{"id":145,"date":"2006-10-07T12:28:09","date_gmt":"2006-10-07T12:28:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/summametaphysica.com\/ge\/appendix\/bifurcation-subjective-vs-objective-keys-to-the-book-of-job\/"},"modified":"2018-04-23T20:55:55","modified_gmt":"2018-04-23T20:55:55","slug":"bifurcation-subjective-vs-objective-keys-to-the-book-of-job","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/appendix\/bifurcation-subjective-vs-objective-keys-to-the-book-of-job\/","title":{"rendered":"BIFURCATION:
SUBJECTIVE VS. OBJECTIVE KEYS TO THE BOOK OF JOB
(pages 172-176)"},"content":{"rendered":"

hard cover page 172<\/p>\n

First Key<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

In section 70.02 our study bifurcates man’s right to claim a rationally moral interaction between man and the Divine.607<\/sup> We posit as follows: On the “objective” level-when man is not immediately and directly involved-the inherent right exists. On the “subjective” level-where the individual finds himself in misfortune-the issue is not appropriate. In that situation, imperatives of faith override imperatives of logic.608<\/sup><\/p>\n

There are two salient episodes in Tanach which seem to preclude a blanket assertion that man in all cases can demand a rationally moral interaction: (1) the Akedat Yitzchak<\/em> (Binding of Isaac), and (2) the Divine response to Job in the Jobian finale.<\/p>\n

The Akedat Yitzchak<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

One may cite God’s directive to Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac, and Abraham’s willingness to do so. But if Judaism was to signal a significant departure from the idol worshipers, where is the differentiation? Are monotheism and efficacy sufficient differentiators? Where is the rational morality of the interaction?<\/p>\n

Rashi avoids the whole problem by explaining that God did not instruct Abraham to slaughter Isaac, but rather only to bring him up to the mountain in order to prepare him as a burnt offering (as opposed to consummating the deed). This hardly conforms to the basic thrust of the narrative, however.<\/p>\n

The answer rests partially on the “bottom line” point that Abraham was ultimately stopped from the sacrifice by God’s angel. However, there are other factors. One might draw the lesson that this God would ultimately not demand child sacrifice, even from the progenitor of the religion, even when the child was a special gift of God.<\/p>\n

Thus, if we focus first on the Divine, the initial directive was<\/p>\n

===================================
\n\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d- NOTES \u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d-<\/p>\n

607 <\/sup>This assertion is important to our study because if there is no rationally moral basis to man’s interaction with the Divine, there is no point in writing studies on theodicy. At the same time, we must reconcile certain historical events, e.g., the Akedat Yitzchak,<\/em> which seem to contradict the assertion of a rationally moral interaction.608 <\/sup>According to Soloveitchik, “B’sod Ha-yachid V’hayachad,” pp. 333-343, man is in one of two states: (1) random happening, and (2)deterministic. If man is in state (I),philosophical speculation is futile; if man is in state (Z), then the question is inappropriate; the only question is how to best deal with and practically approach the problem at hand within the context of Halachah.
\nA prior book encapsulating discourses of Soloveitchik, Reflections of the Rav,<\/em> does provide a specific theodicy with regard to the Holocaust-Hester Panim. Thus, the dichotomy in Soloveitchik’s approach would seem resolvable by, and consistent with, our formulation.<\/p>\n

~continued~
\n<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
CONVERSION TABLE for this multi-page unit<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
you are currently on hard cover p. 172<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
< BACK<\/a><\/td>\n<\/td>\nNEXT PAGE><\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\t\t\t\tPages pointer<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\nhard cover page<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1
\n2
\n3
\n4
\n5<\/td>\n		>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n><\/td>\n		172
\n173
\n174
\n175
\n176<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n

<\/p>\n

hard cover page 173<\/p>\n

beyond moral comprehension, but God’s final instruction to untie Isaac corroborates our faith in a moral interaction. Inasmuch as the entire episode was a test (nisayon)<\/em>, the climactic resolution, from the Divine perspective, was in Abraham’s readiness to fulfill its directive.But what about from Abraham’s perspective? How could Abraham countenance child sacrifice? Immanuel Kant. to whom the imperatives of universal morality are absolute, condemns Abraham and argues that the Patriarch should have doubted the authenticity of the call. The Danish theologian Soren Kierkegaard sees in the Akedah<\/em> evidence that faith can sometimes make demands that go beyond morality; the doctrine of the “teleological suspension of the ethical.”609<\/sup> We demarcate this “sometimes.”<\/p>\n

Samson Raphael Hirsch points out that while it was God Himself who gave the initial directive of sacrifice, one angel alone was sufficient to countervene the directive in this case.<\/p>\n

If an angel had told him to sacrifice his son, he might not have believed him, because such an order was in utter contrast to everything God had told him in general, and especially in connection with his son, Isaac. But in order to refrain from sacrificing his son, it was enough to send an angel. For that purpose, and to explain the whole original commandment as being a test . . .no extraordinary revelation was needed. This fitted in fully with everything Abraham knew of God.610<\/sup><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Eliezer Berkovits (after Rashi) writes as follows:<\/p>\n

When God gave Abraham the command to sacrifice his son, Isaac, he said to him: “Koch na eth bincha,”<\/em> which does not mean as usually translated, “Take now thy son.” As has been pointed out in the Talmud (T. B. Tractate Sanhedrin 89b). the Hebrew word na<\/em> indicates a request.611<\/sup><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Berkovits says the request was asking Abraham not to fail God. But perhaps the entire Akedah<\/em> was a request and not a com-<\/p>\n

===================================
\n\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d- NOTES \u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d-<\/p>\n

609 <\/sup>See Spero, Morality, Halakha and the Jewish Tradition,<\/em> p. 93.<\/p>\n

610 <\/sup>Hirsch, Timeless Torah,<\/em> p. 51.<\/p>\n

611 <\/sup>Berkovits, “Prayer,” in Stitskin, Studies in Torah Judaism,<\/em> p. 182.<\/p>\n

~continued~
\n<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
CONVERSION TABLE for this multi-page unit<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
you are currently on hard cover p. 173<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
< BACK<\/a><\/td>\n<\/td>\nNEXT PAGE><\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\t\t\t\tPages pointer<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\nhard cover page<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1
\n2
\n3
\n4
\n5<\/td>\n		>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n><\/td>\n		172
\n173
\n174
\n175
\n176<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n

<\/p>\n

hard cover page 174<\/p>\n

mand. The moral issue, while still vexing, is then severely reduced.Perhaps one may further argue that when it came to Isaac. the normal had long been suspended. From a natural perspective, Isaac should never have been born. If any given child is a Divine gift, then Isaac was certainly a super-Divine gift. Not only that, but Isaac is quasi-sanctified by God as Abraham’s heir, the progenitor of an eternal people, as numerous as the sands and stars. Isaac had been wrapped up in the supranatural before he was even conceived. Isaac is historically unique. Looked at from this perspective, we may simply be unable to draw conclusions regarding moral interaction between God and man translatable to the more mundane.<\/p>\n

However, from our moral perspective, Abraham’s readiness to sacrifice his son, notwithstanding the most unique circumstances surrounding Isaac, notwithstanding the mores of the time, and notwithstanding the Divine directive, clearly indicates that the right to claim a rational morality in the human-Divine interaction is not a “given,” across-the-board right.<\/p>\n

Abraham’s forthright and almost brazen remonstrations on behalf of Sodom, related a few chapters earlier in the text, show his profound understanding of, and God’s receptiveness to, the moral underpinnings of the human-Divine interaction. Indeed, it shows Abraham’s insistence on a rationally moral interaction. Clearly, Abraham was very much aware of God’s moral commitment.612<\/sup> And perhaps it was on the strength of this previously requited faith in this ultimate moral commitment that Abraham proceeded.<\/p>\n

But we must ultimately conclude that Abraham’s readiness to sacrifice instructs an eternal lesson: The prophet, theologian, or any individual can only seek a rational interaction on issues in which he is not directly involved. When an individual, like our forefather Abraham, is at the vortex of the storm, he must ultimately act on faith in an ultimate morality.<\/p>\n

===================================
\n\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d- NOTES \u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d-<\/p>\n

612 <\/sup>Spero, Morality, Halakha and the Jewish Tradition,<\/em> p. 94.<\/p>\n

\n

~continued~
\n<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
CONVERSION TABLE for this multi-page unit<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
you are currently on hard cover p. 174<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
< BACK<\/a><\/td>\n<\/td>\nNEXT PAGE><\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\t\t\t\tPages pointer<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\nhard cover page<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1
\n2
\n3
\n4
\n5<\/td>\n		>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n><\/td>\n		172
\n173
\n174
\n175
\n176<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n

<\/p>\n

hard cover page 175<\/p>\n

Third parties to tragedy may cautiously question the moral\/ philosophical underpinnings of the Divine\/human interaction. But primary parties to suffering leave the realm of those who may intellectually challenge. They enter a new realm-that of those whose faith is tested in the crucible of suffering.<\/p>\n

Job<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

In the case of Job, we observe what on the surface appear to be conflicting signals from the Divine on the issue of the rationally moral aspect of the human-Divine interaction. In the finale God seems to reproach Job’s insistence on his right to clear Divine justice: “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare if thou hast the understanding” (Job 38:4). Yet He reproves Job’s friends as well for their dismissal of Job’s protestations. “. . . ye have not spoken of Me the thing that is right, as My servant Job has” (Job 42:7).<\/p>\n

Summary: Dual Keys<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

It would seem that at times the Divine importunes a challenge that demands Divine adherence to “moral standards.” The seeming contradiction would seem to be clearly resolved by our formulation: It is not the place of the sufferer Job to protest God’s “injustice”; but it may very well be the place of bystanders to forcefully press the sufferer’s case. This is the first crucial key to the resolution of the arduous convolutions of the Book of Job.<\/p>\n

Thus, the Book of Job, which is an enigma wrapped in a paradox, is unraveled by a combination of the Unified Formulation and the “Bifurcation” schema just noted. The Book of Job is a counterpoint to the Garden of Eden narrative. The Jobian theodicy, put forward by the Divine, fittingly links evil to the wonderment and mysteries of creation. This is the second key to Job. As “quest for potential” is the inviolate core dynamic of the Divine and hence, of creation, the solution to gratuitous evil indeed lies in the unrevealed, as of that time,
\n~continued~
\n<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
CONVERSION TABLE for this multi-page unit<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
you are currently on hard cover p. 175<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
< BACK<\/a><\/td>\n<\/td>\nNEXT PAGE><\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\t\t\t\tPages pointer<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\nhard cover page<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1
\n2
\n3
\n4
\n5<\/td>\n		>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n><\/td>\n		172
\n173
\n174
\n175
\n176<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n

<\/p>\n

hard cover page 176<\/p>\n

elusive crux of creation. The text proceeds to note two chapters of munificent potentialities unleashed by creation. Does man have the right to “protest” evil, or should man attribute evil to mortal sin? The answer of the Book of Job is now clear. It is the mandate of the “friends” to protest seemingly gratuitous evil. It is the protagonist \/ sufferer Job’s mandate to have faith in the ultimate cosmic necessity of the Divine’s tolerance of evil.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
CONVERSION TABLE for this multi-page unit<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
you are currently on hard cover p. 176<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
< BACK<\/a><\/td>\n<\/td>\nNEXT PAGE><\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\t\t\t\tPages pointer<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\nhard cover page<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1
\n2
\n3
\n4
\n5<\/td>\n		>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n><\/td>\n		172
\n173
\n174
\n175
\n176<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

hard cover page 172 First Key In section 70.02 our study bifurcates man’s right to claim a rationally moral interaction between man and the Divine.607 We posit as follows: On the “objective” level-when man is not immediately and directly involved-the inherent right exists. On the “subjective” level-where the individual finds himself in misfortune-the issue is […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"parent":143,"menu_order":730,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":[],"yoast_head":"\nBIFURCATION:SUBJECTIVE VS. OBJECTIVE KEYS TO THE BOOK OF JOB (pages 172-176) - David Birnbaum Summa Metaphysica I<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/appendix\/bifurcation-subjective-vs-objective-keys-to-the-book-of-job\/\" \/>\n<link rel=\"next\" href=\"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/appendix\/bifurcation-subjective-vs-objective-keys-to-the-book-of-job\/2\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"BIFURCATION:SUBJECTIVE VS. OBJECTIVE KEYS TO THE BOOK OF JOB (pages 172-176) - David Birnbaum Summa Metaphysica I\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"hard cover page 172 First Key In section 70.02 our study bifurcates man’s right to claim a rationally moral interaction between man and the Divine.607 We posit as follows: On the “objective” level-when man is not immediately and directly involved-the inherent right exists. On the “subjective” level-where the individual finds himself in misfortune-the issue is […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/appendix\/bifurcation-subjective-vs-objective-keys-to-the-book-of-job\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"David Birnbaum Summa Metaphysica I\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-23T20:55:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/\",\"name\":\"David Birnbaum Summa Metaphysica I\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/appendix\/bifurcation-subjective-vs-objective-keys-to-the-book-of-job\/#webpage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/appendix\/bifurcation-subjective-vs-objective-keys-to-the-book-of-job\/\",\"name\":\"BIFURCATION: SUBJECTIVE VS. OBJECTIVE KEYS TO THE BOOK OF JOB (pages 172-176) - David Birnbaum Summa Metaphysica I\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-10-07T12:28:09+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-23T20:55:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/appendix\/bifurcation-subjective-vs-objective-keys-to-the-book-of-job\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/appendix\/bifurcation-subjective-vs-objective-keys-to-the-book-of-job\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/appendix\/bifurcation-subjective-vs-objective-keys-to-the-book-of-job\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"APPENDIX (p.169)\"}]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"BIFURCATION:SUBJECTIVE VS. OBJECTIVE KEYS TO THE BOOK OF JOB (pages 172-176) - David Birnbaum Summa Metaphysica I","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/appendix\/bifurcation-subjective-vs-objective-keys-to-the-book-of-job\/","next":"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/appendix\/bifurcation-subjective-vs-objective-keys-to-the-book-of-job\/2\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"BIFURCATION:SUBJECTIVE VS. OBJECTIVE KEYS TO THE BOOK OF JOB (pages 172-176) - David Birnbaum Summa Metaphysica I","og_description":"hard cover page 172 First Key In section 70.02 our study bifurcates man’s right to claim a rationally moral interaction between man and the Divine.607 We posit as follows: On the “objective” level-when man is not immediately and directly involved-the inherent right exists. On the “subjective” level-where the individual finds himself in misfortune-the issue is […]","og_url":"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/appendix\/bifurcation-subjective-vs-objective-keys-to-the-book-of-job\/","og_site_name":"David Birnbaum Summa Metaphysica I","article_modified_time":"2018-04-23T20:55:55+00:00","twitter_card":"summary","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/","name":"David Birnbaum Summa Metaphysica I","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/appendix\/bifurcation-subjective-vs-objective-keys-to-the-book-of-job\/#webpage","url":"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/appendix\/bifurcation-subjective-vs-objective-keys-to-the-book-of-job\/","name":"BIFURCATION: SUBJECTIVE VS. OBJECTIVE KEYS TO THE BOOK OF JOB (pages 172-176) - David Birnbaum Summa Metaphysica I","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-10-07T12:28:09+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-23T20:55:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/appendix\/bifurcation-subjective-vs-objective-keys-to-the-book-of-job\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/appendix\/bifurcation-subjective-vs-objective-keys-to-the-book-of-job\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/appendix\/bifurcation-subjective-vs-objective-keys-to-the-book-of-job\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"APPENDIX (p.169)"}]}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/145"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=145"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/145\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":297,"href":"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/145\/revisions\/297"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/143"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=145"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}