Transcript

Okay let's learn the mishna Masechet Sukkah Perek Rishon Daf Tes.

הנסרים שיש בהן ארבעה דברי רבי יהודה ורבי מאיר פוסל ושאין בהן ארבעה דברי הכל כשרה. המקרה סוכתו בנסרים של ארז דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים פוסלים הנסרים שיש בהן ארבעה דברי רבי יהודה ורבי מאיר פוסל ושאין בהן ארבעה דברי הכל כשרה שמואל אמר ושאין בהן ארבעה מחלוקת ויש בהן ארבעה דברי הכל פסולה אין בהן ארבעה והדילו פחות משלושה קנה בעלמא הוא ואמר רב פפא הכי קתני יש בהן ארבעה דברי הכל פסול פחות משלושה דברי הכל כשר מאי טעמא קנה בעלמא הוא ופליגי משלושה עד ארבעה מר סבר כיוון דליכא שיעור מקום לא גזרינן ומר סבר כיוון דנפקי להו מיהתרה לבית גזרינן.

Let's see the Rashi please on the gemara.

הנסרים שבנסרים שיש בהן ארבעה שרוב תקרת הבית עשויה מהן ורבי מאיר דפסל אית ליה גזירת תקרה אם הכשרת בו אתי למימר מה לי סכך באלו ומה לי לשבת תחת תקרת ביתו אף הנסרים קרויה ומיהו לסכך ומיהו לסכך מינה אבל הנסרים שאין בהן ארבעה שאין רוב תקרות עשויות ממנה דברי הכל כשרה דלא דמי לתקרה דלית בהו ושאין בהן ארבעה מחלוקת והוא מכשיר רבי יהודה משום דאין רוב תקרות עשויות מהן ולא גזרינן בהו ורבי מאיר חייש למיעוט שיש שעושים תקרה מהן.

So that's a very interesting Rashi, right? Rashi says that according to Shmuel that the machlokes Rabbi Meir Rabbi Yehuda is by nesarim which are gimmel and pachas midaled, but by daled Rabbi Yehuda would be modeh to the gezeirah. He is basically Rabbi Meir leshitaso who's chaish lemiuta. Rabbi Meir says for instance that a koton should not be meyabem a ketana shouldn't be misyabemes because there's a miut possibility that the koton will turn out to be a saris. If the yavam is a saris there's no mitzvas yibum and it would be that he was פוגע באשת אח שלא במקום מצוה. If the yevama is an aylonis she's not reuya laledes there too there's no mitzvas yibum. If she'll turn out to be an aylonis so it will again have been shelo bimkom mitzvah and been ervas eshes ach. So Rabbi Meir says you have to be choshesh lemiut and the chachamim say you don't have to be choshesh lemiut. You don't have to be choshesh the point this koton is going to turn out to be a saris. Meaning the rov people when they make a roof for their for their homes, so they use נסרים שיש בהן ארבע. There's a miut to use shalosh. So how exactly is that memila shitas as follows? Let's say one chazal make a gezeirah. That's the, let's say, the most famous gezeirah, right, the gezeira deRabba explains to us שמא יעבירנו ארבע אמות ברשות הרבים. So what does that mean? Chazal think that that everyone or most people are gonna make that mistake and forget themselves and and they're gonna be maavir the sukkah, the, excuse me, the the lulav, the shofar, the megillah ד' אמות ברשות הרבים? No, they say they're gonna be individuals, right, from amongst the the tzibbur as a whole throughout the doros, there're gonna be individuals who who will make that that mistake, chas v'shalom. But similarly with that's like with every gezeira. So so too with gezeiras tikra, everyone's gonna make that mistake? Most people gonna make the mistake? No, there's gonna be people. There will be people. So Rabbi Yehuda says vos eppes that you should be choshesh, again if you use nesarim of gimmel, so then you have to be choshesh that it's davka the miut of people who use such nesarim in their homes that punkt they are the ones who are gonna be likely to make that mistake and think מה לי לסכך באלו מה לי לישב בביתו. So if you're choshesh lemiut, so then you would think that you need the gezeira on נסרים שיש בהן ג'. But if you're not choshesh lemiut, so then you don't you don't need the, you don't need such a gezeira. Lichora, that that that's the pshat. Ayin alav, I'm I'm not sure yet, have to think this through. Whether or not Rashi mentioning it in this context has any bearing on the following question. The Rishonim have a question. What do you mean Rabbi Meir is choshesh lemiut? It's a pasuk in the Torah, acharei rabim lehatos. So what do you mean that Rabbi Meir is choshesh lemiut? So there are two answers in the Rishonim on that kasha. One answer is that Rabbi Meir is choshesh lemiut mid'rabbanan. Ee hachi nami, Rabbi Meir is modeh mid'oraisa you don't you don't have to be choshesh lemiut; he's choshesh lemiut mid'rabbanan. The other answer is that the pasuk about—the other answer depends upon the tenability, whether or not the second answer is nitan l'hei'amer depends upon how you learn pshat in a sugya in Chullin. The second answer is that the pasuk about acharei rabim lehatos is only b'ruva d'isa kamon. It's talking about Sanhedrin, that's a b'ruva d'isa kamon: ten dayanim vote this way, one dayan votes the other way, thirteen this way, ten the other way. And Rabbi Meir, the example we gave of קטן שמא ימצא סריס and קטנה שמא תמצא אילונית, this is a ruba d'leisa kamon, that's dealing with a ruba d'leisa kamon. But ee hachi nami b'ruva d'leisa kamon, Rabbi Meir holds mid'oraisa you have to be choshesh according to that second approach in the Rishonim. So shailos like this is, is our Rashi consistent with the first approach? If if the whole idea to be choshesh lemiut, let's say by the katan ketana case by yibum, is itself only mid'rabbanan, would you then use the hashishan Meaning by the katan and ktana, so you choshesh the miut. No, in this case, there's a miut possibility that it will turn out that we were פוגע באיסור ערות אשת אח שלא במקום מצוה. Over here, based on the miut possibility that maybe he'll make a mistake, we should make a gezeira, so is that a type of gezeira l'gezeira? I don't know whether or not this Rashi has has any implications for the for that shayla in the Rishonim. Okay, let's go on in the Rashis please.

והא דאמרינן פסולה בארבע אפילו בפחות משלושה דמיא הכא נמי דאמרינן אם כן דמאי נפשך רב פפא הכי קאמר בשמואל יש בהן ארבע כדי החילוק טבורה ואי תימא אין בהן לא פשיטא מארבע וגזרינן מקום תקרה דלא חשיבי לעשות תקרה מהן כיון דנפקא מתורת לבוד שאם היה אויר במקום אחד מהן במקום אחד מהן לא מצי למימר לבוד חשיבי להיות דומות לתקרה.

So the question is just how how do you read this hemshech hagemara according to that Rashi we just had? Why do you need to give a rationale for why Rabbi Yehuda isn't gozer pachos midaled? He's not gozer pachos midaled because it's only a miut of people use such nessarim for tikras. And punkt those people who will be the ones who will make the mistake of maaleh hasachach beilu? So you don't need a hesber. You need a hesber for Reb Meir, what the difference between gimel is and pachos migimel. So that you need, but what do you need to to re-interpret Rabbi Yehuda here according to that Rashi? I don't know. Let's go further. Please, yeah, please. תנן נתן עליה נסר שרחב ארבע פסולה v'shema yeishan tachtav

בשלמא לשמואל דאמר בשאין בהן ארבע מחלוקת אבל יש בהן ארבע דברי הכל פסולה ושמא יישן תחתיו אלא לרב דאמר בשיש בהן ארבע מחלוקת אבל אין בהן ארבע דברי הכל כשרה רבי יהודה אמר לא יישן תחתיו מי סבר דברי הכל היא דברי הכל סיפא אסרו ליה מי סבר דברי הכל היא

seifa asru lei. Okay, let's go further. תא שמע שני סדיני הבאין mitztarfin v'nimtzain af nessarim k'sididnim

בשלמא לשמואל דאמר בשאין בהן ארבע מחלוקת ולא יש בהן ארבע דברי הכל פסולה מאי מצטרפין מצטרפין לארבע אלא לרב דאמר בשיש בהן ארבע מחלוקת אבל אין בהן ארבע דברי הכל כשרה היכי דמי אי דאית בהו ארבע למה לי צירופא ואי דלית בהו ארבע אמאי והא קנה בעלמא נינהו לעולם דאית בהו ארבע ומאי מצטרפין מצטרפין לארבע אמות מן הצד. תא שמע לישנא אחרינא בשלמא לשמואל דאמר בשאין בהן ארבע מחלוקת ולא יש בהן ארבע דברי הכל פסולה מאי מצטרפין מצטרפין לארבע אמות מן הצד אלא לרב ובשלמא לרבי מאיר מאי מצטרפין מצטרפין לארבע אמות מן הצד אלא רבי יהודה דאמר אפילו יש בהן ארבע כשרה מאי אין מצטרפין קנה בעלמא נינהו. איידי דאמר רבי מאיר מצטרפין אמר רבי יהודה אין מצטרפין. מורו ביה בפתיקא דרב. תניא כוותיה דרב ותניא כוותיה דשמואל תניא כוותיה דרב סוכה של נסרים של ארז אם אין בהן ארבע דברי הכל כשרה ויש בהן ארבע רבי מאיר פוסל ורבי יהודה מכשיר אמר רבי יהודה מעשה בשעת הסכנה שהבאנו נסרים שהיו בהן ארבע וסיככנו על גבי המרפסת וישבנו תחתיהן אמרו לו משם ראיה אין שעת הסכנה ראיה.

Okay, well let's stop here for a second. So Rabbi Yehuda brings a raya from what happened b'sha'as hasakkana. b'sha'as hasakkana they used נסרים של ארבע טפחים. So apparently that's kasher. Maybe it's not kasha but maybe bish'as sakana, that's how they could manage to do it. That's how they could manage to do it. So what did Rashi say bish'as sakana? He says it's sh'as gezeiras hamalchus. So if it's sh'as gezeiras hamalchus, so then bish'as gezeiras hamalchus, even for arkasa d'msana, yehayeig v'lo ya'avor. When it's religious persecution, governmental religious persecution, it's even arkasa d'msana. So that would mean the way Rashi understands that gemara in Sanhedrin, it means even if it's not a mitzvah, even if it's just a minhag b'alma, a Jewish style of dress, a minhag b'alma, yehayeig v'lo ya'avor, that the ovdei kochavim should really realize that we're not going to bend to their persecution, Rachmana litzlan. So that's what Rabbi Yehuda is saying: it's a sh'as sakana but it's yehayeig v'lo ya'avor. So obviously whatever they were doing was kasher me'ikar hadin, because they couldn't be taking any shortcuts because it was a sh'as sakana. So it's no... can't push back to me Rabbi Yehuda says, and say that maybe it's takeh no good miderabanan and only good min hatorah, but they did the best they could under the circumstances. No, bish'as sakana it was yehayeig v'lo ya'avor, that they had to be mekayeim the mitzvah. So al korchach, that the asara which is arba'a is kasher. That's the pshat in the gemara, lichora. So if that's the case, takeh, so what does Rabbi Meir, the other chachamim, who push back and say אין שעת סכנה ראיה? Why not? What Rabbi Yehuda says is compelling. So the Ritva says, no, what they're saying is that they think that Chazal... anyone have a Ritva? Anyone have a Ritva? Can you look it up? I can't find it on this gemara, on this line in the braisa. Anyway, al kol panim, some distinguished person says that the pshat, and the pshat in the braisa is that the chachamim and Rabbi Yehuda hold that, no, there is a gezeira of dalet on asara but Chazal, when they made the gezeira, excluded the situation of sh'as sakana. So that's why bish'as sakana the gezeira is not noheig, and they were being mekayeim the mitzvah. Again, when Chazal made takanos, they made takanos for only milsa d'sh'chiach, not for milsa d'lo sh'chiach. And אף על פי כן, the Ritva tells us that the pshat here is that to Chazal it was a milsa d'sh'chiach, that a sh'as sakana could arise. It's a milsa d'sh'chiach, the persecution, the sina is sh'chiach. Sometimes people forget it. Sometimes, yeah, you live ten years without personally experiencing anti-Semitism, and people forget it. It's a milsa d'sh'chiach. It's not lo sh'chiach. It's a milsa d'sh'chiach. L'maiseh, there's a chiuv now on all of us. It's a sh'as sakana right now in Eretz Yisrael because of the announcement that was made yesterday and because of the... Hamas yemach shemom reaction that everyone knew what would happen. It's milchemes reshus. It's not the milchemes reshus. And we all have to try to be mischazeik and that it should be a zechus for all acheinu b'nei Yisrael in Eretz Yisrael. It's a sha'as hachanah. The Rambam writes in the Igeres, he says that they always try to destroy us. It depends which tekufah, which tactics they use. He says that there are times when they tried with religious persecution. Now other times they tried with physical persecution. They do whatever seems most potentially effective. The Ohr Sameach points out that the Rambam has a different understanding of that Gemara in Sanhedrin of shas gezeiras hamalchus. The Rambam never writes in perek hey of yesodei hatorah that shas gezeiras hamalchus is a chiyuv of yeihareig v'al ya'avor even for a minhag of dress. The Rambam never mentions yeihareig v'al ya'avor for something beyond mitzvos, even shas gezeiras hamalchus. I think the Ohr Sameach says that the Rambam says arka'ata d'msana in hilchos kiddush hachodesh and perek hey of shabbos. But why is that called mitzvah kalla? Although shabbos is not a mitzvah kalla. He says no, mitzvah kalla in terms of people's perception of the mitzvah, not objectively. For Rashi, mitzvah kalla is something objective, it's just a minhag of dress. It's not really a din, it's not really a mitzvah, it's a Jewish style of dress. And the Rambam notes no, it's people's perception. It's mitzvos kallos right, מצוות קלות שאדם דש בעקביו בהם, what does that mean? That such a thing is a mitzvah kalla. No, but that's people's perception. So according to the Rambam lichora, so over here you see either of two important chiddushim from this braisa according to the Rambam. Again, so Rabbi Yehuda is bringing a rayah from shas hasakana. Again, why not push back to Rabbi Yehuda and say that beshas hasakana they were takeh only mkayem the d'oraisa, not the d'rabonon? So the pshat here according to the Rambam, actually lichora it's one of three. According to the Rambam, the pshat here is one of three. Either again, this goes back to our earlier discussion. If you say once it's a gezeira d'rabonon, it would be mapkia the kiyum d'oraisa as well, so then b'chol that pshat is lo nittan l'he'amer. So that would be one pshat in Rabbi Yehuda according to the Rambam. Pshat number two is that beshas the yeihareig v'al ya'avor, it's true it's only for mitzvos, but it would be for a mitzvah d'rabonon also. Or pshat number three I guess is to say not like the Ritva and say that that gufa is the nekudas hamachlokes between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, that maybe what Rabbi Meir is pushing back and saying is no, beshas hasakana it's enough to be mkayem the d'oraisa and the takeh won't be mkayem the d'rabonon. Okay, I'm not sure which of those. The Rambam doesn't explicitly say d'rabonon when you look in perek hey of yesodei hatorah, he doesn't spell out that the yeihareig v'al ya'avor is even on a mitzvah d'rabonon. Okay, un veiter.

היה משלשלו מלמעלה למטה אם גבוה מן הארץ שלושה טפחים פסולה מלמטה למעלה אם גבוה עשרה טפחים כשרה רבי מאיר פוסל ורבי יהודה מכשיר ומודי רבי מאיר שבין נסר לנסר כמלוא נסר שמניח סוביניהם וכשר ומודי רבי יהודה שנסר על גבי נסר שהוא כשר.

Itmar hafchan al tziheihem,

רב הונא אמר פסולה, ורב חסדא ורבה בר רב הונא אמרי כשרה. איקלע רב נחמן לסורא, עייל לגבי רב חסדא ורבה בר רב הונא.

Amru lei, הפכן על צידיהן מהו? Amar lehu, pesulah. נעשו כשיפודין של מתכת. Amar lei, רב הונא לא אמרי לכו. Amreitu leh, Amar lei, ומי אמר לן מר טעמא ולא קבלינן מיניה? Amar lehu, ומי בעיתו מינאי טעמא ולא אמרי לכו? Okay, so the pshat in the Gemara is that this shaila again of if the neser is daled tefachim wide, but then you put it on its side, so functionally it's not daled tefachim wide. So Rav Huna and Rav Nachman both say it's pasul because the gezeiras chachamim is that a neser of daled tefachim is schach pasul. Is in schach pasul, so if it's schach pasul it doesn't make a difference how you position it within the sukkah. It's not just when you have a metzius that it's covering daled tefachim, but a neser of daled tefachim is a cheftza mi'drabanan of schach pasul. Okay, they're mesaye'a. Tanan hatam,

אינה מחזקת כדי ראשו ורובו ושולחנו, או שנפרצה בה פרצה כדי שיזדקר בה גדי בבת ראש, או שנתן עליה נסר שהוא רחב ארבעה טפחים, אף על פי שלא הכניס לתוכה אלא שלשה טפחים פסולה.

Eichi dami? lim k'gon hafchan al tziheihem?

לא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון דאנחה אפומא דכוכלא, ועייל תלתא לגב ואפיק חד לבר דהוה ליה פסל היוצא מן הסוכה וכל פסל היוצא מן הסוכה נידון כסוכה.

So the Gemara says that if you take the neser which is arba'ah tefachim wide and you put it adjacent to the open side of the sukkah, the ruach revi'is, so that three tefachim correspond to within all gimmel d'fanos and then the fourth tefach extends beyond that, that's also no good because since מדין יוצא מן הסוכה that area is potentially part of the sukkah, so then mi-meila this is no good. Now the mashma'us in the Gemara is, let's say you would put it at the opposite end of the sukkah, let's say you would take this neser which is arba'ah tefachim wide and you'd put it along the ruach emtza'is, such that three tefachim are in the sukkah and the fourth one is an overhang outside of the sukkah. So the mashma'us is that that wouldn't be pasul, that would be good because the Gemara bi-davka describes the other case and invokes the din of yotzei min hasukkah. So the shaila is, but why is that, why would that be acceptable? The Gemara just explained to us that the whole reason hafchan al tziheihem is no good is because חפצא של סכך פסול. So if that's the case, so then this other case where you put it along the ruach emtza'is should also be no good. So ella mai, now the pshat in the Gemara is that whatever is chutz la-sukkah is k'man d'leisa. So therefore it's as if this neser is only a neser of gimmel tefachim. We don't care about the fact that this neser is daled tefachim wide is not relevant if one of those tefachim chutz la-sukkah it's k'man d'leisa, so it's as if it's a neser of gimmel tefachim. Let's maybe let's begin here in Pasuk Yud-Daled. Vayishlachehu me'emek chevron. יזכיר הכתוב והמקום ששלחו משם. Why is it relevant? The Pasuk is pointing out that Yosef HaTzadik's Yosef HaTzadik went from which airport he left to which airport he's arriving. What difference does it make?

לומר כי היה מרחק רב ביניהם. ולכן עשו עמו רעה כרחוקים היו מאביהם.

Okay, it's relevant to explain why the brothers felt that that opportunity presented itself and

ולהגיד כי יוסף לכבוד אביו נתאמץ ללכת אחריהם למקום מרוחק.

But Yosef also recognized that vulnerability. ולא אמר איך אלך והם שונאים אותי. And he didn't he didn't excuse himself from the shlichus based on the fact that the brothers hated him. Now, the Ramban says that this doesn't mean that Yosef knew or or suspected that maybe they wanted to kill him. Because in Pasuk Yud-Zayin the Ramban is about to say nasu mizeh. הסיעו עצמם מן האחווה. Right? They've they've disowned you. They've emotionally they've they've cut the the bond. Now,

נלכה דותן לבקש לך נכלי דתות שימיתוך בהם. ולפי פשוטו שם מקום הוא ונמצא יוצאים לידי פשוטו לשון רבנו שלמה.

And it's not the intent of Rabbeinu Shlomo what Chazal that Rashi is quoting. Chazal don't mean to say

שיפרש לו האיש נסעו מן האחווה והלכו להעדות עליך דיני תורה ומצוות.

It doesn't mean that the ish told him befeh maleh. No, what it means is

וידעו לכם שאם כן היה נמנע מללכת. ולא היה מסכן בעצמו.

So here the Ramban says explicitly that if Yosef HaTzadik had known that they were plotting to kill him, then obviously he would not have gone.

אבל הכוונה להם כי האיש גבריאל שהגיד לו הגיד האמת ואמר לשון המשמש לשני פנים ושניהם אמת. והוא לא הבין הנסתר.

Chazal are saying that this was a second a second there was a double entendre in what the Malach Gavriel said. Yosef HaTzadik only heard and understood the nigleh shebo. He didn't he didn't recognize the nistar shebo. So in light of this Ramban, but what does our Ramban mean when it says that even though Yosef knew they hated him, אף על פי כן he went? Maybe it means that he knew that he or he was choshesh that maybe they'd be chovel bo or maybe there would be some some unpleasantness associated with it. But lichora the Ramban doesn't mean here in Yud-Daled that based on vehem sone'im oso that he suspected that they had murderous intent. How does how does this Ramban square with the Ramban we spoke about last week where we understood the Ramban says that a person has a right to rely on bitachon bemakom mitzvah? So why is the Ramban so convinced that Yosef would not have gone had he known it was a sakana? No, maybe the same way the Ramban... that Shimon and Levi would have been justified in having bitachon and exposing themselves to sakana. And the simple answer is as follows that over there the mitzvah hamiduberet is the mitzvah to give misa to mishe mechuyav misa. Over here what the mitzvah we're talking about is kibud av va'em. Yosef understood very well that kahagai gavna that Yaakov Avinu wouldn't have wanted him to go. That when Yaakov Avinu asked him to go, it's only because Yaakov Avinu didn't think that there was any element of sakana. Over here once you recognize the sakana, there's no mitzvah anymore to volunteer for it. Yaakov Avinu kahagai gavna wouldn't want him to go. Let us see back to the Ramban at the end of Yud Dalet. Raboseinu baze midrash which Rashi quotes,

להשלים עצה עמוקה של חבר הנאה הקבור בחברון. וימצאהו איש והנה תעה בשדה וישאלהו האיש לאמר מה תבקש.

What why was Yosef wandering in the field? Because ונכנס בשדה כי במקום המרעה היה מבקשם. He's looking for them where they would be likely to be grazing. So he's not going to stay on the derech hamamelech. He's going to wander through the field looking for them. Vaya'arech hakatuv baze, why all these details? A,

להגיד כי סיבות רבות באו אליו שיוראו לחזור אבל הכל סבל לכבוד אביו.

Yosef had plenty of very valid, seemingly very valid excuses to go back, but he didn't. He persisted in kibud av. ולהודיענו עוד כי הגזירה אמת והחריצות שקר. The Hakadosh Baruch Hu's gezeira is emes, again emes also in the sense of that's what will materialize, that's what will happen. Not just emes that it's true in the present but emes and that that's what will materialize and hacharitzusa and whatever industriousness a person may exhibit, if it's not in accordance with Hakadosh Baruch Hu's plan, it's sheker, it's not going to happen. כי זימן לו הקדוש ברוך הוא, meaning over here seemingly it's so incidental that Yosef ever finds the brothers, what are the chances that that someone's going to tell him where to go? The whole thing is a whole seemingly string of coincidence. No, so the answer is no, that's what was supposed to happen and

כי הגזירה אמת והחריצות שקר כי זימן לו הקדוש ברוך הוא מורה דרך שלא מדעתו להביאו בידם.

Hakadosh Baruch Hu, He orchestrated that it should happen. Yes, bederech hateva it shouldn't have happened because Yosef had no way of knowing where they were. Hakadosh Baruch Hu orchestrated that it should happen. This idea that the Ramban lich'ora... Ramban comes to the end of Haazinu, the end of the shir in Haazinu.

הרנינו גוים עמו כי דם עבדיו יקום ונקם ישיב לצריו וכפר אדמתו עמו.

Ramban, again, it's a machlokes tannaim in Sanhedrin, the Ramban is assuming one side of that machlokes. Ramban says: הנה אין בשירה הזאת תנאי בתשובה ועבודה. That the ultimate geulah which is being prophesied here, ונקם ישיב לצריו וכפר אדמתו עמו, there's no hint, no stipulation of teshuvah.

וכשאר עדות שנעשה הרעות ושהוא יתברך יעשה בנו בתוכחות חמה אבל לא ישבית זכרנו וישוב ויתנחם ויפרע מן האויב בחרבו הקשה והגדולה והחזקה והגדולה והחזקה ויכפר על חטאתינו למען שמו. אם כן השירה הזאת הבטחה מבוארת בגאולה העתידה על כרחם של מינים.

Ramban basically, and it's again, very much related to what we're talking about in our Ramban, there's a certain course of history, but the result, the culmination of history, Hakadosh Baruch Hu has ordained, and it's going to happen with or without our cooperation. Right? הנה אין בשירה הזאת תנאי בתשובה ועבודה. And there will be, there will be a geulah ha'asidah regardless. Again, גזירת אמת וחפץ שקה. So what does that mean? What does that mean in terms of the meaning of our lives and the meaningfulness of our lives? So lichora, Ramban is telling us that Hakadosh Baruch Hu offers us the opportunity to play a role in that, to partner with him kavyachol in that happening. But me'idach gisa, he says, I'm not making that outcome conditional on your cooperation. The culmination, the result of history are preordained. It results in the geulah ha'asidah. Where we'll stand, where any particular yachid will stand in that picture, that taka he's going to determine. Whether he aligned himself with Hakadosh Baruch Hu and with the ratzon Hashem for the world and with that historical process, or rachmana litzlan differently, so that is that person determines and that he's responsible for. But says the Ramban, don't make the mistake of thinking that what the ultimate outcome... What's going to be is going to be. It can be because of us and it can be despite us and that's what the bechirah is, whether it's going to be because of us or Rachmana Litzlan the alternative. Wait, so maybe we'll stop here. Okay, we'll stop here. Hi. How's it going?