15

One of the foundations of modern quantum mechanics is the Uncertainty Principle. This principle is not an assumption, but rather is derived from assumptions made with regard to the structure of nature. The basic statement of the Uncertainty Principle, however, is that it is impossible to know the values of certain characteristics to within an arbitrary accuracy.

If the Uncertainty Principle is a fundamental aspect of the universe, G-d cannot be omniscient. So far, every experiment ever tested on the matter has borne out the practical implications of this principle and yielded the predicted results. How do Jews square this fact with their belief in an omniscient G-d?

Adam Mosheh
  • 6,025
  • 1
  • 34
  • 59
AdamRedwine
  • 939
  • 6
  • 16
  • AdamRedwine, welcome to Judaism.SE, and thanks very much for the thought-provoking question! – Isaac Moses Sep 01 '11 at 20:45
  • "If..., God cannot be omniscient" rather than e.g. "If..., I don't see how God can be omniscient" seems rather flippant, though I suppose I should take it as a denial of the uncertainty principle's being a fundamental aspect of the universe rather than as denial of God's omniscience. [This comment was edited after a response was made to it below.] – msh210 Sep 01 '11 at 21:58
  • 3
    @msh210 While I agree that your formulation would be more respectful, the "If p then not q" form is, I think, a perfectly acceptably way of stating a logical conclusion, and contains an implied "as I see it" or "if my logic is correct." – Isaac Moses Sep 01 '11 at 22:02
  • 1
    dup of http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1682/how-do-christians-square-the-concept-of-an-omniscient-god-with-the-uncertainty-pr? – antony.trupe Sep 01 '11 at 22:24
  • 3
    @antony.trupe, I don't follow. That question is about Christian philosophy/theology, and this one is about Jewish philosophy/theology. How is it a duplicate? – msh210 Sep 02 '11 at 00:07
  • @msh210 its a duplicate in the purest sense of the word: every character of the question is identical with the exception of one word. It's been closed as not constructive on the other site. – antony.trupe Sep 02 '11 at 01:05
  • 4
    msh210 is exactly right. The question is fundamentally different in the perspective sought. That the question with 153 views, 9 upvotes, and six answers accumulated in less than half a day would be closed as "not constructive" by the Christian forum seems very illuminating. That the Jewish forum would question why this was even considered a duplicate is also very illuminating. I suppose there are many reasons why I was raised a Christian and am converting to Judaism. ;) – AdamRedwine Sep 02 '11 at 01:44
  • 2
    @AdamRedwine: It's been re-opened on Christianity.SE. I think that might have been a mis-understanding, we just needed to resolve some wording. – Caleb Sep 02 '11 at 09:40
  • 3
    @antony.trupe: A duplicate would have the same answers, and a cross-post is only bad if its trying to play two different communities to get the same answer faster/better. In this case that one word change makes all the difference, the OP is looking for the perspectives of two different belief systems. Also the post was re-opened after some word fixes on Christianity.SE. – Caleb Sep 02 '11 at 09:42
  • 5
    @AdamRedwine I don't know where to leave this comment, so I'll just put it here. I think you are ignoring a fundamental aspect of the Uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle assumes an observer. But Gd is not an observer. An observer of course, does not require an intellect to be observing.

    Also, look up the concept of 'Information' that travels faster than the speed of light.

     – avi Sep 03 '11 at 20:39
  • I had an interesting conversation with a friend of mine once that I think is relevant. He basically argued that all of science and math are made by us to understand the world around us. That they work is great, but that doesn't make them the be all end all. I think its actually very fitting that (man-made) physics has uncertainty built in to it. He also mentioned that Pi and e, two numbers we have discovered that actually apply to the real world, are irrational. I don't know alot about these things, but I thought his remarks were interesting. – Baby Seal Dec 27 '13 at 15:52
  • @BabySeal I agree with your friend that math and science are "made by us" to understand the world, though that is certainly a controversial position. There is something very fundamental about mathematics that can only be appreciated by those with a deep grasp of the subject. As to the irrationality of pi and e, that depends on the nature of your definitions. In a non-flat spacetime, pi can be any value you like. e has similar flexibility depending on your assumptions. – AdamRedwine Jan 31 '14 at 22:26
  • Also on http://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/462/102 – Pacerier Jun 11 '15 at 07:32

11 Answers11

11

The uncertainty principle actually helped the religious case. Before quantum mechanics, people assumed the world was entirely deterministic, without any place for the will of God or man to change anything. Pierre Laplace claimed that one could know the entire future and present just by looking at all the atoms at one point in time. Einstein held so strongly to this deterministic view that he refused to accept the evidence for Quantum Mechanics.

But with quantum mechanics, God can invisibly intervene with the running of the universe without it being detected and without breaking any laws of nature. Since the position of the particles cannot be predicted with certainty, they can also be influenced without detection.

Ariel K
  • 10,999
  • 34
  • 53
  • 3
    Makes sense, but the question was about omniscience, not determinism. – msh210 Sep 02 '11 at 00:18
  • 2
    Although it would make certain things more difficult. For example, would the splitting of the Red Sea be a "natural" phenomena? The Torah differenciates between "miracles enclothed in nature" to "miracles above nature". According to Heisenberg, there would be no 2nd category. – ertert3terte Sep 02 '11 at 00:34
  • Thanks for the response. I am familiar with this argument as well and think that it has a great deal of merit. When you start getting deep into the weeds of the quantification of uncertainty and the resolution of wave functions things get very much more complicated. I wanted to try to keep this at a level most people could handle. – AdamRedwine Sep 02 '11 at 01:49
  • Tom, it may be that anything that is extremely unlikely can be considered a miracle above nature. Though I'm not sure that there has to be such a strong separation between them. Even without quantum mechanics, the splitting of the sea can just be considered a very unlikely event. – Ariel K Sep 02 '11 at 04:59
  • @Tom smith, the Torah makes it very clear that the splitting of the red sea was a 'natural' phenomena, orchestrated by Gd. Why else was the wind blowing all night? The original hebrew in fact is 'wonder' and 'awe inspiriing event'. Miracle as we understand the word is a new. – avi Sep 03 '11 at 20:36
9

Others can (I hope) provide a more complete answer, but I believe the simple answer is that God exists outside of space and time, and hence is not bound by their restrictions. Just because something is unknowable to humans does not make it beyond the control of God.

Tal Fishman
  • 967
  • 5
  • 21
  • 1
    But the Uncertainty Principle is a logical conclusion of the standard model of particle physics. It is an indispensable aspect of that model and, if that model is an accurate description of the universe, it logically restricts what is knowable in the most fundamental sense. The Uncertainty Principle doesn't say that these characteristics are unknowable to people, it says that they are unknowable to the universe, G-d included. – AdamRedwine Sep 01 '11 at 22:17
  • Do you believe that the laws of logic are an aspect of spacetime to which G-d is not bound? – AdamRedwine Sep 01 '11 at 22:19
  • 2
    @AdamRedwine The way I see it, that still does not present a problem. God is not part of the universe, for He created the universe. It does not matter that it is unknowable to people or animals or anything else in the universe, God is not "included" in the universe because God created the universe. The answer is, ultimately, either one you are instantly satisfied with or you will never be satisfied with any answer. – Tal Fishman Sep 01 '11 at 22:23
  • 1
    @AdamRedwine I think logic is in a completely different category, and while I personally believe God is bound by logic, I think this is more a statement about our own capacity for logic than about God. – Tal Fishman Sep 01 '11 at 22:25
  • 1
    I like and respect your position Tal, but I think I'm going to hold out a bit longer to select an answer. Thanks so much for the input!! – AdamRedwine Sep 02 '11 at 01:46
6

To say what others have answered in different words:

G-d's Holy Name, The Tetragrammaton, is a combination of “Haya” (was), “Hoveh” (is) and “Yihyeh” (will be).

When we say G-d exists out of time we're saying that for G-d the past, present, and future are as one. G-d does not experience time linearly, as we do. Rather, he sees it all as now. (See here)

In this sense, G-d is omniscient because all that will happen to us in the future is already known by G-d, since he - so to speak - is experiencing it now (or has already experienced it).

So, while the outcome of a certain action may presently be unknown to us (due to the Uncertainty Principle), in the future (once it has already occurred) we will know the outcome.

G-d knows that future now.

In response to the comment. This is what is says on Wikipedia (Which is just about the extent of my knowledge of the subject):

To measure the velocity of a particle, one must bounce other particles off of it, but such detection necessarily affects the particle being measured. The uncertainty principle says, for instance, that it is impossible to measure a particle's velocity in any moment and then have any hope of measuring its location for that moment (since the act of measurement of velocity immediately changed that particle's location). The observer must choose their knowledge of one time: the particle's location, or knowledge of its velocity.

To focus on the first part of that statement, this is my understanding of it. When observing something outside of yourself, you must interact with it. By definition, observing is something you do to something else, something separate from you. Since it is separate from you, the only way to examine it is interact with it. Interacting with it however, will affect it, and therefore we can never really know what it truly is, only how it reacts to our interaction.

But what if the thing you're examining is not separate from you, what if you just know it because it's you, not because you've examined something external?

To quote from this article (and please read it for context):

Maimonides, therefore, states that if we are to ascribe to G-d the knowledge of all beings and all events, we must conclude that: (a) His knowledge of the countless facts that comprise our existence are, in truth, but a single knowing -- His knowledge of self (since what we call "existence" is merely the expression of His infinite potential to create); and (b) He does not know Himself via a "mind" that is a distinct from Him, but that He, His knowledge and His "mind" are an utterly singular unit.

If that's the case, the Uncertainty Principle wouldn't kick in, since G-d wouldn't have to examine it in order to know it.

Menachem
  • 44,362
  • 6
  • 127
  • 247
  • Unfortunately the Uncertainty Principle does not have to do with whether or not something is "unknown to us," it has to do with the fundamental structure of the universe. If the standard model is correct, the Uncertainty Principle limits the knowledge to every conceivable thing including G-d. – AdamRedwine Sep 02 '11 at 10:38
  • 1
    @Menachem, "But what if the thing you're examining is not separate from you, what if you just know it because it's you, not because you've examined something external?" Are you saying that G-d and the particle are one in the same? I don't think you are. You may want to edit that. – YDK Sep 02 '11 at 23:33
  • YDK, he most certainly is saying that. It's a fundamental belief (in certain circles) that Gd can not be separated from creation. – avi Sep 03 '11 at 20:49
  • @YDK: from http://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/219/Q4/ --- "The Pesiktah Rabbati, Parsha 21, explains that "Hamakom" - The Place - as a name for G-d means "He is the place of the world, the world is not His place." This name stresses the concept that G-d created space, and that space is within G-d, and not the reverse. " – Menachem Sep 04 '11 at 03:24
  • 3
    @avi: it might be more correct to say "It's a fundamental belief (in certain circles) that creation can not be separated from G-d." – Menachem Sep 04 '11 at 04:21
  • @YDK: From Rambam Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah 2:10 (and quoted in the article I linked to): "Thus, He does not recognize and know the creations in terms of the creations as we know them, but rather He knows them in terms of Himself. Thus, since He knows Himself, He knows everything, for the existence of everything else is dependent on Him." http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/904962/jewish/Chapter-Two.htm – Menachem Sep 04 '11 at 21:27
  • @Menachem, none of your sources put G-d and creation as one, only G-d and His knowledge of creation. – YDK Sep 08 '11 at 04:44
  • @YDK: The Rambam (in the same halacha) says that G-d is the "One who knows", "That which is known", and the "Act of Knowledge itself". -- "That which is known" == creation (in this conversation). – Menachem Sep 08 '11 at 19:14
  • @Menachem, that has nothing to do with your statement which implies that creation is G-d. The Rambam is saying that God's knowledge and He are the same (as opposed to a human which stores outside knowledge). – YDK Sep 09 '11 at 03:34
  • @YDK: From the article: "In the words of Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi: 
    G-d's... thought and knowledge of all created beings embrace, in actuality, each and every creation; for [this knowledge] itself is its very life and being and that which brings it into existence from nothingness into actuality.( Tanya, part II, ch. 7)

    "

     – Menachem Sep 09 '11 at 06:49
  • @Menachem, yes G-d's "knowledge" sustains creation. Still does not support your position. – YDK Sep 12 '11 at 06:15
  • @YDK: I don't feel like I'm saying anything the article isn't saying. The article is discussing G-d's foreknowledge vs. free choice. I just applied what it said there to the Uncertainty Principle. – Menachem Sep 12 '11 at 21:01
  • 2
    @Menachem, I think I've been misreading your points. I had thought that you were saying G-d and creation are one. Since you didn't contradict that (with avi upholding it as a valid hashkafa), I thought you were trying to defend that point. Now I see that while the first "it" in your sentence refers to the particles, the second "it" refers to the knowledge, meaning knowledge and G-d are one, not G-d and creation. Sorry for the mistake. – YDK Sep 15 '11 at 19:07
  • 3
    The way I understand the uncertainty principle, it is not related to measuring both the momentum and position of a particle, but rather with knowing them. The mere fact of knowing that a particle has a given momentum with a given precision places a limit on the precision with which a particle's position can be known. More precisely, it places a limit on the precision with which the position is defined. Simply put, if you know the momentum with infinite precision, you the position is undefined. The particle does not have a position. The same is true, vice-versa, obviously. – Nathan Fellman Oct 02 '11 at 14:26
  • So this is not a question of whether or not G-d can know the position precisely, because there is no precise position to be known. – Nathan Fellman Oct 02 '11 at 14:27
4

The Uncertainty Principle puts a limit on the measurement of certain attributes. Position and momentum, for example, cannot be each accurately measured to an arbitrary degree of accuracy. This appears to be a fundamental principle of the way the world works, not anything to do with our measurement ability, and is intimately related to wave-particle duality. The attributes do not necessarily exist at all until they are measured, and if they do, it is as a mixture of the two.

G-d is omniscient. He is aware of all facts, even ones such as the position and momentum of every particle at all times.

So how can the reconcile the two? Previous answers have referenced G-d being outside of time, but they do not answer the fundamental question. Another answer would seem to be that G-d is aware of the whole state of the system, in all its superpositional glory, but that doesn't address the issue either.

The question is, if there is no "fact of the matter" about the position and momentum of a particle, how can an omniscient G-d know them?

The answer to any particular questions about the position and momentum of a particle have answers, but the questions do not simultaneously have answers, and an omniscient G-d is not any less omniscient for not knowing non-information.

cartomancer
  • 272
  • 1
  • 5
4

The uncertainty principle is a principle in physics limited to objects that are bound by it. G-d is above physics, therefore, is not bound by its rules.

Physical objects cannot create something from nothing, G-d can.

Physical objects cannot see the future, G-d can.

Physical objects must have a beginning, G-d doesn't.

Moreover, G-d can violate rules of common sense.

msh210
  • 73,729
  • 12
  • 120
  • 359
ertert3terte
  • 40,485
  • 7
  • 96
  • 205
  • By rules common sense do you mean laws of logic? If that is the case, the paradox is resolved. – AdamRedwine Sep 01 '11 at 22:18
  • 2
    Yes. The example cited there is the size of the Kodesh Hakodoshim is the size of the Aron, yet, if one would mesure the distance between one of the walls and the Aron, and add the distance between the opposite side of the wall and the Aron, the combined distance would be the size of the aron. IOW, the aron had a size, yet didn't, or in mathematical terms, X+X+X=2X. Doesn't make sense, and the Aron is just a creation. – ertert3terte Sep 01 '11 at 22:35
  • That can happen just with twisted space, it could be done with two wormholes. It only violates some of our laws of physics. Although wormholes might not even violate any laws of physics, actually. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole – ike Aug 10 '14 at 17:50
3

Although the other answers about G-d not being limited by his rules is accurate, I don't believe the question has a beginning.

Heisenberg's principle is based on physical observations/measurements affecting the values of the measurement's target.

Since G-d is omniscient he doesn't need to make physical observations, He is knowing of all values- unaffected.

YDK
  • 28,172
  • 1
  • 39
  • 76
  • 1
    Not quite. The Uncertainty Principle (of which Heisenberg's is only a special case) is based on the model of nature described by the standard model. That model makes predictions about the world that are then observed. It is a bit of a chicken and egg question, but there is an important difference. – AdamRedwine Sep 01 '11 at 21:23
  • So, if I understand you correctly, since the values cannot be determined in the physical world, they are predetermined to be indeterminable. – YDK Sep 02 '11 at 00:35
  • 1
    Assuming that I understood you, why should omniscience include values that don't exist? (Btw, I'm trying to answer the question intrinsically. Ultimately, I think our understanding of both quantum ideas and G-d are limited.) – YDK Sep 02 '11 at 00:49
  • The assumption that the numbers don't exist is not a given, but is a fascinating thought. I don't think I'd considered it before.

    Certainly my understanding of quantum and G-d are limited... I am human after all.

     – AdamRedwine Sep 02 '11 at 01:47
  • @AdamRedwine, your comment that Hesenberg's is a special case, contradicts the article you initally linked to. You might want to find another article to make your point. "In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states precise inequalities..." – avi Sep 03 '11 at 20:33
  • @avi I believe there is a subsection entitled ”other uncertainty relations .” They just use Heisenberg's because it is famous. – AdamRedwine Sep 05 '11 at 04:13
1

As the Creator of all things, including, but not limited to, time, the "laws" of physics, logic, and existence itself, G-d is not bound by any of them. Can G-d create a rock that He is unable to pick up? Yes, and He can also pick it up. How? Why? Because logic does not apply to G-d. Go argue with that (you can't; argument requires logic :-D). The same holds true here.

Even if the Uncertainty Principle is true (I'm not arguing that it is not, I'm just being cautious. Scientific theories are continually being disproved and replaced, so I'm covering myself ;-) ), it's rules would not apply to G-d because it is His creation, and therefore has no authority over Him.

My answer is not that different from what has already been said, but nobody has said it quite the same way, which I feel is important.

HodofHod
  • 21,056
  • 5
  • 91
  • 156
  • 7
    I'm afraid it is my turn to express disbelief at one of your answers. God is not bound by logic? God can create a rock which at the same time, he both can and cannot lift? This is in opposition to classical Jewish philosophy as I know it. Such names as Saadya Gaon, Rambam, Ralbag, Yosef Albo, Hasdai Crescas, and Isaac Abarbanel would all disagree with you. If you could provide a source for your claim, I would be much more at ease. – jake Nov 07 '11 at 14:35
  • @jake. I may not have a chance to respond for a bit bc of limited access to internet. I will try to so some research in seforim and on my mobile. rest assured that this is not my own sevara, and is well sourced, mostly in chassidus if I'm not mistaken. You're right though, this doesn't fit so well with classical chakirah. – HodofHod Nov 08 '11 at 04:15
  • Unfortunately, I have been unable to locate some good primary sources on this topic. I will continue to try to find some, though. This idea is very common within chassidus, and I would imagine, kabbalah as well. Here's an interesting secondary source, that goes even further than what I've said. – HodofHod Nov 10 '11 at 05:21
  • @jake, the previous comment is also for you, but I forgot to add the reference. Looked here for an article that addresses the rock question specifically. – HodofHod Nov 10 '11 at 05:35
  • @jake. Also, see Shmuel Brills answer, and the link there, as well as his comment. – HodofHod Nov 10 '11 at 16:42
  • 1
    I looked at the links and at Shmuel Brill's link/comment, but they seem very strange to me. Your link tries to show that God is able to achieve the logically impossible based on the Rambam's idea of negative theology, but I'm not sure what one has to with the other. Shmuel's link also tries to connect God's omnipotence with his "essence" or being, but I'm just not getting it. Rambam himself subscribed to the whole idea of not limiting God by description, but still maintained that God cannot violate logic... – jake Nov 13 '11 at 16:49
  • 1
    ...Also, I don't see how that example with the aron and kodesh kodashim helps anyone's case. Even if that is true, it is not a logical impossibility, but rather a physical impossibility. Everybody (with the possible exception of Ralbag) agrees that God can violate the laws of physics. [Although, IIRC, Saadya Gaon might consider something like that a logical impossibility, in which case, he would probably not believe that fact about the aron.] – jake Nov 13 '11 at 16:49
  • @jake The central theme of those links is that limiting G-d to logic essentially means G-d is not infinite or omnipotent. I'm still working (admittedly not very actively) on finding primary sources, though. My main purpose in pointing out those links was to assure you that I have backing for my assertion. – HodofHod Nov 15 '11 at 03:55
  • 2
    Limiting God to logic does not imply that God is not infinite, nor that He is not omnipotent. The links you pointed out do not seem to make all that much sense to me as I mentioned. I appreciate your taking the time to find sources for me, though. – jake Nov 15 '11 at 04:14
  • @jake, Many do think that limiting G-d to logic would mean He is not infinite.

    I'm getting closer to an finding a primary source. Here is a letter from the Lubavitcher Rebbe who says that "גדולי הראשונים" held that G-d is not limited even to logic. The Rebbe brings a Rashba (which is incredibly long and I don't know if I'll be able to get through it), and a Tzemach Tzedek, which I'm looking for.

     – HodofHod Nov 16 '11 at 21:38
  • @jake The fact about the Aron is, as far as I can tell, a logical impossibility. It took up space, and, at the same time, it did not take up space. That is illogical. This is how the Lubavitcher Rebbe (in the above letter) learns it as well. – HodofHod Nov 16 '11 at 21:40
  • Thanks, but I unfortunately am illiterate in yiddish. You are, though, correct about the aron, at least according to Saadya Gaon; see here for his qualification of "logically impossible" things that cannot be attributed to God... – jake Nov 16 '11 at 23:10
  • ...Now, with regard to supposed "gedolei harishonim" who felt otherwise, see Rambam here who apparently concludes that no matter how you qualify the category of "impossible" there will always remain things that are not attributable to God. – jake Nov 16 '11 at 23:10
  • 2
    Relevant comment thread here. – Fred Jul 16 '15 at 22:05
1

In Wikipedia's article "Uncertainty principle" we read:

To measure the velocity of a particle, one must bounce other particles off of it, but such detection necessarily affects the particle being measured. The uncertainty principle says, for instance, that it is impossible to measure a particle's velocity in any moment and then have any hope of measuring its location for that moment (since the act of measurement of velocity immediately changed that particle's location). The observer must choose their knowledge of one time: the particle's location, or knowledge of its velocity.

The uncertainty comes from having to bounce particles off the other particle. This is our method of determining the velocity of a particle. However, this may not be the only method of making the determination. G-d created the particle and therefore can know its position and velocity at any time without having to observe it as we do.

It's true that the uncertainty principle is actually more fundamental, in that wave-like systems cannot have the pair of properties known to arbitrary accuracy BY US. But that's because we are IN the universe. We simply do not know what other ways there are to know things, besides the ones involving material things in the universe. Perhaps if we stepped outside the current space-time, we would see there are other ways of knowing things that we cannot know within the system.

msh210
  • 73,729
  • 12
  • 120
  • 359
Gregory Magarshak
  • 955
  • 6
  • 17
  • 1
    This is about the same as YDK's answer. – Double AA Feb 04 '14 at 05:12
  • I agree with Double AA that your answer essentially repeats what is said above. You could, perhaps, improve it though. It sounds to me that you are attempting to argue that the epistemological approach of modern science is flawed, but you would have to clarify exactly what you mean. – AdamRedwine Feb 21 '14 at 23:50
1

as explained above, G-d instituted the Uncertainty principle as part of the framework of existence necessary for life. it is His invention so of course He is not bound to it.

if you look into it further, you will see that like the other laws of physics, it is essential for the existence of life.

how so? as explained here, without the uncertainty principle, electrons would collapse into protons thus destroying all matter. the reason this does not happen is because the electrons cannot be localized to too much precision so they exist as a kind of particle/wave cloud around the nucleus.

ray
  • 21,206
  • 2
  • 45
  • 103
0

The idea of uncertainty is that we cannot determine with accuracy. God doesn't determine. He knows from the inside. He is the force of existence within everything. Even if there is no equation, He knows it because He gives its essence.

There is a basis for the uncertainty concept within Kabbalah. The highest level that can be related to is Chachmah, which translates to Knowledge. There is still another, higher level which corresponds to Will, which by definition is not rule bound. This contains interminable and all encompassing rules.

We are taught that this world was built to mirror the whole existence. For this reason, although in the everyday bigger picture there is a rule for everything. When you dig deep into the origin of its elementary makeup, you find uncertainty.

HaLeiVi
  • 4,993
  • 16
  • 27
-1

As I heard from a professional physicist quote a Nobel prize winning physicist that he works with "People think that physics is about what the universe is. This is a mistake. Physics is about what we can say about the universe."

Yishai
  • 31,937
  • 1
  • 62
  • 130