Our Toddler/Their Toddler My God/Your God, Aylan Kurdi and Ki Tavo

Aylan Kurdi with dad and brother

The image of the little boy, Aylan Kurdi, washed up on the beach and his cruel avoidable death calls out accusingly like the blood of the murdered Biblical Abel. God said to Cain “The blood of your brother is screaming to me”. 1 While responding to the immediate catastrophe is vital, we must also consider the factors that are inhibiting a compassionate response. One of these is a sense of that the desperate refugees are the other.

One of the markers of otherness is the belief that ‘the other’ worships a false God. Some people talk about the “Christian God” and how this differs from the “Muslim God Allah”. One man wrote on Facebook, without giving the context 2 of his citation of a fragment of Islamic scripture, “surely those Gods are not the same. One God is said to be about forgiveness and one is about cutting heads!” Religious competition is an old practice. One Torah text talks about ‘making known the difference between the true God who desires loving kindness and the false gods who desire wickedness’. 3

Difference of belief does not need to divide people. This week an Anglican Bishop, a Muslim Sheikh and I chatted and laughed about who is going to hell according to which faith. Yet despite our good time I am concerned that some people who believe that others worship a ‘cruel god’ might not care as much about the suffering of the ‘cruel-god-worshipers’ as they do about people who, like them, are saved and aligned with the good God. Is there a connection between an ‘us and them’ orientation and the fact that Aylan’s death has prompted one politician to comment that this doesn’t happen in Australia because “we stopped the boats”, instead of offering assistance?

Children sometimes ask the Together For Humanity teams of Christians, Muslims and Jews that visit their schools whether we all believe in the same God. I used to think that each of us could say something about our belief in an invisible God-creator who expects us to behave with care toward our fellow humans before the Christian would add something about his belief in Jesus. My incorrect or incomplete understanding of this was that Christians’ belief about God, the creator, was similar to mine but they think that at one point in time this God decided ‘to engage in some sort of “partnership” 4 with a human named Jesus. This simplistic view fails to account for the belief in a trinity beyond the limitations of time that was explained to me by the Bishop this week. Perhaps it is not that easy to answer a simple question about who does or does not believe in the same god.

The Anglican Bishop asserted that the term "Christian God" is wrong. "God does not belong to any religion! We belong to him, not he to us. There is only one God. A term like Christian God can even be idolatry. God is not a thing or a being.  We can have very different understandings about God, like different people might have ways of describing the same distant aunt that are so different from each other, that it sounds like they are talking about different people, although they are actually talking about the same person. And yet maybe sometimes we do get to the point where we are no longer describing the one God differently but in effect now talking about different Gods altogether. Only one of which is real”. 5

In my own tradition there are many references to the God of Israel, God of Abraham or in the ritual of bringing a first fruit offering, we have a formula by which God is referred to by the Israelite farmer as “your God” when speaking to the priest. 6 This does not mean that God is owned by the priest, nor is He owned by Israel, but rather that there is a relationship between the priest, Abraham or Israel with the one unknowable God. 7

Regardless of our beliefs about who is worshiping correctly, we must cross the barriers of “us” and
“them” through the practice of compassion. The horrific images on our computer screens are the living hell that our fellow humans are going through that echo the words of our reading this week: “You will be only wronged and crushed all the days… You will grope at midday, as the blind man gropes in the dark …You will be only oppressed and robbed all the days, and no one will save”. 8 But we can change the last words in the sentence, someone must save! That someone is us.

Notes:
1.    Genesis 4:10
2.    Context was explained in a response by Sheikh Soner Coruhlu “this is in response to those who did their utmost to bring pain and suffering to the newly established Muslim community. They were vulnerable and instead of being nurtured they were tortured, persecuted, starved, and even killed for nothing other than believing in One Deity as opposed to the hundreds the idol worshippers believed in at that time.
It is not unlike Exodus 32:33 where the Almighty decrees quite clearly that He will blot those out who has sinned against Him. The punishment is also mentioned herein.
When we look at the context, we can see in both instances, that punishment is implied to evil doers and those that spread corruption and tyranny on the land. Who take advantage of the poor and destitute, steal what little belongs to the orphans, and indulges oneself in an almost animal like manner in order to satiate their desires even at the pain and suffering of others. Even Muslims fall into the trap of being picky with verses and use such verses with general application. Thus, such individuals partake in what we call selective retrieval in order to implement desired ideologies”.
3.    Rabbi Moshe Dovid Valli, (1696-1777) Mishne Torah page 243 on Deuteronomy 23:16
4.    One word in Jewish traditional sources to make sense of Christian beliefs in a trinity is שיטוף “Shituf” which means partnership
5.    My recollection of a conversation with Bishop Robert Forsyth that was cleared with him in a follow up email on the same day, both on 1 September 2015
6.    Deuteronomy 26:3
7.    Torah Temima on Deuteronomy 26:3
8.    Deuteronomy 28

Christian Jewish Spiritual Connections and Barriers

Photo by Doug Sewell

I was inspired and spiritually nourished this weekend at an Anabaptist conference/retreat. This is not a sentiment I would have dreamed, just a few ago, that I would ever write. In this post I reflect on the possibility of deep Christian-Jewish spiritual connection and conversation, my experience at the conference and how this relates to my own traditions particularly in the reading this week which includes the Ten Commandments. One obvious question relates to Christians beliefs about God and Jesus. I deliberately start with other matters, before addressing this.

The non-negotiable worth of every human being

At the conference the Multi-Faith panel was asked a question about condoning sin.  Dave Andrews, a Christian Panelist, told a story about traveling to Cambodia and seeing sex tourists there for the purpose of exploiting young local girls and his anger about this. He felt like taking an AK47 and shooting them all. When he arrived back in Australia a woman asked him to counsel her husband who was one of these sex tourists. For Dave this was a terrible predicament, how could he empathize with someone toward whom he felt disgust and outrage. Yet as a Christian he felt he must be there for this man. After much prayer and internal struggle to be true to the teachings of his faith and the example of Jesus he was able to care about him and hear his story. In the end this man who seemed repulsive told Dave his own story about how he was abused as a child, hates himself for what he was doing in Cambodia and was very eager for therapy to help him stop, which he went on to pursue.

This story has many levels and it is beyond the scope of this “blog post” to explore the terrible problem of sexual abuse itself and the proper responses to it. I was simply moved by Dave’s living out his Christian faith in his compassion for a person he found it very hard to look at, never mind love.

The idea of the worth of every person is not unique to one faith.  if I were faced with a dilemma with a bad person, my response to it would not be thinking about tax collectors and lepers; I think I would  instead draw on Beruria’s principle that “it is written may sins be destroyed [i]- rather than the sinner[ii]”. The context of Beruria’s statement was a problem with a group of thugs in her neighborhood which caused her husband, Rabbi Meir, a great deal of trouble. Rabbi Meir prayed that they should die. His wife Beruria persuaded him to differentiate between sins and sinners and pray for the elimination of the former. Her husband did pray for them, and they repented.

In our reading this week there is  further inspiration to be drawn from the order of the Ten Commandments which is seen as significant. Five commandments were on each of the two tablets, this means that number 1, “I am Y-K-V-K[iii] your God…” appears next to commandment #6, thou shalt not murder, because these two commandments are linked, to suggest that “spilling blood” is an offense against God himself just as smashing the statutes of a king or destroying his coins might be[iv]. This can be seen in the language of the Torah “One who spills blood…because in the image of God, He made man[v]”. Applied more broadly it is about the intrinsic non-negotiable value of every human being. Dave’s showing love to this man resonated for me because it echoed compassionate teachings in my own tradition but I was also moved by the power of his own beliefs and stories playing out in his heroic struggle.  

A Farbrengen with Christians

After the formal session I sat down at an outdoor table next to Dave Andrews. He is a man with a medium length white beard and very long hair, big glasses and a giant spirit. Slowly, we were joined by one man, then another, and another; eventually first one woman then a second also joined our previously all-male circle. The dynamic was similar to when an elder Chasid would sit down with a few others to tell stories and reflect, they would attract younger Chasidim around them to drink in the words and the spirit. There was usually some vodka on the table, which would be sipped with the word “Lchaim” to life and good wishes. This kind of gathering is what Chasidim call a Farbrengen. The difference was that this time the elder Chasid was not Jewish -  he described himself as a follower of Jesus.

Do Not “Murder”, killing on the other hand…

Dave wanted to know what the biggest dividing element between us was. It was a stream of consciousness kind of discussion rather than a formal debate or lecture. I reflected that the insistence on non-violence was a sticking point for me. The sixth commandment is often translated as “thou shalt not kill”. Yet the Hebrew words לֹא תִּרְצָח lo tirtzaḥ, are more accurately translated as thou shalt not murder.  In my tradition, despite the great value placed on peace, violence is  sometimes justified in the pursuit of justice and its defense. While I appreciate the radical transformational potential of an insistence of the sacredness and dignity of all people, I struggle with the idea that the allied soldiers who defeated Hitler could be seen as sinful. Dave was particularly surprised by my answer. Was it not the idea of a man being God that would be the biggest problem?

Polytheism and the Jesus of Jarrod

Christian beliefs about the divinity of Jesus are a barrier for me. The idea of God incarnated as a human being does not sit well with my idea of what God is and I do not agree with it. Yet it is a known difference and one that for me is not a very important issue.

There is a Jewish authority that ruled that Christianity is not considered idol worship for a non-Jew because it recognises God. There are various teaching in Judaism that explore divine expression that go beyond the formula of the one invisible, indescribable, omnipresent, omnipotent creator God. We have Kabalistic teachings about divine expressions in human-like emotions such as  kindness or (the drive to) victory.  We are taught that the Shechinah spoke through the throat of Moses[vi]. The Soul that God blew into Adam is believed to be a part of God himself[vii]. For me the nature of God is mysterious. When I approach God in prayer, I am talking to the “God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob” as they understood Him, but I am also talking to “the God of my Fathers[viii]”), which to me includes God as understood by my German-culture-loving great grandfather Dr. Armin, my Slovak-shopkeeper-great- great grandfather Aaron, my Torah- focused-scholar grandfather, Rabbi Moshe Yehuda, my devout American mother and my  father ; all these differ. Mostly I try to pray according to “the mind of the young child[ix]”, suspending all speculation. 

My greater problem with idol worship is when it leads us away from God and his demands of us, quite the opposite of what I witnessed at the conference. I see in people like Dave and my friend Jarrod McKenna a different Jesus, a Rebbe-like figure who calls them to compassion and struggle.

The second commandment states: There should not be for you, other gods[x]...” In Hebrew the words Lo Yi-hih-yeh, that mean there should not be, is a singular form, yet the instruction is about many Gods so it should really say Lo Yi-Hih-Yu, (plural). This suggests that Idol worship draws the worshipper in, even if at first the intention was to have one idol, in the end s/he will worship many[xi]. This reminds me of the comment by a psychiatrist, obviously not very impressed with self-help books, that you will never find just one self-help book on someone’s shelf, there will always be many, presumably because they all hold out the false promise of some great relief to life’s challenges but in the end don’t satisfy the reader who goes on to seek a fix elsewhere. I am sure this is not the case for all readers of these books, but I think there is a common thread about seeking escape from the anxiety caused by uncertainty in something concrete that we can hold or read and feel like we have something to hold on to. Similarly, idol worship is worst when it leads us away from the challenge to which God calls us.

Supersession vs Neighbourliness and Collegiality

I asked participants at the conference whether they believed that Judaism had been superseded by Christianity, in the way that a 386 computer is essentially obsolete because we now have faster, better machines. There was some thoughtful discussion about this. I think the key was that they were most interested in the teachings of Jesus as one prophetic teacher and inspiring figure alongside Moses or others rather than the founder of a new religion or brand to compete with “Brand Judaism”. While we are all interested in truth, the focus is more on how we live truthfully than how to assert truth claims over other claims. Quite different to the sorting approach of sifting through falsehood to find the Truth that is reflected in our Torah reading where we read about Jethro exploring all known forms of worship known in his time to reject them all and convert to Judaism[xii]. More like an argument between fellow Chasidim about whose Rebbe is the true Messiah and which teachings are most worth following. Whatever the case might be about supersessionism elsewhere, on Sunday I felt completely at home, accepted as a fellow seeker of God’s way to peace and neighbourliness. Lchaim, to life.

---

[i] Psalm 104:35

[ii] Beruria was one of the great wise woman of Jewish tradition, she was the wife of Rabbi Meir, Talmud: Tractate Berachot, 10a

[iii] Because of the holiness of this name, the letter Hay, is pronounced as “K”. It is written properly in a Torah scroll or Chumash

[iv] Mechilta, cited in Torah Shlaima p.100

[v] Genesis 9:6

[vi] Tikunei Zohar 38

[vii] Tanya 1

[viii] The Amida prayer, blessing 1

[ix] Derech Mitzvosecha Mitzvat Tefilah

[x] Exodus 20:3

[xi] Ohr Hachayim

[xii] Mechilta

Choosing to Trust in God and Interfaith

Image by Phauly, Creative Commons License,
some rights reserved
http://www.flickr.com/photos/phauly/

There is a myth about trust that it is just the natural consequence of a series of events that prove that someone is trustworthy. I think trust is about making a choice to trust someone or a group, it is given not just earned.  In our teachings about our relationship with God, this approach plays out and I think it has application to interfaith relationships as well.

One of the great challenges of our time is the relationship between Muslims and Non-Muslims and more broadly between people who have strong differences of belief. This is largely driven by generalising  specific issues  relating to some people, attitudes or events,  with the groups as a whole, as has been well articulated by Walid Aly[i].

Trust as a choice

One key idea is that trust is demanded, withholding is insulting. I always think of the teenager who screams at his mother, YOU DON’T TRUST ME, before slamming the door. I wondered about that. Why is that an accusation? If your mother doesn’t trust you doesn’t that mean that you have failed to earn her trust?! Clearly that’s not how it works. We can see that when a desperate parent will suddenly trust a child who recently got their driver’s license more if they urgently need him/her to run an errand such as pick up something from the shops before the guests arrive. 

The challenge of trust

Personal experiences and news stories from around the world and those horrible hate filled e-mails give plenty of reasons not to put my trust in my Muslim neighbour. A blood soaked history of Christian persecution of Jews as well as significant competition of ideas stand in the way of trusting my Christian neighbour.

Christianity grew out of Judaism and it is fair to say that some Christians would see their path as having superseded Pharisaic?  Judaism. Yet, I am a proud Pharisee Jew, explicitly so at least once a week, when almost every Sabbath I eat a hot Pharisee food called Tchulent to declare my agreement with the Pharisees in an intra-faith dispute from the time of Jesus. There was a view put that on the Sabbath we must eat cold food because of the prohibition against lighting a fire, but the Pharisees insisted that fire can be lit before the Sabbath and the food left on the fire. Yet this is the world of Rabbinic Judaism that Christianity rejected. As a Tchulent eater, am I supposed to pretend that we are all on the same page?

Enemies

In Jewish tradition there is some quite harsh things written about enemies. This Saturday we will read how in the aftermath of an attack by Amalek following the Exodus from Egypt God commands Moses to write it down as a remembrance, put it into the handover file in the ears of Joshua, that God will erase the memory of Amalek from under the heavens…a divine war against Amalek for generations[ii], until the time of the Messiah[iii].

This Sunday I will be speaking at an Anabaptist conference in response to some pretty provocative ideas on the theme of peace building Of course my audience on Sunday believes that the Messiah has already come, and the time for hating enemies has past. Can I trust them to respect me despite my belief that the Messiah is not here yet? Can the people who have been taught one must love their enemies and those who have been merely taught to love their friends, really trust and respect each other?

Leap of Faith  

I think faith in interfaith can draw some inspiration from the way tradition teach us about faith in God. In our reading this week, the Israelites are both praised for their willingness to take a leap of faith “your following Me in the desert, in a land not sown[iv]” and found wanting because of the weakness of their faith. God does not take them the direct route to the Promised Land because God thinks they might change their mind when they see war with the Canaanites and will simply return to Egypt[v]. This is the same God who decreed that they would be enslaved for generations in Egypt and has only now freed them. This is also the same God many Israelites were disappointed in when things got worse before they got better when Moses first approached Pharaoh. Surely God needs to build some trust first. Apparently not.

God gets more demanding. When the Israelites find themselves with the sea in front of them and the Egyptians behind them some cry out to God[vi], others[vii] believing they are facing imminent death, they lash out at Moses. Moses quickly tries to reassure the people then begins praying himself. God is not interested in prayers. He tells Moses “why do you cry to me? speak to the Israelites and they should travel![viii]” But travel to where? Walk into the sea? The answer is yes. They were expected to show absolute trust in God and simply walk into the sea with confidence that it will turn out ok. Commentary suggests that it is only through this act of faith that they will earn the miracle of the sea splitting[ix]. We are taught that in fact one man named Nachshon does exactly that. He jumps into the sea and that is when it splits.

Jumping in to Interfaith with my inspiring friends

Interfaith needs an element of Nachshon. All the arguments and differences both significant and trivial can be managed. What is required is good faith and a willingness to choose trust. For me this is not always easy, but it is easier than for most. This is because of my friendship with some amazingly inspiring people of sincere good will. I won’t mention all, but I am looking forward to catching up with some of them on Sunday.

---

[i] Aly, W. (2007). People Like Us. How Arrogance is Dividing Islam and the West. Melbourne: Picador-Pan Macmillan

[ii] Exodus 17:14-16

[iii] Targum Yonatan ben Uziel

[iv] Jeremiah 2:2

[v] Exodus 13:17

[vi] Exodus 14:10-12

[vii] Ramban points out that there were two groups

[viii] Exodus 14:15

[ix] Ohr Hachayim

Revenge, Torah and Christianity

Anger, By Shubhojoy Mitra, creative commons license
http://www.cyberartgallery.org/?gallery=portal

The movie Ajami is an Israeli-Palestinian co-production that for me is about the heartbreaking cost of revenge. Much of the plot is driven by two Arabic teenagers, one a gentle sweet faced boy of around 14 who is a bit of an artist, and their family being pursued by a Bedouin crime family bent on avenging the death of one of theirs, unless they receive a financially crippling payment of blood money. An Israeli character also has his own vengeance to attend to after his soldier-brother is found dead near a Palestinian village. I empathised with both the Israeli and Arabic characters, portrayed as every day human beings who deeply love their families. Apart from humanising protagonists from both sides, my overwhelming impression was of the horrible needless suffering directly flowing from the perceived for some kind of vengeance.

I wonder if my low tolerance for revenge is the result of Christian influences on me, particularly from a young devout Christian peace builder I greatly admire named Jarrod McKenna. I remember when I first started work as a Rabbi 15 years ago, I was teaching a young adult about divine retribution as one of the themes the Friday night prayers. At the time, I thought this idea of divine justice was quite beautiful, righting the wrongs of the world. My student challenged me, would it not be better if at the end of days no one suffered? I remember reflecting on how different my perspective had been to that of my student who was raised with more exposure to Christian and secular influences.

These influences have been blocked out to some extent in the Hasidic community in Crown Heights that I was raised in. One on level it is fair enough for communities to stay true to their own teachings, the question is how to do that while fostering respectful interfaith relationships. The International Council of Christians and Jews’ called on Jewish communities to include basic and accurate background information about Christianity in the Curricula of Jewish schools[i]. In my very orthodox Chasidic community this is simply not going to happen.  I will not argue about the core objection to learning about other faiths generally, except to share what I was told by Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks[ii] that schools could teach about other faiths in the same way as one learns about other cultures.

This post looks at Torah sources about revenge and considers the Jewish- Christian relationship in that light.  

Prohibition of revenge and promotion of forgiveness

The verse “an eye for an eye[iii]” is not about revenge but monetary compensation[iv]. Revenge and even holding a grudge is forbidden in the text of the Torah[v]. One way to overcome the urge for revenge is by considering a case of a person cutting meat that accidentally cuts his arm, would he then take revenge and cut the hand that was holding the knife[vi]?! Faith can help a person see the hand of God in the offence, and this can help him not bear a grudge against the person who ‘acts as God’s tool’[vii].  This is dramatically played out in the story of Joseph when he insists on not holding a grudge against his brothers who sold him into slavery because he sees it all as fulfilment of God’s plan so that he could save many lives during the famine in Egypt[viii]. In the prayers before going to sleep, we proclaim forgiveness for anyone who sinned against me… in this life or another life…no one should be punished on my account[ix]. 

Permission and even encouragement of revenge

The teachings against revenge need to be considered alongside other guidance such as the clear instructions to take revenge against Midiyan[x] and never to forget the evil deeds of Amalek who attacked you us when we were vulnerable[xi]. This apparent contradiction is probably the reason the Talmud gives a very mundane example to illustrate this principle, a case of two people who want to borrow tools from each other. Refusal to lend a tool should not be reciprocated or even mentioned[xii]. The definition is narrowed to exclude cases of in which there is a monetary obligation[xiii], or in offenses against one’s body where there has been no apology[xiv], or murder in which case the relative would be encouraged to “redeem the blood” of his relative by killing his relatives killer with permission of the court[xv]. Scholars are encouraged to stand up against people who disrespect them, one sage going so far as to state that any sage that does not take revenge and hold a grudge like a snake is no scholar[xvi].  This has been explained as being about disrespect of the Torah the stage studied. Even God himself is portrayed (in addition to compassionate etc) as a God of vengeance[xvii]. One explanation of this is that God conquers anger while in a person who takes revenge the anger will conquer him[xviii].

Another consideration is that the prohibition of revenge refers explicitly to “the sons of your nation” and is understood to apply only between Jews[xix]. One argument by an East European commentator of the 16^th early 17^th century is that “disputes between Jews will typically be about unimportant offenses relating to money or body that don’t merit revenge but when revenge is permitted against someone from another nation because typically he wants to cause you to transgress the commandments of God and to lead you astray from God”[xx].  In his context that was probably true, yet it is ridiculous and highly offensive not to recognise the change of heart and efforts of Christians in the 2^nd half of the 20^th century toward reconciliation with the Jews.

A bold idea, embracing enemies

My Christian friend Jarrod is into radical peace building. He is not a saint and felt plenty of anger when a man he knew was murdered. Yet he believes that he is called to love his enemies. The Truth and Reconciliation process in South Africa seems to be an example of the value of that kind of approach. While not the same, parallel teaching can be found in Judaism. Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi famously warned his followers about his opponents known as Mitnagdim who framed him and caused him to be imprisoned in Czarist Russia. He called on his followers not to “jeer nor whistle derisively at them, heaven forfend… (instead to respond to their opponents)… with “a soft answer [that] turns away anger[xxi],” and with a restrained spirit. And through all that, perhaps God will put [a conciliatory and loving response] into the heart of their brethren”[xxii] God tells the offended party, “let your love for me overcome the hatred you have with him and through this peace will come between you[xxiii] and in another version,” let your love with him” presumably the one who hurt you, overcome the hatred…so that peace will come to the world[xxiv]”.

Conclusion

As a Jew, I still see some merit in the arguments that retribution has its place. There is a reason for the presence of this device in so many cultures. There are flawed human beings who will only restrain their unsavoury impulses out of fear of punishment[xxv]. While my tradition provides a mix of ideas about how to respond to grievances, I think in many cases it is worth emphasising the more generous teachings and applying them to people regardless of race or religion. Yet, there is something to be admired in the bold, positive, “game changing” approach of Christians to their enemies that can be supported by teachings within my own tradition.

---

[i] A time for recommitment, the twelve points of Berlin: A call to Christian and Jewish communities worldwide

[ii] Conversation I had with the Chief Rabbi at a private visit in his home March 2011

[iii] Exodus 21:24

[iv] Mechilta on Exodus and the Talmud in Ketuvot 32b and Bava Kamma 83b

[v] Leviticus 19:17

[vi] Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 9:4

[vii] Sefer Hachinuch Mitzvah 247, Tanya: Igeret HaKodesh - Epistle 25

[viii] Genesis 50:20

[ix] Siddur Tehilat Hashem p.141

[x] Number 31:2

[xi] Deuteronomy 25:17-19

[xii] Talmud Yoma 23a

[xiii] Ramban

[xiv] Hizkuni 19:17

[xv] Ramban

[xvi] Talmud Yoma 23a, commentary then softens it to say that the sage holds a grudge but does not fight back, he simply keeps it in his heart and then if someone else takes revenge on his behalf the sage is silent

[xvii] Psalms 94:1

[xviii] Hizkuni on

[xix] Kohelet Rabba 88:8

[xx] Klei Yakar, by Shlomo Ephraim ben Aaron Luntschitz (1550 –1619)

[xxi] Proverbs 15:1

[xxii] Tanya Igeret Hakodesh 2, translation from Chabad.org

[xxiii] Bchor shor

[xxiv] Hizkuni

[xxv] Pirkey Avot 3:2