## Menachot Daf 109a ###### Menachot 109a:1 [Menachot 109a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/109a:1) וְאַמַּאי? לִיחְזֵי הֵיידֵן נְפַל, הֵיידֵן מֵת! **William Davidson Edition - English:** **But** according to the opinion of Rabba bar Avuh, **why** can the seller automatically give the purchaser the fallen house or the dead slave? **Let him see which** house **fell,** or **which** slave **died,** as according to Rabba bar Avuh, the sale should apply to the house or slave that was the most valuable at the time of the sale. ###### Menachot 109a:2 [Menachot 109a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/109a:2) לוֹקֵחַ קָא אָמְרַתְּ? שָׁאנֵי לוֹקֵחַ, דְּיַד בַּעַל הַשְּׁטָר עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה. **William Davidson Edition - English:** The Gemara answers: **Are you saying** that the statement of Rabba bar Avuh applies in the case of **a purchaser? A purchaser is different, as** there is a principle in the *halakhot* of commerce that in a case involving a dispute between the seller and the purchaser, **the owner of the document** of sale, i.e., the purchaser, **is at a disadvantage,** as a document is always interpreted as narrowly as possible. Therefore, the seller can claim that he has sold the buyer the fallen house or the dead slave. ###### Menachot 109a:3 [Menachot 109a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/109a:3) הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָתֵית לְהָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא עֲלִיָּיה דִּגְרִיעָה – יַד בַּעַל הַשְּׁטָר עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה. **William Davidson Edition - English:** The Gemara adds: **Now that you have arrived at this** explanation, the objection posed earlier to the statement of Rabba bar Avuh from the statement of Ulla can be rejected easily. Ulla said that if one says to another: I am selling you a house from among my houses, since he did not specify which house he is selling, he can show him an attic [*aliyya*]. Although this was explained above as referring not to a loft but to the best [*me’ula*] of his houses, now **you** may **even say** that it is referring to **a loft, which is the worst** of his houses, due to the principle that **the owner of the document is at a disadvantage.** ###### Menachot 109a:4 [Menachot 109a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/109a:4) **מַתְנִי׳** ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה״ – יַקְרִיבֶנָּה בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְאִם הִקְרִיבָהּ בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ – לֹא יָצָא. ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה שֶׁאַקְרִיבֶנָּה בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ״ – יַקְרִיבֶנָּה בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְאִם הִקְרִיבָהּ בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ – יָצָא. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֵין זוֹ עוֹלָה. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **MISHNA:** One who says: **It** is incumbent **upon me** to bring **a burnt offering, must sacrifice it in the Temple** in Jerusalem. **And if he sacrificed it in the temple of Onias** in Egypt, **he has not fulfilled** his obligation. One who says: It is incumbent **upon me** to bring **a burnt offering that I will sacrifice in the temple of Onias, must sacrifice it in the Temple** in Jerusalem, **but if he sacrificed it in the temple of Onias, he has fulfilled** his obligation. **Rabbi Shimon says** that if one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering that I will sacrifice in the temple of Onias, **it is not** consecrated as **a burnt offering;** such a statement does not consecrate the animal at all. ###### Menachot 109a:5 [Menachot 109a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/109a:5) ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר״ – יְגַלַּח בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְאִם גִּלַּח בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ – לֹא יָצָא. ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁאֲגַלֵּחַ בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ״ – יְגַלֵּחַ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְאִם גִּלַּח בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ – יָצָא. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֵין זֶה נָזִיר. **William Davidson Edition - English:** If one says: **I am hereby a nazirite,** then when his term of naziriteship is completed **he must shave** the hair of his head and bring the requisite offerings **in the Temple** in Jerusalem; **and if he shaved in the temple of Onias, he has not fulfilled** his obligation. If one says: **I am hereby a nazirite** provided **that I will shave in the temple of Onias, he must shave in the Temple** in Jerusalem; **but if he shaved in the temple of Onias, he has fulfilled** his obligation. **Rabbi Shimon says** that one who says: I am hereby a nazirite provided that I will shave in the temple of Onias, **is not a nazirite** at all, as his vow does not take effect. ###### Menachot 109a:6 [Menachot 109a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/109a:6) **גְּמָ׳** יָצָא? הָא מִקְטָל קַטְלַהּ! **William Davidson Edition - English:** **GEMARA:** The mishna teaches that one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering that I will sacrifice in the temple of Onias, and sacrifices it in the temple of Onias, has fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara asks: How has he **fulfilled** his obligation? By sacrificing it in the temple of Onias, **hasn’t he** merely **killed it** without sacrificing it properly? ###### Menachot 109a:7 [Menachot 109a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/109a:7) אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא: נַעֲשָׂה כְּאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה, עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא אֶתְחַיֵּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָהּ״. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **Rav Hamnuna says:** The mishna does not mean that he has fulfilled his vow to bring an offering. Rather, **he is rendered like one who says: It** is incumbent **upon me** to bring **a burnt offering on the condition that I will not be responsible for it** if I kill it beforehand. When the mishna says that he has fulfilled his obligation it simply means that if the animal he consecrated is no longer alive, he does not have to bring another animal in its place. ###### Menachot 109a:8 [Menachot 109a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/109a:8) אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, סֵיפָא דְּקָתָנֵי הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁאֲגַלֵּחַ בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ – יְגַלַּח בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְאִם גִּילַּח בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ – יָצָא, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּנַעֲשָׂה כְּאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא אֶתְחַיֵּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּת קׇרְבְּנוֹתָיו״? נָזִיר כַּמָּה דְּלָא מַיְיתֵי קׇרְבְּנוֹתָיו – לָא מִתַּכְשַׁר! **William Davidson Edition - English:** **Rava said to** Rav Hamnuna: **If that is so,** what about **the latter clause** of the mishna, **which teaches** that if one says: **I am hereby a nazirite** provided **that I will shave in the temple of Onias, he must shave in the Temple** in Jerusalem, **but if he shaved in the temple of Onias, he has fulfilled** his obligation? In this case do you **also** maintain **that he is rendered like one who says: I am hereby a nazirite on the condition that I will not be responsible for** bringing **its offerings** if I kill them beforehand? Such a condition cannot exempt **a nazirite** from bringing his offerings, because **as long as he does not bring his offerings, he is not fit** to conclude his term of naziriteship and is still bound by all of the restrictions of a nazirite. ###### Menachot 109a:9 [Menachot 109a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/109a:9) אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: אָדָם זֶה לְדוֹרוֹן נִתְכַּוֵּין, אָמַר: אִי סַגִּיא בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ – טָרַחְנָא, טְפֵי – לָא מָצֵינָא לְאִיצְטַעוֹרֵי. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **Rather, Rava said** there is a different explanation: The animal was never consecrated at all, as **this person intended** merely **to** bring the animal as **a gift [*doron*],** but not to consecrate it as an offering. He presumably lives closer to the temple of Onias than to the Temple in Jerusalem, and must have **said** to himself: **If it is sufficient** to sacrifice this animal **in the temple of Onias, I** am prepared to **exert** myself and bring it. But if it is necessary to do **more** than that, i.e., to bring it to Jerusalem, **I am not able to afflict myself.** The mishna teaches that although the person never intended to bring the offering to Jerusalem, ideally, he should sacrifice the animal properly, in the Temple in Jerusalem. If he did not bring it there, but sacrificed it in the temple of Onias, he has fulfilled his obligation, and is not required to bring any other offering in its place. ###### Menachot 109a:10 [Menachot 109a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/109a:10) נָזִיר נָמֵי, הַאי גַּבְרָא לְצַעוֹרֵי נַפְשֵׁיהּ קָא מִיכַּוֵּין, אָמַר: אִי סַגִּיא בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ – טָרַחְנָא, טְפֵי לָא מָצֵינָא לְאִיצְטַעוֹרֵי. **William Davidson Edition - English:** This is the explanation of the latter clause of the mishna **as well:** If one said that he would be **a nazirite** provided that he will shave in the temple of Onias, **this man** did not intend to accept upon himself the halakhic status of naziriteship. Rather, he merely **intends to practice abstinence** by not drinking wine, along with observing the other restrictions of a nazirite. Therefore, **he said** to himself: **If it is sufficient** to shave **in the temple of Onias, I** am prepared to **exert** myself and do so. But if it is necessary to do **more** than that, i.e., to go to Jerusalem to shave and bring the required offerings, **I am not able to afflict myself.** The mishna teaches that ideally, he should go to the Temple in Jerusalem to shave and bring all his offerings. If he shaved and brought his offerings in the temple of Onias, he has fulfilled his vow and has no further obligation. ###### Menachot 109a:11 [Menachot 109a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/109a:11) וְרַב הַמְנוּנָא אָמַר לָךְ: נָזִיר – כִּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ, עוֹלָה – עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא אֶתְחַיֵּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָהּ קָאָמַר. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **And Rav Hamnuna** could have **said to you** in response to Rava’s challenge: With regard to the case of one who vowed to become **a nazirite** on the condition that he would shave and bring his offerings in the temple of Onias, the interpretation of the mishna is **as you said.** But with regard to one who vows to bring **a burnt offering** in the temple of Onias, his intent is as I explained, and it is as if **he says:** It is incumbent **upon me** to bring **a burnt offering on the condition that I will not be responsible for it** if I kill it beforehand. ###### Menachot 109a:12 [Menachot 109a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/109a:12) וְאַף רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן סָבַר לַהּ לְהָא דְּרַב הַמְנוּנָא, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה שֶׁאַקְרִיבֶנָּה בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ״, וְהִקְרִיבָהּ בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל – יָצָא, וְעָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **And Rabbi Yoḥanan also** holds in accordance with **that which Rav Hamnuna** said, **as Rabba bar bar Ḥana said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said** that if one says: **It** is incumbent **upon me** to bring **a burnt offering** on the condition **that I will sacrifice it in the temple of Onias, and he sacrificed it in Eretz Yisrael** but not in the Temple, **he has fulfilled** his obligation, **but** his actions **are** also **punishable by excision from the World-to-Come [*karet*]** because he sacrificed an offering outside of the Temple. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Hamnuna that the animal is consecrated. ###### Menachot 109a:13 [Menachot 109a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/109a:13) תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה שֶׁאַקְרִיבֶנָּה בַּמִּדְבָּר, וְהִקְרִיבָהּ בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן – יָצָא, וְעָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **This** explanation of Rav Hamnuna and Rabbi Yoḥanan **is also taught** in a *baraita*: If one says: **It** is incumbent **upon me** to bring **a burnt offering** on the condition **that I will sacrifice it in the wilderness** of Sinai, thinking that the wilderness of Sinai still has sanctity since the Tabernacle had been located there, **and he sacrificed it on** the east **bank of the Jordan, he has fulfilled** his obligation, **but** his actions **are** also **punishable by *karet*** because he sacrificed an offering outside of the Temple. ###### Menachot 109a:14 [Menachot 109a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/109a:14) **מַתְנִי׳** הַכֹּהֲנִים שֶׁשִּׁמְּשׁוּ בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ – לֹא יְשַׁמְּשׁוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר לְדָבָר אַחֵר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אַךְ לֹא יַעֲלוּ כֹּהֲנֵי הַבָּמוֹת אֶל מִזְבַּח ה׳ בִּירוּשָׁלִָם כִּי אִם אָכְלוּ מַצּוֹת בְּקֶרֶב אֲחֵיהֶם״. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כְּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין – חוֹלְקִין וְאוֹכְלִין וְלֹא מַקְרִיבִין. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **MISHNA:** **The priests who served in the temple of Onias may not serve in the Temple in Jerusalem; and needless to say,** if they served **for something else,** a euphemism for idolatry, they are disqualified from service in the Temple. **As it is stated: “Nevertheless the priests of the private altars did not come up to the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem, but they did eat *matza* among their brethren”** (II Kings 23:9). The halakhic status of **these** priests is **like** that of **blemished** priests in that **they receive a share** in the distribution of the meat of the offerings **and partake** of that meat, **but they do not sacrifice** offerings or perform any of the sacrificial rites. ###### Menachot 109a:15 [Menachot 109a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/109a:15) **גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: כֹּהֵן שֶׁשָּׁחַט לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, קׇרְבָּנוֹ רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **GEMARA:** **Rav Yehuda says:** With regard to **a priest who slaughtered** an offering **for idol worship** and who subsequently repented and came to the Temple in Jerusalem to serve, **his offering is** acceptable and considered to be **an aroma pleasing** to the Lord. ###### Menachot 109a:16 [Menachot 109a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/109a:16) אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר אַבְדִּימִי: מַאי קְרָאָה? ״יַעַן אֲשֶׁר יְשָׁרְתוּ אוֹתָם לִפְנֵי גִלּוּלֵיהֶם וְהָיוּ לְבֵית יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמִכְשׁוֹל עָוֹן עַל כֵּן נָשָׂאתִי יָדִי עֲלֵיהֶם נְאֻם ה׳ אֱלֹהִים וְנָשְׂאוּ עֲוֹנָם״, וּכְתִיב בָּתְרֵיהּ: ״וְלֹא יִגְּשׁוּ אֵלַי לְכַהֵן לִי״. אִי עֲבַד שֵׁירוּת – אִין, שְׁחִיטָה לָאו שֵׁירוּת הוּא. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi says: What is the verse** from which it is derived? The verse states: **“Because they served them before their idols and became a stumbling block of iniquity unto the house of Israel, therefore I have lifted up My hand against them, says the Lord God, and they shall bear their iniquity”** (Ezekiel 44:12). **And it is written afterward: “And they shall not come near to Me, to serve Me in the priestly role”** (Ezekiel 44:13). This indicates that **if** a priest **performed a service** for an idol that is considered a sacrificial rite in the Temple, he **is** disqualified from serving in the Temple, but the **slaughter** of an offering **is not** considered **service,** as it is not considered a sacrificial rite in the Temple and can be performed in the Temple even by a non-priest. ###### Menachot 109a:17 [Menachot 109a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/109a:17) אִיתְּמַר: שָׁגַג בִּזְרִיקָה, רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: קׇרְבָּנוֹ רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ, רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: אֵין קׇרְבָּנוֹ רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **It was stated:** If a priest **unwittingly** performed the **sprinkling** of the blood of an idolatrous offering and then repented and came to serve in the Temple, **Rav Naḥman says** that **his offering** is accepted and **is an aroma pleasing** to the Lord. **Rav Sheshet says: His offering is not a pleasing aroma** to the Lord, as he is not fit to serve in the Temple. ###### Menachot 109a:18 [Menachot 109a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/109a:18) אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָיוּ לְבֵית יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמִכְשׁוֹל עָוֹן״, מַאי לָאו – אוֹ מִכְשׁוֹל אוֹ עָוֹן, וּ״מִכְשׁוֹל״ – שׁוֹגֵג, וְ״עָוֹן״ – מֵזִיד. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **Rav Sheshet said: From where do I say** that if a priest sprinkled blood unwittingly for idol worship he cannot serve in the Temple? **As it is written: “And they became a stumbling block of iniquity unto the house of Israel.” What, is it not** referring to one who served in idol worship **either** as **a stumbling block or** as **an iniquity?** Accordingly, neither may perform the service in the Temple. **And** the term **“stumbling block”** is a reference to one who sins **unwittingly, and** the term **“iniquity”** is a reference to **an intentional** sinner. Therefore, even one who unwittingly served in idol worship may not subsequently serve in the Temple. ###### Menachot 109a:19 [Menachot 109a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/109a:19) וְרַב נַחְמָן – ״מִכְשׁוֹל״ דְּ״עָוֹן״. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **And Rav Naḥman** interprets the verse to mean **a stumbling block of iniquity,** i.e., only one who serves in idol worship intentionally is disqualified from serving in the Temple, but not one who serves in idol worship unwittingly. ###### Menachot 109a:20 [Menachot 109a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/109a:20) אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְכִפֶּר הַכֹּהֵן עַל הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַשֹּׁגֶגֶת בְּחֶטְאָה בִשְׁגָגָה״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכֹּהֵן מִתְכַּפֵּר עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **Rav Naḥman said: From where do I say** that if a priest sprinkled the blood of an idolatrous offering unwittingly his subsequent offering in the Temple is accepted? **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states with regard to one who unwittingly committed idolatry: “And if one person sin through error, then he shall offer a she-goat in its first year for a sin offering. **And the priest shall effect atonement for the soul that errs unwittingly, when he sins unwittingly,** before the Lord, to effect atonement for him; and he shall be forgiven” (Numbers 15:27–28). The phrase: “For the soul that errs unwittingly” **teaches that a priest** who sins unwittingly **may receive atonement** by sacrificing his sin offering **on his own.** ###### Menachot 109a:21 [Menachot 109a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/109a:21) בְּמַאי? אִילֵימָא בִּשְׁחִיטָה – מַאי אִירְיָא שׁוֹגֵג? אֲפִילּוּ מֵזִיד נָמֵי! אֶלָּא לָאו בִּזְרִיקָה. **William Davidson Edition - English:** Rav Naḥman clarifies: **In what** manner did this priest commit idolatry? **If we say** he sinned **through slaughtering** an idolatrous offering, **why** does the verse indicate **specifically** that a priest who slaughtered an idolatrous offering **unwittingly** can bring his own sin offering? This is obvious, as **even** one who did so **intentionally** may serve in the Temple after repentance. **Rather, is it not** referring to a priest who committed idolatry **by sprinkling** the blood of an idolatrous offering? Accordingly, if he did so unwittingly his subsequent service in the Temple is valid, but if he did so intentionally, he is disqualified from serving in the Temple. ###### Menachot 109a:22 [Menachot 109a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/109a:22) וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר לָךְ: לְעוֹלָם בִּשְׁחִיטָה, וּבְמֵזִיד – לֹא נַעֲשָׂה כּוֹמֶר לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה?! **William Davidson Edition - English:** **And** how does **Rav Sheshet** interpret that *baraita*? He could have **said to you: Actually,** the verse is referring to a case **where** the priest sinned **through slaughtering** an idolatrous offering. **And** although Rav Yehuda said that a priest who slaughtered an idolatrous offering may serve in the Temple after repentance, that statement applies only to one who slaughtered an idolatrous offering unwittingly. But if he did so **intentionally,** the priest is disqualified from serving in the Temple. Rav Yehuda’s reasoning is that slaughter is not a sacrificial rite in the Temple; but **does** one who slaughters an idolatrous offering intentionally **not become a servant of idol worship?** ###### Menachot 109a:23 [Menachot 109a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/109a:23) וְאָזְדוּ לְטַעְמַיְיהוּ, דְּאִתְּמַר: הֵזִיד בִּשְׁחִיטָה – רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: קׇרְבָּנוֹ רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ, וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: אֵין קׇרְבָּנוֹ רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **And** Rav Naḥman and Rav Sheshet **follow their** respective lines of **reasoning, as it was stated** that if a priest acted **intentionally in** the **slaughter** of an idolatrous offering and subsequently repented, **Rav Naḥman says** that **his offering** in the Temple **is an aroma pleasing** to the Lord, i.e., it is not disqualified, **and Rav Sheshet says** that **his offering** in the Temple **is not an aroma pleasing** to the Lord, i.e., it is disqualified. ###### Menachot 109a:24 [Menachot 109a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/109a:24) רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: קׇרְבָּנוֹ רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ, דְּלָא עֲבַד שֵׁירוּת. רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: אֵין קׇרְבָּנוֹ רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ, **William Davidson Edition - English:** **Rav Naḥman says** that **his offering is an aroma pleasing** to the Lord, **because he did not perform service** for an idol that is considered a sacrificial rite in the Temple. And **Rav Sheshet says** that **his offering is not an aroma pleasing** to the Lord,