Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 46

Wed, 19 Mar 2014

• 1. Re: Rav Elya Lopian: tefillin and radio (T6...@aol.com)
• 2. Re: Daas Torah and Lakewood [was: Daas Torah and the Holocaust] (T613K@aol.com)
• 3. Re: Rebbi Akiva, Rabbon Gamliel, Who Brings the Chatos (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Rav Elya Lopian: tefillin and radio (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Eitz HaDa'at (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Time for the Deceased (was: Why does Moshe use, logical... (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Daas Torah and the Holocaust (Kenneth Miller)
• 8. Re: Congregation B'nai Yeshurun Hosts First-Ever 'Internet Minyan' (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: Aliyyot to the Blind vs Aliyyot for women vs Aliyyot for minors (Chana Luntz)
• 10. Esther (Eli Turkel)
• 11. Re: Esther (Zev Sero)

 


On Mon, Mar 17, 2014, Kenneth Miller wrote:
: In the past, we have  discussed the situation of a person whose tefillin
: have been checked and  approved, and then a serious p'sul is discovered
: which must have been  missed in the earlier inspection. Does he get s'char
: for donning such  tefillin? I am NOT addressing that question here. And
: it is possible that  Rav Lopian was not addressing it either. He was
: describing how *proper*  tefillin "work". It is possible that improper
: tefillin work in a different  manner.

From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
>>The  nimshal for my position is that they work in the same manner. I
suggested  that mitzvos work by shaping the soul of those who do them.
The nimshal for  radio waves would be the psycho-spiritual state of the
wearer. A pesul in the  tefillin that the person didn't know about and
has no culpibility for not  knowing is like a break in the radio's case --
it needn't have any impact on  the function of the radio at all.<<


-- 
Micha  Berger             


>>>>
I would say he gets schar for putting on tefillin but does not get the  
actual kedusha/spiritual benefit transmitted by metaphysical radio waves that  
his non-functioning tefillin-radio never picked up.  (Or maybe it works the  
other way, tefillin transmit something that goes up to Heaven to make a  
connection.)  I wouldn't compare pasul tefillin to a broken case  but to a 
broken radio -- perhaps one that is able to receive AM but not FM, or  that can 
pick up some stations but only with a lot of static.  If his boss  is 
paying him to carry a radio around, the boss might well pay him even though  the 
radio broke but he still didn't get the transmissions.
 

--Toby Katz
..
=============


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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140319/7e85caab/attachment-0001.htm>

 

From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>

>>I really  can't think of a single communal issue on which the gedolim
did nearly as  well in dispensing advice as the expects in the specific
field in  question.<<


-- 
Micha  Berger             

 
 
>>>>
 
Just off the top of my head, when R' Aharon Kotler advised bachurim to sit  
and learn in Lakewood rather than go to college, no one thought that was a  
viable plan.  No one thought Lakewood was a viable yeshiva.
 
Today Lakewood and its offshoots and its community kollelim and its  
"graduates" who work in all kinds of fields -- in chinuch, rabbanus, in business  
and accounting, etc, etc -- far outrank YU's graduates in numbers and  
influence.  No one, 50 years ago, would ever have foreseen that  Lakewood would 
be more successful than YU.  No one would have foreseen the  growth of the 
huge community that has sprung up around the Lakewood yeshiva --  compare that 
with what has happened to Washington Hts.
 
I say that with admiration and respect for RAK and for Lakewood, even  
though its hashkafa is not mine, and even though I would not have considered a  
Lakewooder as a husband, nor would I want a Lakewooder for a son-in-law.
 
But you have to acknowledge the amazing vision that RAK had.
 
 

--Toby Katz
..
=============


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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140319/2fc30a1b/attachment-0001.htm>

We discussed numerous times the Sifri that takes "lo sosur min hadavar
asher yagidu lekha yemin usmol" (Devarim 17:11) to mean even if they
tell you "al yemin shehu semol" and all the more so if they tell you
"al yemin, 'yemin'". This is the well-known take, because the Sifri is
quoted by Rashi.

But yet again Y-mi Yomi has me reopening topics. Horios 1:1, 2b.
And this time, it's the Horios thread that'll never die...

The Y-mi raises this as a hava amina and rejects it. And so, a Ben Azzai
(the Y-mi's recurring example of a talmid not in BD who is more learned
than a number of the Sanhedrin) is not expected to follow a pesaq ofd
Sanhedrin that he knows is wrong. (Not merely disagree with.)

The acharonim ad loc struggle with the Rashi and why he didn't follow
the Y-mi.

BTW, the Y-mi also concludes (right before 1:2) like R' Yochanan (bottom
of 2b), that if a mi'ut follows beis din, the BD is not chayav a par
he'elem davar AND the individual who followed their error is not chayav
a qorban either.

And the other half of R Yochanan's machloqes with Shemu'el
remains. Shemu'el says that someone who does the same sin but because
of his own mistake has to bring a qorban, whereas R' Yochanan says he
does not.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You cannot propel yourself forward
mi...@aishdas.org        by patting yourself on the back.
http://www.aishdas.org                   -Anonymous
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 04:45:59PM -0400, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: I would say he gets schar for putting on tefillin but does not get the
: actual kedusha/spiritual benefit transmitted by metaphysical radio waves that
: his non-functioning tefillin-radio never picked up. (Or maybe it works the
: other way, tefillin transmit something that goes up to Heaven to make a
: connection.) I wouldn't compare pasul tefillin to a broken case but to a
: broken radio -- perhaps one that is able to receive AM but not FM, or that can
: pick up some stations but only with a lot of static. If his boss is
: paying him to carry a radio around, the boss might well pay him even though the
: radio broke but he still didn't get the transmissions.

In parenting, there is a difference between imposed and natural
consequences. An imposed consequence would be a punishment or reward
meted out by the parent. The natural consequence is letting the child
learn from the effects of his own actions. For example, a child could
learn not to touch a stove by either getting slapped on the hand each
time she reaches for it, or by touching it once and getting hurt. The
first is more safe, the other is more effective. Which does Hashem use?
To ask the question another way: Does Hashem punish us to correct evil
behavior, or did He build the world so that sin causes punishment as a
natural consequence?

The boss is imposing a consequence. But I'm convinced that sechar
va'onesh can be explained in causal terms. (Sources: Eikhah 3:38-39
Rashi ad loc, Ikkarim 4:55, Shaarei Teshuvah 4:1, RCVolochiner's
Derekh haChaim 1:21, Ramchal - Derekh Hashem 1:4:4, MmE vol I pp 113-114.
See my discussion at http://www.aishdas.org/10YemeiTeshuvah.pdf#page=41

Then there is also the issue I raised before -- justice and hatavah.

A person should get what they deserve and what their life or afterlife
requires. And spiritual mechanics gets in the way of that. The person
who is wearing broken tefillin through no fault or knowledge of his own
doesn't deserve anything different, and shouldn't require different life
experiences to complete his path.

So why would HQBH introduce more reasons not to give a person exactly
what's appropriate?

And besides, if we posit that mitzvos are for acheiving deveiqus and/or
temimus, then they operate through the mind and soul. In fact, even if we
speak in terms of tiqun olamos, the first few chapters of Nefesh haChaim
(RCV again) says that the only thing that connects the physical to higher
worlds is the human soul. We alone exist on all plains. In 1:1 he writes
that this is the definition of tzelem E-loklim.

 From there I concluded that even a (Litvisher) tiqun olamos based
hashkafah would have to understand the spiritual mechanics of mitzvos
in terms of the changes the experience causes on the performer.

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

On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 04:44:31PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>>>> malachim, since they are disembodied.  So how could God place them in
>>>> a particular location?

>>> Different types of "place".

>> If you mean the verb "place", I would agree.

> But of course, I don't.  I mean the noun.

I don't know why "of course". From my words, you can conclude it wasn't
obvious to this reader.

>                                            You're assuming that  
> coordinates in what physicists refer to as "space time" are the only  
> valid definition of space.  I don't understand how you can make such an  
> assumption.

Actually, I am saying that what we think of as space is a kind
of experienced caused by human perception, with human categories,
interacting with whatever it is that spacetime models.

(After all, with holistic universe theories, scientists aren't even
committed to the neumenal (what is really "out there") reality of 3D
over 2D.)

And frankly, it could be a failure of imagination, but as far as I
can tell, space and time are the span of olam ha'asiyah (or olam
hazeh or whatever term you wish to use for the physical universe) by
definition. A place is a coordinate that points to a part of this
olam, and experimentally we know that time is linked to location,
velocity, acceleration and gravity.

As I wrote in reply to RAM, I will come up with a more detailed discussion
of why I don't think olam haba has something that causes a parallel
experience, so that we have something that "feels like" space and time
whle not being backed by the physical causes of those experiences in
olam hazeh.

We can't lean on the Rambam WRT time the way we can use his argument WRT
angels not experiencing space, because Airstotilian time is an attribute
of processes. An idea overturned by Gelileo, who showed that time is a
dimension shared by all processes, which is why we can come up with one
forumla for all pendula. But assumming the Rambam does indeed deny
mal'akhim any special dimension, then they can't move, and he would argue
they don't have time.

This appears to be the case, because he links time to the motion of the
spheres, and not to intellects above the spheres, ie outside olam hazah.

I started by pointing to REED's discussion, which does reach that
conclusion. My own thoughts will take time to frame in a clear manner.

But back to your point... Mal'akhim in olam hazeh could well have a full
experience of olam hazeh, and thus loctions and times. I wouldn't need a
different concept of space for that -- the whole statement would be that
they're in this space. I don't know what a mal'ah being sent to olam hazeh
means either, though. Any more than I know what links souls to brains.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 06:25:10PM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote:
: As I've written, I'm not convinced that the deceased don't experience
: time. But that's okay, because I think I can make a case for our actions
: anyway.

Oh, I fully agree, and that was my opening point. I wouldn't posit a
hashkafah that undermined universal minhag. Part of doing away with time
(for souls that reach that level, say 11 months or less for most) was
explaining how the deceased could be adided in their timeless way by
our yahrzeit actions. IOW, we can't pin a "when to the aliyah itself,
only to the actions that caused it.

And then because of my justice concerns, I considered the actions at that
yahrzeit a consequenct of the niftar's own life, and thus the memorial
mitzvah is actually part of the cheshbon of what the niftar themselves
did while still alive.

(You were replying to a "leshitaskha" line in my post, where I said
that if you insist on the effect, the aliyah, being after the cause,
you are inserting the neshamah which isn't in olam hazeh into time,
and not only time, but the same flow of time as is typical for the
experience of a person (nearly) at rest relative to the earth!

...
: But it can still be accurate to say that "they get an aliyah on their
: yahrzeit", in the sense that the yahrzeit is an appropriate occasion for
: US to do things in their memory. It is very similar to saying that Hashem
: is more forgiving on Yom Kippur -- no, He's not! He is outside of time,
: right? Rather, Yom Kippur is an appropriate time for US to act AS IF He
: is more forgiving.

To elaborate on the words "appropriate time":

A Yahrzeit is a time when we have an excuse to think about the niftar more
than usual and be moved by their good qualities.  Just as Hashem made
a mo'ed, an appontment time, for us to think more about and do more
teshuvah than usual.

: If this makes any sense, then we do not need that which RMB referred to
: as "something paralleling the time-as-it-really-is", because the deceased
: can experience everything all at once. There's no need for another system
: by which our discrete points in time can be mapped to their other system.

Or the deceased can know about our olam hazeh time objectively, and not
have first-hand experience of even block time. IOW, he knows about time
but has no time of his own. (Or should I say she, because all neshamos
are shes?)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
mi...@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org   Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      It is two who look in the same direction.

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> I really can't think of a single communal issue on which the
> gedolim did nearly as well in dispensing advice as the experts
> in the specific field in question.
> Just the list begins with the inter-war period simply because
> people didn't seek daas Torah until then. But it's not that WWII
> was the only time one can question whether there was any increased
> reliability to asking the gedolim. Whether you attribute ruach
> haqodesh to their advice-giving or the specialness of a mind
> shaped by Torah, the evidence isn't there for the value of either. 

Two objections: First, the evidence is selective and anecdotal. There have
been many times when they were correct, but there were no flashy headlines.
How about the Chazon Ish's medical diagnoses?

Second, maybe the fault lies not with the incorrect psak, but with the lack
of unity.If we had ALL stayed in Europe and ALL been anti-zionist, maybe it
would have turned out better? (Remember, I am not saying that it *would*
have been better, only that it *might* have been better, and we'll never
know for sure.)

OOOPS!!! Did I just suggest that all the problems we had in Shushan *might*
have been avoided if only Mordechai would have followed the other gedolim,
instead of being a daas yachid?

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
The #1 Worst Carb Ever?
Click to Learn #1 Carb that Kills Your Blood Sugar (Don't Eat This!)
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/532a32784ccf132784181st02vuc

On 19/03/2014 12:45 PM, Rich, Joel wrote:
> http://jewishl
> inkbc.com/index.php?Itemid=562&;catid=150&id=2867&optio
> n=com_content
>
> Does r?hs say the homebound get credit for tfila btzibbur and/or kriat
> hatorah? Can they be yozeih shomea koneh or by answering amen?

I don't know what RHS says, but that they should get credit for tefilah
betzibur is no chiddush at all.   It's well-established that one who can't
make it to shul can fulfil tefilah betzibur by davening at home at the same
time that the minyan is doing so in shul.  For 2000 years Jews have been
doing this by guesswork, davening when they *think* the minyan is *probably*
doing so, assuming that they started on time, etc.  This new system offers
an opportunity, for the first time, to daven at the exact same time as the
minyan, keeping pace with it and starting shemoneh esrei at the same moment.

I don't know what "credit" exists for listening to kriat hatorah.  I have
never heard that there is any obligation on an individual to do so.  It's
of course a great thing to hear Torah at any time, and since no literal
"hearing" is required it should be obvious that this can be done over the
net.

It should also be obvious that they may answer amen on any bracha, although
they don't hear it, because they know that it has been said at that moment,
and they know that it was said properly.  The example of the Alexandria shul
shows that actual hearing isn't necessary to answer amen.

But when it comes to "shomea` ke'oneh", that requires "shemi`ah", and when
one is at home one is not hearing the person speaking, one is hearing the
diaphragm inside the speaker in ones home.   RMF argues that this is no
different than what happens when one hears something live: one is really
hearing the air next to ones ears vibrate, but we call it hearing the speaker
because his voice causes the chain of events which eventually propagates
to the air next to ones ear and causes it to vibrate; so also when someone
speaks into a microphone and sets off a chain of reactions which eventually
cause the air next to the listener's ear to vibrate.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

RAF writes:

 

>    It is very important to appreciate that the gemara in Megilla is
talking about a system in which each oleh/olah read for themselves.   Women
(if not for Kevod haTsibbur) and Minors could get aliyyot - provided they
read for >themselves.  We make this >point very clearly and repeatedly in
the paper.  How someone not obligated (woman or minor) can read for the
tsibbur is also discussed at length. 

 

I agree, the discussion in the gemara in Megilla is indeed talking about a
system in which each oleh/olah read for themselves.  

 

However the minhag amongst Sepharim, as evidenced by the katan who read when
the Chief Rabbi came to visit a few weeks ago, includes for katanim to read
*for gedolim* (as well as, sometimes, for themselves, and sometimes having
an aliya when a gadol reads).  Indeed, were a katan to be limited to only
reading for himself, he would only end up learning one aliyah in a given
parsha.  What the system produces, however, are katanim who, by the time
they are 10 or 11 and have been reading for 3-4 years, know virtually the
entire Torah, with trop.  It is an extraordinarily effective chinuch system,
and sets the boy up for life.

 

This (ie katanim reading for gedolim) is a widespread practice in numbers of
Sephardi communities, and we have absolutely no reason to suspect that it
has not been going on ever since the split between the oleh and the ba'al
koreh occurred over a thousand years ago.  And this is the first suggestion,
as far as I am aware, that there is any problem with the common practice
(once it is accepted that  katanim can have any involvement in the Torah
reading at all). ie this is the first suggestion that distinctions need to
be made within the roles that katanim can take vis a vis the Torah reading.

  

>    But focus of our paper is not on this issue but on the question of how
the Oleh can make a berakha when he is not the one who >does the ma'aseh
mitsva, i.e., the one who reads aloud - but the ba'al korei.  The
institution of Ba'al >Korei  did not exist at the time of >the Talmud and
was introduced around the year 1000 just before the rishonim period. Once
there is a bifurcated system, with one >individual making the berakhot and
another doing the ma'aseh haMitsva -

 

And the majority rishonim, including the Rosh and the Beis Yosef, are fully
cognisant of this problem, and resolve it by explaining that the oleh does
do the ma'aseh mitzvah, he reads from the Torah - albeit quietly along with
the ba'al koreh.  Nothing has changed in that regard, just that the tzibbur
does not hear him, rather they hear the ba'al koreh who is likely to be a
more fluent reader who is more pleasant to listen to.

 

Even if the oleh does not actually read along (at least somewhat) in the
Torah, so long as he is able to perform the ma'aseh mitzvah, it can be
argued that he can still make the brachos on the basis of Rav Zera's
priniciple of kol haroyi l'bila ain bila makeves bo.

 

The problem is with a blind man who *cannot* perform the ma'aseh mitzvah.
Some other solution has to be found if one is to allow for a blind man to
have an aliyah.  One suggestion posited by the minority rishonim and various
achronim to allow a blind man specifically to have an aliyah is to rely in
this case on shomea k'oneh.  But there is no need, nor any suggestion, that
thereby they are undermining the position of the majority rishonim that in
the normal case the basis for the brochos is the quiet reading by the oleh.


 

In other words, the simplest and most straightforward reading of all the
sources is that the majority position stands for the normal case, and in the
special case of a blind man and similar, an alternative halachic
justification and mechanism has been found, relying on minority opinions.

 

However, what you appear to be arguing for is a situation where allowance in
the special case is then used to dismiss the majority understanding in the
normal case, and posit the special case as normative.  And the fundamentally
problematic nature of such a suggestion is that it thereby illegitimates
practices that go back hundreds if not thousands of years in many
communities involving katanim layning and gadolim getting the aliyos.

 

 >    "However, at this juncture we need to distinguish between minor males
and adult women. Regarding minors, while they are not >fully obligated,
there is an obligation for majors to educate them (hinnukh) in the
fulfillment of mitsvot - >including keri'at ha-TorahThis educational
obligation is sufficient to validate a one-directional transfer from the
major to the minor. 

 

But it is not one-directional as evidenced as above.  If you want to argue
that shomea k'oneh is the dominant mechanism even for normal aliyos, then
you are ruling out the widespread minhag of katanim reading for gedolim
across the Sephardi world. .  I do not believe the Meharil or the Rema (who
according to the Aruch HaShulchan (Orech Chaim siman 137 si'if 7) accepted
the minhag of giving aliyos to blind men only reluctantly, it not actually
being his opinion set out in the Darchei Moshe) ever intended or
contemplated such a wholesale rejection of the majority rishonim and
Shulchan Aruch.  Rather they were merely allowing for a particular set of
exceptional cases, and in those exceptional cases only, they were prepared
to allow for minority halachic mechanisms such as shomea k'oneh that could
run side by side with the normative majority supported ones that applied in
the normal case.  But such an understanding means that the normative
situation remains: and katanim can read for gedolim, and ketanim can say
brachos on their quiet reading from the Torah while a gadol ba'al koreh
reads out loud, without needing to resort to questions of one directional
transfer.

 

 

>Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer

 

Regards

 

Chana

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140319/efa398dc/attachment-0001.htm>

I previously wrote

<<Of course according to the archaeological and Greek records Achashverosh
is
identified with Xerxes I (ruled 486-465 BCE). So when Esther was crowned it
was at least
110 years after the destruction of the Temple making Mordechai at least 120
from the time of Yechonya.>>

It has since been pointed out to me that Daat Mikrah says essentially the
same thing and
so they interpret that Kish went into galut with Yechonya or else that
anyone born in galut is as if they were exiled.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140319/7de828f7/attachment-0001.htm>

On 19/03/2014 2:38 PM, Eli Turkel wrote:
>
> She was also a blond (yerakroket)
> http://daf-yomi.com/DYItemDetails.aspx?itemId=13377
> http://tora.us.fm/tnk1/messages/dmut_dmut_1303_0.html

The author is wrong.  Actually he doesn't even claim that this is the correct
pshat in the gemara, he merely claims that it's *possible* to learn such a new
peshat in the gemara.  But he's wrong, both because the basis for this opinion
(of R Yehoshua ben Korcha)  is her name, so we know it means yarok like a myrtle,
not yarok like saffron or any other kind of yellow, and also because the explicit
point of this opinion is that this made her ugly, and the gemara repeats that
point two pages later, saying that according to this opinion Esther cannot have
been one of the four most beautiful women in history.

In general, the author is hardly discovering America; what he writes about the
range of shades covered by "yarok" is very well known, and I have already
mentioned it in this thread.  But it's irrelevant to the gemara about Esther.

> Of course according to the archaeological and Greek records Achashverosh
> is identified with Xerxes I (ruled 486-465 BCE). So when Esther was crowned
> it was at least 110 years after the destruction of the Temple making Mordechai
> at least 120 from the time of Yechonya.

The first churban was in 421 BCE.  So either the dates for Xerxes are wrong,
or he was not Achashverosh.  We have our history, and if Greek historians wrote
otherwise then they were lying or mistaken.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 32, Issue 46
**************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)