Siman 257

The matter of hatmanah is that there are those who, after they have left the pots on the stove or the oven, took the pot from there and wrapped it in substances that increase heat to strengthen its warmth, or in substances that do not increase heat but only to maintain its warmth. And why do they do this? Because in most cases hatmanah is for the needs of the next day (Tosafot 47b, s.v. "Bameh Tomnin"), because they fear that when it stands on the stove all night it will cool down because it is exposed and not covered. Therefore, they take it from there and wrap it to maintain its warmth, and in most cases they would perform hatmanah during bein hashemashot, as we learned in the Mishnah (34a): "If it is doubtful whether it is dark or not dark... one may wrap the hot food."

The sages prohibited insulating on Shabbat itself even with a substance that does not increase heat, and they only permitted it during bein hashemashot as has been written; but with a substance that increases heat—they prohibited insulating even while it is still day. And the reason for the prohibition regarding a substance that does not increase heat on Shabbat, even though it does nothing, as it only maintains the heat as it is, is because we fear lest he boil it. (ibid.) That is to say, when he desires to insulate it and finds his pot has cooled, he will boil it first, and it will turn out that he is cooking on Shabbat. (Rashi) But during bein hashemashot—we do not decree, because generally pots during bein hashemashot are boiling. (Gemara) And it appears to me that the intention is not that he will boil it and cook it literally, for we have already explained in siman 253 and 254 that they only feared the raking of coals which is done in a single moment. But for something that requires time—we do not decree, just as we do not decree regarding an oven smeared with clay that he will remove the clay and rake the coals. (According to the commentary of Rashi 18b, s.v. "v'tucha") Rather, here too the intention is that he will rake the fire all around until he boils it, for he is removing it from the kirah. (And the difficulty of the Ramban in the Milchamot regarding this version is answered, that he is not suspected of this, see there and examine it carefully.)

And I have a great question regarding this: behold, it was explained in siman 253 that for this reason raw meat is permitted to be left even in an oven, because it is for the needs of tomorrow, and we do not fear that perhaps one will rake the coals, for by tomorrow it will cook on its own. If so, regarding hatmanah which is for the needs of tomorrow, why did they decree? However, the explanation of the matters seems to me to be as follows: behold, one who does not perform hatmanah for the needs of tomorrow but rather leaves it on the kirah or the oven, does so because he knows they were heated well and the fire is strong, and it will not cool down until the morning even while standing uncovered, and if so, there is no need for raking. But this person who removes it from the kirah and performs hatmanah upon it, does so because he knows the fire is not strong, and if he leaves it on the kirah until tomorrow it will cool down; therefore, he wishes to perform hatmanah. According to this, they rightly feared that when he comes to perform hatmanah, he will see that it has cooled slightly and will boil it, meaning that he will rake all around the few coals that still remain in their heat, and he will rake the coals on Shabbat and it will be cooking. Therefore, they forbade it and did not distinguish in their decree between one who performs hatmanah at night for the needs of tomorrow or one who performs hatmanah on the morrow, for the rabbis did not differentiate, and they forbade performing hatmanah on Shabbat itself with any substance, even with that which does not add heat.

And regarding a substance that adds heat—they forbade insulating even while it is still day, for the reason that we decree lest one insulate in ramatz that contains a coal, meaning ash mixed with coals (Rashi), for this too adds heat, and in this case there is certainly a concern lest one rake the coals. And this is not like a decree upon a decree, for it is all one decree (the Rambam in the Commentary on the Mishnah). And even though it is for the next day—nevertheless, we fear lest he worry that it will cool down by the next day. And it is not similar to leaving food for the next day upon a kirah, where the heat is great as we have explained, which is not the case with insulation in ramatz, for despite everything—it does not have the warmth of a kirah fueled with many logs. And here the primary substance is the ash and the coals are few, and there is a concern that it will cool down and he will rake. (And the Rif and the Rambam read regarding a substance that does not add heat—"lest he insulate in ramatz," and regarding a substance that adds heat—"lest it boil," and according to the Rambam regarding a substance that adds heat it is forbidden while it is still day and permitted during bein hashemashot, as he wrote in chapter 4, and everyone wondered at this. And from the Rif there is no necessity for this, as the Ra'avad wrote, for the difficulty is regarding a substance that does not add heat, why it is permitted during bein hashemashot. And for the law there is no practical difference between the versions, and most of the poskim agreed with the version of Rashi, and therefore we explained thus. And in the Yerushalmi there is another reason regarding a substance that adds heat, because he takes it on Shabbat and returns it, and in its taking it cooled down and in its returning it became heated, and it is like one who cooks; see there and examine carefully.)

And know, that regarding hatmanah there is no distinction between whether it was cooked like the food of Ben Drusai or whether it was not cooked like the food of Ben Drusai, and between whether it was fully cooked or whether it was not fully cooked, and even if it was fully cooked and shrinking is detrimental to it - it is forbidden. And the reason is, that it is not similar to shehiyah where the stoking is for the sake of cooking, therefore we do not fear in a case of shrinking is detrimental to it when it was fully cooked, or when it reached the food of Ben Drusai according to the opinions that were explained in siman 253. But regarding hatmanah, the stoking is because the food might cool down, and if so, this naturally applies in all cases as is understood. Furthermore, regarding hatmanah a small amount of stoking is effective, since it is insulated it maintains the heat even with slight stoking. But shehiyah for the needs of tomorrow - a small amount of stoking is not effective, (Rosh) and naturally he will not stoke. And this is the opinion of most of our teachers, and it is likewise clear from the words of the Rambam who in chapter 4 regarding the laws of hatmanah, did not mention specific distinctions as he mentioned regarding the laws of shehiyah in chapter 3.

Nevertheless, there are some of our teachers who said that the laws of hatmanah are like the laws of shehiyah, in that the prohibition only applies to partial cooking that has not reached the stage of ma'akal ben derusai, but raw or cooked to the stage of ma'akal ben derusai is permitted for hatmanah just as with shehiyah. (Rashbam in Tosafot at the beginning of Bameh Tomnin). It appears that this is also the system of Rashi, who wrote at the beginning of Kirah that the prohibition of shehiyah is also due to the addition of heat, see there, and if so, it is one and the same matter. And all the systems that were explained in siman 253 regarding shehiyah apply equally to hatmanah; furthermore, they only prohibited hatmanah for that which is fit for the evening, but not for the needs of tomorrow. And it must be said according to this system that even though hatmanah is generally for the needs of tomorrow, nevertheless, if it is fit to eat at night, it is prohibited, as was written in siman 253, for such is the law regarding shehiyah; or perhaps according to this system there are instances of hatmanah even for the needs of the night. But all of our teachers rejected this system entirely, and it is also not understood how hatmanah is relevant to something that has not been fully cooked, for it is not a place of cooking. And granted that with something that adds heat one could say the heat assists the cooking, nevertheless, with something that does not add heat, it is obvious that cooking is not relevant, and the Gemara did not distinguish between that which adds heat and that which does not add heat, except that this is prohibited even from while it is yet day, and this is prohibited only on Shabbat. However, in any event, they are of one type, and this system requires further study. (And it must be said that he holds that they are not of one type.)

And this is what our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 7, and this is their wording: "In any case where we forbid hatmanah—we forbid it even for a pot that is fully cooked, and even if it shrinks and it is detrimental to it, and such is the primary ruling. And there are those who are lenient and say that anything that is completely raw or fully cooked—is permitted for hatmanah just as it is for shehiyah, as was written above in siman 253. And in a place where they are accustomed to be lenient according to this opinion, one should not protest against them, but one should not act so in other places." Thus far their words. Because certainly the primary ruling is that in all cases hatmanah is forbidden, and the permitting opinion is a minority opinion. However, in a place where they are accustomed to be lenient—we do not protest against them in a rabbinic matter and a mere decree, but the primary ruling is like the majority of the poskim.

And I am astonished at our teacher, the Rema, who wrote in section 1: For some say that all this is only forbidden when one performs it for the needs of the night, but when one hides it for the needs of tomorrow—it is permitted to hide it while it is still day in a substance that adds heat, and post facto one may rely on this, provided that he does not make it a habit to do so. Thus far his words. But this is only according to the view of the Rashbam, that the law of hatmanah is equal to the law of shehiyah, for all of our teachers—the Tosafot, the Rosh, the Rashba, and the Ran at the beginning of the fourth chapter—wrote explicitly that hatmanah is for the needs of tomorrow, and this is the essence of the prohibition, and with this they rejected the words of the Rashbam. And also regarding what they cited as the source of this law from the Mordechai at the beginning of [chapter] Kirah and from Shibolei HaLeket (in the Beit Yosef at the end of siman 253), behold, in the Mordechai there is no definitive proof at all for one who looks there, and even if we were to say so—this is according to the Rashbam; see there. (And so wrote the Shelah in Bigdei Yesha). And so too in Shibolei HaLeket it is explained thus, that this is according to Rashi, which is the view of his grandson the Rashbam, as I wrote in section 6; and if so, why did our teacher, the Rema, divide it into two laws? He should have written this in section 7. Furthermore, why did he change the wording? For there he said that in a place where they are accustomed to be lenient one should not protest against them, but one should not act so in other places, thus far his words; and in section 1 he said: and post facto one may rely on this, provided that he does not make it a habit to do so, thus far his words; and it is known that all of his words are very precise. (And also the Magen Avraham, subsection 8, wrote that this is the view that is in section 7).

And it appears clear to me regarding his intention that this is what he meant: That certainly that which is in section 7 is the view of the Rashbam, and also in section 1 it is so, except that there is no necessity that the Rashbam himself would hold that which is in section 1. And the proof for this is that the Tosafot and all the Rishonim who cited the view of the Rashbam—they only cited it regarding the matter of section 7, which is that regarding fully cooked or like the food of Ben Drusai, there is no hatmanah. But that which is in section 1, that for the next day it is permitted—they did not mention it, and also in the Mordechai there is no proof as I have written. And in truth, this matter is certainly puzzling to say so, for the essence of hatmanah is for the next day, and therefore our teacher, the Rema, did not cite this in section 7, but only here in section 1 where he is not dealing with the specific laws of hatmanah, but rather he is dealing there with the matter of the prohibition of the cooked food if one transgressed and performed hatmanah, see there. And regarding this he said that there are those who perform hatmanah for the needs of the next day, and they hold that even in this the Rashbam permitted, as is written in the Shibbolei HaLeket. Regarding this he said: And post facto one may rely on this, meaning not to prohibit the cooked food, provided that he is not accustomed to doing so. Meaning that another time it is forbidden for him to do so even according to the view of the Rashbam, because it is close to saying that even the Rashbam did not permit this. But in section 7 he says that in a place where they are accustomed to rely on his view, one should not protest against them, meaning that they may always rely on his view and do so.

What is called hatmanah: when the pot is covered from above and from the sides by the substance it is buried in. But when the substance it is buried in does not touch the pot—this is not hatmanah. Therefore, that which we place pots in our ovens and close the opening of the oven—it is not called hatmanah, since the pots are not literally against the walls of the oven. And there is one who wrote that they were careful not to place the pot against the wall because this is like hatmanah, (Taz subsection 6) but even in this there is no concern, for only a small part of the pot is adjacent to the wall, and most of the pot is exposed, and hatmanah is when the entire pot is covered by the substance it is buried in, and we have already written this in siman 253. Similarly, when the covering is not for the sake of hatmanah, but rather to protect it from mice or so that it does not become soiled by dust—it is permitted. Therefore, even though a dish that has been fully cooked is forbidden to undergo hatmanah on Shabbat, even in a substance that does not increase heat, and even if it shrinks and it is detrimental to it, nevertheless, to place vessels upon it to protect it from mice or from filth or from dust—it is permitted, for this is not like one who performs hatmanah to heat, but rather like one who guards, just as one puts a cover on the pot to protect it.

Even though it is permitted to leave a pot upon a kira, as written in siman 253, and even if it contains coals, according to the methods and approaches that were explained there, nevertheless one must be careful not to cover the pot with garments, even while it is still day, according to the law of a substance that adds heat. For even though the garments themselves do not add heat, nevertheless, on account of the fire beneath them—they add heat and it is forbidden. And even though in the Gemara (49a) it was inquired whether we require that it add heat specifically on account of itself, and according to the opinion of the Rif there it is explained that the conclusion is so, nevertheless the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch who left their words unspecified—it is clearly explained that they hold there is no difference. And the reason is because the Rambam in chapter 4, law 1, explains that on account of another thing—it adds heat even more, see there, and it is possible that the Rif also explains thus. (See Bach and Derisha) And furthermore, heating on account of fire certainly adds much heat, and is forbidden.

However, if the garments do not touch the pot, even though there is fire beneath it, since one is not doing it in the manner of hatmanah—it is permitted. Therefore, in a case where one places a pot on a kirah or a kupach that contains coals, and the bottom of the pot does not touch the coals—it is called shehiyah and is permitted, according to the methods that were explained in siman 253. And according to the opinion of our teacher, the Rema, there, even if the pot touches the coals—it is permitted, since it is not entirely covered, as we explained there in section 24, see there. And so too, if one placed a wide vessel over the pot that does not touch the sides of the pot, and placed garments upon that wide vessel—it is permitted, for since the garments are upon the vessel, and the vessel does not touch all the sides of the pot—this is not hatmanah.

And so it is permitted to place the pot in our ovens by placing a raw piece within it, even according to the approach of the Rif and the Rambam in siman 253, provided that the pot does not touch the coals. And according to the approach of Rashi and Tosafot there, even without a raw piece, and for our teacher, the Rema, even if it touches the coals as has been written. And even though one covers the opening of the oven with garments, since the garments do not touch the pot—we have no concern with it as has been written, for this is not considered hatmanah. And the hatmanah that they perform in these lands, where they perform hatmanah in the oven and plaster the opening of the oven with clay—it is permitted according to everyone. And the plastering is only for things that cook quickly, but raw meat—it does not require plastering, as has been written in siman 253. And in places where they are not accustomed to plaster with clay or with another substance—it is forbidden to place there types of dough or legumes and kasha and potatoes, unless they cook to the extent of the food of Ben Derosai while it is still day, or that one covers the coals with ash, (Magen Avraham subsection 19) and we have already explained this in siman 253. And it is a mitzvah to perform hatmanah of hot food for Shabbat in order to eat hot food on Shabbat, for this is of the honor and delight of Shabbat. And anyone who forbids eating hot food on Shabbat—behold, he is a heretic, and this is the way of the Sadducees, and he is to be investigated. However, one who according to his health should not eat hot food—it is permitted for him to eat cold food, and everything is according to his nature. And most of Israel are scrupulous to eat hot soup of animal meat or poultry meat, and they eat cholent and kugel, and the custom of Israel is Torah. (But one who is not in his health shall not eat, and shall do as the physicians commanded him and shall not be stringent in this, and one who is stringent in this, the spirit of the sages is not pleased with him.)

Aside from this, the law of hatmanah does not apply to our ovens, because even before the hatmanah they were in the oven. Furthermore, since the oven is attached to the ground, it is like the ground, and hatmanah only applies to a detached object. More than this, the Rosh wrote there, and this is his wording: "There are places where, in the location where they cooked the pots, they remove the fire and sweep away the embers and place the pot for the needs of the next day, and cover it with cold ash... but in a place where they cooked the pot all day, the initial placement of the pot there was not for the sake of hatmanah, and also it is not fitting to perform hatmanah inside the ground; therefore, there is no concern." Thus far his words. He permitted it for these reasons even when they cover the pot with ash, which is actual hatmanah, and all the more so in our case, where we do not cover the pot with ash. However, one must be careful regarding what I have heard, that there are places where they take from the oven and cover it with pillows and blankets—not to do so on Shabbat, but from the eve of Shabbat it is permitted, for this is included in the category of flocking that does not increase heat as will be explained, and it is permitted while it is still day.

And behold, we have explained the matter of hatmanah, and therefore one must be careful not to perform hatmanah on Shabbat even with a substance that does not add heat. However, during bein hashemashot, it is permitted to perform hatmanah, because generally pots during bein hashemashot are boiling, and there is no concern to decree lest one boil it. And in siman 609 it will be explained that one may not perform hatmanah for the needs of the conclusion of Shabbat, but regarding bread they permitted it, as is written in siman 254, section 16; see there. And with a substance that adds heat, it is forbidden even while it is still day, and if one performed hatmanah with a substance that adds heat, the cooked food is forbidden even ex post facto. And even if one performed hatmanah inadvertently, it is forbidden, for they were very stringent regarding hatmanah. (Magen Avraham, subsection 4) And the reason seems to me to be because it does not appear to people as a prohibition, since there is no fire or coals here. And when do we forbid it: specifically with cold food that became hot or food that shrinks and it is beneficial for it, but regarding food that remains at its heat level, they did not forbid it ex post facto. And similarly, one who performs hatmanah on Shabbat with a substance that does not add heat—they did not forbid it ex post facto for this reason, for it is merely remaining at its heat level, since it does not add heat. (ibid., subsection 6) And there are those who say that if one forgot and performed hatmanah inadvertently with a substance that adds heat, it is permitted in any case, since it is inadvertent, and specifically food that was cooked completely. But if its cooking was completed on Shabbat, it is obvious that it is forbidden. (ibid., subsection 7, and see Taz, subsection 2, who wanted to say that there is no dispute here, for when the primary hatmanah is with a substance that adds heat, everyone agrees it is forbidden, and the "there are those who say" refers to where the primary substance was of those that do not add heat, and the first opinion also admits to this; see there)

These are the things that increase heat: the waste of sesame seeds and certainly that of olives. However, there is a distinction between them: if one insulated in a substance that does not increase heat, and placed the basket upon the pulp of sesame seeds—that is, upon their waste—it is permitted, for they do not possess so much warmth that they would raise the heat upon the insulated basket. But upon the pulp of olives—it is forbidden, for they produce heat. (Gemara 48a.) The Rif and the Rosh brought this, but the Rambam, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch did not mention this, and it requires further study. And so too regarding other things that increase heat which will be explained—it is permitted to place the basket in which one insulated upon them, for they only forbade the pulp of olives which possesses great warmth. And so too in Choshen Mishpat siman 155 regarding distancing from a wall in a matter that damages the wall, they only forbade the pulp of olives as is explained there. (However, according to this, also manure, salt, lime, and damp sand have the same law as olives, for regarding distancing they are equal to olives as is explained there, and perhaps in truth it is so. And from sand there is also a proof, for the act of insulation itself is more stringent than distancing from a wall, for in insulation even dry sand is forbidden as will be explained, and this is not so regarding distancing as is written there. And it requires further study regarding the poskim who did not speak of this at all, and examine this carefully.) (And it is implied in the Yerushalmi that pulp after twelve months—does not increase heat.)

And so too manure, salt, lime, and sand, whether moist or dry, and straw, grape skins, and mochin—meaning any soft material like cotton and the like—and grasses, when these four are moist, for then they increase heat. And in the Gemara there it was asked whether specifically moist of their own accord or even due to another substance, and the Rosh ruled leniently, see there. And the Rif wrote that the conclusion is that we learned "of their own accord," and it appears also that his intention is like the Rosh. However, the Rambam in chapter 4 explains that, on the contrary, due to another substance they heat up more, as he wrote, and this is his wording: "Moist, and even of their own accord," see there. And the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote without specification. And it appears that this is their reason: because according to the Rosh, due to another substance is more lenient, and according to the Rambam, of their own accord is more lenient, and consequently both are forbidden. Therefore they wrote without specification: "and not with moist mochin," and consequently everything is included. (And in the Gemara 49a they asked: moist of their own accord in mochin, where do you find it? And they answered: from the pluckings between the thighs, from wool that is plucked from between the thighs of the animal, which is full of sweat and moist of its own accord, see there.)

And these are the things that do not increase heat: clothing, and fruits, and wings of a dove, and other feathers. And according to this, pillows and bolsters do not increase heat, and likewise flax tow, which is the refuse of the flax. And it appears that flax itself is also thus, for it is no worse than clothing. And that which they said "tow" is because it is the way to insulate with tow, since it is worth nothing, as this is the fine material that falls from the flax. And likewise carpenters' sawdust, which is the fine material that falls from the wood when they saw it with a saw, and this is called "pylka" or "polovines," and likewise all these, for when they are moist they increase heat, it follows that when they are not moist they do not increase heat.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 3: "There are those who say that it is permitted to insulate in rocks even though they increase heat, for the sages did not issue a decree regarding an uncommon matter." Thus far his words. That is to say, even though regarding distancing from a wall it was explained in Choshen Mishpat siman 155 that one must distance rocks from the wall, and they are hard stones, for the reason that they contain much warmth and damage the wall, and if so it is obvious that they increase heat, nevertheless since insulation in them is not common, because they are liable to break the pot and spoil the food—therefore the sages did not issue a decree regarding this. And hot ash without coals—does not increase heat. (Rashal in the Responsa)

Even though one may not perform hatmanah on Shabbat even with a substance that does not increase heat, nevertheless, if one performed hatmanah with it while it was still day and it became uncovered after it became dark—it is permitted to return and cover it. And one may also initially uncover it and cover it if there is a need for this. (Tosafot 51a, s.v. "kisehu," and see Tatz subsection 4 and Beit Yosef) But if it became uncovered while it was still day—it is forbidden to cover it once it becomes dark, for this is like performing hatmanah initially. (Magen Avraham subsection 12) However, from the Tosafot (ibid.) it is explained that specifically when he uncovered it while it was still day—it is forbidden to cover it once it becomes dark, but when it became uncovered on its own—it is permitted, see there. But our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great work, decided from the Yerushalmi that even if it became uncovered on its own—it is forbidden, see there. And in truth, in the Yerushalmi it remained in doubt, see there, and also the Rosh wrote like the Tosafot, see there. And know, that it appears there is no distinction between when he uncovered it with the intent to return and cover it, and when it was with the intent not to cover it, since the poskim did not distinguish in this. (And in this manner it would have been possible to reconcile the dispute, for also regarding it becoming uncovered on its own we could distinguish thus between if he saw it and did not concern himself with covering it and afterwards changed his mind to cover it, and between if immediately when he saw it he wanted to cover it, and delve into this.)

And just as it is proper to cover it when it becomes uncovered on Shabbat, so too it is permitted to add to the covering on Shabbat with further items that do not add heat. And so too if one desired to remove the entire covering and place another covering in its place—it is permitted, whether the first was warmer than the second or the second is warmer than the first, for since the status of hatmanah was already upon it, this is not a new hatmanah, and it is permitted. Furthermore, even if there was a covering of a light material upon the pot, such as a sheet—one may remove it and cover it with a galofkerin, which is a thick garment. And all this is when the pot has been cooked all its needs, even if it shrinks and it is beneficial for it, for there is no cooking in this. But if it has not been cooked all its needs—it is forbidden even to add to the covering, for the reason that this addition might perhaps cause some cooking. And furthermore, it could be that he will place it as it is covered upon a stove that has coals. And he should act according to the manner of permission that was explained in section 12, that the garments should not touch the pot, or by way of a wide vessel as I wrote there. (The Magen Avraham wrote so in subsection 13, see there, but the language does not imply so, and therefore it seems that their intention is like the first reason we explained; and furthermore, in hatmanah as it is, which we are dealing with here, there is no permission, and examine this well.)

Insulating in a substance that does not add heat—they only forbade it with a hot item that was heated in a kli rishon. However, it is permitted to insulate a cold item, for one insulates it so that it does not become excessively cold or so that its chill should dissipate. And even a prominent person is permitted to do so, for we find in the Gemara (51a) that Rav Nachman did so; see there. Furthermore, even if one transferred the cooked food on Shabbat from the pot in which it was cooked into another pot—it is permitted to insulate it in a substance that does not add heat, since it has been removed from the kli rishon. And we do not fear that perhaps he will cause it to boil, for he himself cools it by pouring it into another vessel, so how could he cause it to boil? (Gemara ibid.) And even though regarding placing it upon a stove it is worse when one transfers it from urn to urn, as I wrote in siman 253, that is regarding placing it on the stove where there are coals, for perforce his intention is to heat it, which is not the case regarding insulating in a substance that does not add heat. (Magen Avraham, subsection 14) And it is possible that even in the kli rishon itself when he cooled it a bit, meaning when he took it from the stove and placed it for some time on the ground or on the table, that he is permitted afterwards to insulate it in a substance that does not add heat for this reason, since his intention was to cool it a bit. (ibid.) However, all this is in a substance that does not add heat, but in a substance that adds heat—it is forbidden even to insulate a completely cold item, and even while it is yet day it is also forbidden, for this is like insulating in hot ashes, regarding which the sages did not distinguish. (And on a cold weekday it is permitted as is proven at the beginning of the second chapter of Bava Batra; and see Tosefet Shabbat)