## Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim

###### Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:1
[Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Noda%20BiYehudah%20I/s/Orach%20Chaim/r/2:1)

תשובה לחכם השלם כהר"ר שמואל פלאגי, מנהיג ופרנס לעדת ישורון קהל ספרדים ק"ק האמבורג:

**YU Torah miTzion Beit Midrash:**
This is a response in honor of the accomplished *Khacham¹* Rabbi Shim’own Palagi², the leader and supporter of the Congregation of the Righteous, the unique *Sefardic Kehilla* of Hamburg³.

footnotes:
¹ Among Sefardi Jews (particularly Spanish and Portuguese Jews), "Kakham" is the official title of the local rabbi, but it is not
² Possibly Palacci, there was a famous Turkish rabbinic family of that name earlier in the 18th century.
³ There were Portuguese Jews living in Hamburg as early as the 1590s. Records attest to their having a small synagogue called Talmud Torah in 1627, and the main synagogue, Beth Israel, was founded in 1652. From the 18th century on, the Portuguese Jews were increasingly outnumbered by "German Jews" (Ashkenazim). By 1900, they were thought to number only about 400.Hamburg's Sephardim took great interest in the movements of the false Messiah Shabbethai Zvi. They arranged celebrations in his honor in their principal synagogue, the young men wearing trimmings and sashes of green silk, "the livery of Shabbethai Zvi." Sasportas tried in vain to damp this enthusiasm, which was to be bitterly disappointed a few years later. Other rabbis of the congregation were Jacob ben Abraham Fidanque, Moses Ḥayyim Jesurun (d. 1691), Samuel Abaz (d. 1692), and Abraham ha-Kohen Pimentel (d. 1697).The Portuguese, proud of their noble lineage, were very dissatisfied at being put on a level with the German Jews, and segregated themselves more and more from them. As a result of this exclusiveness, and for want of fresh accessions, their community declined in the course of the eighteenth century and lost its leading position among the Hamburg Jews. Still, it had some well-known Ḥachamim, for example Jacob de Abraham Basan, who wrote an order of prayers (still extant) for a fast-day held after the 1755 Lisbon earthquake, and Benjamin Benveniste (d. 1757).


###### Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:2
[Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Noda%20BiYehudah%20I/s/Orach%20Chaim/r/2:2)

באת קולו שמעתי קורא אלי מתוך קונטרס הנדפס אשר התוכח עם חכם אחד בעירו דברי ריבות בשעריך שערי תפלה על דבר קריאת שם הנכבד אם להטעים נגינתו מלרע או מלעיל.

**YU Torah miTzion Beit Midrash:**
I heard his plea⁴ calling me concerning a printed pamphlet, which he argued with another *khacham* in his city – arguments heard in our courts⁵ – the gates of prayer – concerning the correct emphatic pronunciation of God’s name, whether it should be read emphasizing the last or first syllable⁶.

footnotes:
⁴ A play on the verse from Lamentations 3:56, quoted often in the litugy: קוֹלִ֖י שָׁמָ֑עְתָּ אַל־תַּעְלֵ֧ם אָזְנְךָ֛ לְרַוְחָתִ֖י לְשַׁוְעָתִֽי׃Hear my plea; Do not shut Your ear To my groan, to my cry!
⁵ Deuteronomy 17:8 a clever play on the meaning of this verse:כִּ֣י יִפָּלֵא֩ מִמְּךָ֨ דָבָ֜ר לַמִּשְׁפָּ֗ט בֵּֽין־דָּ֨ם ׀ לְדָ֜ם בֵּֽין־דִּ֣ין לְדִ֗ין וּבֵ֥ין נֶ֙גַע֙ לָנֶ֔גַע דִּבְרֵ֥י רִיבֹ֖ת בִּשְׁעָרֶ֑יךָ וְקַמְתָּ֣ וְעָלִ֔יתָ אֶל־הַמָּק֔וֹם אֲשֶׁ֥ר יִבְחַ֛ר יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ בּֽוֹ׃ If a case is too baffling for you to decide, be it a controversy over homicide, civil law, or assault—matters of dispute in your courts—you shall promptly repair to the place that the LORD your God will have chosen
⁶ Ah-DOH-nye vs Ah-doh-NYE


###### Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:3
[Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Noda%20BiYehudah%20I/s/Orach%20Chaim/r/2:3)

ומענין לענין באותו ענין אשר הגיה עוד ב' או ג' דברים במחזורים אשר לפי דעתו המתפלל כפי הנוסחא הישנה אשר במחזורים אינו אלא מחרף ומגדף.

**YU Torah miTzion Beit Midrash:**
From one issue to another within the same topic, which he edited two or three statements in our prayer books, which he felt that one who prayed according to the traditional text would only be blaspheming⁷ the name.

footnotes:
⁷ Lit. ‘shaming [calling of names] and cursing’


###### Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:4
[Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Noda%20BiYehudah%20I/s/Orach%20Chaim/r/2:4)

והנה אני תמה על שבחרו לשלוח שאלות הללו לחכמים ולרבנים זיל קרי הוא שאלו לבעלי מקרא, וגם אני מבחוץ ולא ידעתי מי הוא איש ריבו שכנגדו החולק עליו.

**YU Torah miTzion Beit Midrash:**
I am somewhat perplexed about the issue at hand, why they chose to send these queries to rabbinic sages! It is a matter of [proper] reading⁸</b>*uktiv*****) etc., Radak in his introduction to Joshua claims that these were due to different texts of the Bible. ! Go and ask biblical experts! Besides, I am an outsider, as I do not recognize who it is that was arguing with him!

footnotes:
⁸ Regarding words that are written one way but are read [pronounced] another way (kri


###### Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:5
[Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Noda%20BiYehudah%20I/s/Orach%20Chaim/r/2:5)

וגם את מע"ל אם ראיתי שמו החתום לא ידענא ליה כי בריחוק מקום הוא ממני ולא אדע את האיש רק ידעתי את שיחו שיחה נאה. אך דומה לשיח במדבר מקום הפקר כאילו אין מכריע במקומם בדבר פשוט כזה עד שהוצרכו לשלוח למרחקים.

**YU Torah miTzion Beit Midrash:**
Also, my esteemed interlocutor, if I saw his signature, I would not have recognized it, as he is far away from me⁹ I do not even know him, just his fine elocution. Nonetheless, this is akin to one who speaks in a wilderness¹⁰, as if there is no one there [in Hamburg] who could decide such a simple matter, to the extent that they took the expense to send it far away to me.

footnotes:
⁹ 600 Km; possibly closer to Amsterdam, especially since one could travel by ship….Also, there was – and still is- an established Portugese Sefardic community there.
¹⁰ In this sense, a place of lawlessness – no noe there who might heed to Rabbi Landau’s expert opinions.


###### Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:6
[Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Noda%20BiYehudah%20I/s/Orach%20Chaim/r/2:6)

והנה בחכמת הדקדוק אין לי יד ושם ולא למדתי מעולם אפילו אפס קצה מחכמה זו. אבל בדבר פשוט כזה אפילו תינוקות של בית רבן יודעים שרוב המלות מלרע זולת אם לא תהא אחרונה ראויה לקבל הטעימה או שאר טעמים אחרים ידועים למדקדקים שאז נדחה הטעם ממקומו הראוי והוא מלעיל.

**YU Torah miTzion Beit Midrash:**
I admit, that when it comes to the laws of Hebrew grammar [‘*dikduk*’] I do not have a firm grounding¹¹ in it. I have not studies it at all, even the smallest corner this scholarly topic. However, with something so simple, that even the youngest schoolchildren in Jewish studies know that most words are pronounced on their final syllables, except, if the final syllable cannot be accented¹² or have other diacritical marks known to the grammarians, as then it is moved from its usual place and place on an earlier syllable.

footnotes:
¹¹ Again, a play on the words, this from Isaiah 56:5 – וְנָתַתִּ֨י לָהֶ֜ם בְּבֵיתִ֤י וּבְחֽוֹמֹתַי֙ יָ֣ד וָשֵׁ֔ם ט֖וֹב מִבָּנִ֣ים וּמִבָּנ֑וֹת שֵׁ֤ם עוֹלָם֙ אֶתֶּן־ל֔וֹ אֲשֶׁ֖ר לֹ֥א יִכָּרֵֽת׃ (ס)I will give them, in My House And within My walls, A monument and a name Better than sons or daughters. I will give them an everlasting name Which shall not perish.
¹² The Oral Torah – as found in the Aleppo Codex, shows us how to pronounce the words of the entire Bible. There are diacritical mark – likely meant as musical notes as well, that point to the accentuation.


###### Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:7
[Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Noda%20BiYehudah%20I/s/Orach%20Chaim/r/2:7)

אבל בשם הנכבד למה יגרע שם אבינו מלבוא בו הטעם כמשפטו הלא הנו"ן נקודה בת"ג ולא נראה ולית כאן ספיקא שהטעם מלרע ולא שמענו מעולם שום פקפוק בדבר הזה וכל המשנה אינו אלא טועה והמחזיק במחלוקת ועומד על דעתו לקרות מלעיל הוא עצמו מלרע וידו על התחתונה.

**YU Torah miTzion Beit Midrash:**
However, when it comes to the respected name of God, why should the pronunciation be lost¹³ from being said properly? The letter *noon* is associated with a hard vowel¹⁴) creating the ‘aye’ vowel with the N consonant, pronounced …Naiye…, plain to see, and there is no doubt that the word is accented on the last syllable¹⁵. I have heard differently concerning this. Anyone who changes this is in error. One who continues this argument, holding fast to the position that the accent is on the first syllable, he himself is evil and his argument is untenable¹⁶.

footnotes:
¹³ A play on the verse from Number 27:4 – לָ֣מָּה יִגָּרַ֤ע שֵׁם־אָבִ֙ינוּ֙ מִתּ֣וֹךְ מִשְׁפַּחְתּ֔וֹ כִּ֛י אֵ֥ין ל֖וֹ בֵּ֑ן תְּנָה־לָּ֣נוּ אֲחֻזָּ֔ה בְּת֖וֹךְ אֲחֵ֥י אָבִֽינוּ׃ Let not our father’s name be lost to his clan just because he had no son! Give us a holding among our father’s kinsmen!”
¹⁴ In English ‘Ay’ vs. ‘ah’. In this case the ‘hard’ A is associated with a vowel-letter (yod
¹⁵ See note 5
¹⁶ An expression to mean that one loses the argument. The source of it is in the Mishna, tractate Bava Metzi’ah 6:2 – particularly the last sentence – where it states:הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הָאֻמָּנִין וְחָזְרוּ בָהֶן, יָדָן עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה. אִם בַּעַל הַבַּיִת חוֹזֵר בּוֹ, יָדוֹ עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה. כָּל הַמְשַׁנֶּה, יָדוֹ עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה. וְכָל הַחוֹזֵר בּוֹ, יָדוֹ עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה[If] one hires craftsmen and they retracted, they have the lower hand. If the employer retracted, he has the lower hand. Whoever changes [the conditions] has the lower hand. And whoever retracts has the lower hand.


###### Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:8
[Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Noda%20BiYehudah%20I/s/Orach%20Chaim/r/2:8)

וחלילה עוד לעורר מחלוקת בדבר הזה והתורה אמרה שם הקדוש ימחה על המים לעשות שלום ק"ו שלא יגרום מחלוקת, ולכן כל אחד מהצדדים יהיה נוח לרצות והעבר אין ואם אין לשכנגדו שום טעם בדבר רק מה שבא בקונטרס דבריו בטלים ואין כדאי להשיב עליהם.

**YU Torah miTzion Beit Midrash:**
Heaven forbid that I should prolong this argument, as it was taught in the Torah that it is better to erase God’s name in water to promote peace¹⁷’) as noted in the Midrash Sifrei on Numbers :
ספרי במדבר יז
...ומחה בדבר הנמחה והלא דברים קל וחומר ומה להטיל שלום בין איש לאשתו אמר המקום ספר שנכתב בקדושה ימחה על המים, ספרי מינים שמטילין איבה ושנאה וקנאה ובעלי ריבות על אחת כמה וכמה שימחו מן העולם...
(He must write it) on something that can be erased. Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If in order to make peace between a man and his wife, the L-rd said: A scroll written in holiness — let it be erased by the waters, then the scrolls of heretics, which inject (into the world) contempt and hatred and envy and contention — how much more so should they be erased from the world!, certainly not to promote argument, so that each of the sides be amenable to appeasement, and let bygones be bygones. If there is no other reason for their position, except from this published pamphlet, it is meaningless, not even worth it to respond to it!

footnotes:
¹⁷ This concept is an allusion to the erasure of God’s name in the bitter waters given to a suspected adulteress (‘Sotah


###### Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:9
[Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Noda%20BiYehudah%20I/s/Orach%20Chaim/r/2:9)

ואנן מהחזנים ניקו ונגמר והלא זה דרכם כסל למו עבור השמעת קולם המה משברים כל מלה לשברי שברים ודברים אינם נשמעים זולתי קול ושברו עמו.

**YU Torah miTzion Beit Midrash:**
Those of our cantors who clearly do this¹⁸ are just demonstrating their usual arrogant and foolish ways¹⁹ to have their singing voices heard; they smash the Hebrew words into pieces, and one cannot understand properly what they are saying – just a voice with the mispronounced words.

footnotes:
¹⁸ Lit. they assume this as ‘cleaned up and final’
¹⁹ A play on the words from Psalms 49:14 – זֶ֣ה דַ֭רְכָּם כֵּ֣סֶל לָ֑מוֹ וְאַחֲרֵיהֶ֓ם ׀ בְּפִיהֶ֖ם יִרְצ֣וּ סֶֽלָה׃ Such is the fate of those who are self-confident, the end of those pleased with their own talk. Selah.


###### Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:10
[Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Noda%20BiYehudah%20I/s/Orach%20Chaim/r/2:10)

אבל לא אאמין על אדם שיש לו ריח תורה יחזיק בטעמים חלושים ופגומים כאלו. ולכן אם יש לכשנגדו איזה טעם הגון בזה יודיע דבריו. זולת זה שאר דברים שרצה להגיה במחזורים כמו בפיוט זכר נמ"ת עדות לא תשכח מפי זרעו שהגיה מע"ל נאמ"ת.

**YU Torah miTzion Beit Midrash:**
However, I cannot believe that any man who has learned even a bit of Torah, would hold on to such weak and unconvincing reasoning. Ergo, if there was some reasonable explanation, it would be made known. Besides this, there are other matters that he wished to edit in our *makhzorim²⁰* such as the poem line “remember that you ***slept*** (*naMata*) as a witness that the Torah will never be forgotten by our progeny” ²¹ David Abudirham (fl. 1340) (Hebrew: דוד אבודרהם‎‎) or Abu Dirham) was a rishon who lived at Seville and was known for his commentary on the Synagogue liturgy. He is said to have been a student of Jacob ben Asher (The *Tur*). Zecher Namat is one of the poems written for the Yom Kippur services.²² service (which describes the central aspect of the High Priests service in the Temple). The paragraph begims with "Lord and the Lord of our Fathers: Do not finish us!.....” (או"א על תעת עמנו כלה). The Vilna edition – nor the ArtScroll- have the word נאמת of נמת . They have the term זכר שחתה remember the conversation….See note 28 for the author, my esteemed interlocutor edited that term as ‘orated’ (*na’amta*).

footnotes:
²⁰ Holiday prayer books, in this case the holiday is Yom Kippur
²¹ Written by Khacham
²² This gets more interesting. The liturgical poem is recited after the avoda


###### Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:11
[Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Noda%20BiYehudah%20I/s/Orach%20Chaim/r/2:11)

הנה בוודאי צחות הלשון כפי שראוי להתפלל בלשון הקודש שהוא לשון שמלאכי השרת נזקקין לו הוא נאמת שכן הוא שורש המלה בלה"ק נאה.

**YU Torah miTzion Beit Midrash:**
Indeed, the clarity of the language necessary for our prayers in our unique tongue, is the special language that God’s emissaries depend on from us, the word is pronounced *NA-am-ta*, as the source term for this word in our unique language is *NA-am* (to speak or orate),


###### Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:12
[Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Noda%20BiYehudah%20I/s/Orach%20Chaim/r/2:12)

אבל מי שאינו משנה נוסח הקדמונים ואומר נמ"ת ג"כ לא משתבש. ולא כמו שעלה על דעתו שזהו חירוף וגידוף כי נמת פירוש ישנת משורש נמו שנתם לשון שינה ותנומה.

**YU Torah miTzion Beit Midrash:**
However, one who does not change the traditional liturgy, and says ‘*namTa*’, also does not err. It is not as one would say that this person blasphemed, as the definition of ‘*namTA*’ is ‘you slept’, from the source term ‘*namu shnatam*’²³ (they were in a stupor), meaning sleeping or napping.²⁴

footnotes:
²³ This from psalms 76:5אֶשְׁתּוֹלְל֨וּ ׀ אַבִּ֣ירֵי לֵ֭ב נָמ֣וּ שְׁנָתָ֑ם וְלֹא־מָצְא֖וּ כָל־אַנְשֵׁי־חַ֣יִל יְדֵיהֶֽם׃ The stout-hearted were despoiled; they were in a stupor; the bravest of men could not lift a hand.
²⁴ This would indeed be ‘blasphemous’ as it implied that God was sleeping when ‘he’ made that promise to us!


###### Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:13
[Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Noda%20BiYehudah%20I/s/Orach%20Chaim/r/2:13)

הנה אמת כי כן הוא בלשון הקודש אבל הלא ידוע שהרבה נשתמשו הפייטנים בלשון ארמי ובלשון תלמוד נם הוא לשון דיבור ובספרי פרשת בהעלותך נם לו ר' יאשי' נם לי ר' יונתן וכו'.

**YU Torah miTzion Beit Midrash:**
While this is true regarding the ‘holy tongue’ (Hebrew), it is well known that the liturgical poets used Aramaic as well. In the language of the Talmud (Aramaic), ‘*Nam*’ has the meaning of speaking, as found in the Midrash Sifrei on the Torah weekly portion of *Beha’alotcha²⁵*: ‘Rabbi Yoshi’a spoke (‘*Nam*’): Rabbi Yonatan spoke (‘*Nam*’)to me”²⁶.

footnotes:
²⁵ Numbers 8:1-12:16
²⁶ ספרי במדבר פסקא סה......אמר לו ר' יונתן ממשמע הזה עדיין לא שמענו, נם לו רבי יאשיה מפני שהוא אומר צו את בני ישראל את קרבני לחמי וכו'R. Yonathan (to R. Yoshiyah): This is not sufficient (for the derivation [i.e., "in its appointed time" may mean if it does not fall out on a Sabbath.]) R. Yoshiyah (to R. Yonathan): Rather, it is written (Bamidbar 28:2) "Command the children of Israel and say to them … to offer (the tamid) offering to Me in its appointed time


###### Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:14
[Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Noda%20BiYehudah%20I/s/Orach%20Chaim/r/2:14)

וכל מלת נימא שבתלמוד הוא כזה ולא אפרטם כי כל התלמוד מלא מזה ולאו דוקא בתלמוד אלא אפילו בלשון משנה שהוא לשון צח וברור ג"כ נשתמשו במלה זו.

**YU Torah miTzion Beit Midrash:**
In the Talmud, the word ‘*nayma*’ is used so often that I do not have to list examples, and not only in the Talmud, but the Mishna as well, who linguistics are clear and precise, also used this term.²⁷ is of the same word source as *nam* meaning: to say.

footnotes:
²⁷ The term nayma


###### Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:15
[Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Noda%20BiYehudah%20I/s/Orach%20Chaim/r/2:15)

ובשלהי יבמות דף קכ"ב ע"א במשנה אמר ר"ע ונומיתי לו כן הדברים וכו'. ופי' רש"י ונומיתי ואמרתי.

**YU Torah miTzion Beit Midrash:**
Towards the very end of tractate *Yevamot* on page 122a in the Mishna²⁸ it states: “ Rabbi Akiva stated….and I told him [*ve’namiti*]” Rash”I explained *venamiti*: ‘I told him’.

footnotes:
²⁸ יבמות קכב.אמר רבי עקיבא: כשירדתי לנהרדעא לעבר השנה, מצאתי נחמיה איש בית דלי. אמר לי: שמעתי שאין משיאין את האשה בארץ ישראל על פי עד אחד, אלא, יהודה בן בבא, ונומיתי לו, כן הדברים. אמר לי: אמור להם משמי: אתם יודעים שהמדינה משובשת בגייסות, מקובלני מר"ג הזקן שמשיאין את האשה על פי עד אחדRabbi Akiva said: When I descended to Neharde’a, in Babylonia, to intercalate the year, I found the Sage Neḥemya of Beit D’li. He said to me: I heard that the Sages in Eretz Yisrael do not allow a woman to remarry based on the testimony of a single witness, except for Yehuda ben Bava. And I told him: That is so. He said to me: Tell the Sages in my name: You know that the country is confounded by army troops, and I cannot come myself. I declare that I received this tradition from Rabban Gamliel the Elder, that the court may allow a woman to remarry based on the testimony of a single witness.


###### Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:16
[Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Noda%20BiYehudah%20I/s/Orach%20Chaim/r/2:16)

ובגיטין שלהי פרק תתקבל א"ר יוסי נומינו לשליח.

**YU Torah miTzion Beit Midrash:**
Also in tractate *Gittin*, towards the end of the chapter entitled ‘Accept’²⁹: “Rabbi Yossi stated: We said to the agent…”

footnotes:
²⁹ תלמוד בבלי מסכת גיטין דף סו עמוד ב ...וזו הלכה העלה רבי חנינא איש אונו מבית האסורין: מקובל אני, באומר לשלשה תנו גט לאשתי – שיאמרו לאחרים ויכתבו, מפני שעשאן ב"ד. אמר רבי יוסי, נומינו לשליח: אף אנו מקובלין, שאפי' אמר לב"ד הגדול שבירושלים תנו גט לאשתי – שילמדו ויכתבו ויתנוAnd it is that halakha that Rabbi Ḥanina of Ono brought up from prison in the name of Rabbi Akiva, who was incarcerated there: I received a tradition from my teachers that in a case where a man says to three people: Give a bill of divorce to my wife, that these people should tell others and those others will write the document, because he designated the three people as a court.Rabbi Yosei said: We said [nomeinu] to the agent, Rabbi Ḥanina of Ono: We too received a tradition. However, it is a different one, that even if a man said to the High Court [Sanhedrin] in Jerusalem: Give a bill of divorce to my wife, that the members of the court should learn to write, and should write the document themselves, and give it to his wife.


###### Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:17
[Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Noda%20BiYehudah%20I/s/Orach%20Chaim/r/2:17)

ובזבחים דף מ"ה ע"ב נומא ר"ש פירש רש"י בשם ר' משלם הזקן שבשעת מיתתו פירש נומא ר"ש כמו אמר ר"ש.

**YU Torah miTzion Beit Midrash:**
In tractate *Zevkhim* 45b: ³⁰ “Rabbi Shim’own declares”³¹’, Rash”i³² Rabbi Shim’own” is like “Rabbi Shim’own said (‘declared’)”. Also, in my scrolls, the text stated (in the words prior to ‘Rabbi Shim’own declard) ‘The blood and that which was with it’. explained in the name of Rabbi Meshulam the elder³³ that on his deathbed, he explained ‘*nooma* Rabbi Shim’own’, as “Rabbi Shim’own said”.

footnotes:
³⁰ תלמוד בבלי מסכת זבחים דף מה עמוד בדברים שאין חייבים עליהם משום פיגול – חייבין עליהן משום נותר ומשום טמא, חוץ מן הדם; [נומי] ר' שמעון מחייב בדבר שדרכן לאכול; אבל העצים והלבונה והקטורת – אין חייבין עליו משום טומאהThe things which do not involve liability on account of piggul (enumerated in a Mishna on 42b-43a), involve liability on account of nothar and defilement except blood. R. Simeon declares one liable in respect of anything which is normally eaten, but the wood, the frankincense and the incense do not involve liability on account of defilement
³¹ See note 36 for a more complete text. It should be noted that this is an example of differing editions. The current Vilna Talmud does not have the term ‘Nomi
³² רש"י מסכת זבחים דף מה עמוד ב"נומי ר"ש: בדבר שדרכו לאכול חייב" – וכך שמעתי מבית מדרשו של רבינו יעקב. ול"נ: שכך פירש ר' משולם בר קלונימוס גאון בשעת מיתתו: "נומי" ר"ש – כמו "אמר ר"ש", ובספרים היה כתוב הדם ועמו.“Rabbi Shim’own declared: …. in respect of anything which is normally eaten” – So I had heard it from our Rabbi Yaakov.( At the age of 17 he married and soon after went to learn in the yeshiva of Rabbi Yaakov ben Yakar in Worms, returning to his wife three times yearly, for the Days of Awe, Passover and Shavuot. When Rabbi Yaakov died in 1064, Rashi continued learning in Worms for another year in the yeshiva of his relative, Rabbi Isaac ben Eliezer Halevi, who was also chief rabbi of Worms. Rashi's teachers were students of Rabbeinu Gershom and Rabbi Eliezer Hagadol, leading Talmudists of the previous generation.) It seems to me, that this was the teaching of Rabbi Meshulam bar Klonimus, Gaon (Known as Meshulam the Great, lived in Lucca, Tuscany. He was born in the 10th century and died 1020), on his death bed: “Noomi
³³ Actually, Rabbi Meshulam the Great – see note 37


###### Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:18
[Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Noda%20BiYehudah%20I/s/Orach%20Chaim/r/2:18)

ועד שאני מביא מלשון התלמוד והמשנה אראנו מקרא מלא עזרא ד' ח' לארתחששתא מלכא כנמא שפירוש של כנמא כאשר נאמר והשורש נס כי האל"ף שבסוף כנמא הוא על שהוא לשון רבים וכן הוכפל דבר זה עצמו עוד בעזרא בכמה מקומות.

**YU Torah miTzion Beit Midrash:**
Now that I have brought examples from the Talmud and the Mishna³⁴, I will show him an example from the Bible³⁵, from the Book of Ezra 4:8³⁶ “to King Artaxerxes [saying-*kenama*] as follows:…”. The meaning of the term ‘*ke-nama*’ is ‘saying as follows’. The Hebrew root of the verb is *nam³⁷ is a two letter word, as Rabbi Landau is expressing the knowledge of Rashi’s grammatical sense. This is likely incorrect, as the grammatical giant of Spain, such as Ibn Gevirol and Ibn Ezra have determined the three letter root for nearly all verbs. All Hebrew verbs (and many nouns) derive from a 3-consonant (and rarely 4) shoresh* or root, which is not a word itself but which forms the basis for a number of Hebrew verbs and words that share the same root. As a matter-of-fact, the 4 letter roots are almost always repetitive sets of two letters. In this case, *nam-nam* which, as we saw on page 4 above, implies dozing or sleeping!, as the letter *aleph* (א) at the end of *na-ma* denotes a sense of plural. It has been repeatedly used in other places in the Book of Ezra.

footnotes:
³⁴ As the changes were made to the liturgy, the primary language style used is rabbinic (Talmud/Mishna), it was appropriate to begin with those examples.
³⁵ Lit. ‘holy writ’
³⁶ רְח֣וּם בְּעֵל־טְעֵ֗ם וְשִׁמְשַׁי֙ סָֽפְרָ֔א כְּתַ֛בוּ אִגְּרָ֥ה חֲדָ֖ה עַל־יְרוּשְׁלֶ֑ם לְאַרְתַּחְשַׁ֥שְׂתְּא מַלְכָּ֖א כְּנֵֽמָא׃Rehum the commissioner and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter concerning Jerusalem to King Artaxerxes [saying] as follows
³⁷ Nam


###### Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:19
[Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Noda%20BiYehudah%20I/s/Orach%20Chaim/r/2:19)

ובקונקארדאנסיאש בסופו שהוא על דניאל ועזרא באות הכ"ף וזה לשונו כנם כנמא שפירושו כאשר נאמר עכ"ל.

**YU Torah miTzion Beit Midrash:**
Towards the end of the Concordance³⁸, a Hebrew Biblical concordance upon which the author worked from 1437 to 1447 The *Meïr Netib* was the first Bible concordance in Hebrew, and was distinguished from the similar Latin work of Arlotus of Prato in that its vocabulary was arranged in the order of the roots. In the introduction the author says that his work aimed to facilitate the study of Biblical exegesis and to prevent Jewish converts to Christianity from making, in their religious controversies, incorrect quotations from the Bible, as was often the case with Geronimo de Santa Fé. The "Meïr Netib," with its complete introduction, was first published at Venice (erroneously under the name of Mordecai Nathan) in 1523; in 1556 it was published at Basel by Buxtorf, but with only a part of the introduction – which is on the books of Daniel and Ezra – under the letter *kaff* (כ), these are his terms: ‘*ke-nam*’. ‘*ke-na-ma*’ are defined ‘as was stated’ – end quote.

footnotes:
³⁸ Isaac Nathan ben Kalonymus was a French Jewish philosopher and controversialist. He lived at Arles, perhaps at Avignon also, and in other places, in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Meïr Netib


###### Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:20
[Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Noda%20BiYehudah%20I/s/Orach%20Chaim/r/2:20)

וכיון שהוכחנו שהשורש נם א"כ שייך ליחיד נכח נמת ושפיר הגרסא זכור נמת כי הפייטנים בחרו לישנא קלילא.

**YU Torah miTzion Beit Midrash:**
Now that we have proven that the grammatical source of this verb is the two letter ‘*nam*’ [N-M], then it belongs as a present tense, single – as ‘*namata*’. Indeed, the current version of ‘*zechor namata*’ (remember you declared) is correct, as the liturgical poets chose brilliant³⁹ linguistics.

footnotes:
³⁹ Lit. ‘bright’


###### Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:21
[Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Noda%20BiYehudah%20I/s/Orach%20Chaim/r/2:21)

שוב מה שהגיה הניקוד במלת ממך בקמץ תחת המ"ם והגיה ממך בשו"א תחת המ"ה וקמ"ץ תחת הכ"ף או ממך בדגש וקמ"ץ תחת הכ"ף.

**YU Torah miTzion Beit Midrash:**
Regarding the vowels⁴⁰ (א), *ayin* (ע), *vav* (ו) and *yod* (י). People who are fluent in the language do not need vowels to read Hebrew, and most things written in Hebrew in Israel are written without vowels. However, as Hebrew literacy declined, particularly after the Romans expelled the Jews from Israel, the Rabbis realized the need for aids to pronunciation, so they developed a system of dots and dashes known as nikkudim (points). These dots and dashes are written above or below the letter, in ways that do not alter the spacing of the line. Text containing these markings is referred to as "pointed" text., that which was edited concerning the word *m-m-ch⁴¹ of Rosh HaShana*, the term *m-m-ch* occurs in the sentence “…nothing is hidden *from you*”. מִמְּךָ (*mi-meh-*cha is a contraction of ‘from you’ (מן שלך), and pronounced with slight gutteral *ch* as oposed to the full gutteral kh- ח) is more common in the Bible than מִמֶּךָּ (*mi meh-kah* the dot, known as a *dagesh*, ‘hardened the last consonant from the slight gutteral ‘ch’ to the ‘hard’ ‘kah’) . Vowels can alter the tense and gender in Hebrew. A search of the *Siddur* (Seder! – literally, the order of our prayers) of Rav Amram Gaon of 9th century Sura (off route 28 SW of Baghdad) revealed three locations, all in the High Holiday liturgy. , which he edited with the *kamatz* vowel ‘uh’ under the letter *mem⁴², a feminine form, ‘from you (female).’*, and edited *m-m-ch* with a *sh’va* under the letter *mem* and a *kamatz* under the letter *kaff*,⁴³, the masculine form or *m-m-ch* with with a *dagesh* and a *kamatz* under the letter *kaff*.⁴⁴ , the *dagesh* serving to confuse and perhaps refer to both genders, as Hashem has been described as possessing both masculine and feminine traits.

footnotes:
⁴⁰ Like most early Semitic alphabetic writing systems, the alef-bet has no vowels, although there are letters potentially used as vowels such as aleff
⁴¹ In the machzor
⁴² Pronounces mi-mach
⁴³ Pronounced mi-meh-cha
⁴⁴ Pronounced mi-meh-ka


###### Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:22
[Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Noda%20BiYehudah%20I/s/Orach%20Chaim/r/2:22)

הנה אין לי עסק בדקדוק ובפרט מלה זו לא מצאנוה רק ליחיד נוכח או לרבים לנוכח שלחו מכם. וכן הדבר אשר יקשה מכם.

**YU Torah miTzion Beit Midrash:**
Indeed, I have no business dealing with the rules of Hebrew grammar – specifically this word – which I have only found in the personal present or plural present as in “you [plural] send”.⁴⁵ in *mimchem*, meaning ‘from you’ The verse referenced is from Gen 42:16 It can also be seen in “Any matter that is difficult from you”⁴⁶ is not there (and may be the reason the letter is ‘dotted’ by a *dagesh*) to be read as ‘*meekehm*’ instead of ‘*mimchem*’..

footnotes:
⁴⁵ Technically there is an ‘extra mem
⁴⁶ This from Deut. 1:17 The extra letter mem


###### Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:23
[Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Noda%20BiYehudah%20I/s/Orach%20Chaim/r/2:23)

אבל למדבר בעדו הן ליחיד והן לרבים וכן ליחיד נסתר הוא ממנו ממני. וכן לרבים נסתרים הוא מהם ושימוש ממך לא מצאנו רק לנוכח כנ"ל ומעט מצינו מזה. ולכן אין לגדור בו משפט נקודתו.

**YU Torah miTzion Beit Midrash:**
However, for one who is speaking for one’s self, whether singular or plural – and of course for the singular infinitive – it is either ‘from us’ or ‘from me’.⁴⁷ is seen and pronounces as *meemehnu* and *meemehnee*. So too, in the plural infinitive case, one uses ‘from them’⁴⁸ is missing and pronounced ‘*may-hem*’ (instead of ‘mim-hem’) . The use of the singular second person ‘from you’⁴⁹ note the second *mem*. is only found in second person, as would seem to me, and we have seen this only a few times. That being so, one should not be restrictive in its vocalization.

footnotes:
⁴⁷ In these case the ‘extra mem’
⁴⁸ In this case the extra mem
⁴⁹ ‘mimeh-cha’


###### Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:24
[Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Noda%20BiYehudah%20I/s/Orach%20Chaim/r/2:24)

ולפי המדומה בהפסק מאמר משפט נקודתו ממך בקמץ תחת המ"ם כמו מלת עמך שג"כ עמך ישב ובהפסק מאמר את העני עמך אלא שמלת ממך מצינו בהפסק מאמר המ"ם בסגול והכ' קמוצה ודגושה שבעה גוים רבים ועצומים ממך דברים ז' א'. וכן בשאר מקומות.

**YU Torah miTzion Beit Midrash:**
From what I imagine is the rule regarding the vocalization of ‘from you’(‘*mee-mach*’), with the *kamatz* under the letter *mem*, as used in the word ‘with you’ (‘*ee-mach*’), as we also see in the term ‘he shall dwell with you’⁵⁰. , and in the middle of the verse⁵¹ in ‘to the poor among you’⁵² is under the *chaf* and pronounced *eemach*.; Rather, one see the word ‘from you’ from the part of the verse, where the letter *mem* vowelized with a *she-gole* amd the letter *chaf* with a *kamatz* and *dagesh*,⁵³’ as in Deuteronomy 7:1⁵⁴: “…seven nations much larger than you”. So we have seen it other places.

footnotes:
⁵⁰ דברים כג:יזעִמְּךָ֞ יֵשֵׁ֣ב בְּקִרְבְּךָ֗ בַּמָּק֧וֹם אֲשֶׁר־יִבְחַ֛ר בְּאַחַ֥ד שְׁעָרֶ֖יךָ בַּטּ֣וֹב ל֑וֹ לֹ֖א תּוֹנֶֽנּוּ׃ (ס) He shall live with you in any place he may choose among the settlements in your midst, wherever he pleases; you must not ill-treat him. Here, it is vowelized as eem-meh-cha
⁵¹ ‘In the middle of the words’ , as one should quote complete verses
⁵² שמות כב:כד אִם־כֶּ֣סֶף ׀ תַּלְוֶ֣ה אֶת־עַמִּ֗י אֶת־הֶֽעָנִי֙ עִמָּ֔ךְ לֹא־תִהְיֶ֥ה ל֖וֹ כְּנֹשֶׁ֑ה לֹֽא־תְשִׂימ֥וּן עָלָ֖יו נֶֽשֶׁךְ׃ If you lend money to My people, to the poor among you, do not act toward them as a creditor; exact no interest from them. Here the vowelized kamatz
⁵³ The pronunciation being ‘mee-meh-ka
⁵⁴ כִּ֤י יְבִֽיאֲךָ֙ יְהוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֔יךָ אֶל־הָאָ֕רֶץ אֲשֶׁר־אַתָּ֥ה בָא־שָׁ֖מָּה לְרִשְׁתָּ֑הּ וְנָשַׁ֣ל גּֽוֹיִם־רַבִּ֣ים ׀ מִפָּנֶ֡יךָ הַֽחִתִּי֩ וְהַגִּרְגָּשִׁ֨י וְהָאֱמֹרִ֜י וְהַכְּנַעֲנִ֣י וְהַפְּרִזִּ֗י וְהַֽחִוִּי֙ וְהַיְבוּסִ֔י שִׁבְעָ֣ה גוֹיִ֔ם רַבִּ֥ים וַעֲצוּמִ֖ים מִמֶּֽךָּ׃ When the LORD your God brings you to the land that you are about to enter and possess, and He dislodges many nations before you—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, seven nations much larger than you—


###### Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:25
[Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Noda%20BiYehudah%20I/s/Orach%20Chaim/r/2:25)

וידוע שאפי' חכמי הדקדוק לא מצאו טעם נכון לדגש החזק ואמרו שהוא לתפארת המלה.

**YU Torah miTzion Beit Midrash:**
It is well known that even the masters of Hebrew grammar⁵⁵. did not find an establish rule for the *dagesh khazak⁵⁶ or dagesh ḥazaq* (דגש חזק‎, "strong dot", i.e. "gemination *dagesh*", or דגש כפלן‎, also "*dagesh* forte") may be placed in almost any letter, this indicated a gemination (doubling) of that consonant in the pronunciation of pre-modern Hebrew., stating that it was merely to ‘beautify’ a word.

footnotes:
⁵⁵ The most noted probably being Menahem ben Saruq (also known as Menahem ben Jacob ibn Saruq) was a Spanish-Jewish philologist of the tenth century CE. He was a skilled poet and polyglot. He was born in Tortosa around 920 and died around 970. Menahem produced an early dictionary of the Hebrew language, titled Makhberet
⁵⁶ Dagesh ḥazak


###### Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:26
[Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Noda%20BiYehudah%20I/s/Orach%20Chaim/r/2:26)

ולכן לדעתי אף האומר בהפסק מאמר ממך במקום הצורך להשוות החרוזים לא משתבש.

**YU Torah miTzion Beit Midrash:**
Ergo, to my mind, even one who stated a part of a verse ‘*mee-mach’* in a place where the vowels need to be strung together equally⁵⁷, is not in error.

footnotes:
⁵⁷ This is likely a reference to the ability of the liturgical poets to create such amazing pieces, often by stringing together parts of verses. A source for this is:שיר השירים רבה (וילנא) פרשה א.....אֶלָּא הָיִיתִי יוֹשֵׁב וְחוֹרֵז בְּדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה, וּמִתּוֹרָה לִנְבִיאִים, וּמִנְּבִיאִים לִכְתוּבִים, וְהָיוּ הַדְּבָרִים שְׂמֵחִים כִּנְתִינָתָן מִסִּינַי, וְהָיוּ עֲרֵבִים כְּעִקַּר נְתִינָתָן, וְכֵן עִקַּר נְתִינָתָן מִסִּינַי לֹא בָאֵשׁ הָיוּ נִתָּנִין?! הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב) דברים ד, יא :(וְהָהָר בֹּעֵר בָּאֵשׁ. רַבִּי אַבָּהוּ הָיָה יוֹשֵׁב וְדוֹרֵשׁ וְאֵשׁ מְלַהֶטֶת סְבִיבוֹתָיו. אָמַר: שֶׁמָּא אֵינִי חוֹרֵז בְּדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה כְּתִקְנָן, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי: אִית דְּיָדַע לְמִחְרוֹז וְלָא יָדַע לְמִקְדַּח, וְאִית דְּיָדַע לְמִקְדַּח וְלָא יָדַע לְמִחְרוֹז, בְּרַם אֲנָא הֲוֵינָא חָרוֹזָא וַאֲנָא הֲוֵינָא קָדוֹחָא.Relating to the meaning of Song of Songs 1:10נָאו֤וּ לְחָיַ֙יִךְ֙ בַּתֹּרִ֔ים צַוָּארֵ֖ךְ בַּחֲרוּזִֽים׃Your cheeks are comely with plaited wreaths, Your neck with strings of jewels. The Midrash stated….Rather, I sat and strung together the words of Torah and from the Torah to the books of the prophets, from the books of the prophets to the books of prophetic writings, and these words gladdened me as it was similar to when the Torah was given to us at Mount Sinai, they were pleasing as their original transmission. Were not the essences of that transmission were given in fire?! Indeed, we noted that in the verse (Deut. 4:11) ‘The Mount was consumed with fire”.Rabbi Abahu would expound on the Torah and flames would glow around him. He said: perhaps I am stringing together words of the Torah properly, as Rabbi Levi stated: There are those who know how to string together (verses of the Torah), but do not know how to ‘open’ (lit. to perforate – meaning to take the words in proper context) them; and there are those who know how to ‘open’ verses but not how to string them together. Apparently, I know how to do both – string them together and open the verses properly!


###### Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:27
[Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Noda%20BiYehudah%20I/s/Orach%20Chaim/r/2:27)

ועכ"פ ראוי שלא להחזיק במחלוקת עבור ענינים כאלו ואת והב בסופה אמת ושלום שפטו בשעריכם.

**YU Torah miTzion Beit Midrash:**
Certainly, in any case it is proper not to engage in disputes about these things, as noted by ‘The *Waheb* of *Suphah*’⁵⁸⁵⁹],</b> and the valleys of Arnon” (**Numbers 21:14**). The word “*vahev*” is interpreted as related to the word for love, *ahava*. Additionally, **do not read** this as **“in Suphah [*beSufa*]”; rather,** read it as **“at its end [*besofa*],”** i.e., at the conclusion of their dispute they are beloved to each other. and ‘Speak the truth to one another, render true and perfect justice in your gates’⁶⁰⁶¹.

footnotes:
⁵⁸ עַל־כֵּן֙ יֵֽאָמַ֔ר בְּסֵ֖פֶר מִלְחֲמֹ֣ת יְהוָ֑ה אֶת־וָהֵ֣ב בְּסוּפָ֔ה וְאֶת־הַנְּחָלִ֖ים אַרְנֽוֹן׃ Therefore the Book of the Wars of the LORD speaks of “…Waheb in Suphah, and the wadis: the Arnon
⁵⁹ The reference is to Kiddushin 30b:מאי את אויבים בשער אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אפי' האב ובנו הרב ותלמידו שעוסקין בתורה בשער אחד נעשים אויבים זה את זה ואינם זזים משם עד שנעשים אוהבים זה את זה שנאמר (במדבר כא, יד) את והב בסופה אל תקרי בסופה אלא בסופה The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase “enemies in the gate” with regard to Torah study? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says: Even a father and his son, or a rabbi and his student, who are engaged in Torah together in one gate become enemies with each other due to the intensity of their studies. But they do not leave there until they love each other, as it is stated in the verse discussing the places the Jewish people engaged in battle in the wilderness: “Therefore it is said in the book of the wars of the Lord, Vahev in Suphah [beSufa
⁶⁰ זכריה ח:טזאֵ֥לֶּה הַדְּבָרִ֖ים אֲשֶׁ֣ר תַּֽעֲשׂ֑וּ דַּבְּר֤וּ אֱמֶת֙ אִ֣ישׁ אֶת־רֵעֵ֔הוּ אֱמֶת֙ וּמִשְׁפַּ֣ט שָׁל֔וֹם שִׁפְט֖וּ בְּשַׁעֲרֵיכֶֽם׃ These are the things you are to do: Speak the truth to one another, render true and perfect justice in your gates.
⁶¹ The reference is to Sanhedrin 6b:רבי יהושע בן קרחה אומר: מצוה לבצוע שנאמר (זכריה ח, טז) אמת ומשפט שלום שפטו בשעריכם. והלא במקום שיש משפט אין שלום, ובמקום שיש שלום אין משפט? אלא, איזהו משפט שיש בו שלום? הוי אומר זה ביצוע Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: It is a mitzva to mediate a dispute, as it is stated: “Execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates” (Zechariah 8:16). Is it not that in the place where there is strict judgment there is no true peace, and in a place where there is true peace, there is no strict judgment? Rather, which is the judgment that has peace within it? You must say: This is mediation, as both sides are satisfied with the result.


###### Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:28
[Noda BiYehudah I, Orach Chaim 2:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Noda%20BiYehudah%20I/s/Orach%20Chaim/r/2:28)

כנפשכם ונפש הדורש שלומכם:

**YU Torah miTzion Beit Midrash:**
To your lives as to mine who seeks your peace.