Any advertisements appearing above this line are inserted by "tripod", please IGNORE them
The Scriptural position on "atonement"
by Prof. Mordochai ben-Tziyyon, Universitah Ha'ivrit, Y'rushalayim
Scriptural references in this article refer to the Hebrew Scriptures or T'nach and use the Hebrew names of the books. Almost all of the references cited are in the five books of Torah, which are conventionally named by their opening words, i.e. בְּרֵאשִׁית B'réshit, שְׁמוֹת Sh'mot, וַיִּקְרָא Vayikra, בְּמִדְבָּר B'midbar, דְּבָרִים D'varim - readers who are not yet familiar with the Hebrew names of the books are advised to learn them now before proceeding any further.
Important general comment about sacrifices
"Atonement" by sacrifice
But what happens when there is no Temple?
What is "repentance" and how does one do it?
Is there any Scriptural evidence that God would ever accept, or even want, a human sacrifice?
"agnus dei qui tolis peccata mundi"???
Law is an exceedingly complex subject (ask any lawyer!) and an article such as this could never be a complete statement of what the Hebrew Scriptures teach on the topic of atonement - that would fill many huge volumes. My intention here is to provide just a general summary of the basic principles, of which christian "teachings" give a totally distorted and misleading impression.
It should be appreciated that the Torah that God gave to Yisraél establishes a the basis of a legal system with a fundamental set of laws (traditionally held to include 248 mandatory and 365 prohibitive commandments, making a total of 613). Many of the Torah's laws are explicitly stated to be "eternal statutes", i.e. laws intended to remain in force for ever, and the great majority of the laws are addressed exclusively to Yisraél and to no other nation, so the claim often made by christians that they are "no longer under the Law" is absurd: in the first place christians are not part of the Yisraél nation and so were never subject to most of the Torah's laws anyway, and secondly, without laws to govern human behaviour and to determine which actions are acceptable and which are unacceptable, civilisation as we know it would degenerate into chaos - how is anyone to know what a "sin" is if there is no law to define it? Or do they think they are above the Law?
"It is no longer necessary to obey God's laws," christians tell us, "you only have to 'love' Him". But they never specify how one is supposed to show this "love" for God. The Torah, however, does tell us how we are to "love" God---
"So now, Yisraél - what does Adonai your God ask of you? only this: to respect Adonai your God by following all His ways and to love and serve Adonai your God with all your heart and all your being by keeping Adonai's commandments and laws that I am commanding you today..." (D'varim 10:12-13)
One should never lose sight of the fact that the Torah was intended to provide the framework for a practical legal system under which Yisraél was to be governed. Mosheh was even commanded to appoint שֹׁפְטִים וְשֹׁטְרִים shoftim v'shotrim ("judges and policemen") to enforce the law (D'varim 16:18). In any practical legal system, laws specify what each person is required to do (for example, paying his taxes) and what he is not allowed to do (murdering, stealing etc), and penalties are prescribed for those who break the law (such as paying a fine or serving a term of imprisonment). A person who has been convicted of a crime and has either paid his fine or served his term of imprisonment is deemed to have "paid his debt to society" and is no longer considered as having "guilt" for whatever crime he committed.
Torah law is no different in this respect. Several different types of punishment are prescribed for different types of offence: by far the most common is a "fine", in the form of an offering that the guilty person was required to bring to the Temple; more serious offenders could be sentenced to flogging (D'varim 25:1-3) and the most serious crimes (such as: murder, holding a kidnapped person to ransom, adultery, public violation of Shabbat law and homosexual acts) were punished by execution. One extraordinary passage prescribes the penalty of mutilation for a woman who intervenes in a fight between her husband and another man by grabbing the second man by his genitals to stop him hurting her husband: "you shall cut off her hand, don't show her any pity" (D'varim 25:11-12), but the Synhedrion shrank from the literal reading and substituted a financial penalty in place of such a barbaric mutilation.
There is another similarity between Torah law and modern (western) jurisprudence. In modern law, the prosecution must prove that the defendent accused of a crime had mens rea (Latin, literally "guilty mind", that is to say it must be proved that he had the intention to commit the crime) in addition to showing that he committed the actus reus (Latin, literally "guilty act"). For example, in English law "murder" is defined as the unlawful killing of another person "with malice aforethought" - this quaint and archaic legalistic jargon means a premeditated ("thought about beforehand") wrongful intention. If "malice aforethought" cannot be proved, the crime committed will generally be "manslaughter" (or "second degree homicide" in the USA) rather than murder (yes, I know that's an over-simplification, but I am trying to make a point). The Torah draws precisely the same distinction between a premeditated and planned homicide and one that was not premeditated - see B'midbar 35:9-34 and D'varim 19:4-7, 19:11-13.
The issue of intention arises again and again in Torah law. As we will see in the following paragraphs, the animal-offering "fines" that had to be paid by individuals who had committed various offences were only applicable to unintentional infringements. This principle is reinforced in the Mishnah in the very last paragraph of Treatise Yoma, which deals with Yom Kippur (the "Atonement Day")---
If a person says "I will sin and I will repent, and then I will sin and I will repent again", his "repentance" will not have any effect.
If he says "I will sin and Yom Kippur will atone for me", then Yom Kippur will not atone for his sin... (Mishnah, Treatise Yoma, ch. 8, para. 9)
Important general comment about sacrifices
Since this article must of necessity deal with the topic of animal sacrifice, let me start by mentioning that whatever else may be commanded, there is one overriding provision that applies to all sacrifices, namely---
Adonai spoke to Mosheh and said: Speak to Aharon and his sons, and to all the Yisraélite people, and say "This is what Adonai has commanded: 'If any Yisraélite man slaughters an ox, or a lamb, or a young goat [as a sacrifice] anywhere either inside the camp or outside the camp instead of bringing it to the Temple entrance to be offered before Adonai's Shrine, that man will be held guilty of [unlawful] killing - he has shed blood [unlawfully] and he will be cut off from his nation'." (Vayikra 17:1-4)
In other words, sacrifices may only be performed in one centralised location and, if that is impossible (as it is at the present time when no centralised location exists for performing them), then the offering of sacrifices is forbidden.
"Atonement" by sacrifice
Specific details concerning the laws of sacrificing are contained in the first few chapters of the book Vayikra. Chapter 1 deals with the law of the olah or "burnt offering" (called a "holocaust" in some some very old books), a type of animal offering that was burned in its entirety on the Great Altar (the meat of the majority of animal offerings was eaten by the kohanim or "priests", and only small parts of their offals were actually burned on the Altar). Three different types of olah sacrifice are described in this chapter: cattle (verses 1-9), smaller animals, i.e. sheep and goats (verses 10-13), and fowls (verses 14-17).
Offering an olah sacrifice had the effect of obtaining "forgiveness" for a person who had "sinned" in certain circumstances (Vayikra 1:4), but this did not apply to all offences - the Torah prescribes specific penalties for many types of offence in the places where they are detailed. Thus, for example, a thief who stole farmyard livestock and slaughtered or sold it was required to repay five equivalent animals for every beef and four for every sheep or goat that he stole (Sh'mot 21:37), and was "forgiven" for committing the theft after paying his "fine" - he was not required to offer any animal sacrifice at all. This is exactly the sentence passed by King David on the fictitious "man" in Natan's parable (see Sh'muél Beit 12:1-6, and note that David does not actually sentence the "man" to death in verse 5, because the crime of stealing livestock does not carry the death-penalty - he merely remarks indignantly that the "man" deserved to die because of his heartlessness). Incidentally, David did suffer the "sentence" that he unwittingly passed on himself - he "lost" four of his own children (one of them in an allegoric sense): the baby that he conceived with Bat-Sheva while she was still technically married to Uriyyah died (Sh'muél Beit 12:18), his daughter Tamar was raped by her half-brother Amnon (13:14), Amnon himself was subsequently killed (13:29), and so was Avshalom (18:15).
It is important to understand that even in those cases where no specific penalty is prescribed and an olah was appropriate, it was the penitent's act of bringing the offering (equivalent to paying his "fine") that resulted in him being "forgiven" for the offence he had committed, and not the animal's death or its "blood". It is common for christians to cite just part of Vayikra 17:11 and claim that this verse "says" that blood-sacrifice is the only way "atonement" can be accomplished; however, Vayikra 17:11 is a continuation of the previous verse which deals with the absolute prohibition against eating blood and merely adds
"....for an animal's life is in its blood and so I have reserved it for you to be applied to the Altar to make atonement for your souls, because [an animal's] blood can make atonement for a person"
from which it is apparent that an animal's blood only "makes atonement" when it is "applied to the Altar".
Chapter 2 of Vayikra is one that christians studiously ignore because it doesn't fit into their ideology at all - it deals with bloodless flour (or "meal") offerings. Four types of flour-offering are mentioned:
These are followed by some general regulations applicable to all flour-offerings, namely that no flour-offering may be "leavened" or mixed with fruit-juice (verse 11) - although verse 12 provides that such things may be offered as bikkurim (the first part of a harvest that the farmer was required to bring to the Temple as an offering) - and that every flour-offering had to be accompanied by salt (verse 13) - and the chapter ends with with some specific provisions relating to the first omer of barley (a dry measure equal to about 2.8 litres, 4.9 imperial pints or 5.9 US pints) that Yisraél was commanded to cut at the conclusion of the first festival day of Pesaḥ, to be presented to God the following morning as a t'nufah (a type of offering that the kohén would "wave" over the Altar) - see Vayikra 23:15, D'varim 16:9.
Chapter 3 deals with voluntary sh'lamim offerings (sometimes called "peace-offerings"): these offerings have no conection at all with atonement for sins, so we need not discuss them in any detail here, except to mention that the blood of these sacrificial animals, too, had to be applied to the Altar, even though they had nothing to do with atonement.
Chapters 4 & 5 deal with two different types of offering that are connected with atonement: ḥata't or "sin sacrifice" (ch.4) and asham or "guilt sacrifice" (ch.5). Both are appropriate only in respect of violations committed unintentionally; the defiant and wilful sinner has no possibility of atonement available to him and must "carry his guilt"---
...any man - whether a citizen or a [naturalised] foreigner - who intentionally does [anything unlawful] taunts Adonai and that person will be cut off from his nation because he has treated Adonai's words contemptuously and deliberately violated one of His commandments; that person will be cut off for sure - his guilt [will remain] with him" (B'midbar 15:30-31).
---that is, his guilt remains with him for the rest of his life; only by sincere and contrite repentance and devoting himself to selfless, charitable acts can he hope to "redeem" himself (see below).
The ḥata't ("sin sacrifice") provisions of chapter 4 are the "fines" that a Court is to impose upon a person convicted of unintentionally violating a prohibitive commandment, i.e. a person who has been found guilty of doing something "that may not be done"...
Adonai spoke to Mosheh and said: Speak to the Yisraélite people and say "If any person unintentionally violates one of Adonai's commandments [about things] that may not be done and he does one of them..." (Vayikra 4:1-2).
Four cases of ḥata't sacrifice are dealt with: the first three relate to situations where the nation's judicial leaders - that is to say, the Chief Kohén (verses 3-12), the "Assembly", i.e. the Synhedrion or Supreme Court (verses 13-21) or the King (verses 22-26) - have made a flawed legal decision and has thereby caused many of the common people to violate one of the Torah's prohibitions. In those circumstances, the common people who dutifully followed their ruling are not held responsible (after all, the Torah itself commands us in D'varim 17:12-13 to do exactly as they say), and those rulers (who are subject to Torah Law just as the rest of us are) are "fined" for causing the nation to sin: the Chief Kohén is "fined" an ox, as are the Synhedrion, and the King is fined a male goat. The fourth case of ḥata't sacrifice detailed in chapter 4 (verses 27-35) relates to a private individual who unintentionally does something that the Torah forbids. The "fine" in this case is either a female goat (verses 27-31) or a female lamb (verses 32-35).
Chapter 5, the last of the five chapters on personal (as opposed to communal) offerings, is about asham ("guilt") sacrifices. It deals with a number of different cases---
---in each of these cases, if the offender later confesses his guilt he is "fined" an amount that depends on his personal means: either a female lamb or a female kid (verse 6); or, if he cannot afford that, a pair of doves or pigeons one of which is offered as a guilt-sacrifice and the other as an olah (verses 7-10); or, if he is so poor that he cannot even afford a pair of doves or pigeons, one-tenth of an eifah (i.e. about 2.8 litres, 4.9 imperial pints or 5.9 US pints) of flour, to which oil and l'vonah ("frankincense", an aromatic gum-resin used in making incense) were not to be added (verses 11-13), unlike the min'hah offering specified in chapter 2 (see above). This type of "sliding-scale" guilt-offering is referred to in Rabbinic literature as korban oleh v'yoréd (a term not found in the Torah), literally "a rising and falling offering".
The second half of chapter 5 deals with three other types of case. The first of these is unintentional violation of consecrated property - the offender must offer a male goat with a value of at least two silver shekels as an asham sacrifice and must also repay to the Temple the value of the property that he misappropriated plus an additional 20% (verses 15-16). The second case arises when a person believes that he might have violated a prohibition commandment, but is not sure about it - he too must offer a male goat with a value of at least two silver shekels as an asham offering (verses 17-19). The third case covers several different types of dishonesty: refusing to return the security in respect of a loan; robbery; fraud or stealing by retaining lost propery that he has found; and committing perjury in proceedings relating to any civil claim. In all these cases, the guilty party must offer a male goat with a value of at least two silver shekels as an asham sacrifice, and must also return or repay the value of the property involved plus an additional 20% (verses 21-26).
But what happens when there is no Temple?
All of the provisions I have been talking about so far depended on the existence of a Temple and kohanim ("priests") to perform the "atonement" ceremonies. We have already noted that the blood of animal "fine" offerings had to be "applied to the Altar", and even the bloodless asham offering of flour that was brought by the very poorest depended on the existence of a Temple and kohanim because the penitent was required to present it to the kohén ("priest") who had to scoop out a handful of the flour and "make it go up in smoke on the Altar" so that he would be forgiven (Vayikra 5:12-13). So it has not been possible for an unintentional sinner to obtain forgiveness in this manner since the Second Temple was destroyed by the Roman emperor Vespasianus's general Titus (who was also his son) just over 19 centuries ago, and it was similarly imposssible during the interval between the destruction of the First Temple in the 19th year of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II's reign (M'lachim Beit 25:8 and Yirm'yahu 52:12), i.e. 586BCE, and the completion of the Second Temple, which occurred (according to Ezra 6:15) in Darius I's sixth year (516BCE, i.e. exactly 70 years later).
So, having given Yisraél a system of "fines" that a person can pay and be "forgiven" for offences committed unintentionally, but which depend on the existence of the Temple, does God just abandon us and leave us without any way of obtaining forgiveness at a time when there isn't a Temple? Is there any Scriptural basis for the christian claim that their man-god's barbaric execution by the Romans "fulfils" Torah law and thereby renders any other provisions for atonement unnecessary?
No, of course not. In the first place, the Torah prescribes a paricular species of animal for every type of sacrificial ceremony and not one of the many different types of ceremonies ever calls for a human being to be "offered": in fact, under the laws of tum'ah-contamination, a human cadaver is a primary source of the most severe kind of contamination, and in any case human sacrifice would be considered to be a murder. It must also be said that the accounts of the man-god's execution given in the "gospel" narratives break every one of the very detailed regulations laid down in the opening chapters of Vayikra (which we have already considered) governing how God wants sacrifices to be performed. I have never understood where christians get the idea that God wanted us to "sacrifice" any human being, and especially a "messiah" (the title of our ancient kings) - this abhorrent concept is certainly not written in any of our Scriptures.
So what does the Torah say about periods in history when we have been exiled from Eretz Yisraél and have no Temple to perform the ceremonies in? Consider this passage, which contains a warning from the Law-bringer Mosheh himself of the times when we would be exiled from Eretz Yisraél---
"Adonai will scatter you among the other races and few of you will be left among the nations where Adonai will send you; and there you will serve gods that are man's handiwork - wood and stone - which cannot see or hear and which do not eat or breathe. But from that place you will seek out Adonai your God, and you will find Him if you seek Him out with all your heart and all your being... in the later times, when you are in distress because of all these things that will have happened to you, then you will return to Adonai your God and you will start listening to His Voice, because Adonai your God is a compassionate God - He will not abandon you and He will not destroy you, because He will never forget your ancestors' covenant that He swore with them..." (D'varim 4:27-31).
There is no mention here of sacrificial ceremonies, because Mosheh knew they would not be possible when Yisraél was scattered among the nations of the World and without a Temple to perform them in. In his own words, "from that place you will seek out Adonai your God, and you will find Him if you seek Him out with all your heart and all your being" - in other words, sincere and heart-felt repentance is all that is required to "find" God and be forgiven.
The same message was repeated again and again by all the prophets. Almost five centuries after Mosheh's death, wise King Sh'lomoh echoed the words of the great Law-bringer in his prayer of consecration at the the First Temple's dedication---
"If they sin against You - for there is no man who never sins - and You become angry with them and give them over to an enemy and their captors carry them off captive to an enemy country, far or near... and they take the matter to heart in the country to which they will have been carried off captive and they repent and beg You in their captors' country and say 'We sinned, we acted crookedly, and we were wicked' and they return to You with all their heart and all their being in the country of their enemies who captured them, praying to You towards their own land that You gave to their ancestors (the City that You chose and the Temple that I have built to make You famous)---
then, in Heaven, the foundation of Your abode, You will hear their prayer and their begging and you will do right by them: You will forgive Your nation for what they sinned against You and for the rebellious ways in which they rebelled against You, and You will arouse their captors' compassion for them so that they will treat them mercifully - because they are Your nation and Your inheritance whom You took out of Egypt, out of the iron-smelting crucible! So may Your eyes be open to Your servant's begging and to Your nation Yisraél's begging, and may You listen to them whenever they call out to You..." (M'lachim Alef 8:46-52).
In this prayer Sh'lomoh, who was a prophet as well as a king, foretells the long exiles that Yisraél would suffer in later times, and he predicts that during those periods of exile, in the depths of despair, God's nation would one day repent sincerely and return to His service, turning to face in the direction of our ancient homeland and the site of the ancient Temples to pray to Him (as we continue to do to this very day) - and the prophet-king assures us that our attempts to reach God in this way will be successful. The message was reiterated two and a half centuries later by another prophet, Hoshé'a ben B'éri, whose 14 chapters of writings stand first in the book T'rei Asar, "The Book of the Twelve Prophets"---
"...for Yisraél's sons will be left for many years without a king or a prince, sacrifices or obelisks, éfod or t'rafim - but after that, Yisraél's sons will repent and seek out Adonai their God and their Davidic king, and in those later times they will tremble for Adonai and for His goodness" (Hoshé'a 3:4-5).
Unlike his contemporaries Michah and Y'shayahu, whose prophecies concerned only the southern kingdom, Hoshé'a's prophecies were addressed to both southern and northern kingdoms (a feature that his writings have in common with those of Amos). Nowhere is this as clear as in the passage just quoted, with its three contrasted pairs "no king or prince, no sacrifices or obelisks, no éfod or t'rafim" - the prophet refers to the legitimate Davidic monarchs of the southern kingdom as "kings" while he describes the self-styled northern monarchs merely as "princes", and he contrasts [a] the divinely-ordained sacrificial rituals practised in the southern kingdom with the northern kingdom's idolatry, typified by the Ba'al-"obelisk" that Aḥ'av had erected in Shomron (which was removed by his son Y'horam as recorded in M'lachim Beit 3:2), and [b] the éfod or "robe" worn by the Chief Kohén in the Y'rushalayim Temple with the t'rafim (household idols) that were common in the northern kingdom (the word t'rafim is best known from chapter 31 of B'réshit where Raḥel "stole" her father's t'rafim).
In his final chapter, Hoshé'a gives some practical advice to those of "Yisraél's sons" who "in those later times" will "tremble for Adonai and for His goodness"---
"Yisraél, return to Adonai your God - your sins have caused you to stumble! Take words with you and return to Adonai: say to Him 'Oh please, forgive our sins and accept our good [deeds]' - we will pay with our lips in the place of [sacrificial] oxen" (Hoshé'a 14:2-3).
The "translation" of the final phrase of verse 3 that is given in christian "Per-Versions", namely "so will we render the calves (or 'bulls') of our lips", apart from being meaningless (what are "the calves or bulls of one's lips"?), is in any case grammatically impossible because the Hebrew text reads וּנְשַׁלְּמָה פָרִים שְׂפָתֵֽינוּ u-n'shalmah parim s'fateinu - the word פָּרִים parim does mean oxen or bulls, but it is not in s'michut (the possessive case); "the oxen (or bulls) of..." would have to be פָּרֵי parei. A more accurate (and more meaningful) rendering is as given above, corresponding to the literal reading "we will pay oxen [with] our lips", reinforcing the prophet's exhortation at the beginning of the sentence to approach God "with words".
The prophets also speak frequently about a third route to "atonement", and it is this one that they say God prefers:
"Sin is atoned through kindness and truth; one turns from evil though having respect for Adonai" (Mishlei 16:6).
"Doing charitable deeds and justice is more pleasing to Adonai than a sacrifice" (Mishlei 21:3).
"...so, Your Majesty, let my advice be acceptable to you - your sins will be removed by charitable deeds and your wrongdoings [will be removed] by showing mercy to the poor..." (Daniyel 4:24).
"...I delight in kindness rather than sacrifice and in closeness to God more than olah-offerings..." (Hoshé'a 6:6).
"...What shall I approach Adonai and bow myself before the Supreme God with? Should I approach Him with olah-sacrifices or calves in their first year? Will Adonai be pleased by thousands of rams, or tens of thousands of rivers of oil? Should I give my own first-born child [in payment] for my rebellion or the fruit of my own body [in payment] for my soul's errors? Mankind, He has already told you what is 'good', what it is that Adonai wants of you - only to act justly, to love kindness, and to walk modestly with your God" (Michah 6:6-8).
So says Adonai, Yisraél's God: "...I did not speak to your ancestors or command them about olah-offerings or sacrifices on the day that I brought them from the land of Egypt, but I commanded them only about this one thing: Obey My Voice, and I will be your God and you will be My nation; and then you will walk in all the ways that I will command you, and it will be well with you..." (Yirm'yahu 7:21-23).
The prophet Y'shayahu sums all of this up in eight verses of his opening chapter. He portrays God as saying that He is sick and tired of empty, insincere prayers and the endless parade of "sacrifices" offered by sanctimonious sinners just "going through the motions" but without true repentance in their hearts---
"What use to Me is the huge number of your sacrifices?" Adonai says - "I am fed up with olah-offerings of rams and the offals of fattened calves, and the blood of oxen, lambs and goats does not give Me pleasure. When you come to appear before Me - who asked this of you, to come trampling through My courtyards? Do not bring your meaningless min'ḥah-offerings any more - I find it a disgusting stench... Rosh Ḥodesh, Shabbat, even the Festival assemblies - I cannot tolerate crookedness mixed with 'service'. My soul detests your Rosh Ḥodesh and Festival observances, they have become tedious to Me; I can no longer put up with them. When you hold up your hands I will hide My eyes from you; I will not hear you no matter how many 'prayers' you say - because your hands are covered with blood! Wash, purify yourselves, remove the badness of your deeds from before My eyes, stop doing wrong! Learn to do right, seek justice, protect victims, treat orphans justly, support the claims of widows.
"Come, please, let's discuss this rationally," Adonai says - "even if your sins are like bright crimson, I will bleach them as white as snow: even if they are as red as tola I will make them like [the colour of] wool!" (Y'shayahu 1:11-18).
Note that "When you hold up your hands" in verse 15 is a reference to the kohanim performing the ceremonial "blessing" of the congregation as prescribed in B'midbar 6:23-26, and tola in verse 18 is a bright scarlet dye.
What is "repentance" and how does one do it?
The Hebrew word for "repentance" is תְּשׁוּבָה t'shuvah (although, strangely, this word does not occur anywhere in the Scriptures). Literally, t'shuvah means "returning", i.e. "coming back" to God; and it is in this context that the prophet Hoshé'a says "Oh Yisraél, return to Adonai your God... return to Adonai..." (Hoshé'a 14:2-3) The concept is well represented throughout the Scriptures, though, and is nowhere depicted more clearly than in the 3rd chapter of Yonah's writings---
A message from Adonai came to Yonah for a second time: "Stand up, go to that great city Nin'veh, and make to it the announcement that I will tell you". So Yonah stood up and went to Nin'veh, as Adonai had commanded him (now Nin'veh was an enormously large city - it was three days' walk across). Yonah started to walk into the city and, when he had gone about one day's walk, he began to call out: "Nin'veh will be overthrown in another forty days!" Now the people of Nin'veh believed in God, so they declared a Public Fast and dressed themselves in sacking, from the greatest to the least of them. When Nin'veh's king heard about it, even he rose from his throne, removed his royal robes, dressed himself in sacking, and sat on ashes; on the advice of his officials he ordered that a proclamation should be made throughout Nin'veh: "Neither man nor livestock - the cattle and the sheep - is to eat or drink anything; all of them - both people and livestock - must cover themselves in sacking and cry out loudly to God! All men must return from their evil ways and the violence in their hands! Who knows, perhaps God will relent and change His mind, and turn His blazing fury away from us and not destroy us?"
And when God saw their deeds - that they had returned from their evil ways - God did change His mind about the destruction He had decreed that He would bring upon them - and He did not do it. (Yonah 3:1-10)
Fundamentally, "repentance" is a state of mind: being sorry for the wrongful acts one has committed - feeling regret for having done them. Unless one genuinely feels remorse, there is not and cannot be true "repentance". As I mentioned earlier, the prophet Hoshé'a advises us to approach God in repentance "with words", that is to say, with prayers begging for forgiveness (Hoshé'a 14:3), but such prayers will never be effective if the penitent is not actually feeling remorse for the sins he is "repenting" from. Furthermore, a person cannot force himself to "feel sorry" - he either is, or he is not. A truly saintly person will automatically regret having done wrong, but then again, a truly saintly person would not have done wrong in the first place. In reality, however, none of us is either "truly saintly", or "thoroughly wicked": we are all of us somewhere in between. In the end, it comes down to learning to be honest with oneself and accepting one's own shortcomings; it's only when a person overcomes the arrogance of thinking he is always "in the right" that he will be able to admit (even to himself) that he did something wrong, and only then can he feel remorse for having done it.
In Hebrew culture, it has never been considered sufficient merely to say that one feels remorse for having done something wrong and that one is "sorry" for having done it. The Torah prescribes that, on Yom Kippur, when we come together as a community to "repent" and seek forgiveness for all the wrongs we have done in the preceding year, we are to "make our bodies suffer" (Vayikra 16:31, 23:27, 23:32; B'midbar 29:7), a term that means fasting (abstaining from both food and drink). Prayer is also implied, because fasting without prayer is both meaningless and pointless. In Biblical times fasting was accompanied by the symbolic act of dressing in sacking, which is coarse and uncomfortable, and also very unattractive. By making these sacrifices (using that word in a very loose and general sense) the penitent demonstrates his remorse in a very practical way, and they are far more meaningful "sacrifices" than slaughtering an ox or a goat that never did anyone any harm.
It will be seen from the passage from Yonah quoted above that the people of Nin'veh adopted all these practices: their king ordered them to abandon their wicked behaviour, to fast, and to dress in sacking, and to pray for forgiveness. He himself even went one step further, humbling himself by "rising from his throne and sitting on ashes". Verse 9 shows that he didn't even know for sure whether their "repentance" would "save" them (Who knows, perhaps God will relent and change His mind...), but the following verse states clearly that it did, and that it was their practical demonstration of remorse that led to them being forgiven: "And when God saw their deeds - that they had returned from their evil ways..."
Is there any Scriptural evidence that God would ever accept, or even want, a human sacrifice?
In one word: NO. As I mentioned earlier in this article, when I was discussing the Scriptural regulations governing the various sacrificial ceremonies, the Torah prescribes a specific species of animal for each of the different types of offering, and in no case is a human being called for. Aside from the simple fact that to "sacrifice" a human being would be murder, anyone who has studied the laws of tum'ah (ritual contamination) knows that human blood is a primary source of the most serious form of tum'ah.
Aha, christians say, but God commanded Avraham to sacrifice his own son! The passage they are referring to is chapter 22 of B'réshit, where God says to Avraham
"Please, take your son... Yitzḥak and go to Moriyyah, where you are to take him up as a sacrifice onto that one of the hills which I will indicate to you" (B'réshit 22:2).
Almost all christian "versions" translate that verse using the verb "to offer" or the verb "to sacrifice". The Hebrew word used in the verse is, however, הַעֲלֵֽהוּ ha'aléhu which doesn't actually mean to offer or to sacrifice. הַֽעַל ha'al is the imperative of the verb הַעֲלֵה ha'aléh, the hif'il ("causation") conjugation of the verb עלה (to "ascend" or "go up"), so its literal meaning is "cause [someone or something] to ascend" or "bring up". Mosheh uses exactly the same word in Sh'mot 33:12, but no-one ever claims that he was saying to God "You have told me to offer up this nation..."!
As always, the error made by christians in B'réshit 22:2 is that of ignoring the context. Verse 1 makes it abundantly clear that the entire incident was merely a test of faith. God didn't want Avraham actually to slaughter Yitzḥak, His intention was only to see whether Avraham was willing to go through with it. This is proved by the narrative itself, because when the time came, God stopped him at the critical moment when his hand was raised holding the slaughtering-knife and about to deliver the death-stroke. Avraham had to think that God was asking him to sacrifice Yitzḥak or there would have been no "test", but God never actually told him to slaughter his son, just to "take him up onto the hill prepared (i.e. trussed up) like a sacrifice". The language used by God was deliberately ambiguous, but it didn't fool Avraham - he had such trust in God's intrinsic goodness that he knew his son would be coming back with him: in verse 5, he says to his two servants who had accompanied him and Yitzḥak on their journey to Moriyyah, "Stay here with the donkey while Yitzḥak and I go over there; when we have worshipped we will come back to you".
There is one other incident that christians occasionally invoke in their desperate attempts to show that human sacrifice was "acceptable" in ancient Yisraél. Fortunately, the passage that records it is obscure and only very few christians are even aware of its existence - but it provides, for those who do know about it, one more weapon in their armoury of misrepresentations and deceptions.
In the year 1137BCE, after 18 years during which Yisraél had been dominated by the "Ammonites" and "Philistines" (Shoftim 10:7-8), the Elders approached Yiftaḥ of Gil'ad and asked him to become their "Judge" (i.e. leader) and help them gain independence from the oppressive foreign occupiers (Shoftim 11:5-6). Yiftaḥ was not keen but he eventually accepted their offer after a little coaxing. Before resorting to the military option, Yiftaḥ first tried diplomacy: he sent ambassadors to the Ammonite king, asking him
"What dispute is there between us that makes you come against me to fight in my country?" (Shoftim 11:12).
The Ammonite king's response was
"Because Yisraél took away my land between the [Rivers] Arnon, Yabbok and Yarden when they came up from Egypt..." (Shoftim 11:13).
Hmm... "Yisraél took away my land" - now where have we heard that before? In fact, there was no more truth in the Ammonite king's claim than there is when the same claim is made by certain parties today - as Yiftaḥ politely pointed out:
So Yiftaḥ sent his ambassadors back to the Ammonite king... "Yisraél did not take any land belonging to Mo'av or to the sons of Ammon! After coming up from Egypt, Yisraél passed through the desert next to the Suf Sea and eventually arrived at Kadesh; from there, they sent ambassadors to the Edomite king to ask him 'Please let us pass through your country', but the Edomite king refused to allow this - and they made the same request to the Mo'avite king and he also would not allow them to pass through, so Yisraél remained at Kadesh. They then travelled through the desert and went around Edom and Mo'av, coming in the end to the eastern side of Mo'av where they camped on the other side of the [River] Arnon and did not cross into Mo'avite territory - for the Arnon is the Mo'avite frontier.
Then they sent ambassadors to Siḥon, the Emorite king, ruler of Ḥeshbon, asking him 'Please let us pass through your country [so we can come] to our own place'. But Siḥon did not trust Yisraél to cross through his territory and he mustered his army, arrayed his forces for battle at Yahatz and attacked Yisraél. Adonai, Yisraél's God, gave Siḥon and all his people into Yisraél's power and we defeated them - Yisraél did take possession of the lands of the Emorites who had lived there beforehand: we occupied the entire territory of the Emorites, from the Arnon to the Yabbok and from the desert to the Yarden! And now that Adonai, Yisraél's God, has dispossessed the Emorites in favour of His nation Yisraél - you try to claim it as yours? Isn't it the case that you are entitled to claim the lands that you believe your god K'mosh gave you: we claim only those lands that Adonai, our God, has subdued before us.....
Yisraél has been living in Ḥeshbon and the little towns around it, and in Aro'ér and its little towns, and in all the cities along the Arnon, for three hundred years - why have you never tried to recover them in all that time? I, myself, have never committed any crime against you, and yet you do me wrong by attacking me - let Adonai, The Ultimate Judge, settle this dispute between the people of Yisraél and the people of Ammon!" (Shoftim 11:14-27).
The Ammonite king, however, was unmoved by Yiftaḥ's appeal to reason, because he was bent on territorial expansion. The disputed territories had never in fact belonged to Ammon: as Yiftaḥ had pointed out, they had originally been Emorite lands which Yisraél had taken possession of after defeating the Emorite king, Siḥon, 300 years earlier - and in all that time the Ammonites had never made any claim to them: Yiftaḥ was therefore forced to go to war (Shoftim 11:28-29) but, before attacking the Ammonite forces, he made a rash and very foolish vow:
.....then Yiftaḥ made a vow to Adonai; "If You will help me defeat the sons of Ammon, then whatever comes out of the doors of my house to welcome me when I return victorious from doing battle with the sons of Ammon - it will belong to Adonai and I will offer it to Him as an olah-sacrifice!" (Shoftim 11:30-31).
The ensuing battle went well for Yiftaḥ's forces and, with God's help, they were victorious over the Ammonites (Shoftim 11:32-33). But when Yiftaḥ was returning to his home at Mitzpah, calamity struck:
"...as Yiftaḥ approached his home in Mitzpah, his daughter was coming out to welcome him, playing a tambourine and dancing - she was his only child: he had no other sons or daughters..." (Shoftim 11:34).
Now Yiftaḥ may have been a brilliant tactician and military commander, but he was not a learned man, and when he had made his thoughtless vow, it did not occur to him in the heat of the moment that the first thing to come out of his house might be an "unclean" animal, i.e. one unfit for sacrifice. Suppose it had been a dog, or a donkey, or a camel? Would he have offered that as a sacrifice? Of course he wouldn't, and he couldn't sacrifice a human being either (in any case, this incident is irrelevant to the obscene christian notion that a human being could serve as an "atonement sacrifice", because Yiftaḥ's vow had nothing to do with atonement).
Yiftaḥ did not sacrifice his daughter. It would have been unthinkable to do so and Pinḥas ben El'azar, the Chief Kohén, would never have permitted such a defilement of the Temple (which at that time was at Shiloh, 30 km north of Y'rushalayim). The Scriptural narrative says only that he "treated her in accordance with the vow that he had made" (Shoftim 11:39) and christians assume this means she was offered as a sacrifice - but this is neither what the text says, nor what it means.
When a person "dedicates" an animal as an offering - that is to say, if he points to it and declares, "That ox (or goat or sheep) is to be a sacrifice" - the animal becomes hekdésh (sacred property): it belongs to the Temple (i.e. to God) and may not be sold, or slaughtered for food, or used for any purpose (e.g. for carrying a load, or for ploughing, or for breeding, etc). Even if it is subsequently injured, so that it is no longer fit to be sacrificed, it remains hekdésh (sacred property) and must be "redeemed", i.e. an equivalent animal of equal value must be substituted for it - but the original animal may still not be sold, or slaughtered for food, or used for any purpose - it must be put out to pasture for the remainder of its life until it dies, and the carcass must then be burnt or buried.
From a legal point of view, Yiftaḥ's daughter was in exactly the same situation. She could not be sacrificed, but she also was not a free agent: she could not work in any capacity, or marry, or be "used for breeding", for the rest of her life. This was a unique situation that had never occurred before, and the legal authorities of the day - the torah-scholars or "Rabbis" (although this term was not used at that time) - ensured that it would never happen again by "enacting a law about her" (Shoftim 11:39) that no-one should ever again make such a foolish vow. The poor girl had to retire into seclusion; she never married and remained virgo intacta for the rest of her life, after first begging from her father (and being granted) a two-month period of grace so she could go camping in the hills with her girlfriends to express her grief over her fate. Her sad story was never forgotten: the narrative ends by recording that "Year after year, the girls of Yisraél used to go to visit Yiftaḥ's daughter on four days" (Shoftim 11:40).
"agnus dei qui tolis peccata mundi"???
That heading is Latin for "a god's lamb that removes the world's sins" and is just one example of the christian obsession about lambs. It's the first line of the sixth section of the Roman catholic "Ordinary Mess" and, according to Aaron Green, like the "Credo", was one of the last elements to be incorporated into that idolatrous, pagan ritual - apparently by Poop "Sergius" (687-701).
It is very well-known that God provided Yisraél with an annual "Atonement Day", Yom Kippur (the Scriptural term is actually plural, yom kippurim = day of "atonements"), on which we are to fast in order to be "forgiven for all our sins"---
"This will be an eternal statute for you - you will fast and not do any m'lachah on the 10th day of the 7th month, because on that day He will provide forgiveness for you, to purge you of all your sins: before Adonai will you be purged!" (Vayikra 16:29-30)
What is less well-known is that Yom Kippur is actually just a "safety-net", a day when we assemble as a nation in our batei k'nésiyyot (prayer-houses) and batei midrashim (study-houses) to make a generalised confession before God of all the sins for which we have not already made "atonement" in one or more of the ways described previously in this article and to beg Him to forgive us. It is not the only vehicle for obtaining forgiveness, and we are not supposed to rely on it and on it alone - devout Hebrews pray for forgiveness in all three prayers recited every day (morning, afternoon and evening), and if a person knows that he has commited a particular offence, he is expected to perform t'shuvah (i.e. "repentance" - see above) for it, and to beg God to forgive him, immediately he realises that he has committed it. On top of that, the Rabbanim were adamant that Yom Kippur only provides "atonement" in respect of offences between man and God - that is, violations of purely religious laws - it can never provide "atonement" for wrongs done against another human being unless the wrong-doer first obtains the forgiveness of the person he has wronged (the injured party does have a duty to forgive a fellow-Hebrew who comes to him showing remorse, offering to put right the wrong he has done and begging forgiveness - but that's a whole different topic).
In the periods of Hebrew history when the Temples existed and the offering of sacrifices was permitted, sacrificial ceremonies were prescribed by the Torah for all the holy days, and Yom Kippur was no exception. On that day, in addition to the regular daily olah-offerings (B'midbar 28:1-8), there were musaf ("additional") sacrifices, just as there were on every shabbat and holy day (B'midbar 29:7-11) and, when Yom Kippur happened to fall on shabbat, the musaf sacrifices for shabbat (B'midbar 28:9-10) were offered as well. B'midbar 29:11 states specifically that the musaf sacrifices on Yom Kippur were "independent of the atonement-ḥata't and the regular daily olah-offerings, with their accompanying meal-offerings and libations".
The "atonement-ḥata't" that B'midbar 29:11 refers to is described in chapter 16 of Vayikra and the details of how the procedure was performed are recorded in the Mishnah in Treatise Yoma. However, the "atonement" sacrifice was NOT a lamb. There were in fact two "atonement" offerings. First, the Chief Kohén (who had to perform this ceremony in person, unlike all other sacrificial ceremonies that could be performed by any kohén) would sacrifice an ox to make "atonement" for himself and all of the other kohanim (because their sins had to be "atoned" before they could make "atonement" for the rest of the nation), and the remainder of the ceremony called for two identical goats, one of which was offered as the nation's "atonement" sacrifice while the other was sent away into the desert, symbolically "carrying away" the nation's sins; the Chief Kohén would cast lots over the two goats to decide which one was to be sent away into the desert and which was to be sacrificed.
So why are christians so obsessed by lambs? Why do they call their idol-man "the lamb"? Where does the concept that "God's lamb" can "remove the World's sins" come from? The answer to all these questions is simple: they are the result of the amalgamation of two completely unrelated concepts that have been hijacked from Hebrew culture and totally distorted and misrepresented. The mythological pagan narratives that christianity is based on place the execution of its idol-man in the spring, at the time of Pesaḥ, a week-long festival that celebrates Yisraél's liberation from slavery in Egypt and the birth of our nation. In the year that the events being commemorated occurred, and only in that year, our ancestors were required by God to organise themselves into family groups and each such group had to provide a young animal that was just sufficient to feed the group, and no more. The Hebrew word used in Sh'mot 12:3 is שֶׂה seh, which christians invariably translate as a "lamb", but it is obvious from verse 5 that it doesn't actually mean a lamb because that verse adds "you can take [the seh] either from the lambs or from the goats". This, then, is the first misrepresentation: the so-called "paschal lamb" didn't actually have to be a lamb at all: either a lamb (young sheep) or a kid (young goat) was acceptable.
The second misrepresentation is that the "seh" was not actually a sacrifice. God commanded that each family group was to obtain its seh on the 10th of the month (Sh'mot 12:3) and keep it until the 14th of the month, when the entire community was to slaughter the animals at the end of the afternoon (12:6); this obviously meant keeping the animals tied up for four days so they didn't run away. The people were then to paint the blood of the animals onto the door-frames of their homes, roast the animals and eat them. However, common Hebrews were not allowed to eat the meat of a sacrifice - "holy meat" could only be eaten by kohanim. These animals were therefore not "sacrifices". There were also no requirements for the animals' offals to be burned on an altar or for their blood to be applied to an altar, which had to be done with all sacrifices.
So what did the so-called "paschal lamb" actually represent? Refering back to one of Mosheh's earlier conversations with the Pharaoh provides a clue: after the first four of God's ten attacks against Egypt (Blood, Frogs, Lice and Wild Animals), the Pharaoh had started to give way... but he still refused to allow the Hebrews to leave the country in order to sacrifice to our God in the desert, as Mosheh was demanding. "You can hold your festival right here in Egypt," he said (Sh'mot 8:21 - 8:25 in christian "bibles"). Mosheh's response to this suggestion was quite reasonable:
"We can't possibly do that," he said, "because we are going to sacrifice the Egyptians' god to Adonai our God! If we were to sacrifice their god right in front of them, wouldn't they pelt us with rocks?" (Sh'mot 8:22 - 8:26 in christian "bibles").
The verse just quoted is virtually incomprehensible in christian "bibles" - for example, the translation given in King James's Per-Version reads: "It is not meet so to do; for we shall sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians to Adonai our God: lo, shall we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians before their eyes, and will they not stone us?" The problem with this translation is that it's too literal: Mosheh was a Hebrew and idolatry disgusted him, so he called the Egyptians' "god" to'évah, a disgusting thing (or in the vernacular of the 17th century, an "abomination").
Now the purpose of the seh should be starting to become clear: it was the Egyptians' "god". It is known from modern archæology that the ancient Egyptians worshipped various types of animal, but is there any other support in the Scriptures for this hypothesis? Well, not directly, but there is indirect support for it: when Yosef entertained his brothers for luncheon (B'réshit 43:16), it is reported that
"They had laid [one table] for Yosef by himself, and [another table] for his brothers by themselves, and [a third] for the Egyptians who were eating with him by themselves, because Egyptians would not [sit at the same table to] eat together with Hebrews - that was disgusting to Egyptians" (B'réshit 43:32).
Why should it have been "disgusting" to Egyptians to sit down at the same table with Hebrews to eat? Did they really hate them that much? The narrative doesn't indicate that they hated Yosef, and it must have been well-known that he was a Hebrew. This, however, had nothing to do with racial prejudice - the text doesn't say that the Egyptians hated Hebrews, merely that they found it "disgusting" to sit at the same table with them to eat.
Everything falls into place, though, if you read this in the context of our conclusion that the Egyptians worshipped lambs. The Hebrews were sheep-keepers by occupation, a fact that Yosef later warned his brothers not to disclose to the Pharaoh, advising them to lie and tell him they were cattle-keepers "because the Egyptians found anyone who kept sheep disgusting" (B'réshit 46:34). The Hebrews' normal diet would therefore have been lamb (or mutton) and it is not at all surprising that the Egyptians should have found it "disgusting" to sit at the same table with people who were eating their "god" (or one of its "parents")!
Returning to the events leading up to the Exodus, we now see that what the Hebrews were actually commanded to do was to take the Egyptians' god, to humiliate it by keeping it tied up for four days, and then to slaughter it, paint its blood onto their door-frames, roast it and eat it. In other words, they had to thumb their noses at the Egyptians and insult them in the worst possible way, by showing utter contempt for the latters' "god". This is the third misrepresentation, and probably the worst of all: the so-called "paschal lamb" had nothing whatever to do with "atonement" - there is absolutely no mention of "atonement", or of "sins", anywhere in the narrative account of the Exodus events. The "paschal lamb" was about one thing and nothing more: it was about the Hebrews demonstrating that they were sufficiently worthy to merit being "redeemed" personally by God, that is, to have Him to come Himself in all His Glory and Majesty to liberate them from slavery (see Sh'mot 12:12, "I will pass through the land of Egypt tonight, and I will kill every firstborn in the land of Egypt − both man and livestock − and I will execute justice against all the Egyptians' gods, I - Adonai!"), by showing that they trusted Him to protect them from the fury of their former Egyptian masters when they committed what those Egyptians would have seen as the most appalling sacrilege and blasphemy, openly, right in front of their faces!
The ceremonial eating of roast lamb on Pesaḥ-Eve, which we Hebrews continued to practise for as long as the Temples existed, was merely a commemoration of what we were commanded to do in the year that we left Egypt - it never was about "atonement" or "sin" originally, and it never became about them either.
All the material on this page is entirely original (although partially inspired by Uri Yosef's article on the website of Messiah Truth Project)
Any advertisements appearing below this line are inserted by "tripod", please IGNORE them
ℼⴭ∧⼼楴汴㹥⼼敨摡ⴾ㸭㰊捳楲瑰琠灹㵥琢硥⽴慪慶捳楲瑰㸢⼊伯湷牥光瘊牡张潟煩灟瑣㴠㔠㬰椊⡦张潟煩灟瑣㴾〱‰籼䴠瑡汦潯⡲慍桴爮湡潤⡭⨩〱⼰ㄨ〰弭潟煩灟瑣⤩㸠〠⤠笠瘊牡张楯煱㴠张楯煱簠⁼嵛潟煩異桳嬨漧煩慟摤慐敧牂湡❤✬祌潣❳⥝潟煩異桳嬨漧煩慟摤慐敧慃❴✬湉整湲瑥㸠圠扥楳整❳⥝潟煩異桳嬨漧煩慟摤慐敧楌敦祣汣❥✬湉整摮崧㬩弊楯煱瀮獵⡨❛楯影潤慔❧⥝昨湵瑣潩⡮ 慶楯ⁱ‽潤畣敭瑮挮敲瑡䕥敬敭瑮✨捳楲瑰⤧※楯祴数㴠✠整瑸樯癡獡牣灩❴※楯獡湹‽牴敵楯牳‽潤畣敭瑮氮捯瑡潩牰瑯捯汯⬠✠⼯硰漮湷牥煩渮瑥猯慴⽳⽳祬潣湳樮❳慶‽潤畣敭瑮朮瑥汅浥湥獴祂慔乧浡⡥猧牣灩❴嬩崰※慰敲瑮潎敤椮獮牥䉴晥牯⡥楯ⱱ猠㬩紊⠩㬩紊⼊䜯潯汧湁污瑹捩ੳ慶束煡㴠张慧ⁱ籼嬠㭝弊慧異桳嬨弧敳䅴捣畯瑮Ⱗ唧ⵁㄲ〴㘲㔹ㄭ✹⥝束煡瀮獵⡨❛獟瑥潄慭湩慎敭Ⱗ琧楲潰潣❭⥝束煡瀮獵⡨❛獟瑥畃瑳浯慖❲ㄬ✬敭扭牥湟浡❥✬潭摲捯慨❩㌬⥝束煡瀮獵⡨❛瑟慲正慐敧楶睥崧㬩⠊畦据楴湯⤨笠瘊牡朠‽潤畣敭瑮挮敲瑡䕥敬敭瑮✨捳楲瑰⤧※慧琮灹‽琧硥⽴慪慶捳楲瑰㬧朠獡湹‽牴敵慧献捲㴠⠠栧瑴獰✺㴠‽潤畣敭瑮氮捯瑡潩牰瑯捯汯㼠✠瑨灴㩳⼯獳❬㨠✠瑨灴⼺眯睷⤧⬠✠朮潯汧ⵥ湡污瑹捩潣⽭慧樮❳慶‽潤畣敭瑮朮瑥汅浥湥獴祂慔乧浡⡥猧牣灩❴嬩崰※慰敲瑮潎敤椮獮牥䉴晥牯⡥慧⥳⥽⤨⼯祌潣湉瑩昊湵瑣潩敧剴晥牥敲⡲ 慶污㵬琠楨潤畣敭瑮挮潯楫㭥椊愨汬㴽✠⤧爠瑥牵慦獬㭥瘊牡挠潯楫彥慮敭㴠✠䕒䕆剒剅✽慶瑳牡⁴‽污慬瑳湉敤佸⡦潣歯敩湟浡⥥晩⠠瑳牡⁴㴽ⴠ⤱爠瑥牵慦獬㭥猊慴瑲⬠‽潣歯敩湟浡敬杮桴慶湥‽污湩敤佸⡦㬧Ⱗ猠慴瑲㬩椊攨摮㴠‽ㄭ 湥‽污敬杮桴敲畴湲愠汬献扵瑳楲杮猨慴瑲湥⥤畦据楴湯朠瑥畑牥⡹ 慶晲‽敧剴晥牥敲⡲㬩椊爨牦㴠‽✧ 敲畴湲映污敳慶ⁱ‽硥牴捡兴敵祲爨牦礧桡潯挮浯Ⱗ✠㵰⤧晩⠠⥱爠瑥牵㭱焊㴠攠瑸慲瑣畑牥⡹晲Ⱳ✠Ⱗ✠㵱⤧敲畴湲焠㼠焠㨠∠㬢紊昊湵瑣潩硥牴捡兴敵祲昨汵ⱬ猠瑩ⱥ焠灟牡浡 慶瑳牡⁴‽畦汬氮獡䥴摮硥晏猨瑩⥥晩⠠瑳牡⁴㴽ⴠ⤱爠瑥牵慦獬㭥猊慴瑲㴠映汵慬瑳湉敤佸⡦影慰慲⥭晩⠠瑳牡⁴㴽ⴠ⤱爠瑥牵慦獬㭥猊慴瑲⬠‽影慰慲敬杮桴慶湥‽畦汬椮摮硥晏✨✦瑳牡⥴晩⠠湥㴽ⴠ⤱攠摮㴠映汵敬杮桴敲畴湲甠敮捳灡⡥畦汬献扵瑳楲杮猨慴瑲湥⥤⸩灳楬⡴•⤢樮楯⡮⬢⤢畦据楴湯朠湥牥瑡䡥敲⡦瑡条整灭慬整笩愊慴牨晥琽浥汰瑡敲汰捡⡥弧奍剕彌Ⱗ眠湩潤潬慣楴湯栮敲敲汰捡⡥栧瑴㩰⼯Ⱗ✠⤧⸩敲汰捡⡥弧奍䥔䱔彅Ⱗ䌧敨正㈥漰瑵㈥琰楨╳〲牔灩摯㈥䴰浥敢╲〲楳整✡㬩ਠ慶祬潣彳摡㴠䄠牲祡⤨慶祬潣彳湯潬摡瑟浩牥慶浣牟汯‽氢癩≥慶浣桟獯⁴‽琢楲潰祬潣潣≭慶浣瑟硡摩㴠∠洯浥敢敲扭摥敤≤慶牴灩摯浟浥敢彲慮敭㴠∠潭摲捯慨≩慶牴灩摯浟浥敢彲慰敧㴠∠潭摲捯慨⽩瑡湯浥湥瑨汭㬢瘊牡琠楲潰彤慲楴杮彳慨桳㴠∠㐱㠹㤱㤹㐵㈺㡥昵㍢㔳㙣戴㡦㌰㤱愶㌱㠴㜵㐸晢∶瘊牡氠捹獯慟彤慣整潧祲㴠笠搢潭≺∺潳楣瑥屹栯獩潴祲Ⱒ漢瑮牡敧≴∺䌦呁昽浡汩╹〲湡╤〲楬敦瑳汹獥Ⱒ昢湩彤桷瑡㨢匢畴祤吠敨䈠扩敬索瘊牡氠捹獯慟彤敲潭整慟摤‽㔢⸴㘱⸱㤷㤮∶慶祬潣彳摡睟睷獟牥敶‽眢睷琮楲潰祬潣潣≭慶祬潣彳摡瑟慲正獟慭汬㴠∠瑨灴⼺洯浥敢獲琮楲潰潣⽭摡⽭浩⽧潣浭湯漯彴浳污晬慲敭朮晩爿湡㵤㈱㐵㔷㬢瘊牡氠捹獯慟彤牴捡彫敳癲摥㴠∠瑨灴⼺洯浥敢獲琮楲潰潣⽭摡⽭浩⽧潣浭湯漯彴摡敳癲摥朮晩爿湡㵤㈱㐵㔷㬢瘊牡氠捹獯獟慥捲彨畱牥⁹‽敧兴敵祲⤨⼼捳楲瑰ਾ㰊捳楲瑰琠灹㵥琢硥⽴慪慶捳楲瑰•牳㵣栢瑴㩰⼯捳楲瑰祬潣潣⽭慣浴湡椯楮獪㸢⼼捳楲瑰ਾ㰊捳楲瑰琠灹㵥琧硥⽴慪慶捳楲瑰㸧 慶潧杯敬慴‽潧杯敬慴籼笠㭽 潧杯敬慴浣‽潧杯敬慴浣籼嬠㭝 昨湵瑣潩⡮ †瘠牡朠摡‽潤畣敭瑮挮敲瑡䕥敬敭瑮✨捳楲瑰⤧†朠摡獡湹‽牴敵†朠摡祴数㴠✠整瑸樯癡獡牣灩❴†瘠牡甠敳卓⁌‽栧瑴獰✺㴠‽潤畣敭瑮氮捯瑡潩牰瑯捯汯†朠摡牳‽用敳卓⁌‿栧瑴獰✺㨠✠瑨灴✺ ਫ††✠⼯睷潧杯敬慴獧牥楶散潣⽭慴⽧獪术瑰樮❳†瘠牡渠摯‽潤畣敭瑮朮瑥汅浥湥獴祂慔乧浡⡥猧牣灩❴嬩崰†渠摯慰敲瑮潎敤椮獮牥䉴晥牯⡥慧獤潮敤㬩 ⥽⤨⼼捳楲瑰ਾ㰊捳楲瑰琠灹㵥琧硥⽴慪慶捳楲瑰㸧 潧杯敬慴浣異桳昨湵瑣潩⡮ †朠潯汧瑥条搮晥湩卥潬⡴⼧㔹㘹㔳㘹启䥒㍟〰㉘〵摟灦Ⱗ嬠〳ⰰ㈠〵ⱝ✠楤灧摡ㄭ㔴㈰㐰㔱ㄹ㘲〭⤧愮摤敓癲捩⡥潧杯敬慴異慢獤⤨㬩 †潧杯敬慴敤楦敮汓瑯✨㤯㤵㌶㤵⼶剔彉扡癯彥㈷砸〹摟灦Ⱗ嬠㈷ⰸ㤠崰搧癩札瑰愭ⵤ㐱〵〲ㄴ㤵㈱ⴶ✱⸩摡卤牥楶散木潯汧瑥条瀮扵摡⡳⤩†朠潯汧瑥条搮晥湩卥潬⡴⼧㔹㘹㔳㘹启䥒扟汥睯㝟㠲㥸弰晤❰㝛㠲〹ⱝ✠楤灧摡ㄭ㔴㈰㐰㔱ㄹ㘲㈭⤧愮摤敓癲捩⡥潧杯敬慴異慢獤⤨㬩 †潧杯敬慴異慢獤⤨攮慮汢卥湩汧剥煥敵瑳⤨†朠潯汧瑥条攮慮汢卥牥楶散⡳㬩 ⥽⼼捳楲瑰ਾਊ猼牣灩⁴祴数∽整瑸樯癡獡牣灩≴‾⠊畦据楴湯椨噳††晩 椡噳⤠ †笠 †††爠瑥牵㭮 †素 †瘠牡愠䵤牧㴠渠睥䄠䵤湡条牥⤨††慶祬潣彳牰摯獟瑥㴠愠䵤牧挮潨獯健潲畤瑣敓⡴㬩 †瘠牡猠潬獴㴠嬠氢慥敤扲慯摲Ⱒ∠敬摡牥潢牡㉤Ⱒ∠潴汯慢彲浩条≥琢潯扬牡瑟硥≴猢慭汬潢≸琢灯灟潲潭Ⱒ∠潦瑯牥∲猢楬敤≲㭝 †瘠牡愠䍤瑡㴠琠楨祬潣彳摡损瑡来牯㭹 †愠䵤牧献瑥潆捲摥慐慲⡭瀧条❥愨䍤瑡☠…摡慃浤穯 ‿摡慃浤穯㨠✠敭扭牥⤧††晩⠠桴獩氮捹獯獟慥捲彨畱牥⥹ †笠 †††愠䵤牧献瑥潆捲摥慐慲⡭欢祥潷摲Ⱒ琠楨祬潣彳敳牡档煟敵祲㬩 †素ਠ††汥敳椠⡦摡慃⁴☦愠䍤瑡昮湩彤桷瑡††††††摡杍敳䙴牯散偤牡浡✨敫睹牯❤摡慃楦摮睟慨⥴†††† †映牯⠠慶湩猠潬獴††††††慶汳瑯㴠猠潬獴獛㭝 †††椠愨䵤牧椮即潬䅴慶汩扡敬猨潬⥴††††††††††桴獩氮捹獯慟孤汳瑯⁝‽摡杍敧却潬⡴汳瑯㬩 †††素 †素ਊ††摡杍敲摮牥效摡牥⤨††摡杍敲摮牥潆瑯牥⤨⡽昨湵瑣潩⡮ 瘊牡眠㴠〠‽ⰰ洠湩浩浵桔敲桳汯‽〳㬰ਊ晩⠠潴⁰㴽猠汥⥦笊 †爠瑥牵牴敵晩⠠祴数景眨湩潤湩敮坲摩桴 㴽✠畮扭牥‧††⁷‽楷摮睯椮湮牥楗瑤㭨 †栠㴠眠湩潤湩敮䡲楥桧㭴紊攊獬晩⠠潤畣敭瑮搮捯浵湥䕴敬敭瑮☠…搨捯浵湥潤畣敭瑮汅浥湥汣敩瑮楗瑤籼搠捯浵湥潤畣敭瑮汅浥湥汣敩瑮效杩瑨⤩笊 †眠㴠搠捯浵湥潤畣敭瑮汅浥湥汣敩瑮楗瑤㭨 †栠㴠搠捯浵湥潤畣敭瑮汅浥湥汣敩瑮效杩瑨汥敳椠搨捯浵湥潢祤☠…搨捯浵湥潢祤挮楬湥坴摩桴簠⁼潤畣敭瑮戮摯汣敩瑮效杩瑨⤩笊 †眠㴠搠捯浵湥潢祤挮楬湥坴摩桴††‽潤畣敭瑮戮摯汣敩瑮效杩瑨敲畴湲⠠眨㸠洠湩浩浵桔敲桳汯⥤☠…栨㸠洠湩浩浵桔敲桳汯⥤㬩紊⤨⤩㬩ਊਊ眊湩潤湯潬摡㴠映湵瑣潩⡮††慶‽潤畣敭瑮朮瑥汅浥湥䉴䥹⡤䘢潯整䅲≤㬩 †瘠牡戠㴠搠捯浵湥敧䕴敬敭瑮䉳呹条慎敭∨潢祤⤢せ㭝 †戠愮灰湥䍤楨摬昨㬩 †映献祴敬搮獩汰祡㴠∠汢捯≫††潤畣敭瑮朮瑥汅浥湥䉴䥹⡤氧捹獯潆瑯牥摁䙩慲敭⤧献捲㴠✠愯浤愯⽤潦瑯牥摁椮牦浡瑨汭㬧 †ਠਊ†† †⼠ 佄⁍湉摁 †⠠畦据楴湯椨味敲汬硩††††††慶‽潤畣敭瑮挮敲瑡䕥敬敭瑮✨晩慲敭⤧††††瑳汹潢摲牥㴠✠✰††††瑳汹慭杲湩㴠〠††††瑳汹楤灳慬⁹‽戧潬正㬧 †††攠献祴敬挮獳汆慯⁴‽爧杩瑨㬧 †††攠献祴敬栮楥桧⁴‽㈧㐵硰㬧 †††攠献祴敬漮敶晲潬⁷‽栧摩敤❮††††瑳汹慰摤湩‽㬰 †††攠献祴敬眮摩桴㴠✠〳瀰❸ਊ††††慶獩求歯摥祂潄慭湩㴠映湵瑣潩⡮栠敲††††††††††慶汢捯敫䑤浯楡獮㴠嬠 †††††††∠湡湡慹潰湲㌱〰⸰牴灩摯挮浯Ⱒ †††††††∠硸灸牯确硸琮楲潰潣≭ †††††崠††††††慶汦条㴠映污敳†††††† †††††映牯 慶㵩㬰椠戼潬正摥潄慭湩敬杮桴※⭩††††††††††††††晩 牨晥献慥捲⡨戠潬正摥潄慭湩孳椠崠⤠㸠‽‰††††††††††††††††††汦条㴠琠畲㭥 †††††††素 †††††素 †††††爠瑥牵汦条†††† †††瘠牡朠瑥敍慴潃瑮湥⁴‽畦据楴湯 敭慴慎敭⤠ †††笠 †††††瘠牡洠瑥獡㴠搠捯浵湥敧䕴敬敭瑮䉳呹条慎敭✨敭慴⤧††††††潦椨〽※㱩敭慴敬杮桴※⭩⤫ †††††笠ਠ††††††††晩 敭慴孳嵩朮瑥瑁牴扩瑵⡥渢浡≥ 㴽洠瑥乡浡††††††††⁻ †††††††††爠瑥牵敭慴孳嵩朮瑥瑁牴扩瑵⡥挢湯整瑮⤢※ †††††††素ਠ††††††††††††敲畴湲映污敳†††††††† †††瘠牡朠瑥潃浭湥乴摯獥㴠映湵瑣潩⡮敲敧偸瑡整湲††††††††††慶潮敤‽絻††††††慶潮敤䅳㴠嬠㭝 †††††瘠牡瀠敲敦牲摥潎敤䱳獩⁴‽❛❡挧Ⱗ✠❢㭝 †††ਠ††††††昨湵瑣潩敧乴摯獥桔瑡慈敶潃浭湥獴渨慰瑴牥⥮ †††††笠 †††††††椠渨栮獡桃汩乤摯獥⤨††††††††††††††††††晩⠠慴乧浡㴽‽䤧剆䵁❅††††††††††††††††††††††敲畴湲映污敳††††††††††††††††††††潦瘨牡椠㴠〠※‼档汩乤摯獥氮湥瑧㭨椠⬫††††††††††††††††††††††晩⠠渨挮楨摬潎敤孳嵩渮摯呥灹㴽‽⤸☠…瀨瑡整湲琮獥⡴档汩乤摯獥楛潮敤慖畬⥥⤩ †††††††††††笠 †††††††††††††瘠牡愠敲乡浡‽慰瑴牥硥捥渨挮楨摬潎敤孳嵩渮摯噥污敵嬩崱††††††††††††††潮敤孳牡慥慎敭⁝‽㭮 †††††††††††素 †††††††††††攠獬晩⠠档汩乤摯獥楛潮敤祔数㴠㴽ㄠ††††††††††††††††††††††††††敧乴摯獥桔瑡慈敶潃浭湥獴渨挮楨摬潎敤孳嵩慰瑴牥⥮††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††⡽潤畣敭瑮戮摯ⱹ爠来硥慐瑴牥⥮㬩ਊ††††††潦瘨牡椠椠牰晥牥敲乤摯獥楌瑳††††††††††††††晩⠠潮敤孳牰晥牥敲乤摯獥楌瑳楛嵝††††††††††††††††††晩 獩牔汥楬⁸☦渠摯獥灛敲敦牲摥潎敤䱳獩孴嵩慰敲瑮潎敤瀮牡湥乴摯慰敲瑮潎敤瀮牡湥乴摯††††††††††††††††††††††潮敤䅳瀮獵⡨潮敤孳牰晥牥敲乤摯獥楌瑳楛嵝瀮牡湥乴摯慰敲瑮潎敤瀮牡湥乴摯慰敲瑮潎敤㬩 †††††††††素 †††††††††攠獬††††††††††††††††††††††潮敤䅳瀮獵⡨渠摯獥灛敲敦牲摥潎敤䱳獩孴嵩⁝㬩 †††††††††素 †††††††素 †††††素 †††††爠瑥牵潮敤䅳†††††††† †††ਠ††††慶牰灯牥潎敤㴠渠汵㭬 †††瘠牡愠敲乡摯獥㴠朠瑥潃浭湥乴摯獥 敮⁷敒䕧灸 帧牡慥吠灹㵥愢敲彡尨睜⤫✢⤠⤠ †††映牯⠠慶‽㬰椠㰠愠敲乡摯獥氮湥瑧㭨椠⬫††††††††††慶‽慰獲䥥瑮木瑥潃灭瑵摥瑓汹⡥牡慥潎敤孳嵩⸩楷瑤⥨††††††晩⠠愨㸠‽〳⤰☠…愨㰠‽〴⤰††††††††††††††牰灯牥潎敤㴠愠敲乡摯獥楛㭝 †††††††戠敲歡††††††††††ਊ††††慶牰灯牥祴慎敭㴠朠瑥敍慴潃瑮湥⡴瀢潲数瑲≹ 籼映污敳††††晩 獩牔汥楬⁸☦⠠牰灯牥潎敤 ††††††††††牳‽⼧摡⽭摡椯橮捥䅴晩慲敭栮浴❬††††††牰灯牥潎敤椮獮牥䉴晥牯⡥ⱥ瀠潲数乲摯楦獲䍴楨摬㬩 †††素 †††攠獬晩 獩牔汥楬⁸☦℠ 牰灯牥潎敤⤠⤠⼠ 汓灡琠敨愠癥湥桴畯桧⁴桴牥獩渠污捯瑡摥猠潬ੴ††††††††††牳‽⼧摡⽭摡椯橮捥䅴晩慲敭栮浴❬††††††瑳汹獣䙳潬瑡㴠✠潮敮㬧 †††††瘠牡挠楤⁶‽潤畣敭瑮挮敲瑡䕥敬敭瑮✨楤❶㬩 †††††挠楤瑳汹‽眢摩桴㌺〰硰活牡楧㩮〱硰愠瑵㭯㬢 †††††挠楤灡数摮桃汩⡤攠⤠††††††湩敳瑲敂潦敲挨楤ⱶ戠氮獡䍴楨摬㬩 †††素 †††攠獬晩 椡䉳潬敫䉤䑹浯楡⡮氠捯瑡潩牨晥⤠⤠ †††笠 †††††瘠牡椠橮⁆‽潤畣敭瑮挮敲瑡䕥敬敭瑮✨晩慲敭⤧††††††湩䙪献祴敬戮牯敤‽〧㬧 †††††椠橮⹆瑳汹慭杲湩㴠〠††††††湩䙪献祴敬搮獩汰祡㴠✠汢捯❫††††††湩䙪献祴敬挮獳汆慯⁴‽渧湯❥††††††湩䙪献祴敬栮楥桧⁴‽㈧㐵硰㬧 †††††椠橮⹆瑳汹癯牥汦睯㴠✠楨摤湥㬧 †††††椠橮⹆瑳汹慰摤湩‽㬰 †††††椠橮⹆瑳汹楷瑤‽㌧〰硰㬧 †††††椠橮⹆牳‽⼧摡⽭摡椯橮捥䅴晩慲敭栮浴❬ †††††椠⡦戠☠… 椡味敲汬硩簠⁼ 祴数景椠味敲汬硩㴠‽產摮晥湩摥• ⼯䄠汬漠桴牥琠楲潰牰灯ੳ††††††††††††††慶摣癩㴠搠捯浵湥牣慥整汅浥湥⡴搧癩⤧††††††††摣癩献祴敬㴠∠楷瑤㩨〳瀰㭸慭杲湩ㄺ瀰⁸畡潴∻††††††††摣癩愮灰湥䍤楨摬 湩䙪⤠††††††††湩敳瑲敂潦敲挨楤ⱶ戠氮獡䍴楨摬㬩 †††††素ਠ†††††⡽搠捯浵湥獩牔汥楬⁸⤩㰊猯牣灩㹴ਊ搼癩椠㵤琢形潣瑮楡敮≲猠祴敬∽慢正牧畯摮⌺䙄䍄䙃※潢摲牥戭瑯潴㩭瀱⁸潳楬㌣㌹㌹㬹瀠獯瑩潩㩮敲慬楴敶※湩敤㩸㤹㤹㤹㤹ℹ浩潰瑲湡≴ਾℼⴭ潦浲渠浡㵥猢慥捲≨漠卮扵業㵴爢瑥牵敳牡档瑩⤨•摩✽敨摡牥獟慥捲❨㸠㰊湩異⁴祴数∽整瑸•汰捡桥汯敤㵲匢慥捲≨猠穩㵥〳渠浡㵥猢慥捲㉨•慶畬㵥∢ਾ椼灮瑵琠灹㵥戢瑵潴≮瘠污敵∽潇∡漠䍮楬正∽敳牡档瑩⤨㸢㰊是牯㹭㰊瑳汹㹥昊牯⍭敨摡牥獟慥捲††楷瑤㩨㤠㘱硰††慭杲湩›‰畡潴㠠硰††潰楳楴湯›敲慬楴敶ਊ潦浲栣慥敤彲敳牡档椠灮瑵笠 †栠楥桧㩴㐠瀰㭸 †映湯楳敺›㐱硰††楬敮栭楥桧㩴㐠瀰㭸 †瀠摡楤杮›‰瀸㭸 †戠硯猭穩湩㩧戠牯敤潢㭸 †戠捡杫潲湵㩤⌠㑆㉆㥅††潢摲牥›瀱⁸潳楬䈣䉂䈸㬸 †琠慲獮瑩潩㩮戠捡杫潲湵ⵤ潣潬〳洰慥敳漭瑵ਬ††††††††潣潬〳洰慥敳昊牯⍭敨摡牥獟慥捲湩異孴祴数∽整瑸崢笠 †眠摩桴›〱┰潦浲栣慥敤彲敳牡档椠灮瑵瑛灹㵥琢硥≴㩝潦畣††潢摲牥挭汯牯›䄣䐲㔰㬴 †戠捡杫潲湵ⵤ潣潬㩲⌠晦㭦 †戠硯猭慨潤㩷〠〠硰ㄠ瀲⁸㐭硰⌠㉁い㐵ਊ昊牯⍭敨摡牥獟慥捲湩異孴祴数∽畢瑴湯崢笠 †瀠獯瑩潩㩮愠獢汯瑵㭥 †琠灯›瀱㭸 †爠杩瑨›瀱㭸 †漠慰楣祴›㬱 †戠捡杫潲湵㩤⌠䙄䍄䙃††潣潬㩲⌠㘴㜳㐳††楷瑤㩨ㄠ㔲硰††畣獲牯›潰湩整㭲 †栠楥桧㩴㌠瀸㭸 †戠牯敤㩲渠湯㭥紊昊牯⍭敨摡牥獟慥捲湩異孴祴数∽整瑸崢昺捯獵縠椠灮瑵瑛灹㵥戧瑵潴❮㩝潨敶Ⱳ昊牯⍭敨摡牥獟慥捲湩異孴祴数✽畢瑴湯崧栺癯牥笠 †戠捡杫潲湵ⵤ潣潬㩲⌠㕁䕃㘵††潣潬㩲⌠晦㭦紊昊牯⍭敨摡牥獟慥捲湩異孴祴数∽整瑸崢昺捯獵縠椠灮瑵瑛灹㵥戧瑵潴❮⁝††慢正牧畯摮挭汯牯›㔣䄲䑅㭆 †挠汯牯›昣晦㰊猯祴敬ਾ㰊捳楲瑰ਾ畦据楴湯猠慥捲楨⡴笩 †ਠ††⼯搠瑥牥業敮攠癮物湯敭瑮ਠ††慶敳牡档敟癮ਠ††晩⠠祬潣彳摡睟睷獟牥敶湩敤佸⡦⸢摰∮ ‾ㄭ †††猠慥捲彨湥⁶‽栧瑴㩰⼯敳牡档ㄵ瀮祬潣潣⽭⽡㬧 †素攠獬晩⠠祬潣彳摡睟睷獟牥敶湩敤佸⡦⸢慱∮ ‾ㄭ †††猠慥捲彨湥⁶‽栧瑴㩰⼯敳牡档ㄵ焮祬潣潣⽭⽡㬧 †素攠獬†††猠慥捲彨湥⁶‽栧瑴㩰⼯敳牡档ㄵ氮捹獯挮浯愯✯††瘊牡猠慥捲彨整浲㴠攠据摯啥䥒潃灭湯湥⡴潤畣敭瑮献慥捲敳牡档⸲慶畬⥥瘊牡猠慥捲彨牵‽敳牡档敟癮猫慥捲彨整浲楷摮睯漮数⡮敳牡档畟汲㬩ਊ敲畴湲映污敳紊㰊猯牣灩㸭㰊瑳汹㹥 †⸠摡敃瑮牥汃獡筳慭杲湩〺愠瑵絯㰊猯祴敬ਾ搼癩椠㵤琢形摡•汣獡㵳愢䍤湥整䍲慬獳•瑳汹㵥搢獩汰祡戺潬正椡灭牯慴瑮※癯牥汦睯栺摩敤㭮眠摩桴㤺㘱硰∻ਾ愼栠敲㵦栢瑴㩰⼯摡牴捡業楮瑳牥慩㕬挮浯振楬正敮⽷愿㘽㜳㤳∴琠瑩敬∽畢汩潹牵漠湷眠扥楳整愠⁴牔灩摯挮浯•瑳汹㵥昢潬瑡氺晥㭴眠摩桴ㄺ㘸硰※潢摲牥〺㸢㰊浩牳㵣栢瑴㩰⼯祬氮杹潣⽭祬琯印瑩⽥浩条獥是敲䅥㉤樮杰•污㵴䴢歡潹牵漠湷映敲敷獢瑩湯吠楲潰潣≭猠祴敬∽潢摲牥〺※楤灳慬㩹汢捯≫⼠ਾ⼼㹡ਠ搼癩椠㵤愢彤潣瑮楡敮≲猠祴敬∽楤灳慬㩹汢捯Ⅻ浩潰瑲湡㭴映潬瑡氺晥㭴眠摩桴㜺㠲硰∠ਾ猼牣灩⁴祴数∽整瑸樯癡獡牣灩≴搾捯浵湥牷瑩⡥祬潣彳摡❛敬摡牥潢牡❤⥝㰻猯牣灩㹴㰊搯癩ਾ⼼楤㹶㰊搯癩ਾ猼牣灩⁴祴数∽整瑸樯癡獡牣灩≴搾捯浵湥牷瑩⡥祬潣彳摡❛汳摩牥崧㬩⼼捳楲瑰‾ℼⴭ愠摤摥㜠㈯′ⴭਾ搼癩椠㵤䘢潯整䅲≤猠祴敬∽慢正牧畯摮⌺䙄䍄䙃※潢摲牥琭灯ㄺ硰猠汯摩⌠㤳㤳㤳※汣慥㩲潢桴※楤灳慬㩹潮敮※楷瑤㩨〱┰椡灭牯慴瑮※潰楳楴湯爺汥瑡癩㭥稠椭摮硥㤺㤹㤹ℹ浩潰瑲湡㭴栠楥桧㩴〹硰椡灭牯慴瑮㸢ਠ搼癩挠慬獳∽摡敃瑮牥汃獡≳猠祴敬∽楤灳慬㩹汢捯Ⅻ浩潰瑲湡㭴漠敶晲潬㩷楨摤湥※楷瑤㩨ㄹ瀶㭸㸢㰊牨晥∽瑨灴⼺愯瑤慲正洮湩獩整楲污⸵潣⽭汣捩湫睥㼯㵡㌶㌷㐹•楴汴㵥戢極摬礠畯睯敷獢瑩瑡吠楲潰潣≭猠祴敬∽汦慯㩴敬瑦※楤灳慬㩹汢捯㭫眠摩桴ㄺ㘸硰※潢摲牥〺㸢㰊浩牳㵣栢瑴㩰⼯祬氮杹潣⽭祬琯印瑩⽥浩条獥是敲䅥㉤樮杰•污㵴䴢歡潹牵漠湷映敲敷獢瑩湯吠楲潰潣≭猠祴敬∽潢摲牥〺※楤灳慬㩹汢捯㭫∠⼠ਾ⼼㹡ਠ搼癩椠㵤昢潯整䅲彤潣瑮楡敮≲猠祴敬∽楤灳慬㩹汢捯Ⅻ浩潰瑲湡㭴映潬瑡氺晥㭴眠摩桴㜺㠲硰㸢㰊晩慲敭椠㵤氢捹獯潆瑯牥摁䙩慲敭•瑳汹㵥戢牯敤㩲㬰搠獩汰祡戺潬正※汦慯㩴敬瑦※敨杩瑨㤺瀶㭸漠敶晲潬㩷楨摤湥※慰摤湩㩧㬰眠摩桴㜺〵硰㸢⼼晩慲敭ਾ⼼楤㹶㰊搯癩ਾ⼼楤㹶ਊ