Similarities of Torah laws to other ancient religions
I have been wondering about my faith for a long time, and I am burdened with questions that disturb my peace without adequate answers.
I suspect your explanations will be more in-depth and satisfying than those on dating sites, etc., so I would be very happy if you answered my questions.
I am not talking about faith in G-d (a major reason for this is because I read your book 'G-d Plays Dice') but about the giving of the Torah and its relevance.
If we look at a variety of topics and discussions in the Torah, we will see that in countless cases the words of the Torah adapted themselves to the period in which they were given.
And if in the time of the Torah it was customary in the general world to kill even women and children in wars, then the Torah also commanded this.
And if during the time of the Torah it was customary to kill people who had committed adultery, or to sell a young girl (and not a boy!) into slavery, or to consecrate a young girl against her will, etc., etc., as stated, the Torah also directed in the same way.
But when the Torah said this, we give it profound explanations, as in the case of the laws of Hammurabi, which closely overlap with the Torah's section of laws (and, as we know, they were written before), but we find all sorts of subtle differences and discrepancies between them. And I ask myself, as a person with a religious lifestyle – am I not a hypocrite? Isn't it too great a coincidence that the Torah was not only given at a time when a large number of other religions were being invented, but also adapted itself in an astonishing way to the moral spirit of that period.
Moreover, we are witnessing the fact that in recent years the world has been trying and striving to be more moral in everything that concerns points that disturb others. (Male intercourse is not one of them) as in relation to women, for example (right to choose and salaries), so I am starting from the assumption that there are issues from that time that were not necessarily more correct. I would be very happy and grateful if you would respond, it would be of great help to me.
לגלות עוד מהאתר הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
0 Answers
Hello.
In fact, I highly doubt whether male intercourse was perceived as a moral prohibition in the ancient East. I think you are wrong, and on the contrary, in ancient cultures it was quite legitimate. The perception that this is an anachronism is a consequence of the periods of a century ago that were already shaped by the influence of religions. Regarding prostitution, see the story of Judah and Tamar. It seems completely normative there.
The language of the Torah and its terminology were certainly given in the terms of the time. You wouldn't expect it to talk about cars and airplanes when it was given four thousand years ago. The question is not in the terminology and conceptual framework, but in the ideas and values.
In relation to these, I don't think it can be said in general that the laws of the Torah were suitable for the ancient East. They preceded it in several respects, and did not always suit them. First and foremost, monotheism itself, which was unusual in the thinking of the period. Regarding the laws, there is the Midrash that God courted the nations and offered them the Torah, and they refused because it contradicted their values (adultery, theft, etc.).
The fact that there is partial agreement in the laws (with very significant differences, and many have already emphasized this, especially with regard to the laws of Hammurabi) should not be a problem. This is for two reasons: 1. If there is agreement, it does not mean that it is not true. 2. After all, there can also be an opposite effect, God speaking through Adam and Noach and in the court of Shem and the rest of the peoples of the ancient East. If you can present an argument according to which the Torah forbade something because of ancient circumstances and provide indications of this, this could be the basis for claiming change. But I think that raising such a hypothesis in itself is not enough.
Your assumption that Torah laws are supposed to focus on what disturbs others and permit what does not disturb (such as homosexuality) seems incorrect to me. You implicitly assume an identity between halakha and morality, but in my opinion these are two independent categories. Halakha strives for religious values and morality strives for the benefit of others. That is why there are sometimes contradictions between the systems, and there certainly does not have to be a match. See briefly on this In column 15 on my website.
——————————————————————————————
Asks:
Thanks for the feedback. But I would like to draw your attention again to the fact that in the past, young girls were sold as slaves wholesale, and the Torah also legitimizes this (a matter that is puzzling in itself). And also regarding the wars between the Amalekites and the seven nations in which the Israelites were commanded to kill women, children, and livestock. Again – in a rather strange way, similar to that period. I was not concerned with the formulation and terminology of the Torah, but with culture and morality, as well as many other subjects (such as dreams that were once believed to have a heavenly meaning).
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
I referred you to an article on my website that deals with the relationship between halakha and morality. I argued there that these are two separate categories. What the Torah permits a father to sell his daughter is a halakhic permission. That does not mean that it is moral in its eyes. There are some halakha that permit things and the Sages morally disapprove them. Even a woman of good looks that the Torah permits and the Sages demand that she spoke against the evil inclination (and thus the Torah itself was simplified). Here is another example of a norm that was accepted in wars of the past (to capture captives) and the Torah morally disapproves it even if it permits it halakhically.
And regarding wars, the fact that the Torah focuses this permission specifically on Amalek and the seven nations and does not say this as part of war policies in general, actually means that this is not its general moral perception.
And as for dreams, even today they are believed to have meaning, even if not heavenly.
——————————————————————————————
Asks:
I hope I'm not disturbing. But I still wonder whether the Torah should deal with and even permit such matters. Just as the Torah would not permit other heinous acts such as murder and theft. Incidentally, Islam also specifically commands the killing of Jews and certain peoples, we have concluded that primitiveness does sometimes only belong to a certain people. And just like that, since when should the killing of innocents be permitted even when it is not the general method of warfare. And regarding dreams, of course today it has a meaning, but a logical, intellectual one. And it is impossible to compare it to all sorts of prophecies that were once commonly thought to be received by people in their sleep. In addition, I wanted to ask whether it is necessary for the Torah to be given from Sinai, in order to force and urge on all these issues. And whether the argument that Isaiah the prophet forced the Israelites to keep the Torah by force is acceptable or not.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
When it comes to certain peoples, there is probably a reason for this. Think of a Jew who was in Europe during the Holocaust. Wouldn't he have wished for the killing of all Germans, from child to old man? If the Amalekites were a people with no moral hope. They educate their sons to murder and kill and destroy. Isn't it right to order the extermination of all of them? As soon as it is directed at a certain people, the criticism loses much of its sting.
I don't know on what basis you determine that a dream has no prophetic meaning. And certainly when it comes to a prophet's dream. If you don't accept the fact that he is a prophet, then your problem is not with his dreams but with the concept of prophecy itself. In short, your words assume what is wanted.
Regarding the question of whether there is a necessity that the Torah was given from Sinai, there is no necessity for anything. Everyone is supposed to form a position and make a decision about their opinion on the matter. My opinion is that it was given from Sinai, even if not the entire Torah as we have it. I explained in the fifth notebook on my website.
Regarding Isaiah, I didn't understand the question.
——————————————————————————————
Asks:
The fact that I would wish for an entire people to become extinct does not justify killing them (certainly not the animals that cannot be educated to do evil). And by the way, seven peoples were murdered not because of bad education, but we were the ones who demanded the land and they resisted (allegedly rightly, and why would a God who is all good order the conquest of another people – a matter that was acceptable at the time). In short, my argument, or more precisely, what bothers me, is that in many subjects the Torah, which was actually written by an omnipotent being who is not limited by time, permitted certain things that were acceptable at certain times, such as the treatment of women (who were specifically allowed to be sold at a young age, for example), which supposedly proves that it was written by someone whose mind was not 'open' enough to equality between people. And the very possibility of being sold into slavery proves the same point. Regarding the prophet Isaiah, I recently heard an argument that the Torah was 'invented' at that time by a man who managed to convince the prophet to teach and transmit the Torah to the people of Israel (which supposedly did not exist until then) and forced them to do so by murdering several hundred of them, as written there, and as also written in the context of a generation that arose 'that did not know the Passover' (and the murder itself joins the previous arguments regarding the practices that were accepted at that time, that God 'adapted' His instructions and commandments to the spirit of the times).
I must say that the rabbi's words are very helpful to me, and show me that there is depth on the believing side as well. I would be happy to ask about other topics (the Gemara, and the mysticism therein. Also the coming of the Messiah) but I would first be happy to know that this is not too much trouble. —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: Hello. Why doesn't that justify it? If we're talking about an evil people who educate for evil and murder and send my son out for this, it certainly justifies it. The seven nations also lost the land because of their behavior, and these things are explained in the Bible. And the obligation to destroy them is not because of the laws of war, but because they are wanted. Regarding women, as I told you, there is not necessarily a moral statement here. The daughters were under the authority of their fathers and husbands, and therefore the Torah takes care of them by giving the father permission to give them away, as I explained. And indeed, today this is not the case, the law can change. From this perspective, the Torah does not contain a moral statement regarding women, but rather a statement that is intended for the existing situation and circumstances. That is something completely different. Here there is not necessarily blindness to the value of equality, since in those circumstances to say something egalitarian is a very harmful disregard for reality. The Torah also speaks against the evil inclination (as in the case of a beautiful woman). I didn't understand the Isaiah thing, but those speculative arguments don't seem really worth discussing to me. One could come up with a million hypotheses along the lines of Chariots of the Gods. What a waste of time. You can ask and I will answer to the best of my ability and time. It is better to ask one question at a time, and when you have exhausted it, move on. All the best, Michi —————————————————————————————— Asks: What is really going on with the killing of animals?
The prophet mentions that there were sorcerers themselves, and this is actually an introduction to my next question, which actually also touches on the previous points. Isn't it strange that there used to be sorcery, precisely when the world was more primitive and less aware of natural scientific processes and therefore everything depended on sorcery and strange mysticism. As can be expected in our time, we have a large number of people who go to baboons who belong to a certain population that is less enlightened in some way. Likewise, the Gemara writes about demons and spirits, which I personally find very difficult to believe in – even in the past. And isn't the fact that the Gemara understood and believed in things that were not true supposed to give us a little insight into their wisdom in other subjects, such as laws and laws and a host of studies of equal and strict decrees? I'm a little troubled by the specific answers because overall, you can see that the Torah contains many cases of anarchist culture. Therefore, I don't feel like I'm exhausting the question. —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: Regarding the witchcraft, first of all, I get the impression that those who go to the Babas really do not belong to a particular population, contrary to what is sometimes portrayed. Second, Maimonides already said that there is no truth to it and it is forbidden to believe in it because the believer is a fool. The references in the Gemara to demons and spirits could certainly come from the beliefs that prevailed at the time, and it is certainly possible that this was a common error in ancient thinking. Just as today's sages are fed by professionals in various fields today. In my opinion, this does not cloud their ability to interpret the halakhah. Beyond that, their halakhic authority does not stem from the fact that they are wise and do not err. The sages were human beings and certainly made quite a few mistakes, in reality and probably also in halakhah. Their authority stems from the fact that we have accepted the Talmud as binding law (see the example of the Rabbi of the Rabbis of Memariam who wrote this). Even in the Knesset, I uphold the law not because it is always right but because it is the law. And when there is a Sanhedrin, there will also be the authority to change it, and I hope and believe that they will do so. In conclusion, most of the anachronisms in the Torah are in terminology and response to the circumstances that prevailed at the time. There are very few cases in which I see problematic values that are not specifically directed at that period. It should be remembered that in the laws (even those from the Torah), the vast majority are the result of the sages' interpretation of the Torah and not something written in the Torah itself (=something that the Sadducees admit). And sages can make mistakes, and there is nothing wrong with that. I assume that the killing of animals was done for educational reasons (as in other cases where animals are killed, for example in the issue of the Sanhedrin's offense and disgrace). Killing without pity is not a sin. —————————————————————————————— Asks: Speaking of terminology, I heard an argument that the duplication in the language of the Torah, such as in the names of Jethro, or the fact that Pharaoh is called without his real name (as we would write 'king') or the contradiction in the context of a slave's release to freedom. These are things that resulted from the fact that the Torah was a collection of information from several people, and sometimes duplication was created and also that they did not have all the data in their possession in a complete manner. Is this claim any basis, or can it be refuted? And in addition, do the words of the Torah and the corrections of the Sages not also indicate an external influence, as in the time of the Torah it was customary, for example, to gouge out the eye of someone who wentuge out the eye of his neighbor, and the sages of their time 'corrected' this law from the Torah and proved that it deals with money. And the very issue of killing is something that I did not receive an adequate response to, since today we watch videos from the world of extremist Islam (including ISIS) and we are shocked at the sight of murder following the crime of prostitution and the like. And in the Torah this matter was acceptable, even if it was said that it happened once every few years. Beyond that, one must take into account the method that believed that this event was rare in the Jewish calendar, which killed once every 7 years, and considering that there were several courts, then such an occurrence was not at all rare. Likewise with the prophets, who sometimes killed several hundred for not keeping the commandments, an issue that would not be acceptable in the modern view. —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: These are accepted arguments in the world of biblical criticism and what is known as the documentary hypothesis. This is a possible speculation, and I do not know how to verify or refute it. I do not know whether in the time of the Torah they used to put out an eye for someone who put out an eye for another. Do you have any clear information on the matter? In any case, the Sages demanded money instead of an eye. In Halacha, it is almost impossible to kill, because the requirements are such that the act be done under two witnesses and that the perpetrator be warned and receive a warning (yes, and for that reason I do). Therefore, in my opinion, this is a declaratory judgment, and it really did not happen (Aharon Shemesh of Bar Ilan claims in his book that this never happened). Of course, according to Halacha, one does not kill someone who is unaware of the prohibition (he is a coercive person). Even for a deliberate murderer, there is a law "and they saved the community" that makes it even more difficult to execute according to Halacha. I think that in order to understand events in ancient times, one must enter into the values that were accepted at the time (after all, prophets do not kill according to Halacha), and the circumstances of the sins in question (which were very different than in our time). The assumption in their time was that someone who sins is a deliberate offender (due to instinct), and this is not the case with us. By the way, in the US, to this day, there is the death penalty for various offenses (I think mainly murder) in most states. So irreversible punishment is also accepted today, but it depends on the severity of the offense. —————————————————————————————— Asks:
I think the Laws of Hammurabi say 'an eye for an eye', but I may be wrong. The truth is, I've explained most of my questions if my memory serves me correctly.
Therefore, I will ask about one last point that bothers me – do not all the speculations about the writers of the Torah contradict the evidence regarding the status of Mount Sinai? After all, the evidence is based, to the best of my understanding, on the fact that there is no other historical explanation other than the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai, and to the extent that there is a different explanation, it undermines the evidence, because in order to believe in such a 'bombastic' matter, we need overwhelming and certain evidence, and that is not the case when there are these conspiracies and hypotheses. —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: There is no definitive evidence for anything in the world, not even for scientific theories and laws. What we have are impressions and common sense, and with them we must choose what is more likely. For every historical hypothesis, many alternatives can be put forward. Does this mean that no historical fact can be determined?
—————————————————————————————— Asks:
No, but again, to believe in events so grandiose in terms of scale (such as the parting of the Red Sea, and speaking with God from within a burning bush) requires very solid and powerful evidence. And while there are irrefutable alternatives, perhaps it can be said that the giving of the Torah and its miracles have no solid basis.
—————————————————————————————— Rabbi:
For this, I refer you again to my fifth notebook on the site. —————————————————————————————— Pine: By the way, regarding what he said about the nickname Pharaoh, the link below actually uses this argument to strengthen the date of writing the Torah (meaning that it was written around the time of the Exodus, approximately 1300):
"In the story of the Exodus in the Torah, the kings of Egypt are simply called "Pharaoh." In contrast, later in the Bible they are called by their full names, such as Pharaoh Nechoh (2 Kings 23:29). This reflects a phenomenon that existed in Egypt itself, during those periods: from the middle of the second millennium BC until the tenth century BC, they used to write "Pharaoh" without an addition."
of:
http://mida.org.il/2015/04/02/%D7%9E%D7%99-%D7%9E%D7%A4%D7%97%D7%93-%D7%9E%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%A0%D7%9A-%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%99%D7%AA%D7%94-%D7%99%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%90%D7%AA-%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D
Regarding the question he asked: "Does this claim have any basis, or can it be refuted?" I think he meant to ask whether this claim has a reasonable basis, or whether it can be given an appropriate counter-response (= "refutable" in non-mathematical terms).
I must say that the rabbi's words are very helpful to me, and show me that there is depth on the believing side as well. I would be happy to ask about other topics (the Gemara, and the mysticism therein. Also the coming of the Messiah) but I would first be happy to know that this is not too much trouble. —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: Hello. Why doesn't that justify it? If we're talking about an evil people who educate for evil and murder and send my son out for this, it certainly justifies it. The seven nations also lost the land because of their behavior, and these things are explained in the Bible. And the obligation to destroy them is not because of the laws of war, but because they are wanted. Regarding women, as I told you, there is not necessarily a moral statement here. The daughters were under the authority of their fathers and husbands, and therefore the Torah takes care of them by giving the father permission to give them away, as I explained. And indeed, today this is not the case, the law can change. From this perspective, the Torah does not contain a moral statement regarding women, but rather a statement that is intended for the existing situation and circumstances. That is something completely different. Here there is not necessarily blindness to the value of equality, since in those circumstances to say something egalitarian is a very harmful disregard for reality. The Torah also speaks against the evil inclination (as in the case of a beautiful woman). I didn't understand the Isaiah thing, but those speculative arguments don't seem really worth discussing to me. One could come up with a million hypotheses along the lines of Chariots of the Gods. What a waste of time. You can ask and I will answer to the best of my ability and time. It is better to ask one question at a time, and when you have exhausted it, move on. All the best, Michi —————————————————————————————— Asks: What is really going on with the killing of animals?
The prophet mentions that there were sorcerers themselves, and this is actually an introduction to my next question, which actually also touches on the previous points. Isn't it strange that there used to be sorcery, precisely when the world was more primitive and less aware of natural scientific processes and therefore everything depended on sorcery and strange mysticism. As can be expected in our time, we have a large number of people who go to baboons who belong to a certain population that is less enlightened in some way. Likewise, the Gemara writes about demons and spirits, which I personally find very difficult to believe in – even in the past. And isn't the fact that the Gemara understood and believed in things that were not true supposed to give us a little insight into their wisdom in other subjects, such as laws and laws and a host of studies of equal and strict decrees? I'm a little troubled by the specific answers because overall, you can see that the Torah contains many cases of anarchist culture. Therefore, I don't feel like I'm exhausting the question. —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: Regarding the witchcraft, first of all, I get the impression that those who go to the Babas really do not belong to a particular population, contrary to what is sometimes portrayed. Second, Maimonides already said that there is no truth to it and it is forbidden to believe in it because the believer is a fool. The references in the Gemara to demons and spirits could certainly come from the beliefs that prevailed at the time, and it is certainly possible that this was a common error in ancient thinking. Just as today's sages are fed by professionals in various fields today. In my opinion, this does not cloud their ability to interpret the halakhah. Beyond that, their halakhic authority does not stem from the fact that they are wise and do not err. The sages were human beings and certainly made quite a few mistakes, in reality and probably also in halakhah. Their authority stems from the fact that we have accepted the Talmud as binding law (see the example of the Rabbi of the Rabbis of Memariam who wrote this). Even in the Knesset, I uphold the law not because it is always right but because it is the law. And when there is a Sanhedrin, there will also be the authority to change it, and I hope and believe that they will do so. In conclusion, most of the anachronisms in the Torah are in terminology and response to the circumstances that prevailed at the time. There are very few cases in which I see problematic values that are not specifically directed at that period. It should be remembered that in the laws (even those from the Torah), the vast majority are the result of the sages' interpretation of the Torah and not something written in the Torah itself (=something that the Sadducees admit). And sages can make mistakes, and there is nothing wrong with that. I assume that the killing of animals was done for educational reasons (as in other cases where animals are killed, for example in the issue of the Sanhedrin's offense and disgrace). Killing without pity is not a sin. —————————————————————————————— Asks: Speaking of terminology, I heard an argument that the duplication in the language of the Torah, such as in the names of Jethro, or the fact that Pharaoh is called without his real name (as we would write 'king') or the contradiction in the context of a slave's release to freedom. These are things that resulted from the fact that the Torah was a collection of information from several people, and sometimes duplication was created and also that they did not have all the data in their possession in a complete manner. Is this claim any basis, or can it be refuted? And in addition, do the words of the Torah and the corrections of the Sages not also indicate an external influence, as in the time of the Torah it was customary, for example, to gouge out the eye of someone who wentuge out the eye of his neighbor, and the sages of their time 'corrected' this law from the Torah and proved that it deals with money. And the very issue of killing is something that I did not receive an adequate response to, since today we watch videos from the world of extremist Islam (including ISIS) and we are shocked at the sight of murder following the crime of prostitution and the like. And in the Torah this matter was acceptable, even if it was said that it happened once every few years. Beyond that, one must take into account the method that believed that this event was rare in the Jewish calendar, which killed once every 7 years, and considering that there were several courts, then such an occurrence was not at all rare. Likewise with the prophets, who sometimes killed several hundred for not keeping the commandments, an issue that would not be acceptable in the modern view. —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: These are accepted arguments in the world of biblical criticism and what is known as the documentary hypothesis. This is a possible speculation, and I do not know how to verify or refute it. I do not know whether in the time of the Torah they used to put out an eye for someone who put out an eye for another. Do you have any clear information on the matter? In any case, the Sages demanded money instead of an eye. In Halacha, it is almost impossible to kill, because the requirements are such that the act be done under two witnesses and that the perpetrator be warned and receive a warning (yes, and for that reason I do). Therefore, in my opinion, this is a declaratory judgment, and it really did not happen (Aharon Shemesh of Bar Ilan claims in his book that this never happened). Of course, according to Halacha, one does not kill someone who is unaware of the prohibition (he is a coercive person). Even for a deliberate murderer, there is a law "and they saved the community" that makes it even more difficult to execute according to Halacha. I think that in order to understand events in ancient times, one must enter into the values that were accepted at the time (after all, prophets do not kill according to Halacha), and the circumstances of the sins in question (which were very different than in our time). The assumption in their time was that someone who sins is a deliberate offender (due to instinct), and this is not the case with us. By the way, in the US, to this day, there is the death penalty for various offenses (I think mainly murder) in most states. So irreversible punishment is also accepted today, but it depends on the severity of the offense. —————————————————————————————— Asks:
I think the Laws of Hammurabi say 'an eye for an eye', but I may be wrong. The truth is, I've explained most of my questions if my memory serves me correctly.
Therefore, I will ask about one last point that bothers me – do not all the speculations about the writers of the Torah contradict the evidence regarding the status of Mount Sinai? After all, the evidence is based, to the best of my understanding, on the fact that there is no other historical explanation other than the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai, and to the extent that there is a different explanation, it undermines the evidence, because in order to believe in such a 'bombastic' matter, we need overwhelming and certain evidence, and that is not the case when there are these conspiracies and hypotheses. —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: There is no definitive evidence for anything in the world, not even for scientific theories and laws. What we have are impressions and common sense, and with them we must choose what is more likely. For every historical hypothesis, many alternatives can be put forward. Does this mean that no historical fact can be determined?
—————————————————————————————— Asks:
No, but again, to believe in events so grandiose in terms of scale (such as the parting of the Red Sea, and speaking with God from within a burning bush) requires very solid and powerful evidence. And while there are irrefutable alternatives, perhaps it can be said that the giving of the Torah and its miracles have no solid basis.
—————————————————————————————— Rabbi:
For this, I refer you again to my fifth notebook on the site. —————————————————————————————— Pine: By the way, regarding what he said about the nickname Pharaoh, the link below actually uses this argument to strengthen the date of writing the Torah (meaning that it was written around the time of the Exodus, approximately 1300):
"In the story of the Exodus in the Torah, the kings of Egypt are simply called "Pharaoh." In contrast, later in the Bible they are called by their full names, such as Pharaoh Nechoh (2 Kings 23:29). This reflects a phenomenon that existed in Egypt itself, during those periods: from the middle of the second millennium BC until the tenth century BC, they used to write "Pharaoh" without an addition."
of:
http://mida.org.il/2015/04/02/%D7%9E%D7%99-%D7%9E%D7%A4%D7%97%D7%93-%D7%9E%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%A0%D7%9A-%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%99%D7%AA%D7%94-%D7%99%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%90%D7%AA-%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D
Regarding the question he asked: "Does this claim have any basis, or can it be refuted?" I think he meant to ask whether this claim has a reasonable basis, or whether it can be given an appropriate counter-response (= "refutable" in non-mathematical terms).
לגלות עוד מהאתר הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
השאר תגובה
Please login or Register to submit your answer