 Here's an example I gave in changing the immutable. I hadn't seen other people mention this example, but I think it's quite significant. In Roche, yes, in one of the unsigned shoe forms, some are signed by the Roche, others are just unsigned, it states that Rabbeinotop, the great Rabbeinotop, declared, who France, should assemble in order to void the prohibition on non-Jewish wine. Why? Since Rabbeinotop, he quotes Rabbeinotop, says that the wine that the non-Jews use is no longer connected to idolatrous service. Already, that's a bit of a problem statement because we're not view Chris, but okay, so you're supposed to assume that Rabbeinotop doesn't see it as idolatrous. So here you have the rush, or not the rush, it's unsigned. There's some in Roche telling you that Rabbeinotop said that all the Rabba names are prohibition on non-Jewish wine because it's no longer used for idolatrous service. The response continues that Rabbeinotop was convinced to shelve this idea, to reject this idea. Why? Because Rabbeinotop, wherever this Rabbeinotop is, pointed out to him that in the future, the wine could once again be used for idolatrous ceremonies. So on the surface, there's nothing as crazy idea, so in the end, Rabbeinotop says you're right, I retract it, non-Jewish wine, usurping. It's a forbidden, it's a forgery, it's a forgery. Hundreds of years after Rabbeinotop, 700, 800 years, whatever it is, and we suddenly see it, through this chuvah, the summing rush has subtly undercut the perusing of idolatrous ceremonies. Well, it's been all, I've been in the years, I'd say, since Rabbeinotop, they haven't started using it yet, there's no difference, and there's no signs they're going to, so let's go back to Rabbeinotop's original need for it. So,