Posted at 12:19 PM in Chabad, Chassidic Thought, Lectures of Faith, On Chumash | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
BS”D
Og is the anti-hero of Biblical history. Og is saved by Noach during the Mabul, holding on to the Ark. He is the antithesis of Noach.
He is the Palit (refugee), escaping the first World War (of four kings against five) to inform Avraham that Lot was captured. Midrashim tells us that Og comes to Yitzhak's bris and is present when Yaakov comes down with his family to Pharoah. Moshe kills Og whose kingdom is Bashan, as the Jewish people gets ready to enter Eretz Yisroel. One can compile an entire sefer on Og's impact on Jewish history.
Og's mystical connection to the Three weeks is discussed in many sefarim, elaborating on the source in Bnei Yissochar p.339. The gematria of Og + Sichon (who was his brother) is 213 and is the same as the gematria of the letters on the backside of the mezuzah. This reveals to us that Og is the backside of holiness. This follows from the fact that each letter on the back of the mezuzah is the corresponding letter in the Alef-Beis after the ones on the front of the mezuza the klaf, i.e. "Hashem Elokenu HaShem". Hei becomes Vav and Shin becomes Tav etc.
This correspondence is approached differently in the Ishbitz sefer Sod Yesharim Al Hatorah-Tenina, parshas Devarim. The pesukim say that Og’s bed was 9 cubits. We know that the average man’s bed is 4 cubits. The Ishbitzer points out that the bed of Og is 9 by 4 cubits represented respectively by the letters Tes and Daled, which precede the Yud and Hay of HaShem's name in the Alef Beis.
Whether we address the encodings of HaShem's four-lettered name that comes out of the letters that precede or that follow the Yud and Hey and Vav and Hey, which is a misaligment of the energy that this Name brings into the world, Arizal explains it to be the theme of the mystical intentions of saying the Name during the first three brachas of the Amidah. (see http://www.scribd.com/doc/33679906/Three-Negative-Weeks-Advanced-Handout and http://www.yeshshem.com/3weeks.htm ).
Discussion of the the impact of Og's persona is well covered in on-line sources:
http://dafyomi.shemayisrael.co.il/parsha/chukat5.htm
p.117
http://www.chabad.org/search/keyword_cdo/kid/10729/jewish/Og.htm
http://www.aish.com/tp/i/moha/98195594.html
Og is even cited several times in the gemara and shulchan aruch not only in agada but also for applicationof his grotesque proportions to practical halacha.
Kisvei Ari views Og as one of the halves of a body, containing two battling souls, sort of like Tanya' animal adn divine souls. Og is the negative side to Eliezer's holier soul. Sefarim debate whether Eliezer half get elevated in the end or did both parts perish?
We encounter Og in Chumash during the Three weeks. Perhaps this draws our attention to teh duality present within teh Three weeks. Will these Three Weeks become holidays when the Geulah comes or will they be relegated to oblivion?
Posted at 12:24 AM in Chabad, Chassidic Thought | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Posted at 12:27 AM in Chabad, Chassidic Thought | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Sometime ago I wrote about Rebbe Rashab's visit to Freud. Now in response to an unfortunate controversy, previousely unpublished letters have been released. They indicate that Rashab visited Freud as a neurologist, not a psychoanalyst. Neurology was Feud's original profession and he prescribed electric stimulation of Rashab's paralyzed hand (not the same as elecroschock therapy which was not yet invented), which cured him. Freud’s treatment of the Rashab’s hand was purely physical. Though they did discuss topics of mutual interest and Freud did advise methods of alleviating the Rashab’s depression, there was no extended psychoanalytical process, and no referral to a junior colleague.
The junior colleague, Steckel, whose case reports are now being adduced as proof, was an unstable individual who broke with Freud and ultimately committed suicide. He was suspected of making up his cases. Here is a quote from his biography"(p. 142, hat tip to a commenter on a CircusTent post): :
“At one session my honor was personally attacked by Victor Tausk. He insinuated that my cases were invented. (If I had invented my cases I should undoubtedly be a greater poet than Shakespeare.) During this speech by Tausk, I wrote to Freud on a scrap of paper, “If you will not rebuke these personal attacks, this is the last time that I shall have been a member of this circle.” In a mild manner Freud asked Tausk to avoid personal remarks.
I don't have to point out that Steckel's cases are unrealistic. No contemporary therapist would give credence to the approaches and lightning fast cures claimed therein.
For me the clincher is Rashab's writings. Anyone who studies his work, especially the famous Hemshech Reish Samech Vov, encounters a giant of sensitivity, psychological insight, a towering intellect and an understanding heart. This perception is incompatible with what was claimed by Steckel, if it is in fact about him.
Posted at 05:57 PM in Chabad, Chassidic Thought, Looking Around | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
|
And I will grant peace in the Land, and you will lie down with no one to frighten [you]; I will remove wild beasts from the Land, and no army will pass through your land; |
Posted at 11:58 PM in Chabad | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Posted at 12:10 PM in Chabad, Chassidic Thought, Kabbala | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
It is well appreciated that until about 50 years ago, the Litvishe Yeshiva world and Chabad were not antagonistic to one another, whereas now they are. Decades ago, not only did the Rebbes of Chabad attend rabbinic conferences, they had a close relationship and worked together on community issues with the leaders of Lithuanian Jewry. There may have been some tension but no more than between misnagdim and any other chassidic group. Yet, in the USA , those who know, know that the mistrust and suspicion go back many decades, and they intensified in the past thirty years. R. Hillel Goldberg, for example, reports scathing criticism of the messianic tendencies in Lubavitch by R. Hutner already more than four decades ago and I remember hearing remarks as well from another godol about the tendency of Lubavitch to duplicate communal institutions instead of joining in community wide institutions decades ago as well. There was the Shanghai controversy. It seems to me, though, that the antagonism in the USA is different than it was in R. Shach's camp in Eretz Isroel, where it was still drawing on the two hundreds year-old ideological opposition to chassidus in general. Was there a precipitating event in the USA after which everything went downhill?
R. N. Kaminetzky in his controversial, "Making of a Godol",reports such an event. Now, I attempted to check some of the facts that he reports and was not able to do so. I spoke to some people who asked good questions but had no independent knowledge of this issue. I would appreciate if someone who does know more can respond in the comments sections. I attach the relevant pages form R. Kaminetzky's book and the relevant issue of Hekeriah V'Hakedusha.
In brief, the journal Hakeriah V'Hakedusha, a new Lubavitch periodical in Yiddish, that was supposedly under the direct supervision of the Friedeker Rebbe, published an editorial by Y. Segal on October 13, 1940 (the journal, unfortunately sans the relevant first volume is available on HebrewBooks.org), which asserted that studying talmudic passages like the one about, "ox which gored a cow", important as it may be , is completely physical (kulo gashmi), is a meagerly inspiring subject even from a worldly perspective... and one will gain nothing spiritual from studying it...Certainly, the superficial study (of this mishna) has no connection with G-d and reminds a student very little of Him: No spark of Divine light is beheld in the revealed part of the Torah. But when Chassidus takes on the same mishna and begins to unravel from it the depths of the Torah, the hidden part, a new light arises which reminds the Jew about the Giver of the Torah and which leaves the student and participant with a deep moral lesson of tremendous spiritual worth".
This may have been just an unfortunate choice of words because standard Chabad teaching does not denigrate the study of Nigleh or relegate it to a secondary status. Perhaps the writer was simply not familiar with Nefesh Hachaim's approach to this topic. This is a summary of what the Yeshiva World considers axiomatic:
Nefesh HaChaim Shaar 4 Chapter 2:
First I will set my words, on the subject of torah study 'lishma'. What is 'lishma'? This is a stumbling block for many who think 'lishma' means with great and constant 'dveikus' (emotionally cleaving to G-d).
And even worse than this, they think learning torah without dveikus is worth nothing and has no purpose, chas v'shalom. So when they see themselves, that their heart is not going in this level, that their learning is not with constant dveikus, they won't even start to learn and therefore (in our times) the torah has fallen....
To learn torah 'lishma' , the truth is 'lishma' does not mean 'dvekus' like most people think... the truth is learning torah 'lishma' means - for the sake of the torah... as the Rosh explains:
to know and to understand, and to increase lekach (knowledge) and pilpul (sharp analysis) and not to be insolent (l'kanter) and to show off (l'hitgaos)...
Nevertheless, certainly we cannot say that you don't need any purity of thought and yiras Hashem in learning torah. As it says 'if there's no yira, theres no torah' (mishna)...(see the text for an explanation of the purpose of Yira as a 'warehourse' for the torah learned)
Thus the true path, which He chose... (Rabbi Normal Lamm wrote a book devoted to this subject.
With this in mind, one could have predicted that the nascent American Yeshiva World would strongly react and it did. It was surely not meant to provoke it, but it did.
This poorly thought out piece in the Lubavitch flagship publication brought on a firestorm of criticism in the Yeshiva World, since it attacked its raison d'etre and its bedrock of legitimacy - Talmudic study for its own sake. R. Kaminetsky informs us about how much it upset R. A. Kotler and others and how R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik was recruited to write a response, which he did.
I believe that this was the incident which set the unfortunate pattern of animosity and suspicion between the two groups. In the highly tradition centered environment of the yeshivos, in which the mesorah was paramount, students absorbed a certain view of this incident from their teachers and it became invested with the authenticity and holiness of mesorah, and so it expanded and grew to our own day. Chabad messianism came later and was another icing on the cake. May Hashem soon bring peace, respect and reconciliation between all Jews.
Posted at 02:39 PM in Chabad, Mithnagdic Spirituality and Mussar, Talmudic Spirituality | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
| יג יְהַלְלוּ, אֶת-שֵׁם יְהוָה-- כִּי-נִשְׂגָּב שְׁמוֹ לְבַדּוֹ: . |
13 Let them praise the name of the LORD, for His name alone is exalted...(Tehillim 148). |
The following is an explanation of a Rashi.. but really much more than that.
We start with the first Rashi on Shemos.
These are the names of the B'nei Yisrael.
Though [Scripture] has previously enumerated them during their lifetime by their names, it again enumerates them by their names at their deaths. [This is] to show how dear they are [to G-d], because they are compared to the stars which He brings out and brings in by number and by their [individual] names; as it is said: "Who brings out their host by number, and calls each by its name."
What is exactly about names that shows endearment?
It may be that repetition of the name itself shows endearment, as the verse clearly states, "Is Ephraim my dear son, is he a darling child? for as often as I speak against him, I do mention and mention him: therefore my heart yearneth for him; I will surely have mercy upon him, says Hashem( Yirmiah 31:20)". On the other hand, a person who does not like another, attempts to avoid his name by the use of euphemisms, such as when Shaul avoids using David's actual name, thus betraying Saul's anger: "Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan. He said to him, 'You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother's nakedness?'"[(Sam.I:20:30).
Lehavdil, we know of this from Western Literature as well. A person who loves another loves repeating his or her name (for example, Romeo, Romeo in Romeo And Juliet Act 2, scene 2, 33–49 or Maria, Maria in West Side Story).
Rashi also says in Bareishis 46:2 that a repetition of a name shows endearment, "the repetition of Yakov, Yakov is a term of affection". This is based on a number of midrashic passage, for example, Bareishis Rabba 56:9. In Shemos Rabbah , end of chapter 2, Eitz Yosef explains: "..the repetition of a name is a language of edearment; because he likes this person, he brings his name twice to his lips". This explanations assumes that repeating the names of the tribes is a form of endearment because Hashem, who had already counted them at the end of Genesis, now counts them again, and this is the same as repeating a name twice.
However this explanation has difficulties. First, in other passages, it is the use of the name itself that indicates endearment and not its repetition. For example, Rashi in the beginning of Bamidbar sees endearment in the fact that the Children of Israel were counted and does not mention "names". Second, repeating the name twice in the same sentence is quite different than using it twice diachronically.
This is what Rashi says in Bamidbar:
Because they (the Israelites) are precious before Him (Hashem), He counts them all the time; when they went out of Egypt He counted them [Shemos, 12:37], and when they fell because of [the sin of] the golden calf He counted them to know the number of those who remained, when He came to cause His Presence to rest upon them He counted them. On the first day of Nisan the Mishkon was set up, and on the first day of Iyar He counted them(1).
______________________________________________________________________
(1) Although I am assuming that Rashi to Shemos 1 uses the words "by their name", the version of that Rashi in the Ramban ( and a number of the mansucripts) does not have the words "by their names". On the other hand, Mizrachi strongly defends the version with the words "by their name" in it. In Tanchuma, the "names" are not mentioned either: "..just as stars are brought out by name, so whent they come in, they come in with a counting". The counting itself is the sign of endearment, not the names. It is interesting that Rashi starts his commentary to each of the five books of the Chumash with some praise of Israel. In Genesis it is that the Land of Israel was given to the Jews and that Israel is called "Chosen of his produce (reishis tvuoso)", in Vayikra that Moshe was shown endearment, in Devarim the term is "Honor of Israel". It may this fact that led to Lubavitcher's Rebbe's question about why is that Hashem chose to express endearment through "names" rather through other means, such as giving a gift.
____________________________________________________________________
To understand what "name" signifies, we will take a detour into kabbalistic sources and come back by the way of philosophic inquiry.
There exists a difficult and influential passage in Pirke D'Rabbi Eliezer(PRDRE). It states(Ch.3):
Before the world was created, there was only He and His name alone (some versions say Hakadosh Baruch Hu, not He.., see Sefer Hoemunos 4:7. Another version in the printed version of PRDRE says, "His great name...).
At first glance, this is very philosophically problematic, for if His name eternally existed before the world was created, His name possesses some of G-d's divine nature, at least its eternity, and this seems to violate the core Jewish principle that here is only one G-d.
It is the same problem that is presented by the Problem of Divine Attributes, but sharper. Rambam in the Guide (I;50-60) describes this problem very well. If we say that G-d is merciful, and since any change in G-d is impossilbe, he being always perfect, Mercy is an attribute of G-d that is eternally coexistent with him, and if so, you have multiple divinities and not One G-d. If He is one in the sense of being simple, how can a multiplicity of attributes be ascribed to Him? One answer was offered (by thinkers such as R. Saadiah Gaon) via a distinction between attributes that are essential and those which are accidental. Essential attributes are those that are closely connected with the essence, such as existence or life; accidental attributes are those that are independent of the essence and that may be changed without affecting the essence, such as anger or mercifulness. Medieval logicians generally agreed that accidental attributes introduce a multiplicity into that which they describe, while they disagreed concerning essential attributes. Some, such as Maimonides' contemporary Averroes, held that essential attributes are implicitly contained in the essence and, hence, do not introduce multiplicity; others held that they provide new information and, hence, produce multiplicity. Avicenna was an exponent of the latter view, holding that essential attributes, particularly existence, are superadded to the essence. Aquinas held that we can speak of G-d's attributes as long as we remeber that they are essentially distinct form attributes taht we know, especially in their property of not being separate from G-d's oneness. Rambam accepted Avicenna's position on this point. He came to the conclusion that accidental attributes applied to God must be interpreted as attributes of action, that is, if it is said that God is merciful, it means that God acts mercifully; and essential attributes must be interpreted as negations (or more precisely, negations of privations), that is, if God is said to be existing, it means that he is not nonexistent.
Rambam himself says in 1:61 that what R. Eliezer in PRDRE means is that Hashem was unique before as after Creation, name being another word for uniqueness.
A number of early Kabbalists had a tradition that the first sefira of Kesser is what Pirke D/Rabbi Eliezer meant whan it said that G-d's Name existed before the Creation. This is also found in the end of Tikkunei Zohar (10), "He and His name were one in kesser before the world was created" (see Radal's commentary for the many early kabbalists who expressed this view). This view is ascribed to Raavad by Sefer Hoemunos quoted in Pardes, Gate 3, a chapter devoted entirely to the question of whether Kesser is a part of Ein Sof or not. There, a full paragraph stating this view is quoted from Sefer Hoemunos Shaar 4, chapter 1, which I do not find in this location in our printed editions. Pardes himself strongly negates this view.
Nefesh Hachaim(4:2, in a note) explains that when Pirke DR'Eliezer says, "before the world was created", it is talking solely about the World of Beriah (Creation). This takes the sting and the novelty out of this statement because it is now speaking about the middle of the process of Creation and not its beginning and the "Name" is also now a created entity and not co-eternal with G-d. This is a very reasonable approach, considering that PDRE goes on to speak about seven things (Torah, Gehenna, Garden of Eden, Divine Throne, Temple, Repentance and the Name of Maschiach) that were created before the world was created.
A very astute and interesting approach is offered by the Rebbe Rashab in Hemshech Reish Samech Vav, Vayelech Hashem, p.165.He points out that Kesser is also called Ain, or Nothing. There are many reasons why it is called so, which he does not explain. A common explanation which is often offered is that it is called Ain because to us it is ungraspable, therefore as far as we are concerned it can be said that it does not exist. We can understand or say nothing about it; R. Arye Kaplan explained(Commentary to Sefer Yetzirah) that this is why the color of Kesser is black (see Pardes Shaar Hagavvanim), for when we try to understand Kesser we see only blacknes, an utter absence of light. Its brightness is so great that we cannot see it at all.
The transition from Kesser to the next adjacent sefira, Chochma, is called 'yesh miayin", or, "something from nothing". So when PRDE speaks of the Name, that is Kesser, existing before the world is created, it means only that stage in the Creation of the World that we call, "something from nothing", the point of transition from Kesser to Chochma. This is also what those who hold that Kesser is a part of the Ain Sof mean. Ain Sof is "no end". If it referred the the Essence of G-d, it whould have called G-d, "No beginning", or perhaps, "No end, no Beginning", but it does not. It does not because by Ain Sof it refers to Kesser which we cannot understand and which to us has no end ( or as Sefer Hoemunos says somewhere, we can speak about it endlessly), but in the process of Creation it does have a beginning. This is why it is called Ain Sof rather than "Ain techillah".
Ari himself in Eitz Chaim Shaar 42 takes a compromise position that Kesser is in an intermediary position between Ain Sof and other sefiros, containing properties of both infinity and finititude, but this is not our topic here.
We are now equipped to understand why mentioning the names of the sons of Yakov who are coming into Egypt is a term of endearment. There is nothing closer to the very being a person than his or her name. The name of each person is unique and essential. In Hebrew, unlike in Spanish and some other tongues ("The Donald" in English, nothwdstanding) one cannot apply "the" participle to a name. One cannot say, "the Moshe", because this Moshe is by definition different than any other Moshe in the world. Your name is so central to who you are that only G-d truly knows it. This is why there is nothing more precious than calling a person by his or her name, and this is why Hashem calling the sons of Yakov, each one by his name, is the most precious form of expressing love and endearment.
I plan to post more on how our names shape us.
Posted at 12:32 AM in Chabad, Chassidic Thought, Kabbala, On Philosophic Quest | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Humanity has been fascinated with the shape of the circle for as long as we know. Ancient philosophers considered it to be the most perfect of shapes and it should not surprise us because a circle has great significance in Kabbalah.
When Miriam was punished with Tzaras for saying lashon hara about Moshe, her brother drew a circle (עוגה) , stood inside and vowed that he would not move until she was cured. Moshe davened, "I beseech you, God, please heal her." " אל נא רפא נא לה ". Many years later, his descendent Choni did the same when there was a drought, and when he performed a miracle with this circle, he became known as Choni, the Circle Maker. Apparently understanding the power and meaning of the circle can make men who are already great, members of HaShem’s “household”. The Chumash says of Moshe, “in all my house, he is trusted”, and the Talmud calls Choni, a ”ben bayis”.
So what is it about the circle? There is a simple three-stagegeometric Kabbalistic model for the creation of the world according to the Arizal. Initially there was G-dliness everywhere. Then a void was formed by the Tzimtzum, the contraction of that revelation, so that a circular void was formed. The final stage was the drawing down of energy into the void through a line (kav) resulting in return of G-dliness, in a form both graduated and attenuated but still present everywhere, as the final state. Whereas the individual creatures could not survive and would be nullified to non-existence if simply placed in the universe during the initial stage, now people can participate in the revelation of G-dliness, and this makes it possible for them to continue to persist in reality and retain the self-perception of themselves as independent autonomous beings.
Most mekublim say the void was in the shape of a circle. Thus, when both Moshe and Choni made the circle, they were emulating the Divine creation, through prayer drawing down Heavenly energy from G-dliness that still surrounds our created Universe: this circular source is known also by the term makif. After standing in this supernal circle, Moshe utilized the name "אל " as it corresponds to HaShem's attribute of chesed, the energy of giving and just as Hashem had drawn energy into a void, so Moshe drew Divine essence from outisde the circlular void into the created world. This is also comparable to the avodah of Eliyahu who also affected change through the efforts on Earth. Three great servants of Hashem, Moshe, Choni, and also Eliyahu were able to transcend time. Moshe stayed on Har Sinai for 40 days three times without food and water, Choni slept for 70 years without aging a day and Eliyahu lives on forever. Through this connection, rising above time, when it was needed, they were able to actualize their requests by changing keter/ratzon/will, that component of Divine Will that bridges the Godliness that surrounds our world and Godliness within it.
There is another opinion among Kabbalists that contends that the shape of tzimtzum is that of a square. The square in Kabbalah is considered a man-made shape: "There is no square from the six days of Creation". The geometric operation that relates the two views, the circle and the square, is that of circumscribing. One can draw the circle inside the square or one can draw the square inside the circle. The two Kabbalistic opinions disagree about which is on the higher relative level; ultimately, in the end the difference in opinion amongst these kabbalists is about where and how the Tzimtzum- contraction is occuring. This is mathematically relevant to the halachas of the sukkah and of the eruv, especially the eruv techumim. In the latter case, Eruv, that encloses space, is seen as the structure of the Shabbas: a circle with a square inside, holiness enveloping the work of the week. Similarly, kabbalists see the circle as the feminine shape and the square as the masculine shape. This has real world repercussions: for example, there is an opinion that the bride's ring is supposed to be a circle inside a square representing this union. Thus there are two possible contrasting states of potential: a circle and a square, actualized through their interaction.
Sefer Gilgulim and Likutei Shas Arizal discuss the reincarnations of the soul associated with Choni, the Circle Maker. Originally the soul was that of Og ( עוג), the same grammatical root as circle. When Chazal report that Og survived during the Flood by sitting outside of the ark during the Flood, they allude to the state of a circle surrounding a square, as the ark was a box. However, by being outside of Noah’s ark, Og remained disconnected from rectifying the world, represented by the square of the Ark.
Korach also was also a protagonist of a circle, being that his tribe is that of Levi, which that of gevurah and feminine relative to the masculine chesed of the Cohanim. Gevurah is related to the makif of the circle whereas the Chesed is the true form of the Kav that entered the empty space after the Tzimtzum. The reason why Korach proposed that garments should not require tzizis is because they should be circular garments. Korach and Og are opposites of Moshe and Choni because the former wished to keep a suspended state of the circle rather than drawing down the energy into the world whereas the latter wanted to draw Divinity into the world. Korach and Og represent the circle in itself whereas Choni and Moshe represent the circle in its effect on the world, in engagement with it. The luchos contain both the suspended samech and the closed mem, giving both of these approaches a place within the Holy Torah. The goal of reconciliation of both of these types of circles was partly achieved through the discussions of the Oral Torah by Abaye and Rabbah. Abaye lived for 60 years while Rabbah lived for 40 years; these ages correspond to the gematriyot of samech and mem. Their talmudic arguments are an avodah from below like davening. There is yet another level, more precious and more elevated. This is the learning of Rebbe Shimon bar Yochai, the Rashbi, who drew down energy and rain directly from above by saying Torah. Very few are said to achieve the level of the Rashbi in terms of interaction with the world: it is in the realm of the possible to be a Choni.
Selected Bibliography
Master-a-Masechta Taanis by Rabbi Nachman Cohen
Ohr HaTorah (Tzemach Tzedek) Behalosecha p. 403
Rogachover Mpaneach Raza…p.87
Taanis 23a and Ben Yehoyada
Zohar Bereshis 5b see commentaries: Ketem Paz, Mikdash Melech, Damesek Eliezer
Commentary to Etz Chaim from the Baal Leshem Sh'vo V'Achlamah
Likutei Moharan 59:3
Sefer Gilgulim
Sefer Likutei Shas Arizal
"Made in Heaven" Aryeh Kaplan
Sod Yesharim (Ishbitz)
Rebbe Rashab Ayin Beis..
Torat Levi Yitzhak to Kiddushin
Posted at 01:32 PM in Chabad, Kabbala, On Chumash | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
