Orthodox Judaism\u2019s diversity reveals several different, robust communities of religious Jews who take their religion very seriously. Although Reconstructionist, Reform and Conservative affiliates usually \u201cpurchase\u201d a Jewish identity with their membership dues, they usually fail to create communities with thick Jewish cultures, they are suffering declining rather than growing demographics, and their children do not rush to identify with their parents\u2019 denominational preference.<\/p>\n
Orthodoxy is winning the battle for Diaspora Jewish identity by default. Official religion Orthodoxy claims that it is the Judaism that was initiated at Mt. Sinai and is lived authentically by and on the contemporary Orthodox street. On one hand, Orthodox life is lived with and among other Orthodox Jews, so Jewish social contact with non-Orthodox Jews rarely takes place in non-Orthodox religious settings.\u00a0 The cost of Orthodox life, which requires private school education, socialization, and indoctrination, strongly discriminates against those with limited commitments\u2014or cash.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, contemporary Orthodox culture and classical \u201cOrthodox\u201d Judaism, the anachronistic name that I assign to the religion that is encoded in the Rabbinic religious literary canon, are two different albeit overlapping Judaisms.\u00a0 Institutional Orthodoxy\u00a0projects<\/em>\u00a0a religion obsessed with accepted and expected public ritual displays and it demands an unquestioning commitment to its leadership\u2019s charismatic authority. Torah\u2019s Orthodoxy requires fidelity to a law that is readable, understandable, rational, and is also a map by which the people in power may themselves be held to account. In order to deny the validity\u2014or possibility\u2014 of assessing contemporary Orthodox religious leadership, the laws of the Torah system are subject to strategic reconstruction. Below are examples of this reconstruction project.<\/p>\n In many contemporary Orthodox synagogues, latter day saintly rabbis remind their congregants that it is improper to talk between the reciting of the shofar commandment blessing and the concluding 100th<\/sup>\u00a0shofar blast.\u00a0 According to Oral Torah law, we make nine blasts to fulfill Torah law, three sets of a broken blast surrounded by\u00a0teqi\u2019ah\u00a0<\/em>blasts.\u00a0 Since we are uncertain whether the required broken blast is a\u00a0shevarim<\/em>\u00a0or a\u00a0teru\u2019ah<\/em>, we blow three sets of\u00a0shevarim teruah, shevarim<\/em>, and\u00a0teru\u2019ah,<\/em>\u00a0with surrounding\u00a0teqi\u2019ah<\/em>\u00a0blasts,\u00a0<\/em>to cover every possible permutation.<\/p>\n By Rabbinic law, in order to avoid the possibility that we miss the correct order, we blow the shofar 30 times and not just 9.\u00a0 During these 30 blasts, talking is indeed improper [Maimonides, Shofar 3:11]. Rabbi Isaiah Horowitz [Shnei Luhot ha-Berit Rosh ha-Shanah Ner Mitsva\u00a0<\/em>17] argues that the exceptionally scrupulous will blow 100 blasts.\u00a0 Note well that R. Horowitz himself concedes that this innovation is not obligatory.\u00a0 \u00a0Once the required 30 blasts are completed, the Rosh Hashanah shofar obligation has been discharged and there is no possibility of a\u00a0hefseq<\/em>, or\u00a0improper\u00a0<\/em>interruption occurring.\u00a0 Furthermore, if we really were required by Oral Torah law to blow 100 blasts without interruption, we would blow all of the blasts at one time.\u00a0 The recitation of\u00a0Hinneni\u00a0<\/em>and\u00a0piyyutim<\/em>\u00a0are by law [a] not required to be recited and [b] would themselves be interruptions if no talking is permitted for the 100 shofar blasts.\u00a0 In order to make this point, that the individual is only required to hear 30 blasts without interruption, I did not deliver my Rosh Hashanah sermon before shofar blowing, but afterward, just before\u00a0Hinneni.\u00a0<\/em>Since there is no obligation to blow 100 blasts, there can be no interruption during the final 70 blasts, as they are in any case mandatory. We are not permitted to misinform people to behave in a fashion not required by the law.<\/p>\n When preparing young men for their\u00a0bar mitsva<\/em>, I asked and taught them to wear\u00a0tallit<\/em>\u00a0as well as\u00a0tefillin<\/em>, when they came of age. Some irate parents informed me that \u201ctheir \u2018tradition\u2019 is that the Jewish male\u00a0must\u00a0<\/em>wait until marriage to wear the\u00a0tallit<\/em>.\u201d I explained that the\u00a0mitsvot\u00a0<\/em>become obligations at\u00a0bar mitsva<\/em>.\u00a0 The original Ashkenazi view, like the Sefardic view to this day, is to wear the\u00a0tallit<\/em>\u00a0when one reaches\u00a0bar mitsva<\/em>\u00a0age, and the reason many people wrongfully postpone the observance of this rite is based on\u00a0Derashot ha-Maharil, w<\/em>ho formulates a\u00a0midrash Halakhah<\/em>, that the Torah juxtaposes the\u00a0tsitsit\/<\/em>tassel requirement with a particular marriage law [Deut. 22:12-13] in order to justify postponing the commandment\u2019s observance. However, Rabbi Meir Kagan astutely observes that the fact that the Torah juxtaposes the commandment of marriage to the\u00a0tsitsit<\/em>\u00a0commandment is insufficient to justify Maharil\u2019s unauthorized postponing of the commandment observance [Mishnah Berurah\u00a0<\/em>17:10]. Maharil\u2019s suggestion is accepted uncritically by most of the Ashkenazi Orthodox street as if it were Torah law, when it is an anomaly at best and\u00a0denial of a Torah<\/em>\u00a0law at worst.\u00a0 I was informed by a\u00a0Haredi\u00a0<\/em>Rosh Yeshiva \u201cwe do not follow this opinion of the Mishnah Berurah,\u201d but he would not explain why R. Kagan\u2019s view is rejected on and by the Orthodox street.\u00a0 Since he sported a black fedora, beard,\u00a0pe\u2019ot\u00a0<\/em>[ritual sidelocks that testify to its wearers\u2019 exemplary piety], as well as the rabbinic caftan called \u201ckapoteh<\/em>,\u201d and I do not, he was assumed to be correct, and I, not being \u201cblessed\u201d with a beard, black fedora,\u00a0pe\u2019ot,\u00a0<\/em>or\u00a0kapoteh<\/em>, could not possibly be\u00a0Halakhically\u00a0<\/em>correct.\u00a0 After all, he sported the semiotics of the \u201cfrum<\/em>\u00a0look,\u201d which is based on mimicking, conforming, and submitting to the kingdom, power, and glory of the Great Rabbis.\u00a0 Logic is unwelcome in this version of Orthodox discourse and the independent exercise of a knowledge informed conscience is somehow seen to be subversive. Street culture Orthodoxy is about being acceptable to one\u2019s peers, not one\u2019s learning, conscience, or even a personal, passionate sense of what God requires of Jewry. This Orthodoxy demands submission, and the exercise of an alternative religious conscience is seen as subversion.<\/p>\n According to Oral Torah law, grammatically parsed and literally applied, the\u00a0mitsva\u00a0<\/em>of Seder night bitter herbs\/maror<\/em>\u00a0may not be performed with roots.\u00a0 mPesahim 2:6 allows the\u00a0maror commandment<\/em>\u00a0to be fulfilled with both the leaves as well as the stem of the vegetable, precluding fulfilling the command with roots, including the horseradish root. The rabbinic \u201cauthorities\u201d who choose to ignore this Oral Torah\u00a0law\u00a0<\/em>are in philological, and therefore\u00a0Halakhic\u00a0<\/em>error. At\u00a0https:\/\/jewishaction.com\/religion\/shabbat-holidays\/passover\/whats-truth-using-horseradish-maror\/<\/a>, R. Ari Zivitovsky correctly observes that horseradish cannot possibly fit the Mishnah\u2019s list of\u00a0maror\u00a0<\/em>vegetables.\u00a0 But one pious modern Orthodox lady recently told me that \u201cher family always used\u00a0chrain<\/em>\u00a0[Yiddish for horseradish] for the\u00a0maror mitsva\u00a0<\/em>and this practice is her family\u2019s \u2018tradition.\u2019\u201d Popular usage is in error if and when it misstates what the authentic Tradition, i.e. the Oral Law as it evolved to the time of Ravina I and Rav Ashi, which was the last\u00a0Bet Din ha-Gadol<\/em>\u00a0authorized to issue apodictic legislation [bBava Metsi\u2019a 86a], really requires. If an Orthodox rabbi senses that his spiritual charges \u201ccannot handle the truth,\u201d the rabbi is permitted to remain silent [bBetsa 30a]. The context of this rule is that while Oral Torah law disallows clapping and dancing on Holy Days, it was felt that only \u201ca few good men\u201d will heed the instruction and rabbinic capital should not be squandered over trivial issues. If the community rabbi believes that his ruling will not enjoy compliance, he is authorized to be silent. Better people sin in uninformed error than willfully rebel against the law.\u00a0 Actually, Lakewood Yeshiva\u2019s R. Aharon Kotler\u2019s preferring iceberg lettuce to fulfill the\u00a0maror mitsva<\/em>\u00a0is a much more compelling and convincing opinion, because lettuce, the\u00a0bPesahim\u00a0<\/em>39a\u2019s hassa,\u00a0<\/em>is clearly cognate to the Arabic\u00a0hass<\/em>, the Arabic word for lettuce.<\/p>\n Zivitovsky\u2019s conclusion illustrates Orthodoxy\u2019s contemporary\u00a0Halakhic\u00a0<\/em>problematic\u00a0reconstruction<\/em>:<\/p>\n There are sufficient grounds for doubting horseradish\u2019s inclusion in the Mishnaic list. Furthermore, even if we were to concede that\u00a0tamcha<\/em>\u00a0refers to horseradish, it is still listed after lettuce and endives in the presumed order of preference. Moreover, horseradish is sharp not bitter, and its root\u2014rather than its leaves\u2014are eaten. Despite all this, family customs should not quickly be abandoned, and horseradish has a long-standing place at the Seder. There may even be reasons to prefer horseradish to lettuce (e.g. difficulty of cleaning lettuce of bugs), but given a choice that does not tamper with a family tradition, it would seem that on Seder night horseradish may be the choice condiment to go with gefilte fish but not to fulfill the mitzvah of\u00a0maror.<\/em><\/p>\n Zivitovsky\u2019s research leaves in its wake the following troubling conclusions: [a] horseradish may not be construed as\u00a0timcha<\/em>, one of the Mishnah\u2019s exemplars of\u00a0maror<\/em>, because it is neither stem nor leaf, [b] reciting a commandment blessing for eating\u00a0maror<\/em>\u00a0and then eating horseradish with the misguided intention to observe the commandment not only does not discharge one\u2019s religious obligation to eat\u00a0maror<\/em>, but also violates the Oral Torah rule regarding reciting improper benedictions. [c] Zivitovsky\u2019s suggestion that family traditions should not be abandoned is also very problematic. Jewish law recognizes\u00a0minhagei maqom\u00a0<\/em>[mPesahim 4:1],\u00a0not\u00a0<\/em>unvetted customs of non-scholarly\u2014or even scholarly\u2014families, as a\u00a0Halakhic\u00a0<\/em>category.\u00a0 One Yeshiva University\u00a0Rosh Yeshiva\u00a0<\/em>told me that\u00a0maror\u00a0<\/em>is\u00a0timcha<\/em>; this suggestion is, as demonstrated above, clearly untenable. Like the Eastern European practice of delaying wearing the\u00a0tallit\u00a0<\/em>until marriage is an improper practice, as demonstrated by R. Kagan \u2014using horseradish as\u00a0maror\u00a0<\/em>is not a justifiable or legitimate custom. The Oral Torah canon is for authentic Orthodoxy inviolate, and the\u00a0maror<\/em>\u00a0mitsva\u00a0<\/em>cannot be properly observed by consuming a vegetable\u2019s root.\u00a0 The fact that otherwise pious Orthodox Jews and even learned rabbis ruled leniently does not change God\u2019s law.\u00a0 Leviticus 4:13 and Lamentations 5:7 remind us that neither one\u2019s nation nor one\u2019s ancestors are by dint of their identity infallible. The entire community can be wrong [Numbers 15:26]. While Orthodoxy\u2019s professed \u201cofficial religion\u201d benchmark is the Sinaitic Torah law, its \u201creal religion\u201d is mimetic \u201ctradition,\u201d reifying and reconstructing the\u00a0descriptive<\/em>\u00a0\u201cway we remembered we were\u201d into the\u00a0prescriptive<\/em>, nostalgic \u201cway we ought to be\u201d in our present time.\u00a0 \u201cTradition\u201d is no longer the rules of behavioral obligation and the hermeneutic rules that define recognizable, legitimate\u00a0Halakhic\u00a0<\/em>legal claims. For example, every\u00a0semicha\u00a0<\/em>student \u201cknows\u201d that Oral Torah Orthodoxy rejects the argument from silence, that the absence of legal evidence should not be construed to be evidence of legal absence [m\u2019Eduyyot<\/em>\u00a02:2].\u00a0 \u00a0For example, the that fact that we have not seen women slaughter animals may not be taken to be evidence that women may not slaughter animals \u2013 \u201cofficial religion\u201d Oral Torah Orthodoxy explicitly permitted women to preform kosher slaughter [mHullin 1:1] long before the advent of Feminism or the Ashkenazi Orthodoxy that withdrew this Oral Torah license because \u201cit was the custom to not permit women to perform ritual slaughter\u201d [R. Isserles\u2019 gloss to\u00a0Shulhan Yoreh De\u2019ah\u00a0<\/em>1:1], allowing mimetic culture \u201ctradition\u201d to override the canonical Oral Torah Tradition.<\/p>\n At stake in this conflict is whether\u00a0Halakhah<\/em>\u00a0is a public and accessible law or the indeterminate rhetorical trove to which charismatic rabbis selectively refer in order to proclaim a non-contestable, apodictic, oracular norm.\u00a0 In other words, is the rabbi bound by the law or is the rabbi himself the law that binds?<\/p>\n There has been significant criticism of some modern Orthodox rabbis who do not to say the \u201cWho has not made me a woman\u201d morning benediction.\u00a0 I do say the benediction because Oral Torah Orthodoxy as I understand it so requires, it is recorded in the canon of Judaism\u2019s \u201cold time religion\u201d and that \u201cis good enough for me.\u201d But referring to such dissenting rabbis as heretics is also improper.\u00a0 \u00a0The Rabbis who oppose deleting the \u201cWho has not made me a woman\u201d benediction have no problem insisting [a] that the preliminary morning blessings be publicly recited in the synagogue in women\u2019s presence, itself a deviation from the Oral Law requirement that these blessings may be recited\u00a0only\u00a0<\/em>when the acts to which they refer are executed, [b] that women praise God \u201cWho has made me according to His will,\u201d a Talmudically unattested and therefore legally illegitimate, sexist \u201cbenediction\u201d first referenced in Abudarham, and [c] the blessing \u201cwho has not made me an ignorant person\u201d [she-lo \u2018asani Vor<\/em>][tBerachot 6:18] is also deleted.\u00a0 \u00a0If this latter benediction may, as in current, accepted practice, be deleted, the recital of the non-canonical \u201cWho has made me according to His will\u201d malediction is a far greater violation, deviation, and break with Oral Torah \u201cTradition.\u201d<\/p>\n pBerachot 7:3 and bYoma 69b<\/a>[1]<\/a>\u00a0report that the prophet Jeremiah was unwilling to proclaim God to be awesome because the First Temple was destroyed.\u00a0 Some might foolishly argue that what is permitted to Jeremiah is not permitted to contemporary Jewish plebes, like ourselves, who are not permitted to hold personal opinions.\u00a0 Although Jeremiah was a prophet and I suspect that most of us today are not, Jeremiah and we are bound by the exact same rules and are assessed by the Lawgiver by very same Torah benchmarks.<\/p>\n Finally, Abraham had the moral audacity\u2014and\u00a0religious<\/em>\u00a0probity\u2014to challenge God, \u201cwill the Judge of all the world not dispense justice,\u201d Who \u201cwill judge the judges\u201d if needed [Ruth Rabbah 1:1], and challenge would-be prophets and dreamers who falsely claim that God\u2019s word was given to them [Deut. 13:1-6].<\/p>\n First<\/em>, it\u00a0is<\/em>\u00a0permissible to disagree with the Sages. However, one must obey their rulings when they are issued by the\u00a0Bet Din ha-Gadol<\/em>, the\u00a0Halakhic\u00a0<\/em>Supreme Court.\u00a0 So when R. Joshua appeared in the Academy on the day that to his account was the Day of Atonement, walking stick and wallet in hand, as demanded by Rabban Gamaliel, he did nothing wrong at all. One commits the offense of being a\u00a0zaqen mamreh<\/em>, a rebellious judge, when a judge who is authorized to issue\u00a0hora\u2019ah,\u00a0<\/em>apodictic legal decrees, rules [a] that the\u00a0Bet Din ha-Gadol<\/em>\u00a0sitting in plenary session erred\u00a0and\u00a0<\/em>[b] one should follow in practice his alternative, dissenting, rejected minority opinion [bSanhedrin 14b]. There is no statute forbidding the expression of conscientious objection. Since God never claims sovereign immunity for Godself, latter day saintly rabbis may not claim that immunity for themselves, either.<\/p>\n When some Great Rabbis argue, as does\u00a0Mishnas Rabbi Aharon\u00a0<\/em>Kotler 3:153-155, that disagreeing with the Great Rabbis\u2019 intuitive opinion, that Torah law may be intuited by himself, that Orthodox rabbis who meet with non-Orthodox streams\u2019 rabbis are \u201ccounterfeiters of Torah\u201d and \u201chaters of God,\u201d they too are subject to review. Any 11th<\/sup>\u00a0grade yeshiva history student knows that the ancient Great Sanhedrin included both Oral Torah Pharisees as well as Oral Torah denying Sadducees as members, Alexandra Solomne was a female monarch approved by the Pharisees as the legitimate monarch, and the Pharisees, as noted above, did not outlaw political dissent as heresy\u00a0[mAvot 4:8] or demand that anyone\u2019s oracular demand be accepted uncritically [bBava Mezia 59b] without review.\u00a0 Accordingly, contemporary Great Rabbis formulate narratives that inform their\u00a0nomos<\/em>, their approach to Jewish law.\u00a0 Like Greek drama, where the audience hears but may not participate in a dialogue, and the written word cannot, indeed may not be parsed, many contemporary Orthodox Great Rabbis imply, like Nahmanides to Deuteronomy 30:12, that Israel\u2019s constitutional library is neither readable nor understandable and is applicable only by them. For Nahmanides, the principle that is not in Heaven is repentance; the Nahmanidean Torah\u00a0remains<\/em>\u00a0in Heaven for the Great Rabbi to explain. This opinion is incompatible with the canonical bBava Metsi\u2019a 59b, where it affirmed that it is God\u2019s Torah that, once given to Israel, is no longer in Heaven.<\/p>\n For folk religion Orthodoxy, valid opinions are not and may not be determined by reasoned hermeneutics; they must be approved by the Great Rabbis.\u00a0 No modern Orthodox rabbi possesses the\u00a0standing<\/em>\u00a0to have an opinion because his or her \u201cmodernity\u201d corrupts and disqualifies them as authentic Orthodox Jewish leaders.\u00a0 Therefore, it might be appropriate to violate a particular statute, like reciting a commandment blessing for\u00a0maror<\/em>\u00a0by eating horse- radish if Great Rabbis, Jewry\u2019s official mediators of \u201cTradition\u201d in both its social and legal iterations, give their approval.<\/p>\n These Great Rabbis do not tolerate dissent with their intuitive, divinely inspired, ideological Narrative, also known as\u00a0hashqofeh<\/em>, or world view.\u00a0 R. Elya Svei called the modern Orthodox Rabbi Norman Lamm an \u201cenemy of God,\u201d [http:\/\/research.policyarchive.org\/18230.pdf<\/a>], the\u00a0very<\/em>\u00a0same invective idiom employed by his own main mentor, R. Kotler. By slandering R. Lamm, R. Svei committed an act of\u00a0bizzui talmid hakham<\/em>, the disparaging of an otherwise learned and observant Orthodox Jew without convening a\u00a0bet din\u00a0<\/em>that would investigate the facts, hear what R. Lamm has to say in his defense, and explain what public\u00a0Halakhah\u00a0<\/em>memorialized in the Oral Torah canon was knowingly and brazenly violated by R. Lamm. R. Svei\u2019s disparaging denigration nullifies the\u00a0bona fides<\/em>\u00a0of the slanderer [bSanhedrin 99b] according to official religion Orthodox Jewish law. The failure of\u00a0Haredi\u00a0<\/em>Orthodoxy to judge its judges [Ruth Rabba 1:1] or charismatic leaders [Deuteronomy 13:1-6] renders its claim to exemplify \u201cTorah Judaism\u201d to be dubious indeed. There is after all only One Judge Who is entitled to judge alone without the parties\u2019 consent [mAvot 4:8], and this Judge isn\u2019t R. Svei.\u00a0 We recall that the great Rabban Gamaliel was deposed for treating R. Joshua with less than the requisite respect. Ironically, R. Lamm\u2019s immensely learned colleague, R. Herschel Schachter, applied R. Kotler\u2019s \u201ccounterfeiting of Torah\u201d idiom to outlaw women\u2019s prayer groups, [a] which happen to violate no explicit Oral Torah norm that R. Schachter cites, [b] which enjoys some pre-modern precedent, and [c] which asserts the undocumented privilege of the Great Sage to invent a legal rule of recognition that would the Great Sage to forbid otherwise permitted acts that violate his inspired sense of religious propriety, that challenge the social ethos, here called\u00a0Masora<\/em>, of the Orthodox Street [Nefesh ha-Rav<\/em>, p. 33].<\/p>\n Official religion Orthodoxy is bound by the Orthodox \u201cBook,\u201d the actual norms memorialized in the Oral Torah canon; real religion Orthodoxy is the Judaism of the Orthodox \u201cLook,\u201d the sacred semiotics of socially accepted gestures of studied parochial \u201cotherness,\u201d signified by beards, black hats, felt or cloth skullcaps, ear locks, and\u00a0kapoteh<\/em>s.\u00a0None<\/em>\u00a0of these ritual accessories are mandated formal Jewish Law, and mMo\u2019ed Qatan<\/em>\u00a03:1 even permits shaving on the intermediate festival day for those men for whom circumstances prevented them from shaving before the holiday began.\u00a0 But reciting blessings undocumented in the Oral Torah, pretending that horseradish is\u00a0maror<\/em>\u00a0by prefacing its consumption with a faulty commandment blessing, and misguiding women to proclaim they accept their substandard female station violate explicit Oral Torah norms. Sanctity for the Orthodoxy of the Jewish \u201cLook\u201d is celebrated by its countercultural otherness; for the Orthodoxy of the Jewish \u201cBook,\u201d sanctity is generated by conformity to the Oral Law.\u00a0 These are two competing, robust contenders for the mantle of authentic \u201cOrthodoxy.\u201d Which Orthodoxy will observe\u00a0all<\/em>\u00a0of the Torah\u2019s rules, advance its vision in conformity with those rules, or reconstruct and misrepresent the rules in order to prevail over their competition?\u00a0 The people of Israel and the God of Israel are the referees. The conflict will be for the sake of Heaven if and only if the conflict takes place according to the rules recorded in the Torah that is from but no longer in Heaven. Hillel\u2019s view prevailed over Shammai\u2019s because his deportment was more pleasant.\u00a0 Contemporary Orthodoxy will be judged by its manners regarding dissent. Rabbis do have the right to be wrong; they do not have a right to be rude [Maimonides,\u00a0De\u2019ot<\/em>. 5:1].<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>[1]<\/a>\u00a0Hahkam Isaac Sassoon<\/a>\u00a0discusses bYoma 69b at pages xxxiii-xxxvi of\u00a0Siddur Alats Libi<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n Contemporary Orthodox culture and classical \u201cOrthodox\u201d Judaism, the anachronistic name that I assign to the religion that is encoded in the Rabbinic religious literary canon, are two different albeit overlapping Judaisms.\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":17,"featured_media":2560,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[85,82,95,113,134,101,78,138,76],"tags":[],"coauthors":[86],"class_list":["post-2559","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-denominations","category-halakhah","category-halakhah-modern-judaism","category-holidays","category-holidays-2","category-life-cycle","category-modern-judaism","category-passover","category-womens-forum"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/utj.org\/viewpoints\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2559","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/utj.org\/viewpoints\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/utj.org\/viewpoints\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/utj.org\/viewpoints\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/17"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/utj.org\/viewpoints\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2559"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/utj.org\/viewpoints\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2559\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2566,"href":"https:\/\/utj.org\/viewpoints\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2559\/revisions\/2566"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/utj.org\/viewpoints\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2560"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/utj.org\/viewpoints\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2559"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/utj.org\/viewpoints\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2559"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/utj.org\/viewpoints\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2559"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/utj.org\/viewpoints\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=2559"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n
\n
\n