the is can never become but if the is there's no because could become says I agree with the principle that it's not totally in the mat it's totally in the bottle so that na could be not could not be bottled to and the reason is is because could become same methodology how become it spoils becomes so become but that's why you don't have when it comes to but when as could be has no ability to become this is over here between who are they going according to meaning we know the is we mansion. Who we going? Is this shiny? Who does it? What's this? What should be the issue? Must be accord. So, we're talking Rab Yehuda a little bit, right? This isn't Rab Yehuda's vernacular that two things that are too similar. Maybe they don't have an ability to move. is if we're going to always said that what's the definition of two things that are the same men can't be each other these things are not the same men says the it's at the end of the day why should Maybe it's what exactly meant. But the says held like either either like or like it's the same. So what exactly is this? says a tremendous really this and it's true. So based on that you ask the man on the street what does mean when he says what he mean two things it's not so simple there's another caveat there's an asterisk there's another box that needs to be checked off and I'm sure there's more cliches that we can throw into this but the point is is that it's not enough that the two things are the same min in order to say but You actually need that the two things from a standpoint should be somewhat similar as well. So that if you're dealing with Na and ordinarily even if it's there's going to be because I mean could you have two things that you eat it's gald you eat it's right so they're so diametrically opposed but it's not true because could become as it relates to the because if it's so now it's not going to be anymore because it's not holds that in order to have this you need two things. Two prerequisites. Number one, physically from a phys standpoint, they're the same. It's flesh. It's it's dumb and dumb, right? Another thing that you need is that the things should be similar as well. So that and are a little bit similar because could become. The question is is do you need in order to say that the should be able to become like the B or do you need that the B should be able to become like the mat? That is the is Again, you need that the two should be similar as well. This is the hold of the but the point is is that really this was allud and even though which if you oversimplify it means that if you have two things that are physically the same there is no of that is not that's oversimplifying there's another criteria that needs to be met in order to be able to invoke You need that physically the two things should be the same. But you also need that from a standpoint there should be some commonality between the and the example would become. The question is is do you look at it from the ble standpoint or do you look at it from the standpoint then is is that is the what does it have to do with our why we talking about this this is more appropriate yesterday with the discuss what does it have to do with today's d the reason is is because in our we had three cases of au with regards to and the garra now is going to attempt to bring to rais and to nobody respectively from the three cases in our Mishna. So this is actually very much related to our as we're about to see our two that both didn't have two complete when question is is there any way to be of the says yeah if all of it was then the answer is no but if if not all of it was so have part of each respectively if there's enough of each to go ahead and do a so then is it doesn't bother me that the other part of it is but if there's no way to do a from any part of one of the two then is this is the let's visualize this you had two carbon half of each just to make up a number half of each was with each other so now you have three little cliches you have a clichar that has a half of M. You have a that has a half of and you have another that has a voice of of the other half of A and the other half of of says the Mishna. As long as there's enough in the half of to do a and there's enough in the to do a do a put on there's absolutely no issue. There's a major technical issue. Why the does with half of a the rest of the A that's in the other in the third where it's with the other part of now become what's the problem? Why aren't we worried that there may be more of the than there is the and that is as a result the is going to be it's going to be what's left over from if it's what's left over so now became a if there's no way to do from and the mash that it's possible to do from as long as physically there's enough in the that that's not an issue because if it was an issue there'd be no way to do the in the has in it the voice of doesn't have the ability to be the question is why can't it be mean there's no reason but That's not that's so there's no reason that it should be must be the you can understand why the isn't going to be why is not it's all the same thing it's all carbs with some oil right it's all the same it's all the same that's why there's no but that says that the only time said is also if the two things are very similar and what do you go based son when you determine whether they're similar you look at the b you look at the do so over here bottle over here it makes sense why there's no because the do bottle is like the what's the bottle what's the mat the of the reason is like the of is because when you do kam on what's in that third of is also going to be so it's like the becoming that will one day potentially if you do become so being that they're the same therefore you can say and that's why there's no problem but says you go you would need that the should be like the bottle means you need the to be able to become a can't ever become a only way to learn the again is because otherwise it should be And hold. The problem is the only time holds that there's no B when it comes to is if the two things are also similar. So if you hold similar means that the bottle could come like the mat then it's very nice. This is textbook. It's very understandishna but the problem is if you go who's the acceler should be bal. Why shouldn't it be bit don't even hold a bottle? And even that holds in a bottle. You're telling me that they have to be halically similar and you need that should be able to be like the bottle. In that case, the can't be like the bottle. So, it's like it's not like this not like this whole over here. It's a riot says no is something completely different just like there's a nothing to do with so you're right in the there's no B it has nothing to do with has nothing to do with the affforementioned. You're right. It's clear in the there's no because if there was once you do it's a very reasonable concern that the is what's there of how you doing now for say there's no what do you mean there's no why shouldn't there be that was the first right second is all very similar second case was discussing that became mixed up with didn't have done at The mission says don't act is that if the would take the entire and he would put it on the it's all good. There's nothing to worry about. Meaning the would be would work for that had the done. Why does it work? Why don't you say that? Why and who's the mission it's a great there's no way to answer this learned from that this is not the is but the other part of the voice and which is a complete is not so why why is there no there must be the mission going thus holds each other that says the who said is not is only true if number one they're both the same min and also the two are alically similar but what is similar mean that the become like the so I understand why you have over here why there's no because have a what's the what's the bottle the kits the ma could become the kits because when you do the with the any part of it can technically be the kits thus you look at the like being like the kits But if you go to has to do with this other you're right in theory the should be the maybe but the can't be the why because mas are not to each The third case of the what happens if became to its own you can't you can't be in if you do if you did do the you get over here it's a problem because over here again we're not worried that the was you can go ahead and do not and get for being mocked to the problem is the problem is why aren't you worried that the shim was the right is more than the why wasn't the you going to tell me it's for one second only holds if the two things are somewhatically similar they're not similar over here because the buckle can't become the kits can't become and the mat can't become the shiran can't become the kits either it both ways it doesn't work meaning it doesn't work side And it doesn't work according to and we know what is definitely doesn't work and even you need to meet either the it doesn't work. So it doesn't work according to it doesn't work. Who is it? my one final from all places. If somebody was making matzah and he spiced up the matzah different types of tin and the reason it's matzah end of the day it's matzah it has a fancy name it's called spicy matzah matzu but at the end of the day it's still going to be says matzah it's fair to assume that in this over here there was more tavlin than there was with matzah why assumes that is not clear is going to fall off of that. But it sounds like there was more spices than matzah and still the is it's matzah. What's the cash? Why is it matzah? Why don't you say the spices was actually and it shouldn't be mat meaning the ter probably is because it's and is not but theor is don't you have to now check off the second box this and the box. How do you address that says as long as the B could be like the you have that there's no over here the B could be like the mat could become like the spices why not that can physically become the spices but from a standpoint the significance of the spices of these tavlin is it's not for matzah matzah that goes bad is also not for matzah so it can be from a standpoint like the tavlin in that It can go bad to the point where you can't use it. That's how Rashi explains the Gar. But according to the matzah could become matzah. So the says this has nothing to do with our who said we're talking about where there was more. We're talking about whether there was not more. No, you see it's called matzah. It just so happens that it's called either way. It's not there was no R. If there was Ry, maybe it'd be an issue. There was no R over here. Again, it has nothing to do with. We're going to leave a little bit of raid on the table. It got laid early, but uh a very very lad as it relates to tomorrow will speak out the so there's some runs in the dorm that are very very famous, not from an adorum standpoint, but that have sh implication. most famous is probably the run that is how dasdan works right when Anisha is ming herself she's mismo if that's the most famous the second to most famous is the one that we're going to learn tomorrow so a very very important run if you want the march it's the daughter of and we will leave on that