CHULIN 78 (8 Adar I) - dedicated in honor of the Yahrzeit of Sarah bas Baruch Hersh Rosenbaum, who passed away on 8 Adar I 5776, by her husband Zev Dov Rosenbaum.



תוספות ד"ה אותו

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that not every statement in our Mishnah needs to be said regarding Oso v'Es Beno.)

איידי דבעי למתני בחולין ובמוקדשין בפני הבית ושלא בפני הבית שהם לצורך קתני נמי בארץ ובח"ל


Explanation: Being that the Mishnah has to say that it applies to Chulin and Mukdashin, and whether or not there is a Beis Hamikdash, it also says that it applies in Eretz Yisrael and in Chutz la'Aretz.

ואע"ג דהוי שלא לצורך דחובת הגוף היא


Explanation (cont.): This is despite the fact that this is seemingly unnecessary being that it is an obligation on a person (not dependent on the land).

כיון דאיכא דוכתא דהוי לצורך כגון בראשית הגז דהכי אמרינן בשילוח הקן (לקמן קלח:) דבארץ ובח"ל בכולהו שלא לצורך לבד מראשית הגז


Explanation (cont.): Being that there are Mitzvos mentioned where we must say this, such as regarding Reishis ha'Gez (the first shearing of the sheep), it is said here as well. This is as the Gemara explicitly states later (138b) that whenever the Mishnayos here say "in Eretz Yisrael and in Chutz la'Aretz" it is an unnecessary statement aside from when it says this regarding Reishis ha'Gez.

ובפני הבית ושלא בפני הבית בכולהו הוי שלא לצורך לבד מאותו ואת בנו דאיצטריך דה"א כיון דבענין קדשים כתיב לא לנהוג אלא בזמן דאיכא קדשים


Explanation (cont.): Similarly, "whether or not there is a Beis Hamikdash" is only necessary regarding Oso v'Es Beno (and not the other Mishnayos). I would think that being that it is stated regarding Kodshim, perhaps it only applies when Kodshim are being brought. (This is why the Mishnah made a point of saying that Oso v'Es Beno even applies when there is no Beis Hamikdash.)



תוספות ד"ה מנין

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we would think the Pasuk regarding Oso v'Es Beno is not including Mukdashin.)

וא"ת ואמאי ס"ד דלא איירי קרא במוקדשין הא סתמא כתיב


Question: Why would we think that Oso v'Es Beno is not referring to Mukdashin? The Pasuk does not differentiate!

ואין לומר דאיצטריך שאם צריך לפסח ואין לו אלא אותו שנשחט בו ביום אביו או בנו דס"ד דאתי עשה דפסח ודחי לאו דאותו ואת בנו ולהכי איצטריך דלא דחי


Implied Question: One cannot answer that it is necessary to teach us regarding a case where one needs a Korban Pesach, and he only has an animal whose father or son was slaughtered that day. One might think that the positive commandment of Pesach pushes aside the negative commandment of Oso v'Es Beno. This is why the Pasuk is needed to teach us that the commandment of Oso v'Es Beno is not pushed aside.

דכי האי גוונא אמרינן לקמן בשילוח הקן (דף קמא.) גבי לדבר מצוה מנין


Proof: We similarly say later (141a) regarding Shilu'ach ha'Ken that we need a Pasuk to teach us that we uphold Shilu'ach ha'Ken even when one wants to do a Mitzvah with the birds.

דהא במחוסר זמן איכא לאו ועשה ובלאו קרא לא דחי ליה עשה


Answer: We see that Mechusar Zeman (Oso v'Es Beno is also considered Mechusar Zeman) has both a negative and positive prohibition, and without a special Pasuk we know that a positive commandment will not push it aside.

ונראה דמעיקרא קשיא ליה משום דשור הפסיק הענין דמשמע למעוטי מוקדשין דליכא למימר משום דלא תימא במוקדשין דוקא בא להפסיק דא"כ ליכתביה בעלמא שלא בענין דקדשים וממילא הוה מוקמינן לקרא בכל מילי ולפי המסקנא צ"ל דלשום דרשה נכתב שם


Answer: It appears that the Gemara's original question was due to the word "ox" interrupting, implying that Oso v'Es Beno does not apply to Mukdashin. It seems difficult to say that "ox" was not said for this reason, as otherwise the Torah should have stated this prohibition when the Torah was not discussing Kodshim at all, and we would have said the Pasuk is referring to both Chulin and Mukdashin! The conclusion of the Gemara must be that the prohibition was stated in this fashion (and not in a place that was not discussing Kodshim at all) in order to teach some sort of derivation.

וא"ת בפ' הזרוע (לקמן דף קל.) דדריש מקרא דאין מתנות נוהגים במוקדשים שהיה בדין שינהגו מק"ו ופריך בגמרא קרא ל"ל אי משום ק"ו איכא למיפרך כו' מכל מקום בלא ק"ו אי לאו דמיעט קרא במוקדשים (לא) הוי מוקמינן לקרא בכל מילי


Question: The Gemara later (130a) derives from the Pasuk that Matanos from an animal (to a Kohen, meaning the Zeroa etc.) do not apply to Mukdashin. One might think they would be required due to a Kal v'Chomer. The Gemara asks, why is a Pasuk needed to teach us this? If it were just for the Kal v'Chomer we could ask etc. However, without a Kal v'Chomer, the Gemara implies that if the Pasuk did not exclude Mukdashin we would have thought the Pasuk is referring to both Chulin and Mukdashin!

וי"ל משום דקרא דמתנות לענין חולין כתיב


Answer: The Pasuk regarding Matanos is referring specifically to Chulin (implying that it does not apply to Mukdashin).



תוספות ד"ה אי מה

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara does not ask that Oso v'Es Beno should only apply when there is a Beis Hamikdash.)

וא"ת תקשה ליה נמי מה קדשים שלא בפני הבית לא


Question: Why doesn't the Gemara ask that just as Kodshim is inapplicable when there is no Beis Hamikdash etc.?

דכה"ג אשכחן בפ' שילוח הקן (לקמן דף קלח:) ס"ד אמינא הואיל דלענין קדשים כתיב לא לנהוג אלא בזמן שיש קדשים


Question (cont.): We find this logic employed in Chulin (138b) that one might think that because it is stated regarding Kodshim, it should only apply when there are Kodshim.

וי"ל נהי דהוה צריך למיתני מ"מ לא איצטריך קרא להכי דאע"ג דשלא בפני הבית אין קדשים קריבין מ"מ מקדש קדישי


Answer: Even though the Mishnah had to state Oso v'Es Beno applies when there is no Mikdash (due to this possible thought), we would not need a Pasuk to teach us this (i.e. to exclude this thought). While Kodshim are not brought when there is no Beis Hamikdash, they can have the holiness of a Korban when there is no Beis Hamikdash. (Accordingly, the thought is technically incorrect, and does not need a Pasuk to exclude it.)



תוספות ד"ה ועוד שה

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara quotes Rava's teaching, and why we do not derive Oso v'Es Beno from Shabbos.)

בלא רבא הוה מצי למיפרך והא שור ושה כתיב דאין אתה יכול להוציא כלאים מביניהם ואית לן למעוטי כלאים


Implied Question: Without Rava's teaching the Gemara could have still asked, "Doesn't the Pasuk say, "ox and sheep?" This would show that Kilayim is excluded from Oso v'Es Beno, being that one cannot cause a sheep and ox to have offspring together.

כדמוכח במרובה (ב"ק עז:) גבי כי יגנוב איש שור או שה וטבחו


Proof: This is as the Gemara in Bava Kama (77b) states regarding the Pasuk, "When a person will steal an ox or sheep and slaughter it etc." (that by mentioning ox or sheep the Pasuk indicates that we exclude Kilayim).

אלא דעדיפא פריך


Answer: Rather, the Gemara chose to ask a stronger question (using Rava's statement).

וא"ת ואמאי לא גמרינן שור שור משבת ויהא אותו ואת בנו נוהג אף בחיה כדאשכחן בשור שנגח את הפרה (שם נד:)


Question: Why don't we derive a Gezeirah Shaveh of "ox - ox" from Shabbos to teach us that Oso v'Es Beno even applies to an undomesticated animal? We find a similar type of teaching in the Gemara in Bava Kama (54b).

וי"ל כיון דלא מצינו למילף אף בהמה טמאה דומיא דשבת לא ילפינן כלל


Answer #1: Being that we cannot derive that this even applies to an unkosher animal as we do regarding Shabbos, we cannot use this teaching at all.

ועוד דאי משבת ילפינן א"כ שה דכתב רחמנא למה לי


Answer #2: Additionally, if we derive from Shabbos, why should the Torah state "sheep" regarding Oso v'Es Beno (when we know everything from "ox")?

ועוד דומיא דקדשים דלא שייך בחיה


Answer #3: Additionally, the animal must be like an animal of Kodshim which is domesticated.

ומהאי טעמא נמי הוה ממעטינן כלאים אי לאו דכתיב או


Observation: This reason would also allow us to exclude Kilayim if the Torah did not say "or" (which causes us to say that the Torah is including Kilayim, as opposed to the implication of "ox and sheep").




תוספות ד"ה זה בנה אב

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains Rava's teaching and two similar teachings by explaining what exactly each one teaches.)

פירש בקונטרס דילפינן כולהו משה כשבים ושה עזים


Explanation #1: Rashi explains that we derive this from "Seh Kesavim v'Seh Izim." (Saying "Seh" - "sheep" twice indicates that both its father and mother must be a Seh.)

וקשה לפירושו דבמרובה (ב"ק עח.) מסיק דבנין אב דרבא איצטריך לפדיון פטר חמור כדתנן אין פודין לא בעגל ולא בכלאים


Question: There is difficulty with his explanation. In Bava Kama (78a), the Gemara concludes that Rava's teaching is needed regarding Peter Chamor. This is as the Mishnah states that one cannot redeem a firstborn donkey with a calf or with Kilayim.

ופריך התם ולר"א דמתיר בכלאים מפני שהוא שה למאי אתא


Question (cont.): The Gemara there asks that according to Rebbi Elazar who permits redeeming with Kilayim because it is a "Seh," what does Rava's teaching teach us?

ומשני לטמא שנולד מן הטהור ועבורו מן הטמא ודלא כר' יהושע דאי כר' יהושע משה כשבים ושה עזים נפקא משמע בהדיא דבנין אב דרבא לא הוה משה כשבים ושה עזים


Question (cont.): The Gemara answers that it is for an unkosher animal born from a kosher animal which was impregnated by an unkosher animal. This is unlike Rebbi Yehoshua, as Rebbi Yehoshua understands that this is derived from "Seh Kesavim v'Seh Izim." This explicitly implies that Rava's teaching is not from the Pasuk "Seh Kesavim v'Seh Izim."

ונראה דמשה דפסח עביד בנין אב


Explanation #2: It seems that Rava's teaching is from the Pasuk "Seh" said regarding Pesach.

תדע מדמסיק במרובה דלפטר חמור אצטריך בנין אב דרבא ובסוף פ"ק דבכורות (דף יב.) יליף לה משה שה של פסח


Proof: This is apparent from the Gemara's conclusion in Bava Kama (ibid.) that we require Rava's teaching for redeeming a firstborn donkey, and the Gemara in Bechoros (12a) which explicitly derives this from the word Seh stated regarding the Korban Pesach.

אבל קשה דמאי שנא דהכא קרי ליה בנין אב ובבכורות עביד ליה ג"ש נאמר כאן שה ונאמר להלן שה


Question #1: However, there is a difficulty. Why does our Gemara call Rava's teaching a Binyan Av, while the Gemara in Bechoros (ibid.) calls it a Gezeirah Shaveh by saying, "It says Seh here and it says Seh there etc.?"

ועוד דמאי שנא דנקט רבא כלאים טפי מעגל וחיה טרפה ושחוטה דכולהו מפיק התם משה כדקאמר התם מה להלן פרט לכל השמות הללו


Question #2: Additionally, why did Rava exclude Kilayim any more than a calf, undomesticated animal, Treifah, or slaughtered lamb? All of these are excluded from the word Seh, as stated there, "Just as there it excludes all of these types of animals etc."

וליכא למימר דטרפה ושחוטה נפקא ממשמעותיה דשה ולאו דוקא נקט פרט לכל השמות


Implied Question: One cannot say that a Treifah and a slaughtered animal are excluded from Seh (i.e. the word Seh without requiring a Binyan Av or Gezeirah Shaveh), and that when the Gemara says "all of these types are excluded" it doesn't literally mean they are all excluded due to the teaching of Rava.

דה"נ עגל וחיה נקט התם אע"ג דודאי נפקי ממשמעותיה דשה אלא ניחא ליה לכלול כולם יחד


Answer: This is evident from the fact that a calf and undomesticated animal are listed there, even though they clearly are excluded from the word Seh. Rather, it is better for the Gemara to list all of the exceptions (even the obvious ones) at once.

דהא פר אפי' שחוט קרוי פר כדאמרי' בפרק הוציאו לו (יומא דף מט:) ושה נמי הוי נמנין עליו אפי' אחר שחיטה אי לאו דכתיב מהיות משה מחיותיה דשה כדאמר התם


Answer: This is because a Par is called a Par even after it is slaughtered, as stated in Yoma (49b). One would technically be able to join a Korban Pesach after it is slaughtered were it not for the Pasuk of "mi'Hiyos mi'Seh" (implying one has to have his part of the Korban Pesach when it is alive), as stated there.

וטרפה נמי חשיבא שה דמחייב במרובה (דף עז:) במוכר טרפה בד' וה' אע"ג דשה כתיב התם והכי נמי תנא אותו ואת בנו נוהג בטרפה ואפי' ר"ש לא פליג אלא משום דהויא שחיטה שאינה ראויה


Answer (cont.): A Treifah is also still called a sheep, as the Gemara in Bava Kama (77b) says that one is liable to pay four or five times if he sells the sheep or ox as a Treifah, even though the Pasuk says "Seh." Here, as well, we say that Oso v'Es Beno applies to a Treifah. Rebbi Shimon only argues because he says that it is a slaughtering that is not fit.

וע"ק דבאותו ואת בנו ובתשלומי ד' וה' נמעט טרפה מבנין אב


Question #3: Another difficulty is that we see regarding Oso v'Es Beno and paying four or five times for an ox or sheep that a Treifah is excluded from a Binyan Av.

ונ"ל דטרפה ושחוטה נפקי מג"ש דשה שה מפסח כדאמר בבכורות (דף יב.) ועגל וחיה ממשמעות דשה וכלאים מבנין אב דרבא


Answer: It appears to me that Treifah and a slaughtered animal are derived from a Gezeirah Shaveh of "Seh-Seh" derived from Pesach, as stated in Bechoros (12a). A calf and undomesticated animal are excluded from the implication of the word "Seh," and Kilayim is excluded from Rava's Binyan Av.

דמגזרה שוה לא מסתבר למעוטי כלאים כמו טרפה ושחוטה דאית לן למימר תפדה תפדה ריבה כיון דשה גמור הוא בין דאזלת בתר אב בין דאזלת בתר אם אבל מבנין אב ממעט שפיר דהכי כתיב שה תמים וגו' ומן העזים תקחו דמשמע עד שיהא אביו כבש ואמו כבשה


Answer (cont.): It is illogical to exclude Kilayim in the same way that we exclude Treifah and a slaughtered animal. We can say that "Tifdeh-Tifdeh" should include Kilayim being that it is technically a Seh, whether we go after the mother or the father of the animal. However, a Binyan Av can be used to exclude Kilayim, as the Pasuk says, "A pure Seh... and from the goats you should take." This indicates that its father must be a Keves and its mother must be a Kivsah.

ומיותר הוא דלגופיה לא איצטריך דמשאר קדשים נפקא דממעטינן כלאים מאו כשב אלא ללמד בעלמא אתי דכל מקום שנאמר שה אינו אלא להוציא כלאים


Answer (cont.): This Pasuk is extra, as it is not needed regarding Korban Pesach. This is because Korban Pesach is derived from all other Kodshim regarding which the Pasuk, "Oh Kesev" teaches that Kilayim cannot be brought. Rather, the Pesukim regarding Korban Pesach must be teaching a general lesson that whenever the Pasuk says, "Seh" it excludes Kilayim.

ואע"ג דכתיב נמי בהאי קרא תמים דנפיק משאר קדשים


Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Pasuk regarding Pesach says "Tamim" - "pure," even though this is derived from other Korbanos. (If we see the Pasuk bothers to state Tamim even though it would be known for other Kodshim, perhaps the Pasuk regarding Seh also only teaches about Korban Pesach and it is not extra!)

לשום דרשא נכתב


Answer: It must be that there is a derivation from the word Tamim as well.

והא דלא ממעטינן באותו ואת בנו ובתשלומי ד' וה' טרפה בגזרה שוה דשה שה מפסח


Implied Question: We do not exclude a Treifah regarding Oso v'Es Beno and (a thief) paying four or five times based on the Gezeirah Shaveh of "Seh-Seh" from Pesach. (In Bechoros (12a), this Gezeirah Shaveh is quoted as teaching us only about Peter Chamor. Why don't we apply it to Oso v'Es Beno?)

אפשר דאינו מופנה


Answer: It is possible that it is not open for derivation (and is only between Pesach and Peter Chamor, not any topic mentioning the word Seh).

והשתא ניחא נמי כי בעי במרובה לר' אלעזר דמתיר בכלאים בנין אב דרבא למאי הלכתא לקדשים ולא קאמר לטרפה ושחוטה דהנהו מגזירה שוה נפקי


Observation: Now it is understandable why when the Gemara in Bava Kama (78a) asks according to Rebbi Elazar who permits Kilayim what he uses Rava's Binyan Av for, the Gemara answers he uses it for Kodshim. It does not answer he uses it for Treifah or a slaughtered animal, as those are derived from the Gezeirah Shaveh and not the Binyan Av.

וא"ת ובמרובה דקאמר ובנין אב דרבא למאי הלכתא אי לקדשים בהדיא כתיב בהו משמע דאי לא כתיב בהו כלאים בהדיא הוה ניחא


Question: The Gemara in Bava Kama (ibid.) asked what law was taught by Rava's Binyan Av. The Gemara asks that if it teaches a law regarding Kodshim, it is already clearly stated that Kodshim cannot be Kilayim! This indicates that if Kilayim were not explicitly stated regarding Kodshim, the Gezeirah Shaveh could be used to teach Kilayim.

והא עיקר בנין אב לא אייתר בפסח אלא משום דמקדשים נפקא


Question (cont.): However, we stated above that the words used to teach the Binyan Av are only extra because we derive Korban Pesach from other Kodshim where Kilayim is excluded! (The implication of the Gemara in Bava Kama is that Kodshim would be derived from the Binyan Av were it not for the fact that there is already a source for Kodshim not being from Kilayim!)

וי"ל דכן דרך הש"ס שעושה כאילו קים ליה בפסח ממקום אחר


Answer: It is normal that the Gemara acts as if we know Pesach from a different source (other than Kodshim).

וכענין זה יש בריש קדושין (דף ג:) ובפרק נערה (כתובות דף מו:) גבי קדושי הבת לאביה דקאמר וכי תימא נילף מבשת ופגם ואע"ג דבשת ופגם גופיה לא קים לן דהוי דאביה אלא מקדושין בפ' אלו נערות (דף מ: ושם ד"ה דאי)


Proof: We similarly find this in Kedushin (3b) and Kesuvos (46b) regarding the Kedushin of a (minor) daughter going to her father. The Gemara asks, perhaps we should derive that the father receives the Kedushin just as he receives her Boshes and Pegam? The Gemara asks this question despite the fact that Boshes and Pegam going to the father are derived from the fact that a father receives his daughter's Kedushin, as stated in Kesuvos (40b, see Tosfos there DH "d'Iy").



תוספות ד"ה או לרבות

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that "Oh" can both exclude or include Kilayim.)

אף על גב דמאו כשב ממעטינן כלאים


Implied Question: This is despite the fact that we exclude Kilayim from "Oh Kesev." (How can we find "Oh" in one place including Kilayim, while in another place it excludes Kilayim?)

התם מענין דקרא והכא מענין דקרא כדאמר במרובה (ב"ק עז:)


Answer: Each teaching of "Oh" is based on the context of the Pasuk it is in, as stated in Bava Kama (77b).

וא"ת והיכי פריך לעיל ואימא במוקדשין אין בחולין לא היכי מצי למימר הכי א"כ אמאי איצטריך או לרבות כלאים דכלאים בקדשים ליכא כדקאמר אי מה כלאים בקדשים לא


Question: How could the Gemara earlier have asked, "Why don't we say Oso v'Es Beno only applies to Kodshim and not Chulin?" How can we say this? If so, why would we require "Oh" to include Kilayim? We already know that Kilayim cannot be Kodshim, as we said, "Why not say that just as Kilayim cannot be Kodshim etc."

וי"ל דאי הוה מוקמינן קרא דאותו ואת בנו דוקא במוקדשים א"כ לא הוה דרשינן או לרבות כלאים אלא הוה מוקמינן לדרשא אחריתי


Answer: If Oso v'Es Beno was indeed only regarding Mukdashin, we would not derive that "Oh" includes Kilayim. Rather, we would say it is teaching us a different derivation.



תוספות ד"ה עד שיפרוט

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the opinions of both Rebbi Yoshiyah and Rebbi Yonason regarding the word "Yachdav.")

וא"ת ולר' יאשיה אמאי כתיב קרא (דברים כב) יחדו בלא תחרוש


Question: According to Rebbi Yoshiyah, why does the Pasuk say "Yachdav" (Devarim 22:10) regarding not plowing with an ox and donkey?

וי"ל דאיצטריך דה"א דאסור אע"פ שאינם קשורים


Answer: It is necessary. Without "Yachdav," I would think that it is forbidden to plow with them together even if they are not tied together.

וכן גבי לבישת כלאים אי לא כתיב יחדו ה"א דאפי' מלבושים אחד של צמר ואחד של פשתים לא ילבש אע"פ שאינם תפורים יחד דמיחדו דרשינן דתוכף תכיפה אחת אינו חבור


Answer (cont.): Similarly, if the Torah had not said "Yachdav" regarding wearing Kilayim, I would think that one cannot even wear one garment of wool and one of linen even if they are not sewn together. "Yachdav" teaches that if they are sewn together by only one stitch, it is not considered that they are sewn together.

ור' יונתן לא משום דפרט הכתוב יחדו בהני דריש דהא אצטריך כדפי' אלא מסברא דנפשיה קאמר הכי ולהכי לא קאמר כדרך שפרט לך הכתוב בכלאים כדאמרינן בפרק כל שעה (פסחים דף כא:) כדרך שפרט לך הכתוב בנבלה


Answer (cont.): Rebbi Yonasan does not derive these laws from the word "Yachdav," as he requires "Yachdav" as explained in the Gemara (that each one separately is not forbidden). Rather, he understands that these laws are logical. This is why he does not say, "Just as the Torah excluded regarding Kilayim etc." as we indeed say in Pesachim (21b) "Just as the Torah excluded regarding Neveilah etc."



תוספות ד"ה מה כשחייב

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how we know that the Pasuk regarding Shiluach ha'Ken is specifically about the mother and not the father.)

דאם דקרא משמע ליה דוקא ולא משום שאורחה להיות רובצת מדכתיב (דברים כב) שלח תשלח את האם דה"ל למכתב שלח תשלחנה כיון דכתיב כבר לא תקח האם לכך משמע ליה דוקא


Explanation: The word "mother" in the Pasuk implies specifically the mother, not just the bird that normally hovers over the chicks. This is evident from the Pasuk's statement, "Send away the mother." It should have otherwise said, "You should send her away," being that it already mentioned, "You should not take the mother." This is why the Pasuk clealry indicates it is only referring to the mother.



תוספות ד"ה מי שבנו

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the extra Pasuk regarding Shiluach ha'Ken is needed.)

וא"ת א"כ ל"ל דמייתר קרא גבי שלוח הקן נילף ק"ו מאותו ואת בנו שעשה בו מזומן כשאינו מזומן


Question: If so, why is the extra Pasuk regarding Shiluach ha'Ken needed? We can merely derive a Kal v'Chomer from Oso v'Es Beno that just as Oso v'Es Beno applies to an animal that is in his domain and not in his domain etc.!

ויש לומר דאי לאו דחזינן בשלוח הקן דאם דוקא לא הוי דרשינן באותו ואת בנו שבנו כרוך אחריו


Answer: If we would not know that Shiluach ha'Ken is specifically referring to the mother, we would not know regarding Oso v'Es Beno that it is referring to the mother whom the son always follows.