Yaakov Taubes
In his recent study on the history and origins of chapter divisions, Nicholas Dames writes, “It [the chapter] is so ubiquitous as to be almost invisible, the essence of conventionality.”[1] Indeed, chapters can be found everywhere in the world of books and are typically taken for granted, with most readers rarely considering their impact on how texts are read and understood.
Division into chapters is perhaps most influential and seemingly universal when it comes to the Bible. To appreciate the impact of the standard chapter system as used to divide the Hebrew Bible among Jews, one need only consider the Orthodox Union’s Nach Yomi program (which recently completed the cycle), whereby people around the world learn the same chapter of Nakh (Nevi’im and Ketuvim) every day, or the 929 Tanakh B’yachad project in Israel, named for the total of chapters in Tanakh, originally sponsored by the Israeli Education Ministry – both of which had wide appeal. Thousands of schoolchildren still mark the completion of a chapter from Humash with a siyyum or celebratory party. Even for those removed from these worlds, the standard reference and citation system for Tanakh remains: Book, Chapter, Verse. Many Jews are surprised, therefore, when they learn that the chapter division system is actually of Christian origin, appearing first in Latin Bibles and only later adopted in Hebrew Bibles. At first blush, it seems almost sacrilegious to use so foreign a system to divide and cite the most holy of our books. This is especially true when considering that the chapter divisions are often not aligned to the traditional rabbinic understanding of the text, such as when a weekly parashah starts in the middle of a chapter, or when a chapter division separates content that should be linked.[2] In this paper, I will investigate a particular chapter opening, focusing on its exegetical implications and reception.
About a third of the way through Parashat Mishpatim in the Book of Exodus, the following verse is recorded: “If the thief is seized while tunneling and beaten to death, there is no bloodguilt in his case.” This law, commonly known as that of Ba Be-Machteret, or the tunneling burglar, allows for the killing of a thief who breaks into a person’s house on the assumption that the thief is prepared, and perhaps even intends, to kill the owner if he is not killed first.[3] In standard Hebrew Bibles/Humashim, this verse opens the 22nd chapter of Exodus. In the ArtScroll Stone Chumash, we find the following note in the commentary:
The fact that all editions of the Chumash list this as a new chapter illustrates the problem that came into being many centuries ago. In the Torah, there are no chapters. The division of the Torah into the commonly used chapters is a Christian device introduced by non-Jewish Italian printers. The Bible scholars responsible for the divisions did not take into account the interpretation of the Torah as it was transmitted from Sinai. Consequently, one often finds new chapters that should have been a continuation of the previous ones and long chapters that should have been divided into two.
This “chapter” is actually a continuation of the previous one. It continues the laws of thieves and their penalties. This is obvious not only from the general subject matter, but from verse 1, which speaks of the thief. Clearly, the reference is to the same thief who has been discussed in the earlier verses.[4] [bold in the original]
Let us break this down. While various systems for dividing the Vulgate, or Latin Bible, into sections were devised in the centuries following its creation, what would become the standard chapter division system emerged in the early thirteenth century and spread rapidly, eventually surpassing the other earlier systems.[5] In short order, Latin Bibles copied in Paris and elsewhere in Europe began to include numbered chapter divisions, while other works based on the Bible, such as commentaries and reference guides, adopted them for citations. The earliest known Jewish author to make use of the Christian chapter system was R. Isaac Nathan of Arles (Provence) in his Meir Nativ, the first Hebrew Biblical concordance, created between 1437-1447.[6] Biblical verbal concordances, then as now, list the words of the Hebrew Bible in alphabetical order (usually according to root or base word), and then identify where they can be found in the Bible. In explaining his reasoning for creating a concordance, Isaac Nathan writes that he would regularly dispute with Franciscan friars over the correct interpretation of Scripture and learned that they had a tool known as a Biblical Concordance with which they could easily find relevant verses to use as proofs in their polemics. Consider, for example, one debating the correct translation of the word “almah,” “maiden,” as used in Isaiah 7:14, and whether it meant a virgin, implying that a virgin would have a child, thus prefiguring the Christian belief in the Virgin Birth, or whether it refers simply to a young woman. One way of strengthening or developing an argument would involve investigating the use of the word almah elsewhere throughout the Hebrew Bible, an investigation that would be greatly eased by use of a concordance. Isaac Nathan highly valued this work and proceeded to describe his decision to create a Hebrew version.
In order for a concordance to function, it requires locators; indeed, the Latin concordances, created over two centuries earlier, utilized the chapter divisions as well as letters or other graphic systems to identify the position within the chapter. While both verse divisions, and paragraph breaks known as setumot (“closed” sections, where there is a gap of a few words before the next section begins) and petuchot (“open” sections, where the next section begins on a new line), are already marked in Hebrew Masoretic Bibles, such as the Aleppo Codex and Codex Sassoon, created in the tenth century, these divisions were not generally numbered or otherwise denoted in a way such that they could be used as locators in the way that the chapter divisions were utilized in Latin concordances. As Isaac Nathan explains:
For I have found in the Christian version the same division into chapters, by their numbers according to their ordinance, with no alteration or major change in all their books, which all agree without exception. I therefore decided to adopt this principle in the present tool [i.e., the concordance], and to set aside our own division into sections, due to the differing opinions regarding the petuchot and setumot, and the difference between some copies [of the Bible] and others, and especially to facilitate finding the verses in their places when a Christian challenges and queries us in his ways. And I have written this number [of the Christian chapters] for my entire book, so that I might easily find that which I choose and desire from it at any time.[7]
The reason, therefore, that Isaac Nathan adopted the Christian chapter system of locators was due to a lack of a suitable alternate system among the Jews that could be used in its stead. Since Hebrew Bibles did not yet include these divisions, Isaac Nathan included a chart at the beginning of the concordance which laid out the chapter breakdown for each Biblical book, noting each chapter’s opening words and a tally of the verses. This chart allowed the concordance to function with reference to existing Hebrew Bibles.
The Meir Nativ was first published in 1523. As described in depth by the late Professor Jordan Penkower, the Meir Nativ’s system was adopted, with some modification, for the chapter divisions included in the second rabbinic Bible, the precursor of what is now known as the Mikraot Gedolot, which included the full text of the Hebrew Bible along with several commentaries and Masoretic notes.[8] This edition, published by the non-Jewish Daniel Bomberg in Venice in 1525, would prove extremely popular and was the basis of many future Hebrew Bibles which likewise adopted its chapter divisions and eventually added verse enumeration.[9] These are the “non-Jewish Italian printers” identified by the Stone Chumash in the above-cited comment, but this arrangement was technically based upon that of Isaac Nathan, a Jew, who in turn based it on the earlier Christian system.
While there has been the occasional voicing of opposition against the Jewish adoption of the Christian divisions over the centuries, as well as proposals for alternate systems to replace them, such a possibility seems unlikely and remote.[10] For one thing, it would mean that Jews would be using a different reference system for the Bible than the rest of the world. Second, it is difficult to build consensus around an organizational plan as grand as this. Finally, and perhaps most problematic, it would also render obsolete all printed Biblical citations and references from the past 500 years.
To return to the Stone Chumash, the comment about the verse of the tunnelling burglar having an “obvious” connection to the verses from the previous chapter would seem correct; opening a new chapter does indeed seem to interrupt the flow of the discussion about thieves presented in the previous verses. However, as Amos Hakham in his commentary on Exodus (part of the Da’at Mikra series) notes, the law of the animal thief just prior in 21:37 is far more similar to the case of the goring ox in 21:36 in that both focus on restitution for an animal. The case of the tunneling burglar in 22:1 is a totally different law from the prior verse aside from the general concept of theft. It is thus not necessarily incorrect to introduce a chapter division at this point.[11]
Whether the logic is obvious or not, however, the bigger problem with the chapter break here, as the Stone Chumash comment notes, is that the parashah setumah break follows 21:36, which indicates that the verse is the end of a section, while verse 21:37 opens a new unit running until 22:4. The formalization of the setumot and petuchot parashah breaks was one of the primary creations of the Masoretes, the ninth-century scholars who carefully preserved and recorded the divisions of the Hebrew Bible units (among other crucial elements of the text). Jews have traditionally divided the Bible in accordance with this system, thereby making the adoption of misaligned Christian chapter breaks seem especially problematic.[12] In the present case, the standard chapter break is off by one verse from the parashah break, and we can thus readily understand the noted flaw that the chapter division does not conform to the rabbinic one.
There is just one slight problem. If one looks inside a Christian Bible, the King James Version (KJV) for example (perhaps the hotel room copy provided by the Gideons), and opens to Exodus 22, one will find that the opening verse there is “If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep” – which is what appears as 21:37 in our Humashim. In other words, the chapter division in the KJV perfectly matches the parashah break! This is not a mistake or a quirk of this specific version; the Stuttgart Vulgate, Wycliffe, Polyglot Bibles and other printed Christian Bibles all begin a new chapter at this same place, unlike what appears in standard Humashim! If we turn to the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible (NRSV), we find that its chapter break here likewise conforms to the parashah break, like the aforementioned Christian Bibles. In a note there, the editors inform the reader that Hebrew Bibles start the chapter a verse later. The NRSV comment thus asserts that the Jews break the chapters up differently, while the ArtScroll comment (lehavdil) asserts that the Christians break them up differently!
What is the origin of this discrepancy? In the first Rabbinic Bible, printed in 1517, also by Bomberg, Chapter 21 only has 36 verses and the chapter break matches the parashah division, like in the Christian Bibles, but unlike in our modern Humashim. The change in question, i.e., the adding of another verse (37) to Chapter 21 and starting Chapter 22 with the tunneling burglar, was introduced into the second rabbinic Bible, printed in 1525, which was based, as noted above, on the Meir Nativ’s list of the chapters. Indeed, if we turn to Isaac Nathan’s list, which opens his concordance, we readily see his listing of Exodus 21 containing 37 verses, and chapter 22 opening with the tunneling burglar.[13] This, then, is the source of the conflict; the incongruence was introduced not by non-Jewish Italian printers or Christians, but by a Jew in a Hebrew concordance which was adopted in an early Hebrew Bible (which was technically printed by a non-Jew in Italy, but had many Jewish editors) and was subsequently adopted in other Humashim.
A similar phenomenon is present in Deuteronomy in Parashat Re’eh. In a comment on 13:1, the prohibition of adding or subtracting mitzvot (bal tosif and bal tigra, respectively), the Stone Chumash notes that the beginning of a new chapter here is based on the non-Jewish printers. As indicated by the parashah break following 13:1, this verse is really part of the previous section admonishing the people to not follow the ways of the other nations who perform abhorrent acts against God. One can challenge the logic here, as the next section discusses the prohibition against following a false prophet who tries to mislead people into worshipping a false god; the prohibition against adding or subtracting commandments is certainly relevant to that discussion.[14] Still, the Stone Chumash comment is correct regarding the parashah break and the apparent chapter misalignment.
And yet here as well, a look at printed Christian Bibles will show a new chapter beginning at 13:2, perfectly in line with the parashah break. The NRSV editors note that Hebrew Bibles mark things differently and the origin of the discrepancy can once again be traced to the Meir Nativ.
Were these changes intentional? It is certainly tempting to suggest polemical motivations. The argument for this in the case in Deuteronomy is fairly straightforward. By connecting the verse about the prohibition to add or subtract from the commandments with the verses about false prophets, there is an implicit message that one sign of a false prophet is his changing of the Torah by adding or subtracting from it, a polemical assault on Jesus and Christianity. The case in Exodus is less clear, but a polemical argument can be made there as well. In various places in the New Testament, the second coming of Jesus is described as being comparable to a burglar in the night, which is to say, arriving out of nowhere. For example, I Thessalonians 5:2 states, “For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.” Other verses urge people to wait alertly for his return like one who waits for a thief to attempt intrusion at any time.[15] By highlighting the verse of the tunneling burglar at the start of a chapter, the Torah now calls special attention to the idea that the tunneling burglar has “no bloodguilt”, implying that he can be killed and by extension, that there is “no blood” for the killing of Jesus, somewhat of a polemic against Christian teaching which placed significance on his blood (as well as on the Jews’ culpability in his death.)
On the surface, these interpretations may seem attractive; Isaac Nathan was, after all, an active polemicist, who regularly debated with Christians over the true meaning of Scripture. It is unlikely, however, that he would intentionally alter the chapter divisions to make such a subtle argument, especially if his reason for adopting the Christian system in the first place was for the sake of standardization, as noted above. It is more likely that Isaac Nathan happened to have copied his chapter list from a Christian Bible that indeed marked the chapter breaks in those particular locations, even though it was not the standard division as reflected in the majority of Bibles.[16]
It is important to note that the chapter and setumah/petuchah systems are actually perfectly aligned in the majority of cases, leading at least one scholar to conclude that these earlier Jewish divisions actually influenced the later Christian ones.[17] Studying with the chapters as divisions is thus often not far off from studying with the parashah system, and even when they are misaligned, it remains convenient. Still, as I was doing this research, I was struck by how few commentators seemed to note, or take issue with, the fact that some of the chapter divisions are against the Mesorah, the Stone Chumash serving as an important exception. Apparently, the chapter divisions were not generally perceived as significant for modes of interpretation, but rather as a system for citations alone. In the Torah, the divisions of the Parshiyot ha-Shavua are far more influential in terms of how the text is studied and expounded, and while attention is occasionally drawn to cases where there is a misalignment, such as in Parashat Va’era, which famously starts with verse 2, the chapter divisions do not really impact the study of the Torah.[18]
There are, however, some limited cases where Jewish commentators did indeed note the chapter divisions. Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson (the Lubavitcher Rebbe), for example, occasionally extracted significance from the chapter and/or verse numbering for a particular verse. For instance, in Sihot Kodesh he notes the opposing interpretations offered by Rashi in his commentary to Exodus 19:20 versus his commentary to 20:19, and drew implications from the reversing of the chapter and verse numbering.[19] While the Rebbe was certainly aware that the chapter numbers were of non-Jewish origin, he apparently felt that the omnisignificance of the Torah and the historical adoption of this system gave these numberings importance and were thus worthy of explication. Likewise, while I could find no explicit written source for this, some have noted that the famous words “naaseh ve-nishma,” proclaimed by the Bnei Yisrael as they were receiving the Torah, and widely understood as the ultimate statement of fealty towards God, appear in Exodus 24:7, a reminder that we must manifest these words 24 hours a day and 7 days a week! But such an interpretive method, even when done seriously, is not mainstream.
A useful comparison to the Biblical chapter divisions’ importance, or lack thereof, is the division of the Talmud by page or daf. This division was first included in an edition printed by the same Daniel Bomberg in the sixteenth century in Italy, and remains the standard pagination with which all Talmud editions are printed and cited today. Even with the increased popularity of Daf Yomi, it is difficult to claim that studying Talmud according to what appears on a given page is logical from a pure pedagogical perspective; the daf division has no regard for topics and most often interrupts passages in the middle of a sentence. It was not designed to be anything else but a standardized pagination system which could be used for citation and referencing, crucial elements for the success of Talmud study which should not be minimized. Still, most students of the Talmud would not assign cosmic significance to the appearance of specific Talmudic passages on specific pages.[20]
Even here, however, there are exceptions. For example, there is a tradition to study Masekhet Shevuot during the 49 days of Sefirat ha-Omer because there are 49 pages in the tractate according to the standard pagination (based on the original Bomberg edition). Those who cite this practice are likely aware that the title of Masekhet Shevuot refers to “oaths” and is unrelated to the (similar sounding) name of the holiday of Shavuot which means “weeks,” and that there are really only 48 pages in this tractate since the standard texts of the Babylonian Talmud begin only with Page 2.[21] Nonetheless, explanations of the significance of this practice are sought; some, for example, draw a connection between the fact that this holiday celebrates the giving of the Torah, our acceptance of which is likened by Chazal to the acceptance of a binding oath (as expressed, for example, in the Talmudic statement “mushba’ ve-omed me-Har Sinai).[22]
In a similar vein, others have noted that the story of R. Shimon b. Yochai and his son emerging from the cave appears in Masekhet Shabbat on Page 33, a significant number since the 33rd day of the Omer is celebrated as R. Shimon b. Yochai‘s yahrtzeit/hillula. But such explanations, even when seriously suggested, are not common, and most assign little significance to the page number. The same is true for the Biblical chapters, despite the fact that they were arranged with far more attention paid to the content than with the pagination of the Talmud. Ultimately, both are useful tools for citation and segmentation, but not generally for exegesis.
At the same time, books, both sacred and secular, have long relied on segmentation to help the reader avoid being overwhelmed. Dividing information into smaller, more manageable units remains a fundamental method of organizing knowledge, a practice that persists from centuries past through the present. This concept extends beyond literature into everyday life, exemplified by the metaphor of life stages as chapters, symbolizing transitions and new beginnings. Such divisions significantly shape human perception and experience, and often influence our understanding and interpretation of texts. For students of the Torah, it is crucial to acknowledge the somewhat arbitrary and complex history of these chapter divisions within the Sacred Text. Furthermore, recognizing the implicit and explicit implications of these divisions allows for a deeper appreciation of the Hebrew Bible’s structure and meaning, and of how it has been interpreted throughout the ages.
[1] Nicholas Dames, The Chapter: A Segmented History from Antiquity to the Twenty-First Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2023), 20.
[2] An oft-cited example is the opening chapters of Genesis, where the verses about the seventh day of creation and Shabbat are set apart from those describing the other days of Creation.
[3] See discussion on Sanhedrin 72a.
[4] The Stone Edition: The Chumash ed. Nosshon Scherman et. al (Brooklyn, New York, 1993), 426. I cite from here both because it remains among the most popular shul Chumashim and because I have heard people cite this chapter division as an example of a Christian “error.” An abridged version of this comment appears in the Stone Edition of the Artscroll Tanach.
[5] Although the creator of this system was long assumed to be Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury from 1207-1228, most contemporary scholars reject this. See Paul Saenger, “The British Isles and the Origin of the Modern Mode of Biblical Citation,” Syntagma 1 (2005), 77-123.
[6] While a few earlier-copied Hebrew Bibles include the chapter divisions, this typically reflects the work of a later scribe who subsequently added the Christian system’s delineations to an existing manuscript.
[7] Translation adapted from Ram Ben-Shalom, “Me᾿ir Nativ: The First Hebrew Concordance of the Bible and Jewish Bible Study in the Fifteenth Century, in the Context of Jewish-Christian Polemics” Aleph, Vol. 11, No. 2 (2011), 289-364.
[8] Jordan Penkower, “The Chapter Divisions in the 1525 Rabbinic Bible,” Vetus Testamentum 48:3 (1998). Although I never studied directly with him, I was privileged to hear Professor Penkower z”l lecture and I communicated with him on several occasions. Our final correspondence this past summer before his passing was related to some of the ideas discussed here; I plan to publish a fuller study based on this in the near future. May Professor Penkower’s memory be a blessing.
[9] The first rabbinic Bible, printed in 1517, also marked the chapters, but was not based on the Meir Nativ. The second edition, however, was far more popular and influential
[10] See Pesach Feinfer, Mesores haTorah veHaNaviim (Vilna, 1906).
[11] It should be noted that the standard printings of the Mekhilta of Rabbi Yishmael begins a new section at 22:1, although this is a later-introduced division and may simply reflect the chapter divide.
[12] Koren Publishers and R. Aryeh Kaplan (Moznaim Publishers) created similar division systems in their respective Tanakhs, while also including the chapter divisions. Notably, such a system of numbered divisions based on the parashiyot was also utilized in the Hebrew Bible produced by R. Shem Tov. B. Abraham ibn Gaon (known as the Shem Tov Bible) in 1312.
[13] This is not a typo or misprint of his list. If we look in the concordance’s entries themselves, there are indeed entries which cite Ex. 21:37, a verse that exists according to this system but is not so numbered in standard printed Christian Bibles.
[14] As a related aside, in his codification of the laws of bal tosif in his Mishneh Torah, Maimonides specifically notes that if a prophet arises, from either the Jews or the nations of the world, and performs miracles and signs, but claims that God sent him to add or subtract a commandment, he should be considered a false prophet. See Hilkhot Yesodei ha-Torah 9:1. Similarly, when Maimonides codifies the laws of the one who prophesied in the name of a false god (the subject of the opening verses of Deut. 13), he also mentions that a false prophet is killed even if his prophecy called for neither the adding or subtracting of commandments. See Hilkhot Avodah Zarah 5:6. Maimonides, who lived a world and time apart from the introduction of the Biblical chapter divisions, may have noted the semihut ha-parashiot, the juxtaposition between the verses which prohibit adding and subtracting commandments, with those describing the punishment of the false prophet, and then drawn the relevant inferences. My thanks to Dr. Baruch Sterman for pointing this out to me. On the larger question as to whether a prophet is indeed prohibited from adding or subtracting commandments, see Eliyahu Krakowski, “Is a Prophet Authorized to Institute a Rabbinic Commandment? A Halakhic Clarification and Its Implications for Maimonidean Thought” [Hebrew], Hakirah: The Flatbush Journal of Jewish Law and Thought, vol. 12 (Fall 2011): 23-36.
[15] See, e.g., Matthew 24:43 and II Peter 3:10.
[16] Indeed, there are several other places where the standard Hebrew Biblical chapter divisions do not conform to the Christian ones. Some of these can be traced back to the second Rabbinic Bible and the Meir Nativ upon which its chapter divisions were based, while others likely reflect alternate chapter divisions that were once extant in medieval Latin Bibles. For a full list of chapter differences, see The Jewish Annotated New Testament, eds. Amy-Jill Levine & Marc Zvi Brettler (Oxford University Press, 2011), 598-599.
[17] See Paul Saenger, “Jewish Liturgical Divisions of the Torah and the English Chapter Division of the Vulgate Attributed to Stephen Langton,” in Pesher Naḥum: Texts and studies in Jewish history and literature from antiquity through the middle ages presented to Norman (Naḥum) Golb, ed. Koel I. Kraemer and Michael G. Weschler (Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2012), 187-202. Also see David Marcus, “Alternate Chapter Divisions in the Light of the Masoretic Sections,” Hebrew Studies 44 (2003), 119-28, who discusses some of the issues raised here.
[18] See, for example, David Marcus, “Differences between Chapter Divisions and the Parashiyyot: The Case of Va’ era (Exodus 6:2),” in Essays in Education and Judaism in Honor of Joseph S. Lukinsky, eds. Burton I. Cohen & Adina A. Ofek, (Jewish Theological Seminary 2002), 382-393.
[19] Sihot Kodesh 5737 vol. 1. Yitro 481. This idea also appears in Likkutei Sichot 16:229.
[20] That being said, there is a fierce protectiveness over maintaining the now traditional “tzurat ha-daf” or standard pagination and layout. Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, for example, received strong backlash for his original Hebrew translation of Talmud because it disregarded these precedents.
[21] Although spending a day studying “Page 1” – known as the shaar blatt, or title page – which lists all the names of the commentaries on the Talmud included in that edition could certainly be worthwhile.
[22] The popular work Taamei ha-Minhagim cites R. Shlomo Zucker, the Av Beit Din of Halas, who quotes a report from the Sefer Bnei Shileishim that the Chatam Sofer approved of the practice of studying Masekhet Shevuot during the 49 days of Sefirat ha-Omer, and adds that one doing so will reach page 34 on Lag Ba’Omer, (since there is no daf aleph/1); he proceeds to explain the significance and fittingness of that page for that day. I was unable to find the citation in the writings of Zucker, but I did find the source in Bnei Shileishim, authored by R. Yehosef Rottenberg, Hasidic Rebbe of Koson, in the early twentieth century. The work is divided into multiple sections and in the part entitled Vayelaket Yosef (p. 276), he cites the Chatam Sofer regarding the parallel of the number 49 and the significance of daf 33, but he does not say that there was actually a practice to study the tractate during sefirat ha-Omer, although one could suggest it is implied. Another book recording the customs of the Chatam Sofer mentions that this was in fact his practice, but no source is cited. Some have pointed to the Chatam Sofer’s responsa (Even HaEzer 1:100) where he questions the Rema’s citation/omission of a particular law in the Shulchan Arukh and notes that he wonders about this every year when he learns Shevuot with his students. But this source too does not say anything about when during the year it was learned, and the comment “every year” can mean in each year that he indeed learned it, but not that he necessarily learned it every year. For citations of other explanations and rabbis who had this practice, such as the Maharam Eish (cited in Responsa Imrei Eish 41), see Shlomo Friedman, Sedeih Tzufim ‘al Masekhet Shevuot, (Brooklyn, 2023) 2-3.
Site Operations and Technology by The Berman Consulting Group.