logo

file Musings on Parshat Ki Seitzei

  • Heshy Berenholz
  • Heshy Berenholz's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Moderator
More
2 months 2 weeks ago - 2 months 2 weeks ago #582 by Heshy Berenholz
Heshy Berenholz created the topic: Musings on Parshat Ki Seitzei
Young Israel of Oceanside, Long Island. We cite sources when possible. Some of our interpretations may derive from ideas we may have seen elsewhere, possibly without attribution. Or we may simply have forgotten the source. For this we apologize. We invite your comments, observations and participation.

Overview

This parsha overflows with human kindness. 74 diverse mitzvahs (27 positive and 47 prohibitions; more than any other Parsha) mostly bein adam l’chavero (between Man and Man) relating to the daily life of the individual and his societal behavior
 Family structure and relationships
o Marrying female war captive
o Firstborn rights
o Disobedient son
 Kindness and dignity
o Exposed corpse of a criminal cannot stay hanged overnight
o Helping someone you dislike [which may help that feeling to abate; your kindness may affect that person’s feelings towards you]
o Restoring lost property
o Kindness to animals
 Assisting in picking up an animal that has fallen under the weight of its load
 Sending away the mother bird that is sitting on its baby birds or eggs in its nest
 Not plowing with an ox and donkey together
 Transvestism (cross-dressing) and transgenderism prohibited
 Sparing the mother-bird (shiluach hakan)
 Guardrails needed on roof
 Forbidden agricultural and animal combinations:
 Yoking an ox and an ass
 Shaatnes
 Tzitzis
 Sanctity of marriage
 Charges against a bride
 Adultery—if proven guilty, both participants die
 Rape
 Seduction
 Prohibited marriages
 Classes excluded from the congregation:
o One with mutilated genitals
o Bastard (one born of adulterous or incestuous union, not if merely born out of wedlock)
 Sanctity of the camp
 Fugitive slaves are not to be returned
 Cult prostitution prohibited
 Charging neshech (interest) prohibited
 Obligation to keep vows
 Field workers may eat from the crop while working
 Procedure for divorce
 Laws of equity and humanity
 Newlywed gets a one-year army exemption
 Kidnapping is a capital crime
 Debt collection rules
 Wages must be paid on time
 Individual responsibility
 Exceptional care needs to be taken in the treatment of convert, widow, and orphan
 Generosity to the landless(shichcha)
 Excessive punishment prohibited
 Kindness to animals (not to muzzle an ox when it is treading grain)
 Levirate marriage (Yibum) for brother of one who has died childless
 Business integrity demands honest weights and measures
 Remembering and eradicating the nation and the concept of Amalek


“Ki Seitzei Lamelchama Aal Oyvecha: if (or when) you Go Out to Wage (a non-obligatory) War against Your Enemies…”

The Lubavitcher Rebbe, citing the Zohar, and noting that the word war (La-melchama) relates to the Hebrew word for bread (lechem), sees the deeper meaning for this opening verse in the unending struggle between the base and sublime natures of a person. When a child is born, the soul migrates from being totally spiritual into the body. To survive and to battle evil in the world one needs to be armed with the knowledge and performance of both mitzvahs that were already given and those that soon will be presented.

On a deeper psychological level, perhaps the “war” is about fighting tendencies that are built into our psyche. The commandment to honor one’s parents is the coping mechanism for unconscious forces like Oedipus complex and the Electra complex. Perhaps on some deep level one feels the need to create a concrete deity to worship. The Torah’s response is to warn us over and over to avoid and to destroy idolatry in any of its manifestations.

This parsha is always read during the month of Elul, a time for introspection and repentance.

The Defiant, Rebellious Son

After detailing laws relating to the capture of an attractive woman during war and then the right of the first born to a double inheritance, the Torah introduces us to Ben Sorayr Umoreh, a stubborn, rebellious son who refuses to accept his parents’ authority. [Note: the Hebrew word “Umoreh” may be related to the root-word that means “teaching”. This child won’t learn from anyone. He knows better. He can teach his parents a thing or two!]

His parents warn him about his behavior in front of witnesses (Rashi). If he still steals and continues his extreme anti-social behavior (gluttony and drunkenness), the parents bring him to Court where he is judged, then stoned to death. The punishment is designed to … “clean out Evil from your midst and all Israel shall hear and fear.”

The child is first warned. If he persists in his behavior he gets lashings (malkos). He is then warned again and gets the death penalty if his actions are seen by two witnesses. The Sages tell us that the son is put to death not only because of his current anti-social behavior but also “al shame sofo”, for what he likely will eventually become (a thief to finance his gluttony and drunkenness).

The severe restrictions placed by the Rabbis on the implementation of this law (e.g., both parents must be alive; both must look the same and have the same voice; the law applies only to a boy between thirteen and thirteen and three months old; the law does not apply to a girl) led Rav Shimon to conclude that “this law never happened and never will happen but is written in the Torah for us to study and receive reward!”

The proximity of topics prompts Rashi to conclude that existence of a rebellious son is linked to the father’s behavior at home -- bringing home and marrying a woman captive from war and then favoring the firstborn with a double portion of the inheritance.

SaraLee Boshnack thinks that the environment of favorites and favoritism often spawns this neurotic, anti-social behavior. The Torah presents one possible (extreme) outcome of a family permissiveness that tolerates/encourages children to openly mock and hate parents in both word and deed.

Or perhaps what we are to learn is the need for both parents to be of one mind when it comes to raising their children. By studying the extreme situation where they are not, we are able to learn about the garden variety issues of parenting (like behavioral researchers’ study of psychosis to understand neurosis). The “reward” we are to receive from studying this topic are the insights we gain that help improve our parenting skills.

By studying this text, we may also realize that there are times when a child is born with a chemical/hormonal imbalance or a defective genetic makeup (“bad seed”). Then the al shame sofo could be understood as a euphemism for the irreversible and inevitable anti-social way that the child will behave throughout his life. Perhaps to avoid embarrassing such an unfortunate individual, the Torah chooses to not explicitly discuss this situation, but instead focuses on the more usual cases for which there is a remedy.

Titus Flavius Josephus (37C.E.-100 C.E.) has long been recognized as an historian and as a military commander. He is less well-known as a biblical interpreter. Professor Michael Avioz of Bar-Ilan University provides us with a fascinating look at how Josephus translated and understood the text:

Josephus expands the meaning “not listening to parents” to disdaining one’s parents, demeaning them and not treating them with honor. Parents teach children that the parents are autonomous judges of their offspring and that children’s life goal is to tend to the parents in old age. Now, when sons and/or daughters behave disrespectfully, the parents must tell them of their unacceptable behavior and urge them to change their ways. [ Note: Josephus points out that the word “ben” usually translated as “son” could also refer to a daughter. Also, he makes no mention of glutton and drunken behavior.] If the rebelliousness is cured, the child is excused from punishment. But if not, the child is brought outside the city-- with the masses following-- and is stoned. [Josephus makes no mention of parents going to elders and of a trial.]

Josephus may assume that these laws are presented here because the child in question was from the “despised” wife and not the “good” wife written about in the immediately preceding section discussing inheritance. When the Torah writes “Veyisroo oso” the Rabbis interpreted this to mean physical punishment, lashes/flogging. But that expression can also mean a verbal rebuke: conversation with the child explaining what he has done and trying to convince him to repent.Though no such conversation is found in the text, Josephus fills in details that help us grasp the spirit of the law.

The two-word expression “Sorayr Umoreh” is usually translated to mean one thing. Contrary to the Rabbis’ interpretation that it refers to the child stealing from his parents, Josephus interprets this to mean the child’s violation of the duties towards his parents in general.

Josephus makes no mention of the role of the city Elders or of a trial or of a verdict coming from the Elders. Instead he has the parents bringing the child directly to the mob for punishment. Josephus justifies this harsh punishment because the offence was not only against the parents but also against God, since God is also a parent to humanity. Josephus felt so strongly about this because the law of honoring parents in the Ten Commandments comes immediately after the laws regarding worshiping God and keeping His Sabbath.

Professor Avioz’s conclusion is that Josephus’ approach (differing from Rabbinic interpretations which may not yet have been fully developed) may reflect his wish “to present Jewish law as enlightened and thus, not so different from—and favorably comparable to—Roman law”. Or, because Josephus lived in Rome far removed from the Jewish community, his interpretation may be simply his own personal attempt to understand the Torah and its laws.

Hanging and Burial

After a man is put to death by stoning and is then hung on gallows, his body is not to be left on the gallows overnight .Instead, the body must be buried that very day for “a hanging corpse is offensive [‘killilas elokim taluy’] to God [who created man in his image]”.Then you will not defile the land which God your God is giving you as an inheritance”.

[Note: Some speculate that this law is presented here because it follows the laws of Ben Sorayr Umoreh who, if found guilty, is stoned to death. Despite the child’s sinful behavior, its body may not be left overnight.]

The human body is to be treated with dignity even in death. Rashbam’s interpretation of killilas [also meaning “cursing”] is that when people see the body swaying in the wind they may begin cursing whomever—the judges or the family or someone else involved in the case.

Guila Kotler thinks that the act of hanging is not an act of justice but one of revenge or public humiliation. And the Torah’s ethics is one of discouraging vengeful act and insisting on just behavior.

Another facet of this requirement to bury the corpse the same day may be to minimize the public’s exposure to death. Touching a corpse [and in some instances proximity to the corpse] brings on tumah, a state of cognitive loss; a "death" or "dispirited" state during which one is so deeply depressed, apathetic, and/or guilt-ridden (on some level) that he/she no longer has the capacity to enter any relationship--not with God and not with other human beings. A corpse is considered the "ultimate father of all tumah” because contact with death triggers a primordial uneasiness, fear (of one's own mortality? of disease?) and negativism that can absorb all the person's emotional energy. The person who encounters death is self-absorbed, sad, and often depressed. These feelings interfere with one's ability to connect with others.

The longer the corpse is visible publicly, the more opportunity exists for people to fall into this psychological rut. But the Torah wants us to “not defile the land” [i.e., ourselves] with such unproductive negativity.


On Sheluach Hakan (Sparing the Mother-Bird)

“If you come across a bird's nest on any tree or on the ground, and it contains baby birds or eggs, then, if the mother is sitting on the chicks or eggs, you must not take the mother along with her young. You must first chase away the mother, and only then may you take the young. [If you do this] you will have it good, and will live long.”

Rashi, quoting the Talmud (Hulin 142a), points out that if for an easy mitzvah like this (which does not involve any monetary outlay or demanding work) one is promised a good long life, imagine how much more reward can be expected for performing the hard mitzvahs! It is interesting that the reward for doing this “easy” Mitzvah is the same as for honoring one’s father and mother, probably the most difficult commandment to fulfill, in that in each case the reward is a long life.

Guila Kotler and Elaine Feldman note the pain the mother bird must experience when she is forced to abandon her offspring. So, this commandment entails a heavy burden experienced by one of the “parties”. This idea of “heavy burden” is what links the two seemingly disparate topics.

Yehudah Valledares thinks the need to send the mother bird away is to allow her to resume her innate instinct to reproduce, thus insuring the natural order of things even after a human’s intervention.

Psychologically speaking, the sending away of the mother bird may express the truth that we humans ultimately need to leave the nest (“cut the mothers’ apron strings”) if we are to develop independence; become assertive (“habanem Tekach lach”) and experience a healthy emotional maturation (L’maan Yaarechun Yamecha).

The Hebrew root-word of yaarechun also means healing and restoration. Manya Berenholz thinks that yaarechun yamecha means that the individual gets the opportunity to move on to the next stage of his/her emotional life. If parents are alive the child could work through his or her relationship with them and “grow up” in a healthy emotional state.

Control and assertiveness are part of the growing-up process alluded to both here and in Kebud Av V’aim. Here the passing traveler is in control. It is he who takes the initiative to send the mother bird away. The maturing child, too, needs to take the initiative to assert his independence and individuality. Loss of a parent prematurely stunts the working-through process of this complex parent-child relationship; prevents movement to the next emotional level; and often results in one’s “living in the past” in an attempt (on an unconscious level) to relive past events to gain control.

Rabbi David Fohrman’s insight is that the linkage between Kebud Av V’aim and Sheluach Hakan is in understanding and respecting Motherhood. It is the mother that is the prime subject of the Sheluach Hakan “…if the mother is sitting on the chicks or eggs, you must not take the mother along with her young. You must first chase away the mother…” It is the mother-bird who instead of soaring freely in safety is willing to put herself at risk by sitting on her nest to protect her young. She is willing to endanger herself because of her maternal instincts. One is prohibited from using the maternal instincts against the mother bird. That would be a desecration of Motherhood.

A mother, human or animal, will do anything for her child. The human parental love remains no matter what the child does. For that child to take that love and give nothing in return and to use it as a trap against the mother and to not give the mother the deference she deserves also would be a desecration of Motherhood.

The promise of long life in both situations derives from the acknowledgement of mothers’ special status and treating them accordingly.

“Shiluach haKein: The Transformation of a Mitzvah” by Rabbi Natan Slifkin (a.ka. the “Zoo Rabbi”) …
…surveys the various (and sometimes contradictory) ways of understanding and fulfilling the mitzvah—and how these ideas changed over time.

The approach of the rationalist school of thought, pioneered in The Golden Age of Spanish Jewry (and embodied in Rambam) is that:

• Knowledge can be obtained by our own reasoning and our own reasoning/evidence is preferable to blind faith
• There is a consistent natural order over history and a de-emphasis on the existence of supernatural forces and entities
• The role of mitzvahs in our lives is to further the moral and intellectual personality of the individual; to establish proper relations in society; to inculcate truth; and to prevent unhealthy habits

The approach of the mystical school of thought, popularized by the comprehensive Zohar, the foundation of Kabbalah, a book believed to have been composed by Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai (student of Rabbi Akiva) in the second century C.E. (but first revealed in the thirteenth century and published by Rabbi Moshe de Leon in Spain) is that:

• Esoteric knowledge is gained by select people through some form of divine inspiration or revelation and should be taken on faith
• The existence, workings of, and belief in, supernatural entities and forces is emphasized
• Mitzvahs are the mechanism for achieving the manipulation of these spiritual/celestial forces

The Rationalists understand the two Mitzvahs of Shiluach Hakan --negative prohibition of not taking mother with the young and positive commandment to send the mother away before taking the young--in terms of compassion. It is cruel and greedy to take both mother and young. It is heartless to take advantage of the mother’s maternal instincts to protect her young.

Rambam focuses on the idea of Tzaar Baal Chaim (avoidance of the pain the mother bird would have experienced) had she been there when her eggs were taken. The Talmud cites a statement that appears to be at odds with this approach: if, during his prayers, the Chazzan asks God to be merciful like He is with the Kan Tzipor, we stop him, because we cannot assume that this Mitzvah exists only because of His compassion. Rambam indicates that this is a minority opinion.

Ramban believes it would be an act of cruelty to remove (and presumably eat) the mother bird and her eggs. The aim of this mitzvah is educational; the goal is to inculcate compassion and kindness in our interactions with other people until it becomes part of our persona. [Note: Having witnessed the extreme cruelty of Nazis taking mother and children together to their deaths--and having the mothers watch the torturing of their children--re-affirms Mankind’s critical need to live and to practice compassion.] The Torah’s desire to improve our behavior in dealing with animals--and ultimately with fellow humans--is also manifest in other mitzvahs like the prohibition of slaughtering a mother cow and its calf on the same day and the prohibition of cooking a baby goat in its mother’s milk (mentioned three times in the Torah) …Ramban also offers an alternate explanation rooted in conservation: we are not permitted to slaughter in such a way that would uproot the species.

Ibn Kaspi thinks this is one of several mitzvahs designed to reconnect us with the world in a way that removes our arrogance and inflated self-importance. We have a kinship with the animal world; eating of meat was a grudging concession after the Flood and even then, with restrictions. Regarding the plant world, we cannot, for example, arbitrarily cut down fruit- bearing trees. The soil connection is manifest in its required resting every seven years. Though commanded to dominate the Earth, Man remains part of it and must relate to it accordingly.

Mystics view this mitzvah as containing many secrets of the Torah. The Zohar writes that when God sees the mother bird in pain as it flits from place to place, it evokes His Mercy --which then spreads to Jewish people in Exile where it is needed. Amazingly, according to this approach it takes a deliberate act of cruelty to cause God to extend His compassion to the Jewish people!

There is a debate over whether the commandment is optional or obligatory. The Torah text conveys a scenario in which one happens across a bird nest and then if he wants the eggs or baby birds (a free food source) he must send the mother bird away before taking them. The rationalists, who view compassion as the purpose of the Mitzvah, argue that in the case where one does not want the young there is no reason to send away the mother bird. But mystics maintain there is a strong motivation to send away the mother in any case because that very act triggers Divine compassion.

Those who ruled that the commandment is optional still characterize people who seek out the opportunity to do the mitzvah as praiseworthy. Over the years some people traveled in the dark of night at their own risk to seek out a nest to perform the mitzvah. That people today seek out opportunities is partly because of the Zohar’s explanation of the purpose of the mitzvah and partly because of the personal rewards promised by the Torah for its performance --extra life, presumably for allowing the mother bird to flee and have further offspring (extra life). The Midrash expands on this: for allowing the mother bird to escape and have more children, one will be blessed with more children. For allowing her to create a new nest, one will be rewarded with a new “nest” (home). For “sending away” the coming of the Messiah is hastened.

The rise of mysticism has dramatically changed the way this and other mitzvahs are understood. For example, mezuzah, which was meant to serve as a reminder of one’s duties to God, now is perceived as a mystical tool for the protection of one’s home. Washing one’s hands in the morning once served hygienic and psychological purposes but now, with the rise of mysticism, is seen as a means for removal of harmful spiritual forces.

On Charging Interest

“You may not cause your brother to pay interest—interest on money, interest on food, or interest on any other item for which interest may be taken.”

Both charging and receiving interest are prohibited. The Hebrew word used here to characterize interest is neshech, which derives from the root meaning “to bite”. Demanding payment of interest in advance takes a substantial “bite” out of the sum being loaned. The other word is “tarbit” [which later evolved into the word ribbit, “increase”] refers to the interest received by the creditor.

In the agrarian society of the Torah lending money to a fellow Jewish farmer [who was considered family] was an act of philanthropy—and not a business proposition—that provided the farmer with the necessary working capital to purchase supplies. The loan would be repaid after the crop is sold.

The intent of the mitzvah is to emphasize our obligation to our co-religionists. A shared history and outlook creates a unique relationship which is evidenced by the obligation to lend to our fellow Jews interest-free. Such loans demonstrate an extra level of compassion and responsibility for the welfare of our brethren. Therefore, this prohibition does not apply to a non-Jew. Rambam asserts that it is obligatory to charge interest on loans to non-Jews.

Rav S.R. Hirsch reasons that the ban on interest belongs in the category of sins between man and God. It is about an excessive [and false] sense of ownership that may prompt one to refuse to lend money to others in need unless accompanied by profit. But one who truly appreciates and understands that it is God who has the ultimate ownership would act differently. Since the crime is not about victimhood, both lender and borrower share in the violation. Furthermore, notes Rav Hirsch, utilizing one’s funds for capital investment and for paying labor (and not for financial transactions) creates the possibility of narrowing the gap between rich and poor.

Some suggest that the interest is a form of servitude, but of a financial type. A no-interest loan is a more dignified relationship between the parties.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe explains that lending money for interest brings in revenue without any physical effort. This stands in sharp contrast to the Torah’s approach that to be meaningful “even spiritual revenue must be earned by active involvement.”

With the rise of commercial activity in the sixteenth century, loans developed into sources of capital for businesses. As these kinds of loans were vital for commercial success, and were not the kinds of loans first envisioned by the Torah, efforts were made to find a permissible way to charge interest on loans.

The Talmud discusses an isko business arrangement in a partnership. Rabbis in Poland and subsequently in other parts of Eastern Europe created a document called “heter isko”. The essence of this document is to transform the lender-borrower relationship into an investment relationship. The provider of the capital, now a partner in the venture, agrees to limit his share in the profits to the dollar amount of the interest payments. What was once an interest payment is now considered profit. This technical redefinition of the loan as an investment allowed Jewish commercial enterprises to succeed without violating the laws of interest. The banking industry in Israel has also adopted use of this document.

Following is the introduction to a Shtar Isko [Agreement Concerning Interest on Loans] format developed by the Beth Din of America:

“Jewish Religious Law strictly prohibits the paying or receiving of interest on loans made between Jews. However, when monies are advanced during a business transaction, an agreement may be entered, whereby the provider and receiver of these funds are considered equal partners. This partnership is based upon the stipulation that, upon request, every loss must be attested to by two trustworthy witnesses, and all profits verified by oath. All consequent profits and losses are then equally shared. However, to avoid these very stringent requirements, the provider of the funds, under this “Shtar Isko”, agrees to waive his share of the profits in lieu of receiving a fixed percentage of the money advanced. This percentage is then considered profit, rather than interest on a loan. This agreement becomes effective when the receiver of the funds executes a form as set below.”


Remember Amalek

The topic of Amalek is discussed twice in the Torah.

In the Book of Exodus, we are presented with a factual account of what happened and God Himself’s commitment to destroy Amalek. Moshe reiterates that “God will be at war with Amalek throughout the ages”. In this week’s parsha, God calls upon us to act: “Remember what Amalek did to you…you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget.” [Note: it is this week’s text that is read on Shabbos Parshat Zachor.] That nomadic tribe, unprovoked and totally lacking in fear of God attacked from the rear where the weakest were located. They were the first group to attack, and dispelled the fear the surrounding nations felt towards the Israelites.

Rashi, commenting on the use of the phrase that Amalek “met you” -- the Hebrew word for “met” can also be traced to a root meaning “cold” --compares the situation to a bath of boiling water that no one can enter. When a fool comes along and jumps in he may get scalded but he has cooled it for others. Amalek got burned by being first, but made it easier for Israel’s other enemies to attack. Sandra Gottesman adds that the phrase “met you” (accidentally) characterizes those who perceive God as a kind of passing experience and not a permanent foundation of existence.

Nechama Leibowitz observes that in Exodus, Moshe speaks as an historian but here, because he speaks as a lawgiver and moralist, he dwells on Amalek’s wickedness and cruelty.

The expression “and he [Amalek] feared not God” employed both here and elsewhere in the Torah communicates the subject’s immoral behavior and lack of pity and fundamental humanity. Nechama Leibowitz adds that Amalek is “the archetype of the wanton aggressor who smites the weak and defenseless in every generation”. More than just a people (whose identity today is unknown) Amalek is the embodiment of Evil that must be recognized, confronted and eradicated.

Throughout history our people too often suffered at the hands of Amalek-- from Haman the Agagite to Hitler, yemach shemo ve-zichro (“may his name and memory be blotted out”). We are obligated to always remember in our hearts and with our words the Evil that is Amalek. We need to be constantly on the lookout for any new, emerging signs of Evil. And we are obligated to destroy all manifestations of present-day Amalek be it Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS, Iran…

In the Book of Exodus, the topic of Amalek follows on the heels of an incident in which the Israelites seem to have doubted God’s presence among them. In this week’s parsha the topic follows a demand that one be upright and truthful in business (by maintaining honest weights and scales). Perhaps what is being communicated in both places is the pressing need to honestly look into ourselves and face the truth in us. Have we absorbed and then behaved according to the Torah ethics? (“Is God within us” means have we made His integrity and ethics part of us.) Failure to embrace His Goodness in our behavior lays the groundwork for Evil in the world as embodied in Amalek.


Concluding Thoughts

 Sandra Gottesman notes that each of us needs to place ourselves in a time or place or situation that can evoke God’s Mercy. The month of Elul and the upcoming Aseres Yemai T’shuva are the perfect times for reflection and introspection in the hope that by changing ourselves for the better (Tshuva), God will unleash His powerful, positive forces of Mercy in the world. We need to observe all the mitzvahs, recognizing that none is unimportant and ease of observance is relative and can influenced by time or place.

 The difference between what constitutes a hard or easy mitzvah may be in the planning involved. A “hard” mitzvah requires forethought, planning and repetition. Practicing both the expected and the easy strengthens our ability to reflexively, effectively and appropriately perform the unexpected ones

 “An article of men’s clothing may not be worn by a woman and a man may not wear an article of women’s clothing” is the source for the prohibition of cross-dressing. But on a more profound level the words “men’s clothing” and “women’s clothing” may be euphemisms for gender identity. Understood this way, the Torah is prohibiting the adoption of a gender identity other than the one assigned at birth

 “Be careful to carry out what is uttered by your lips”

 “A man should be put to death [only] for his own sin"



Rabbi H.L. Berenholz
Last Edit: 2 months 2 weeks ago by Heshy Berenholz.
Moderators: Heshy Berenholz
Time to create page: 0.100 seconds