"There's No Going Back" Dr. Ron Wolfson
I am not a rabbi — but am I proud of my colleagues who are. Along with cantors, soloists, educators, executive directors, board donors and iaypeople in hundreds of congregations and spiritual communities, they pulled off one of the most extraordinary historic pivots in synagogue life.
"This is epic," Rabbi Steven Leder ofWilshire Boulevard Temple in Los Angeles told me. "We, all of us, were handed a ball we didn't expect, and we in the synagogue community delivered, we stepped up to this moment."
That is an understatement. For organizations steeped in tradition, it has never been easy for synagogues to embrace change. At the Synagogue 2000/3000 synagogue transformation conferences I organized from 1995-2015,1 often joked that the aphorism inscribed above the Holy Ark on many synagogue pulpits - "Da lifnei mi atah omeid" ("Know before Whom you stand") - should instead be - "But, we've always done it that way!"
Yet, the COVID-19 pandemic forced seismic changes upon synagogues in March that were unthinkable a month earlier.
Congregations that were barely live streaming worship services suddenly had no choice. Resistance to shortening services, particularly in the Conservative Movement, mostly melted away when it became clear that people would not be able to sit in front of a screen for hours on end. All programming was moved online in a nanosecond. Teachers, many of whom had no training in distance learning, were forced to learn unfamiliar skills and strategies. When it became clear the virus was not magically disappearing, synagogue leaders began planning for the biggest events of the year, the High Holidays.
I eagerly awaited what they developed and when Rosh Hashana arrived, I found myself dipping into services at dozens of synagogues throughout North America. Just the thought that virtually every one of the more than 2,000 congregations in the Conservative, Reform, Reconstructing Judaism, Jewish Emergent Network, ALEPH/Jewish Renewal, and independent minyanim offered some form of online worship was mind-boggling.
I knew what was possible; years ago when I was very sick on Yom Kippur, I tuned in to Rabbi Naomi Levy's pioneering live stream from in Los Angeles which attracted tens of thousands of participants and loved it But now, everyone had no choice but to hit the internet. The variety, quality, and creativity on display was spectacular. By all accounts, the sheer number of people who participated in these experiences, either live streaming or through archival views on the most popular distribution platforms - Facebook Live, YouTube, and congregational websites - was far beyond what would have been expected if services were held in person. Now that the holidays are over, I asked a number of synagogue leaders to reflect on the lessons learned.
"We learned that creating intimacy and connection is not just about size or proximity," Rabbi Angela Warnick Buchdahl of Central Synagogue in New York City said. "In some ways our community felt smaller as we had members reading Torah and sharing stories from their living rooms, and in other ways, we were reminded of our global Jewish family as we were able to have prayers and songs read from friends in Australia and Jerusalem."
The variety of "production values" on display ranged from a couple of static cameras to the productions of Park Avenue Synagogue in New York and Temple Israel in West Bloomfield, Michigan, which were Hollywood-caliber television complete with multiple cameras, lighting, and professional direction.
Some services were totally live and other synagogues pre-recorded everything, rather than risk any technical glitches during live streams. Many decided on a hybrid combination of recorded pieces and live worship. Empty sanctuaries were turned into television studios; others featured clergy and Torah readers streaming in from living rooms or backyards. A few synagogues, like Congregation B'nai Tzedek in Potomac, Maryland invited small groups of congregants to sit socially distant in the sanctuary, led by masked clergy shielded by a Plexiglass-enclosed pulpit.
The creativity on display was inspiring and came from lay volunteers in small congregations to large synagogues with major clergy teams:
At Central Synagogue in New York City while the haunting melody of Kol Nidre emanated from a cello, a began the Yom Kippur afternoon service.
Rabbi Dan Zemel of Temple Micah in Washington, D.C., blew the shofar in front of the Lincoln Memorial, the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial, and at Arlington Cemetery. Services at Temple Sholom in Vancouver began with a video montage of Rabbi Dan Moskovitz bringing a Torah scroll to member's homes. Valley Beth Shalom in Encino, Catifornia created a "virtual lobby" before services with greetings from congregants and adorabie preschoolers explaining the meaning of the holidays.
Sinai Temple in Los Angeles featured the Broadway and film actors Ben, Henry and Jonah Platt's rendition of "Ahavat Olam" over a video montage of scenes from Israel.
Dozens of congregations offered "drive-by shofar blowing" in parking lots, while in Los Angeles a " " sponsored by the IKAR congregation and the Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles with shofar biowers from more than 50 synagogues blasted notes through neighborhoods "from the city to the sea."
There were surprises: Yizkor memorial prayers at in Los Angeles recited while photos of those who died during the past year appeared on screen. A Neilah/Havdalah concluding service on Zoom that spotlighted families celebrating the ritual in their backyards. A guided meditation by Rabbi Elie Spitz at Congregation B'nai Israel in Tustin, California. A "gift basket" of ritual objects delivered from Central Synagogue to member's homes for use during the services. At IKAR, Rabbi Sharon Brous and Melissa Balaban, IKAR's chief executive officer, invited three comedians to warm up the crowd with a hilarious few minutes of banter: on Yom Kippur morning, one asked, "C'mon, be honest. How many people, by a show of hands, ate your toothpaste this morning?"
I was curious about how viewers would follow along. Some synagogues distributed prayer books, while a few featured a moving chyron of Hebrew, English and transliteration of the prayers on the screen - no book necessary. Liturgy and sermons were shortened to fit what most considered the outside limit of two-hour attention spans on screens. Rabbis accustomed to talking to large crowds were suddenly speaking directly into a single camera, an entirely new skill set not currently in the curriculum of the seminaries. Will one of these rabbis become the Jewish Joel Osteen or Joyce Meyer?
The synagogues faced a tough decision: do we offer the services for free or just for our members? Those congregations that offered full and free access to all their online offerings shattered the limitations of geographic location, some attracting viewers from around the world. Others, such as Wilshire Blvd. Temple in Los Angeles, after a long debate, created password-protected platforms for members only. "Membership has to mean something," one synagogue president told me about the decision to limit the live stream to members. "But, the very next day, anyone could view our services posted on YouTube and our website for free."
Funding these efforts was a significant challenge. There was no line in most synagogue budgets for "television production." Even well-resourced congregations turned to generous donors to underwrite the costs that reportedly ran into tens of thousands of dollars for some elaborately produced services. As usual, during this prime time in the synagogue calendar, there were fundraising appeals. Yet, despite the success in attracting and engaging participants, rabbis and lay leaders told me that the pandemic has taken a toll on both membership numbers and the financial capabilities and contributions of many individuals and families, reminiscent of the impact on congregations during the 2008-2009 recession.
So, did it work?
"People were stunned by the intimacy of the experience and by their ability to actually pray with a screen mediating their spiritual encounter," said Rabbi Brous. "Most notably, people with mobility challenges told us how grateful they were to be able to access services from their homes and not have to fight for a seat."
"On the whole, I would say it was an exhausting, draining, difficult, tricky and mostly triumphant substitution, but like all substitutions, not the real thing," said Rabbi David Wolpe of Sinai Temple in Los Angeles:" I think we came through remarkably well, and I am very proud."
Rabbi Moskovitz in Canada shared a bit of a secret. "I'm hearing again and again, in whispers, in 1-hate-to-admit-it' voices that many, many of our members enjoyed the service more from home than they did packed cheek to jowl in shul," he said. "They could see and hear the rabbi's sermon so clearly, they were not distracted by conversation, or people getting up from their seats." Some will want shul delivered to their homes like a DoorDash meal, all packaged and ready to eat. For them, this may be a wonderful thing. For the future of the synagogue, I worry. But then again, we always worry."
Was this a one-off? Will synagogues "go back" to their previous ways once the pandemic has subsided, or will they move forward to a new normal?
"There's no going back," Rabbi Ed Feinstein of Valley Beth Shalom in Los Angeles, California, said. "We've already contracted with the production company for next year. Even with a vaccine, there will be people hesitant to gather in large groups. I hope we can return to the relationship-building in- person services, but we will continue to offer live streaming. The response of our members has been overwhelmingly positive."
That was the consensus from ail of my interviews. I came away proud of how synagogues have stepped up to meet the moment, and I hope those who were touched by the services will be moved to step up and support the congregations. The pandemic has forever shifted the way synagogues reach their congregants and beyond their sanctuaries to a worldwide audience. And there is no going back — only forward.
Dr. Ron Wolfson is the Fingerhut Professor of Education, American Jewish University, and author of Relational Judaism. Packing the Court
',.-".•',•>;' ;-;.\-." -. Rabht Aiimn Melfnan
fN Tnmo n3tt?te 175? ^^ ^ ^3 pl) .ny1?^ ,nil?3r]i ni^ .n^^ ,nl3l^ Thr ? ,nty^5 ,n a^ ^l^ni nn5^;]i 031^ .n^s ,H^DI n??^ ^i^m W r!?^ ,nyL>t^'! a*litpy3 ,yi n^ y^ ^^y, a^Dm .1''^ ^'i n^ :nltt^] ^T 13
(1) Cases concerning monetary law are adjudicated by three judges. Cases concerning robbery and personal injury are adjudicated by three judges. Cases concerning damage that one is responsible for because he or his property caused the damage are adjudicated by three judges as well. Likewise, cases concerning payment for half the damage, which is paid in the event that an ox whose owner has not been warned that it gored more than two times gores another animal (see Exodus 21:35); cases concerning payment of double the principal by a thief who was caught stealing (see Exodus 22:3); and cases concerning payment of four or five times the principal by a thief who slaughtered or sold a stolen ox or a lamb (see Exodus 21:37) are all adjudicated by three judges. Cases concerning one who rapes or one who seduces a virgin girl, and must therefore pay the girl's father fifty silver shekels (see Deuteronomy 22:29, Exodus 22:15); and cases concerning a defamer who falsely asserts that his wife was not a virgin when she married him, and brings false witnesses who testify that she committed adultery while betrothed to him and who must therefore pay the girl's father one hundred silver shekels as well as receive lashes (see Deuteronomy 22:13-19): All of these are adjudicated by three judges; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Cases concerning a defamer are adjudicated by a court of twenty-three judges, which is the type of court authorized to judge cases of capital law, because this case includes the possibility of becoming a case of capital law. The husband brings witnesses that his wife committed adultery. If she is found guilty, she is liable to receive the death penalty. This punishment appUes to the witnesses if they are exposed as conspiring witnesses.
,^in^ i^v .ntyL)^:i anyy? ,'iaisi< ^w ^l 2^ .n^L)^2 ,nl3Q (2) /i^ ^y^ is ri^ in .1^0 •'si nyr ,n^^ ,n3^n i^y .n^^ ^^ n^ a^ .nyn^3 r'i^l^ ,il>3nl^ r^l3 n^OT ,rL'''ona n^l?y:i ^"l%?9
(2) Cases concerning the violation of prohibitions that render one Mable to receive lashes are adjudicated by three judges. The Sages stated in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: Cases concerning lashes are adjudicated by twenty-three judges. The intercalation of the month is performed by a panel of three judges. The intercalation of the year, meaning the decision to add an extra month to the year when necessary, is also decided by a panel of three judges; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The deliberations begin with three judges, and they debate the matter with five judges, and they conclude the matter with seven judges, due to the significance of the decision. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel concedes that if they concluded the matter with only three judges, the intercalation is valid and it is a leap year.
iS8)y ,n^li a'lf??? ^512?'] y3li^ .n^1?^ a<'"|t?y? ,n1^s3 T? 0) ^ir?s n;?5 n^ (Qty) "i^l^i ,n!?^7? n^ nt^ n^ n^'] (^ ^p^) w^ ,nt^i al!i^ ,Lti?03H "tl^ 3^ .tl^ no^ 15 Q^? no^? ,n9'!tl 1^9 a^ L't?Si' il^ (^ m^) ^1T^ 'n .n^i a^4?y31^^ ,u/o^l o>^33l *W1 ^ ^1^?1 :n^iyt onroi w^^ ,iai^ Nyp_y ^ .PDT ,'ir^1? Q7lpn ^3 ,ISTX
(4) Cases of capital law are judged by twenty-three judges. An animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of hestiality are judged by fwenty-three Judges, as it is stated: "And if a woman approaches any animal to lie with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal" (Leviticus 20:16), and it states: "And if a man lies with an animal, he shall be put to death and you shall kill the animal" (Leviticus 20:15). In cases ofbestiaUty, the verse juxtaposes the execution of the animal Eo the execution of the person, and therefore the case of the animal is adjudicated in the same way as cases of capital law. Similarly, an ox that is to be stoned because it killed a person is judged by twenty-three judges, as it is stated: "But if the ox was wont to gore in time past, and warning has been given to its owner, but he did not guard it and it kills a man or a woman the ox shall be stoned and also its owner shall be put to death" (Exodus 21:29). From this verse it is derived that just as the manner of the death of the owner, so is the manner of the death of the ox. The same halakha applies in the case of a wolf or a lion, a bear or a leopard, or a cheetah, or a snake that killed a person: Their death is decreed by twenty-three judges. Rabbi Eliezer says these dangerous animals do not need to be brought to court; rather, anyone who kills them first merits the performance of a mitzvah. Rabbi Akiva says: Their death is decreed by twenty-three judges.
t>5 17S7 ^K ,L'1k7A ^^» n^ ^t?1 1j?^ ^33 ns ^i un^^i n^ ^ p37 i^ (n) n n^ ^ L'y ?<^ ,nt!^hl? n9Cl>^> T'^1^ r^ ."70^ n^w ^ VI TO ^ H rpn ^5 ^ ^ ,mi?^ L^l "i^? Lly YW\^ ^ .^} n^^ ^ CPCT? ^ pi n<):i ^5 ^ ^N; ,Q<>CTI? n1!>17n3Q ptyli? ]^ ^n^] Q^n^ p? TO .Tn^i a')y:i^ L>^ p7 n^ •'s L'y i<^ W^^ Ty l^ly 1^ ."TO :Q^ 1^ nas T'f^ly L'ni!j; ,n^ ^i ,"i&t?s no?^ Ty
(5) The court judges cases involving an entire tribe that sinned, or a false prophet (see Deuteronomy 18:20-22), or a High Priest who transgressed a prohibition that carries a possible death sentence, only on the basis of a court of seventy-one judges, i.e., the Great Sanhedrin. And the king may bring the nation out to an optional war, i.e., a war that was not mandated by the Torah and is not a war of defense, only on the basis of a court of seventy-one judges. They may extend the city of Jerusalem or the courtyards of the Temple only on the basis of a court of seventy-one judges. And they may appoint a lesser Sanhedrin of twenty-three judges for the tribes only on the basis of a court of seventy-one judges. A city may be designated as an idolatrous city, i.e., a city whose residenEs all practice idolatry, and therefore according to Torah law all the residents must be killed and the city must be destroyed (see Deuteronomy 13:13-19), only in accordance with the ruling of a court of seventy-one judges. Additionally, the court may not designate a city as an idolatrous city if it is on the frontier, close to the borders ofEretz Yisrael, and three adjoining cities may not be designated as idolatrous cities. But the court may designate one city, or two adjoining cities, as idolatrous cities,
W\ .ni^i s'ntyy1?^ niopi jp^ a^?^L^ HO^ n^l^ ^^n30 0) l^^ ,TO 23^?^ ^ K^^ n^l-?^ mw nn ^^ ^ ni™ ^^ ^p^ ^ a'W ^ n?9^ (^ ^^^) ,n0^j a^tyy l?y ^ny n^^ ^.w .n^^ ^w n"7ir^ ^"i .h?o^i ^ ,n^ n-]^ npsltt? n7y ,n^ ^^m '1^ n^yn ^sty] (~^ aty) -i^s^ nyin my^ ^^i ^ 0' 2^) i£i^ ,nW ^^^ n7yl? V.w .2^t?y ti TCtpn:} ^ ,n^n1? a^ ^W (Q2?) TlS? Q^ f^Ol^ ,l7t1p^ 1^ n^ pxi ,cp3w '5 L'y nn> iCTn ,t70^ '9 usa /n7TO'7 rm N^:t Ty? ^ n^ .ny^ Qntyy •{N3 nn ,1^ :n™^ ^ i^ ,QV7^t Q^n^ ,I^)IK n^m ^ .an?
(6) With regard to the number of judges in the different courts the mishna presents a halakhic midrash: The Great Sanhedrin was composed of seventy-one judges, and a lesser Sanhedrin was composed of twenty-three. From where is it derived that the Great Sanhedrin was composed of seventy-one judges? As it is stated: "Gather Me seventy men of the Elders of Israel, whom you know to be the Elders of the people and officers over them, and bring them into the Tent of Meeting, and they shall stand there with you" (Numbers 11:16), and together with Moses at the head of this body, there are a total of seventy-one. Rabbi Yehuda says: Moses was indeed at the head of the body, but he is not counted as part of the group. Consequently, a future Great Sanhedrin modeled after these Elders is to be composed of seventy judges. And from where is it derived that a lesser Sanhedrin is composed of twenty-three judges? As it is stated: "And the congregation shall judge between the assailant and the avenger.-.and the congregation shall save the manslayer from the hands of the avenger" (Numbers 35:24-25). Therefore, there must be a congregation, which consists of at least ten judges, that judges the accused and attempts to convict him, and there must be a congregation, also consisting of at least ten judges, which attempts to save the accused by finding him innocent. Together, there are twenty judges here. Before proceeding to derive the requirement for the final three judges, the mishna clarifies: And from where is it derived that a congregation consists of at least ten men? As it is stated concerning the spies: "How long shall I bear with this evil congregation that keep complaining about me?" (Numbers 14:27) There were twelve spies; excluding Joshua and Caleb, who did not complam, there would be ten men who are called: A congregation. Accordingly, the verses describing a congregation that attempts to convict the accused and a congregation that attempts to acquit him together add up to twenty judges. And from where is it derived to bring three more judges to the court? From the implication of that which is stated: "You shall not follow a multitude to convict" (Exodus 23:2), I would derive that I may not convict a person on the basis of a majority but I should follow the majority to exonerate. If so, why is it stated in the same verse: "To incline after a multitude," from which it can be understood that the majority is followed in all cases? In order to resolve the apparent contradiction it must be explained: Your inclination after the majority to exonerate is not like your inclination after the majority to convict. Your inclination after the majority to exonerate can result in a verdict by a majority of one judge. But your inclination after the majority to convict a transgressor mus£ be by a more decisive majority of at least two. Therefore, the court must have at least twenty-two judges. And since there is a principle that a court may not be composed of an even number of Judges, as such a court may be unable to reach a decision, therefore they add another one to them, and there are twenty-three judges here. And how many men must be in the city for it to be eligible for a lesser Sanhedrin? One hundred and twenty. Rabbi Nehemya says: Two hundred and thirty, corresponding to the ministers of tens, as outlined by Moses and Yiti'o in the wilderness (Exodus, chapter 18). Thai: is to say, each member of £he Sanhedrin can be viewed as a judge with responsibility for ten residents. If there are not enough men in the city to enable this calculation, It would not be honorable to appoint a Sanhedrin, as their members will each preside over less than the minimum of ten residents.
Rabbi Aaron Melman 10/12/2020 When Justice Gets Personal Fair Courts & Fairness to Friends
When Justice Gets Personal Fair Courts & Fairness to Friends
by Scott Bolton
This week s parsha contains a famous verse:
':i:ru a'nm
(o) :'qt? im ^ri'b'tjt mnl~"i^^ T^n'nN n^TI ^^ iy^t? tiin P"t^ P"?^ (^ IT ' I" ' V.' '." JI ; " ~i ' "IT " Jt ! -T ! " ! r ' - <- : 'A ! • ' " 1" • ••• )"
Deureronomy 16:20
(20) Justice, justice shall you pursue, that you may thrive and occupy the land that the LORD your God is giving you.
We can look at the verse from a variety of perspectives. A normative way of reading it is to put it in context, chapter 16
contains instructions about the court system. Witnesses must be brought forward, and judges in every generation must
decide cases that citizens bring to the courts. Righteous and trustworthy halls of justice must be established; administer
justice in just ways - thus the double language of our verse, "tzcdek, tzedek.'
Another way of reading the verse is to keep its vocabulary and charge chained to the justice systems matter while
'using" the second tzedek to hypertext us to a different concern of the Torah where die word Justice also appears. We
are instructed, on a. more personal basis, to judge our compatriots generously and charitably. Between everyday people
we are to be aware of our powers of judgement and how easy it is to judge unfavorably.
"Judge your fellow in die scale of merit" is the way the Mishnah describes the Jewish value of judging favorably and
righteously. The Torah's use of the term "tzedek" may seem to refer to the courts and legal matters, but the reach of the
Torah's lessons about the lawyers and litigants impacts our personal relationships "in the court of human affairs.'
Let's start with the Mishnah that mentions judging others favorably, to understand the applications and limits of the
principle, and then work our way through text of the Torah that uses the word "tzedek" - the word that appears twice in
Parshat Shoftim (above, Deuteronomy 16:20).
Can we judge everyone favorably, all the time?
'i:'^ nm n:^a
IL^H-!ini-*i?Ci-t'—'-i — -':•:<•'' '-"-Y t? ' :^pi •"-1\ ^17ILI • '— - I ; -^^ ' ^ =!t~iuii< ' -•^- •-• ^m? • -T : -~iT? I-"- y^tn' ••-..;•••;•—•""- *QHtt IIL)?P • -;-!: : -..-1t??^n ;--Y -•---.-;- ^^1 -i-;- ^nis -7 i-y- I? •= y^n1 T; •- -; 0)
:m3? nsh mycn t?s> --!——t'r-f — —T-
Pirkci Avot 1:6
(6) Yehoskua ben Perachiah and Nitai ofArbel received from them. Yehoshua ben Perachia says, "Make for yourself a
mentor, acquire for yourself a friend and judge every person as merkorious.
Rav Benyamln Zimmerman examined the Mishnah in a shiur (class) on the subject:
Setting aside the question of whether in fact there is an obligation to judge others favorably or JUST a suggested practice, the terminology employed in Avot is slighdy different than that in Shevuot (another part of the Mishnah), and this may
prove significant. The former speaks of judging everyone, "et kol ha-adam (literally: all of the man") favorably, while
https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/86002?lang=bi 1/5 10/12/2020 When Justice Gets Persona! Fair Courts & Fairness to Friends
the latter speaks of judging "chaverkha^ "your fellow," seemingly limiting the obligation of Judging favorably co one's
friends or acquaintances.
Looking back to commentary that appears before the modern era, R. Ovadlah Bareenura s commentary sheds light on
how the Mishnah's authors might have intended the lesson:
'^i:'^ nnN njtya l?y ^ut3"i3
UN 1W QTN pl3 *1^1 }^ S?al3n 117 1^1 Q^Ti<^ ^3 ui3Bmty3 mst eish aTNH L'3 ns 1*7 'im (D
K'n mron mn ,n3inl? ^n1? "i^s^i msr1? im1? "I^OK^ n^ya n^yi y^i QN p^n Qi< vm^ v^v
npf? crwnn Ttyinn ^^ iia^ ^^ ,nsinl? ur?1? "imtt *ytylli3 i7Tmnw ms hs^t *ni3T n3l? isiT1?
:npit? u^ a^^i T^inn^ l?t?3n ,[r^ naw] ism
Bartcnura on Pirkei Avot 1:6:3
(6) "and judge every person as meritorious:" when the matter is hanging in the balance and there is no way to decide
it in this way or that way. For example, a man from whose actions we do not know if he is righteous or wicked, who
performs an act that is possible to judge favorably and possible to judge unfavorably, it is pious to judge him favorably.
But it is permissible to judge a man who is established to be evil unfavorably. As we learn from a. Talmudic passage:
(Shabbat 97), "One who suspects righteous people is afflicted on his body" - [and so] it is implied [from this] that one
who suspects evlidoers is not afflicted.
Evil is evil. We are not to turn a blind eye to the crimes or immorality of those who should not earn our favorable
outlooks.
But what refinement of our powers of judgement are called for, if the Torah and the tradition are encouraging us to
judge others favorably?
':s:n"Vi ^rnn iso
cpim rn nrnh nso nsrT .m^ttn l?t?33 t pil?o ay ai^ Qn^a nnl7i pn i^ oy a-r^ ^3 31^2 Vyin1? m^^n nns 173 "ipyu? ^^^21 ,myii ai1?^ .sy^3 u^ "riynn Sefer HaChinukh 235:2 The Chinnukh (Mitsva 235) explains the composition of this directive: Judging others favorably is mitzvah work, and it is a factor in creating peaceful and friendly relationships between people. Essentially, the main purpose of all the aspects of this mkzvali Is to direct communities into estabiishmg Fair judicial systems, and to bring it about by removing suspicion from others. Wait! That seems to take us back to the original context of our verse from this week s parsha. But there is a little nuance here. Be a participant in your community's endeavors to establish righteous courts. How do we personally get involved in making that happen? https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/86002?lang=bi 2/5 10/12/2020 When Justice Gets Personal Fair Courts & Fairness to Friends Given the challenges of judging others' character and establishing just courts and legal systems, our sources explore the matter furdier. How do we become more careful judges or those who invoke our powers of judgement? What must society be prepared to respond to? How must we conduct ourselves aus generous souls yet as careful agents of Justice in our world? from the Sliiur ofRav Zimmerman .-.the whole concept of judging others favorably at all costs and under any circumstances is seemingly not in line with other statements of our Sages. As they note, it is sometimes dangerous to assume that people are innocent and therefore deserve to be judged favorably. In the minor tractate Derekh Eretz, (Pirkei Ben Azzai 3:3) we find a startling statement regarding how one should view others (referenced by Rashi, Taanit 23b): People should always be in your eyes like thieves, but honor them like Rabban Gamliel. The passage continues to tell the story of Rabbi Yehoshua, who allows a wayfarer into his home, gives him to eat and drink and then shows him his sleeping quarters in the attic. However, Rabbi Yehoshua secretly removes the ladder to the attic afterwards. During the night, the guest takes all the valuables from the attic and attempts a quick escape. Failing to notice that the ladder has been removed, he falls and is injured. In the morning, Rabbi YehosKua found him on the ground and berates him: "Fool, you aroused our suspicions last night!" The passage concludes by reiterating this teaching of Rabbi Yehoshua: though he might have honored the guest as if he were a prince, nevertheless Rabbi Yehoshua was as careful with him as if the guest were a robber, which in fact he was. This source would seem to indicate that excessive application of Be-tzedek tishpot amitekha is dangerous and 111- advised. This idea is often referred to as "Kabhedehu ve-choshdehu^ Honor him but suspect him." If there is in fact an obligation to judge others favorably, how may one suspect his fellow Jew? Why is doing so not adverse to the obligation to judge others favorably? Here is the verse from Leviticus that uses our word from Deuteronomy "tzedek" about judging others ~ again, in the context of the courts, but now applied to personal outlooks and opinions. ^.^sy_u^TLi?.t?,K?-Lfn? ^s ^1^? i<'l?1 L11"<'-?s ^^n-K'h us^s? 1L'iy 'ityyn-^ (112) ,|.,.—..-; i—•—>—..>,...-;— A T J" : I-! ••• li T ": JT • T ; • - •;T ) -i - Levjdcus 19:15 (15) Ye shaU do no unrighteousness in judgment; thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor favour the person of the mighty; but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour. And here is the short passage from the Talmud that was referred to, from Shcvuot: '? myuty "ni3T tpl? "|T^n UN IT 1in "in^y mswn p^^3 Set up courts based upon the pursuit of righteousness - judge your fellow in the scale of merit, treat everyone equally before the law Sh'vuot 30a https://www.sefaria,org/sheets/86002?lang=::bi 3/5 10/12/2020 When Justice Gets Personal Fair Courts & Fairness to Friends Let's remember that this Shabba-t is the first Sabbath in Hodesh Elul. We are a month away from Rosh HaShanah^ Yom Din - Judgement Day. My teacher, Rabbi Ed_Femste*n wrote in Sh ma Now: On these holidays, we pray God might move from the throne of din, judgment, to the throne of rachamim, merciful love. We pray not to dismiss judgment but To temper its affemiath.' What is the purpose, during the High Holidays, of the courtroom drama with God atop a throne wielding the power of judgment? Abraham Joshua Heschel writes that it is better to be judged by God than ignored and abandoned. Do you agree? How does that sense of being judged inform your approach to Rosh HaShanah and Yorn Kippur? Rabbi Feinstein explained that Judgment is the beginning ofteshuvah, repentance and return. He writes that if we are stuck in self-deception, we can't find the truth and make personal change. Are we generous with our Judgements of ourselves? With others? How would we want to be treated before the court? How does that impact how judgemental or merciful we are with family, friends, and others in our lives? Anocher of the_ entries in Sh ma.Now: The human rights acdvtst and attorney Hadar.Harns wrices abouc her awakening to the notion that multiple truths can exist. She writes. As we contemplate this High Holiday season, as we mminate on the ultimate judgment that God makes —who shall live and who shall die — I'm. struck by the impact of different versions of truth on Judgment." She wants to consider "God as a civil law judge (investigating as well as adjudicating) rather than a common law judge (sitting on high and determming truth after hearing adversarial arguments cwisting facts)." In that scenario, God judges while considering the complicated, multifaccted lens of multiple truths, while narratives are deconstructed and reexamined, facts are explored and rebuilt, and changes in behavior are taken into account." How do yu understand these two constructions of God as judge? How do you weigh stories of moral ambiguity that require thoughtful judgment? What happens when a judgment goes wrong? Is truth always constructed? How are facts related to truth? And if truth is constructed, how does that impact justice? What truths do we know, when it comes to judging others? What stories are we telling ourselves, when we invoke our powers of judgement? How should tzcdek, tzedek inform our use of our powers of Judgement - personally and societalty? Is it healthy to respect yet suspect others? Do we accept that or reject that? Is it easy to "Judge on the scale of merit?" What makes that so difficult? Easy for you? How have people abused their own powers of Judgement? In our time many false accusations and rushes to condemnations seem to upend a dependable systems of justice approach? How do we work to set into place reliable systems of justice without becoming judge and jury ourselves? What are the central questions and issues that arise when we consider the verse from Deuteronomy with which we began this exploration: '3:ru D^n https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/86002?lang=bi 4/5 10/12/2020 When Justice Gets Personal Fair Courts & Fairness to Friends Dcuteronomy 16:20 (20) Justice, Justice shall you pursue, that you may thrive and occupy the land that the LORD your God is giving you. Cfeeledwith 0 Sef arid https://www.sefarta.org/sheets/86002?[ang=bi 5/5 10/12/2020 Parashat Shoftim: Setting up the System Parashat Shofnm: Setting up the System by Leah Herzog 2"3-n"':?"3 D^3T 1 (W :[m-us^?? Q^n'n^ ^Q^l Ty?^t? t? ^ Ti?^ pip1 ^^^ Ti.y^'L'?? ^'W Q'lP^I Q'u?'^ ("') p-n jm o) :ai?l)^ ^.nT ^?v\ a^?n vri? ln.^ Tn^n ^ in^ nj?n"^L>i o^s "rsn ^ usiya nisn'^ •.•j" ' ' 'r • - j" : • 'i" - r - T -: j- " "-; - - j- - 'j-• ; h-^ r - j T ; • j" - n^Ttt ^ vy^ rrm ?i1? yyn'^ (^3) (D) :i*71:13 ^i?:L)N pip1"i^^ r^n"^N ^^1 "'''n^ ^^ ^^ •J" ; • •••••' A" T IT •• -! •Jl ! J- • f ' ' ' ' ' FT ' ;" I '1'; '.•; ' I " -: ' ••• T T '.- JT ] -II ••• ! t ' - <- : ' A ; - (o) ^6^ P^' ^ i^ n^" ?11? Q^'^?i (^) (D) :ll?"n^n i^s ^p:^ pi^ Dcuterunomy 16:18-22 (18) You shall appoint magistrates and officials for your tribes, in all the settlements that the LORD your God is giving you, and they shall govern the people with due justice. (19) You shall not judge unfairly: you shall show no partiality; you shall not Take bribes, for bribes blind the eyes of the discerning and upset the plea of the Just. (20) Justice, justice shall you pursue, that you may thrive and occupy the land that the LORD your God is giving you. (21) You shall not set up a sacred post—any kind of pole beside the altar of the LORD your God that you may make— (22) or erect a stone pillar; for such the LORD your God detests. nrttnsn m^ioo 2 http://www.daat.ac.iVencyclopedia/value.asp?idl=1172 3 riQQ nNijs ^nn nty-TTj n-nnnw mrttn n^a; m^ ,H^i^orf INJ "nr^is m3^ofr ^Tipn tyn^on t-n "Z^i?l^ ^ nnnin ^nu? ^n^ IWp QTO3 ^ ,Q^1UD Q^miy ^tiiNn ^toQsn ii"ip^n by niytyj ir ^T OT A"O m3i33] ijnr 1n ^^ nrL> nan^ nic .1"aL) i™ i™ m'mai maTin IL' t^ L'3 ,iL> kiait> ,nn^yai niQTin nis'is1? nuia nstioj naVr /'in^ n^s? ^3L> TI^ QFN rmn ^ST »Qn1p3 ^wp nrn1? ^"n .Q^I^D Q'T^ ^ty^ imn y'Tniy ,anyL'ti il?l?n ou"3yn 1^ •TOO ^in i^pnu? a-'ayQ .WAn }V^ ^ T^n ^^3 iri< itypn ,uushu? ii^N^n mpan i?33 inn? }^ 4 nriKiy s"yK *s1u&ny Dyui .nr^isn p3THL> ty-n mtt-rs ^ nany 1:s3 m^iy mirai mnu Loty s"y^ -W ^ p1QO^ N*7 HT a'ustyQm Q>'pnn^ ^n a^i ^Tpan ^m^a Q'jn^n QipaL' a^ys nt^ n^? ^n https://www,sefaria.org/sheets/256718?lang=bi 1/6 10/12/2020 Parashat Shoftim: Setting up the System uoityn ^ syum pi :mOTH m:p iui^m QIS^ a^nn IIN s rws a™s niyl7W mW T^^^ a^n^ Tynt? »rr.iQt?^ fi^ Q^^D ^ m^?3L? IT n^tt ^D /^i s^sity 13? ^1 '131 Q^SIU/ m^L' TI^ 13 15 17y q^ nyisp nbm ^-rn^o JTT^W ^n D^I pi^ us nn mttT1? .Qipan ^ mhy TS? pn myn ^tp ns a^uni ,"T217 n^nn ns^i p'ip1 us1?^ p n^ t7y im pKiyn e maiy '02 3"u?^i3 al'^"?n HK r"?33a^ 1^r3 rpi^ n3"i27 fn nsinb1 piy "1^0 ,kih inn amsittn a1t3&np :rr3 n" 3 Abarbanel has a macro approach: The section ofmitzvot is divided into those applying to the whole, the community, 7 and those applying to the individual. Parashat Re'eih and Shoftim are in the former category. We see Kis Aristotelian approacK (levels, orderly) but also the foundational assumption that humans are here to serve Gd and the community, ^313N s nin Tjon L)NI^ L!3L'i nTnsn n^t? mon^nttn nmn 1^3 mn ^ .D^TO 1^n i^n nVTDn m^ttn n3m n^iKn mmrw yin ^Ton nTn rh^n Qyn mm1? niorrnttn m^^ri 1^2 'n^nm .''n^TQiy 1^33 ^^ rwt?ty TTD n^n .,.QMiyL'^i Q"W D^nnn nin-ra m i^^ji n^u^n nAu^n ia Qlra ^^3 nrrn ^myu^n rurunn ^s3 Q173 on IL'^I t7m in n^i lup in n^ >itti1? niin HLTO Q^naan *a^Kn L)K anmpn a^ty^i Q^U? Q^nnn nuTru 12 sn IN^^S' n3i n^nnn nAn;nn 1^ is m Qnn n^m nnny:! an^i nt?s?^ n^iT^n nnnm niynpn rn aurom }^n ma mity^in nn'r^n Q^L>n rn njn ^ .'"'lyriL)^ n^npi n3ii?i nr3mi3 o-ia nhv^ rrn ^3^m ,a9l?^n ^ anmpi ^Tpttn n^ ^:n"\r'^ a^m ta)y uiiso 9 ^w Q^mm srmm a^si^m f^t7?3n am r^nia TO? ni^ ^nnLI nm^n BinN onuityi a^sity rri3sw Q^W nriK nsipn nsn^ iia^ ^n^n Tyn^ 1^3 t?pl?ip^ Ql?ipLlpm ii^nn r^ ipw mipm :niin loan unp il?L'n rT'jns m>7^3 ^^ a^mo ,T^33 ip3t7 ia^ ^ aiy ^^tr Sforno on Deuterunomy 16:18:1 Q11t3l^?1 D'lt351ty, after Moses Jiad addressed a number of commaj-idments to the people at large, he now turned to instruct Ae leaders of the people in commandments of special concern for them. By paying especial attention to observing these laws, the leaders, especially the judges, kings and prophets, would be able to maintain the spiritual level of the people at https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/2567-18?tang=bi 2/6 10/12/2020 Parashat Shoftim: Setting up the System large, and thus ensure the people's continued tenure of the Land of Israel. In the words of the prophet: "when the lion roars who does not tremble?" (Amos 3,8) Tzefaniah phrased it somewhat differently, providing degrees of reactions to people in varying degrees of authority. (Tzefaniah 3,3 describes the princes, leading authorities as being feared like roaring lions, whereas the judges who have no executive powers are feared in the manner one is afraid of wolves.) ^:n'^:ru a^m I?y ip' •lt?3 10 NL)I Em rn^ n^a l7y amK n^^ :m mj?31? irn pso ty^ ^t? 1n^ HT pios^ ,Nin pyn •n»»3 ^ jm ttst^u Di?n 17^ n^ IUQ^^ r'pn nn i^^i "[a^y 17y I1? ^n ^'n am^ niaan nr1? 1^0^ loun^ .ittirn l?p3 ^-rnn n1n' i3ty -iai1? o^m nynn pwl? luswi uia^ ^Li ,Qyn L'3Li rp -[h a^ is^n^ t t^iTsn lay runn iL'^3 naiT w-n^ IK nnj? IL' ^in a^n nuu1? IT^ p50 bm ^ 17Sty i^n An^as ^ nrnynh ^ r-rn ^ p-r^s 1^5^ ^ crpim iVsK oyn ^ Q^ty nra "i^a^ ,a^iy 121 IL' q^n^ n^ ^ .FITS inn ™a nn?< r^syi -[Ty is*? IN -[y-ro1? i^ •|STIPL> pi ^ npos h^nN ^ n^^ iKt7^ ^nn hs Kli Yakar on Dcutcronomy 1 6:18:2 Judges and officers. The explanation is that this verse is a command to those who have the authority and power to appoint judges, that they should appoint them in order that they will judge. The judges should not show favoritism even to those who appointed them. This is the meaning of the phrase^ "appoint for yourself," as if to say, "over yourself". It follows afortiori that the Judges should Judge all the people justly. '^:n'f (^nsl3i r^w) am^?? in^ ayn n^ imin - a^ul^i .un n^ a^olBn Q^. - a^sl^ .a^utyi a^&ty :t3s1^n FT nK rl?ir 173i?^ ^y ny'iitim l7[?!?3 r r ••'-:" - -s : • '" - ; R a'1t3U?l £Tt3DU? JUDGES AND BAILIFFS — E3^Q1U? are the Judges who pronounce sentence, and DntW are those who chastise the people at their (the judges') order [beating and binding the recalcitrant] with a stick and a strap until he accepts the judge's sentence (Sanhedrin l6b and Rash! thereon; cf. Slfrei Devarim 144:6). l?n"Di< ^ IHN n'tt rn1 NI?I il7an DmN nja^ ^i Ti<^ l?i ~}m "iti^ HT t?yi .an^yu TS? 1?33 QIWH "uQityn n^ ^^ un^i 02^ t?3^ itti1? H^TI Qm^ uu^ Qy~t^ omy^n am^ u^ amy TU3^t? Q^SI^H 1ira ^j ~[1pl?i< pip^ i^ih nitn -|^3^1? I1? ^ TF'L>N pip1 1LW K'7 ^ra "i ^ ^7^ ,US1^ P^ 1131^ ^K Q^ 1131^ '[^ t3DHy ^ Q^t ,nrl7 nr r^in a^j^ ,Q^U^I a1us^ wiTam usty?3 nCT TH 1n1i (ru-r'u:fn 2 L>^?3^) ittt^ty ^r"n m^Li n"y •m L)i31 nsn s1? n^ L)^ intt^ https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/256718?lang=bi 3/6 10/12/2020 Parashat Shoftim: Setting up the System inm poitt r'r1? y^i^ ir^^ ^ ^ ^nK3 Qst35^ nKn "TH 13 »Nn^n Liy rrm 13 n^n lay L'3L> np^^i .^rro L>yn u^a N^iai 3^ T3 jm 14 '-i:n^:?'fD SPTH ^ ^tyi 15 :C150 '^) pT^ U2^L' Q1p^^ Q'nttK! ^T n^ /IAI syn n» lu&tyi Rashi on Deuteronomy 16:18:5 'w ayn rm lus^l AND THEY SHALL JUDGE THE PEOPLE [WITH JUST JUDGMENT] — This means, appoint judges who are expert and righteous to give just judgment (cf. Sifrei Devarim 144:7). L'n'm 16 m Tmn Mr ^ ion any^ i^ oyn n^i am^n m^iyi ^3 IST ^n ann ^si^n^ ^tin^ ^L'i cpusi^n n^ ™KIH ^un^ Nt?i ^ ]n~i wniy stiL'i liK"in ^s QK ^ sm^ w y?^ Q^uy 17y hTK?3 o^s^n -PL' ]UH 1nL)3 1Wn2 t351ty1? im^t? a-rx m^l7 s^s ^:rr:r'Q enm L)y imso )7 :mt? n^pi nt1? "11 ^n' K1?^ pT^s pn ipos^ t&i^3 nuyun nl?2p ^in PTSE ta&tpa Sfomo on Dcutcronomy 16:18:3 pTlt UEWO) the manner in which the complaints of the litigants were heard should be such that the resulting decisions could be expected to be fair, pTf, righteous. The judges were not to discrimina.te in their treatment of either of the opposing litigants. a^nn T!S< 18 ^1 awun '3 rry psa T3i?^ nr TTDS ^^ nnn 2nL) ityN a^isn t3s^?3 L'y rnn Ti^y1? n^T^3 ^ 15^ rrrr m '521 ^s n"n^ HT ^3 i^nh ^in an1? i^^ s^^s n^^ m^nn iJi^n NWKI ty^ m^n nsn1? pn l?y •n^1? ^K nns? n n^'nn1? T^^? a-r^ ri< iL'^3 n3t?nn •'mi im? niyy ^N ,3"nn :pnm ^srn n^r a1r-T ^vn1? 12 pT inTinan nL'y^ ns HT 1173 rl?y T^^ inm ,rmnn (2"^) -m pKiyn 19 a^ ^n *il?ipm -pT^n lus^w Q^nn L'y inwff ^3 l?y niriTK r^ ^p'm ustya Ds?n n» lustyi ,m^ r'3 ^ nll^nt? ^n^ty n^ ^KI l7y m^ nTai .2BiKni3 a^a 20 https://www.sefaria>org/sheets/256718?iang=bi 4/6 u cr ^ ^1 S-* -I cr I-t ^ J ~u -/ iy -J- ^J ?? ^1 ^J •K s 1_» LI I 0' w cr <3 1_* K u cs Cf Cf 'u 0 3 =-J -I.. ^J =J u LJ ^J 3 rj ^ tr I ftI I ~^I a &-T 0 !~si^ ^ ^ ° -^ <3 =J U D Wl' :u -I r? cr ^1 r ^ *^ . !U ^ IT Ef ^s a? •? 13 -sJ- _1 -J- ~&i. (=' 0 u '5 •^r ^ ^ p" us ^. 3 M ^ f+ y -sT a ^r -^r =J r XI ^ <3 y. 3-f D -J- ^ NL!^ o"y^ nnsn i^^s a1?^ ^^niy3 mua n-r^ l?y3 ]p?n n^ pi imp1? 1^3 cpxm inrn L[1niyn yL'o :iTO3 ™i T^y n-'n^ Sforno on Deuteronomy 16:21:1 niu?^ ^ yun s^i, in this verse the Torah lists three items whose common denominator is that they appeal to the senses, are desirable, but at the same time are all spiritually negative, harmful. The first one is ?11U?t vantage point ofholiness as it is usually a conduit leading to idolatrous practices. Seeing that this is so, we are commanded whenever faced with such choices to give preference to that which leads to spiritual righteousness at the expense of physical perfection or beauty. By the same token, we are to prefer spiritual qualities possessed by someone chosen as a Judge to external features, impressive though they may be. The second item is FD^ttH, even though such a kind of altar was welcomed by G'd as an outlet for someone wko wanted to bring an offering to G'd, this was before the Torah had been given. Consider, for example. Exodus 24,4 where the Torah welcomed 12 such monuments erected by Moses, where these monuments symbolised the fact that the person offering a sacrifice considered himself as constantly in the presence of the divine, (compare Psalms 16,8 l'TULr 'H ^ni'tiy TUH, "I feel myself constantly in the presence of the Lord.") The Jewish people had not been able to maintain this spiritual level after they had committed the sin of the golden calf. Even when such a FUSttt is dedicated to heaven it had become hateful in the eyes of the Lord, i.e. G'd had expressed His distaste in Exodus 33,3, after having provisionaUy "forgiven" the people by appointing an angel to lead them to the Holy Land, but refusing to lead their ascent by His presence being among them. We encounter a similar concept described as the difference between an old man whose beard proclaims his respectability, as opposed to the old man whose beard is disheveled, Le. reveals traces of a youth which was spent irresponsibly. We look for people whose exterior testifies to their blameless interior, character. [This metaphor is used by the Chazzan in his private introductory prayer on Yom Hakippurim. Ed.] The third item, also reminding us of the rejection of an externally basically beautiful animal as a sacrifice, is a series of blemishes, some quite minor, not affecting the value of the animal in question in the market place at all. Such a blemish in an animal worth 1000 dollars disqualifies it as an ofFering, whereas another similar animal worth one single dollar, but without such a. blemish, is given preference over the far more expensive animal, which is rejected. The Torah gives us three examples to teach us basically the same lesson. What is true of the blemished animal for presentation on the altar, is equally true fot the venerable old scholar who is afflicted with some character fault. We are to look further in order to find a less impressive individual not afflicted with such character fault. Created wifth Q Safari a https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/256718?lang=bi 6/6-t s p u Q *=3 -f 5C t~>. -I VJ ^T 3 v '^- 'J' D ^ ^ ^ -/ Cf 1J V3 Xl r^ co f= ^ -*.. r? u •^T 0 n v a 5-* -I Cf 0 VJ -! *^ ^ ^ ^J t-» ^ ^ ^ ^ -I fc? -t n ~y K 5 0 hn % ^ ^ UJ ~3 rr 3 0 <-f ^ 5 g 0 -4 ~J' -I 1^ •V " 0 a ~y nj Cf cs (= 0 3 % G n ff K [u ^r -J 'ri 35 5 ^ iS ^ v rj <5 a cr =J 9C 3 -? ^ ^ £? u K 0 (U sX % ~a m ^f v/\ Cf l-r t-r 13 a Wl p- ^. ^ Lf if u ^ _n ^—' "^ ^ -J- ^ 3 :-! =J VJ u 0 u IK 0- tl y. 3-^ Vf ^r —I ^ ;3 % -f 3 ?? 0 ^r IS •-t R ? -; ^1 u CJ ~3 n E3 -J en t^) % Lj 1—t1 VI 5j =; J3 'J- if <3 u ^Jt i-^ "» G -I J p" ra x ^- D ~J- ^s \r VI I—1 cs 3 3? u -J •\J^ n ^1 =J LL CF u •3 ^f ^ 2, 1-t LJ ^T G u ^ •JT- ^T u n yn 13 <3 n ~y ^~t -J T3 0 t-1 u K "3 % (T> Vf 13 K r^t- ^ s § v K cs t^f s? K Cf 1_» 0 rj c? r^ ^ ;? ty 3C ^1 CJ •3 ^1 '%r ~^J u u -^J- 0 w Q — ^, u if u u VJ 5C ^3 ri -J, G ^ u u =J 3C -J" p I -I :J -J ~r % sr? U VI =J ~^I D i N :J 0- u ~y •3 'J* -J ^r 0 u 3 ^ ^T ^J ~J' ey V. ^J Lf p p 3 fc2 XI t~r l*J u ^r ^ ^ •3 -J* b ?r y-. "3 ^ rtl vi -j- ^s *s 5C ^T ~^J 3 ^r ~v "i n -J •sJ- £f D u G u en •Zf IT a cr -^r -J' *5 -I *^ :u s =J ^ ^1 *^f% D -J Lf c? ^r ~^I vT -f t5 ^ u. § co e b; a =J ~f il?' s 0 rr 11 ^J ~J s § u -I =3 -I Q ^J ^ is u ^1 LJ D -J' g ^ 4 ^ -J -J' u IT :J 3' •^ VI Cf ^-f i-» —S v u s •u •3 vt3 ^J I i <3 5C U u 3S Cf if ^ _^ 35 u D co ^ u *3 if a " u is 'U ^ A § § D ^s ^ " ^1 % a" ^ ^ a^> ^J ~J' CJ u ^ ^ -4 ~vJ' =J "V -J' CQ ^ ^ iS :J % S 5 ^f ^ ^ v c u ^ Cf G ^ *_r ^ D -: -0 K 21 -J v ^r ^t VJ if vS-' fS _Sr ^r l-r -Zl •3 ^J :-J -J ~^I •3 ^ % § ^ S-' ST •vT —I -1 ^ E3 -J ^ ^ "^ ^ M ^ •^J" -JT .0 "K fe^ n '3 ^ iy 3 a <5 0- ^r ^r 5? .^ S3 v § u ^ LX -J' u •sj"^ ~~f u t-f if *3 2J tl cr •i re c? ^J ^ 5C LI <3 3 ^1 11 vT % -J- ^J u 0 5 ^ % a ^ 3 -^ -J li^f ^1 % ^r ~:y c ^ -~1 J ^ % ^ N. 3 9? :J tn u D ^ •\r •^r <3 u NJ' K ^ -~r y^ ti -IS -f ^1 ^ ^J u cs :J 0 l^r Df ^ £S y. zj ^ <3 ff ^ u '-I tS =J "^ a Lr u £f Cf rj ^ -I cy -^ u ^ ^ -I if =J ^ =* -J ^ ^ -J -t K -=(. ^ ^ ^1 ^3 J G ^1 Ff •3 :J -J- rf u -f •K^ K :J ^ G " B ^ 3? ^J a ^r u :-! n a ^ =J ^ -J' ~J' 1*7 % -J -I ^ •3 v -J Cf ^f ^ •^ ^ "^J Lt u ^3 Cf 2? if ^ ° 3- ^ kr =f -4 3C tfi =J *3 -J- ~^I a^ c. *^ -; -J ~t -