English translation — עקב א

A.

In our parshah¹

where Moshe Rabbeinu tells how he went up to receive the tablets from the Most High,

it says several times the term "tablets of stone",

"tablets of the covenant",

Rashi brings down the word "luchot" and explains: "luchot" is written, both of them equal².

Rashi does not indicate from which verse he is quoting in his commentary the word "luchot",

but from the place where Rashi inserted the commentary — between his commentary on verse 9 and verse 18 — it is understood,

that his commentary is on the word "luchot" that stands between the two verses

in verse 11 "And it came to pass at the end of forty days and forty nights the Lord gave me the two tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant",

in verse 15 "And I turned and came down from the mountain etc. and the two tablets of the covenant were on my two hands",

in verse 17 "And I took hold of the two tablets and cast them etc. and I broke them before your eyes" — one must say,

that Rashi means either one of the verses,

or the wording "tablets" which is written defectively in all these verses<sup>3</sup>]

But not regarding the two times "tablets" which are written defectively at the beginning of verse 9: "I went up the mountain to take the tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant etc.",

because the explanation of "tablets" Rashi says after the explanation of the words "and I stayed on the mountain" which are written later in verse 9.

One must understand: the explanation,

that from "luchot" chaser one learns that "both were equal",

Rashi already said earlier in Parshat Tisa on the verse⁴

"And He gave to Moses, when He finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai, the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone" — "luchot is written, that both were equal"⁵

; only because the earlier explanation is in the interval of many portions in the Torah

(more than two Chumashim),

Rashi repeats the explanation again in our parshah⁶,

as one finds several times similarly in his commentary.

It is, however, not understood,

why does Rashi explain on one of the

(or all)

later verses

(10,

11,

15,

17)

and not immediately where "luchot" chaser stands here for the first time

(in verse 9)?

One cannot say that Rashi specifically explains this on verse 11

(or 17)

where the word "לחת" is missing a vav

also the vav after the lamed — is not in verse 9

(and 10)

where it says "לוחת",

with a vav after the lamed — because for the content of the explanation "לחת is written, that both were equal" only the vav after the chet is relevant,

because when it is deficient the word "לחת" is changed from l,

many to l,

singular,

but the vav after the lamed changes nothing in this matter — also when לוחת is written

(deficient of a vav only after the chet)

one can derive "both were equal".

2.

Furthermore: if Rashi needed to repeat the explanation

(of Ki Tisa)

after a longer interruption

(between Chumash Shemot and Devarim)

— he should have prefaced it earlier

(not in our parshah,

Eikev,

but)

in Parshat Va'etchanan,

because there too it says

(after the Ten Commandments)

"לחת" deficient of a vav: "And He wrote on two tablets of stone and gave them to me."

And in truth the same question arises even regarding his explanation in the second occurrence in Parshat Ki Tisa — in the phrase "בפי תשא": also there this is not the first time that it says "לחת" deficient,

rather this already appears earlier in Parshat Mishpatim<sup>11</sup>

: "ואתנה לר את חת האבן גוי/ לחת כתיב חסר

(the same thing,

exactly as in Parshat Ki Tisa — that why does Rashi not explain this in Parshat Mishpatim,

where it says for the first time לחת deficient,

rather he waits until Parshat Ki Tisa<sup>12</sup>?

3.

Simply one could answer based on the well-known<sup>13</sup>

that the matter of full and deficient spelling in itself is not a difficulty on the plain meaning of the verse,

that Rashi would need to explain it

(and it is proven from this that for the most part Rashi does not address

full and deficient spellings in the verses).

And that which Rashi notes it in our portion,

is because in the same verse

(11)

the Torah writes one after the other: "את שני חת האבנים חוח הברית" — first deficient

(completely)

and then full

(with the second vav).

Therefore Rashi explains that the verse thereby comes to emphasize the deficient: "לחת כתיב ששתיהם שוות"<sup>14</sup>.

And therefore Rashi does not explain in verse 9 in our portion "When I went up the mountain to receive the tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant" because there both times "tablets" is spelled defectively; and also not earlier in Va’etchanan

(where it says "and He wrote them on two tablets of stone")

and in Mishpatim

(before Tisa)

— since in those places the word appears only once,

there is no variation in the same verse.

This is however not a sufficient explanation,

because:

a)

In Parshat Tisa,

although there the verse states twice "the tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone",

both are however defective,

and consequently there is no change in the verse for emphasis — and nevertheless Rashi explains there.

b)

In any case, one can ask the question in our parsha regarding the verses themselves: Why does the verse change and hint the matter of "both of them equal" specifically in the later verse

(11),

and not in the earlier verse

(9),

where the same word appears twice?

And based on this it is understood,

that the aforementioned questions cannot be answered with that there are various opinions and different methods in the tradition of chaserot and yetirot¹⁵,

namely¹⁶

that according to the opinion of Rashi the tradition in Parshat Tisa is such that it stands once malei

("luchot")

and once chaser

("luchot")

(not¹⁷

as in our text¹⁸)

; and in our parshah,

again,

is the method of Rashi that

(before the words "va'eshev bahar")

stands both times "luchot" chaser

— because¹⁹

still remains the question in the verse itself

(as above)

— why does the Torah change specifically in verse yud alef

(and similarly in Parshat Tisa)

in order to emphasize "luchot chaser ketiv shteihem shavot",

and not in the earlier verse tet,

where it stands the same language "luchot ha'avanim luchot habrit"].

D.

one will understand this with an introduction of a precision in the language of Rashi in his commentaries on the Torah regarding the matter of lacking

(and he will permit),

one will find in this variations:

Sometimes Rashi says .

lacking a vav"²⁰,.

lacking in writing"²¹

and so forth²²,

and in several places Rashi brings the word as it is written in the verse and does not say "lacking a vav" or "lacking in writing and so forth²³

and in our parshah²⁴

: "to write is written".

And since Rashi's language is indeed precise,

it is understood that also the aforementioned changes in Rashi's language are intentional and precise; and especially since these are changes that are found in many places in his commentary on the Torah,

sometimes in the first manner and sometimes in the second manner.

5.

And one must say the reasoning in this — based on additional explanation in this aforementioned principle

(beginning of section 3),

that the change of deficiency and excess in itself is not a difficulty in the plain sense of the verse — such that Rashi must warn a five-year-old studying Scripture²⁵

then Rashi brings it and explains²⁶].

But the rule,

is only in a case when there is no question and contradiction in the defective or full [spelling] itself

(It is only a question of "what is the reason" defective or full [spelling])

: However, in a case when from the content of the verses the word should have been specifically full and not defective

(or the opposite)

— then Rashi stands on that.

<span>And the reason: the change from full and defective is not like a separate matter in the Torah,</span>

which has no connection to the study of "the plain meaning of Scripture"

(and only in times of need does Rashi use defective and full to explain a matter *in the plain meaning of Scripture,

like the way he uses an "aggadah that settles the words of Scripture<sup>27</sup>)

Also in the plain meaning of Scripture it is understood that full and deficient spelling in a word of Torah is not merely a matter in the manner of writing of that word in the Torah,

rather this pertains to the content of the writing and the script²⁸.

D.

E.

<b> </b>The change from full or deficient spelling etc. indicates a change in the content of the word or the script.

It is only that the explanation and reason,

in what the deficient spelling expresses itself

(or full spelling),

is not a matter that is required in the study of the plain meaning of Scripture,

rather this belongs to the other modes of Torah study.

And therefore,

When, from the content of the verse, it would have needed to be specifically plene and it is defective — because from the content of the verse it must emerge that there is no deficiency there — Rashi must answer the question

(from בן חמש למקרא),

Why does it say it "defective".

6.

Examples of this:

a)

In the first place where Rashi explains the matter of "defective"²⁹

: "Let there be luminaries in the firmament of the heaven etc.",

Rashi says "defective vav is written because it is a day of calamity etc.":

The content of the verses

(which speak about the things that the Most High created during the six days of creation)

consists,

in bringing out the virtue of the things which the Most High created; and in particular and especially the content of the creation of the luminaries,

as the verse concludes there³⁰

(and in all the work of creation³¹)

"And God saw that it was good"³²

— yet it should have been written "luminaries" plene

(with one vav at least,

as in the verse after this),

to emphasize³³

the perfection in this³⁴.

b)

In parshas Noach³⁵,

after the flood,

where the verse says "And the Lord smelled the pleasant aroma, and the Lord said in His heart, I will no longer curse the ground because of man, for the inclination of man's heart is evil from his youth, and I will no longer strike all living things,"

Rashi explains: "From his youth is written, from when he is shaken to emerge from his mother's womb, the evil inclination is placed in him" —

Since the verse gives the reason for "I will no longer curse the ground" — "for the inclination of man's heart is evil from his youth,"

why is it written defectively,

a matter of deficiency in "his youth,"

as if "the inclination of man's heart" is not truly evil "from his youth,"

but only later — the opposite of the content of the verse³⁶?

3)

Further on this we find in the portion of Chayei Sarah "and Ephron was sitting",

Rashi says "it is written deficiently, that day etc." — because in the continuation of the verses the virtue of

(the children of Chet and)

Ephron,

that he had agreed to

(sell,

and moreover to)

give away the Cave of Machpelah to Abraham for Sarah's burial — why&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;

does it say in the verse at the beginning of the speech about Ephron "was sitting" deficiently — a matter of deficiency in him&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;?

7.

Based on this one will also understand the difference of expressions in Rashi that sometimes he says "deficient of a vav" "deficient in writing" and the like,

and sometimes "not:

When the deficiency of the verse comes to express a matter of lack in the content of the word

(or the subject),

then Rashi says "it is written deficient" and the like:

But when the deficiency does not come to express a lack,

rather to bring out another thing,

or an added emphasis from the subject itself — Rashi does not say "it is written deficient"

(because here there is no lack

(in the interpretation)),

rather he merely emphasizes the change of the word to hint at its special content and subject.

And the above examples:

In the first commentary on "Yehi me'orot" Rashi says "Chaser vav ketiv because it is a day of curse to fall etc.'",

so here there is a matter of deficiency in the word me'uchorot.

On this, on the verse "And Ephron was sitting," Rashi says "It is written deficient" — because this was a matter of deficiency in Ephron,

in his "sitting" — "That very day they appointed him as an officer over them because of the importance of Abraham, who needed him to rise to greatness,"

D.

H.

The verse thereby indicates that Ephron himself was "deficient,"

he was not distinguished in greatness among the children of Heth,

but "because of the importance of Abraham, who needed him to rise to greatness" — only then did his "sitting" begin⁴⁰.

However, in the portion of Noach, regarding the word "from his youth," Rashi does not say "it is written deficient" "lacking a vav" and the like,

but rather "from his youth is written, from when he is shaken to go out, etc."

Because here there is no lack or deficiency regarding "his youth,"

on the contrary — this adds to the content of the verse and the reason — from the merit of the man,

that since immediately "from when he is shaken to go out from his mother's womb, the evil inclination is placed in him"

(not only from his youth⁴¹),

and consequently this further strengthens the reason for "I will not again curse the ground on account of man, for the inclination of man's heart is evil from his youth."

And similarly in many other places where Rashi does not say "chaser kesiv" it is for the aforementioned reason.

For example — the first time in Chumash

(and only a few verses after his explanation "meiras chaser vov kesiv")

where Rashi explains a matter of "chaser" without using the language "chaser"⁴²

On the word "hitaninim"⁴³,

Rashi brings from divrei aggadah: "He is the Leviathan and its mate that He created male and female and He killed the female and salted her for the righteous in the future, that if they would be fruitful and multiply the world could not endure before them, hitaninim is written" — and does not say "chaser kesiv" —

Because⁴⁴

<span> That which "התנינם is written" from the aspect of that which "he killed the female" — is not a matter of "lack" in the creation of the Holy One, blessed be He — on the contrary,</span>

Through this the existence of the world was ensured

(And also in relation to the female herself,

it is indeed "a salt for the righteous in the future to come")

8.

All the more so is it understood in our matter regarding the word "לחת":

Rashi does not simply explain why the word "לחת" is written deficiently,

just as he does not explain other deficient and excessive spellings.

Rashi explains only where the verse emphasizes the superiority of the matter — and that is only in Parshat Tisa and in our parshah.

But not so in the earlier places in Torah,

both in Parshat Mishpatim

(before Parshat Tisa)

and also in Parshat Va'etchanan

(before our portion,

Eikev),

where the verse does not emphasize the superiority of the Tablets,

Rashi does not dwell on the fact that "luchot" is written deficiently,

as follows.

9.

In Parshat Tisa⁴

it says "And He gave to Moshe, when He finished speaking with him etc., the two Tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God" — the great superiority of the Tablets;

And likewise and further in our parshah⁴⁶

: "And G-d gave me the two tablets of stone, written with the finger of G-d, and on them [were] all the words which G-d spoke with you on the mountain from the midst of the fire etc.",

And in continuation of this⁴⁷

"And it came to pass at the end of forty days and forty nights, G-d gave me the two tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant" — that all this is in continuation of⁴⁸

"And with the sword of your anger ..

I ruled etc.",

And an introduction to this that⁴⁹

"And He said ..

Arise, go down ..

And I turned and went down from the mountain etc. and the two tablets of the covenant were on my two hands, and I saw and behold you had sinned etc. And I grasped the two tablets and cast them from my two hands and broke them before your eyes",

D.

E.

Moshe is here to wonder at the great superiority of the tablets,

And that not looking at this,

the sin of the Jews brought about their breaking — "and I broke them before your eyes" — yet in the two verses

(at least)

should have stood not "luchot" defective,

which indicates a deficiency,

but luchot full.

Rashi explains and elucidates "לחת כתיב" — here there is no "deficiency"

(lack)

in this matter,

but on the contrary — this itself comes to bring out a superiority that was in the tablets,

"both of them equal"⁵⁰,

which emphasizes even more that it was a G‑dly thing:

In addition to that which by human hand it is very difficult

(or impossible)

to make precise⁵¹

that two things should be exactly equal precisely⁵²

— there is a novelty in the tablets: on the two tablets were written the Ten Commandments,

"five

(five)

commandments

(five)

written on one tablet and five

(five)

written on the second"⁵³,

and in the first five commandments there were⁵⁴

many more words and letters than in the last five commandments — and nevertheless "both of them equal",

one is not larger than the other!

(in the size of the letters)

on both tablets — not that on the first tablet the words of the first five utterances were written with smaller letters and the latter utterances on the second tablet,

— with larger letters.

And seemingly⁵⁵

so too the space and interval between the words and the letters were equal on both tablets⁵⁶].

And to note from the miracle in that "written on both their sides",

which Rashi explains⁵⁷

"on both their sides the letters were read and it was a miracle",

-and consequently this corresponds to the continuation of the content of the verse which comes to bring out the superiority of the Tablets that the Almighty gave to Moses; and with this itself an addition of matter and warning in the "words of rebuke"&lt;sup&gt;58&lt;/sup&gt;

that Moses said to them and warned "Remember, do not forget, [that] you provoked [the Lord your God] to wrath in the wilderness"&lt;sup&gt;59&lt;/sup&gt;

— that which they caused to the breaking of the Tablets.

But not so in Parshas Va'eschanan previously&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;,

where it says "tablets" deficient,

there the subject under discussion is about the matter of "These words the Lord spoke to all your assembly etc. and He wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me",

but it does not speak there about the unique quality of the Tablets.

And likewise in Parshas Mishpatim&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;

"And the Lord said to Moses: Come up to Me on the mountain and be there, and I will give you the tablets of stone and the Torah and the commandment which I have written to teach them" — he does not emphasize the quality of the Tablets.

10.

Based on this it is also understood why Rashi is precise to place himself on the word "luchot" that stands after verse 9,

and not on the two times "luchot" which stand in the beginning of verse 9 "and I hewed two tablets of stone like the first, and went up into the mountain, having the two tablets in my hand":

The content of the matters in the verses 10-11 is about the tablets as they were given to Moses — "And the Lord gave me",

"And it came to pass at the end of forty days etc. the Lord gave me".

But in verse 9 it speaks about how Moses went up to receive the tablets,

i.e.,

that is,

how the tablets were still with the Most High.

The precision and emphasis on the greatness of the tablets

(in order to give harshness in the words of rebuke to the Jews about their breaking [them]),

is

(not when they were still with the Most High,

"I was on the mountain to take the stone tablets, the tablets of the covenant",

but specifically)

when they came into the hand of Moses to give to the Jews; that

(also)

as the Most High gave them to Moses, they were entirely a higher thing — a thing of "Elokim"

("written with the finger of Elokim" etc.)

not like created beings.

Yes.

Based on this, one can explain

(the understanding of the Torah at least)

another matter: the word "lachet" [spelled] deficiently in verse 11 stands in relation to the stones,

"lachet ha'avanim",

the word luchot afterwards [spelled] fully stands in relation to the covenant — "luchot habrit".

And seemingly,

the superiority in the tablets that they were given from the Supreme and "written with the finger of God" is indeed primarily in this

(and from this)

that they are "the tablets of the covenant which the Lord made with you"⁶⁰

the covenant between the Supreme and Jews,

not in that they are

(physical)

"stones",

it seemingly should have been the opposite

(in verse 11),

"tablets of stone" full and "tablets of the covenant" deficient — "tablets is written, both are equal",

in order to emphasize by the tablets of the covenant the superiority of their connection with "God"?

And based on the above this is understood,

for the main emphasis here is not on the spiritual content that the tablets of the covenant are a divine matter,

but that also<span> the physicality of the tablets,</span>

that which they are "tablets of stone"

(in which was the breaking,

"and I broke them before your eyes")

is a divine matter,

to such an extent that "both are equal" —

Until that in this there were two opposites: both of them equal.

Although one tablet had many more letters and words than the second

(in one size)

— nevertheless "both of them equal".

And from the talks of Shabbos Parshas Eikev and Shabbos Parshas Re'eh 5743)

Addition

To the completeness of the humble explained in the sicha

(sec. 7)

That only in the humble of deficiency Rashi writes the word "deficient" — are brought in this the places where Rashi explained the reason of the deficiencies,

In order of the verses:

A)

14: "Let there be luminaries — missing vav spelled,

because it is a day of curse etc." — a matter of deficiency

(inside p. 67).

B)

Genesis 1,

28: "And subdue it — missing vav,

to teach you that the male subdues the female so that she should not be a gadabout etc.'",

because her mind is light and she can be harmed

(unlike the male)

— a matter of deficiency.

3)

Genesis 1,

Genesis 1,

21: "the tanninim — that He created them male and female and killed the female etc. so that if they would be fruitful and multiply the world could not endure before them,

the tanninim is written" — a matter of superiority

4)

Genesis 6,

2: "for they are fair — said R. Yordan, fair is written,

when they would beautify¹ etc.^,

a great one entered etc.^,.

But although ostensibly it speaks here about a matter of deficiency — yet:

(1)

this is the language of R. Yudan,

and not the language of Rashi,

(2)

when "the sons of God saw etc." — they were not in deficiency

this is the greatest virtue — that until a great one entered etc.,

for they were modest

(see Rashi Chayei Sarah 24,

16),

and therefore Rashi is compelled to say so according to the plain sense of the text,

and not to write "deficiency" — and that they were not modest],

but rather that they knew their end was not good.

(3)

also his name "Yudan" — is written deficient of a hei,

and if he emphasizes deficient spelling, this is the opposite of honor etc.

e)

Noach 8,

21: "From his youth — 'from his youth' is written [defectively],

from when he is shaken to emerge from his mother's womb, the evil inclination is placed in him."

And this is the matter of "we are disgusted" — finding merit for man

(as inside p. 67).

(as in the inside p. 67),

f)

Noach 9,

12: "for eternal generations — is written defectively,

that there are generations that did not need a sign because they were completely righteous, etc.",

a deficiency in "

generations of the world",

that among them is missing the generation of Chizkiyahu, etc.:

7)

Lech Lecha 14,

14: “Chanicho — Chanicho is written,

this is Eliezer who trained him for the mastery etc.” — a matter of above

(see note 44),

8)

Vayeira 18,

1: “And he was sitting at the entrance of the tent in the heat of the day — sitting is written etc.

a sign for your children that in the future I will stand in the assembly of the judges and they will be sitting etc.” — a matter of above that emphasizes his greatness and honor of Abraham,

and the honor of the children of Israel.

9)

Vayeira 19,

1: "And Lot sat — sat is written defectively,

on that day they appointed him a judge over them" — a matter of superiority,

for all their conduct

(of the people of Sodom)

until now is not his fault at all.

10)

10: "And Ephron sat — written defectively,

on that day they appointed him a police officer etc." — a matter of deficiency, since if not that Abraham needed him,

he would not have been worthy of this

(as in the inside p. 67).

11)

Chayei Sarah 23,

Chayei Sarah 23,

16: "And Avraham weighed to Efron — missing a vav,

because he said much and even a little he did not do etc.^,

" — a matter of deficiency.

12)

Chayei Sarah 24,

39: "To me do not go the woman — to me is written,

He had a daughter, Eliezer,

and he was seeking to find a pretext that Avraham would say to him to turn to him to marry him his daughter etc.'" — a matter of

advantage in relation to Eliezer&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;

and his daughter,

were it not for the sin of "Cham"

and therefore "the cursed does not cleave to the blessed"]

they are worthy of Yitzchak.

13)

Chayei Sarah 25,

6: "the concubines — spelled defectively&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;,

that there was only one concubine etc.' — the most prominent deficiency,

that in "concubines"

(plural form)

there is only one.

12)

Toldos 25,

24: "And behold, their twins³

— lacking etc. one righteous and one wicked" — a matter of deficiency.

15)

Vayeishev 38,

27: "Twins — full,

and later twins deficient because one is wicked etc."

(as above 12).

16)

Exodus 3,

15: "This is My name forever — lacking a vav,

to say conceal it so that it is not read as it is written" — the most obvious deficiency.

17)

Mishpatim 23,

2: "Do not testify on a dispute — on a great one,

that they do not dispute the most distinguished of the court etc." — a matter of superiority

yud-cheit)

Ki Tisa 31,

18: "Kichalaso — Kichalaso is written⁴..

as a bride for a groom etc." — a matter of superiority and advantage in the giving of the Torah⁵.

yud-tes)

There: "Lachas — Lachas is written,

that both were equal" — a matter of superiority

(as inside p. 68 and onward).

20)

Vayakhel 35,

27: "And the princes — because they were lazy from their work, a letter was missing from their name" a matter of deficiency.

Emor 23,

40: "Palm branches — missing a vav,

teaching that it is only one" — the most prominent deficiency,

that "branches" are only one.

21)

(b)

a: "The completion of Moshe — completion is written defectively⁶

the day of the erection of the Mishkan, the Jews were like a bride entering the chuppah" — a matter of superiority and perfection in the erection of the Mishkan for Israel].

22)

Naso 7,

Naso 7,

19: "Bring your offering — missing a yud,

which implies 'bring' as a command language etc." — a matter of deficiency,

since here there was a matter of challenge,

therefore a special command was needed.

23)

Shelach 15,

24: "For a sin-offering — missing an alef,

that it is not like other sin-offerings,

that all sin-offerings in the Torah that come with a burnt-offering, the sin-offering precedes etc. and this one, the burnt-offering precedes the sin-offering" — a deficiency in this sin-offering relative to other sin-offerings.

24)

Balak 22,

5: "And he sat in Aram — deficient in spelling,

they are close to cutting me off etc.",

and all his existence is lacking — a matter of deficiency in relation to Balak.

25)

Devarim 1,

13: "And I will place them at your heads — missing a yud²,

to say that the sins of Israel etc.'" — a matter of greatness

("And I will place them at your heads")

the opposite

("And I will place them" missing a yud — "their sins" etc.).

26)

Devarim 2:33: ,

and his son — "his son" is written defectively,

that he had a son a mighty one like him" — an added emphasis in the likeness of his son to him that he was a mighty one like him

(And a virtue in Bnei Yisrael,

that nevertheless "you and him and his son").

27)

Va’etchanan 6,

9: “Mezuzot — mezuzot is written,

that one needs only one” — a level in the mezuzah,

that there is no need for an additional mezuzah on this doorway

(see Be’er Mayim Chayim,

Maskil LeDavid.

And others),

since one of them on the doorway effects its action completely.

28)

Eikev 9,

11: “Lachat is written that both are equal”,

branch of above

(as in the inside section 68 and onward),

And additionally one can say — in several of the above,

And elsewhere.