Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 218

Mon, 02 Nov 2009

• 1. Re: Children at a Wedding (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Sukkah on Shabbos (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 3. Re: mei marom (Arie Folger)
• 4. Children at a Wedding (Joseph C. Kaplan)
• 5. Re: mei marom (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: Attending religious services other than Jewish: is the contrary acceptable? (Claudia Gaspar)
• 7. Avraham's Guests - The Relationship of the Jewish People to Non-Jews (Yitzchok Levine)
• 8. Re: Attending religious services other than Jewish (Yitzchak Schaffer)
• 9. Re: Sukkah on Shabbos (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: so is she married? (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Bensching Gomel (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: dinosaurs (hankman)
• 13. Re: mei marom (Samuel Svarc)
• 14. Re: The plot against the Nasi (David Riceman)
• 15. Re: The plot against the Nasi (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: dinosaurs (Micha Berger)
• 17. Re: Attending religious services other than Jewish: is the contrary acceptable? (Micha Berger)
• 18. Re: The plot against the Nasi (Micha Berger)

On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 08:11:33AM +0200, Akiva Blum wrote:
: From: .... On Behalf Of Joseph C. Kaplan
:> and my reaction, after reading all the posts was, in typical Jewish fashion, a
:> question: why should there be any minhag at all?  There are so many differing
:> factors that are relevant in trying to do the best thing for both the children
:> and the marrying couple; 

: On the contrary. Would you be able to tell your child "Sorry, you can't come to
: my wedding. My new husband/wife doesn't like you/may not like you/feels
: uncomfortable with you around/may feel uncomfortable with you around, etc."

: Much better to have a fixed minhag. Sorry kid, you can't come, that's the
: minhag!

Hilkhos Aveilus are wonderful that way. They remove from the aveil the
decision of what is "enough" or "appropriate" to do for their parent's
memory by giving him  standard to follow.

Here too, as RAB writes, it no longer becomes a pressure on the
step-parent to pretend to feel comfortable with not having "their moment"
because of the "ghost" in the room...

(Not that the step parent would necessarily feel that way, but if they
do, the pressure is off.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
mi...@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Rdr:
> See Berachos 42b-43a.  If people ate picnics why would the brayysa have 
> o specifically mention holchim baderech, and why would the din be so 
> bscure that talmidei d'Rav didn't recall it?

See Rema SA Orach Hayyim 336:3 
One should be machmir not to eat in "ginos" [viz. On Shabbos] if one
uses water [lest it fall and water the grass]

Clearly people were earing outdoors when it was NOT shabbos

It also begs the question, if one washes around the sukkah on shabbos
then lich'ora would be subject to this concern..

IOW disregarding hotza'a, eating in a sukkah on Shabbas where this is
grass has the concern of watering the lawn, which would have given Hazal
an antirely different dynamic re: sukkah.

Unless sukkos were typically on rooftops
Etc.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

RZS wrote:
> Suppose he hadn't, and had somehow managed not to be
> executed for his "crime", and had lived a long life of wine,
> women, song, and killing Jews.  When he died and showed up at
> BD shel Maalah, clutching his "Get Out of Hell Free" card, what
> choice would they have had but to honour it?  Could they leave
> RChbT forsworn?

The Ramban writes regarding the contradiction between jodaua tejda ki
gejr jihjeh saracho be-eretz lau lohem ... arab' mejaus schono and
umauschaw benej jissroel ascher joschwu be-eretz mitzrajim arba'
mejaus uschlauschim schono (sorry for translit scheme; I get a kick
out of it) that originially, the decree was for Avraham's descendents
to be "ina a land that is not theirs" for 400 years, which would have
meant that galut mitzrayim would have lasted 210 years. However, since
the benei yisrael were not worthy, the redemption was delayed by 30
years.

While the Ramban's answer is surprising to many, it is so simply
because we all know the standard interpretation that is also supported
by the haggadah shel pessa'h, that they were redeemed the moment the
400 years were up. However, I haven't seen anyone dispute the Ramban's
idea that sin can change previous assurances, especially to
individuals.

So, if the Roman would have continued living "a long life of wine,
women, song, and killing Jews," once "he died and showed up at BD shel
Maalah, clutching his `Get Out of Hell Free? card," BD shel ma'ala
would answer "expired through your subsequent grave sins."

KNLAD.

All the above of course does not directly touch upon the very
instructive discussion between RSZ and RMB with the additional
contributions of RET and REMT. Yasher koa'h (or jascher kauach),
-- 
Arie Folger,
Latest blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* UK Commander Challenges Goldstone Report
* On the Stereotypical Jew
* Wieso ?ruhte? G?tt?
* Wir sind f?r die Evolution!

   Me: why should there be any minhag at all?  There are so many differing
   factors that are relevant in trying to do the best thing for both the
   children and the marrying couple; 

    RAB: On the contrary. Would you be able to tell your child "Sorry, you
    can't come to my wedding. My new husband/wife doesn't like you/may not
    like you/feels uncomfortable with you around/may feel uncomfortable
    with you around, etc."

    Much better to have a fixed minhag. Sorry kid, you can't come, that's the minhag!

    Me: Sure it's easier.  But one part of being a parent is knowing when
    to say "no" and that's not easy.  But that's why we get paid the big
    bucks.  And, of course, what if we want to say "yes" which would be
    appropriate in many cases.	In such a case, how do we answer the kids
    question "but isn't the minhag not to?"  Hey, let's take some
    responsibility and not rely on the crutch of "minhag."

    Joseph Kaplan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091102/328d5ec3/attachment-0001.htm>

Arie Folger wrote:

> However, I haven't seen anyone dispute the Ramban's
> idea that sin can change previous assurances, especially to
> individuals.
> 
> So, if the Roman would have continued living "a long life of wine,
> women, song, and killing Jews," once "he died and showed up at BD shel
> Maalah, clutching his `Get Out of Hell Free? card," BD shel ma'ala
> would answer "expired through your subsequent grave sins."

I'll see your Ramban and raise you Gemara Rosh Hashana 4a, and Rashi
"kan beyisrael".   Even if such excuses work with Jews, they don't
work with goyim.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

First of all I want to thank those people who sent insightful replies to
this discussion list or privately to my e-mail. I did go to the ceremony
although remaining outside the church between the tiny sidewalk and the
 building  main entrance. I want to add I live in Brazil and sidewalks
aren't like those large ones as in USA. Old religious buildings are very
close to streets, there are no parking facilities. Shalom synagogue,
belonging to the Masorti movement but with a liberal touching is one of the
most impressive architectures recently open to the ishuv.

I want to pose a subject I could never get a reasonable answer before: if I
want to invite very close non-Jewish friends to follow the kaddish under
special circumstances is it unfit and reproachable? I know some bne'i Noach
as many of us so I decided to address the question.

kol tuv

Claudia Gaspar
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091102/72cd53ce/attachment-0001.htm>

The following is a selection from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis

181 And God appeared to him beneath the trees of 
Mamre, as he was sitting before the door of his tent in the heat of the day.

Please note what Rav Hirsch says about Avraham's 
guests and the relationship of the Jewish people to non-Jews. YL

How maliciously have Judaism and its bearers, the heritage of
Avraham and its heirs, been maligned: ?These circumcised ones arrogantly
regard themselves as the ?only ones? of their God. The sign of
the covenant, which sets them apart from other nations, removes from
their hearts all cosmopolitanism, all feeling of being united in brotherhood
with the rest of mankind. They reduce the God of heaven and
earth, the God of all human souls, to the God of their tribe, the God
of their small country.?

?Providing hospitality to guests is
greater than standing before the Divine Presence? (Shabbos 127a). And
who were the guests Avraham was expecting? Uncircumcised idolaters!
(He could have expected no others.) For their sake he left God?s
Presence; he ran to greet them, to fulfill the duty of acting with
lovingkindness toward one?s fellow man.
Note the manner in which he fulfills this duty. Avraham here
pursues charity and kindness more eagerly than people pursue monetary
gain! He seizes the opportunity, as the first circumcised Jew, to
show kindness to his fellow man. He involves his wife and his son,
indeed, his entire household, in the fulfillment of the mitzvah. He has
everything freshly prepared ? as though he had no other refreshments
at home to offer three wayfarers. This is the reception that was given
to the first guests to present themselves to the first Nemol.

The foregoing demonstrates Avraham?s joy and relief at the dismissal
of his fear that he would be isolated from his fellow men. Our
Sages z"l are the ones who discerned this fear. Their insight reached
into the depths of his heart.

This section is juxtaposed to the section on Mila. The people of
Avraham, isolated by circumcision, are to become the most humane of
men. In essence they are a contrast to the rest of world; nevertheless,
they are to be ready at all times to realize every universal human
value. Toward this end they became a people that dwells apart ? to
foster within themselves this pure humanity. As the herald of this
spirit, Avraham became an Av and Avir (wing) of Hamon Goyim, a spiritual
father and a force of moral uplift for a multitude of nations.
Not for naught did Avraham sit before his tent in the heat of the
day; for this spirit of love of one?s fellow man became a legacy that
was bequeathed to his descendants. Throughout the generations, even
the enemies of Israel have not denied that the disparaged Jews possess
this spirit. Wherever open hearts and open hands are sought for universal
humane purposes (thank God, this is one spark from the teachings
of Avraham that has been ignited amidst all of mankind: open
hearts and open hands can be found also outside the sphere of
Avraham), even the disparagers of Judaism turn, first of all, to the
Jews.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091102/f5b9a571/attachment-0001.htm>

Zev Sero wrote:
> But the central part of the mass -- the "transsubstantiation" and the
> bread-worship -- is different; AIUI even the "highest-church" Anglicans
> do not worship the bread, and regard it as merely *symbolising* their
> god rather than actually *being* him.  And of course the lower-church
> you get the more removed that part is from AZ, till you get to the
> very low, borderline puritan church, where they would deliberately
> throw the leftovers in a mokom tinuf, in order to show that they don't
> think it's a god.

I hear the distinction (frankly we never got this technical in my lay 
education), but am still left wondering whether there's a NM in what 
"level" AZ it would be.

There were different nuschaos we (er, they) used in the Eucharist, one 
being "The body of Ch, the bread of heaven" with the bread, and "The 
blood of Ch, the cup of salvation" with the wine.  I dunno, sounds 
awfully transsubstantiatious to me; certainly bi-shaas maaseh.  Goes 
back to the sheitel question of which matters: the official doctrine, 
and/or what the individual worshippers are mechaven when they are 
worshipping...

On another note, I remember an interesting questionnaire we once filled 
out and discussed in a church youth group about such theological 
questions - virgin birth, mahus of Yoshke, eucharist, etc...  this after 
I began seriously considering leaving Christianity for being a Jew.  One 
of the thinking young guys there said at one point, "for all I know, in 
two years, I might end up a Muslim!"  Inner smirk.

-- 
Yitzchak Schaffer
Systems Manager
Touro College Libraries
33 West 23rd Street
New York, NY  10010
Tel (212) 463-0400 x5230
Fax (212) 627-3197
Email yitzchak.schaf...@gmx.com

Access Problems? Contact systems.libr...@touro.edu

On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:22:37PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
: RMB writes:
:> AIUI, the asei deOraisa is that one must *only* eat akhilas 
:> qava in the sukkah, a mitzvah makhsheres. And thus in 
:> parallel to the issur chameitz
:> -- if one wants to eat baked goods, it must only be unleavened.

: I am not sure what you mean by a mitzvah makhsheres here.  But what does
: seem clear to me is that the issur chametz is just that, an issur, it is not
: a mitzvah machsheres or mitzvah qiyumas or anything else that falls within
: the language of an aseh....

I may not be sure what I mean either. I'm repeating a thought I heard
decades ago. You could well have found a chink in my understanding.

The notion that not eating matzah all Pesach is a mitzvah qiyumis (which
is a different paradigm than machsheres, but not mutually exclusive) is
recorded in the name of the Gra (Maaseh Rav 175). The Gra made a point of
making a 3rd se'udah on acharon shel Pesach for the qiyum of this mitzvah,
even though he didn't hold y"t requires 3 meals in general. (However,
since the rav who spoke is meyuchas to several chassidishe rabbeim,
it is quite likely he was relying on a different source.)

The Baal haMaor asks why there is no berakhah on eating matzah after the
first night, which also presumes some kind of mitzvah in eating matzah,
beyond avoiding chameitz. The Meiri (91b) simply says there is no mitzvah,
therefore there is no question. That seems to be what one would get from a
diyuq halashon in the Yad, Chameitz uMarzah 6:1 as well. The Sedei Chemed
(ChM 14:10) in contrast actually discusses a minhag to make a berakhah.

Just for defining a mitzvah makhsheres, which I pulled in from shiur,
not that Shabbas haGadol derashah:
:> This isn't really learned *from* the gezeirah shava as much 
:> as the point being compared. Both have a mitzvah makhsheres, 

: But that means you have to characterise an issur as a mitzvah makhsheres,
: which seems to be a complete redefinition of a bone fide, normal issur.

Every conditional qum va'asei. There are plenty of issurim that are
non-conditional. I'm not suggesting that the issur geneivah is a mitzvah
machsheres, since you can choose not to own things, but if you do,
you have to follow choshein mishpat.

That was the point of my speculation about Kant's hypothetical imperative
as opposed to a categorical one.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate,
mi...@aishdas.org        Our greatest fear is that we're powerful
http://www.aishdas.org   beyond measure
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Anonymous

On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 10:54:50PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: But I can understand that *only* if there is some reasonable basis to
: the machmir opinions...

: When teenagers play around, and stage a pretend wedding, everyone
: knows that they were just playing, and did not intend to actually get
: married. But they *did* go through the motions...

As did someone who said "Will you marry me?", gives her a ring, there
are eidim, and both of them even have every intent to spend the rest of
their lives as a couple. No?

I mean, the gemara says giving her a ring while discussing inyanei
qiddushin is enough, or "will you be buried next to me?" I can see why
some machmirim would wonder about this case as well -they are on the
topic when he gave her a ring. I also can see why meiqilim would say
that intent to engage is la'afuqei intent for real (halachic) eirusin
even though they are discussing the inyan.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is our choices...that show what we truly are,
mi...@aishdas.org        far more than our abilities.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - J. K. Rowling
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 08:18:45PM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
:> Issue 1:
:> How come "shluchei mitzvah einan nizzaqin" didn't prevent Hayyim
:> from falling?

: See psachim 8b

We also get this conclusion from a diyuq halashon. Why are they called
"sheluchei mitzvah"? Because it's not the mitzvah but the shelichus.
Someone who lemaaseh does the mitzvah, but his intent is not lesheim
mitzvah, isn't included. Rephrase that to more relative terms: the
amount of shemirah is proportional to the purity of thoughts of only
going because sent.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When we are no longer able to change a situation
mi...@aishdas.org        -- just think of an incurable disease such as
http://www.aishdas.org   inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change
Fax: (270) 514-1507      ourselves.      - Victor Frankl (MSfM)

R'nTK wrote:

I have already indicated that I don't believe you are defining EvE  
correctly.  I define it as "both have sources, both have reason, both have  merit" 
-- but not "both are true."

CM:

You say "but not 'both are true.'"  If not true, then it must be false (I
see no middle ground between true and false, like maybe true, possibly
true, partially true, good sources but ultimately false, with reason but
ultimately false). SO I have difficulty with your position that EvE will
accept something as false nevertheless assign it merit. What is the nature
of the merit of a falsehood? I prefer the paradox of "Schrodinger's
Mamzer." At least it does no harm to foundational concepts of emes. Also it
is a paradox I may not understand but must live anyway with if I accept the
veracity of quantum mechanics (at least with this interpretation).

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091102/36de1280/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
> Arie Folger wrote:
>
>> However, I haven't seen anyone dispute the Ramban's
>> idea that sin can change previous assurances, especially to
>> individuals.
>>
>> So, if the Roman would have continued living "a long life of wine,
>> women, song, and killing Jews," once "he died and showed up at BD shel
>> Maalah, clutching his `Get Out of Hell Free? card," BD shel ma'ala
>> would answer "expired through your subsequent grave sins."
>
> I'll see your Ramban and raise you Gemara Rosh Hashana 4a, and Rashi
> "kan beyisrael". ? Even if such excuses work with Jews, they don't
> work with goyim.

As Rashi in that gemorah clearly is referencing the chillul haShem
that would come out of a non-Jew's misunderstanding, it just as
clearly means in this world, thus removing any and all connection to
our case were the "payment" would be in the world to come. Fail one.
Furthermore, "read it again", the gemora doesn't say a word of the
non-Jew getting a better deal because he wouldn't understand, but
rather that his flawed understanding will cause him even more harm in
that his deed is missing righteous intent. So in our case it would
mean that the executioner's act would have been even more commendable
had it been performed by a Jew. It is "pure fantasy" to somehow see
from here any "hint" that the executioner could have gone on to a life
of sin; if anything could be learned out from this gemorah it would be
to the detriment of a sinful executioner. Fail two.

KT,
MSS

Micha Berger wrote:
> As I said, it's when it gets "to the extent that one implies it
> compromised the search for an objective halakhah" that the idea just
> doesn't sit comfortably with me. There is a difference between citing
> "Acheirim" or "Yeish Omerim" and not citing the opinion at all.
>   
Klallei hapsak depend on knowing who said what, so excising the name 
does affect the halachic conclusion.

David Riceman

On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 10:22:25AM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
: Micha Berger wrote:
:> As I said, it's when it gets "to the extent that one implies it
:> compromised the search for an objective halakhah" that the idea just
:> doesn't sit comfortably with me. There is a difference between citing
:> "Acheirim" or "Yeish Omerim" and not citing the opinion at all.

: Klallei hapsak depend on knowing who said what, so excising the name 
: does affect the halachic conclusion.

Why? The kelal could be made about "yeish omerim" as much as about R'
Noson. And if stam mishnah keR' Meir, do I even need "R' Meir omer" or
"Acheirim omerim" to apply the kelal? I still find it weird that we're
told "yeish omerim" means R' Noson, but y"o isn't found in the Mishnah
or Tosefta altogether. (Given I didn't make an error in my Bar Ilan
searches for the phrase and the acronym.) What, they started giving him
a kinui centuries after the attempted rebellion?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Life is complex.
mi...@aishdas.org                Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org               The Torah is complex.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                                - R' Binyamin Hecht

On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 10:38am EST, RCM "hankman" wrote:
: You say "but not 'both are true.'" ...

Usually eilu va'eilu isn't about a question of truth, but of law. You
could have two valid rulings that contradict, each flowing from TSBP
following the proper rules of pesaq. This approach can be mapped to any of
the rishonim who say that machloqes is caused by different constructions
of new law (rather than forgetfullness).

: (I see no middle ground between true and false, like maybe true, possibly
: true, partially true, good sources but ultimately false, with reason
: but ultimately false)...

If the truth is beyond human comprehension, then we have another
possibility. Someone who can only see shadows could see two very different
shadows of the same object. Both shadows accurately represent a mapping
of G-d's supernal truth to the limitations of human experience, even
though they contradict. This is the Maharal's approach.

R' Tzadoq (Resisei Lailah #17) writes about how the law of contradiction
only exists bepo'al. When dealing in machashavah, a thought always
invites contemplation of its opposite. People believe contradictory
things all the time. It's only when mapping to po'al that we must say
"vehalakhah ke..."

>                                     I prefer the paradox of "Schrodinger's
> Mamzer." At least it does no harm to foundational concepts of emes. Also
> it is a paradox I may not understand but must live anyway with if I accept
> the veracity of quantum mechanics (at least with this interpretation).

Why invoke arcane physics when we can discuss halakhah in terms of the
roshem on people? That way, we can blame eilu va'eilu on the human
ability to entertain conflicting thoughts, to be ambivalent, to hold
dialectics and antinomies. By not dealing with physics, the concept of
paradox isn't such a problem. And I wonder if R' Tzadoq was thinking of
Kantian or Hegelian dialectics when he wrote the above... But in any
case, ambivalence and preparing for both possibilities when uncertain
are not obstruce philosophical points.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You will never "find" time for anything.
mi...@aishdas.org        If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Charles Buxton
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 09:18:03AM -0200, Claudia Gaspar wrote:
: I want to pose a subject I could never get a reasonable answer before: if I
: want to invite very close non-Jewish friends to follow the kaddish under
: special circumstances is it unfit and reproachable? I know some bne'i Noach
: as many of us so I decided to address the question.

I'm missing the question... Why wouldn't an observant Noachide be
allowed to "follow the qaddish"? Isn't the theme all about Hashem's
eventual revealed Greatness and Holiness across the whole of the world?
"Bechayeihon ... uvekhayei dekhol beis Yisrael" might not have the same
meaning to them, though.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to
mi...@aishdas.org        suffering, but only to one's own suffering.
http://www.aishdas.org                 -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949)
Fax: (270) 514-1507

At 2:02pm EST, I wrote:
:                                       I still find it weird that we're
: told "yeish omerim" means R' Noson, but y"o isn't found in the Mishnah
: or Tosefta altogether. (Given I didn't make an error in my Bar Ilan
: searches for the phrase and the acronym.) ...

RJMeisner pointed out veyeish omerin in Avos 5:10.

I forgot about prefixes, and possibly that the kelal applies to "omerin"
as well as "omerim". Tempest in a teapot, solved.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When we are no longer able to change a situation
mi...@aishdas.org        -- just think of an incurable disease such as
http://www.aishdas.org   inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change
Fax: (270) 514-1507      ourselves.      - Victor Frankl (MSfM)


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 218
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."