|
Updated: Update: 2024.11.12
NameWe mortal humans have names in order to distinguish between other multiple individual human peers (and pets). When there is only the Lone Existant, no name is necessary or appropriate (since a name suggests a need to distinguish among peers). Only humans have a need for names. Even referring to the Existant as a gender (He, She, It) is logically oxymoronic. The Existant created gender; ergo, is a meta-gender Being with no peers; neither a he (him, his, she her, hers, who, whom, whose). But even capitalized for differentiation, "It" (etc.) still connotes something physical, which is unacceptable. Yet, we have a keen need for these Pronouns as we've become dependent on them. Therefore, when a pronoun is desired to substitute for יְהוָׂה / Existant, only a new Pronoun, exclusively for the Singularity Existant Creator of the universe, is viable. Accordingly, I submit:
1ˢᵗ Pers. Sing. Pronoun Subject form: Am, capitalized sing. pres. tense of "to be". Example: "יְהוָׂה created the universe. Am [neither "He" nor "Who" nor "It"] has neither consort, nor relative nor peer."
1ˢᵗ Pers. Sing. Pronoun Object form: Az as in A-Z, first and last. Example: "Existant is a Singularity. I shall revere only Az [neither "Whom" nor "Him" nor "Her" nor "What"]!"
1ˢᵗ Pers. Sing. Pronoun Possessive form: Az's (i.e. A-Z's) [neither "His" nor Whose" nor "Whats"]; Distinct pronoun appending an "s"-ending to exclusive Pronouns (without apostrophe) exclusively paralleling physical his, hers & its. Example: "The scientific Laws of physics operate Az's creation—the universe.
Please note: I, alone, operate the website. I cannot do both: correct these mistakes in pages from past years, AND continue my research and learning to pass on to readers. Ergo, I will continue my research and ask for your understanding regarding the past errors that go uncorrected.
The 3 Pronominal Forms used in sentences: Am [i.e. Self-Existent, neither "He" nor "Who"], namely יְהוָׂה / Existant, created and empowers Az's scientific Laws of physics created and operate Az's Creation—the universe; Az's Laws are our sole perception and insight to relate to Az [not "Him"].
There can be no plural form.
These Exclusive Pronouns avoid the logical error—and blasphemy—of extra-gender anthropomorphizing יְהוָׂה; whether xe & xem (based on it & them) referring to questionable mortal genders, or the Germanic-based ze & zem also referring to mortals, et al.
Contemporary mystic cultists who fixate on the perfect, original pronunciation of "the Name" are buried in the mindset of Dark Ages sorcerers' beliefs in the magical power of perfectly enunciated incantations. The documented facts are that, from the time of Avᵊrã•hãmꞋ (c BCE 2039 ), when mankind was still developing the first written alephbeit, until the Masoretes first inserted vowels, accents and punctuation (e.g., יְהֹוָ֨ה ) after the 7th century CE— ≈3 millennia of assimilations later— no vowels were written. Audio recordings hadn't been invented so pronunciation was entirely dependent upon hearing the word—spoken by a Kᵊna•an•iꞋ or Israeli (Jews were only one of the 12 tribes of Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ). That also means the Masoretic vowels, upon which all modern researchers depend, reflect not original pronunciation but linguistic evolution nearly 3 millennia after the fact! And the Masoretes depended entirely upon context enhanced by Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ (itself codified only in the 5th century CE, only ≈2 centuries before themselves)! More recent researchers have resources (Dead Sea Scrolls, archeological information, etc.) to determine context (and resulting vowelization) that were undiscovered in the time of the Masoretes.
Critics of Ta•na"khꞋ have based all of their conclusions on a common assumption: that Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ worshiped the idols of the surrounding goy•imꞋ from the time of Avᵊrã•hãmꞋ until the time of Dã•widꞋ ha-MëlꞋëkh (cBCE 1000 ). But what Ta•na"khꞋ documents is that Avᵊrã•hãmꞋ (cBCE 1990 ) recognized the logical inevitability of an Eternal, non-physical (hence invisible) Existant. The first problem was that there existed no terminology, no idol-name, that conveyed this new and revolutionary concept (mimicked, more than 6 centuries later, by Egyptian Par•ohꞋ Amun-hotep 4th ► Akhen-Aten, c BCE 1377 ).
Being an entirely new concept, Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ could only relate to surrounding goy•imꞋ, and even discuss the various Characteristics among themselves, using the longstanding conventional lexicon—the idols and idol-names. "Well, 'It Exists' (lit. ) is The Existant—It displaces the sky-idol ; It also is (displaces) your Eil; and it encompasses (displaces) all of the ël•ōh•imꞋ." This didn't even remotely suggest (until after the assimilations during the Egyptian Sojourn) that Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ was worshiping all of these idol-names; merely using them to try to explain to the surrounding (Egyptian & other) goy•imꞋ Avᵊrã•hãmꞋ's revolutionary new concept of the Existant.
Since it isn't proven that (apart from Yi•shᵊm•ã•eilꞋ and Ei•sauꞋ) Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ worshiped idols from the advent of Avᵊrã•hãmꞋ well into the Egyptian Sojourn (rather than merely noting similarities displacing all the various idols), the basic premise is false—making all conclusions derived therefrom ex falso quodlibet, a logical fallacy, false. The oft-cited plagues of idolatry recurring repeatedly in Ta•na"khꞋ occurred toward the later decades of the imposed Egyptian Sojourn, as assimilation took hold; plaguing Israel for centuries thereafter.
4th ὁ Ἐπιφανής in collusion with Yᵊhō•shūꞋa Bën-Shim•ōnꞋ-Jr., Bën-Tzã•dōqꞋ, the Hellenist Kō•heinꞋ ha-Jã•dōlꞋ (aka the "Kō•heinꞋ ha-RëshꞋa"). From the beginning, Avᵊrã•hãmꞋ and his descendants, including Mōsh•ëhꞋ Pᵊqid•einꞋū at Har Sin•aiꞋ, prohibited only desecrating the Name, pronouncing (later Middle-Semitic 
, now Modern יהוה) aloud, copiously documented by Dã•widꞋ ha-MëlꞋëkh (Tᵊhil•imꞋ) and the Nᵊviy•imꞋ in praise, prayer, instruction, warnings and sworn testimony for almost 2 millennia. This original practice ended in BCE 169—portentously on Sha•bãtꞋ coinciding with, and preceding the observance of Tzōm JᵊdalᵊyãhꞋ, when Hellenist Syrian Satrap Ἀντίοχος 4th ὁ Ἐπιφανής decreed his prohibition, upon pain of death, on the 3rdday of 7thmonth BCE 169 = 3593 on the Hebrew calendar (on the solar calendar, the 18thday of 9thmonth BCE 169 ). This joint prohibition forbade uttering aloud (invoking, pronouncing) the Name of any non-Hellenist god. Half a milennium later, the rabbis whitewashed the prohibition, internalizing (assimilating) it as their own from "Mosheh Rabeinu"—despite no Rabbi ever existing until more than 30 years after this contra-Tōr•ãhꞋ foreign edict, endorsed by the "Kō•heinꞋ ha-RëshꞋa", then internalized (assimilated) by the rabbis! (See entry below for BCE 135).
The rabbinic claim that it was the rabbis who prohibited pronouncing יְהוָׂה is a European Middle Ages C.E. rabbinic revision of history not supported by the cited Scripture (Hebrew grammar: verb►subject►object & specifier►verb-clarifier, which Star Wars fans might liken to Yoda-esque grammar): wa-Yi•qᵊr•ãꞋ 24.10ff: "וַ֠יִּקֹּ֠ב …) the son of the Yi•sᵊr•ã•eil•itꞋ woman, the name, וַיְקַלֵּ֔ל
)…" (Then he contemptuously skewered the Name…).
"Nothing in the Tōr•ãhꞋ prohibits a person from pronouncing the Name of [יְהוָׂה]. Indeed, it is evident from [S]cripture that [יְהוָׂה]'s Name was pronounced routinely. Many common Hebrew names contain "Yah" or "Yahu," part of [יְהוָׂה]'s four-letter Name. The Name was pronounced as part of daily services in the [pre-BCE 175 Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdãshꞋ of ZᵊrūꞋ-Bã•vëlꞋ. The [Mi•shᵊn•ãhꞋ] confirms that there was no prohibition against pronouncing The Name in ancient times. In fact, the [Mi•shᵊn•ãhꞋ] recommends using [יְהוָׂה]'s Name as a routine greeting to a fellow Jew. [ Ma•sëkꞋët Bᵊrãkh•ōtꞋ] 9:5. However, by the time of the Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ [5th century CE], it was the custom to use substitute Names for [יְהוָׂה]. "
As Yi•sᵊr•ã•eilꞋ had earlier done during the Babylonian Exile, they eventually rationalized why they were practicing the religious changes that foreign rulers had imposed upon them, gradually internalizing (assimilating) the rationalizations as if they had been rabbinically-derived; ergo, these accumulation of assimilations morphed into rabbinic tradition—overriding Ta•na״khꞋ.
While 𝕸 was unarguably the best text that could be derived in the 10th Century C.E., researchers today have many additional resources that were undiscovered in Medieval times, resources like the Dead Sea Scrolls and archaeological hard evidence that enable today's researchers to far better clarify historical context and meaning (while the rabbis continue to extol the Medieval rabbis over historical, earliest extant Scriptures from Mōsh•ëhꞋ at Har Sin•aiꞋ.
Thus, when we read the universally rabbinically-accepted "יְהֹוָ֨ה" in 𝕸 (bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 3.14), we are given the—wrong—impression that the vowels, syllable accents and punctuations are all original from Mōsh•ëhꞋ at Har Sin•aiꞋ. But that is not, at all, the case! While, repeatedly, the Christian world has gone to extreme lengths to eliminate the leather scrolls of Ta•na"khꞋ, and even Jews, both survive. While the Ten Principles conveyed by Mōsh•ëhꞋ at Har Sin•aiꞋ were engraved in stone, all of the rest of today's Scripture was developed and preserved orally over the next 2 millennia or so. It isn't certain when various passages of Scripture were codified, but our earliest extant copies, the Dead Sea Scrolls, date from cBCE 4th century.
But these weren't found until recently. Until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, only oral Scripture remained. Retaining, much less restoring, Scripture would seem impossible—until the oral product, today's Ta•na"khꞋ, is compared to the Dead Sea Scrolls written record! The written record of the Dead Sea Scrolls corroborates 𝕸 Ta•na"khꞋ almost entirely! (Almost. There are still a few points that can be clarified and corrected from the earlier written record of the Dead Sea Scrolls—which predate the Masoretes by over a millennium!)
Until Avᵊrã•hãmꞋ, millennia before Einstein and the "Big Bang" theory, the world believed in innumerable ël•ōh•imꞋ. Accordingly, the plural "ël•ōh•imꞋ", and the names mortals assigned them, were the only terms people knew when discussing physical laws and events that exceeded their understanding.
Being the first in history to logically deduce the inevitability of the Existant (i.e. ), Avᵊrã•hãmꞋ faced a world lacking any terminology to describe the Existant—especially Who precluded the entirety of all of "the ël•ōh•imꞋ" that the world outside of the Israelis (i.e. the goy•imꞋ) believed in!
In Ta•na"khꞋ, the term עוֹלָם wasn't adequate to explain the concept of extra-physical, eternal existence. While routinely translated as "eternal" in post-Biblical modern languages (including MH:), in Ta•na"khꞋ, עוֹלָם refers to the world in terms of the reign (i.e. world-age) of a ruler. "To the world-age" describes the current reign "until our next ruler". The term is doubled to mean "world-age of world ages" referred to the foreseeable future; i.e. "as long as (our) rulers reign". The earliest extant record of a contemplation of true ∞, i.e. eternity beyond the physical world, was in post-Biblical India and the Greeks, a century or so after the time of ËꞋzᵊr•ã (cBCE 409-359); i.e. the post-Biblical era.
Referring to the use of the various Names, including the Tetragrammaton, in the time of the early Patriarchs, the entry noted: "Most of these terms were employed also by the Kᵊna•an•imꞋ], to designate their [idolatrous gods]. This is not surprising; since on settling in [Kᵊna•anꞋ] the Patriarchs and early [Israelis] made 'the language of [Kᵊna•anꞋ] their own' (Yᵊsha•yãhꞋu 19.18), the Hebrew language would naturally use the [Kᵊna•an•iꞋ] vocabulary for terms designating their own Deity". This should more accurately read: " the Hebrew language would naturally use the [Kᵊna•an•iꞋ] vocabulary"—to communicate and explain the Existant to the surrounding goy•imꞋ in the only terms (their own Kᵊna•an•iꞋ idol-names) that they comprehended! The unfettered ordinary-conversational use of י‑‑ה was an idolatrous [Kᵊna•an•iꞋ] practice, referring to a [Kᵊna•an•iꞋ] perception of י‑‑ה, an idol-name used by Mōsh•ëhꞋ, first to explain and describe the revolutionary concept of the Existant to Bᵊn•eiꞋ-Yi•sᵊrã•eilꞋ, and thereafter to relate to, communicate with and explain the concept of the Existant to the surrounding Kᵊna•an•imꞋ.
It's widely misrepresented that Ma•lᵊk•i-TzëdꞋëq was a kō•heinꞋ of . However, the text records that, rather, he was a kō•heinꞋ of the Kᵊna•an•iꞋ . Ma•lᵊk•i-TzëdꞋëq blessed Avᵊrã•hãmꞋ in the name of , boasting that the Kᵊna•an•iꞋ idol-name was "Owner of the heavens and earth." This is the same name that Dãn•iy•eilꞋ referenced in order to relate the Existant to the doomed Ka•lᵊdimꞋ regent-son, 
(in the absence of his father, king  74x30.jpg "Nabu-na id (Akkadian cuneiform: ''Nabu is praised'', BCE 556-539); Hellenized to ''Nabonidus''"){kind=small}
)—just before the the Persian king  148x30.jpg "Kurush, Persian King (Koresh, Cyrus)"){kind=small}
conquered Bã•vëlꞋ in BCE 538 (soon after Dãn•iy•eilꞋ's fateful "writing on the wall" prophecy.
But Avᵊrã•hãmꞋ corrected Ma•lᵊk•i-TzëdꞋëq saying, "I've sworn my hand to [the service of] , —"Owner of the heavens and earth."
By his acceptance, as corrected (likely implying a fruitful explanation by Avᵊrã•hãmꞋ & discussion), of Avᵊrã•hãmꞋ's tithe, Ma•lᵊk•i-TzëdꞋëq thereby accepted Avᵊrã•hãmꞋ's correction—the first recorded in-conversion to the Existant, by Avᵊrã•hãmꞋ.
This usage suggests that both of the phrases are descriptive adjectives ("Existant" & "Highest of the ël•ōh•imꞋ) of uncomprehended Meta-mortal Power(s), rather than proper names, per se, of the myriad foreign idols.
Following their years of Sojourn in Egypt, the Israelis themselves were the first in need of restoring, and better understanding this revolutionary concept—as encapsulated in the Shᵊm•aꞋ:
“Hearken, Israel!
Shᵊm•ōtꞋ 6 recounts the first introduction of the Existant, as Mōsh•ëhꞋ perceived The Existant conveying to him:
“
” 2
Remember: only since the 10th century C.E. has Ta•na"khꞋ been cantillated as "אֲנִ֥י יְהוָֽה". While religious agendas spray pseudo-scholarly, far-fetched speculations all over the map, the most straightforward explanation is that "the Name" is most likely a portmanteau of pa•alꞋ elements of הָיָה: fu. element □יְ (Yᵊ□) + pres. element □הֹ□ (□hō□) + past element וָ֨ה□ (□wãhꞋ); i.e. "I am Willbeamwas" or "I am The Existant. Thus, the "Name" of the Existant of the universe roughly translates into English as: "I am what I shall always be." The "Name" simply enables humans to capture and encapsulate the breadth of the historically and scientifically-grounded, Judaic-origin concept and holiness of the Unchanging Existant of the universe. To be valid (i.e., not-idolatry), the Name in other languages, or even among other life if it exists elsewhere in the Cosmos, must capture and encapsulate this same concept and holiness of the Unchanging Existant of the universe.
In the ensuing pã•suqꞋ, Mōsh•ëhꞋ perceives the Existant conveying the Name to him,
“I made Myself apparent to Avᵊrã•hãmꞋ, to Yi•tzᵊkhãqꞋ and to Ya•a•qōvꞋ as eil ël•yōnꞋ; but My Name
(Again, the cantillation didn't appear until c10th century C.E. A person only knew how to pronounce the Name) by oral tradition; that is, hearing the Name spoken by an Israeli.)
or ?Only 3 chapters earlier, Scripture seemingly informed us differently (recall that vowels weren't included until the 10th century C.E.):
“ 14 ël•ōh•imꞋ conveyed to Mōsh•ëhꞋ, ‘
“ 15 Then ël•ōh•imꞋ additionally told Mōsh•ëhꞋ, ‘ Tell Bᵊn•eiꞋ-Yi•sᵊrã•eilꞋ thusly, «
This is My Name to the ages, and this shall be My Designation, generation to generation.’ ”
By the 1st century C.E., Ta•na"khꞋ-prohibited Jewish mystics—call it what it is: i.e. Jewish soothsayers, sorcerers, warlocks and wizards—had put a "Jewish" imprimatur on Hellenist mystical practices, teaching Hellenist-"Jewish" (i.e. future LXX-style) mysticism among the Jewish population despite fierce condemnation from the Pᵊrush•imꞋ. These 1st century C.E., Jewish soothsayers, sorcerers, warlocks and wizards—not the stalwart Rab•ãnꞋ Shi•mᵊōnꞋ Bar Yo•khaiꞋ (Rashb"i) falsely claimed by 10th century C.E. European Jewish sorcerers—were the fons et origo of the 10th century C.E. Qa•bãl•ãhꞋ reignited, amidst the rampant Dark Ages European mysticism, by Spanish soothsayer-Rabbi Moses De Leon (i.e. "Shem Tov")—who conceived and wrote the ZōꞋhar.
It is logically clear from this difference that the important point was the Designation (not a mortal-style "name" distinguishing one among fellow peers), not some Dark Ages mystical perfect incantation that would enable us mortals to create what we have uttered—presuming to create as a peer of the Existant—by the way we, mortals, utter it but, rather, the Principle that the Non-physical Existant is Eternal, throughout the tenses of time. Thus, whether one refers to or , or the substitution of Eil ël•yōnꞋ as instituted by the Kha•shᵊmōn•ãyꞋim, or phrases like "the Creator-Singularity", "the Almighty", etc., the important point is not a "Name" (or gender) like us mortals at all; but, rather, recognizing the Attributes of the Existant.
In whichever case, magical incantation of a spell(ing)—which is sorcery, wizardry and witchcraft—is prohibited by Ta•na"khꞋ.
Circa BCE 166, when the Kha•shᵊmōn•ãyꞋim broke free of Hellenist Syrian rule, they only symbolically reinstituted the ancient practice, referring only indirectly, via substitutionary description-Names, to ( ) aloud. In their perceived attempt to safeguard the sanctity of the Name, they initiated a reform (!) forbidding reinstituting inclusion of the Name itself in written legal documents, contracts, etc., because the documents, once the contracts were satisfied, would be thrown in the trash—profaning the Name written in the document. Instead, the Kha•shᵊmōn•ãyꞋim initiated the displacement of writing the Name (at this point in the Middle-Semitic alephbeit: ) with an alternate Biblical descriptive phrase, . Their reform, therefore, merely promulgated and falsely-legitimized the practice that had been imposed upon them under (Roman-imprimatured Syrian) Hellenist subjugation: henceforth using only a substitute phrase, avoiding saying aloud in both, speaking as well as writing.
Only from the time of Herod's Hellenized Second "Temple" was the practice begun that the Name was only uttered in the "Temple", during the Mu•sãphꞋ service, on Yom ha-Ki•pur•imꞋ, by the Kō•heinꞋ ha-Ja•dōlꞋ.
The earliest extant rabbinic decree specifying "Adonai" as the approved proper substitute in beit kᵊnësꞋët recitation of tᵊphil•ōtꞋ for doesn't occur until the 5th century C.E., when Ma•sëkꞋët Qi•dūsh•inꞋ 71a records that (3rd-4th century C.E. Babylonian-assimilated)
11 “Rabbi Av•inꞋa raised this point: ‘It is written (Shᵊm•ōtꞋ 3.15): «This is My memento», said the Holy-Being (blessed be He), «Not as I am written am I to be recited. I am written as YH,
* By the earliest possible time this section of Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ could have been written—70-135 CE—Herod's Hellenist Temple had already been Hellenized for 3 centuries (since BCE 165), which was the fons et origo of "Jewish" mystics that were repeatedly condemned in Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ and which, in 13th century C.E. Europe (namely, Spain) was reignited by "Shem Tov" ("Jewish Mystic" Orthodox Rabbi Moses De Leon) as "Kabbalah".
Based on the silly premise that the Non-physical Singularity Creator-Being physically spoke—before the creation of air, or physical particles to vibrate in it (forming audible, physical, sound waves) and—poof!—it became, mystics sillily (ex falso quodlibet) believed that there was no distinction between a physical thing and the word for the physical thing (e.g., that a mountain and the word "mountain" were one and the same).
 |
 cBCE 1112— Lã•khishꞋ Ostracon ("Letter") |
Ignoring explicit mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ to the contrary in Ta•na"khꞋ, the first argument raised by proponents of using the Holy Name (colloquially "Holy Namers" or "Sacred Namers") is the citation from the Encyclopedia Judaica. "At least until the destruction of the First [Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdãshꞋ] in B.C.E. 586, this name [i.e. the Tetragrammaton] was regularly pronounced with its proper vowels, as is clear from the Lã•khishꞋ [Ostraca,] written in the Middle-Semitic Hebrew alephbeit shortly before that date."
Except for being convenient to their way of thinking, it isn't clear why these proponents of using the Holy Name give priority to Prof. Louis F. Hartman — who was clearly grinding his Catholic priest axe that never received scholarly consensus — over the explicit and unambiguous witness to the contrary given in Tor•ãhꞋ. Nor does it make any sense why they never question that, since the same editor acknowledges that the vowels weren't included in written Hebrew until "the early Middle Ages", it is impossible that the Lã•khishꞋ "Letters" (cBCE 1112) predating the First [Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdãshꞋ] era could make "clear" any pronunciation at all! Nor could it clarify any of its proper vowels, or, without specifically explaining how, clarify the oral practice — much less overturn the explicit, earlier physical evidence. Therefore, in addition to other reasons, the contrary and previous position set forth in Ta•na"khꞋ, remains sound and reliable.
As a result of this early evolution of substitutions (from the Hellenist B.C.E. 2nd century time of Hellenist Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes), the received rabbinical (i.e. Pᵊrush•imꞋ) tradition is to preclude any profanation of the Name by substituting in all cases other than Scripture (and rabbinic) writings: (in English) "the Tetragrammaton", or הַשֵּׁם or י‑‑ה or 'ה or יי—the conventional Hebrew substitutions, each (according to rabbinic tradition), in ordinary conversation, pronounced "ha-Sheim" (the Name) except when praying, in which case each is pronounced "A•dōn•ãiꞋ". An exception occurs when the Tetragrammaton follows the Hebrew word אֲדוֹנָי, in which case אֲדוֹנָי is pronounced "A•dōn•ãiꞋ" as written, but the Tetragrammaton is then pronounced "ël•ōh•imꞋ"; thus, the phrase is conventionally pronounced A•dōn•ãiꞋ ël•ōh•imꞋ".
Since the destruction of Herod's Hellenized Second "Temple", even when reading Tōr•ãhꞋ in any Orthodox Beit ha-KᵊnësꞋët, the term A•don•ãiꞋ is substituted for the Tetragrammaton.
The early "names" of the Existant are all better described as descriptors, which are the best handles we have for the Holy-Being Creator-Singularity. Accordingly, all such references should be communicated in an appropriately respectful manner—not in ordinary (i.e. profane) conversation or usage. Consequently, any and all discussion about Creation is, by this definition, holy discussion; contemplating the Existant.
Pay it forward (Quote & Cite):
| Yirmeyahu Ben-David. יהוה (Existant) (2024.11.12). Netzarim Jews Worldwide (Ra'anana, Israel). https://www.netzarim.co.il/Shared/Glossary/Kritim.htm (Retrieved: Month Da, 20##). |
 |
|
 |
