So, the Name of God is the Torah and the Torah is a living organism — the third principle of the Three Principles of the Nature of Torah.
I’m going to start where I stumbled onto this helpful place:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
And I found this:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
and this:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
This is the most helpful material I have found of the ones I’ve looked into. On a trigger from my reading of Schloem ‘s On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism, I was looking for tiferet which is the seventh or the third sefirah depending on how you look at it I guess. Each sefirah represents a part of the body apparently. But the tiferet or Tif’ereth is the one that does the balancing of all of them together. Each sefirah is radient like a sapphire or jewel (which kind of brings to my mind the book of Revelations).
So, the Tiferet is middle balancing the mental aspects above it with the bodily aspects below it.
The sefirot can be represented by a Tree of Life or it can be represented by what are called Igulim Circles. Apparently one needs to be more advanced to understand the Iglium Cirles. But, on the Tree of Life, the more popular conceptualization, each sefirah contains all of the sefirot in a smaller version in addition to its own particular sefirah quality.
I’ve taken a snippet from the site linked above to enable you to better get the idea: (the Malkhut is the bottom sefirah and represents judgment)
Jacob’s Ladder
Each of the worlds within the Tree of Life makes up a complete sub-tree, with the Malkhut of each higher tree included within the Tiferet of the tree below. In this way, the worlds form a sequence of interleaving trees, which make up Jacob’s ladder, stretching from Earth to Absolute. In this way, the Tree of Life, is not just the structure that governs and brings forth creation, but is also the spiritual path of ascent by man.
Jacob’s Ladder story is found at Genesis 28:11-14.
——————
So far, so good.
I’ve taken a snippet from the site linked above to enable you to better get the idea: (the Malkhut is the bottom sefirah and represents judgment)
I feel like this needs a ‘qualifier’. The word Malkhut (root MLC) does actually mean ‘Kingdom’. Schloem uses the term ‘the power of divine judgment’. The 10th, bottom serifah is Malkhut though.
A correction. The third principle of the Three Principles of the Nature of Torah. The Torah as a living organism is the 2nd principle.
So, I think this one will be my last update for a period of time. I don’t like the way it’s going actually. I think I jumped in a little too soon. Schloem, in this book, anyway, writes in a ‛stream of consciousness’ sort of way, probably because he has so much knowledge about what he writes.
I think a time line is called for here. I have to try to construct one, because I just read this time line endeavor has already been covered by Schloem in his prior Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, which BJH1960 suggested for reading. I’ve looked up the ‛characters’ mentioned as they are placed out in the book on a rather random but pointed basis.
Roughly, Philo of Alexandria’s interpretation of the law I believe dates to the early Hellenistic period. I’ve read elsewhere that his work was undertaken in the interest of proving to Greek invaders that the Jewish Law could stand next to their law in equal measure. Philo’s accumulated works come to volumes and volumes of material. Aggadah text has evolved over centuries, incorporating various rituals, prayers, and commentaries. The Talmud is called the primary text of the oral law and I believe written by what are known as Rabbis. The Jerusalem or Palestinian Talmud was completed c. 350, and the Babylonian Talmud (the more complete and authoritative) was written down c. 500, but was further edited for another two centuries. The Kabbalah seems to have been developed as a result of these two particular texts, the Aggadah and the Talmud.
So, he says probably pre-Zohar Kabbalah first appears on the scene of Jewish history, in Languedoc, France. The largest body of Kabbalistic works from the pre Zoharic period derives from a circle of Kabbalists writing in Gerona, a small town in Catalonia near Barcelona (Spain).
Kabbalistic mysticism develops. . .
from Rabbinical Judaism by way of a number of different revelations recognized as authentic and each in its own way authoritative, namely, the revelations of Moses, of the Prophets, of the Holy Spirit (which spoke in the authors of the Psalms and other parts of the Bible), of the receivers of the ‛Heavenly Voice’ (bath kol), believed to have been audible in the Talmudic era), and finally the ‛revelation of the Prophet Elijah.’
Kabbalah is concerned with the expression of the hidden root which is one with the divine emanations also characterized as the divine language. The center of the Kabbalah in Gerona was established by the disciples of Rabbi Isaac the Blind, (1160-1235) especially two great writers: the elder Rabbi Ezra ben Solomon (1160-1238/1245) and his younger colleague Rabbi Azriel. REbS wrote of the Torah that: ‛In its divine totality it is an edifice hewn from the Name of the Holy One, blessed be He.’
The nature of this divine edifice , binyan elohi*, may be gathered from a long discussion of this point by Ezra’s younger contemporary, Azriel of Gerona (1160-1238), on the Talmudic Aggadah. He too starts from the assumption that the Torah is the Name of God and that it is a living body with a soul.
* binyan = root stem (of Hebrew language)
“Just as in the body of a man there are limbs and joints, just as some organs of the body are more, others less, vital, so it seems to be with the Torah. To one who does not understand their hidden meaning, certain sections and verses of the Torah seem fit to be thrown into the fire; but to one who has gained insight into their true meaning they seem essential components of the Torah. Consequently, to omit so much as one letter or point from the Torah is like removing some part of a perfect edifice. Thence it also follows that in respect of its divine character no essential distinction can be drawn between the section of Genesis 36, setting forth the generations of Esau, [a seemingly superfluous passage], and the Ten Commandments, for it is all one whole and one edifice.”
Kind of sounds a little anthropomorphic, yes? Or Pauline?
Schloem writes a little about Philo here, saying, “This conception of the Torah as a mystical organism is already attested in Philo’s account of the Jewish sect of the Therapeutae in Egypt: ‛For the entire Torah (nomothesia) seems to these people something akin to a living being; the literal sense is the body, while the soul is the secret sense underlying the written word.’ And on several occasions Philo bases his own developments on a similar conception. A direct line of influence from the Therapeutae of Egypt or from Philo to the Kabbalists strikes me as very unlikely. Quite independently of one another, mystics took similar attitudes toward the Holy Scriptures and expressed them in related images.”
Fifty years after Azriel we read in the Zohar
“He who labors in the Torah upholds the world and enables each part to perform its function. For there is not a member in the human body that does not have its counterpart in the world as a whole. For as man’s body consists of member and parts of varying rank, all acting and reacting upon one another so as to form one organism, so is it with the world at large: it consists of a hierarchy of created things, which, when they properly act and react upon each other, together form one organic body.”
Further, expressed still more strikingly, Moses de Leon (c.1240-1305) who is considered by Schloem to be the author of the main part of the Zohar, writes: The Torah
” is called the Tree of Life. . . . Just as a tree consists of branches and leaves, bark, sap and roots, each one of which components can be termed tree, there being no substantial difference between them, you will also find that the Torah contains many inner and outward things, and all form a single Torah and a tree, without difference between them. . . . And although among the sages of the Talmud one forbids what the other allows, one declares a thing to be ritually clean which another terms impermissible, one says this and another that, nevertheless it is necessary to know that the whole is one unity.”
So, to continue, a parallel between the Torah as a body and Israel as a body seems first to have been drawn by the author of the Tikkumin Zohar. The Tikkumin Zohar was written after the main body of the Zohar. In it, “the mystical organism of the Torah, which embodies the names of God, is correlated with the mystical body of the Community of Israel, which the Kabbalists regarded not only as the historical organism of the Jewish people, but also as an esoteric symbol for the Shekhinah, its members being, as it were, the ‛members of the Shekhinah’” [Tikkune Zohar, Tikkun 21, Fol.52b]
So. according to Schloem, relating a midrash accredited to Rabbi Isaac the Blind, probably before Nachmanides (Mōše ben-Nā mān, “Moses son of Nachman”; 1194–1270),
“in God’s right hand were engraved all the engravings [innermost forms] that were destined some day to rise from potency to act. From the emanation of all [higher] sefiroth they were graven, scratched, and molded into the sefirah of Grace (hesod), which is also called God’s right hand, and this was done in an inward, inconceivably subtle way.
This formation is called the yet unfolded Torah, and also the Torah of Grace. Along with all the other engravings [principally] two engravings were made in it.
The one has the form of the written Torah, the other the form of the oral Torah. The form of the written Torah is that of the colors of white fire, and the form of the oral Torah has colored forms as of black fire.
And all these engravings and the not yet unfolded Torah existed potentially, perceptible neither to a spiritual nor to a sensory eye, until the will [of God] inspired the idea of activating them by means of primordial wisdom and hidden knowledge.
Thus at the beginning of all acts there was pre-existentially the not yet unfolded Torah (torah kelulah), which is in God’s right hand with all the primordial forms [literally: inscriptions and engravings] that are hidden in it, and this is what the Midrash implies when it says that God took the primordial Torah (torah kedumah), which stems from the quarry of ‛repentance’ and the source of original wisdom, and in one spiritual act emanated the not yet unfolded Torah in order to give permanence to the foundations of all the worlds.”
The unfolded Torah corresponds to sefirah of Grace. The written Torah corresponds to Divine Compassion, which is
Tif‛ereth. The oral Torah corresponds to the power of divine judgment in Malkuth, the last sefirah.
Remember this is the Torah that burned before God as He looked into it at creation.
“The white fire is the written Torah, in which the form of the letters is not yet explicit, for the form of the consonants and vowel points was first conferred by the power of the black fire, which is the oral Torah. This black fire is like the ink on the parchment. ‛And so the written Torah can take on a corporeal form only through the power of the oral Torah, that is to say; without the oral Torah, it cannot be truly understood.’ Essentially only Moses, master of all the Prophets, penetrated in unbroken contemplation to that mystical written Torah, which in reality is still hidden in the invisible form of white light. Even the other Prophets gained only a fleeting glimpse of it in momentary intuitions.”
“There is only an oral Torah: that is the esoteric meaning of these words, and the written Torah is a purely mystical concept. It is embodied in a sphere which is accessible to prophets alone.. . . Revealed to Moses, but what he gave to the world as the written Torah has acquired its present form by passing through the medium of the oral Torah. The mystical white of the letters on the parchment is the written Torah, but not the black of the letters inscribed in ink. In the mystical organism of the Torah the two spheres overlap, and there is no written Torah, free from the oral element, that can be known or conceived of by creatures who are not prophets.”
Schloem continues to tie in the third principle, the principle of the manifold, not to say infinite, meanings of the Torah. (The three principles: 1. The principle of God’s name; 2. The principle of the Torah as an organism; 3. The principle of the infinite meaning of the divine word.)
In reading Scholem’s From Berlin to Jerusalem, I just came across this, which I thought I’d share:
“My interest in the Kabbala – Jewish mysticism – manifested early on, and probably very varied motives were responsible for it. Perhaps, I was an endowed with an affinity for this area from the ‘root of my soul,’ as the kabbalists would have put it, or maybe my desire to understand the enigma of Jewish history was also involved – and the existence of the Jews over millennia is an enigma, no matter what the numerous ‘explanations’ may say. Like almost all the founders of the Science of Judaism in the last century (Zunz, Rapoport, Luzzatto, Geiger, and Steinschneider), Graetz, whose History of the Jews had so entranced me, displayed the greatest aversion to everything connected with religious mysticism. He calls the classic work of the Spanish Kabbala, the Zohar, a book of lies, and whenever he speaks of the kabbalists he employs a whole dictionary of invectives. I could not say why, but it seemed improbable to me that the kabbalists could have been charlatans, buffoons, and masters of tomfoolery as he made them out to be. Something seemed to be hidden there, and it was this that attracted me.”
The idea of an organism (with interacting complementary parts) becomes identified with the conception of a living hierarchy of meanings and levels of meaning as “the Kabbalists adopted a line of thought which they found in the Jewish philosopers of the Middle Ages, who in turn had taken it from the philosophical tradition of the Arabs. I am referring to the idea of the two levels of meaning – inward and outward – in the sacred texts.”
The doctrine of dualistic meaning (literal/inward & spiritual/inward) has its root in Philo of Alexandria whose ideas “were taken over by the Church Fathers and the Christian Middle Ages, and also by Islam (which derived them from Oriental Christian sources).”
Although many Jewish philosophers identified the meaning of the Torah with philosophical allegory, “what Kabbalistic exegesis discovers behind the literal meaning of the Bible or Talmudic interpretations of the Bible was not primarily philosophical ideas, but a symbolic description of the hidden process of divine life, as it unfolds in the manifestations and emanations of the sefirah. Their primary interest may be termed theosophical.”
Nahmanides (1194-1270) avoided philosophical allegorical interpretations in his commentary on the Torah being attentive to the danger that “might accrue to the observance of Jewish ritual from a pure spiritualization of the Torah such as a consistent application of the allegorical method would imply.. . .The danger in his opinion, was not present in the mystical interpretation of the biblical text, where the symbol became meaningful through the actual enactment of the command.” (Interestingly, Nahmanides expressed this opinion in his commentary on Deut. 29:29, which verse is absent in our editions.)
But not all Kabbalists were as reserved. Many regarded allegory as a legitimate instrument, including the author of the Zohar (Moses de Leon* (c1240 – 1305)), though his primary interest was mystical and symbolic description of the hidden world of the Godhead. So, once the esoteric interpretation of the Scripture had assumed these two ways of looking at Scripture, one mystical and one allegorical, the way lay open to the doctrine of four levels of meaning. Joseph ibn Agnin (c1150 – 1220), a contemporary of Maimonides (c1138 – 1204) speaks of three levels of interpretation in his commentary on Song of Songs being the literal, Aggadic, and philosophical-allegorical. The Kabbalah added theosophical mystery in the sense described above. The Zohar terms this raza de-mehemanutha, that is, understanding according to the ‛mystery of faith.’
_________
* Moses de León, known in Hebrew as Moshe ben Shem-Tov, was a Spanish rabbi and Kabbalist who first publicized the Zohar. Modern scholars believe the Zohar is his own work, despite his claim to have copied it out of an ancient manuscript by Shimon ben Yochai. Wikipedia, Moses de Leon
I said: (Interestingly, Nahmanides expressed this opinion in his commentary on Deut. 29:29, which verse is absent in our editions.)
______
Well, this is something. I lookedup this verse in my JPS Jewish Study Bible published 1985, and found it not. However, looking in my KJV published 1957 it is there. So, what gives? Schloem says “which for some reason is lacking in our editions.”
The Jewish Study Bible I have (2004) has Deut.29:28 as “Concealed acts concern the Lord our God; but with overt acts, it is for us and our children ever to apply all the provisions of this Teaching.”
I discovered this about the verse, which looks interesting:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
So, now that Schloem has accounted for the development of the Zoharic doctrine of four levels of meaning he poses a question: Was there a hitorical link between it and the similar but older, theory of the fourfold meaning of Scripture that had been developed by the Christian authors of the early Middle Ages? He believed that with the state of present day schlorship of his time, a historical line of filiation could be shown with a definite precision.
He traces the development of terminology of levels. Employed in the 12th century by Joachim of Floris, the famous Calabrian monk in his Enchiridion in Apolcalyptism is the nut, with its outer shell and two finer inward coverings protecting the kernal. Later in the early 13th century the simile of the nut is employed by the German and French Hasidim, in connection with the merkabah (chariot) described in Chapter 1 of Ezekial.
In Zohar, the earliest reference to the four levels is found in the Midrash ha-Ne’elam (The Mystical Midrash) to the Book of Ruth, one of the earliest works of the author of the Zohar. In it he writes: ‛The words of the Torah are likened to a nut. How is this to be understood? Just as a nut has an outer shell and a kernel, each word of the Torah contains outward fact (ma‛aseh), midrash, haggadah, and mystery (sod), each of which is deeper in meaning than the preceding.’ This passage is remarkable in several ways. It makes use of no specific term of interpretation, while by midrash is meant the hermeneutic method by which the halakhists, or legalists, of the Talmud derived their definitions from the Biblical text.”
This set of meanings, not explicitly defined in the ‛Ruth’ midrash are found essentially in a famous passage of the Zohar formulated more explicitly. This passage became a locus classicus for the Kabbalists. Schloem provides a translation shot through with figures from the chivalric tradition of the Middle Ages as follows:
Verily the Torah lets out a word and emerges a little from her sheath, and then hides herself again. But she does this only for those who know and obey her. For the Torah resembles a beautiful and stately damsel, who is hidden in a secluded chamber of her palace and who has a secret lover, unknown to all others. For love of her he keeps passing the gate of her house, looking this way and that in search of her. She knows that her lover haunts the gate of her house. What does she do? She opens the door of her hidden chamber ever so little, and for a moment reveals her face to her lover, but hides again forthwith. Were anyone with her lover, he would see nothing and perceive nothing. He alone sees it and he is drawn to her with his heart and soul and his whole being, and he knows that for love of him she disclosed herself to him for one moment, aflame with love for him. So is it with the word of the Torah, which reveals herself only to those who lover her. The Torah knows that the mystic [hakim libba, literally, the wise of heart] haunts the gate of her house. What does she do? From within her hidden palace she discloses her face and beckons to him and returns forthwith to her place and hides. Those who are there see nothing and know nothing, only he alone, and he is drawn to her with his heart and soul and his whole being. Thus the Torah reveals herself and hides, and goes out in love to her lover and arouses love in him. Come and see: this is the way of the Torah. At first, when she wishes to reveal herself to a man, she gives him a momentary sign. If he understands, well and good; if not, she sends to him and calls him a simpleton. To the messenger she sends to him the Torah says: tell the simpleton to come here that I may speak to him. As it is written [Prov. 9:47]: ‛Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither, who saith to him that wanteth understanding, until very slowly insight comes to him, and this is called derashah* Then through a light veil she speaks allegorical words [millin de hida] and that is what is meant by haggadah**. Only then, when he has become familiar with her, does she reveal herself to him face to face and speak to him of all her hidden secrets and all her hidden ways, which have been in her heart from the beginning. Such a man is then termed perfect, a ‛master,’ that is to say, a ‛bridegroom of the Torah’ in the strictest sense, the master of the house, to whom she discloses all her secrets, concealing nothing. She says to him: do you see now how many mysteries were contained in that sign I gave you on the first day, and what its true meaning is? Then he understands that to those words indeed nothing may be added and nothing taken away. And then for the first time he understands the true meaning of the words of the Torah, as they stand there, those words to which not a syllable or a letter may be added and from which none may be taken away. And therefore men should take care to pursue the Torah [that is, study it with great precision], in order to become her lovers as has been related.
*Derashah means here the mode of interpretation practiced by the Talmudists, by which they derived the exoteric oral doctrine from the words of Scriptre in accordance with certain fixed norms.
** The same use of hida for allegory, usual in medieval Hebrew, occurs also in Moses de Leon at the end of his Mishan ha- ‛Eduth, MS Cambridge, 54a: ‛In the words of the wise men there are Haggadoth, some of which are allegories [hida], while others should be understood literally, without any allegory.
In this passage “the ma‛aseh, the outward fact, is replaced by the more customary term peshat, designating the literal or simple meaning, which is preserved even in the mystical transfiguration, though it has been made transparent by the mystical light shining through it. A further step is taken in another Zoharic passage (III, 020a), where the different levels of meaning are expressly represented as parts of the organism of the Torah which is the Tree of Life. Here, however, the old term haggadah is replaced by the new term remez, which in medieval Hebrew had come (under Arabic influence) to designate allegory. Here in addition . . . a fifth [level] is mentioned, namely gematria, or interpretation through the numerical value of the Hebrew letters, which elsewhere is not regarded as in independent level of meaning.”
The Midrash ha-Ne ‛elam and the locus classicus and passage Zohar, III, 020a, were written circa 1280 – 1286. After completing the main part of the Zohar in pseudoepigraphical form, we know that before 1290 Moses de Leon wrote a lost work titled Pardes which literally means ‛paradise.’ The title is based on a pun, “which became widely known and was much used in subsequent Hebrew literature. The pun is based on the famous story in the Talmud about four great rabbis who engaged in esoteric studies in the second century. These four were said to have ‛entered Paradise.’ They were the Rabbis Akiba, Ben Zoma, Ben Azzai, and Aber. ‛One saw and died, the second saw and lost his reason, the third laid waste the young plants [that is, became an apostate and seduced the young]. Only Rabbi Akiba entered in peace and came out in peach.’”
Pardes here becomes a cipher PaRDeS which consonants denote each of the levels: P for peshat, the literal meaning, R for remez, the allegorical meaning, D for derasha, the Talmudic and Aggadic interpretation, S for sod, the mystical meaning. The cipher is taken up by the author (probably a student of Moses de Leon) who wrote Tikkune Zohar, a work containing seventy interpretations of the first section of the Torah (Gen 1 – 5). This is the source that all subsequent writers derived it.
Metaphorically speaking the Zohar is a result of some heavy tripping. There are some fields that require total immersion. You can’t just dip in and out. You have to dive in head first and drink deep. Thinking about the Zohar and kabbalah gives me a degree of vertigo thinking about what it would take to even begin. That’s why I’m content to hear reports from serious explorers. It’s like a metaphysical National Geographic special. I might never make it somewhere but it’s fun to hear from someone who did.
The Pardes story is very important in Merkabah where Rabbi Akiba is the main hero but one can’t but feel a little sympathy for Elisha ben Avuya (whose name is unspoken) because he became a heretic. ben Avuya is often associated with the “Two Powers in Heaven” heresy and the veneration of Metatron, the divinized Enoch, the “Lesser Yahweh”.
A reminder that Justin Sledge’s ESOTERICA series on Merkabah begins tomorrow. If you join his Patreon you get live access but he’s decided to make it open access and post each lecture a week later on YT. Still, for his time and effort, and the value of the material, I feel like I need to slip him a few bucks. I think I’m going to start a separate thread and post the lectures there as they are released. It will be good to have them all in one place.
Oh, I just thought this description might fit nicely following Stephen’s comment. It’s in promotion of the Paulist Press book, Zohar, the Book of Enlightenment:
To assure the acceptance of his work within the Jewish community, a Spanish scholar named Moses de Leon claimed that Zohar was an ancient work of the school of the famous Rabbi Shim’on son of Yohai. It was not until our own century that critical scholarship demonstrated that the book’s author was Moses de Leon himself. His mosaic of Scripture, Midrash, medieval homily, fiction, and fantasy presents what Professor Daniel Matt describes as “a challenge to the normal workings of consciousness [that] dares one to examine one’s assumptions about tradition, God, and self.” †
AI Overview
Yes, according to Kabbalah, there is a connection made between the four letters of the Tetragrammaton and the first four books of the Torah.
(well ain’t that something)
Specifically:
Genesis (Bereishit) corresponds to the letter Yud (י), representing the World of Atzilut (Emanation) and the initial flash of divine inspiration and wisdom.
Exodus (Shemot) corresponds to the first Heh (ה), symbolizing the World of Beriah (Creation) and the expansion and development of the initial concept into a structured form.
Leviticus (Vayikra) corresponds to the Vav (ו), signifying the World of Yetzirah (Formation) and the realm of emotions and the drawing up of plans for the actual creation.
Numbers (Bemidbar) corresponds to the second (or final) Heh (ה), representing the World of Assiyah (Action) and the practical realization and completion of the creation.
@1:00
So, the idea is to find four levels of meaning, and different authors come up with different ways to approach the four levels, but it seems that Rabbi Akiba alone is able to reach the innermost kernal wherein lies the seed of life.
Now, the Shekhinah becomes an important bit in all this and Schloem plans to expand on on it later in the book. The book of Tikkun identifies the Shekhinah with God’s presence, the last of the 10 emanations or sefiroth, and that is identified with the Torah in all its manifestations, embracing all its meaning and levels of meanings. The Shekhinah in exile is pardes ha-Torah ‛the paradise of the Torah,’ but itself is the innermost kernal.
Recall, pre-Nahmanides this same sefirah is called the malkuth corresponding to the power of divine judgment and the Shekhinah is the receptive sphere and oral Torah and one with the ‛Congregation of Israel’. The written Torah seems to be connected to either the 3rd of 7th* sefirah of divine compassion which is Tif ‛reth . Tif ‛reth and Malkuth work together as do the written Torah and the oral Torah. In the mystical organism of the Torah, the two spheres overlap, and there is no written Torah, free from the oral element, that can be known or conceived by creatures who are not prophets.
It has been debated whether the 4-fold aspects of the Torah is derived from markedly similar conceptions of certain Christian authors of the early Middle Ages, like, Bede of the eighth century, into the Late Middle Ages. Concerning the Kabbalah, the crystallization of the 4-fold idea occurs in the Zohar. A second important thesis put forward in Zohar is that every word, indeed, every letter, has seventy aspects, or literally, ‛faces.’ The idea does not occur in the Talmud, but was developed from a Talmudic theme.
I’ll take this up next time!
_________
*I say 3rd or 7th because I’ve seen it both ways. I think it really depends on how you count. I believe Schloem calls it the 3rd sefirah.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)