Pirkei Avos 2: Writing Down B’al Peh

So last time we had the Rambam in his Hakdama that

כל מצוה שניתנה לו משה בסיני בפירושה ניתנה שנאמר ואתנה לך את לוחות האבן והתורה והמצוה תורה זו תורה שבכתב ומצוה זה פירושה וציוונו לעשות התורה על פי המצוה ומצוה זו היא הנקראת תורה שבעל פה.

So the Rambam refers to Torah she-bikhtav, he says it is Torah she-bikhtav. And when he refers to תורה שבעל פה he says it's הנקראת תורה שבעל פה. So we we understood that mitzad hacheftza what we refer to as תורה שבעל פה mitzad hacheftza it's a cheftza shel peirush. It's the explanation, it's the commentary that that elucidates the Torah she-bikhtav. It's תורה שבעל פה mitzad hamesira mitzad how it's transmitted. But mitzad hacheftza the cheftza is is a cheftza shel peirush. Later on in the Hakdama the Rambam writes Rabbeinu ha-Kadosh, if you're looking in a Frankel it's on amud bet in the right hand column about a dozen lines up

רבנו הקדוש חיבר המשנה וממות משה ועד רבנו הקדוש לא חיברו חיבור שמלמדין אותו ברבים בתורה שבעל פה.

So this was unprecedented.

אלא בכל דור ודור ראש בית דין או נביא שיהיה באותו הדור כותב לעצמו זכרון בשמועה ששמע מרבותיו והוא מלמד על פה ברבים וכן כל אחד ואחד כותב לעצמו כפי כוחו מביאור התורה מהלכותיה כמו ששמע ומדברים שנתחדשו בכל דור ודור בדינים שלא למדו מפי השמועה אלא במידה משלוש עשרה מידות והסכימו עליהם בית דין הגדול וכן היה הדבר תמיד עד רבנו הקדוש.

So the Rambam says keseder long before Rabbeinu ha-Kadosh came along people used to write down תורה שבעל פה. That wasn't that wasn't something revolutionary

בימות רבנו הקדוש. וכן היה הדבר תמיד עד רבנו הקדוש

that kol echad v'echad I'm splicing here was כותב לעצמו זכרון בשמועות וכן kol echad v'echad כותב לעצמו כפי כוחו מביאור התורה מהלכותיה. So people used to take notes. They used to take notes. What was totally totally novel is that until that point you couldn't share your notes with anyone. You couldn't share your notes. The notes were there to to to prompt a person's own memory but the teaching, the transmitting was purely ba'al peh. That's what the הרב זכר צדיק לברכה used to point out in these lines in the Rambam that for the Rambam when the Gemara says that דברים שבעל פה אי אתה רשאי אומרן בכתב it means in terms of mesirat ha-Torah. It doesn't mean that the cheftza was supposed to always be purely ba'al peh. It meant that in terms of mesirat ha-Torah the mesirat ha-Torah was supposed to be panim el panim was supposed to be you were supposed to be mekabel Torah entirely from a rebbi not from a rebbi and also mitokh haktav but entirely from a rebbi. So that’s, that’s so the Rambam l'shitaso, again, it’s nikrays Torah she-be-al peh, it’s not a cheftza shel Torah she-be-al peh, it’s nikrays Torah she-be-al peh, again, mitzad ha-cheftza, it’s peirush. It’s nikrays Torah she-be-al peh because Moshe Rabbeinu, the way he transmitted the peirush was bal peh, and therefore it’s nikrays Torah she-be-al peh, and that, that was the whole, the whole hanhaga of דברים שבעל פה אי אתה רשאי לכותבן. Again, was a hanhaga that related to mesiras hatorah. It was never a din in the cheftza shel Torah that it wasn’t nitam lehikosiv, it was a din in the mesiras hatorah. Ad kan devarav, that’s what the Rav pointed out, again, that it was, that it was again hanhaga in mesiras hatorah. The Rambam continues, ve-hu kibetz, hu meaning Rabbeinu HaKadosh, kibetz kol ha-shmuos, again, in the Hakdama to Mishneh Torah, let’s have a take a look.

והוא קיבץ כל השמועות וכל הדינים וכל הביאורים והפירושים ששמעו ממשה רבינו ושלמדו בית דין של כל דור ודור בכל התורה כולה וחיבר מהכל ספר המשנה ושיננו ברבים.

So that again, that was the change, that was the shift, that they now began learning from a text.

ונגלה לכל ישראל וכתבו כולם ורבצה בכל מקום כדי שלא תשתכח תורה שבעל פה מישראל.

Good.

ולמה עשה רבינו הקדוש כך ולא הניח הדבר כמו שהיה?

Why did Rabbeinu HaKadosh shift? לפי שראה שהתלמידים מתמעטין והולכין, factor number one. Ve-ha-tzaros mis-chadshos u-ba-os, ומלכות הרשעה פושטת בעולם ומתגברת, two and three, but maybe we'll call it 2a, 2b.

וישראל מתגלגלים והולכים לקצוות, חיבר חיבור אחד להיות ביד כולם כדי שילמדו במהרה ולא תשכח.

So, so the Rambam explains the impending, partially already present, but then impending, intensifying persecution and the threat to the masora of Torah she-be-al peh if it would remain purely oral, and because of that Rabbeinu HaKadosh wrote it down. Good. But what the Rambam doesn't say is that it was based on an eis la-asos. Right, he sort of describes what what would qualify as an eis la-asos, but he doesn't invoke the halacha, he doesn't invoke the category of עת לעשות לה' הפרו תורתך. If you take a look at Rashi in Gittin, so Rashi in Gittin daf samech amud beis, udvarim, dibbur hamaschil

דברים שבעל פה אי אתה רשאי לכותבן, מכאן אתה לומד שהתלמוד לא ניתן להיכתב אלא מפני שהתורה משתכחת.

But why doesn't the Rambam invoke the eis la-asos? Why doesn't the Rambam invoke eis la-asos? דברים שבעל פה אי אתה רשאי לאומרם בכתב. So the Gemara here in Gittin, this is the Gemara that Rashi is commenting on, it appears in Tmura as well.

דרש רבי יהודה בר נחמני מתורגמניה דרבי שמעון בן לקיש,

ksiv

כתוב לך את הדברים האלה ו-ksiv כי על פי הדברים האלה,

ha-keitzad?

דברים שבכתב אי אתה רשאי לאומרם על פה, דברים שבעל פה אי אתה רשאי לאומרם בכתב.

So the mashmaos, so the Rambam lichora should have, and right, that's the way we always present it, it was an eis la-asos, it was an eis la-asos. The Rambam doesn't say that. was an eis la'asos. Agav that he's certainly describing the historical conditions that would warrant invoking that halacha, that category. So the pshat says is that even as something that relates to מסירת התורה שבעל פה, the Rambam doesn't hold that, the Rambam holds that this is an asmachta. רבי יהודה בן אחמני מתורגמניה דרבי שמעון בן לקיש, what he's saying is an asmachta. And the din is that תורה שבעל פה is to be transmitted as effectively as possible. That there is a chiyuv, the chiyuv of talmud torah is to perpetuate the masora and that mimeila that translates that you have to do it as effectively as possible. That might be ואלה המשפטים אשר תשים לפניהם כשולחן ערוך, that the clarity that is brought to bear, but it also means that clearly, clearly there's much more potential for confusion, for misunderstanding when there's no personal interaction between the Rebbe and the talmidim the way there is when you're when we learn a sefer. So mimeila the most effective, the most effective way to transmit the masora is al peh. And so he has an asmachta, he has an asmachta. At the very moment leaving תורה שבעל פה as such purely al peh, on the contrary, posed a danger to תורה שבעל פה being forgotten, so then it wasn't an eis la'asos, then me'ikar hadin you were supposed to write it down. And the Rambam never invokes, he never invokes the eis la'asos. Maybe explain that that's the pshat in the Rambam and the Rambam in the hakdama he says over here for all purposes כדי שילמדוהו במהרה ולא ישכח. Lichora it's very shver, why should you learn it quickly? You're going to miss out on something if you're learning it quicker you're probably going to lose quality. No, but since the whole point is to continue the mesora, therefore the ikar the focus became on learning it b'meheira so it doesn't get forgotten, not on meaning why b'meheira? Yeah, very good, yeah, very good. But you'll say that lichora the mahalech in the Rambam seems to be compelling but it's against the gemara. On amud aleph here in Gittin on samach amud aleph so the gemara has as follows:

רבי יוחנן ורבי שמעון בן לקיש מעייני בספרא דאגדתא בשבתא.

They were me'ayen in sifra d'agadata. They had b'ksav, we'll maybe try to hone our definition of agadata later בעזרת השם בלי נדר but agadata. והא לא ניתן ליכתב? Ay, how could they be learning from something b'ksav if the sefer never should have been written in the first place? אלא כיון דלא אפשר עת לעשות לה' הפרו תורתך. So Rashi says

והא לא ניתן ליכתב, שום דבר תלמוד והלכה ואגדה כדאמינון לקמן אלה את כותב.

So isn't this a tiyufta on what we're saying? So the emes is, the emes is like this, and and it's actually mefurash in the... The chochmah of ma'aseh bereishit and ma'aseh merkavah had been largely forgotten amongst the Am Yisrael. So he explains as follows. He says Chazal told us that initially even halachos shouldn't be written down to avoid possible confusion or inevitable confusion, not possible confusion, inevitable confusion vechulu. And then he says על אחת כמה וכמה that if even halacha which is exoteric, which is something that is mitzad the subject matter accessible to all of us, על אחת כמה וכמה when you're dealing with sitrei Torah that those can't be written down because there's an additional concern of people being exposed to it who are not ra'ui mitzad their understanding, mitzad their level of learning to be dealing with sitrei Torah. So it's klar that the Rambam says that when you go from the chelek hanigleh of Torah to the chelek hanistar of Torah, so there's a second issue involved in writing down divrei Torah. When you're dealing only with nigleh, so then the issue again is that it doesn't have the same writing it down invites misunderstanding, invites confusion in a way that the personal transmission doesn't. B, writing it down means that anyone can just pick up the sefer. Now that's not a problem in terms of nigleh because nigleh is intended for everyone, but that is a problem in terms of nistar. So lecha'orah it's klar that delo keRashi, the Rambam learns pshat in this gemara that the issur of lo nitan lehikatev and the fact that it's only muttar mitzad an eis la'asot was by sifrei aggad'ta. The sifrei aggad'ta was dealing with ma'aseh bereishit, ma'aseh merkavah, it was dealing with the chelek hanistar shebaTorah. The chelek hanistar shebaTorah, so that's takeh an issur me'ikar hadin, not mitzad that cheftza of Torah shebe'al peh. No, but mitzad the fact that ein mosrin, that you're only allowed to be moseir sitrei Torah to those who are re'uyim. The minute the mechaber writes something down, so then he loses control over who can access his sefer. So the Rambam learns pshat the gemara invokes an eis la'asot for writing down sitrei Torah, not for writing down halachos. The Rambam in his hakdamah to Moreh Nevuchim also invokes an eis la'asot. He says that I wrote this sefer because of an eis la'asot, because he's also not dealing with, he doesn't say that there's an eis la'asot in writing Mishneh Torah, but he says that he's relying on an eis la'asot, on a heter of eis la'asot in writing down what he wrote in the Moreh. So lefi zeh, that's the pshat here. I think we mentioned last time, I'm not sure, Rabbeinu Yonah comments on the line משה קיבל תורה מסיני to that agav, the Rambam that even before Rabbeinu Hakadosh, everyone used to write notes for themselves. So lecha'orah that's the pshat. I think maybe the Maharatz Chajes points this out. You find some places the gemara, the beginning for instance in perek hazoreik in Shabbos, the first time megillas setarim, that they found such and such in megillas setarim, a hidden megillah. So what was the what was the hidden megillah? So the pshat is according to him, that's what it means, that everyone who had notes, so the notes had to be hidden. You couldn't, a father couldn't, he couldn't be moreser the notes to his son even. the Rebbe couldn't be morish the notes to basically a person's notes when he died just was to go into geniza. So Megillas Stor means it was a it was a Megilla that was hidden but apparently not hidden well enough 100% of the time. So if they found it, how did they read it? Yeah, I don't know, so they shouldn't have looked. I don't know. I don't know. Okay. משה קיבל תורה מסיני u'mesarah l'Yehoshua. Ben Yona comments: משה קיבל תורה מסיני u'mesarah l'Yehoshua bein Torah she'bichtav bein Torah she'ba'al peh shehaTorah befeirusha nitnah. So it's a little difficult, the lashon haMishna is a little difficult, right? משה קיבל תורה מסיני u'mesarah, right, masar osah, so the antecedent of the osah is the Torah mentioned in the phase of משה קיבל תורה מסיני but it doesn't really have the same meaning. משה קיבל תורה מסיני means bein Torah she'bichtav bein Torah she'ba'al peh. The mesira l'Yehoshua was Torah she'ba'al peh. Moshe Rabbeinu didn't give Torah she'bichtav to Yehoshua more than to anyone else. He wrote 12 sifrei Torah and gave one to each sheivet and he wrote a 13th sefer Torah and put it in in the aron and so the mesira of Torah she'bichtav, Yehoshua doesn't stand out in terms of the mesira of Torah she'bichtav, Yehoshua obviously stands out in terms of the mesira of Torah she'ba'al peh. So it's kind of funny, משה קיבל תורה מסיני, so Torah has a broad meaning of Torah she'bichtav and Torah she'ba'al peh and u'mesarah l'Yehoshua, so then it has a more constricted meaning of of of Torah she'ba'al peh. It's not glatt. It's not glatt. L'chora. So take a look again here in in the Hakdamas HaRambam. כל המצוה שניתנו לו למשה בסיני בפירושה ניתנו. Shene'emar

ואתנה לך את לוחות האבן והתורה והמצוה. תורה זו תורה שבכתב ומצוה זה פירושה. וציוונו לעשות התורה על פי המצוה ומצוה זו היא הנקראת תורה שבעל פה.

Good. Weiter.

כל התורה כתבה משה רבינו קודם שימות בכתב ידו ונתן ספר לכל שבט ושבט וספר אחד נתנו לבני לוי ונתנו בארון לעד. שנאמר לקוח את ספר התורה הזה ושמתם אותו מצד ארון ברית השם אלוקיכם והיה שם בך לעד. והמצוה שהיא פירוש התורה לא כתבה אלא ציווה בה לזקנים וליהושע ולשאר כל ישראל שנאמר את כל הדבר אשר אנכי מצוה אתכם אותו תשמרו לעשות לא תוסף עליו ולא תגרע ממנו ומפני זה נקראת תורה שבעל פה.

Nachon?

והמצוה שהיא פירוש התורה לא כתבה אלא ציווה בה לזקנים וליהושע ולשאר כל ישראל ומפני זה נקראת תורה שבעל פה.

Meaning initially the Rambam said that we refer to the חפצא של פירוש התורה we refer to it as as Torah she'ba'al peh and now he explains to us why it's nikres Torah she'ba'al peh, right? Okay. The differentiation in in terms of mesiras haTorah between Torah she'bichtav and Torah she'ba'al peh. The Torah she'bichtav is nimseres bichtav. How do we maintain the masora of Torah she'bichtav? By copying sifrei Torah. We we have the sifrei Torah going back to to Moshe Rabbeinu and since then as the Gemara in Megilla says when you write a sefer Torah you you write from another sefer Torah. So the mesira of Torah she'bichtav is bichtav. The mesira of Torah she'ba'al peh was mi'rav l'talmid, midor l'dor but that differentiation be'ofen hamesira only happened when Moshe Rabbeinu was moser the Torah. In terms of Moshe Rabbeinu receiving the Torah, Hakadosh Baruch Hu didn't give Moshe Rabbeinu a gift-wrapped a on Zayin Adar a birthday present of, you know, here's here's a Sefer Torah. Hakadosh Baruch Hu dictated the Torah to Moshe Rabbeinu. Meaning that Moshe Rabbeinu received Torah Shebikhtav al peh. So the differentiation in terms of ofen hamesira happened at the next link in the shalsheles hamesora when Moshe Rabbeinu is moseir Torah. So then he's moseir Torah, that's what the Rambam is describing. כל התורה כתבה משה רבינו, this is how Moshe Rabbeinu was moseir Torah Shebikhtav. He was moseir Torah Shebikhtav by writing the Sefer Torah first, Sifrei Torah first. And how was Moshe Rabbeinu moseir Torah Sheba'al Peh? צוה בה ליהושע ולזקנים ולשאר כל ישראל. So the differentiation in ofen hamesira happened at the stage of Moshe l'Yehoshua, not at the stage of משה קיבל תורה מסיני, but at the stage of masra l'Yehoshua. So the pshat in the Mishnah is like this. The pshat in the Mishnah is that the Mishnah is telling us the shalsheles of the oral masora. So mimaila therefore it's understood that when you mention Torah at the stage of Moshe miSinai, so Torah has a broad meaning that it means Torah Shebikhtav and Torah Sheba'al Peh because at that first stage even the ofen hamesira of Torah Shebikhtav was ba'al peh and it's clear that subsequently you're only talking about Torah Sheba'al Peh because the differentiation happened happened there. Angav these lines, if you re-read these lines, they lekhora also reflect what we discussed before again.

כל המצות שנתנו לו למשה בסיני בפירושן נתנו, שנאמר ואתנה לך את לחת האבן והתורה והמצוה, תורה זו תורה שבכתב ומצוה זו פירושה, וצונו לעשות התורה על פי המצוה, ומצוה זו היא הנקראת תורה שבעל פה. כל התורה כתבה משה רבינו קודם שימות בכתב ידו ונתן ספר לכל שבט וספר אחד נתנו בארון לעד, שנאמר לקוח את ספר התורה הזה ושמתם אתו מצד ארון ברית ה' אלהיכם והיה שם בך לעד.

Good.

והמצוה שהיא פירוש התורה לא כתבה אלא צוה בה לזקנים וליהושע ולשאר כל ישראל, שנאמר את כל הדבר אשר אנכי מצוה אתכם אתו תשמרו לעשות לא תסף עליו ולא תגרע ממנו, מפני זה נקראת תורה שבעל פה.

The Rambam doesn't attribute Moshe Rabbeinu's transmitting the peirush haTorah orally to a tziva of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. He doesn't say

נצטוה משה רבינו שלא לכתוב אלא למסור על פה. והמצוה שהיא פירוש התורה לא כתבה,

subject Moshe Rabbeinu, right? אלא צוה בה לזקנים וליהושע ולשאר כל ישראל. The Rambam never attributes it to a mitzvah. Why? Because l'shitoso there is no din d'Oraisa that דברים שבעל פה אי אתה רשאי לאומרם בכתב. There's just a more general din of transmitting Torah to the best of your abilities. So the same way you have to choose your words carefully, chachamim hizaheru b'divreichem, you have to choose your words carefully to explain things as well as you can. הוא הדין הוא הטעם it should be, it should be ba'al peh but there's no gezeiras hakasuv of ba'al peh. So mimaila the Rambam doesn't attribute that to, now you'll taina I, but he doesn't attribute the ksiva to Hakadosh Baruch Hu either. That's not a taina. כל התורה כתבה משה רבינו קודם שימות בכתב ידו. Here too he doesn't say nitztava. That's not a question because hayos that the Rambam originally said that Torah is Torah Shebikhtav, meaning Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave it as Torah Shebikhtav. So it's clear that that indicates that it's from Hakadosh Baruch Hu that it has to be written. But Torah Sheba'al Peh is only nikreis Torah Sheba'al Peh. It wasn't that Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave Torah Sheba'al Peh, he gave a cheftza shel peirush which is nikreis Torah Sheba'al Peh. So there hasn't been any intimation that Hakadosh Baruch Hu said it has to be ba'al peh and then the Rambam doesn't intimate it. He takeh doesn't. Why? Because there is no such din and that's why the Rambam later doesn't need a. as effectively as possible for for 40 generations down to Rabbeinu Hakadosh, that was accomplished ba'al peh. And then b'yemei Rabbeinu Hakadosh, it became clear that it would be accomplished most effectively by also having an element. It's not, you know, a משל למה הדבר דומה, it's not, it's not an eis la'asot that that we're studying and learning Torah in English and not in Yiddish. So in in Eastern Europe, so the the best way to to teach Torah was in Yiddish, so they taught it in Yiddish. Here, where very few people are are fluent in in Yiddish, so the the best way to learn Torah is is in the language in which in which we're fluent. From Moshe Rabbeinu, what I don't really understand, I don't understand that how could Moshe believe that that not writing it down, that writing it, that speaking it to someone else and not writing it down or having it given out to everybody would be the best way of of transmitting the Torah she-ba'al peh. I forgot the question. At least writing it, I thought it would be easier to just write it down and and give it and write it down from the get-go. Why? But you just explained it. We're learning panim el panim, so it's something you don't understand so you're asking me. And and but if if we weren't learning panim el panim, so you wouldn't understand. The Rambam learns that's not to be achar hashishi, so he didn't really... sorry, a little louder please. The Rambam learns the ikar hadin is Torah has to be learned the most efficient way possible. So does that mean that for one to overextend themselves in learning, let's say goes to a shiur that's too hard for them or goes to a shiur Hebrew that they're not familiar with, are they over to some extent that din? Only if they fooled themselves into thinking that they understood what they didn't understand, but there's lots of opportunities that we take advantage of to do that, but there's no no issur per se. Does that mean... let's say, let's say an adam gadol comes and he's going to speak in in a language that that we're not conversant with, but you want to have the experience of being in the room with an adam gadol. Okay, so the Torah thought that was a good idea by Hakhel, it's hard to say that that you know that you know that we're going to rule it out. If I I go to the shiur and then I you know delude myself into thinking that I understood more than I did and I then quote him and I then represent this as being divrei Torah, so that that's no good. But k'she'hu l'atzmo, it's not a problem. We have we have a lot to make decisions when one has to decide whether they should push themselves to do something they're not comfortable with or they're not ready for yet or to hold back. So how does one balance that in terms of in light of this din? Again, lich'ora the same self-awareness. Clearly, you know as as you're saying, you know correctly... you know the first day a person opens a Gemora, so his understanding is obviously not as good as it's going to be on the second, third, fourth, or fifth days and and is going to be sub-par, but that's you know, that's the way a person develops, that's the way a person grows in learning and and that is part of the you know תורה נקנית בעמל וביגיעה on every level, you know on our level of making a leyning and on Rav Chaim and the Vilna Gaon's level of understanding Torah to you know its greatest depths. The fact that that that we're pushing ourselves, we just need to do it with a self-awareness of you know where we're holding in that process. Would it be okay if if somebody would rewrite the whole Gemara in English and we just learn from that? Because when they just wrote in Aramaic I'm assuming because that was the language. There is in the following sense. You're asking about the Yiddish, asking about in terms of the comment about Yiddish? There is in the following sense. The best translation in the world is never a good substitute for the original. Not not it's not a knock on a translator if if one says you know that you really should learn this in the original. The best translation in the world, no no two languages, A, no two languages totally, totally, totally align in terms of we can't... you know the way... so again, those of us who who you know who were born here and grew up here so we we you know our mother tongue is English. Okay, so the only way you learn anything is by translating, you know what does Lech Lecha mean? And we sort of it encourages a fallacy, you can't really avoid it, it's just at a certain point one is supposed to realize that that that it's a fallacy. It encourages a fallacy you know that languages align and and that Lech means go. And based on that so then we if we sort of never have a deeper understanding so then we think languages align and you don't lose anything in translation. So A, languages don't align. You know there are all kinds of nuances which is why if you ever try to translate a relatively simple passage and you try to translate it as well as possible it can mamash drive you crazy because the amount of effort and and thought that goes and even then it's going to be imperfect, but that it shouldn't be more imperfect than it has to be, it's a tremendous, tremendous avodah translation, it's a tremendous avodah because A, no two languages align. B, anytime anytime a person translates, al korcho what that now means is you know maybe there was some nuance, let's say so we've been we've spent the past 45 minutes just reading and rereading the same lines here in the Rambam's Hakdama. I don't know, so take take an English translation of the Hakdama and see, a well-done translation and see how much of this may you know could a person derive from all the again A, because the languages don't align and B, because if whenever you have a mechaber who who writes with subtlety so maichei taisi that the translator has a you know picks up on every subtlety and what he doesn't pick up on so then is not accessible to us. So if someone's a genius in learning languages and can do it very quickly, so avaday should learn Judeo-Arabic and study Peirush HaMishnayos in the original and learn Teshuvos HaRambam in the original, learn all those halakhos and in Is time that's going to be siphoned off from other things. And maybe a couple days ago you were talking about how why the Gemara quotes Havaminas that were just based off misconceptions and the goal of the Gemara is to let you live in the Beit Midrash of the Amora'im. Is that same idea because that's the best way for us to understand it in terms of the transmission connected with the fact that it should be oral, that it should be ish mi'pi ish as opposed to written? Yeah, there is overlap. I'm not sure that I would conflate the two, but there is overlap between those two things.