Zevachim 90

Shalom, dear friends, and welcome to our journey into the heart of Jewish tradition. Today, we're diving into a fascinating and often intricate corner of the Talmud, specifically Tractate Zevachim, page 90. Don't let the ancient Aramaic or the technical subject matter intimidate you! My goal is to illuminate how these seemingly abstract discussions about Temple sacrifices can offer profound insights into our own lives, our priorities, and our understanding of what it means to serve the Divine with intention and care.

The Big Question

Imagine a bustling kitchen, but instead of preparing a family meal, you're preparing offerings for the Creator of the Universe. Every detail matters: the type of ingredient, the exact preparation method, the specific order in which things are done, even the location of ingredients at particular moments. This isn't just about efficiency; it's about connecting with the sacred, ensuring that every act is performed with precision and devotion.

Our text today, Zevachim 90, plunges us into this world of intricate detail within the Temple service. It grapples with what might seem like minutiae – the exact timing for certain offerings, the precise order in which they must be brought, or even whether a sacrificial portion that briefly left the Temple courtyard is still valid. But behind these technical discussions lies a fundamental "Big Question" for us: How do we prioritize sacred acts, and what can these ancient debates teach us about the profound importance of intention, order, and nuanced understanding in our spiritual lives?

The Talmud here is not merely a rulebook; it’s a vibrant, often passionate, philosophical exploration of God’s will as expressed through the Torah's commandments. When we read about disputes between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva over whether a portion of an animal sacrifice is "disqualified by leaving" the courtyard, or about the precedence of a "sinner's meal offering" over a "voluntary meal offering," we are witnessing the Sages grapple with the very essence of what makes something holy, effective, and acceptable in the eyes of God.

This isn't just about historical Temple practices. The principles debated here – the significance of physical location, the power of correct intention, the hierarchy of different forms of spiritual expression, the interplay between human action and divine acceptance – are foundational to all Jewish observance, even today. They challenge us to consider: What truly makes an act sacred? Is it the external form, the internal intention, or a combination? And when multiple sacred acts present themselves, how do we discern the divinely preferred order?

Today, we may not be bringing animal sacrifices, but we still navigate a complex world of spiritual obligations: prayer, study, charity, acts of kindness, family responsibilities, and communal involvement. The Gemara's meticulous approach to Temple offerings can serve as a powerful lens through which to examine our own priorities, the dedication we bring to our spiritual practices, and our readiness to delve into the subtle yet profound logic that underpins Jewish law and life. So let's open our hearts and minds to this ancient text and discover its timeless wisdom.

One Core Concept

The Principle of Sacred Order

At the heart of Zevachim 90 lies the profound principle of Sacred Order. This isn't just about arbitrary sequencing; it's the understanding that within divine service, there exists a profound, often multi-layered, hierarchy and sequence. Whether it's the physical location of an offering, the intention of the one bringing it, the timing of its presentation, or its specific purpose (atonement, thanksgiving, purification), these factors dictate its validity, its legal status, and its precedence over other offerings. This concept teaches us that God’s commandments are not haphazard but are imbued with a precise, spiritual logic that demands our careful attention and respect, revealing deeper truths about the nature of our connection to the Divine.

Text Snapshot

Let's look at some key passages from Zevachim 90 that we'll be exploring:

• "...one is not liable to receive karet for them due to prohibitions against eating piggul or notar, or for partaking of the flesh while he is ritually impure. All these prohibitions apply only if the sacrificial portions are otherwise fit for sacrifice. Rabbi Akiva says that one who benefits from them is liable for misuse of consecrated property, and one is liable to receive karet for eating them due to the prohibitions of piggul, notar, or partaking of the flesh while he is ritually impure."
• "What, is it not correct to say that they disagree with regard to a case where after taking the portions to be burned out of the Temple courtyard one then brought them back into the courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood? And, if so, it is with regard to this very point that they disagree: As one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that the portions are disqualified by leaving the courtyard, and one Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds that the portions are not disqualified by leaving the courtyard."
• "The mishna teaches: The bird offerings precede meal offerings due to the fact that they are types whose blood is presented... The mishna further teaches: The meal offering of a sinner precedes a voluntary meal offering... The sacrifice of the bird sin offering precedes the sacrifice of the bird burnt offering."
• "A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If there is a bird sin offering, and an animal burnt offering, and an animal tithe offering to be sacrificed, which of them precedes the others?"
• "MISHNA: All the sin offerings mandated by the Torah take precedence over the guilt offerings,... And the Rabbis say: The sin offering precedes the peace offering, due to the fact that it is an offering of the most sacred order."
• "A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If there is a frequent offering and an offering of greater sanctity to be sacrificed, which of them precedes the other?"

Breaking It Down

Our text from Zevachim 90 explores two main categories of halakhic (Jewish legal) discussion concerning Temple offerings: firstly, the conditions under which an offering remains valid and its prohibitions applicable; and secondly, the intricate rules of precedence when multiple offerings are waiting to be sacrificed. Let's unpack these layers.

The Core Debate: When is a Sacrifice a Sacrifice?

The Gemara opens with a fascinating dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva concerning the immurim – the designated portions of an animal sacrifice (like the fats and kidneys) that are burned on the altar. The context is an animal sacrifice whose immurim were removed from the Temple courtyard before the blood was sprinkled on the altar, and then brought back in.

Rabbi Eliezer's View: He holds that these immurim are "disqualified by leaving the courtyard." This means that their brief departure from the sacred space renders them unfit for the altar. Consequently, if someone eats the meat of such an animal, they are not liable for karet (divine excision) due to prohibitions like piggul (improper intention to eat or burn the sacrifice beyond its designated time), notar (eating the leftover meat past its permitted time), or tumah (eating while ritually impure).

Why not liable? The key here, as explained by Rashi, Tosafot, and Steinsaltz, is that these prohibitions (piggul, notar, tumah) only apply to an offering that is valid and fit for sacrifice. If the immurim are disqualified, the entire sacrificial process is compromised, particularly the crucial act of blood sprinkling. As Rashi (90a:1:1) clarifies, "one is not liable for them due to piggul — for they are considered as if their blood was not sprinkled and all their permitted parts were not offered." In other words, if the immurim are invalid, the blood sprinkling itself, even if done, is ineffective in rendering the animal a proper sacrifice. Therefore, the meat never truly attains the status of consecrated food subject to these severe prohibitions. Notar, as Haggahot Ya'avetz (90a:1:2) notes, only applies to "that which was fit for eating." If the offering was never valid, it cannot become notar. Similarly, liability for tumah (impurity) only applies to something "permitted for the pure," which a disqualified offering is not (Rashi 90a:1:3).

Rabbi Akiva's View: He fundamentally disagrees. Rabbi Akiva believes that the immurim are not disqualified by merely leaving the courtyard and returning. For him, the sprinkling of the blood is effective in rendering them fit. Therefore, if someone benefits from these immurim (e.g., uses them for personal gain), they are liable for me'ilah (misuse of consecrated property). Furthermore, if someone eats the meat from such an animal with improper intention (piggul), past its time (notar), or while ritually impure (tumah), they are liable for karet. The crux of their debate, therefore, is whether the temporary physical removal from the courtyard irrevocably disqualifies the offering.

Rav Pappa's Nuance: The Gemara tries to pinpoint the exact nature of their disagreement. Initially, it suggests the debate is specifically about immurim that left and then returned to the courtyard before the blood sprinkling. However, Rav Pappa offers a different understanding: "everyone agrees" that if the immurim return, they are fit. The disagreement, he asserts, is only if the immurim are outside the courtyard at the time the blood is sprinkled. Rabbi Eliezer holds the sprinkling is not effective for immurim outside, while Rabbi Akiva holds it is effective.

Rav Pappa then complicates this further by bringing up the shtei halechem (two loaves) brought on Shavuot. He had previously stated that regarding the shtei halechem, everyone agrees they are not rendered fit if they are outside during the blood sprinkling. The dispute there is only if they returned to the courtyard. This seems to contradict his previous statement about immurim.

The Gemara resolves this by distinguishing between the two: the shtei halechem are "not part of the offering itself" (they are an accompaniment), whereas the immurim "are part of the offering itself." This distinction is critical. For the shtei halechem, being outside at the time of sprinkling is a definitive disqualifier for all. The debate between R. Eliezer and R. Akiva regarding shtei halechem is only when they returned to the courtyard. But for immurim, which are integral to the animal sacrifice, their being outside at the time of sprinkling is where R. Eliezer and R. Akiva disagree. This shows the meticulousness of halakhic thought, where subtle differences in the nature of the object can lead to entirely different legal outcomes.

The Puzzle of Precedence: Which Comes First?

The bulk of our text then shifts to questions of precedence – when multiple offerings are awaiting sacrifice, which one takes priority? This isn't random; it reflects a divinely ordained hierarchy and purpose.

1. Bird Offerings Precede Meal Offerings: The Mishna states that bird offerings (like a bird sin offering or burnt offering) precede meal offerings. The Gemara challenges this, arguing that meal offerings are brought for both communal and individual sins, making them seemingly more significant than bird offerings, which are only individual. The answer: "Even so, the fact that bird offerings are types whose blood is sprinkled is of greater importance." The act of sprinkling blood, central to atonement and purification, gives bird offerings a higher spiritual rank than meal offerings, despite the latter's broader applicability.

2. Sinner's Meal Offering Precedes Voluntary Meal Offering: Similarly, a "meal offering of a sinner" (e.g., for a poor person who committed certain sins) precedes a "voluntary meal offering" (brought as a free-will gift). The challenge: the voluntary offering requires oil and frankincense, making it seemingly more elaborate. The answer: "Even so, the meal offering of a sinner, which comes due to a sin, is of greater importance, as it effects atonement." Atonement is a primary purpose of sacrifice, giving it precedence over an offering that, while beautiful, is purely voluntary.

3. The Sota Meal Offering Dilemma: This leads to a dilemma: which precedes, a voluntary meal offering or the meal offering of a sota (a woman suspected of adultery)? The voluntary offering has oil and frankincense. The sota offering "comes to clarify transgression." The Gemara attempts to derive an answer from the Mishna's ruling about the sinner's meal offering. It reasons: if only the sinner's meal offering precedes, then the sota offering might not. However, the Gemara rejects this, noting that the Mishna gives the reason "due to the fact that it comes because of a sin," and the sota offering also comes because of a sin. So the initial Mishna doesn't definitively resolve the sota vs. voluntary offering question.

   A baraita (an external Mishnaic teaching) is then brought: "This meal offering precedes that meal offering, as this meal offering comes from wheat, and that meal offering comes from barley." The Gemara asks if this refers to the voluntary offering (wheat) preceding the sota offering (barley). This would imply that the quality of the offering (wheat being superior to barley) dictates precedence. However, the Gemara counters that it could refer to a sinner's meal offering (wheat) preceding a sota offering (barley). Steinsaltz (90a:10-11) explains the Gemara's frustration here: why does the baraita give the reason of "wheat vs. barley" when more fundamental reasons exist? For a sinner's meal offering over a sota, one could simply say "this atones, that does not." For a voluntary offering over a sota, one could say "this requires oil and frankincense, that does not." The Gemara concludes that the baraita simply "cited one of two reasons," meaning we can't definitively deduce the answer to the sota vs. voluntary offering dilemma from its specific wording. This highlights that sometimes, the text provides a reason, not necessarily the only or most compelling reason.

4. Sin Offering Precedes Burnt Offering (General Rule): The Mishna states that a bird sin offering precedes a bird burnt offering. Where is this derived from? A baraita cites Leviticus 5:8, regarding the poor person's bird offerings: "And he shall offer that which is for the sin offering first." The verse then says, "And he shall prepare the second for a burnt offering." The Gemara explains that the verse's explicit mention of "first" for the sin offering, followed by "second" for the burnt offering, is not just for this specific case. Rather, "this verse established a paradigm for all sin offerings, teaching that they should precede the burnt offering that comes with them." This applies to bird sin over bird burnt, animal sin over animal burnt, and even bird sin over animal burnt! This establishes a fundamental principle: the offering that atones for a transgression generally takes precedence.

5. Rabbi Eliezer's Exception (Woman After Childbirth): A baraita seems to contradict this general rule. Rabbi Eliezer states that in all cases where a bird sin offering replaces an animal sin offering, the sin offering precedes. "But here, in the case of a woman who gave birth, the burnt offering takes precedence." Why? He offers three reasons:

   • The animal burnt offering is mentioned first in the verse (Leviticus 12:6), and the bird burnt offering replaces it.
   • In other cases, the sin offering "comes because of a sin" (atonement), but for a woman after childbirth, it's about "effecting ritual purity," not atonement.
   • In other cases, two birds replace one animal sin offering, meaning the bird sin offering is the primary replacement. But for the woman after childbirth, the bird burnt offering replaces an animal burnt offering, while the bird sin offering is brought even by a rich woman.

   Rava reconciles this apparent contradiction by saying that the verse mentioning the burnt offering first for the woman after childbirth is "only with regard to reading it, but in practice, the sin offering is sacrificed first." This is a common Talmudic technique: distinguishing between the literal order of words in a verse and the practical halakhic order of actions.

6. Hierarchy of Animal Species (Gift Offerings): Another baraita lists precedence for different animal species: "bulls precede rams, and rams precede sheep, and sheep precede male goats." Initially, the Gemara suggests this refers to the Sukkot festival offerings, where burnt offering bulls, rams, and sheep would precede sin offering male goats, contradicting the "sin offering precedes burnt offering" rule. However, the Gemara rejects this, clarifying it refers to gift offerings (voluntary offerings). The precedence is then explained by the quantity of libations (wine and oil) required: bulls require more than rams, rams more than sheep. Sheep precede male goats because their portions burned on the altar are "greater" (the sheep's tail is burned, the goat's is not). This shows that even within the same type of offering (burnt offering), subtle differences in required accompaniments or burned portions can dictate precedence.

7. The "Idol Worship" Anomaly and "According to the Ordinance": A crucial challenge arises from a baraita discussing sin offerings for erroneous communal rulings. It states: "The bull of the anointed priest (sin offering) precedes the bull for an unwitting communal sin (sin offering)." This is fine. Then, "The bull for an unwitting communal sin (sin offering) precedes the bull sacrificed... for unwitting communal sin involving idol worship (burnt offering)." This is also fine, as a sin offering precedes a burnt offering.

   • The Contradiction: However, the baraita continues: "The bull... for idol worship (burnt offering) precedes the male goats... for idol worship (sin offering). This is the halakha even though the bull... for idol worship is a burnt offering, and the male goats... for idol worship are sin offerings." Here, a burnt offering precedes a sin offering, directly contradicting the general rule established earlier!

   The Gemara resolves this with two explanations from "the West" (Eretz Yisrael):

   • Rava bar Mari: The sin offering for idol worship is unique because its name in the Torah (Numbers 15:24) is written "without an alef" (לחתאת rather than לחטאת). This unusual spelling indicates it's different from other sin offerings and doesn't follow the usual precedence rule.
   • Ravina: The term "according to the ordinance" (כמשפט) is written regarding the offerings for idol worship (Numbers 15:24: "The congregation shall offer one young bull...according to the ordinance, and one goat for a sin offering"). This implies that they must be sacrificed in the precise order stated in the verse, even if it means a burnt offering precedes a sin offering. This "according to the ordinance" principle is then retroactively applied to the Sukkot offerings mentioned earlier, explaining why the burnt offerings (bulls, rams, sheep) could precede the sin offering (male goats) if the baraita had been referring to them.

8. The Ultimate Dilemma: Bird Sin, Animal Burnt, Animal Tithe: The Gemara then presents a complex scenario: if you have a bird sin offering, an animal burnt offering, and an animal tithe offering, which takes precedence? Each has a reason to go first:

   • Bird sin offering: generally precedes burnt offerings.
   • Animal tithe offering: a "slaughtering type" (needs to be slaughtered, which is a significant act).
   • Animal burnt offering: "most sacred order."

   This is a true halakhic Gordian knot! The Gemara offers two resolutions, one from Babylonia and one from Eretz Yisrael, demonstrating that even among the Sages, there could be different, valid ways to weigh competing principles:

   • Babylonian Explanation: The fact that the animal tithe offering is "a type of offering that requires slaughtering" is of greater importance. Therefore, the order is: Animal Tithe -> Bird Sin -> Animal Burnt.
   • Eretz Yisrael Explanation: The "animal burnt offering has an effect on the bird sin offering sacrificed with it and raises its importance above that of the animal tithe offering." Therefore, the order is: Bird Sin -> Animal Burnt -> Animal Tithe. This suggests a symbiotic spiritual relationship where one offering elevates another.

The Mishna's Final Rules

The Mishna at the end of Zevachim 90a summarizes several key precedence rules:

• Sin Offerings Precede Guilt Offerings, Except the Leper's: Generally, sin offerings (for unintentional sins) take precedence over guilt offerings (for specific transgressions involving monetary value or sacred property). The exception is the guilt offering of a leper. Why? "Because it comes to render one fit." The leper's purification process is complex, and the guilt offering is a critical step that allows him to re-enter the community and the Temple, making it primary.
• Guilt Offering Specifications: Most guilt offerings are 2nd year rams, valued at 2 silver shekels. However, the Nazirite's and Leper's guilt offerings are 1st year sheep and have no fixed monetary value. This again shows specific exceptions for unique circumstances.
• Precedence in Sacrifice = Precedence in Consumption: A logical extension: if an offering takes precedence in being brought, it also takes precedence in being eaten (by the priests, or by the owner in the case of peace offerings).
• Yesterday's Peace Offering vs. Today's Peace Offering: Yesterday's peace offering (which has a limited time for consumption) precedes today's. This is simple logistics – eat what will expire first.
• Yesterday's Peace Offering vs. Today's Sin/Guilt Offering: Here, there's a dispute:
  • Rabbi Meir: Yesterday's peace offering precedes. Again, the "expiration date" (even if not disqualification, but nearing the end of its permitted time) is paramount.
  • The Rabbis: The sin offering (and guilt offering) precedes. Why? "Due to the fact that it is an offering of the most sacred order." For the Rabbis, the inherent sanctity and purpose (atonement) of the sin/guilt offering trump the urgency of a peace offering from yesterday. This shows a fundamental difference in prioritizing between practical considerations and inherent spiritual significance.
• Flexibility in Consumption Methods: Priests are generally permitted to prepare and eat their portions of offerings in various ways (roasted, boiled, cooked) and add non-sacred spices.
  • Rabbi Shimon vs. Rabbi Meir on Teruma Spices: Rabbi Shimon permits adding teruma (priestly tithe) spices. Rabbi Meir forbids it, "so that he will not bring the teruma to a state of disqualification." The concern is that if the consecrated meat becomes disqualified (e.g., left overnight), the teruma spices mixed with it might also be disqualified, leading to waste of holy food. This is a classic debate about balancing convenience/enhancement with safeguarding sanctity.

The Overarching Conflict: Frequency vs. Sanctity

Finally, the Gemara concludes with another profound dilemma: if you have a frequent offering (e.g., the daily Tamid sacrifice) and an offering of greater sanctity (e.g., a special sin offering), which takes precedence? The Mishna (from earlier in Zevachim) had already stated that "daily offerings precede additional offerings" because they are frequent. This suggests frequency might win. This question remains open, leaving us to ponder the intricate balance between regularity and intensity in our spiritual lives.

How We Live This

These ancient discussions from Zevachim 90, while seemingly distant from our modern lives, are profoundly relevant. They offer a masterclass in how to approach life with intention, precision, and a deep understanding of priorities.

Prioritizing in Our Daily Lives

The Gemara's meticulous exploration of precedence in the Temple service directly informs how we can prioritize our own mitzvot (commandments) and responsibilities:

• The Urgency of "Yesterday's Peace Offering": Rabbi Meir's emphasis on consuming yesterday's peace offering first reminds us of the importance of addressing immediate needs and deadlines. In our lives, this translates to taking care of time-sensitive tasks, promises, or mitzvot that have a limited window. Have you promised to help someone? Is there a mitzvah that needs to be performed now? This is "yesterday's peace offering."
• The Sanctity of "Today's Sin Offering": The Rabbis, however, prioritize the sin offering for its "most sacred order." This teaches us that some mitzvot carry inherent spiritual weight due to their purpose – atonement, spiritual growth, communal welfare. When faced with a choice, the mitzvah that connects us more deeply to God, helps us repair a spiritual failing, or fosters fundamental holiness might take precedence over a less spiritually intense, though still important, action. This is about discerning the "holiness factor" in our choices.
• Frequency vs. Sanctity: The final dilemma of the Gemara – which comes first, a frequent offering or one of greater sanctity – is a daily challenge. Do we prioritize our consistent, daily prayers (tefillah) which are frequent, or a rare opportunity for deep Torah study or a significant act of chesed (kindness) that might be considered of "greater sanctity"? Both are crucial. Judaism values both consistency and intensity, the routine and the profound. The lesson is not necessarily to choose one over the other definitively, but to recognize the tension and consciously strive for a balance.
• "Mitzvah Goreret Mitzvah": The idea that one mitzvah leads to another is a foundational concept. The careful ordering of sacrifices reflects a divine flow. Similarly, in our lives, fulfilling one mitzvah often opens the door to another, creating a virtuous cycle of sacred acts.

The Nuance of Divine Law

The disputes between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva, Rav Pappa’s distinctions, and the multiple reasons given for precedence highlight the incredible depth and nuance of Halakha:

• Details Matter Immensely: Whether immurim briefly left the courtyard, or whether a sin offering for idol worship had an alef missing in its spelling – these seemingly small details are profound. They teach us that in our spiritual lives, attention to detail is not pedantry but reverence. The "how" of a mitzvah is as important as the "what."
• Beyond Surface Logic: Sometimes the divine logic is not immediately apparent. Why should "blood sprinkling" be more important than "communal/individual" for bird vs. meal offerings? Why does "atonement" trump "oil and frankincense"? The Gemara forces us to look beyond simplistic reasoning and seek deeper spiritual truths. This fosters intellectual humility and a willingness to explore the "why" behind the "what."
• Multiple Valid Perspectives: The Babylonian vs. Eretz Yisrael approaches to the bird sin/animal burnt/animal tithe dilemma demonstrate that even on complex halakhic issues, there can be multiple, equally valid interpretations and priorities among the Sages. This teaches us the importance of intellectual humility, respect for differing opinions, and the understanding that truth can often be multifaceted. It encourages us to engage in thoughtful dialogue rather than rigid adherence to a single viewpoint.

Empathy and Understanding

Even in these highly technical texts, we can find threads of empathy and human experience:

• The Leper's Guilt Offering: The exception for the leper's guilt offering because "it comes to render one fit" speaks to a profound compassion. Some mitzvot are not just about atonement, but about restoring a person's dignity, reintegrating them into the community, and enabling them to fully participate in sacred life. This reminds us to prioritize acts that bring healing, inclusion, and wholeness to ourselves and others.
• Atonement and Clarification: The discussions about the sinner's meal offering (for atonement) and the sota's meal offering (for clarifying transgression) highlight different facets of repairing spiritual brokenness. Sometimes we need full atonement, a complete wiping away of sin. Other times, we primarily need clarity, to expose the truth and move forward. Both are vital processes in our journey of self-improvement and connection to God.
• Learning as a Sacred Act: Engaging with the Talmud, wrestling with its complexities, and striving to understand the divine will as expressed through these discussions is itself a profound act of worship. It's a way of bringing our intellect, our curiosity, and our spiritual hunger into direct communion with the Torah.

Cultivating Intention (Kavanah)

The initial debate about piggul (improper intention) underscores the critical role of kavanah in Jewish practice. Even if all external actions are perfectly executed, an improper thought or intention can invalidate a sacred act. This is a timeless lesson for us: how much attention do we pay to our inner state, our intentions, when we perform mitzvot? Are we just going through the motions, or are our hearts and minds truly engaged in connecting with the Divine? The Gemara challenges us to purify our intentions, ensuring that our inner world aligns with our outer actions.

In sum, Zevachim 90 invites us to approach our spiritual lives with the same precision, depth, and thoughtful prioritization that the Sages applied to the Temple service. It's a call to understand that every detail, every intention, and every choice holds spiritual weight, and that by carefully discerning these nuances, we can elevate our everyday actions into acts of profound holiness.

One Thing to Remember

The detailed debates in Zevachim 90 about the order and validity of Temple offerings teach us that divine service is never arbitrary; it operates on a profound, intricate logic where intention, location, timing, and inherent purpose all contribute to the sanctity and efficacy of our actions. By striving to understand and apply this "Sacred Order" in our own lives, we learn to prioritize, act with precision, and deepen our connection to the Divine, transforming the mundane into the meaningful.