Many modern Jews have deeply internalized Western values that make it hard to identify with certain Torah ideals. One example is feeling very uncomfortable with the practical implications of a mitzva to wipe out Amalek. How does one begin to transition their views to align with the Torah's norms when they feel very entrenched in other value systems? Maybe two reactions to the question. The first one, the kernel for the answers within the question itself. You know, when the very realization that one's I don't know, moral compass comes from Western society and not from the Torah. Thank you very much. The very awareness that one's moral compass is derived from Western society as opposed to the Torah, so then a person should recognize it the same way he relates to a yetzer hara. I may have a yetzer hara to eat or to do something which is assur, but I recognize that that's a yetzer hara and therefore hopefully, hopefully I'm misgaber on it. The very realization that, you know, what the source of my moral compass is is what directs the person to you know, look to the Torah. The second reaction is, you know, I don't know how difficult it is in general. You know, when the Rishonim talked about chukim and Chazal talked about chukim, when the Rishonim talk about chukim, no one mentions mechiyat Amalek. That's a modern liberal example of a chok. When the Rambam, the Ramban, Chazal in the Gemara in Yoma talk about chukim, mechiyat Amalek is not on the list. Mechiyat Amalek is not on the list. There is evil in the world and not only are there evil individuals in the world, there are evil societies in the world and if once upon a time we needed to stretch our minds to understand that, after Simchat Torah do we really need to stretch our minds to understand it? You don't have to draw upon collective historical experience, you can just look at something that we all saw, we all saw. So I don't know, maybe it's not so hard to understand. The next is a three part question, so we'll go part by part. This is concerning the broader Thank You Hashem controversy. First part is what is the proper outlook on what Thank You Hashem tries to accomplish? Some songs seem to be encouraging values that may be closely mimicking secular culture, while other songs take Ma'amarei Chazal and turn them into catchy songs in a fashion that may be oversimplifying and trivializing them. The defense of these songs is that A, they cater to a crowd that will simply not, maybe ever, open a Gemara or other primary sources to connect to Judaism. If that's the case, is this the right way to get them to connect? And is it worth it to expose other Jews who wouldn't otherwise need these songs to hear them? And two, should there be a concern that people might come away thinking that these things have an outsized value in Jewish life? So I can try bli neder to talk in more general terms about what I think some of the issues are. Until a week ago, I... I'm not quite as ignorant as I was a week ago, but on the other hand, I'm not sure how expert I am either. So I'm not talking about specific songs and what the songs are, but I'm kind of inferring from this question and the other two times it was broached maybe what some of the relevant issues are and if you'll process and filter them and apply as appropriate. It certainly is a pillar of Yahadus. It's something that's affirmed and reaffirmed in davening every day. Hakadosh Baruch Hu's love for us. If you look at nusach Ashkenaz, so in the morning it's Ahavah Rabbah and in the night it's Ahavat Olam. If you look at nusach Sefard, both times it's Ahavat Olam, but either way the message and the affirmation are the same. We certainly do speak of Hakadosh Baruch Hu's love that is displayed for us. And that's certainly a pillar of Yahadus. Me'idach gisa, Chazal speak about הן יראת ה' היא חכמה and Gemara Shabbos says שאין לו להקדוש ברוך הוא בעולמו אלא יראת שמים. To speak about Yahadus without the mitzvah of yiras shamayim front and center is not to accurately represent Yahadus. It's to misrepresent Yahadus. Yahadus is not a religion of fear. It's not a religion of fear. But me'idach gisa, a correct understanding of who Hakadosh Baruch Hu is and what we are in relation to Him is something that is supposed to engender yirah. The fact that לאחר מאה ועשרים שנה we all give לפני מי אתה עתיד ליתן דין וחשבון, the former is supposed to engender yiras haromemus and the latter is supposed to engender yiras ha'onesh. And that's also a pillar of Yahadus. Does that reduce Yahadus to a religion of fear? Chas v'shalom, absolutely not. But does that say that any correct representation of Yahadus certainly needs to send both messages? You see a fascinating thing in the Rambam in Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah. Generally, if you turn pages, flip pages in Mishneh Torah, so the Rambam introduces mitzvos individually. He talks about the mitzvah of tzitzis, he talks about the mitzvah of tefillin, he talks about the mitzvah of mezuzah, he talks about the mitzvah of lulav, he talks about the mitzvah of sukkah. Each mitzvah gets introduced individually. You open Perek Beis of Yesodei HaTorah, you see something fascinating. האל הנכבד והנורא הזה מצוה לאהבו וליראה ממנו. The Rambam introduces them together. Together. The correct posture vis-à-vis Hakadosh Baruch Hu, the correct relationship that we're supposed to develop, the correct attitude that we're supposed to have is one where ahavah and yirah are inseparable. There's a lashon of the Seforno quoting from the Zohar about how the two are inseparable, ahavah and yirah inseparable. So to leave out ahavah and depict Yahadus as a religion of fear is a distortion, but it's an equal distortion to leave out yirah and speak only about ahavah. And again, just repeating what I said before, I'm not commenting directly on any one or anything or one niggun or the next, I'm not familiar with them, so. You know there is such a thing I think many shuls have it. They have a beginners minyan. And in the beginners minyan, I'm not sure exactly what happens, but I imagine they don't daven everything that the regular minyan does. I imagine there's probably more commentary and explanation which is interspersed in the davening. Is it appropriate for someone who's at a more advanced stage to go to the beginners minyan? No, no, they should daven in regular minyan. Does that mean that there shouldn't be a beginners minyan? Also no. No, the fact that someone else may, you know, mistakenly or erroneously, you know, latch on, doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a beginners minyan and if you're gonna, and if the way to get the kids to shul is to have a teen minyan, so then you have a teen minyan. Maybe an old man like me is going to walk in, okay, you're not going to shut down the teen minyan because you know someone is crashing the party. So it's certainly true and again I'm not talking about this specific method of strategy because I don't know it, but in the abstract in theory there's certainly something doesn't have to be the fullest and therefore in that sense completely totally authentic picture when you're catering to someone who's not there yet. That having been said, you know clearly the beginners minyan has to be designed and I'm sure this is the case where they have beginners minyan, it has to be designed, you know, to segue, to build people up that they'll be able to then move on to the regular minyan, not that they should get the message that what we do at the beginners minyan is everything. There should be a message, you know, I think it's even labeled that way, it's even labeled a beginners minyan, so that no wrong impression is being given, I mean this is right in context as a beginners minyan and because of that again no misrepresentation is made. If they're skipping I don't know something in the beginners minyan, you know, we lost Korbanos twice, we lost it once when the Beis Hamikdash was destroyed and then we lost part of it somewhat further I don't know you fast forward from Mikadesh Shmo Barabim to Rabbi Yishmael, the Korbanos got lost a second time. So the beginners minyan should be represented as such and it should be clearly designed that it's intended to build people up so that they can then graduate to the, you know, and be mainstreamed to the regular minyan. And that's true of any again we're using this as sort of an analogy or paradigm, so anything which is going to be the analog to that also need to be designed that way. Even within the context of a beginners minyan, so it has to be very wisely and judiciously developed. There's one thing, you know, when we were all little, right? So originally, I don't know, what did we say, we said Modeh Ani and then we skipped to Shema and I don't know what came next. Aleinu because there was a tune I guess, so then we could talk about that and then the Aleinu, the full Shemoneh Esrei would have had a tune, you certainly would have been much better in life. Someone should come up with a catchy tune for Shemoneh Esrei. So it has to be done in a way that on the one hand, again, it reaches out in in that case to the child where he is, but there's a difference between going piecemeal and incrementally and between distorting, right? We don't like everything is genuine in terms of... okay, so with kids we sing more. There's nothing wrong with that, there's nothing wrong with that, but if someone wants to sing the whole davening, okay, so ideally tefillah b'lachash should be tefillah b'lachash. That shouldn't be something we're singing. If someone wants to sing the rest of Pesukei D'zimra, you might ask the guy next to you in shul what he thinks about it, but other than that, especially if you have a voice like mine, you might want to ask the guy next to you in shul, but other than that there's nothing inherently problematic. And but there's a difference between being incremental, between being piecemeal and between trying to sort of reconfigure. And you know, the beginners' minyan has to be one that's incremental and piecemeal, not one that is trying to, I don't know, you know instead of parts of davening, so everyone will... we won't say Shema together, we won't say the first bracha in Shema, everyone will say something from the heart. Well, that's not the way tefillah is now. Since Anshei Knesses Hagedolah, that's not the way tefillah is supposed to be. It's supposed to be to say from the heart, but Anshei Knesses Hagedolah thought... so that wouldn't be an appropriate beginners' minyan. Where not everything is davened is an appropriate beginners' minyan. So דן מינה ואוקמה באתרה. You have to transpose that into into another context and figure out how that plays out in in another context. That was mostly part B, so we'll skip to part C. Just to give a little context to the song that ignited this whole controversy by kind of attacking what Thank You Hashem does. So Thank You Hashem has songs, for example, talking about Tomer Devorah on Friday, even on Thursday night, Uman Rosh Hashanah, and some of these things that are a little more kabbalistic or loftier ideas, but in a very accessible way that people should latch onto and celebrate. So the Real Yidden video was what it was called. They wrote a song in which the refrain was that you can do all these things, but they won't help you on the Yom Hadin each time, won't help you on the Yom Hadin. And that if you want to be a real emes'er Yid, this is the quote: Open the Shulchan Aruch and it's the only way Hashem wants to be close to you. So is there any merit to any of these arguments at all that nothing, none of the things that Thank You Hashem talks about will help you on the Yom Hadin or that Shulchan Aruch is the only way that Hashem wants to be close to you? Again, so the same disclaimer as before, I'll try בעזרת השם בלי נדר to talk about what I think the issues are, but I can't apply it because I don't really have... even with... that was very useful and helpful, but even with... without putting on the earphones and immersing myself, I don't have enough of a tfisa to be able to speak to the songs themselves. I'm talking about the issues, I'm not talking about the actual songs. There is something, you know, hechsher mitzvah is... If from the way, if you do something that has inspirational value, even though arguably it doesn't have any intrinsic value. But with that inspirational value you then inspire people to the substance, but the hechsher reaches the mitzvah, so that you don't have to, it doesn't have to answer, not everything in life has to answer to a standard of is this inherently intrinsically a mitzvah? It can be, is this a necessary and effective hechsher mitzvah? And as long as one can answer that affirmatively, things have value. If, on the other hand, it's it's not being presented that way, but it's rather that this is being substituted for the guf mitzvah, so then that obviously is is totally unacceptable. I think most, many mechanchim, most, but you'd do a lot of survey to know what most is, but certainly many mechanchim will have a kumzitz, rabbonim do it also. And I don't know if if most of what happens in the kumzitz is something which is inherently intrinsically, I don't know how many blatt Gemaras or pesukim in Chumash or Mishnayos are are mastered in in a kumzitz. Meidach gisa, if that helps get people to the Beis Medrash, if it helps get people to shul, if it, so then it's very valuable and and you know, one isn't going to critique it. If it becomes a substitute, you know, if the the the real substance and structure of Yiddishkeit is is being tampered with and you know, the kumzitz, you know, becomes the, you know, it's understood to be the equivalent of or a higher level than you know, learning in the Beis Medrash or or something else, then that's wrong. So not everything has to be intrinsically meaningful, things can be meaningful because they're preparatory, because they they help energize, because they help animate, you know, and and without energy you can't do anything. Don't smoke marijuana because you think it will put you in a good mood and you know, then then then maybe you'll do a mitzvah afterwards, you know, and you can't do anything for that. But if something is not inherently objectionable and it has this catalytic effect, so it doesn't have to, not everything has to be intrinsically meaningful. If a person doesn't need it, he doesn't need it, if a person needs it, so there's nothing, nothing to apologize for. But the problem will be again, if either one spends disproportionate amount of time as the Nefesh HaChaim, so he wasn't talking about Thank You Hashem, he was talking about how people learn certain seforim, which were again, they weren't intrinsically Talmud Torah, but they were intended to instill yirah. And he complained, he critiqued that people were spending a disproportionate amount of time because they should have used it just again as an inspirational tool, which means you know, a very short circumscribed amount of time, and then they should be learning. So you know, we can have things other than in addition to sifrei yirah that also play that supporting role and and it doesn't have to be absolutely and intrinsically meaningful but it can't substitute for what's in terms of value system in terms of how it's represented it can't substitute for what's intrinsically and and and valuable and intrinsically mitzvah. When the song did come out there was a reaction of this was necessary or the movement has gone way too far. So even if that may be the case the nature of the song was very biting and a lot of harsh lines on people who sing about Kabbalah but don't know Chumash and Rashi for example. That was one of the lines. What can Rabbi say about the nature of Jews publicly attacking other Jews and the way they relate to God? Even when one perceives a michshol lerabim, even if one perceives a michshol lerabim, there would only be a, you know, to engage in leitzanus, so it's a Shulchan Aruch, it's a Gemara, it says in Shulchan Aruch סימן קיח Yoreh Deah, כל ליצנותא אסורה חוץ מליצנותא דעבודה זרה. I don't think a person is supposed to make leitzanus off, a person is supposed to scoff at and make fun of avodah zarah. Avodah zarah you can make leitzanus of, but you're not supposed to make leitzanus of anything else. So that's one mareh makom. Another is that, you know, the mitzvah of tochachah that the Rambam says, it's only if there's absolutely no other resort. The mitzvah of tochachah doesn't give a heter for halbanas panim. There's no heter to humiliate someone as tochachah. By definition every tochachah there's going to be a degree of embarrassment, so you can't say you can't totally eliminate that, but embarrassment lachud and humiliation lachud. You know, there's one thing to be embarrassed, another thing to be humiliated. And the Rambam says befeiresh and he says that, you know, when giving tochachah, so there unless there is absolutely no other way for the tochachah to be effectively administered, so that's what the pasuk says הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך ולא תשא עליו חטא. That in giving the tochachah, be careful that you don't incur cheit in how you give the tochachah. So tochachah has to be given, again, it can't be any harsher or more ad hominem than the situation absolutely demands. So one has to wonder whether in a public setting, one has to ask himself, maybe I don't need to say anything ad hominem, I just need to talk about the shitas. I don't need to talk about the individuals at all. The individuals, okay, so maybe I'll pull them aside in private and talk to them, and in public, since what I'm concerned with are the views that are being propagated, so I'm going to speak out to explain why those views are wrong and why they're a misrepresentation. So in general, tochachah, and again I have no idea how this applies or doesn't apply and I'm not being meyaches to the actual songs, but these are some of the principles. Tochachah has to be mindful, again there's no heter leitzanus for tochachah, and nor unless it's an absolute last resort is there a heter halbanas panim as part of tochachah. So what does a person do? A, in terms of the part of the tochachah that's to the individual, so that's administered in private. In terms of, aye, but maybe what the individual is saying so many people know about, so critique the opinions, critique the views. And tochachah, the Rambam does say that the neviim were, when Klal Yisrael refused to listen time and time again, so then they humiliated us, the Rambam writes in Hilchos Deos. So it is true that as a last resort you can't say that it's absolutely precluded. The Rambam says just open up a Navi and you see that that's not true, but it has to be an absolute last resort. If it's not absolutely necessary, you know what Chazal say about מלבין פני חברו ברבים applies even in the context of If it's not necessary, if it's not warranted, it's not Tochacha. Whether this applies at all I have no idea. But for those assembled, you know, speaking about the values and some of the issues. Okay, your turn. Should Jews care about the suffering of non-Jews caused by other non-Jews? And if so, do we have any responsibility to stop it? We definitely care. We're not supposed to be apathetic. You know, a Jew is a Jew, but he's also, you know, he's also a human being. He's not only a Jew. He is a Jew and and should live in a way that that reflects that that gift, but he's also he's also a human being and we're not supposed to be apathetic. You know, מעשי ידי טובעים בים ואתם אומרים שירה. We're not supposed to be apathetic to human suffering. What, if anything, you know, we can do to alleviate it is a different story. You know, Medinat Yisrael has to, Chayecha Kodmin, Medinat Yisrael has to marshal all its resources for its own survival. You know, Keves echad surrounded by shivim zeevhim. So, there's not much that keves can do if two of those zeevhim are are fighting each other. Do we do we relish that? No. Do we do we feel sorry for the human suffering? Yes. But most of the time, you know, there isn't much we can do about it. Let's say when there are natural disasters, so Medinat Yisrael sends rescue teams. You know, sometimes ZAKA goes and and other expertise they have and and they share with other nations. And that's entirely appropriate. It's entirely appropriate mipnei darchei shalom, although what we're talking about on many levels it's entirely appropriate. But often it's the case that that, you know, we're not in a position to act on the on the concern. How are we supposed to view stories of miracles or Ruach HaKodesh about contemporary and recent Gedolim? More specifically, are we supposed to accept the stories as true, be skeptical, or avoid an opinion? And if these stories can be confirmed as true, do they give the Gadol or their Derech more credibility? I'm not sure where the evidentiary bar would be for confirming that they're true. I don't know, you know, there's a very... everything the Kotzker said was very sharp, so it's a bit of a redundancy to say there's a sharp vort from the Kotzker. But the Kotzker used to say, אותות ומופתים באדמת בני חם. Otos u'moftim in Mitzrayim, you know, that's where that's where people are impressed. You know, when they would tell him someone is a Baal Mofes, so he he would dismissively react, אותות ומופתים באדמת בני חם. Show me someone who stands Shmoneh Esrei and has kavanah, you know, from Hashem Sefasai Tiftach until until Oseh Shalom. Show me someone who who learns a seder and doesn't battel. Show me someone whose heart bleeds for the pain of of every Jew. אותות ומופתים באדמת בני חם. That's what the Kotzker said. As with his other vortlach, there's a lot in that vort. And and it doesn't doesn't ensure that I don't know, that the psak is going to be... My favorite Chassidishe story is, so I would venture the family where we're descended from, there were several branches of Chernobyl, but the one that that branch that that my family comes from is Tolna. And Rav Dovid Tolna, who was the Rebbe in the 19th century in the Ukraine, was the biggest Rebbe and he had tens and tens of thousands of followers, ad kedei kach, that they the Czarist police kept a file on him because they were afraid that he had so many followers that he could trigger a revolution, so to overthrow the Czar. So he was known far and wide as a ba'al mofes. If you needed a mofes, you went to Rav Dovid Tolna. So his brother, who was also a Rebbe, Rav Yochanan Rachmastrivka, the Rachmastrivka here today in Yerushalayim is the Rachmastrivka Rebbe, that's a great-great-great, three great-grandsons of his. So Rav Dovid Tolna's younger brother, Yochanan Rachmastrivka, asked him Bameh kocho hagadol? People come to me, real tzorachim, people who really need a Yeshuah, and I daven with all the kavanas, all the kavanas you're supposed to have, doesn't go. And you, you're known and we see it, you're a po'el Yeshuos, how do you do it? So Rav Dovid Tolna told him, I'll tell you. When people come to you, he says, you receive them and you embrace them with love, and right away you take them into your room, and you spend hours with them, mechazek them, encouraging them, and and you give them such a bracha, and and they walk out of your room, at least in terms of encouragement, you know, they feel like a different person. When they come to me, first of all, they have to wait six months until they can have an audience with the Rebbe. During those six months, they sleep on the hard bench of the Beis Medrash where it's freezing cold at night. Then after waiting six months before they're let in, so then the Gabbai, my Gabbai, tells them, later today you're going to have time to speak with the Rebbe. Two minutes. Only two minutes, and don't you dare overstay by one second. You know how precious the Rebbe's time is? Don't you dare overstay by one second. Then when it's time for him to come in, the Gabbai says, okay, you can go into the Rebbe now, but remember what I told you. For your life, remember what I told you. So at this point, the guy is so terrified, he says he can't even walk. So the first forty seconds, he can't even get a word out of his mouth. Finally, you know, after he's only got eighty seconds left, he begins to tell me what the problem is, and the Gabbai comes barging in and says, one more minute! And then he says, when the guy's on his way out, he says, I mumble something very ambiguous. I didn't give him a bracha, I didn't give him a bracha. He leaves my room, he's devastated. He gives a kretchtz and says Ribono Shel Olam, I have no one left, this was the man who was supposed to be the po'el Yeshuos, this is what I waited for for six months? Ribono Shel Olam, I see I have no one to rely on other than you. So Rav Dovid Tolna says, in Himmel, in Shamayim, they're waiting for that kretchtz. Is there any situation in which ends justify the means? If the means are halachically permissible but hashkafically problematic? For example, if a Rav has an opportunity to procure a significant donation to his Torah institution, but only by showing undue kavod to the donor and perhaps attending and participating in his extravagant and wasteful simchas. The example is is a very good one because it's a very difficult one to deal with. It's a very good one. There's no question that there are some, again correct pronunciation smachot, or colloquially simchas, which are way over the top. You know, there's a mistaken notion that if you have the money, so then you're entitled to spend it any way you want. Which on one level is true, but on another level, the Ribono Shel Olam blesses us, again whether it's with wealth or abilities, and then we're supposed to use them as productively as possible. A person can be a billionaire. It doesn't justify blowing a I don't know what the price tag is on some of these on some of these affairs. Probably more than most of us earn in a year. Or three. I'm not I'm not I don't know what the price tag is. I mean, it's the extravagant simchas are wrong for that reason. You know, a person can be giving 10 million dollars a year to tzedakah and not be giving enough tzedakah. If for the past 10 years annually he's been earning 100 million dollars, he can afford to give 10 million dollars to tzedakah. It's not going to it's not going to it's not going to jeopardize shema yitztareich labriyot. The Chafetz Chaim says that one of the exceptions to המבזבז אל יבזבז יותר מחומש is if a person is blessed with great wealth. So if a person's on a normal salary and he gives more than 20 percent to tzedakah, so then and he's going to have no savings and he's giving more than 20 percent to tzedakah, so he may end up rachmana litzlan on the receiving end. So what a Kadosh Baruch Hu gives you today, you have to you have to save if He gives you enough to save. But the Chafetz Chaim says that one of the exceptions for המבזבז אל יבזבז יותר מחומש is when a person is very, very wealthy. So the fact that a person is giving 10 million dollars a year to tzedakah, for argument's sake, that doesn't justify, you know, squandering I have no idea what the sums are, hundreds of thousands of dollars on on a simcha. So there definitely are simchas which are way over the top. The other reason they're wrong, besides of the misuse of money, the other reason they're wrong is because it has a it creates a societal pressure on people who don't have the money, that they they don't want to face that they think they don't want to shortchange their children, or they don't they don't want to look, you know, like they're not, you know, like they're not keeping up with with the Joneses. And then then there are people who go into debt to make a simcha, when if they would make a modest simcha, they wouldn't have to go into debt. The Gemara says that that there used to be that poor people would abandon would abandon their meisan because the practice was they used to bury meisan in such expensive tachrichim that the poor people would be broken by that expense. Until Rabban Gamliel, who as the Nasi was quite wealthy, nahag bizayon be'atzmo and insisted that he be buried in the plainest of tachrichim. Which has remained the custom ad hayom hazeh. It doesn't matter what one's financial bracket is, in terms of the tachrichim are are the same. So what do you see from that? You see that for a second reason, it's it's a fallacy that automatically, you know, if I have the money, I'm entitled to spend it anyway I want. No, that's not true. If if in so doing it creates a societal pressure that that adversely affects others, so that's also wrong. And there's no I think, it seems pretty clear that for a certain... The bar has been set so unrealistically high and some people then feel the pressure to try to maintain that standard and they don't have the money, so they end up going into debt. So that even the person who has the money is obligated to think about that fallout from what he's doing. The same thing happened in the days of Rabban Gamliel with the Tachrichim. So there's no question that there are on the other hand, without a sort of coordinated rabbinic response, communal response to that, I don't know, you have to think long and hard, is it wrong that this, again, this Torah personality who is looking or has in the past raised significant sums from this person, is it wrong when he goes to that wedding when it's so commonplace and there it's not as if that there is some kind of Takkanas Hakahal in place? There should be a Takkanas Hakahal in place to rein these things in. I don't know. It's not so clear-cut whether is it really that he's doing something so inappropriate when he goes to this extravagant wedding when it's such a—it's not one out of 50 weddings that's overly extravagant. I think it's something more than one out of every 50. I don't know exactly what the percentage is, but I think it's more than 2%. There should be a Takkanas Hakahal. Maybe a little bit there should be a maximum as to—it should be a maximum as to how much money you spend, how many people you invite, how many pieces you have in the band. There should be these Takkanos. Kol zman there are no Takkanos, is this individual Rav doing something wrong going to this individual simcha? It's a hard call. Okay, just eight minutes left, so one or two more questions. Should one go to college if they are set with regards to parnassah? This type of question, and this type of question is a very important question, but it's impossible to answer in this kind of forum because there's no one-size-fits-all answer. The answer is not the same for everyone. For many people, the main purpose in going to college is to get a degree that will advance them on a professional track, and if that's the extent of what they'll get out of college and there's a family business that they're going to go into or whatever the circumstances are that parnassah is not a consideration, so then I'm not sure why that person would go to college. Other people have the type of mind, personality, maybe it's both, where there's religious meaning to secular knowledge. And that can be true in a wide range of fields. Even if that is true of whoever would be posing this question, so then the question would further be, is he going to advance his goals most by enrolling in a degree program? Well, no, maybe he just needs... the education. Well no, it might be that the structure will benefit him as well. You know, those are some of the factors that would be hashed out in a one-to-one basis in looking to answer that question. Go ahead. Okay. Thank you, Rebbe.