The Foundation Stone

As Jacob approaches death in Vayechi, the Zohar introduces an extraordinary sequence. It compounds the Foundation Stone of creation, Isaiah’s tested cornerstone, the rejected stone of Hallel, Jacob’s matzevah, Zechariah’s seven-eyed stone and the Stone of Israel into a single identity.

God cast a stone into the abyss, the Zohar says, and from it the world was planted. It is the central point of creation, “and on this point stands the holy of holies.” The Zohar identifies this primordial stone with Isaiah’s “tested stone, a precious cornerstone” and “the stone rejected by the builders.”

These are not merely analogous stones. Zohar, Vayechi 43:445 declares them to be the same Foundation Stone.

Its wording must nevertheless be preserved carefully:

ובהאי נקודה קיימא קדש הקדשים

“At/on this point stands the holy of holies.”

The statement occurs within a cosmic and mystical account of creation. It does not explicitly say that Solomon’s architectural Holy of Holies stood over this stone or provide measurements for constructing a chamber around it. The Foundation Stone is the sacred center at which the holy of holies stands or is present.

The following passage identifies its earthly manifestation. The primordial stone, compounded from fire, water and air and resting above the abyss, was placed as a sign at the center of the world. The Zohar then says: “It is referred to in the words, ‘And Jacob took a stone and set it up as a matzevah.’” The citation is Genesis 31:45.

Jacob did not create the foundation of creation. He established it “above and below” by making there a “house of God,” invoking his declaration:

“This stone, which I have set up as a pillar, shall be God’s house.”
—Genesis 28:22

Jacob’s physical matzevah therefore makes the cosmic Foundation Stone present within a particular house of God.

The chain continues with Zechariah’s “one stone” bearing “seven eyes.” The Zohar again calls it the Foundation Stone, places the Cherubim “in that place,” invokes Mount Zion and finally calls the mystery the “Stone of Israel”—the phrase contained in Jacob’s final blessing in Genesis 49:24.

It then states:

אבן, דא כנסת ישראל

“Stone—this is Knesset Israel.”

The Stone of Israel is therefore not simply Temple masonry. It is identified with the supernal Assembly of Israel. The Zohar discloses what Jacob’s stone became:

Jacob’s matzevah established the house of God.
The house of God established the sacred center.
The sacred center is the Foundation Stone.
At that point stands the holy of holies.
The Foundation Stone is the rejected cornerstone.
The cornerstone is the Stone of Israel.
The Stone is Knesset Israel.

From mystical identity to physical stone

The Zohar develops an older tradition. Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 35 describes Jacob returning to the stones upon which he slept and finding that they had become one. He erected that stone as a matzevah. God then sank it into the depths like the keystone of an arch, making it the Even haShetiyah—the Foundation Stone and navel of the earth. From it the world unfolded, and upon it stood the House of God.

The difficulty begins when this identity is converted into architectural geography.

The Mishnah in Yoma 5:2 describes a stone inside the Second Temple’s Holy of Holies that projected three fingerbreadths above the floor and received the High Priest’s incense after the Ark disappeared. Maimonides similarly places a stone beneath the Ark in the western part of Solomon’s Holy of Holies.

That is not an obvious description of an upright matzevah. The Zohar identifies the sacred mystery but does not resolve the architectural difference through measurements.

Rashi encounters a related geographical problem. Jacob’s revelation occurs at Beit El, yet Rashi identifies “the place” with Mount Moriah. He preserves their identity through kefitzat ha’aretz: Mount Moriah moved toward Jacob.

Perhaps the archaeology now permits part of that geography to be unfolded.

Two adjacent rooms

The excavated complex stands on the eastern slope of the City of David, on the southern side of the Mount Moriah ridge and immediately above Jerusalem’s ancient spring.

Its eight interconnected rock-cut rooms contain an in-situ standing stone, installations associated with oil and wine and, in the immediately adjacent room, a preserved bedrock platform connected to a liquid channel. The excavation report concludes that the rooms formed a cultic complex originating around the transition from the Middle to the Late Bronze Age and continuing until its organized closure in Iron Age IIB. The report was published by the Israel Antiquities Authority.

The spatial relationship is crucial. The matzevah and possible altar platform are not distant or unrelated features. They occupy neighboring bedrock rooms within one cultic arrangement.

Nor should the platform necessarily be understood as the complete surviving altar. The Torah commands that a stone altar must not be built from hewn stones (Exodus 20:22). Deuteronomy requires an altar of “whole stones” (Deuteronomy 27:5–6).

The altar proper could therefore have consisted of a removable superstructure assembled from separate, unhewn stones upon the platform. Those stones might later have been removed while the durable bedrock footing and liquid channel remained. The cautious description is not a surviving rock-cut altar, but a platform that may have supported an altar of unhewn stones.

The Torah’s command to Moses does not prove that Abraham built his altar in this form. It does explain why the absence of a surviving stone superstructure is not an objection to the platform’s proposed function.

Nearby radiocarbon evidence confirms activity on this part of the eastern slope during the sixteenth and early fifteenth centuries BCE, time of the patriarchs, although it does not directly date the standing stone or platform. The results were published in Radiocarbon.

The sanctuary was entered from the east, with the matzevah toward its western side. Maimonides records that Abraham rejected the eastward orientation of solar worship and, on Mount Moriah, “turned therefore to the West.”

Together the remains present a candidate of exceptional specificity: a Bronze Age sanctuary on Mount Moriah containing an upright matzevah and, in the adjacent room, a possible altar platform.

The altar that cannot move

The Rambam’s treatment of the altar is explicitly legal and geographical.

In Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:1, he rules that the altar occupies an exceptionally precise location and “may never be changed from its place.” He immediately connects that coordinate to the Akedah:

“In the Sanctuary, Isaac our father was bound.”

In Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:2, he records the tradition that David and Solomon built their altar where Abraham erected his altar and bound Isaac. The same point is associated with Noah, Cain and Abel, Adam’s sacrifice and Adam’s creation.

The Rambam is not describing transferable sanctity. He is defining one recurring altar coordinate.

This creates an unavoidable choice. Either the platform beside the matzevah did not support Abraham’s altar, in which case it remains an unidentified cultic feature; or, if it did support the Akedah altar, the future Temple altar must return there.

A later altar erected elsewhere could not cause the Akedah coordinate to migrate.

Beneath the golden dome

The conventional reconstruction places the Holy of Holies around the exposed rock beneath the Dome of the Rock. Its surviving geographical chain, however, is associated with the Muslim conquest rather than an extant Second Temple measurement.

According to historical tradition, the Jewish convert Kaʿb al-Aḥbār accompanied Caliph Umar into Jerusalem and identified the exposed Sakhra as the Even Shetiyah. Umar cleared the site for prayer; approximately half a century later, ʿAbd al-Malik enclosed the rock beneath the Dome. An Encyclopaedia Judaica account preserves this tradition.

Kaʿb may have transmitted genuine Jewish teaching. But his identification does not constitute archaeological proof that the exposed rock occupied Solomon’s Holy of Holies.

Neither the Rambam nor the Zohar names the rock beneath the Dome. If the eastern-slope complex supplies a better candidate for Abraham’s altar or the earthly manifestation of Jacob’s Foundation Stone, the inherited geography must be reconsidered.

The distinction is fundamental:

The Rambam fixes the altar through the Akedah.
The Zohar identifies Jacob’s stone as the Foundation Stone and Stone of Israel.
The Dome preserves a later geographical interpretation.

Zion before Solomon

Biblical Zion first denotes David’s stronghold, explicitly identified as the City of David (II Samuel 5:7). Before Solomon built the Temple, David placed the Ark in a tent inside that city (II Samuel 6:17). Solomon was later anointed at Gihon with oil taken from that sacred tent (I Kings 1:38–40).

The City of David therefore possessed an Ark-centered sanctuary before Solomon’s Temple.

Ronny Reich’s identification of the spring commonly called Gihon with biblical En Shemesh adds a boundary marker. Joshua places En Shemesh between Judah and Benjamin. The Talmud similarly preserves a Temple tradition in which most of the altar stood in Benjamin, its southeast corner entered Judah, and the Sanctuary remained in Benjamin (Zevachim 53b).

The spring, tribal boundary, Zion, Ark, matzevah and possible altar platform converge upon the same eastern landscape.

The conclusion forced by the Akedah

The archaeology does not prove that the standing stone belonged to Jacob or that Abraham built an altar upon the adjacent platform. No inscription names either patriarch.

But the consequences of the proposition are precise.

If the platform carried the Akedah altar:

• It marks the unchangeable coordinate described by the Rambam.

• The altar may have been built from removable, unhewn stones.

• Removing those stones would not erase the bedrock coordinate.

• The future altar must return to that location.

If the standing stone is the stone identified by the Zohar:

• It is Jacob’s earthly establishment of the Foundation Stone.

• It is the tested, rejected and seven-eyed stone.

• It is the Stone of Israel, identified with Knesset Israel.

• It is the sacred center at which the Zohar says the holy of holies stands.

• It does not, by itself, provide the architectural measurements of a future inner chamber.

The Zohar supplies the identity of the stone. The Rambam supplies the immutable law of the altar. The archaeology supplies two adjacent rooms containing possible physical candidates for both.

The Akedah fixes the physical coordinate of the altar.

Jacob’s stone identifies the sacred center beside it.

The stone rejected by the builders may therefore be the surviving earthly expression of the Stone of Israel, standing immediately beside the platform upon which the immovable altar must be restored.restored.

The Primordial Reality of Zion!

Abstract

Kabbalistic philosophy is not a later interpretation of Tanach; it is the supernal root and central vein from which the entire revealed Torah emerges. As affirmed across Lurianic, Chassidic, and Ramchal traditions, the sefirotic structure, covenants, and psycho-spiritual realities precede and animate the written text.

“Zion” is first and foremost the Kabbalistic sefirah (attribute) of Yesod (Foundation), the precise psycho-spiritual locus where the inner covenant (periya) unites with outer Kingdom (Malchut/Jerusalem). Drawing directly on the Zohar, Sefer Yetzirah, Kedushat Levi, and the gematria of Tzion = Yosef = 156, the physical site of Zion, on the lower southern slope of Mount Moriah directly above the Gihon Spring (En Shemesh/En Rogel) must precisely converge. 

Joshua’s immutable tribal boundaries fix Benjamin’s lower Yesod connection, David’s conquest of the “stronghold of Zion”, the breaking of the “HaMakom” chain at the summit threshing floor, Isaiah 52:8’s unique grammar (“God will return Zion”), Maimonides’ insistence on altar precision, and the geo-physical requirements of aliya-la-regel together form an irrefutable multi-disciplinary proof. As psycho-spiritual and physical realities realign at the original Zion location, God will literally return Zion to its place, restoring the Shechinah in full Messianic revelation.

1. Central Vein: Kabbalistic Philosophy as the Preceding and Eternal Foundation of All Tanach

Zohar teaches that Zion is the psycho-spiritual attribute of Foundation, the Yesod activated by separating the inner periya of Jewish circumcision from the outer orla representing Malchut, Kingdom, Jerusalem, then by folding them together they manifest Jewish covenantal reality. The Book of Creation, Sefer Yetzirah, relates these to the covenant of holy tongue, to language and its use of Hebrew’s holy letters, inspiring man to aspire to The Creators pure speech.

The Kedushat Levi explains that this type of “speaking” (speech) was expressed by Joseph The Righteous, Yosef Hatzadik refusal to “suckle” from impure sources (a reference to his struggle in Egypt). The Hebrew letters of Yosef and Tzion share the same numerical value or gematria ‘156’ both represent Yesod, the organ of Israel’s covenant which Yosef guarded and maintained in purity avoiding foreign, impure influences (both physical and spiritual).

The Lesson: Rav Levi Yitzchak teaches that the mouth, that is destined to “speak to the Shechinah” (Divine Presence) must be guarded against impurity, just as Yosef guarded himself in Egypt. By following the dietary laws first stated in Shemini, Jews sanctify their mouths to ensure they are worthy of connection to God, mirroring Yosef’s righteousness. Then, in Shemini, Nadav and Avihu died bringing a foreign fire into the Holy of Holies and later, from Balak the midrash and Zohar describe how their souls converged into a zealous Pinchas who was immediately and uniquely elevated to the Priesthood and ultimately reincarnated into The Prophet Eliyahu. Now, Zohar explains Pinchas is also the Sefirah of Yesod symbolizing the peace he brought about through his zealous actions to defend God and the Jewish people.

Every Passover Jews pour a cup of wine then walk it to their front doors where they call outside for Eliyahu’s return, which is thought to be the event that precedes Messianic return (Moshiach). The same Eliyahu is welcomed at every Jewish Circumcision, The Covenant, who comes to spiritually observe the separation of periya and orla of every brit milah (covenant of circumcision).

This perpetual Jewish ritual connecting covenant with speech, Zion with Joseph manifests in King David’s Messianic reality when Eliyahu returns to tell about the imminent realization of Moshiach in the world. This is the time that Zion will be fully revealed and the Shechina, representing God’s presence, restored as the prevailing and dominant feature of manifest reality.

Its because Kabbalistic science precedes and illuminates all of Tanach that the physical location of Zion cannot be separated from this inner architecture. The supernal Yesod demands exact convergence with Kingdom, its earthly counterpart.

2. Tribal Boundaries: Joshua’s Immutable Map of Kabbalistic Convergence

Jewish Law and Tradition establish Zion, the inner Foundation and Jerusalem, the outer Kingdom by absolute precision, fixed by Divine designation, tribal boundaries, and physical features that can be verified against text. They are in fact not only places reserved for the psycho-spiritual-realm, their convergence must also, both occupy the same place in the physical realm and when they do, “God will return Zion” to its place!

Joseph’s only brother Benjamin represents the lower aspect of Foundation, Yesod and that is precisely where the psycho-spiritual connection between Foundation and Kingdom manifests. It is on Benjamin's land that Joseph's upper Foundation was destined to connect to David's tribe of Judah land, that point of connection is Zion.

Joshua 15:7 (Benjamin's Eastern, Judas Western Border):The boundary ascended from the Valley of Achor to Debir and turned north to Gilgal, facing the Ascent of Adummim that is south of the wadi; from there the boundary continued to the Waters of En-shemesh and ran on to En-rogel. Joshua 15:8 (Benjamin's Southern, Judah's Northern Border) “The boundary went up the Valley of Ben Hinnom to the southern slope of the Jebusite city, that is Jerusalem and climbed to the crest of the mountain west of the Hinnom Valley at its northern end, at the Valley of Rephaim.” Joshua 18:16 (Judah's Northern, Benjamin’s Southern Border): “The border went down to the foot of the mountain that lies before the Valley of Ben Hinnom, which is in the Valley of Rephaim on the north; it continued down the Valley of Hinnom to the slope of the Jebusite on the south, and descended to En Rogel.”

God's presence settles in the west,
therefore mirror image, so left swaps right.

These verses place the boundary at the southern slope of Mount Moriah, the Jebusite city (Jerusalem), the Valley of Hinnom, and En Rogel to En Shemesh, the exact area of the Gihon Spring along the eastern slope of Mount Moriah. Later the Gemara explicitly adopted these Joshua boundaries, albeit to describe the second temple altar.

3. Davidic Conquest: The Stronghold as Temporary Substitute for Primordial Zion

Zion is mentioned first in 2 Samuel 5:7–9 which says: “David captured the stronghold of Zion and renamed it City of David…Whoever would strike the Jebusites, let him go up the water channel (TZiNoR).” The site is the “stronghold of Zion” captured via the water channel.

“Stronghold” could mean adjacent (nearby) or surrounding "of Zion", but close in proximity. So, we are left to ponder whether David ever located the physical Zion that the stronghold protected or what may have happened to it? When David captured the “stronghold of Zion”, the Jebusite village was a settlement on the upper ridge on the lower (southern) slope of Mount Moriah immediately above, in line with the spring of En Shemesh, first mentioned in Joshua 15:7 a few hundred years prior.

However, 2 Samuel 5:9 tells us the stronghold was renamed City of David, later 1 Kings 8:1 says the City of David is Zion and much later Isaiah 52:8 says God will return Zion.

King David had been anointed seven years prior to his arrival at the Stronghold, so what compelled him to come to this Mount Moriah location, conquer the stronghold and invoke the name Zion? As we have already discussed, the ancient psycho-spiritual-reality converging Zion and Jerusalem was already entrenched in indigenous tribal Israelite culture. The name Salem emanated at Abraham tithing Malchi-Tzedek, the High Priest of Salem and later at the binding of Isaac Abraham added the name Yireh to the same site together constituting Yireh-Salem: Jerusalem.

On David’s arrival at the mountain, his coining the word “Zion” declared it as the integral objective of his mission. But, the stronghold was a lesser substitute for a Zion that was not ready to be returned. Instead the City of David became its deflection. Once the first temple had been built Zion drifted from its anchor and its original location on Mount Moriah shifted from the place, by which Jerusalem had once obtained its name.

4. The Breaking of the Chain: “HaMakom,” the Akedah Altar, and the Summit Shift

Tanach reserved the definite article “HaMakom” (“The Place”) for the Moriah location, that permanently identified the Abrahamic event that established Yireh-Salem and the altar of Isaac’s binding - Akedah. But, almost 1000 years later, toward the end of his reign, King David made a surprise announcement: “This is the altar for the burnt-offerings of Israel”, it broke the chain and shifted Zion off the eastern ridge once designated as the "stronghold of Zion" to the mountain summit “of Mount Moriah, where the Lord had appeared to David, at the place that David had appointed, on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite.”

Walking up to the holy places of Mount Moriah, whether the eastern ridge or the summit threshing floor can only ever, geo-physically, occur by approaching from the south or east. In first and second temple Jerusalem the sense of psycho-spiritual rising up or elevation known as aliya-la-regel was preserved through the centuries by an approach from the South. Approaching from the east became the exclusive practise of the priests serving in these temples.

5. Prophetic Confirmation: Isaiah 52:8 as the Decisive Grammatical and Mystical Linchpin

The prophet Isaiah, Yeshayahu states: בשוב ה״ ציון (52:8) which literally means “God will return Zion”. Commentators debate comparative translations of similar verses, but all other grammar relating to Zions return include prefix or suffix letters that indicate God will return to Zion. However, here God will return Zion, which we can comprehend in the lofty psycho-spiritual realm, but we must also understand it in reality.

The prophet is not speaking metaphorically. He is announcing the imminent convergence of Kabbalistic and geographical truth. When God returns Zion to its place—above the Gihon Spring on the lower slope of Mount Moriah—Foundation (Yesod) and Kingdom (Malchut) will occupy the identical physical coordinates, and the Shechinah will descend fully.

6. Maimonides and the Immutable Altar: Reaffirming Kabbalistic and Textual Precision

Maimonides rules in Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:1: “The altar is [to be constructed] in a very precise location, which may never be changed, as it is said: ‘This is the altar for the burnt-offerings of Israel.’ This ruling ties Akedah to the incident that caused King David to build an altar at the foot of the Angel of Death that was standing on a threshing floor on the summit of Mount Moriah. Crucially, well before King David, Tanach makes it clear the site of the Akedah altar was a specific, pre-existing altar, not a threshing floor and no apparent association with Zion or Yireh-Salem.

7. The “Temple Zero” Candidate: Archaeological Corroboration of the Original Zion Site

Eli Shukron’s excavations on the eastern slope of the City of David, directly above the Gihon Spring, have uncovered an exceptional eight-room rock-hewn ritual complex dating to the Middle Bronze Age/Melchizedek era. The structure features an altar platform installation, a standing stone (massebah), oil press, and libation channels, clear evidence of sustained cultic/religious practice. It was first exposed and deliberately sealed with fill in the 8th century BCE, aligning precisely with King Uzziah and ultimately Hezekiah’s centralization reforms that abolished outlying ritual sites. Shukron, the excavation director, described it as the only known structure of its type from the biblical period in Jerusalem, used by Judahites. Informally termed “Temple Zero,” its location matches exactly the coordinates of the “stronghold of Zion,” the Joshua tribal boundaries (En Shemesh/En Rogel, southern slope of the Jebusite city), the tzinor water channel, and the lower slope above En Shemesh. This is the physical footprint of the primordial Yesod—the original Zion that served as the psycho-spiritual anchor before the Davidic shift and summit substitution. No comparable Iron-Age cultic installation exists elsewhere on the ridge. “Temple Zero” stands as the archaeological candidate that fulfills every textual, mystical, and geo-physical criterion.

Conclusion

The evidence converges with irrefutable force. Because Kabbalistic philosophy precedes and illuminates all of Tanach, the physical location of Zion cannot be a flexible label that permanently migrated to the summit. It is a fixed psycho-spiritual and geographical reality awaiting divine restoration. When God returns Zion—above the Gihon Spring on the lower slope of Mount Moriah, at the precise site now corroborated by “Temple Zero”—Foundation (Yesod) and Kingdom (Malchut) will occupy the identical physical coordinates. The Shechinah will descend fully, and Messianic reality will be complete. Mainstream tradition’s identification of the Temple Mount platform as Zion’s eternal home rests on the post-Davidic shift and later expansion, not the primal Kabbalistic, prophetic, tribal, legal, and textual record preserved in the original proof.

The Zohar, prophets, Davidic narratives, tribal borders, Maimonides’ precision, Isaiah’s grammar, and Shukron’s Temple Zero constitute decisive proof: the original Zion has never been lost—only temporarily obscured. Its return is imminent.

Flippant Evidence In Jerusalem's Rock-Cut-Rooms

Probability of overlap with Jacob is +90%

Recently a paper published in conjunction with Weizmann Institute and Israel Antiquities Authority uncharacteristically stated: “Thus, several seeds from an ash layer found below a thin wall in Area U (Room 19040), indicate a 9th century BC date for the construction of this room and adjacent structures, as well as the hewing of a series of rock-cut rooms to which the architectural remains were connected based on stratigraphic observations (SI Appendix, Figs. S18 and S20). Also dating to this century in Area U was a collapsed refuse of building materials, uncovered in Room 17063, built directly on top of the bedrock (RTD 9180, Fig. 2 and SI Appendix, Figs. S4, S9, and S12).”

After Joe Uziel discovered the Iron Age fragments on the north eastern wall of the Spring Tower, he has carefully and consistently argued that Iron Age findings in stratigraphic layers bias the entire area, including Area U. Now he chose this opportunity to boldly, almost flippantly state "as well as the hewing of a series of rock-cut rooms" inferring that the rock-cut-rooms should also assume this Iron Age date. Not so fast Joe, here I present the most pertinent facts related to the strata and dating of the rock-cut-rooms, which you seem to ignore. 

With this information you can consider whether the last use of the rock-cut-rooms should be dated to the Iron Age (IA) or the Middle Bronze (MB) Age? I will only present the most relevant, critical, carbon dated samples, that were found closest to bedrock. 

Click to enlarge color coded image 

Sample IA RTD 9180 was found in a small pit (south) in a room and MB RTD 9181 on the northern end in a 5 cm ash layer just above the upper bedrock surface of Area-U, the ridge west of the rock-cut-rooms (in the pink rectangle). MB RTD 10293 and RTD 9965, were also found in Area U, but importantly these were located below the level of the upper bedrock surface, in soft soil, under a man-made plaster layer in a water channel that ran into rock-cut-rooms 1 and 5. MB RTD 10191, the oldest MB sample, was found under leveling rocks that were used to stabilize the wall of Room 1948. IA RTD 11362, furthest to the north, was found in a 5 cm ash layer and is the oldest of the IA samples found in that excavation.

Anecdotally notice the IA samples RTD 9180 and RTD 11362 are found on the south-north extremities of rock-cut rooms and are adjacent, whereas MB samples RTD 10293, RTD 9965, RTD 9181 and RTD 10191 are aligned east-west, to the functional, bedrock layers of the rock-cut-rooms.

Stratigraphic position	Sample	Material	Modeled / calibrated meaning
Directly under the channel, above virgin soil	RTD-10293	seed	older underlying deposit: mainly 1850–1770 BC
Directly under the channel, above virgin soil	RTD-9965	seed	younger under-channel constraint: 1615–1600 / 1585–1545 BC
0–3 cm above bottom of the channel	RTD-9964	twig with bark	deposit inside/at base of channel: 1535–1495 / 1480–1455 BC
above bottom of channel / grey sediment	RTD-10292	cereal seed	later channel-bottom deposit: 1505–1445 BC

For this discussion, there is little point paying attention to stratigraphic layers above these samples because they reflect the earliest possible dates the rock-cut-rooms were used, which is the fact that must still be established. I'm appealing to Joe to clarify these important, perhaps critical points because these rock-cut-rooms are extremely sensitive and these low lying stratigraphic samples potentially align with Israel's forefathers or even earlier Biblical figures and it deserves to be treated accordingly.