Thursday, March 31, 2011

posts so far for parashat Tazria

  1. Tazria sources -- further improved. For example, many more meforshei Rashi.
  2. YU Torah on parshat Tazria.
  3. Why no 'famous' derasha on Isha Ki TazriaMaybe there is. Regardless, what about the law of conservation of derashot?
  4. Why does Rashi explain the pasuk of וּבְיוֹם הֵרָאוֹת בּוֹ בָּשָׂר חַי יִטְמָא out of orderBartenura gives his answer; I give my own, that maybe it is not out of order, and if it is, it is a logical order.
  5. A Taz I can agree with --   About revisiting the midrashei halacha Rashi is merely citing, and whether we are skilled enough to do it.
  6. Why is וְכִבַּסְתֶּם translated as וּתְחַוְּרוּןOnkelos strays from his usual path. Is this a violation of the rule laid down by Rashi in parshat Tazria?


  1. Tazria sources -- expanded
  2. All about Chazal and contemporary science. First, How did Chazal know that 'drop exudes from the brain and develops into semen'? A better question, IMHO, is how the Pythagoreans knew. Before kvetching and reinterpreting to make Chazal know this with ruach hakodesh, why not check to see if ancient science, contemporary to Chazal, asserted precisely the same thing?
  3. Next, How did Chazal know that hemophilia is transmitted by the mother's DNA? With what I think is a good answer.

  1. Tazria sources -- links by aliyah and perek to an online Mikraos Gedolos, and links to many meforshim on the parshah and haftarah.
  2. The famous midrash of Isha Ki Tazria; who promotes and who rejects the midrash (at least as peshat); and thought about the motivations for this midrash.
  3. As an alternative to the advice in the aforementioned famous midrash, Chizkuni offers other reproductive advice on how to have male children, based on contemporary science. And how he reads this into, or out of, a pasuk in Shir HaShirim.
  • Dam Tohar
    • and various unsuccessful and successful attempts to uproot this halachic entity declared by the Torah and Chazal.
  • Tekiat Shofar and Sisera's mother
    • Where parshat Tazria factors in in that a midrash there states that a woman wails and cries out 100 times when giving birth, with possible parallels to the custom of 100 shofar blasts.
    • An updated account of the midrash that if a woman is tazria first (before the man), she has a boy (isha ki tazria veyalda zachar.) The original midrash operated under the assumption that she gave forth this seed on orgasm. But there is a debated theory that if a woman ovulates before coitus, she is more likely to have male offspring, but if coitus happens before ovulation, she is more likely to have female offspring, on the basis of endurance vs. speed of the two types of sperm. This is debated for humans, but is a known matter for several animal species. A link to some of the research, plus pictures of some of the animals for which this is true.
to be continued...

Why does Rashi explain the pasuk of וּבְיוֹם הֵרָאוֹת בּוֹ בָּשָׂר חַי יִטְמָא out of order?

Summary: Bartenura gives his answer; I give my own, that maybe it is not out of order, and if it is, it is a logical order.

Post: In parashat Tazria, we encounter the following pesukim and Rashis:

12. And if the tzara'ath has spread over the skin, whereby the tzara'ath covers all the skin of the [person with the] lesion, from his head to his feet, wherever the eyes of the kohen can see it,יב. וְאִם פָּרוֹחַ תִּפְרַח הַצָּרַעַת בָּעוֹר וְכִסְּתָה הַצָּרַעַת אֵת כָּל עוֹר הַנֶּגַע מֵרֹאשׁוֹ וְעַד רַגְלָיו לְכָל מַרְאֵה עֵינֵי הַכֹּהֵן:
מראשו: של אדם ועד רגליו:
לכל מראה עיני הכהן: פרט לכהן שחשך מאורו:
13. then the kohen shall look [at it]. And, behold! the tzara'ath has covered all his flesh, he shall pronounce [the person with] the lesion clean. He has turned completely white; he is clean.יג. וְרָאָה הַכֹּהֵן וְהִנֵּה כִסְּתָה הַצָּרַעַת אֶת כָּל בְּשָׂרוֹ וְטִהַר אֶת הַנָּגַע כֻּלּוֹ הָפַךְ לָבָן טָהוֹר הוּא:
14. But on the day that live flesh appears in it, he shall become unclean.יד. וּבְיוֹם הֵרָאוֹת בּוֹ בָּשָׂר חַי יִטְמָא:
וביום הראות בו בשר חי: אם צמחה בו מחיה הרי כבר פירש שהמחיה סימן טומאה, אלא הרי שהיה הנגע באחד מעשרים וארבעה ראשי איברים שאין מטמאין משום מחיה, לפי שאין נראה הנגע כולו כאחד ששופע אילך ואילך, וחזר ראש האבר ונתגלה שפועו ע"י שומן, כגון שהבריא ונעשה רחב ונראית בו המחיה, למדנו הכתוב שתטמא:
וביום: מה תלמוד לומר, ללמד יש יום שאתה רואה בו ויש יום שאין אתה רואה בו, מכאן אמרו חתן נותנין לו כל שבעת ימי המשתה לו ולכסותו ולביתו, וכן ברגל נותנין לו כל ימי הרגל:

My focus in this post is on the Rashis in pasuk 14, but I give the Rashis on pasuk 12 for context, for a reason that will become apparent shortly.

On pasuk 14, it seems like the explanations are out of order. First, d"h וביום הראות בו בשר חי, which would seem to be on the entire phrase, and we consider it more closely, specifically on the latter part, בשר חי; and then, d"h וביום, interpreting the first word of the verse.

R' Ovadia mi-Bartenura asks this question, and offers an answer:
"It is difficult, why does he twist about the Scriptures, that he explains basar chai before he explains uvyom, which precedes it in the verse? There is to suggest that because, if we had explained that the verse comes to explain the laws of מחיה, 'live flesh', I would have said that this which is written וּבְיוֹם comes to inform us that even by מחיה, which is an extremely strong sign, which is readily apparent to the eyes, even so, we can only see it during the day, but now that it comes to teach us a different law, why is וּבְיוֹם needed? Therefore it explains a different explanation thusly: there is a day that you see, etc."

I don't find this explanation so convincing, in each reach into the underlying assumptions of the derashot, and plausible alternate derashot. I would instead offer three other, more straightforward (IMHO), suggestions.

First, perhaps the Rashis are not really out of order. Refer to this Munich manuscript of Rashi I keep referring to, from 1233, we find that in fact it has the Rashis ordered by the order of the pasuk. Thus:

I marked up this text will a few red underlines, for each dibbur hamatchil. The first is מראשו, from pasuk 12. Then, לכל מראה עיני הכהן, from pasuk 12. Then, on pasuk 14, וביום הראות בו בשר חי. But this one is followed with מה תלמוד לומר, ללמד יש יום שאתה רואה בו! And finally, without the leading word uveyom, d"h הֵרָאוֹת בּוֹ בָּשָׂר חַי. Thus, in this manuscript, the two explanations are reversed.

However, I would caution that there are quite a number of textual insertions in this manuscript of Rashi, often pulled from midrashim. So perhaps this scribe felt free, as well, to "correct" the order of Rashi. If so, lectio difficilior applies. And it applies even more once we see the third explanation I offer.

A second, straightforward explanation is that if we examine the content of Rashi's two comments, we see that the first comment explains the main thrust of the pasuk. Don't we know מחיה  already, asks Rashi? Therefore, this entire pasuk has a different general meaning, which is then to fit into the surrounding context of the other laws of metzora. Once we establish that, we can focus on a specific tangential detail which is a midrash halacha derived from one of the words of the pasuk.

The third, even more straightforward explanation comes from checking out Rashi's sources, which we can get from Mekorei Rashi. The earlier Rashi is drawn from Sifra. The second part of the later Rashi, regarding the regel, is also drawn from the Sifra. And the order in the Sifra is the same as we find it in Rashi:

So why blame Rashi? It seems to me that he is basically learning through the parsha with the Sifra and other Rabbinic texts, and selecting out salient midrashim as he progresses. Indeed, he cites quite a lot from Sifra on these parshiyot in Vayikra, as I have noted in other posts. So why shouldn't he cite it in the very same order it appears in the Sifra? He should.

A separate question may be why the Sifra puts it out of order like this. And perhaps Bartenura's answer applies, or perhaps not. This is similar to a question of why Mishnayot are ordered in the way they are ordered. But at the least, we have a lot more raw material to work with. Perhaps it is based on features of the various disputes / discussions between these named Tannaim, in the first, between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yossi, and in the second, between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi. Thus, the first between colleagues, and the second, between teacher and student of the next generation. Or some other feature relating to the content. But we have more material from which to determine an answer, plus we can distance ourselves from the very question and assert that it is not part of the job of a supercommentator of Rashi, but rather a specific type of analysis of midrash halacha.

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Why no 'famous' derasha on Isha Ki Tazria?

Summary: Maybe there is. Regardless, what about the law of conservation of derashot?

Post: Parashat Tazria leads off with the following:

2. Speak to the children of Israel, saying: If a woman conceives and gives birth to a male, she shall be unclean for seven days; as [in] the days of her menstrual flow, she shall be unclean.ב. דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר אִשָּׁה כִּי תַזְרִיעַ וְיָלְדָה זָכָר וְטָמְאָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים כִּימֵי נִדַּת דְּוֹתָהּ תִּטְמָא:
When a woman conceives. R. Simlai said: Just as the creation of mankind [came only] after [that of] every animal, beast and bird in the Work of Creation, so too his teaching is explained [only] after the teaching [regarding] animals, beasts and birds.אשה כי תזריע: אמר ר' שמלאי כשם שיצירתו של אדם אחר כל בהמה חיה ועוף במעשה בראשית, כך תורתו נתפרשה אחר תורת בהמה חיה ועוף:
 When.... [she] conceives. [This comes] to include even [when the embryo] is born mushy--- [that is, as though] it was crushed and became as semen--- its mother [is ritually] unclean as if it were childbirth.כי תזריע: לרבות שאפילו ילדתו מחוי, שנמחה ונעשה כעין זרע, אמו טמאה לידה:

Yet, there is a 'famous' derasha which is missing here -- that if a woman gives forth seed first -- אִשָּׁה כִּי תַזְרִיעַ -- then, she will give birth to male offspring -- וְיָלְדָה זָכָר.

We see this, e.g., in Midrash Tanchuma:
דבר אחר:
אשה כי תזריע
אם קדמה האשה, יולדת זכר.
קדם האיש, יולדת נקבה. 

Perhaps we would find it surprising that this derasha is not brought forth by Rashi.

I did actually find this derasha in an early ktav yad of Rashi, Munich, from 1233:

The second red underline is the famous derasha, that if the woman is מזרעת first, then she has a male child, while if the man is mazria first, then she will have a female child. The third red underline is the Rashi above.

Of course, this particular manuscript often seems to have insertions from other sources, expanding upon Rashi. So even though it is stated as davar acher, this does not mean that Rashi necessarily said both. But, if he did, then it cuts the question off at its source.

At any rate, this is a question asked by various meforshei Rashi. Well, not precisely this question. It is more that there is a law of conservation of derashot, that if there is an extraneous word or phrase, then it can be used for one and one derasha only. You cannot derive two things from the same phrase. If so, the derasha that Rashi gives above would cut off any other derasha on this basis. And yet, Rashi elsewhere subscribes to this derasha!

Thus, we have the following in the Taz:

כי תזריע ... ונעשה כעין זרע  -- this is based on that it is written ki tazria, which is extraneous {for how else could she give birth?!}. And it is difficult, for behold we need it for another derasha, in perek Hamapelet, which Rashi brings in parashat Vayigash, on the following pasuk {Bereishit 46:15}: אֵלֶּה בְּנֵי לֵאָה אֲשֶׁר יָלְדָה לְיַעֲקֹב בְּפַדַּן אֲרָם וְאֵת דִּינָה בִתּוֹ כָּל נֶפֶשׁ בָּנָיו וּבְנוֹתָיו שְׁלֹשִׁים וְשָׁלֹשׁ, ' These are the sons of Leah, that she bore to Jacob in Padan Aram, and Dinah his daughter. All the souls of his sons and daughters were thirty three,' where Rashi writes, אלה בני לאה. ואת דינה בתו: הזכרים תלה בלאה והנקבות תלה ביעקב, ללמדך אשה מזרעת תחלה יולדת זכר, איש מזריע תחלה יולדת נקבה, the males it attributes to Leah and the females are attributed to Yaakov, to teach you that when a woman gives forth seed first, she will give birth to a male, while if a man gives forth seed first, she will give birth to a female.

And Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi wrote that it makes sense that the derasha above is based on that it stated ki tazria and not im tazria, which would indicate a language of doubt, while ki implies certainty, and this is so {a certainty} if she gives forth seed first. {Thus, the derasha of ונעשה כעין זרע is on the entirety of the extraneous phrase, while the other derasha

And a question on this is that behold, ki appears in place of im in many places, such as Nefesh ki takriv and, like it, Ki Teitzei lamilchama. And it appears to me that there is a resolution to this, that if it is for the derasha here, that even if she bore something akin to seed, there is a difficulty regarding this, for how could it continue וְיָלְדָה זָכָר, which implies that the law of that which comes from כִּי תַזְרִיעַ, which is that which looks like seed, has the law akin to that which is mentioned after it, which is וְיָלְדָה זָכָר, in terms of the ritual impurity associated with childbirth. And this just isn't so! For if she bears something akin to seed, it is a safek, a doubt, and it is necessary for her to have upon herself the law of {bearing} a female, stringently. Rather, perforce, this is what it means to say: A woman, when she gives forth seed first, certainly she will give birth to a male. And one cannot say that perhaps this is the only thing this comes to teach, for upon this we can ask what relationship this teaching, of giving forth seed first, has to the law of ritual impurity of childbirth, which is, after all, the subject of this parasha. Rather, perforce, this is informing us that there is a nafka mina, a practical halachic distinction, which applies to the ritual impurity of childbirth, and we say regarding it, because of safek, that we act stringently."

This ends the Taz.

I would analyze this is a far different way. First, what are Rashi's sources? Looking at Mekorei Rashi, the very first Rashi on the sidra is from Vayikra Rabba, as we might intuit from its style -- its purpose is to explain the placement of this parasha in the grander scheme of things. But then our Rashi, about לרבות שאפילו ילדתו מחוי, has the characteristics of midrash aggadah. And it, and subsequent Rashis, are indeed drawn from the gemara in Niddah or from the Sifra. In this case, the Sifra has something similar, on the word tazria, but not precisely the same. Niddah 27b has:
א"ר אמי אמר רבי יוחנן ומודה רבי שמעון שאמו טמאה לידה אמר ההוא סבא לרבי אמי אסברא לך טעמא דרבי יוחנן דאמר קרא (ויקרא יב, ב) אשה כי תזריע וילדה זכר וגו' אפילו לא ילדה אלא כעין שהזריעה טמאה לידה
Or in English:
R. Ammi citing R. Johanan stated: R. Simeon, however,53  agrees that its mother is unclean by reason of childbirth. Said a certain old man to R. Ammi: 'I will explain to you R. Johanan's reason:54  For Scripture says, If a woman conceived seed55  and bore a man-child etc.,56  which implies: Even if she bore in the same manner only as she 'conceived seed'57  she is unclean by reason of childbirth.
And Rashi there explains the derasha as:
כעין שהזריעה - כלומר דנימוח כזרע:
Rashi's purpose through Tazria is to bring us much of the relevant midrash halacha on this sidra so that we can understand how Chazal interpreted it. He does not bring every midrash halacha, but a cursory examination of what Rashi does say reveals that this is his agenda.

I can understand why Rashi would not bring the midrash about the woman giving forth seed first and thus having a male child. This is not a midrash halacha, and would be a digression and distraction from his purpose.

What about the law of conservation of derash, that only one derasha  may come from every extraneous word or phrase? I would answer this in one of several different ways:

1) This is not such a strict rule when we are dealing with midrash aggada, or better, when one derasha is in the realm of midrash halacha and the other is in the realm of midrash aggadah. These are different spheres.

2) Even without this, the derasha of ki tazria, as we understand it from the gemara in Niddah, is that we are inclusive of even the zeria, or rather, something that looks like just zera. A typical ribbuy, in other words. In contrast, the idea of giving seed first to produce a male child is derived from the opportune juxtaposition, forming the statement אִשָּׁה כִּי תַזְרִיעַ וְיָלְדָה זָכָר, as a cause and effect. As with many such derashot, this opportune juxtaposition forms a statement completely independent of the normal context -- hyper-literalism or significance-maximalism is what some scholars call this. These are different features being darshened.

3) This principle of giving seed first is a known fact, that the gender characteristics of the later seed obliterate the gender characteristics of the earlier seed (though one we now know to be false). As such, it might just be a convenient asmachta to something known anyway. Elsewhere, Chazal give derashot to prove that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west! Is this necessary? Of course not. So too here, this might just be a remez, to show how these scientific facts are hinted to in the Torah, and such a derasha would not gobble up the relevant words to the exclusion of another derasha.

4) We might be able to ask what whoever put forth this derasha would do with the derasha of  לרבות שאפילו ילדתו מחוי. But we cannot necessarily ask this of Rashi, who might derive this lesson from some other source. That is, consider the Midrash Tanchuma I cited above, but in full:
דבר אחר:
אשה כי תזריעאם קדמה האשה, יולדת זכר.
קדם האיש, יולדת נקבה.

אמר רבי אבין הלוי:
רמז לך הכתוב: ואם נקבה תלד.
אם קדם האיש מוליד נקבה.
קדמה האשה יולדת זכר, שנאמר: אשה כי תזריע וילדה זכר.

אמר רבי חייא בר אבא:
לפיכך נתלה הזכר באשה.

ונקבה באיש מנין?

שכך כתיב: הנה ילדה מלכה גם היא בנים לנחור אחיך, את עוץ בכורו וגו', ובתואל ילד את רבקה (ברא' כב כ-כג).
וכן הוא אומר: (ו)פילגש כלב מעכה ילד שבר ואת תרחנה, ותלד שעף אבי מדמנה את שוא אבי מכבנה ואבי גבעא, ובת כלב עכסה (דה"א ב מח-מט).
הוי, נתלו הנקבות באנשים והזכרים בנשים. לכך כתיב: אשה כי תזריע וילדה זכר. 
I am not yet sure how to parse this other derasha mentioned of  ואם נקבה תלד, but note that this is considered a remez. Similarly, isha ki tazria is likely in the realm of remez. They find a more straightforward bolstering of it from the other pesukim cited, namely the children of Nachor, Betuel, and Kalev, where נתלו הנקבות באנשים והזכרים בנשים. This sets the precedent for seeing the message in אשה כי תזריע וילדה זכר, which is why the joining phrase is לכך כתיב.

So too, Rashi in Vayigash just mentions the local prooftext of the attribution of sons to the women and daughters to the men.

Also, see the gemara in Niddah (31a) this is all based on:
אמר רבי יצחק אמר רבי אמי אשה מזרעת תחילה יולדת זכר איש מזריע תחילה יולדת נקבה שנאמר (ויקרא יג, כט) אשה כי תזריע וילדה זכר 
תנו רבנן בראשונה היו אומרים אשה מזרעת תחילה יולדת זכר איש מזריע תחלה יולדת נקבה ולא פירשו חכמים את הדבר עד שבא רבי צדוק ופירשו (בראשית מו, טו) אלה בני לאה אשר ילדה ליעקב בפדן ארם ואת דינה בתו תלה הזכרים בנקבות ונקבות בזכרים 
 (דברי הימים א ח, מ) ויהיו בני אולם אנשים גבורי חיל דורכי קשת ומרבים בנים ובני בנים וכי בידו של אדם להרבות בנים ובני בנים אלא מתוך שמשהין עצמן בבטן כדי שיזריעו נשותיהן תחלה שיהו בניהם זכרים מעלה עליהן הכתוב כאילו הם מרבים בנים ובני בנים והיינו דאמר רב קטינא יכולני לעשות כל בני זכרים אמר רבא הרוצה לעשות כל בניו זכרים יבעול וישנה
Or in English:
R. Isaac citing R. Ammi54  stated: If the woman emits her semen first she bears a male child; if the man emits his semen first she bears a female child; for it is said, If a woman emits semen55  and bear a man-child.56
Our Rabbis taught: At first it used to be said that 'if the woman emits her semen first she will bear a male, and if the man emits his semen first she will bear a female', but the Sages did not explain the reason, until R. Zadok came and explained it: These are the sons of Leah, whom she bore unto Jacob in Paddan-aram, with his daughter Dinah,57  Scripture thus ascribes the males to the females58  and the females to the males.59
And the sons of Ulam were mighty men of valour, archers; and had many sons, and sons' sons.60  Now is it within the power of man to increase61  the number of 'sons and sons' sons'? But the fact is that because they contained themselves during intercourse1  in order that their wives should emit their semen first so that their children shall be males, Scripture attributes to them the same merit as if they had themselves caused the increase of the number of their sons and sons' sons. This explains what R. Kattina said, 'I could make all my children to be males'. Raba stated: One who desires all his children to be males should cohabit twice in succession.
Further, see how Rashi on the daf interprets the phrase ולא פירשו:

ולא פירשו - את הדבר מנלן:
זכרים בנקבות - בני לאה:
נקבות בזכרים - ואת דינה בתו משום הך דרשה איש מזריע תחלה יולדת נקבה:

Thus, according to Rashi, the derasha is derived from the local pasuk in Vayigash, and not from isha ki tazria veyaleda zachar. This makes sense, since Rabbi Yitzchak citing Rabbi Ami, or Rabbi Assi, represent Amoraim speaking. And it is Rabbi Yitzchak / Rabbi Ammi who connects it to isha ki tazria. But the brayta follows, which includes the Tanna Rabbi Tzadok, gives a different derivation, which is what Rashi is citing there in Vayigash!

Thus, the question of various meforshei Rashi is resolved.

YU Torah on parashat Tazria

Audio Shiurim on Tazria
Rabbi Elchanan Adler: Why does the Torah list the levels of Tzara'as in reverse order? 
Rabbi Baruch Simon: Understanding Tzara'as 
Rabbi Yonason Sacks: Bris Milah and Korban Pesach 
Rabbi Hershel Schachter: Hilchos Tum'ah Primer
Rabbi Yaakov Neuburger: Tumah as Loss of Potential
Mrs. Chani Newman: Red, White & Green - The Colors of Tzaraas 
Rabbi Eliakim Koenigsberg: The Power of Speech 
Rabbi Zvi Sobolofsky: The Jewish Home as a Mikdash
Rabbi Reuven Spolter: Ear, Thumb, Big Toe and the Jewish Community 
Rabbi Ally Ehrman: Striving For Perfection 
Mrs. Shira SmilesNarrow Vision 
Rabbi Beinish GinsburgThe Kohen's role in Tzora'as 
Rabbi Michael TaubesEating Meat and Fish 
Rabbi Chaim BrovenderTum'ah - What Does it Mean?
Rabbi Daniel Z. FeldmanHalachos of Lashon Hora 
Rabbi Moshe TaraginAre We Partners with Hashem? 
Rabbi Avi SchneiderTzara'as-Privilege or Punishment 
Rabbi Joel FinkelsteinFinding The Inner You 
Mrs Ilana SaksA Guide to Purity 
Rabbi Yaacov ThalerIs Milah One Mitzvah or Two?
Mrs. Rena SpolterNechama Leibowitz on Brit Milah
Rabbi Yitzchok CohenThe Seriousness of Lashon Harah
Rabbi Aryeh LebowitzLoving Every Jew 
Rabbi Yonah GrossA Machlokes with God? 
Rabbi Eliezer ZwicklerA Deeper Look Into The Dirty Clothes
Rabbi Yisroel KaminetskyAdam, Beged and Bayit 
Rabbi Zvi RommThe Theme of Rosh Chodesh 

Articles on Tazria
Rabbi Meir GoldwichtAchieving Spiritual Rebirth
Rabbi David HorwitzThe Solitude of the Leper
Rabbi Avigdor NebenzahlKeep Your Mouth Holy 
Rabbi Shmuel GoldinSimcha or Sin?
Rabbi Josh HoffmanIn His Own Rights
Rabbi Avraham GordimerThe Yoledes's Sin 
Rabbi Ozer GlickmanOn Vision Born of Time
Rabbi Maury GrebenauMilah: The Covenant of Eight
Rabbi Ari KahnTurning Pain into Pleasure
Rabbi Dovid GottliebThe Gift of Giving
Rabbis Stanley M Wagner and Israel DrazinOnkelos’s End-Oriented Definition Of Tzara’at 

Rabbi Jeremy WiederLaining for Parshat Tazria
See all shiurim on YUTorah for Parshat Tazria

 New This Week











Blog Widget by LinkWithin