Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 162

Friday, February 12 1999

• [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: synthesis]]
• Hair Covering in the House
• Re: The second pair of kruvim
• Re: Avodah V2 #161
• Human Hair Sheitls
• [none]
• [none]
• [none]
• Chava's Chumrah
• Real vs. Virtual Ervo
• Re: Real vs. Virtual Ervo
• RE: Avodah V2 #161
• Re: supreme rabbinic court
• Re: Hair Covering in the House
• Re: supreme rabbinic court
• A Cerebral Litvak?
• Pre-Nuptials
• Synthesis - semantics
• Re: hair covering
• Re: Cherem d'Rabbenu Gershom

Received: from haven.uchicago.edu (root@haven.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.3])
	by magpie.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA23813
	for <katzco@sprintmail.com>; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 07:29:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from midway.uchicago.edu (root@midway.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.12])
	by haven.uchicago.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA13621
	for <katzco@sprintmail.com>; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 09:29:52 -0600 (CST)
Received: from harper.uchicago.edu (root@harper.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.7]) by midway.uchicago.edu (8.8.5/8.8.3) with ESMTP id JAA08795 for <katzco@sprintmail.com>; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 09:29:50 -0600 (CST)
Received: from localhost (16000@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by harper.uchicago.edu (8.8.5/8.8.3) with SMTP id JAA00633 for <katzco@sprintmail.com>; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 09:29:49 -0600 (CST)
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 09:29:49 -0600 (CST)
From: mark e gottlieb <megottli@midway.uchicago.edu>
X-Sender: megottli@harper.uchicago.edu
Reply-To: mark e gottlieb <megottli@midway.uchicago.edu>
To: "Steve. Katz" <katzco@sprintmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: synthesis]
In-Reply-To: <36C22EE0.702E@sprintmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.990211090212.11593A-100000@harper.uchicago.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-UIDL: c97eb0fa152972cc9b291905bec4ac73
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011

Steve--

   Thanks for forwarding these exchanges on the Rav and Synthesis.

   A couple of things are worth commenting on:
   (1) "Synthesis," in the general sense it it employed in Hegel and
subsequent thinkers responding to him (Kierkegaard, the Rav), does not
have a specifically Kantian pedigree. When Kant uses the term, he
has something very different in mind-- the way the mind, specifically
the faculty of understanding ("Verstand") brings together different
representations of reality to form a single thought by means of a
determinate number of concepts. The pre-Hegel use of Synthesis, in the
relevant sense for the Rav, can be traced to Schelling, far more than to
Kant. 
  (2) The Rav, in numerous places, explicitly quotes Hegel, and, indeed
cites Hegel's views on Synthesis (see, e.g., the opening paragraphs of
"Majesty and Humility").

  Take cares.

Elie Ginsparg responds to my comment that the humra to cover one's hair
in the home has "little halakhic basis":

>I would like to disagree that this chumra has no Halachic basis.

I said little, not no.  Please refer to the Bah cited in my previous
post.

>Although
>it is true that ikur hadin says a women can have her hair uncovered in the
>house , there are plenty of reasons to be machmir. 1. If hair is ervah
>it's not proper to have ervah showing even in one's own private room (see
>begining of Shulchan Aruch)

As we know, the Arukh ha-Shulhan and R. Moshe hold it is not ervah.
Even according those who disagree, I think this would depend on whether
you say a makom mekhuseh "becomes" ervah le-khol milei or is merely
treated as ervah.

> 2. It is forbidden for a man to say berachos,
>or Daven in front of such a women (unless you rely on the kulla of the
>Aruch Hashulchan) so awomen who doesn't cover her hair in the home is a
>stumbling block for her husband and sons as they can't learn or say
>berachos while facing her.

This, too, assumes that married women's hair is ervah.  Moreover, the
posekim of whom I am aware  hold it would be sufficient to close one's
eyes.  (See Hazon Ish OH 16:7).  Thus, the technical mikhshol seems
minimal.  However, even assuming her hair is not ervah, I don't think it
advisable for a man to daven or recite keriat shema facing his wife.

3. It is likely that someone may come to the
door and it is possible the women will forget to put a head covering on.

If it is not ervah, she would not have to cover her hair in the house,
even if a stranger comes to the door.  The requiement is to cover the
hair outside the house.

>4. One may not Daven if they aren't dressed like they would be if they
>were to go outside (ie you can't daven in a bath robe) many opions say
>that this would apply to women who don't have there hair covered as well
>as they clearly aren't dressed to go outside. So a women who doesn't cover
>her hair at home would have to remember to put on a head covering before
>davening.

This does not sound like a very big problem to me.  In any case, I think
you are mistaken.  According to the Shulkhan Arukh, one cannot wear
shorts if "derekh anshei ha-makom she-lo ya`amod lifnei Gedolim kakh."
In other words, the standard is established by general practice.  I am
not aware of a convention in America today requiring a woman to cover
her hair when standing before a great person. Therefore, I would say
that a married woman is permitted to daven without her hair covered.

>5. The Gemara of kimchis does indicate there is a benefit to
>covering the hair in the house.

This an aggadah, not a halakhic source.

>6. The Zohar is very strong in its
>language about how a women should cover her hair even in the house.

See previous comment.

> I therefroe believe that it's misleading to say there is no basis for the
>chumra.

I did not say that.  Please read a little more carefully.

>Furthermore, I think is misleading to quote ARv Lichtenstein and
>say there is No obligation---without at least saying in the same sentance
>that the men of the house shouldn't look at the women while learning and
>that she should remember to cover her head if anyone come to the door.

I appreciate your concern, but I presented R. Lichtenstein accurately.
He said there is no obligation even if there are others in the house.
This would include a stranger at the door.  He did note one exception:
if the house could be construed as a reshut ha-rabbim, e.g., one who
runs a shop out of the house.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

 

In a message dated 2/11/99 1:00:53 AM EST, ezsurf@idt.net writes:

> see the Malbim there who says it was al pi nevuah.  I saw another quote
>  to the same effect that Shlomo got it from Dovid Hamelech ( I believe
>  the quote source is Shut Rdb"z shnei alaphim 289).
>  
Just my 2 cents:

See the Ohr Hachayim Hakodosh on Shmos 25:9 V'chein Taasu.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

	For the last 2 months I have been  trying to help a woman obtain
a Get. This 27 year old woman, (who by the way has a 4 year old child and
is in her second year of medical school), is desperately looking for help.   

	To my amazement some of his Rabbis have justified the recalcitrant's 
using of the Get as leverage in order to receive a better settlement. Some
of these Rabbis argue that since she went to a secular court for the
divorce settlement (custody, child support, maintence, child
visitation...)  she loses her right to demand a Get. (Even though her
Orthodox Rabbi told her to go to secular court Lechatchila). One Rabbi
told me that she is a "Gazlenes" and that unless she gives the husband
back all of the child support and maintenance that she has received over
the years (around$25,000) that  the husband is under no moral obligation to
 give her the Get.
	
	1)  Is this an acceptable position?
	Does a husband have an obligation to give his wife a Get if she
	went to Arkaos -- even if she went with the advice of her Orthodox
	Rav?
	
	2) In this case a prominent Beis Din will be sending the husband a
	Siruv in a matter of days. What types of legal things should be
	done towards the recalcitrant husband???

	3) Are there any organizations that she should be turning to for
	help?

		Thank you,

			Rabbi Dov Weiss 
			

Did any one mention the problem of human-hair sheitels with regard to min b'mino
eino chotzetz? 

Rich Wolpoe 

Subject: changing customs with time

>> This issue applies uniquely to Chukkos Akum, although some one here may come
>> up with a similar hallacha elsewhere!

How about beged isha?

Eli Turkel

Subject: hair as ervah

>> The Baal HaTurim (and, I presume, many other rishonim) holds that Sear
>> b'Isha Ervah applies to married and unmarried women.  While his opinion

In fact the Shulchan Arukh paskens this way (EH 21:2) and the Ramah does
not argue.
It is not clear how the achronim disagree (le-kula) against the
Shulchan Arukh and Ramah. I understand that even sefardi unmarried women
put on a hair covering for berachot but not otherwise.
I once heard a claim that even in the days of Rav Karo unmarried women did
not wear a hair covering despite the psak of the SA. However, I don't know
of any historical evidence.

Hence, it might be that most rishonim (and SA) due feel that hair
is an ervah in the enticing sense of the word.

Eli Turkel

Subject: Rav Amnon Yitzchak

Arnie Lustiger writes

>> Although not true for the Agudah community, the MO/ Religious Zionist
>> communities seem to be too cerebral to be religiously motivating. It seems
>> that the only topic that generates true passion is "shtachim" - nothing else
>> really seems to capture imagination (perhaps contributing to the youth
>> alienation mentioned above). 

I am not sure I agree. First with respect to the agudah community the
phenomenon that Arnie describes is mainly a sefardi one and somewhat
less a chasidic. I am not sure that the yeshiva (litvak) world could
be described as not cerebral.

Second, in terms of the Israeli scene I disagree with the characterization.
If anything the opposite is true. I heard that there was a recent meeting
to discuss the facts that hesder has not grown significantly in recent
years while the one year pre-military schools (ala Eli) have grown
dramatically. One reason given was that hesder concentrates on gemara
which most students find boring. The one year programs concentrate
more on hashkafa that entertains the students. Virtually all hesder
yeshivot now have some classes in hashkafa. The Ramat Gan yeshiva
is termed the first chassidic hesder yeshiva or sometimes the
Carlebach hesder (it is not officially hesder yet).

In addition there are new programs like Bet Morasha that stress a
larger selection of material including gemara, Tanach, history,
philosophy etc. On a personal level my son has left hesder to go
to a post-hesder yeshiva, Siach. This is also a yeshiva that stresses
chassidut, hashkafa etc. in addition to Gemara and halacha.

Granted these are not Amnon Yitzchak approaches but as Arnie points
out I find that approach to shallow. On the other hand we have
students in our shul from the Ramat Gan yeshiva who are highly
spiritual. 
Hence, I feel that in fact there is a strong movement in using a little
Amnon Yitzchak.

I have not heard any of Rav Yitzhak's tapes but was surprised to
hear his attitude towards the state of Israel, Sefardim as a rule
are much more positive to Israel. There great rabbis have become
chief rabbis of Israel (rishon le-tzion). I have an article of
Rav Ovadiah Yosef (about 30 years ago). In which he talks at length
of the hakoras hatov that we owe to the Israeli government.
Just to include some local politics it seems that a grandson of
Rav Kadoori (the kabalist) will start his own party to compete with
shas.

Eli Turkel

R' YGB recalled the Avos d'R' Nosson about how Chava's chumra led to a
kulah.

However, I would have thought that eating from the eitz hada'as was not
caused by the geder, but by the fact that the geder was call part of the
original d'Oraisa. Had Chava not thought that touching the tree was equally
assur to eating from it, she would not have been mislead by the snake.

According to the Rambam, such a mislabeling would be (for a Jew) a violation
of bal tosif.

That makes a very different point then just caution about creating new
chumros.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6087 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 11-Feb-99)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

R D Ediensohn wrrites:>>Rav
Moshe makes the interesting assertion that transparent stockings are
actually a full covering and that it is simply an illusion that you think
you are seeing the actual skin..<<

Sh'eilo can you daven near a non-tzenius picture of a woman (eg at an office 
that has such things on display?

The picture is not real ervo, but hirhur is definitely an issue...

Rich Wolpoe  

richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> R D Ediensohn wrrites:>>Rav
> Moshe makes the interesting assertion that transparent stockings are
> actually a full covering and that it is simply an illusion that you think
> you are seeing the actual skin..<<
>
> Sh'eilo can you daven near a non-tzenius picture of a woman (eg at an office
> that has such things on display?
>
> The picture is not real ervo, but hirhur is definitely an issue...

Rav Moshe notes that such a covering is only relevant if hirhur is not an issue.
As a general rule - the issue of technical ervah is only relevant if there is no
hirhur. If there is any problem of hirhur than the situation is not permitted.

Re: Agunot

Many questions have been raised and the issue is very complex.  Here in 
Israel the Chief Rabbinate set up some years ago a special Beit Din for 
Agunot.

This Beit Din has found solutions for many Agunot, all (of course) based on 
halachic sources and Ezrat Hashem.  The Beit Din is in Jerusalem, and any 
man or woman who are in such a situation can write a request to the Chief 
Rabbinate stating why their case should be moved from the local Beit Din to 
this special court.

I stated here specifically man or woman, as the records of the 
administration of the Rabbinical Courts in Israel show that the numbers of 
men/women prevented from getting a divorce by their spouse - are actually 
more or less equal.

As many on this list can read Hebrew, I think they would find reading some 
of the Piskei Din would be enlightening.

As to Chana's question concerning the Ketuba, I do know that when my husband 
officiates he makes it a point to make sure the couple understand that this 
is supposed to be a valid document in the case of divorce etc., and that 
they take the sums therein seriously.  This has come about especially as, in 
Israel where rabbinical law is recognized by the State, the Ketuba can 
actually help women who are in difficult situations b/c of the death of the 
husband.  BTW, in some Sephardi Ketubot there is a section that states that 
the couple has to remain in Israel.

Shoshana Boublil (nee Skaist)


-------------------------------------
Name: Shoshana L. Boublil
E-mail: toramada@mail.netvision.net.il
Date: 12/02/99
Time: 12:13:45 AM , Israel

This message was sent by Chameleon 
-------------------------------------
Torah U'Madah Ltd. is developing a DB on the topic:
"Environmental issues and the Halacha (Jewish Law)"
any and all related information would be welcome.

RYGB posted a long article from 
<<
Content-Base: "http://agunah.com/basis/account.htm"  Reported by a Rabbi
in attendance at a Court Hearing under the auspices of the Supreme
Rabbinic Court of America, Inc.  The Rabbi writing this summary document
is not a member of the Court.
>>

I do not understand the reason why RYGB posted this article.  I certainly hope
he posted it for entertainment value and not that he agrees with their
halacha.

Their halacha is wrong.  The basis of their "heter" is to issue a zikuy for a
man, that a man would not want his wife to be an aguna and therefore would
want her to have a get.  The rav who suggested it years ago was dealing with a
case of a man who disappeared, he left on a business trip and years later had
still not returned.  The rav felt that the man would not have wanted his wife
to remain an aguna, and therefore decided it was a z'chus for the man that his
wife be freed.  On that basis he wanted to write a get for the woman.  The
logic was denounced as wrong, and there were t'shuvos published against it.  

The SRC's using the names of R. YY Weinberg and R YE Spektor is also out of
context.  They never permitted a zikuy for a man.

And even if one were to argue that zikuy in that case is permitted, it cannot
be derived from there that one may give a get zikuy on behalf of a husband who
is standing and screaming that he refuses to give his wife a get, that he
wants her to be an aguna.  To say it is a z'chus for him to divorce his wife
is totally without basis anywhere in halacha, and to give his wife a get
without his involvement is an act of nothingness.

Their argument about assumptions going into marriage, have been taken up by R.
Rackman as well, and the Beis Din of America (the RCA beis din) has already
publicized its rebuttal to this and shown it to not be a valid criterion for
hafka'as kidushin.

When I last took the SRC on, I was threatened with cherem if I did not retract
my remarks.  I hereby reiterate that the Supreme Rabbinic Court of America,
which is one of the institutions used as support by R. Rackman, is just as
wrong in their psakim in this area as is R. Rackman, their psakim in this area
are totally without merit, and anyone marrying a woman who received such a get
is marrying an eyshes ish (provided her previous husband is still living).

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

On Thu, 11 Feb 1999, Clark, Eli wrote:
> 
> > 2. It is forbidden for a man to say berachos,
> >or Daven in front of such a women (unless you rely on the kulla of the
> >Aruch Hashulchan) so awomen who doesn't cover her hair in the home is a
> >stumbling block for her husband and sons as they can't learn or say
> >berachos while facing her.
> 
> This, too, assumes that married women's hair is ervah.  Moreover, the
> posekim of whom I am aware  hold it would be sufficient to close one's
> eyes.  (See Hazon Ish OH 16:7).  Thus, the technical mikhshol seems
> minimal.  However, even assuming her hair is not ervah, I don't think it
> advisable for a man to daven or recite keriat shema facing his wife.

The M.B. says (o.c. 75:10)  Even if it's not the way to cover in the
house it is still Ervah according to all,even in the house, and its assur
to read opposite her if her hair is revealed. This means any davening,
learning, benchting must be done out of the view of one's wife. It's a lot
of Torah to memorize so you can learn with your eyes shut.

> 
> >5. The Gemara of kimchis does indicate there is a benefit to
> >covering the hair in the house.
> 
> This an aggadah, not a halakhic source.
> 
> >6. The Zohar is very strong in its
> >language about how a women should cover her hair even in the house.
> 
> See previous comment.
> 
This is a point I would like to discuss more. Who decided that just
because a source was aggadaic that it doesn't play a role in HAlach. (I
know you said Halachik sources, but step a way from the actual words of
your post and look at the P'sak din which you suggest--ie. not covering
the hair in tyhe house) Why shouldn't I
be concerned with what Chazal say. They weren't joking when they wrote the
aggadata. Furthermore, the Magen Avraham (a very halachik source) quoted
in the B.h (o.c. 75:2 D'h mechutz) that it is proper to be machmir in the
house b/c of the Zohar. So it seems that to limit to basis of a chumra to
"halachik source" puts a restraint that the MA wouldn't agree
to. So even if teh strict wording of your post is correct, it's completely
irrelavent in practice. To say a women has LITTLE basis in a chumra b/c
the basis is in aggadata is meaningless B/c a halachik source is willing
to stand behind that same aggadata. I'm curious, I know that Rav
Lichtenstein holds their is NO obligation, but if someone asked him is
there reason to be Machmir in this case what would he say.
Elie Ginsparg

On Thu, 11 Feb 1999 EDTeitz@aol.com wrote:

> RYGB posted a long article from << Content-Base:
> "http://agunah.com/basis/account.htm"  Reported by a Rabbi in attendance
> at a Court Hearing under the auspices of the Supreme Rabbinic Court of
> America, Inc.  The Rabbi writing this summary document is not a member
> of the Court.  >>
> 
> I do not understand the reason why RYGB posted this article.  I
> certainly hope he posted it for entertainment value and not that he
> agrees with their halacha. 
> 

I am shocked that you would have ahava amina that I agree with their
halacha, and hope you advanced such a notion for its entertainment value
:-).

In fact, I posted it b'geder "al da vadai kabachina".

The SRC's contact person is R' Rackman's protege, R' Morgenstern.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Eli Turkel wrote:
 
> I am not sure I agree. First with respect to the agudah community the
> phenomenon that Arnie describes is mainly a sefardi one and somewhat
> less a chasidic. I am not sure that the yeshiva (litvak) world could
> be described as not cerebral.

From my admittedly, very limited experience with the yeshiva world, I 
would have to say that yeshivaliet are decidedly not cerebral in the 
sense that, I believe, Arnie Lustiger meant.  True, they are big 
Lamdanim and many are even geniuses, as one must be to truely understand 
some of the more difficult sugyos in shas, but I think that "cerebral" 
here means that one thinks through and reflects on the great hashkafic 
thoughts of yahadus. With all due modesty, I think most of us on this 
list would qualify as being (or at least trying to be) cerebral in this 
sense, as I believe that searching for Emes is one of the main purposes 
of discussion and debate. In this way we can integrate new ideas with 
old ones and continually learn, adjust, and modify our views as we glean 
new information. OTOH, I believe, most, though not all, Yeshivaliet do 
not delve too deeply into hashkafa.  They are too busy with the "blatt". 
 I base these beliefs on my experiences in both Telshe and HTC, and on 
numerous discussions I have had with many different Yeshiva bochurim, at 
the above mentioned Yeshivos and other yeshivos, throughout my life.  
The vast majority of them don't seem care.  But even if they did, where 
would they get their information?  With the exception of YU, I doubt if 
any Yeshivos have any serious courses in Jewish Philosophy. (HTC used 
to but I don't think they do anymore.  I will happily stand corrected 
if I am wrong)If anything, those Yeshivos frown on it. 

HM (It's nice to have the same initials as Halakhic Man:) )

Zvi Weiss writes:
>>On the one hand, despite the various Pre-Nuptial Agreements (e.g., R.
Willig and R. N. Goldberg), there are some hesitations as to their
validity or "correctness to use".  In one case, I know that a prominent
Rosh Yeshiva told a Chasan NOT to use the agreement.  <<

Lemaase what is the objection to pre-nups? Is it the particular nusahc of a 
given pre-nup or pre-nups in general?

Rich Wolpoe

>>>No! L'hefech! Since the Rav was /not/ a Hegelian, but agreed with Kant that
no synthesis exists in this case, that I can't picture he'd call Torah uMadah
a "synthesis".<<<

You cannot pull ideas out of context and say that since the Rav dealt with
many unresolvable dichotomies Torah U'Mada is one of them - that is
conjecture.  The question of Torah UMAda is specific- is religious study/value
incompatable with secular study/values.  Whether you call it 'synthesis' is
semantic (as is the title of R' Lichtenstein's article); what is crucial is
the Rav (and R' Lichtenstein) demonstrated that such a balance is possible.

Derech agav  - IMHO Rav Kook's writings on kodesh and chol directly address
the balance between religious and secular systems.  I am sad to say that while
learning at YU I was never exposed to Rav Kook's thought; I am confounded as
to why YU disregards the writings of R Kook when he directly addresses issues
such as religious Zionism, secular thought, etc. that are dear to modern
Orthodoxy.  

-Chaim

R. Eli Clark wrote:

<<
It seems, however, that according to some posekim, the practice of kisui
rosh by married women transforms the hair of married women into ervah.
See Mishnah Berurah OH 75:10.  For this reason, they rule that it is
forbidden today to recite keriat shema in front of a married woman with
uncovered hair.  For these authorities, a married woman's hair is just
as much ervah as the shok, s both can arouse hirhur.
>>

What do these poskim do with the permissibility to have uncovered hair in her
house?

<<
In contrast, the well-known Arukh ha-Shulhan and R. Moshe (ibid) hold
that the practice of married women not to cover their hair means that it
is not ervah and one can recite keriat shema in front of them.
According to these authorities, there remains a prohibition of peri'at
rosh for married women, even though married women's hair today is not
ervah. 
>>

It follows from this logic that a wig should be okay.  It satisfies p'ri'as
rosh, and even if it looks good, it is still not erva.

He also made a comment about not having different standards of covering for
kol isha.  As was mentioned early on, some do make distinctions, allowing an
unidentified voice to be heard.  And in a stroy passed down in my family, when
R. Baruch Ber Lebowitz was visiting my great-grandfather at Sukkos time, and
my grandmother and sisters were singing z'miros, he rejected one talmid's
complaints with the comment: "they aren't singing, they are davening with a
tune".

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

<<
Common sense. And, possibly Cherem d'Rabbeinu Gershom. R' Chaim David
Halevi - somewhere in his multi-volume "Asei Lecha Rav" - "bleibs shverr"
if CDRG applies post mortem.
>>

But in either case it only applies while the letter is sealed shut (at least
this is my recollection of the cherem).  Once open, it seems to be fair game.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]