{"id":185588,"date":"2026-05-01T14:04:27","date_gmt":"2026-05-01T22:04:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=185588"},"modified":"2026-05-02T18:33:20","modified_gmt":"2026-05-03T02:33:20","slug":"the-boundary-at-sinai-principle-8-as-coalition-technology","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=185588","title":{"rendered":"The Boundary at Sinai: Principle 8 as Coalition Technology"},"content":{"rendered":"

Principle eight is the live wire of Orthodox theology today, and Shapiro’s chapter on it is the most explosive in his 2011 book, The Limits of Orthodox Theology: Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles Reappraised<\/a>. The Principle holds three claims at once. The entire Torah was given to Moses by God. The Torah text in our hands today is identical to what Moses received. Every part of the Torah carries the same holiness. Shapiro shows that canonical Orthodox authorities have contradicted each of these claims for centuries.
\nThe Babylonian rabbis admitted they had lost the proper defective and plene spellings, and R. Moses Feinstein<\/a> concedes that the kashrut of contemporary Torah scrolls is therefore not so certain. The Talmud and Midrashim cite biblical verses that differ from the Masoretic text. R. Meir kept a Torah scroll with variant readings, and Nahmanides confirms these were not scribal errors but R. Meir’s own deliberate text. The Jerusalem Talmud preserves the story of three Torah scrolls in the Temple court whose differences were resolved by majority vote. Rashi and Kimhi acknowledge that the Scribes corrected the text for theological reasons. Ibn Ezra holds that defective and plene spellings were left to Moses’s discretion as a scribe, and that the last twelve verses of Deuteronomy were written by Joshua. The talmudic tradition contains an opinion that Joshua wrote the last eight verses, and Joseph ibn Migash, Maimonides’ own teacher, accepted this view. Tsevi Hirsch Ashkenazi held that those last verses have lower revelatory status. R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik reportedly held a similar position. R. Shalom Schwadron held that Moses’ prophetic level in writing Deuteronomy was lower than in the rest of the Torah. The Brisker Rav held that not all parts of the Torah were revealed in the same fashion. Nahmanides believed Joshua had a hand in writing the Ha’azinu poem. The Severus Scroll listed in Bereshit Rabbati documents textual variants in a Torah scroll that left Jerusalem in captivity.
\nShapiro stacks these citations in a way that makes the Principle untenable on its own terms. The canonical tradition contradicts the Principle’s substantive content at every layer. The Principle could not have functioned as a substantive theological claim that the tradition collectively accepted. It must have been doing different work. Alliance Theory<\/a> tells us what work.
\nThe Principle is a coalition boundary marker<\/a>. Its substantive content is negotiable. Its function as a signal is not. To see what the signal does, you have to see what coalitions<\/a> exist on either side of the boundary it draws, and what each coalition<\/a> stands to gain or lose by its placement.
\nThe boundary at Principle 8 distinguishes Orthodoxy from Conservative and Reform Judaism on the institutional surface. Conservative Judaism accepts the procedure of academic biblical criticism while retaining halakhic observance. Reform rejects most of Mosaic authorship and treats the Torah as primarily a human document. Orthodoxy maintains the formal claim that the Torah we have is the Torah Moses received. The formal claim is what makes Orthodoxy not-Conservative and not-Reform. Drop the claim and the institutional difference collapses. Conservative Judaism’s twentieth-century history is the cautionary tale. Once it accepted biblical criticism procedurally, the boundary between it and Reform became porous, and within two generations the Conservative movement lost roughly half its membership to Reform and to no affiliation. The Modern Orthodox figures advancing biblical criticism today need a story about why their trajectory will differ. They have not produced one that holds.
\nThe Principle does deeper work than institutional differentiation, though, and this is where Becker’s hero systems frame becomes useful alongside Pinsof’s coalitional one. Mosaic authorship anchors the immortality project of yeshiva study. Every generation of Talmud students reaches back through an unbroken chain of teachers to Sinai. The chain’s authority depends on the integrity of its origin. If the Torah at Sinai was not the Torah we hold, the chain runs back to a point that cannot be located, and the immortality project loses its anchor. The kollel man’s life only makes sense if his study connects him to revelation. Cut the connection and the life empties. The Principle holds because the hero system requires it, not because the historical evidence sustains it.
\nThe halakhic authority structure rests on the same foundation. Every detail of every commandment, on the traditional account, descends from God to Moses to Joshua to the elders to the prophets to the Men of the Great Assembly to the tannaim to the amoraim to the geonim to the rishonim to the aharonim to the contemporary posek. The chain’s force depends on the integrity of its origin. If the Torah is a composite document edited over centuries, the warrant for any specific halakha becomes uncertain at the source. The posek loses the ability to say “this is what God commanded” and is reduced to saying “this is what later rabbis decided.” The latter is not nothing, but it is not what Orthodoxy claims to deliver. The Principle protects the posek’s authority by protecting the warrant for that authority.
\nThe Principle’s third claim, that every part of the Torah carries equal holiness, does specific institutional work. It prevents internal stratification of the text that might create degrees of authority for different commandments. Without the equal-holiness claim, you could argue that the central narrative of the Exodus carries more weight than the commandment about not boiling a kid in its mother’s milk. The whole superstructure of halakha depends on every verse being equally Torah, which is to say equally binding. Maimonides built this into the Principle because the alternative is interpretive triage that the rabbinic class cannot survive.
\nNow turn to the Modern Orthodox dissenters Luke calls “critics within Orthodoxy wanting something more respectable.” The phrase captures their position exactly. They are educated men and women, often with academic credentials, who have read the source-critical scholarship and find the traditional position untenable on the evidence. They want to remain Orthodox. They want their tradition to make sense to people who have read Wellhausen and Friedman and Knohl. They are looking for a way to be both an honest reader and a loyal Orthodox Jew.
\nThe cohort includes Yuval Cherlow at the Hesder yeshiva network, the late Solomon Sassoon (whose son published the relevant material posthumously), Tamar Ross at Bar-Ilan and Lindenbaum, Herzl Hefter at the Har’el yeshiva, Zev Farber at TheTorah.com, Irving Yitz Greenberg’s milieu, Yosef Kula in Israeli religious Zionism, Chaim Navon, and James Kugel in his Bar-Ilan and Harvard appointments. Mordechai Breuer, the senior generation’s most respected biblical scholar in Orthodox circles, developed the shitat ha-bechinot theory, holding that the appearance of multiple authorship is a literary feature divinely intended for the reader to discern.
\nThe strategy across this cohort is consistent. They cite Ibn Ezra, Judah he-Hasid, and Joseph Bonfils as canonical Orthodox precedent for the position that some of the Torah is post-Mosaic. They argue that the Maimonidean version of Principle 8 was a late codification that earlier generations did not require. They reach for terms like “progressive revelation,” “cumulative revelation,” “multi-prophet authorship,” “literary unity at a higher level,” and “divine intent transmitted through human composition.” The rhetorical move is a restoration argument. We are not reforming. We are recovering an earlier flexibility that codification suppressed.
\nThis is structurally the same move Eliezer Berkovits made on halakha. Berkovits cited pre-Mishnah halakhic fluidity to argue that the Conservative permission to drive on Shabbat or to count women in a minyan could be defended within the Orthodox tradition’s own canonical resources. The institutional response to Berkovits and to the biblical criticism cohort is the same. The question the institution asks is not whether the challenger has cited canonical sources correctly. The question is whether the challenger has standing to ask the question at all.
\nAlliance Theory<\/a> predicts the answer, and Shapiro’s three<\/a> biblical<\/a> criticism<\/a> papers from the last few years document the prediction’s outcome.
\nThe 2017 paper, “Is Modern Orthodoxy Moving Towards an Acceptance of Biblical Criticism?<\/a>” in Modern Judaism, is the survey. Shapiro works through Solomon David Sassoon, Yuval Cherlow, Uri Sherki, Mordechai Breuer, Tamar Ross, Isaac Sassoon, Daniel Jackson, Norman Solomon, James Kugel, Ben Zion Katz, Tova Ganzel, Jerome Gellman, Jeremy Wieder, Shlomo Riskin, Zev Farber, Herzl Hefter, Amit Kula, Yehudah Brandes, and Chaim Navon. The strategy across the cohort is consistent. They cite Ibn Ezra, Judah he-Hasid, and Joseph Bonfils as canonical Orthodox precedent. They argue that the Maimonidean version of Principle 8 was a late codification. They reach for terms like progressive revelation, accumulating revelation, multi-prophet authorship, and divine intent transmitted through human composition. The rhetorical move is restoration. Shapiro’s conclusion is that the answer to his title question is yes for a segment of Modern Orthodoxy, that this represents a major divergence from what was an uncontested dogma for centuries, and that the trajectory will continue.
\nTwo pieces of evidence inside the 2017 paper carry the most analytical weight for our purposes. The first is the Jakobovits anecdote from a 1988 meeting. The British Chief Rabbi told Shapiro that if incontrovertible evidence of multiple authorship were discovered, traditional Judaism would deal with it as it has dealt with other challenges, and the traditional belief would have to be reformulated. Shapiro saw what this concedes. Jakobovits was not arguing from dogma. He was arguing from evidence. He claimed that the evidence currently does not support multiple authorship, and that therefore the traditional view holds. Once you treat the question as evidential, you have already exited the dogmatic frame. The dogma was the prohibition on entertaining the question, not a claim about the evidence. Jakobovits in private played the evidence game with Shapiro because they were two scholars in a room. In public Jakobovits defended the dogma without qualification, because the public role required the dogmatic articulation. Shapiro adds that Jakobovits’s position is the one most Orthodox Jews actually hold, even if they would not put it that way. The dogma functions as a defeasible empirical claim that the institution presents as a non-negotiable principle.
\nThe second piece is the RCA’s July 2013 statement, which Shapiro reproduces in footnote 28 of the 2017 paper. The statement was the institutional response to the Farber TheTorah.com episode and to the broader pressure the cohort was creating. The operative language requires affirmation of “the specific belief that Moshe received the Torah from God during the sojourn in the wilderness, the critical moment being the dramatic revelation at Sinai.” Shapiro reads this without elaboration in the 2017 paper, but the implications follow. The earlier “Torah from Heaven” formulation had left a loophole. As long as you affirmed divine origin, the human transmitter could be left underdetermined. Solomon David Sassoon, Cherlow, and Kula had used that loophole to advance multi-prophet authorship while affirming divine origin. The RCA closes the loophole by name. Divine origin alone is no longer sufficient. Moses at Sinai is required. The wilderness sojourn is named. The dramatic revelation is named. The RCA was specifying the boundary at exactly the location the defectors had been making porous. Coalition boundaries get drawn this precisely only when defectors have been making them porous.
\nThe 2023 Lehrhaus review essay, “Confronting Biblical Criticism<\/a>,” reviews Hazony, Student, and Sztuden’s edited volume The Revelation at Sinai: What does “Torah from Heaven” Mean? Shapiro reads the Hazony volume as a traditionalist counter-mobilization to TheTorah.com and to the cohort the 2017 paper documented. Hazony’s lead chapter is a strong defense of Torah from Heaven that engages Tamar Ross’s progressive revelation directly. Hazony’s argument is that progressive revelation cannot reconcile with the biblical and rabbinic theology in which Moses and Sinai are fundamental, and that the model leads to the realization that we can never know the intent of the Torah, since revelation could still be unfolding. Shapiro presents Hazony’s position as the traditional one, and he agrees Hazony shows the difficulties the progressive revelation position creates for anyone seeking a coherent philosophy of revelation. He also notes that for many in the Orthodox world, the progressive revelation approach is treated as heresy, not just incoherent. Shapiro engages other contributors as well, including Aster on the historical issues at Sinai, Amaru on the Oral Torah, and Gil Student on Heschel, Jacobs, and Kasher. He reproduces a 1987 letter from Louis Jacobs to him, in which Jacobs affirms Torah from Heaven and an actual revelatory event at Sinai while denying fundamentalist literalism.
\nThe Breuer correction is the most theologically revealing element across the two papers. It appears as footnote 3 of the 2023 Lehrhaus review and is republished as the freestanding correction document<\/a>. In the 2017 paper Shapiro had read Mordechai Breuer’s last published work, Limud ha-Torah be-Shitat ha-Behinot (Jerusalem, 2005), as containing a passage that softened Breuer’s earlier rejection of progressive revelation. Breuer was the senior generation’s most respected biblical scholar in Orthodox circles, and the developer of shitat ha-bechinot, the position that the appearance of multiple authorship is a literary feature divinely intended in a single Mosaic Torah. If Breuer had softened in his last work, the implications were enormous. The cohort would have a senior Orthodox figure of unimpeachable credentials supporting the progressive revelation move. The 2017 paper reads the relevant passage from page 24 of Breuer’s book as Breuer’s own position. The 2023 correction admits the reading was wrong. The passage Shapiro had read as Breuer’s own position turns out, on careful re-reading, to be Breuer describing what the Orthodox academics believe, not what Breuer endorses. Read in entirety, Breuer’s rejection of multi-prophet authorship holds. Shapiro notes that Yehudah Brandes and the editors of Be-Einei E-lohim ve-Adam and its English version The Believer and the Modern Study of the Bible had made the same error, citing Breuer as if he supported the progressive revelation position.
\nTwo things matter about the correction. The first is that it removes the most credible bridge figure from the progressive revelation coalition. Without Breuer, the cohort has no senior Orthodox biblical scholar of his stature to anchor the position. They are left with Ibn Ezra and Bonfils, whose authority is real but historically remote, and with the contemporary cohort itself, whose institutional standing is contested. The second is that Shapiro himself performs coalition repair through the correction. He had read Breuer too liberally. The correction restores Breuer to his proper boundary-defender role. Even Shapiro, who is documenting and partly endorsing the cohort’s project, will not claim figures who did not actually defect. The correction shows that the boundary’s enforcement does not stop with the institutional right wing. It runs through the scholarship itself, including the scholarship that documents the shifting boundary.
\nThe deepest insight in the three papers is Shapiro’s report of his private conversation with Lord Jakobovits. The British Chief Rabbi told Shapiro privately that incontrovertible evidence of multiple authorship would force a revision of the traditional belief. Shapiro saw what this concedes. The dogma is no longer functioning as a dogma. It is functioning as a defeasible empirical claim. Once you treat the question as evidential rather than jurisdictional, you have already exited the dogmatic frame. The dogma was the prohibition on entertaining the question, not a claim about the evidence. Jakobovits in private played the evidence game with Shapiro because they were two scholars in a room. In public Jakobovits defended the dogma, because he was performing his role in the boundary game. The gap between his private and public positions is not hypocrisy. It is the gap between propositional and tacit knowledge that Turner describes, and the gap between substantive belief and coalition signal that Pinsof describes. Both frames converge on the same observation. The Principle is doing coalition work, not propositional work.
\nThis explains why the cohort wanting “something more respectable” cannot succeed within the existing coalition structure. Their position is more respectable. They have read the scholarship. Their citations of Ibn Ezra and Bonfils are sound. Their argument that the rigid Maimonidean codification was a late development is correct on the historical record. They are doing what Shapiro himself documented in 2004. They are showing that the tradition’s actual flexibility exceeds the catechism’s claimed rigidity. By the standards of intellectual respectability, they are right.
\nCoalition logic does not run on intellectual respectability. It runs on boundary maintenance. The boundary at Principle 8 separates Modern Orthodox from Conservative on the institutional surface and protects the kollel system’s authority chain at the depth. Both functions require the boundary to hold at the precise location threatened. The cohort’s position threatens the boundary at exactly its load-bearing location. The fact that their threat is intellectually respectable does not change the coalition cost of letting them through. If anything it raises the cost, because intellectually respectable arguments are harder to dismiss and have a longer half-life in the system.
\nThe four diagnostic questions<\/a> sort the cohort with high resolution. Cherlow has Hesder yeshiva standing in religious Zionism, which gives him institutional cover. His coalition is dense, autonomous, and not dependent on Haredi recognition. He can advance the position because the cost falls on a coalition that has already paid most of it. Solomon Sassoon’s relevant work could only be published after his death, his son bearing the institutional risk on the dead man’s behalf. Tamar Ross teaches at Lindenbaum, a feminist Orthodox institution whose constituency expects exactly her kind of position. Her position is the price of admission rather than a cost. She does not pay for advancing it. She pays if she retreats from it. Hefter and Farber pay heavier costs because YCT-adjacent positioning has weaker institutional moorings. Both have been targeted by the RCA, by Cross-Currents, and by the broader right-wing Modern Orthodox infrastructure. Both have lost speaking invitations, hosting opportunities, and professional standing in the Modern Orthodox center. Kugel is the most interesting case. His tenure at Bar-Ilan and his Harvard career give him coalition independence from American Orthodoxy entirely. He writes the books and lets the synagogues figure out whether to invite him. The Modern Orthodox response, inviting him to speak only on parve topics, is textbook coalition repair through performative compliance. Everyone in the room knows what Kugel believes about the Pentateuch. Everyone agrees not to require him to say it from the pulpit.
\nThe cohort’s intellectual position is “more respectable” by external academic standards. It is also more respectable by the internal standards of canonical sources Shapiro himself documented in 2004. Neither standard determines coalition outcomes. The coalition is not optimizing for academic respectability or for canonical fidelity. It is optimizing for boundary integrity under pressure from rival coalitions. The cohort’s project, by making the boundary porous at its load-bearing location, raises the coalition’s exposure to dissolution into Conservative Judaism. The coalition’s response is the RCA 2013 statement, the marginalization of Hefter and Farber, the refusal to invite Kugel on Pentateuchal topics, and the careful reading of Breuer to ensure he is not claimed as a defector when he was not one.
\nHazony’s argument in the 2023 volume against Ross makes the underlying logic explicit. A Torah whose original cannot be recovered cannot anchor the religious tradition that depends on it. The progressive revelation theorists offer a third position that lets them carry credentials in both academic biblical scholarship and Orthodox piety. The cost is incoherence in both, since neither expertise community recognizes the synthesis as legitimate. Academic Bible departments treat Mosaic authorship the way science departments treat young-earth creationism. Yeshivot treat critical scholarship as heresy. Modern Orthodoxy sits between these two infrastructures and cannot fully credential its own scholars in either without forfeiting the other. Hazony writes from the Hazony Foundation’s perspective rather than the kollel’s, but his argument carries weight because it identifies the structural problem the cohort cannot solve. The synthesis position requires both expertise communities to accept it as legitimate. Neither does. The cohort’s standing in each community is precisely the function of the other community’s distance.
\nWhat the dogma is doing today, then, is several things at once. It is the institutional boundary against Conservative Judaism’s procedural acceptance of biblical criticism. It is the warrant for the kollel system’s chain of authority back to Sinai. It is the cement holding equal-holiness together so that halakhic detail commands attention equal to halakhic principle. It is the coalition signal that distinguishes Orthodox from non-Orthodox in the public sphere where credal recitation matters more than substantive theology. It is the protected zone where Orthodox biblical scholars are forbidden to follow their training to its conclusions. It is the daily examination question that determines who can speak from a pulpit and who cannot.
\nThe cost of holding the dogma falls on people the institutional leadership does not bear. It falls on the educated layperson who has read enough to know the Documentary Hypothesis is not nothing, and who must compartmentalize his belief from his reading. It falls on the Modern Orthodox Bible scholar trained at YU or Bar-Ilan or Hebrew University, who must self-censor in pulpit settings and produce two registers of work, the academic register that follows the evidence and the homiletic register that maintains the dogma. It falls on the children educated in Modern Orthodox schools who absorb a position their teachers privately doubt, and who will spend their twenties working out which parts of what they were taught are still operative. It falls on the cohort itself, on Hefter and Farber and Cherlow and Ross and Kugel, who pay the institutional cost of saying what others privately think. And it falls on the tradition’s intellectual coherence, since the dogma’s enforcement requires the suppression of canonical sources that Shapiro’s 2004 book already showed support the cohort’s position.
\nThe cohort’s project, read through Pinsof, is doomed in its current form. The coalition cannot afford members whose visible conduct is indistinguishable from the rival coalition’s. Berkovits ended marginalized despite philosophical distance from Conservative halakha, because his marker behavior matched too closely. Ross, Hefter, Farber, and Kula will likely end the same way. The trajectory is visible in the institutional response already. The exception is Kugel, whose academic standing protects him from the institutional cost, but whose protection comes at the cost of being invited to speak only on safe topics. Even Kugel does not get to teach Pentateuch in Modern Orthodox synagogues from the position he actually holds.
\nWhat might shift the trajectory? A few things. A senior Orthodox figure of Breuer’s stature actually defecting, which Breuer did not do and Shapiro’s correction confirms. An institutional schism that creates a parallel Modern Orthodox coalition with looser boundaries, which is what Open Orthodoxy was trying to build before its institutional infrastructure proved insufficient. A generational shift in the laity that makes the dogma’s enforcement more costly than its breach, which is possible but slow. External pressure, such as a major archaeological find, that changes the evidential terrain in a way that makes private assent to the dogma untenable for a critical mass. None of these is currently on the horizon at sufficient scale.
\nThe strange bedfellows pattern persists. The dogma holds because the coalition needs the boundary, not because the substantive content commands assent. The cohort wanting something more respectable is correct on the merits and losing on the politics. Shapiro himself, who documents the dissent and partly endorses it, performs coalition repair when his readings stray too far. Jakobovits in private told Shapiro the truth and in public defended the dogma. The system runs on the gap between private and public, between substantive and signal, between what the educated Orthodox actually believe and what the Orthodox institution requires them to say. Principle 8 is the location where the gap is widest, and where the institutional cost of closing it is highest. Until the cost calculation changes, the dogma will hold and the cohort will pay.
\nThe deeper question Shapiro’s three papers raise is whether Modern Orthodoxy can survive as a distinct coalition once biblical criticism is admitted. Centrist Orthodoxy has the answer, and it is the answer the RCA 2013 statement encodes. It cannot. That is why the wedge is being drawn at Principle 8. If you accept the procedure of academic critical scholarship for the Pentateuch, you have accepted that the boundary between Modern Orthodox and Conservative is procedural rather than substantive, and the procedural boundary cannot hold. The Modern Orthodox figures advancing biblical criticism need a story about why they are not on the same trajectory as Conservative Judaism in the early twentieth century. The stories they have produced, “we are different because our values come from Torah, not from outside Torah,” are philosophically real and coalitionally invisible. From inside the Orthodox boundary, the marker behavior is identical. Accepting biblical criticism for the Pentateuch is what Conservative does. The Modern Orthodox advocates are doing the same thing. The coalition’s response is to treat them as Conservative for institutional purposes regardless of their stated theology.
\nShapiro’s book and the three biblical criticism papers together form a sociological intervention disguised as historical and theological scholarship. The intervention’s core claim is that the dogma is not what its enforcers say it is. Its substantive content has been negotiable for centuries. Its function as a boundary marker is what the enforcers actually defend, and they defend it under the description of substantive theology because that description is what gives the boundary its felt weight. Shapiro is not arguing that the dogma should be dropped. He is arguing that the historical record shows the tradition can carry more theological diversity than the contemporary enforcement permits. Whether the coalition can carry that diversity is a different question, and the answer Pinsof’s framework gives is not encouraging.
\nThe cohort wanting something more respectable has produced respectable scholarship. It has not produced a viable coalition strategy. The two are not the same problem, and the tradition’s history suggests that scholarship rarely wins the second by being correct on the first. The lesson Lieberman should have drawn from the ketubah episode applies here. The boundary is not where the halakha says it is. The boundary is where the coalition needs it to be. Working out what the canonical sources permit is the easy half of the problem. Working out what the coalition will tolerate is the half that decides whether your work survives or is suppressed. The cohort has done the easy half well. The hard half is the one they have not solved, and the structural reasons they have not solved it suggest that solving it from the position they currently hold may not be possible.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Principle eight is the live wire of Orthodox theology today, and Shapiro’s chapter on it is the most explosive in his 2011 book, The Limits of Orthodox Theology: Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles Reappraised. The Principle holds three claims at once. The … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[43035,599,69],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-185588","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-alliance-theory","category-bible","category-marc-b-shapiro"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t