I think that the Rambam in Perek Yud of Hilchot Teshuva said that to be oved me'ahava means when a person well he gives two definitions in Perek Yud, the second of the two definitions is לפני אהבת האדון ברוך הוא שצוהו. That a person recognizes Hakadosh Baruch Hu as the source of chochma, emes, chesed, everything, and subsequently out of devotion to Hakadosh Baruch Hu because of that cognizance, and that's why he wants to be mekayem mitzvos. So is it theologically problematic for a person to fully believe in free will but the chances of all Klall Yisrael doing teshuva tomorrow and Moshiach thereby coming are too slim, they just can't believe that, and therefore the only possibility of Moshiach coming tomorrow would be for a person to believe that it's the appointed time? So would the Rambam tell you that's a kfira and it's problematic or... I think they quote the following from Rav Volve. The question is whether the yesod haemuna of Moshiach of כל מי שאינו מאמין בו ואינו מחכה לביאתו as the Rambam says in Hilchos Melachim, is that complied with and satisfied with a person is able to sincerely say that I believe that yavo yom that there's going to be yemos Hamoshiach or the Melech Hamoshiach and I long for that but I don't see it happening tomorrow, I don't see it happening today? But he again wholeheartedly with genuine conviction believes that that day will come and he yearns for that day but I just don't see it, I look around I can't see how given what I see today, well no. So no maybe it means that a person has to believe not that Moshiach will come today but that Moshiach can come today. Can a person say no, there's no way Moshiach is coming today but I know he's coming and I'm waiting for him but there's no way he's coming today? Well no a person has to believe that Moshiach can come today and therefore that's part of my tzipiya that halevai it should be today. So Rav Volve, this is quoted by more than one source. So Rav Volve is reported to have answered ווי שטייט אין סידור, the way it says in the siddur, the way it says in the ani ma'amin in the siddur. The way Rav Volve understood the loshon of the ani ma'amin in the siddur is that achake lo that it's achake lo, again it's a question how you punctuate the siddur. So Rav Volve assumed the punctuation in the siddur is that אחכה לו בכל יום שיבוא as opposed to אחכה לו בכל יום, sheyavo. Rav Volve assumed the punctuation was that achake lo, I'm waiting bechol yom sheyavo, I'm waiting every day that he should come today. That's how Rav Volve thought the siddur was supposed to be punctuated and he said that the yesod haemuna is ווי שטייט אין סידור. So then they asked him basically your kasha but the gemaras that say in Perek Chelek which give different simanim for when Moshiach is going to come, so what happens if a person looks around and he doesn't see that those simanim are in place? So he answered, and he didn't intend it to be humorous and I don't intend it to be humorous therefore either in repeating it, so he answered: When Moshiach comes, we'll ask him that kasha. So what did he mean by that? He didn't crack too many jokes, Rav Volve, that wasn't exactly... wasn't exactly his style. So what what what did he mean by that answer? So I think what what he meant by that answer is that there are different rules for how one learns the parsha of an ikar emunah than the way you learn Chulin, the way you learn Bava Kama, the way you learn Kiddushin. And the... you can't... you can't ask kashas and derive inferences from kashas. You can't employ the same derech halimud in this context that you would in in all other contexts of learning. And I think that's what he meant by when Mashiach comes, we'll ask him the kasha. Meaning we don't have the keilim to to deal with that kasha. As we're given a yesod emunah, again that was the Rav's understanding, we're given a yesod emunah that אחכה לו בכל יום שיבא. How does that... okay so ein hachi nami if if you had such a stira in רמב"ם הלכות מאכלות אסורות you wouldn't say when there'll be techiyas hameisim we'll ask the Rambam. No, you'd sit and you'd burn the midnight oil in the beis medrash until you came up with a teretz. But here it's not given to that type of analysis. At least that's what the Rav felt. So so he wouldn't say... so you would say that you have to believe in both, in either possibility? He he he was very adamant from what's reported that the yesod emunah is אחכה לו בכל יום שיבא. But maybe Mashiach will join us for Maariv tonight, maybe even for the early Maariv in in Morg. So we might have to end we might have to end early, might not go until 6 o'clock. Okay. How do we know if we're yearning for Mashiach? Tzipiya l'yeshua, how do we know practically if we're just saying it or if we actually... what would it mean to actually say it? So there are different levels, you know, as with so many other things, there are there are different levels. You know, there's there's a threshold and then there's higher... higher levels. I think they say from the Baal HaTanya, you know, if a person says sincerely with kavana ופדהו ומהר גאלנו ויושענו, that's a kiyum in tzipiya l'yeshua. A person says that sincerely. Bakasha that we have in the end of Birkas Kriyas Shema, ufdehu umaher, Ribbono Shel Olam, you should redeem as as you gave your word in in the nevi'im, kol Yisrael. So that's a basic, baseline kiyum in tzipiya l'yeshua. In terms of the tzipiya l'yeshua that that, you know, we read about in descriptions of, you know, people like the Chafetz Chaim, of course it's clear that tzipiya l'yeshua isn't something that that a person can sort of just cultivate in in isolation. It's it's part of a life that's devoted to avodas Hashem. In that context, the kind of tzipiya l'yeshua that we read of, the descriptions that we read of, you know, by gedolim, by Chasidei Elyon, can naturally, organically develop. So I don't know... to a large degree, to a large extent, maybe not entirely so, but to a large extent, the higher levels, the more intense levels of tzipiya l'yeshua, you can't isolate it. It's not like... you know, I'm going to work on ich veis kol minei d'varim, so I'm going to be very careful about... about speech, so you can sort of isolate that and compartmentalize that and it doesn't necessarily interact with everything in life that I may need to work on. But to a large extent you can't isolate this, you can't compartmentalize it on its higher levels. If I remember correctly, the Gemara in Avodah Zarah says that there's no schok after the churban Beis HaMikdash. So what does that mean practically for us? Like could we not have any humor in our personality? Should we be completely stoic? What role would that play in our lives? I think maybe the Gemara that you're referring to, if I'm not sure if we're thinking of the same thing. But the Gemara says that אסור לאדם שימלא שחוק פיו בעולם הזה because it says in the Kapitel Tehillim B'shuv Hashem that אז ימלא שחוק פינו ולשוננו רנה. Then, when Mashiach comes, then yemaleh schok pinu, then there'll be an unmitigated and unadulterated and unbridled schok. So but it doesn't preclude schok. It says there's no miluy piv schok. This complete total schok, that can't happen as long as there's churban. There are major different people that are in YU for different types of reasons and different types of purposes. Some that feel they're in college just to get a parnassa and other people that feel that there's an avodas Hashem in or feel that they can עבוד הקדוש ברוך הוא through the limud of other secular studies. Especially now that it's not just the bachurim but within the Rashei Yeshiva. There are some Rashei Yeshiva that have said miyet the college as much as possible and there are some Rashei Yeshiva that feel that there is davka an avodah within by learning some of the secular things that we do. As I'm sure Rebbe is aware, times have very much changed from necessarily the way that kind of perspective of secular education and college incorporated with the Yeshiva was when maybe the Rav was alive or when YU was first brainchild as opposed to now. Does Rav think that the role of college is still the same as it is in however Rav defines Torah Umadda or whatever that is, or has it shifted? And if so, how does Rav kind of see us grappling as talmidei ha-Yeshiva of the different points of view that we see within our own Rashei Yeshiva? Maybe two, your question touched on a lot of very important substantive issues. But maybe just two comments. One in terms of your reference the Rav and the other maybe more in terms of the halacha l'ma'aseh for those who are talmidim now. It's obviously emphatically true that the Rav saw great value in chochmah. It is the case that he knew כל חכמה שבעולם better than all the חכמי אומות העולם who spent all their time on that. So what he did alongside his ikkar of talmud Torah. But that notwithstanding, I don't think it's true that that was necessarily his vision of YU. If you want to read in his own words and as much as possible you have to try to read primary material because in terms of secondary material, okay, there's some secondary material which is very holy and very reliable, Rav Shachter does lots of stuff, but there's a lot of secondary material, not to mention other names, which is very unreliable and in worst case scenario very unreliable. and the scenario maybe doesn't quite capture it, doesn't quite. As much as possible, you want to read primary sources. So if you read what in Hebrew is called Chumash Drashot, in English most recently it was reprinted under the title The Rav Speaks. So those are drashot which Rav Soloveitchik gave at Mizrachi conventions. But the Rav saw a certain parallel between what Mizrachi was doing in Eretz Yisrael with what YU was doing in America. So you find there that he actually talks about what he thinks YU is accomplishing, again, because of that parallelism that he saw. And he doesn't talk about again, I'm in no way trying to downplay or diminish the again, the importance that he attached to chochmah and the fact that it certainly did have its place in his life and learning. But that's not how he talks about YU. When he talks about YU on those occasions, he's not talking about that it's a place to be mishtalem. No, he talks about how I think one of the drashot that's reprinted there is what was the machlokes between Yosef and his brothers. That Yosef foresaw that the metzius of the world was going to change and economic realities were going to change, and how you had to figure out how to remain 1000% true to the substance and spirit of Torah and yet learn how to function in the new society and that it wasn't realistic to think that somehow or other you could hermetically seal yourself off in a self-imposed ghetto. And then he talks about how that's what Mizrachi is doing in Eretz Yisrael and that's what YU is doing here, that YU is teaching in the same Gemara, Rambam, Shulchan Aruch, and Ketzot, and Reb Akiva Eiger, and Reb Chaim, and the same substance and spirit of Torah, and yet equipping them to be scientists and to be and to be lawyers. He didn't there isn't people transpose his mastery of chochmah and they then develop from that what they assume his vision for YU was. I don't know that that's true. It certainly isn't true in the Chumash Drashot whenever he has occasion to be talking about YU, that's not what he's highlighting. He's highlighting, again, the fact that it helps provide the roots and the chinuch in Torah and simultaneously equip a person both philosophically as well as practically to function in the world. Because we can't that's why you have in the Chumash Drashot something that people often quote that he said it rhetorically. He said he would have added a fourteenth ani ma'amin. That ani ma'amin that the Torah can be lived and implemented בכל מקום ובכל זמן in the scientific laboratories, in the boardroom of corporations, in legal offices. Again, the reason he only intended it rhetorically is because obviously that's implicit in the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim already. So just in terms of what the Rav's vision for what YU was and for what YU was providing its talmidim so I am shom v'iyun l'cho. Practically, and there is a segue here between the two possibly. Practically, what does that mean for any given talmid? I don't know that the answer is the same for every talmid. I don't think that there is one necessarily objective answer that's going to be true for everyone. I think some talmidim may get out of the Yeshiva. I dare say most will get what we were just reviewing from that vision that the Rav was describing in those drashos before the Mizrahi. And it's probably a miut that are gonna sort of capitalize on the chochma shebo because it takes a certain, I don't know, it takes a certain besides a certain level of Torah knowledge, it takes a certain type of mind to be able to harness chochma in the service of avodas Hashem. And I think probably, this is my speculation, until now what we said about the Rav is you can read firsthand, now is my speculation so I guess with inflation I can still say it's my two cents' worth, is that maybe that's davka why that this isn't what he emphasized about YU. I think most people, most people sort of don't... I could be wrong about that. But either way, the point is that the answer is gonna vary according to the individual and it should be the right answer for him, it doesn't have to be the right answer for his chaver. Just a follow-up. Is, Rav explained that what Rav Soloveitchik had said in those speeches was his concept of what YU was. That in today, I don't know if Rav would agree, but that especially on a wider spectrum of Orthodox Jewry, most people are more open to that kind of situation. Basically the Rav's vision, which was resisted at first, is the one that has prevailed, that's absolutely true. So then would Rav think that the... No, but that doesn't blur the... I mean, YU as a yeshiva still has a distinct identity. The fact that, you know, in terms of, you know, let's say the need for advanced education, you know, the need to make it possible for people to function in the outside world and not feel it's an either-or: either you're a doctor or you're frum, either you're a lawyer or you're a ben Torah, to show that those two are not contradictory, that vision I think of the Rav certainly has prevailed, you're right about that. And it has become much more, as far as I can see, much more widely accepted and followed. But there's still, you know, distinctive features in the yeshiva here beyond that. And in the context of the drashos in Mizrahi, again, that's what was nogaya. Could Rav articulate maybe some of those? I think one, one distinguishing feature, let's say if you, if you hear a shiur from Rav Schachter or you even go ask him a question, so the range of sources he'll quote, you know, if you sort of place them on the religious-political spectrum, you know, will go from Rav Kook to the Minchas Elazar, and which basically covers the religious spectrum. I don't think that's something to be taken for granted and there's something very beautiful about that. There's something very beautiful about recognizing and appreciating and learning from all gedolei Yisrael and gedolei acharonim despite the fact that obviously, you know, on some matters there were different drachim and on some matters very sharp differences of opinion, but that doesn't, you know, it doesn't push someone out of the spectrum. You can not be a Zionist and there's an awful lot of beautiful things Rav Kook has to say, and you can be a Zionist and there's an awful lot of beautiful things the Minchas Elazar has to say. to say. And there's something very beautiful about a vision that makes room for an a-political respect for and appreciation of and I think that that is a very prominent feature here in the yeshiva and one that I think we should appreciate and appreciate for what it is. I think the connection to Eretz Yisrael is also one which is very strong here and not to be taken for granted and also is probably a core element of the yeshiva's identity as well. The recognition of individuality. For some people it may be the right thing and therefore the best thing that they if somehow or other financially feasible that they should learn in kollel for ten fifteen years after getting married and for other people even if it were financially feasible it may not be the right thing and therefore the best thing. People are different. כשם שפרצופיהם שונים כך דעותיהם שונות. That recognition of individuality and that obviously individuality within Torah u'mitzvot but within Torah u'mitzvot the blend of Talmud Torah of tzorkei tzibbur of chesed of tefillah is not necessarily gonna be the same for one person to the next. I think that appreciation of individuality which is very important is also something which I think is taught and valued here. So I think those are some of the... I think the yeshiva is disproportionately identified just with college and secular education. I think there's much more to the hashkafa so again that is part of the hashkafa so I'm not trying to revise that out of the definition but there is much more to the hashkafa that the yeshiva represents to the derech hachaim that it seeks to impart than just you know it's a good thing to get a college degree so you'll have parnassa. There's more to it than that. How does a person balance learning sort of things that are more curricular built-in what we spend most of our time doing Gemara and other things they might want or feel valuable to learn like halacha, Tanach, things which aren't really built-in so much? You should come to yeshiva bein hasmanim then you'll have time for Tanach. That was only half comical it was actually half serious also in the sense that one of the one important way you know even when one is at a stage where again a lot of one's time learning time is spoken for in terms of you know the yeshiva decides what set you're learning and sort of what the hours are for morning seder etc. so even when a lot of one's learning time is spoken for there are pockets there definitely are other pockets of time which are not spoken for and one uses that to be mashlim. You know obviously both examples you gave are things that you're entirely correct in wanting to find time for and to be mashlim. And one of the ways is takeh again without pushing oneself too hard without... eliminating from one's schedule the necessary downtime and relaxation time. But it's takeh those discretionary times. So it was only partially comical in terms of each of us as a ben semester. It is true that this is one of the times, you know, to try and be mashlim. You know, like you mentioned, not to push yourself too hard or something like that. How do we know if we're pushing ourselves too hard, or if we're not pushing enough? Or when I'm not pushing myself enough? Right, right. So the question is, as all questions, very important and very good. What makes it extra tricky is that there isn't a mathematical formula because, again, the answer is going to vary from person to person. So, you know, it's not as if someone can tell you that, you know, X hours is enough of sleep and Y hours is enough for, you know, for eating and relaxing. The values of X and Y are going to vary from individual to individual. Usually, a good siman is a person can be working very hard and even pushing, pushing, and have a chiyus and enjoy what he's doing. Or a person can be working very hard and pushing and feel like the weight of the world is on his shoulders and not be besimcha and not feel a chiyus. Usually, that's a good indication as to whether he's pushing himself too hard. If the simcha is not there, if the chiyus is not there, then something isn't right. Something isn't right. It could be that he's just pushing himself too hard, it could be that he's pushing himself in the wrong direction. You know, if I spend a couple of hours—thank you very much, thank you—if I spend a couple of hours, you know, trying to read a pasuk Chumash, it could be I'm not pushing myself too hard, but if I'm trying to read left to right instead of right to left, it could be I won't get so much of a chiyus out of it or experience so much simcha. So something is off if a person doesn't have simcha from what he's doing, he doesn't have a chiyus from what he's doing. One likely culprit, but not the only culprit, not the only potential culprit, but one likely culprit is that it could be that a person is pushing himself too hard. Is Da'as Torah a relatively new concept, and in regards to this, to what degree are we bound? Again, depending upon what you understand by the term, certainly in its broader sense, in its broader sense, it's an invention. They tell a story about Reb Zelig Epstein. He was Rosh Yeshiva of Shaar HaTorah in Queens, in Queens. And now yibadel l'chayim his son and Reb Kalman and Reb Sholom Spitz. So there was a question during the Second World War. Those who found themselves in areas controlled by Stalinist Soviet Union, so they were, you know, they were out of the grips of the Nazis yemach shemo. So the question was whether they should just try to sit it out there or whether they should try to make their way east, you know, such as the Mir Yeshiva did and get out of the Soviet Union and escape from the Soviet Union also. So Reb Zelig, who at the time was a young man, So during the milchama, he felt very strongly that staying under the communists was also a terrible, terrible sakanah. The Nazis, yemach shemam, were so evil that they successfully distracted people from other intense forms of evil. Stalin was also a mass murderer approaching genocidal proportions also in terms of what he could do. And Rav Zelig felt he couldn't stay in the Soviet Union. At the time Rav Chaim Ozer, who was sort of universally acclaimed, Rav Chaim Ozer thought, no, don't, what's the saying in English, something, you don't rouse a sleeping bear or something. If right now you're okay, so just stay, don't try to make your way across and escape. So they tell the story that someone asked Rav Zelig, how could you go against Da'as Torah? How could you go against Da'as Torah? And Rav Zelig answered, that was before Da'as Torah was invented. It never was the case and it still should not be the case that there can't be a legitimate difference of opinion amongst leading chachmei hador. There isn't, when there was a Sanhedrin in Lishkas Hagazis, so then there was one final absolute opinion, whatever that rov of the Sanhedrin on Lishkas Hagazis said. Absent that Sanhedrin, you can have and there always were, and it was always respected, differences of opinion. So certainly to the extent that one element which I think sometimes is associated with Da'as Torah is that it's something monolithic and something absolute, I don't think there's any basis for that. It's a distortion. Chachmei Yisrael throughout the generations ad hayom hazeh are, in addition to their incredible chochmas hatorah, a tremendous pikchus. And because of that, there certainly is tremendous insight that they'll have in many situations. But some situations require not only pikchus but require expertise. Let's say an adam gadol for all his gadlus b'torah and all his pikchus doesn't necessarily have the expertise in certain medical matters to advise a patient whether the patient should or should not have surgery. And if you go to that adam gadol and ask him what to do, so he's going to tell you, go find the biggest doctor in the world and consult him. We don't think that gedolei Yisrael were or are omniscient. That's not a p'chisus hakavod. Adaraba, it's a p'chisus hakavod to attribute that to them because they're not and then people just get disillusioned. Which is why the Rambam writes in Hilchos Teshuvah also that if you have to make a determination whether a choleh should fast Yom Kippur, he says עידוהו על פי רופאי אומן באותו מקום. You don't, it's not the biggest talmid chacham. Okay. The talmid chacham has to process what the doctor is saying because unless you have a doctor who's a real, real yerei shamayim, a doctor doesn't take Yom Kippur seriously enough to, so you need a rav to proof-check and to double-check and to process what the doctor is saying and to sort of filter out the non-medical bias and just retain the medical expertise. But we don't believe that chachmei Yisrael are the biggest... expertise in a particular field, which is why the Halacha says when you have a medical shaila, you need the input of the biggest and most expert, most expert doctors. If Daas Torah means, what Daas Torah is used to mean, that you know, the leadership of a community should come from big talmidei chachamim, should come from gedolim, and they should be the ones giving the hadracha in terms of in terms of blazing a trail for a community, so then that's simply, that's simply correct. And that's a well-placed emphasis. So I guess it depends what what the term is being used in in what context. In some context it's correct, in other contexts it's not. Yeah and just as the last topic, well some people have put forth the argument that just as, you know, Gedolei Yisroel don't have expertise regarding scientific matters and medical matters and therefore they shouldn't rule regarding those, so too they lack expertise regarding sociological matters as well. So how would you... I'm not sure what you mean by sociological matters. I mean in terms of how a community should function and in terms of what things are appropriate, I mean regarding let's say gray matters, things which aren't 100% clear cut and could really go either way. No, but but that's... that's not correct. Every, every, every posek who's deserving of that description knows if the shaila needs to take into account certain elements of metzius that need to be assessed. And and it's not true that בתוך עמי אנכי ישבת as the isha said is true of all rabbonim. They're all... they're they know, rabbonim know better than anyone what's going on in the world, because they know what's going on in everyone's private lives. They know all the all the all the shailos, they know they know what's going on in all in what's going on medically, what's going on in terms of shalom bayis, what's what's going on in everything. They they know more than probably more than than certainly more than... okay, so maybe some mental health professionals know a little bit of this, and some doctors know a little bit of this, and some know a little bit of this. I don't think there's any basis for that for that claim. It's not like... it's not like medicine where where you have to sit and study for 15, 20 years to be an expert in cardiology or or neurology. Here they're they're living in the communities that they that they serve. I don't think there's I don't think there's a comparison. At this stage of one's Torah development, should one put an emphasis on more bkiyus versus iyun or vice versa? See to to a certain extent the question is preempted by what stage someone is at, not entirely, but to a certain extent the question is preempted. I'll give you a moshal like this. Let's say, let's say a totally different tchum. Let's say someone will ask you, at my stage of life, how many minutes a day should I be devoting to doing sit-ups? So to a certain extent the question is answered or preempted by, it could be that the shape the guy's in he can't spend more than two minutes doing, even if you hold the shita that maybe the ideal is to spend an hour a day doing sit-ups and push-ups. The shita, the shape that he's in, it would be counterproductive for him to do more than two minutes a day of sit-ups and push-ups. That's the mashal thing. So the nimshal is that on the one hand a person let's say develops in havana in iyun by learning, but on the other hand a person can't be trying to go too far beyond where he is presently. And so if I'm holding here, if I'm in bad shape, so maybe the ideal is that someday I should be able to do a hundred sit-ups and a hundred push-ups, but right now it probably makes sense I should do five sit-ups and five push-ups if I can. So part of the question is sort of preemptively answered by there's a certain point at which a person can be spending too much time on iyun. Not that it's wrong that he should be doing bekius, but just that it's counterproductive in terms of the iyun itself. I don't know whether that's at all clear. Think, was that clear anyway? Yes, that's great. So that's one perspective on your question. Another perspective on your question is that it has to be the case that it has to be the case that if I'm in a shiur that's going to cover four blatt in the fall and four blatt in the spring, that there's some other learning in my life that's going on that's going to ensure that that doesn't represent, you know, the sum of my learning for the year. You know, that you know I'll know four blatt from this perek and four blatt from that perek. And a person ech shehu again ba'asher hu sham has to find some realistic pace. Again a person can't assign himself a pace without individualizing it because again in bekius also a person can be trying to do too much or too superficially. But a person ba'asher hu sham has to make sure that he's making inroads in Torah Sheba'al Peh. So to a large extent, if a person just looks to see how much iyun makes sense for me anyway, how much bekius makes sense for me anyway, a lot of the question gets answered. And additionally, it can't be that, you know, it can't be that that's what a person has to show for his learning for the year. How important is it for rabbanim to have a or is it even important at all for rabbanim to have a background in psychology or in anything like that? And also what role exactly do frum psychologists play in our community? Is it just like rabbanim don't have time to spend with like kids or people who need it, so we just since the rabbanim obviously work but can't spend ten hours a day just talking to people, so we need psychologists, or do they offer some... Frum psychologists play a very, very important role in in our community. To oversimplify things, ultimately, a psychologist is operating with a definition of normal and normalcy. Let's say I consult a psychologist and I tell him, you know, I find myself washing my hands eighty times a day. And he says, okay, personally I do it ninety times a day, but you're getting there, you're not too far off, and I'm not too worried about you. So psychologists are always working, they're looking to restore people to mental health, to balance. They have a definition of normalcy. Sometimes secular psychologists' definitions of normalcy don't match the Torah's definition of normalcy and the Torah's definitions of kedusha and tahara. And in that sense it's very, very important that we should have frum psychologists. It's also the case that in order to help someone, before you can help someone, you have to mamash understand. You have to understand who the person is, what he or she is is grappling with, what the reality of their situation is. And clearly, clearly a frum psychologist has a very big head start there over someone who's not frum. Again, I'm not saying that it can never ever be the case that a non-frum psychologist can be of help, can be of assistance, that's obviously not true. But on the other hand, there's also no question that a, in terms of knowing that the values and the axioms, you know, which guide the therapy are going to be in place. You know, that assurance is there with, you know, if you have a mental health professional who is a ben Torah or bas Torah. And also the head start in in really understanding the person. So I think frum psychologists play a very, very important role. How important is it for a rov to know psychology? So clearly, clearly a, you know, very, very important dimension of a rov's job is the pastoral side to it. Often he's the first address for questions about parenting, questions in sholom bayis, etc. Often the rov is the first address. Is it helpful for him to have studied psychology? It depends. Studying anything doesn't really help unless you have a raw talent for it. I could take music lessons for the next ten years, they wouldn't invite me to serve alongside chazzan Malavany and be his understudy. I don't know why not, I haven't figured it out yet, but somehow or other that doesn't seem to be in the cards, I don't know why not. But there has to be a raw talent. Some people have insight into people, they have a feel for people, they have a sense for people. If you have raw talent, you have raw musical talent, okay, so take piano lessons and and you know, that will develop it. If you don't have the fingers for piano, you're not going to get too far with piano lessons. So how much there is to be gained by studying something depends upon what innate raw talent there is to begin with. Is it the case that clinical experience can help enhance the natural intuition and raw talent that a person has? Of course that's true. So dealing with people. Probably everyone should know to recognize certain signs. You don't need hardly any intuition to be told if someone comes and gives you this laundry list of symptoms, you should know that that can be indicative of depression, and you have to tell that person that he should be consulting a psychologist. So that you don't have to have and I guess even that, I mean why say everything, ultimately in life everything needs sechel, everything needs common sense. I mean even that, a person could misapply. But there are cases where very little intuition, very little innate lema'aseh a person can mess up anything, I guess, if he's good enough at it he can mess up anything. But so sort of recognizing certain indications to know to tell someone that they should be getting help is presumably that is valuable for a potential rov, even if he's not the type of person that you can really develop into being so expert at the pastoral side. Okay, I think we have time for one or two more, so maybe. When a braisa says תלמוד תורה כנגד כולם, that's strictly regarding how much sechar you get for it or does it have other connotations as well? It le'chora has practical implications that are reflected in other halachos. So let's say a person has kishronos in different areas, and as is usually the case, one's interests and what one enjoys usually align with one's kishronos. Not 100 percent, but usually they align. And let's say a person, I don't know, he could go into some other field or he could be mechanech and marbitz torah. Again, talking about that he could do either very successfully. So תלמוד תורה כנגד כולם has implications in terms of that as well. It has implications, it's basically the same nafka mina just being described differently in the din that the Gemara in Moed Katan says that אם מצוה שאפשר להיעשות על ידי אחרים, if the mitzvah is not my mitzvah more than someone else's mitzvah, it's not your mitzvah more than someone else's mitzvah, so then a person would opt to learn as long as he can be assured that someone else will attend to that mitzvah. So it has those practical implications as well. Pressure's on, because this is the last question, so it's got to be a good one, Marc. Won't take too long. Do we understand the mitzvah of machyas amalek particularly in the context of say bechira and like young children who haven't been אוחז מעשה אבותיהם בידיהם? You lived up to it. You came through. You came through. The answer is it depends who we are. We, as you probably mean, literally we, we probably would classify it as a chok. But if you look, the Rishonim don't, Chazal didn't either. And the reason is that Western society, again, I'm not implying that Eastern is or isn't different, I just haven't spent too much time in the Far East, Western society is fiercely, fiercely individualistic. Very, very, very strong, fiercely individualistic. And as much as חייב אדם לומר בשבילי נברא העולם and as much as there is individualism in Torah, but it's not to the degree that Western society is individualistic. If you're not locked into, which I mean, we're much more mushpa from the world around us than we realize because we mistakenly think of assimilation only in terms of on practical level. There's also assimilation in terms of how one thinks, some assumptions one makes, and some of the assumptions we operate with we're not even aware of. They're just so... they became so ingrained in us at such a young age and we absorb them at such a young age, we're not even aware of certain assumptions we make. But one of the assumptions we make based on outside influence which again emphasizes this disproportionately according to the Torah is this individualism. And that being so individualistic doesn't leave any light at the end of the tunnel to understand mechiyat Amalek. If one is less individualistic then there is room to understand why that's not a chok, why at least certainly not purely a chok, but that there can be some degree of understanding that we have to... Okay, thank you very much rabbosai. Sh'koach for being here and Hashem yatzliach darkeichem.