This transcript is auto-generated and may contain errors.
0:18 All right, say good morning. Good morning. Let us begin begin by thanking all of our sponsors for this morning. Here to thank our sponsors for the month of K for dedicating all this month in memory of Ben Abram, Mr. Jerome Kelman, our daff for today and Sarah Steinberg for dedicating the 0:41 sheer of a continued health and for an ultimate shala and of course say we dedicate our learning of our brothers and sisters in with the now what appears to be renewed stage of this war. We hope that help our brothers and sisters remain safe and secure. Allow our holy soldiers to be successful 1:04 and deliver decisive and final victory. Say with that let us begin today's 39. We are picking up on 38b and we left off um which is which is three lines up from the bottom. says remember again just yesterday we started a really interesting about if a Jew goes ahead 1:31 and shes an animal for an right so the now the relationship of the to the animal is interesting over here but the point over here is that the the Jewish Jewish the animal the Jewish the animal said that the iser rebel says ultimately again that it's possible and again rebel's logic seems to be that 1:56 has in mind for and that intention fundamentally invalidates the animals felt that in general the intentions of are not going to go ahead and impact the animal. So this is where we're picking up others say alternate version of this kind of left off in the middle a little bit over here. So others say that the in 2:23 a case where you hear the explicitly articulate his intent for right that's his intent for so what happened says when do we say that ultimately again this one sorry that means that when one person has intent Even though that's not the person who's actually performing the service or 2:53 performing the one with the intent could actually impact the nature of the so when do we say that that's only inside the that concept that an owner's intent can impact the carbon even though the owner is not the one doing it. That is a D inside of the B but outside of the BT I no. So the says 3:21 and therefore furthermore we do not learn out what happens outside of the BT from that which happens inside of the BT. So that's the tanama that's tanama comes along and says no not true not true we learn out what happens outside of the ba mdash from that which happens inside of the ba 3:46 mikdash and therefore again just like inside the ba mikdash the mava the mindset of the owner has the ability to impact the carbon even though the coin is doing the avod so to outside that could happen as well the akum has in mind for avo Even though that's shing it, the animal is still impacted. That's Rabbi Alazar and Rabio comes along and says argues on 4:10 this fundamentally he says and this is fascinating comes along and says no no no even inside the even itself we don't say that when the owner has an erroneous intent ultimately again that intent has no impact on the carbon why because the owner is not the one doing the aod. Okay. So say so that is so 4:40 according to this version this is our three-way mlo we're dealing with a case where we hear the explicitly articulating his intent for so will say will say that which means which means owner has negative intent but he's not the one doing the when can the owner's negative intent impact the 5:04 impact the animal even though he's not doing the even though he's not He's not doing the service. That's on the inside of the Bdash. Outside of the Bdash, that is not the case. And therefore, the animal is totally fine. When the Jew is it on behalf of the We do not learn out, we do not learn outside from inside. 5:27 Yes, we do. We learn out. We learn out. And therefore when the when the when the excuse me when the if the has intention for all the animal is going to be compromised and Rabiosi says you guys are both wrong even inside the there's no concept of the intentions of the owner do not 5:52 impact the carbon that the coin is performing the service for. Okay. So that is cashra says listen to this says person goes ahead and to go ahead and throw its blood forever is called now this is a little bit of a different case in this case over here 6:21 the the individual right the individual did not have in mind for but Theita was just forita purposes but he has in mind that afterwards the or the burning or or he'll burn the animal for the sake of the supposed it's a different kind of case. So remember if a Jew she an animal for the zara of course the animal is 6:45 assur in this case the was done is good was just done for but he has in mind at the time of the shita that he's going to do or he's going to burn the animal for the sake of so the sha is what is the status of the animal take a quick look at rashi rashi actually right across the says 7:16 obviously as you just mentioned before if a Jewish an animal and he has in mind that that animal should be used for everyone agrees of course the animal is going to be but rather what's the case here in this case his intention wasn't that the should be for. So what was it for? 7:50 You hear this unique here this k over here in this case over here the was done forita's sake but his intention was I'm going to do right I'm going to go ahead and sprinkle blood for a desoldara so what is the status of the in this case that you hear the sh the was done not for a zara but at the time of the he 8:13 has in mind that he's going to do other services now remember this is not a sacrificial animal this is a regular animal but he has in mind that he's going to do zika He has in mind he's going to go ahead and burn the animal for does that future intent of [clears throat] impact the itself says it's wow what's going on over here says why okay there two twofold twofold over 8:49 says the animal is possible. Right? Why? Number one, which means which means that when you are doing one, right? One stage, you can have intentions which ultimately have impa have impact at a later stage. That's number one. Stage one. And number two, 9:12 we learn out what happens outside of the BA mikdash from what happens inside of the BA mash. And just like inside of the B mikdash, if a coin she did an animal, remember right to take a classic case she's an animal with the intent to do something illegal later on. What's the status of that animal? Status of that animal pusle. Right? What's a good 9:35 example of that? Piggle, right? Pigle is a pragmatic example of that. at the time of pigle at the time of the call is shifting. What does he have in mind? I'm gonna eat the animal three days later or whatever two days later right that's so in the it is clear that what we call we could have intent from one aod to 9:57 another and ultimately again that has an impact and also so this is the position of says the animal number one AOD the intent that you have during one aod does not impact I should say differently intention for a later aod does not impact the current avod that's 10:22 really the better way to say it aod means do we say that intent for a later aod has an impact now on a current aod because remember again one more time let's reframe our case I'm a regular regular shifting a regular animal this is I was out of the base of mikdash What I'm doing over here is at the time of time of I'm having in mind to let's say 10:48 sprinkle the blood for a zor. Now the itself I have no intention for a zara is just but I have in mind afterwards to do something later on for a zor with this animal. So the shila is does my intention to do something later on for a zara impact the here and now. So both say that's the 11:13 says yes. Now that yes is built on two stages. Number one number one we should really work backwards. It's really number one is that we learn out mundane slaughter from what happens inside the B mikdash. So whatever happens in the B mdash right whatever whatever occurs in B mash also is reflected in the normative of that's 11:36 number one. And number two in the intent current excuse me current intent about a latter a impacts the here and now. So to again outside of the bdash current intent about a latter aod will impact the current avod now as well. Therefore, if at the time of 12:01 I have in mind to do something for Aldazar later on to sprinkle the blood that is going to currently impact the animal and invalidate the making the animals. Now on the other hand says no first of all number one we do not go ahead and learn out outside this is the process of outside and therefore by extension 12:26 of and therefore the is totally fine and both go according to their respective reasoning [clears throat] thear excuse supposed to listen to this the interesting case over here to go ahead and sprinkle his blood. 12:55 Okay. Okay, the says now say now again take a look at just a moment says remember again listen to this now we're going back to say in fact this is this is the first the first it's incredible how many times we keep referencing that Mishna so we'll say thank you so Thank you. Thank you so 13:26 much. Thank you, David. Says as follows. Listen to this. I go ahead and shut down with the intention to throw the blood again. Remember again in all other that even if you did the ultimately again the carbon is still effective is still effective. The exceptions to that 13:56 rule of course are in this case. Interestingly enough, what happened over here? The was done the but the but with the intention to do this shalom. 14:13 What's the status of that carbon says that it's possible says that it's both said this is the same says it's very simple which means what we could have intention currently for what happens at a later a intentionality intentionality at a later aod will impact the current avod. 14:49 Therefore again if at the time of I have in mind to go ahead and I [snorts] have in mind to do something that will impact the later okay and says it's why and will say no it's why because intention for a later does not does not impact current aod and therefore you're good to go we do not learn from piggle 15:20 So now this is the same exact the only thing that this later is missing is this whether or not we learn out because remember again this is not a case of this is a case of this is a case inside the mash but it's the same idea everything in this case we're really focused on one core concept which is if if a person has intention for a later 15:48 to do something illegal legal at a later aod will that impact the current aod they're engaged in. So in this case over here I'm shing the carbon totally thema but I have in mind to do the shalma later on. So the sh is does the subsequent does the subsequent have a negative impact on the current 16:11 says yes says no obviously asked a simple question which is why do you need to state the same twice if you would have just said the earlier case I would have said like this the reason ultimately says that in the first case which is the non-carbonic case. The reason he says that the animal does mut is very simply because we do not learn 16:38 out what happens outside the bash from what occurs inside the mik. But in the case of inside the ultimately again let's say that he agrees with and ultimately again this case but maybe again in the previous case with the nonbanic case maybe 17:09 therefore therefore we need both cases. So again, let's circle back to our core case. Let's leave aside carbonos cuz actually our topic over here is not really carbonos, right? What are we focusing on? We're focusing on now a little bit of a deviation from the Mishna. Whereas in the Mishna, I'm shing a carbon. I'm sorry. I'm shing an animal for an in this case over here that we 17:32 now transition to the case four lines down from the top. we're talking about over here where I'm and I have in mind to go ahead and throw its blood for the sake of a zor. So now the sh is does a subsequent for the zor does that negatively impact the 17:57 or not what that that's my question I have no intention for the zor but I do have intention for the zor by subsequent and there's a regular mundane animal that I'm shing so the sh essentially the shila is do we say that intention for a later for a later stage has an impact on a current stage right kind of 18:23 in parenthesis also is do we learn out right do we learn out what happens outside the base of from inside the but that is our core question we're dealing with so raises the following so this is remember again disagreed with both the tanakl and rael and he says We also remember again said in the 18:56 Mishna that even in the Bikdash where again everything goes ahead right in the B mikdash where erroneous mindset absolutely plays a role yet even in the B mikdash the only person who could compromise the carbon is who is the person who is engaged in the actual service the coin where intentionality plays no role. 19:21 What's the example where intentionality plays no role? Right? There's no you don't have to have any intention when you regular animal certainly everything should only follow the in that situation as well. So says one second. 19:40 What's the case of say where we say that doesn't play a role in what what does that mean? Are you telling me then that erroneous mindset has absolutely no impact by animal at all? In other words, we literally do not care what you think at all by one second. 20:03 That can't be true. Why can't that be true? What about the case ultimately again of for right remember again if mindset plays absolutely no role when it comes to then when are you ever going to have a case of an of of that becomes so I'm sorry 20:28 rather I will say what are we talking about over here we must be talking about Rashi says over it's the first of the intermediate wide lines rather say what must be saying is as follows saying is when he says he must be talking about the following case where you have in mind by a by by you have in 20:55 mind during the current aod to do something illegal by a subsequent aod that must be what he's talking about over here and then that doesn't have an impact. It means to say like this in a place where intention does play a role and even intention 21:25 plays a role yet even then it's only the intention of the person doing the service that has an impact. Okay, let me translate that into regular terms. What is he talking about? The only right really it's only in the BTS in the BT if you have in mind during one aod or another avod what's tal if you have intention during one aod to do something illegal by a subsequent what's that negatively 21:50 impacts the carbon right the classic example of that is pigle it's pigle so I have in mind during the to throw the blood you know a day later to eat the meat two days later that compromises the avod but even Who's who who's has the ability to compromise the carbon? Who has it? Only the ovate only 22:12 the not the owner. Rabio says yet when it comes to where intention by right intention by does not work. In other words, if you want to compromise a hulen animal, the only way to do it is to have illegal intent in what you're currently doing. To have illegal current illegal intent for some subsequent step is meaningless is 22:44 meaningless. It's certainly again and even there in the only person who could mess up the animal right invalidate the animal is going to be the himself. ultimately is going to be the person actually doing the that's coming along and saying is coming to address this idea that doesn't work doesn't work and therefore is saying is if at the time of the right 23:13 you have in mind to throw that blood for aar later on by it's not going to have any level of impact on the animal the is going to be totally fine incredible so the says here's the So based on what we just said the discussion what was just said regarding inside that's going to pose a problem to 23:40 outside. So ultimately again that's what she said regarding inside doesn't have to be one case could be talking about before he heard the teaching of and one is talking about after teaching but ultimately again the case outside of the B this poses a problem to which the says 24:13 Ultimately again he says it's referring to what the four now we'll discuss what this means just one side remember again also back to our days what are the primary four aodos when it comes to a carbon those are the four primary watch this what it means to say listen to this in a place right in a situation where 24:44 illegal intent ultimately has an impact has an impact say listen this when and when is that when is when does when does illegal intent have an impact even by when does illegal intent have an impact we'll say that's not all the time remember again your illegal intent only has an impact if you do it during one of 25:07 the primary four stages right That's when illegal intent has an impact and I will say not only that but whose illegal intent has an impact. So listen before you turn the page right so remember again this is very important here is really framing this now when does illegal intent have an impact right number one when does illegal intent have an impact right by carbonos carbonos 25:33 what we call pim mktash by carbonos that's number one when does illegal impact I'm sorry when does illegal intent have an impact when only during the forodosita that's fact number two and number Three whose illegal intent fundamentally compromises the carbon only who the right so those three facts are true the 25:58 says so so we'll say therefore again all the more so where ultimately again is not possible we'll say what's the case where ultimately intent intent doesn't it doesn't invalidate that's right because intent doesn't really matter. 26:26 So you say when it comes to ultimately again if you do have negative intent now I want to point out the only negative intent that you could really have by is what only negative intent is all the right so again that's what we keep saying so right but by where if you have negative intent that negative intent could only impact the animal if you had it in which what are we talking about over 26:49 here take a look Remember again by a animal, right? There's no aodos, so to speak. So there's two circumstances in which you can invalidate a animal with a what are the what are the two avodos? number one right in other words if when you slaughter the animal you have in mind for the other possibility ultimately is 27:20 and that's because the itself now looks when it comes to animal is only going to compromise the animal if you have in mind for in two bish So again say even though there's of course no den of by a animal but if when you animal you had in mind for that will invalidate the 28:00 animal okay so let's go back so now when it comes let's go read it again 39B 39B first when it comes to you could only compromise the animal in two which you have either by or by all the more so the only person who can invalidate that animal is who is who the 28:31 himself and not the owner that's the argument that's the argument. Let's analyze this a bit more. So, I just want to point out over here what what we have, right? We we pretty much have two concurrent cases that we're operating with over here. There's the case of Mishna. The case of the Mishna ultimately is I'ming an animal for an 28:54 for an a right I'm what's my intention? My intention is just regular. The intention of the akum is potentially for a zor. So the mish deals with the case of does the intention of the impact the animal that I am shifting. So that is a three-way. 29:14 Tanakama says no. Rabi Alzar says yes. Rabiosi says I don't even know what you guys are talking about because intention of the owner impacts nothing even inside the ba mikdash itself. That's our Mishna. Concurrently now the Gimar introduced another case where I my animal Jew I'm a Jew it's my animal and now I'm shifting ultimately again for 29:40 what for but not for there the question that then comes up is does intention about a latter stage impact current stage because my as far as is concerned I'm just doing a regular it just happens to be at the time of the I have in mind to do something later on for a zor does that currently impact the animal now or now so these are the two 30:08 cases and we're constantly going back and forth because there are a lot of principles at play let's go through what are the principles at play number one the most kind of the most overarching one is [snorts] do we learn out do we learn out what's happening outside of the medash from inside the mdash because inside the med it is Clear. It is clear that intention at one stage 30:33 will impact ultimately I should say intention for a later stage absolutely impact a current stage. That's unequivocally true in the BA mdash. So the shila is do we say what applies in the B mikdash ultimately applies outside the mikdash. That that's really the that's really the piece that's governing a lot of this tension as well. Good says 30:57 [clears throat] no. Say so four lines down from the top. So a person I an animal to throw its blood for the sake of or to offer up its fat for such a carbon ultimately again is another way of saying it's and therefore the impact of that ultimately again is that it is 31:32 okay. So that's case one. Now remember what's happening in this case over here in this case I have in mind at the time of the to do the for so this is view that such an animal is bustle even though again the is totally good but again 31:56 intention for a later stage has impact on the current stage theor says however listen to this in second case that's case one case two listen to this and we'll say what happens if I did the at the time of the I had just intention for regular and I had absolutely no intention for a des right here distinction in the cases in 32:27 case number one at the time of the I already know that I'm going to do for the sake of in right and says therefore the animal is right because why remember right so your mindset for a subsequent step or intention for a later step has an impact now in case two animal what's 32:52 my intention what's my intention dinner right that's my intention right after the is complete now I have in mind that you know what I'm going to take this blood I'm going to sprinkle it forever. So what's the status over here this was this was a situation came up in 33:18 so it's interesting so ultimately again they they they kind of left they didn't rule on it they didn't say they didn't say so listen to this now why not so ultimately again they did not say that The animal is out difference to the position of take a look at now. Watch this. This is incredible 34:03 in the Mishna. back back to our Mishna that that we do not say this is really this is really this is really incredible what do well so let's take a step back over here what do we have to be concerned about right let's go through this for just a second right I don't want to use me as an example ru right's an animal's an animal at the time of the totally fine then what happens after the 34:27 we hear him say I'm going to sprinkle this blood forever what do I have to be concerned about Maybe he really had intention for a zoro at the time of the if he had an intention for a what's the status of the animal the animal's no good so says so now watch this so right so that's our case over here so the says what what how do they roll this animal they didn't say 34:51 they didn't say they didn't say they didn't say because again sayan say that just because ruin is going ahead and saying now that is going to sprinkle the blood for that does not say that retroactively it's clear that he went ahead and he was a m already at the time of the we don't say that now this is back in the this is the same reason and 35:15 the say that if I'ming an animal on behalf of an what's the animal is why because we don't we don't say we do not assume that the has in mind for If he explicitly says it, he says it. So if you're saying that, right? If an doesn't have a ultimately again 35:44 then ultimately again certainly a Jew we do not say we do not say oh it's retroactively clarified that he had in mind that he had in mind ultimately again to go ahead and do from the time of the incredible it will say I'll just point out what what a profound skill right but what what what are the ra actually saying he will say now watch just what happened in 36:07 this case over here rub is is doing something really bad. Ruvane is doing something really bad, right? He's about to go ahead and sprinkle blood for a Zara. So it' be easy to say the fact that he's doing something bad now indicates that what that bad that bad kite was already there from the beginning, right? That must have been that even when he did the saying no, sometimes people do bad 36:33 stuff. When they do bad stuff, okay, that's very unfortunate. But the bad stuff now does not mean that the bad kite was there from the beginning. And I will say this is incredibly important because this is my that good people do very bad things. When good people do very bad things, what does it do? It kind of casts a cloud on all the good 36:56 stuff they did beforehand. And it's very important in life to be able to kind of create that distinction between okay right now unfortunately this person maybe did something really terrible and obviously that changes their status from this point forward but it does not necessarily reflect on all of the good they did before and the good that they did before could still be there could still be intact because yes sometimes 37:20 even very good people do very bad things and yes now sometimes the very bad is so bad that I can't ignore They can't be ignored going forward and their status has changed but it need not tarnish the good and the beautiful accomplishments they had beforehand. That's so on the other hand sorry but on the same time they also 37:46 couldn't permit the animal based on the cover remember holds and therefore based on would say that what when this has in mind to do for We say that what what does that show us retroactively it's clarified that what that what that he must have had ultimately by as well say this is wild 38:17 this is wild says one second so say first of all one second let's go back in the reason why the say that we don't say Right? Because we didn't hear the say anything. 38:43 But this is a different case. In this case, what's happening over here? Ruin is saying I'm sprinkling this blood for when he makes that statement about makes that declarative statement. Maybe we say what does that mean? 39:02 It means the end, right? The conclusion ultimately helps to frame the beginning. And since now we say I'm going to sprinkle that for come on that's a pretty good indicator that what that's a pretty good indicator that he had in mind during as well. Incredible. So furthermore again the other possibility is 39:30 but maybe the flip side maybe holds for yeah an has in mind for you don't say that this is incredible we'll say so much here I can say okay ank ultimately again always has a mind for the zor but heid just because ruin is saying now that he's going to sprinkle that blood for a des okay so 39:59 now unfortunately whatever he turned a negative theological corner now he's in a bad spot but just because he's in a bad spot now and just because he's doing the wrong thing now does not in any way mean that that shows that he was in a bad spot before whatever is happening now is happening now but we don't say So this is now a new term that the is introducing us to that we're going to 40:23 spend a little bit of time on means the end sheds light on the beginning right so do we say that since he is espousing this allegiance to at the it must mean that he had in mind for as well so this is the tension when we say that We did not go ahead and 40:51 say again let's come back let's come back what's our case our case over here again is going ahead to the animal right to the animal again in this version of we dealt decisively with our first case which initially was our question case which was the situation of where she's the animal and at the time of the he has a mind to do 41:13 so now in this iteration of the gim it's parit that the animal is user the animal is a now the case that's troubling us is which case at the time nothing then he says I'm going to do so says this happened this happened and 41:37 in case and they did not permit or forbid the animal they didn't permit it als and they didn't they didn't prohibit it alence else difference to okay further they did not go ahead and they did not go ahead and 42:01 so says which are we talking about so say this is really fascinating maybe maybe it's of so say what what's of so they want to listen to this Listen to this. If a totally healthy guy said write a get for my wife remember days. 42:23 So what happens? There's one critical piece of information that's that's missing from that statement which is right. Generally in order for instruction to give a get to one's wife you have to have the of to write to say to say right is not enough. It has to be in this case over here you just said. So what's he didn't say to so what what how 42:47 do we understand this statement he's just playing around with her okay interesting sense of humor right so listen to this says sorry just to give a little bit of context over here. This could be a situation of a man who's let's say going on a long journey. He's going overseas and therefore his wife says give me a get. 43:20 Now why is she saying give me a get? What is she concerned about if he gets lost on the voyage lost at sea? Let's say again she doesn't want to have and she doesn't she doesn't want a yeum situation. So because that she says I love you very much but give me a get. He doesn't want to give her a guest. So he just says to a group of guys okay write for my wife a get. Now he hopes that'll kind of calm her down but at the same 43:43 time he doesn't give the instruction of tu to give it. So because he doesn't give instruction of tu therefore it's not an effective get giving strategy. Now watch this listen to this story. Wow. There was a story once, this is my there was a story once that what happened a totally healthy guy who said to two people write it get for my wife now again he didn't say to he did not 44:11 say give it to her and what happens he went up to the rooftop and he fell off the roof and died so now the sh is now is like what what do we do what do we do so the says if unfortunately he took his own life, right? If he threw himself off the roof, then actually again the get is a get because understand what this means is 44:37 that then if he took his own life then what we understand over here is he wanted to give his wife a get because he wanted her to be a divorce not right because remember again he didn't want presumably to have to fall into the fact that he gave the instruction and then took his own life indicates to us okay he didn't say but that was more of an oversight than anything else Okay. 45:00 But if he went up on the roof and he was pushed off the roof by a by a strong wind, ain't no get. Ultimately, again, it's not a get. One second. The flow over here makes no sense. Right. We'll say on one hand, right? Remember again the started out by saying that if a guy says that is not an effective get. Then you bring a story and the story part a of 45:24 the story talks about again where it's an effective get. So how do you reconcile those two? Gimmor says there's a piece missing and here's how you have to understand it. Listen now watch this. If the end sheds light on the beginning then the get can be effective. What's the case of where the end sheds light on the beginning? 45:52 There was a healthy guy who said write a get for my wife. But he didn't say new. He didn't say give it to her. He went up on the roof. He threw himself off the roof. I'm sorry. And he fell off and he died. Says if he if he unfortunately took his own life then get ultimately again the get is good. Why? 46:17 Because the end sheds light on the beginning. The fact that he took his life he knew he was ending his life. And therefore when he said to the guys write a get for my wife he meant to go ahead and divorce his wife he left off to new for whatever the reason he was he had a lot in his mind obviously he left off to new but the end sheds light ultimately again in the beginning but ultimately again if the wind blew him off then ultimately it was an 46:42 accident and therefore it's not a get so this is the case of so no no this case is totally different why is this case totally different because this is not a case of where the end is shedding light in the beginning. This guy said write a gift for my wife. This is much more explicit. There's not there's there's a smidge of nuance, but this is not a nuanced case. This is a 47:05 pretty explicit case. Also, stop over today, but we're going to see again which case are we are we talking about. So, we'll stop here in the middle. So, we'll say also I want to draw your attention. I sent out a message yesterday on the WhatsApp chat, right? about about a a in the evenings to review the dah say again check your message if you didn't see it say this is really important because we're covering a lot of ground 47:28 we're doing a lot I I really think that a nightly a nightly 20 minutes after a rotation of guys to give that I think is is is critical to daff retention also will go ahead and give us the opportunity every night now again now I know when I say every night. Every night that may uh be a little bit unnerving. You don't have to commit to every night. No one 47:52 could commit to every single night. But again, if we could get the involved so take a look at it. Even if you know already you can't make it every night. You can make it one night, two nights. You want to participate in the rotation, don't want to participate in the rotation, whatever it is. But again, especially for a shar size, look at that message. If you commit to everyone, everyone absolutely has the ability to be able to commit to a couple of nights a week. Any schedule changes. We're not 48:16 taking attendance, right? Actually, we will be taking attendance. No, no attendance. Take a look at the chat. Don't make me make personal phone calls because that's that's the next step. That'll start happening by tomorrow. Have a great day.
Expand transcript 6,599 words
