Making the Law of Return Work for All Jews, by Rabbi Asher Lopatin

On Friday an Op Ed appeared in the Jerusalem post, written jointly by Rabbi Seth Farber – Orthodox – and Rabbi Ed Rettig – Reform – where together they excoriated the Israeli government and its bureaucratic arms for preventing Jewish converts from becoming Jewish citizens under the Law of Return.  Rather than recognizing all Jewish converts as Jews, as the Israeli Supreme court ordered over a decade ago, the relevant ministries are requiring converts to jump through multi-year hoops in order to gain acceptance.  I would add to it, that I was involved in an Orthodox  conversion that was flat-out rejected since the Interior ministry did not recognize the Beit Din of Evanston as a legitimate Beit Din.

Rather than getting angry at the government of Israel or the ministries or the individual bureaucrats involved, I suggest there is a systemic problem that has a simple solution.  The problem is once again: “Who is a Jew?”  True, Israel  years ago veered away from defining that halachically, but still – is anyone who is converted by anyone, or anyone who just claims they are Jewish with no evidence to be admitted under the Law of Return?  If not – and  on the surface it seems we need some control – then who determines the criteria? The Rabbanut doesn’t, but now secular ministries do, and that is worse!

I say the only way for the Law of Return to work the way it is supposed to – to protect every “Jew” in the world from potential persecution and to allow any “Jew” in the world to return to the Land of the Jews is if yes, Israel accepts anyone who converts to Judaism in any way, and anyone who declares that they are Jewish. Wouldn’t the Nazis kill anyone who claimed to be Jewish?  Wouldn’t the crusades kill anyone who claimed they were Jewish?  Would the Muslim mobs in Morocco or Yemen kill any Muslim who declared they had become Jewish no matter who converted them or how?  Of course.  So the Law of Return should apply to anyone who claims they are Jewish and who is willing to have “Yehudi” stamped on there Te’udat Zehut – their Israeli identity card.  Yes, we may get millions from around the world, from Africa and Asia and South America declaring they are Jewish – Oy gevalt!  More self identifying Jews in Israel!!  That is exactly what we want.

Yes, if you are racist, or bigoted or xenophobic you will be afraid of these “Jews” coming to Israel.  But that is what Ben Hecht claimed some of the early Jews living in Israel felt about the masses from Europe – were they the right kinds of Jews to bring to the Holy Land?  That is was some of the Gedolim told Rav Yehiel Yaakov Weinberg when he wanted to save the Hildesheimer Yeshiva in Germany from Nazi destruction by bringing it to Palestine – they felt it was the wrong type of Yeshiva and Torah for the Holy Land of Israel.  So they perished at the hand of the Germans.

Just as the system works today, the Jewish and religious community in Israel will have to sort out “Who is a Jew?” from a Halachic point of view.  Following the Mishna B’rurah’s p’sak for minyan and leading services, anyone who shows up in shul will be counted (males, that is, for the Orthodox) and can daven, because of the law of the majority.  When it comes to weddings, anyone who wants to get married will have to convert – if they haven’t already – based on the standard of that community: chareidim, Modern Orthodox, s’faradim, etc.  No hard feelings. If I can verify to the community I want to live in and marry in that I am Jewish, fine.  Otherwise, that community should welcome me if I meet their standards of conversion.  But no one in the world who self identifies as a Jew should be denied admission to Israel as an Israeli citizen.

We need the Law of Return to work to save Jews and bring them home to Israel.  Let us welcome all Jews – anyone who says they are Jewish should be welcome in the Jewish state.  And maybe if those masses of self-identifying Jews come back to the Homeland, in all their shapes and colors, then maybe those Jews from America and Europe, who have the proof that they are Jewish, will return as well.  Then Israel will  be the safe-heaven for Jews which the founding fathers of Israel, such as Theodor Herzl and Ze’ev Jabotinsky  envisioned.

30 Responses to Making the Law of Return Work for All Jews, by Rabbi Asher Lopatin

  1. Beautiful.

    But let me please ask you a question: while, according to you, everyone who claims to be Jewish will be admitted as an Israeli citizen (wonderful! beautiful!), will they also be allowed to marry in Israel, or will they have to fly to Cyprus as second-class citizens?

    I propose that we follow the ruling of Rambam and Rabbi Benzion Uziel (see the articles by Rabbis Yehuda Herzl Henkin and Marc Angel in Hakira, here), and grant conversions even to those who are not halakhically observant. Rabbi Dr. Eliezer Berkovits already called for this (see Crisis and Faith and Essential Essays on Judaism), saying that bedieved, all conversions are valid even if the convert is not observant, and that in a sha’at ha-dahak (in our case, Jewish unity and ahavat yisrael), the bedieved becomes l’hatkhila. See also Lilit Marcus’s New York Is My Israel and my response to her.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Rabbi Lopatin,
    Allow me to quote from a sefer of Rav Ahron Soloveichik zt”l’s torah that was published this past year, Kol Brisk:
    גם היתה פעם הצעה מאת ראשי ישיבה ורבנים חשובים ממנהיגי היהדות החרדית בארץ ישראל לאפשר בחסות מדינת ישראל להכיר בגירות שלא כהלכה (השם ירחם) אלא שזה תמיד ירשם בתעודת זהות שהוא גר ואז היהודים שומרי תורה יוכלו להזיהר ולבדוק את הכשרות הגירות שלו. הגר”א [סולוביציק] זצ”ל התנגד גם לזה בחריפות רבה ואמר שזה מגלה פנים בתורה שלא כהלכה והים של שלמה בב”ק אומר שמגלה פנים בתורה שלא כהלכה הוא כפירה וזה יהרג ואל יעבור
    Leaving aside the issue of it being megaleh panim b’torah, kefira, and yeharog v’al yaavor, do you honestly think that most Jews in Israel who are not themselves religious will check to see that the person they are marrying is Jewish according to halacha? Does intermarriage simply not bother you?

    As far as the Beit Din of Evanston, I’m a lifelong Chicagoan and personally this is the only case where I have heard of it. There seems to be something that concerned the Rabbanut. Who are the other members, and what are the standards for geirus?

    Finally, while it is commendable that you are looking to help people, and bring more Jews to Israel it might be useful to spend more time concerned with the founding fathers Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov than Theodor Herzl and Ze’ev Jabotinsky.

    • Asher Lopatin says:

      Sorry, the Hebrew did not come out properly. But I can tell you that when I personally asked Rav Ahron Soloveichik about our elementary school in Chicago letting in patrilinial Jewish kids – with only a Jewish father – he said that was fine. When his grandson pressed him on it and said: Zeidi, that means they are letting in “goyim g’murim”! He said, “So what? Goyim can learn Torah as well.” I also hear on cassette from Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, zt”l, that at his school in Brookline, MA, Maimonides, “We let in students with only a Jewish father”. That was because, he explained, they are already part of our community, they are going to marry within us, and we need to be m’karev them and hopefully get them to convert. The great Solovei(t)chiks knew twenty and thirty years ago what we are just discovering, that we need to established our communal norms and standards by bringing people in, and raising them to those levels, rather than hoping to chase them away.

      RAL

      • Anonymous says:

        I’m sorry the Hebrew didn’t come out, I’ll translate it into English, but any mistakes in translation are my own.
        גם היתה פעם הצעה מאת ראשי ישיבה ורבנים חשובים ממנהיגי היהדות החרדית בארץ ישראל לאפשר בחסות מדינת ישראל להכיר בגירות שלא כהלכה (השם ירחם) אלא שזה תמיד ירשם בתעודת זהות שהוא גר ואז היהודים שומרי תורה יוכלו להזיהר ולבדוק את הכשרות הגירות שלו. הגר”א [סולוביציק] זצ”ל התנגד גם לזה בחריפות רבה ואמר שזה מגלה פנים בתורה שלא כהלכה והים של שלמה בב”ק אומר שמגלה פנים בתורה שלא כהלכה הוא כפירה וזה יהרג ואל יעבור
        There was once a proposal from important Roshei Yeshiva and Rabbanim, who were among the Charedi leaders in Eretz Yisrael, that it would be possible for the state of Israel to recognize conversions not done in accordance with halacha (Hashem Yerachem), however it would always be noted in their teudat zehut that they are converts, and the jews who were observant of the Torah could be aware and check the status of their conversions. Rav Ahron Soloveichik zt”l opposed this with great strength, and said that this was being megaleh panim b’torah shelo k’halacha, and the Yam Shel Shlomo in Bava Kamma says megaleh panim b’torah shelo k’halacha is kefira and yeharog v’al yaavor.

        I wouldn’t extrapolate from any conversions you had with Rav Ahron, when he strongly opposed a proposition that was not even as extreme as yours.

        Also, I’m still interested in hearing how you would deal with the inevitable intermarriage that would result from this, and more details about the Beit Din of Evanston.

      • Asher Lopatin says:

        First of all, there are many non-Jews already in Israel, so intermarriage has to be addressed already. The answer is basically that as opposed to the States where the majority culture is Christian, Israel’s majority culture – at least where Jews live, rather than the mostly Arab areas – is Jewish: Pesach, Purim, Chanuka, Yom Kippur, kosher food in the supermarkets are all in the air in Israel. Therefore, even in the case where a Jew meets a Jew who is not halachically Jewish, the momentum is all towards raising the children Jewish. Then, the solution which needs to be implemented even today is offering halachic conversion of the children as minors, even if one – or both – of the parents is/are not halachically Jewish. Again, in a Christian culture, the chances of the kids growing up Jewish is low. In Israel, even with a million or two non-halachic Jews coming in over a decade, the culture in the Jewish areas will remain Jewish.

        The Beit Din of Evanston was an ad hoc Beit Din established to convert someone really only needed a conversion “lechumra” – for strictness sake. All the rabbis were Orthodox and observant so halachically it was a kosher conversion – but politically and administratively it was not acceptable. Unfortunate, but not unique.

        RAL

      • Anonymous says:

        Sorry, I meant to say conversations not conversions.

  3. David S says:

    Absolutely a great suggestion. In the end, we can grow Judaism and solve the demographic issue. At the same time we can increase the pool of people that can join Jewish religious communities by choice by simply being friendly. No coercion is required.

  4. Ivor D says:

    Your pragmatic and rational reccomendation should apply equally to the Galut as to the Law of Return in Israel. The current case argued in the British high court contesting admission discrimination to the Jews Free in London on behalf of a 12 year old boy is more than a “schande for the Yidden”. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/world/europe/08britain.html?_r=1
    The British case extends this farcical reverse discrimination to it’s natural and odious conclusion: a behavioural acid-test of verifiable actions – “The court concluded that basing school admissions on a classic test of Judaism — whether one’s mother is Jewish — was by definition discriminatory. Whether the rationale was “benign or malignant, theological or supremacist,” the court wrote, “makes it no less and no more unlawful.”

  5. Anonymous says:

    Rabbi Lopatin,
    I agree that there is a greater chance the children of intermarriage will be raised Jewish in Israel than in America. However saying that they will be raised Jewish, and can be converted if necessary for marriage, is missing the point. Intermarriage is itself assur. The fact that there are already a small number of non-Jews who consider themselves Jewish in Israel does not change that you are proposing bringing millions more into the country. It’s not keeping the status quo it’s creating a more problematic situation that will affect millions of lives. It’s unacceptable. The Torah does not demand that we keep a Jewish culture, it demands that we be a mamleches kohanim and goy kadosh. Halacha and not “culture” need to govern our actions.

    It’s interesting to hear about the Beit Din of Evanston. I assume kabbalas mitzvos was required of the converts?

    • Asher Lopatin says:

      Yes, the Beit Din of Evanston require full Kabbalat Hamitzvot and the theology of Judaism as well.

      • David S says:

        Rabbi Lopatin, it is clear that your group here along with other Rabbis such as Rabbi Angel, have moved philosophically towards a bigger tent version of Judaism whereas the Right Wing have moved more and more towards the idea of philosophical purity in some cases rewriting Torah mi-sinai in order to advance their agenda. In my view, this pull away from the center is the most demoralizing aspect of our current times since it is crystal clear that it does not help the Jewish people. In my view, the only way to deal with it is to vocally call out those who would add to the Torah through excessive stringency.

      • YOSEF says:

        You still have not resonded to the article by Rav Aharon that vehemently opposes your idea

  6. YOSEF says:

    How do you respond to the article by Rav Aharon Soloveichik vehemently opposed to your suggestion?

  7. I completely agree with your suggestion.

    However, there is the danger that people will be availed of the Law of Return but nevertheless have to fly to Cyrpus as second-class Israeli citizens in order to marry.

    Might I suggest also advocating the shita of Rabbis Benzion Uziel and Eliezer Berkovits, who advocated offering Orthodox conversions to those who aren’t halakhically Jewish according to matrilineality? (Rabbi Nathan Lopes Cardozo, in his Judaism On Trial advocates Rabbi Berkovits’s shita.)

    (Rabbi Uziel spoke of those with only Jewish fathers, and advocated conversion of the mothers in order to prevent the sin of intermarriage, and to save the children (whom he considered to be mi-zera yisrael from being lost to the Jewish people. Rabbi Berkovits was motivated by ahavat yisrael and Jewish unity. They have slightly different reasons therefore, and also, their technical understandings of the laws of conversion are ever so slightly different, but for all intents and purposes, their shitot are practically identical.)

    See Lilit Marcus’s New York is My Israel for a description of the practical and emotional position vis a vis Israel of someone with only a Jewish father and without a Jewish mother, and see my response to her containing extensive quotation of the words of Rabbis Uziel and Berkovits.

    And see the articles by Rabbis Yehuda Herzl Henkin and Marc Angel here.

  8. I completely agree with your suggestion.

    However, there is the danger that people will be availed of the Law of Return but nevertheless have to fly to Cyrpus as second-class Israeli citizens in order to marry.

    Might I suggest also advocating the shita of Rabbis Benzion Uziel and Eliezer Berkovits, who advocated offering Orthodox conversions to those who aren’t halakhically Jewish according to matrilineality? (Rabbi Nathan Lopes Cardozo, in his Judaism On Trial advocates Rabbi Berkovits’s shita.)

    (Rabbi Uziel spoke of those with only Jewish fathers, and advocated conversion of the mothers in order to prevent the sin of intermarriage, and to save the children (whom he considered to be mi-zera yisrael from being lost to the Jewish people. Rabbi Berkovits was motivated by ahavat yisrael and Jewish unity. They have slightly different reasons therefore, and also, their technical understandings of the laws of conversion are ever so slightly different, but for all intents and purposes, their shitot are practically identical.)

    See Lilit Marcus’s “New York is My Israel” (http www dot jewcy dot com/post/new_york_my_israel) for a description of the practical and emotional position vis a vis Israel of someone with only a Jewish father and without a Jewish mother, and see my response to her (http www dot jewcy dot com/post/new_york_my_israel#comment-35093) containing extensive quotation of the words of Rabbis Uziel and Berkovits.

    And see the articles by Rabbis Yehuda Herzl Henkin and Marc Angel (http hakirah dot org/Volume%207.htm).

  9. “The answer is basically that as opposed to the States where the majority culture is Christian, Israel’s majority culture … is Jewish …”

    See Rabbi Henkin’s article (which I cite above); he makes precisely this argument.

    “Then, the solution which needs to be implemented even today is offering halachic conversion of the children as minors…”

    This is Rabbi Michael Broyde’s argument in Tradition. Now, in the long-term, this will indeed solve the intermarriage problem, and so if nothing else, this suggestion should certainly be followed.

    The problem with Rabbi Broyde’s suggestion, however, is that it does nothing for those who **today** must fly to Cyprus to be married. It’s fantastic if these people will be availed of the Law of Return, but must they be made second-class citizens when they arrive? This is unconscionable.

    Therefore, it seems clear to me that we ought to be following the policy that conversion does not require strict halakhic observance. EVERYONE agrees that kabbalat mitzvot is required, but the definition of kabbalat mitzvot differs. According to Rabbis Uziel, Raphael Aaron ben Shimon of Cairo, Rabbi Moshe ha-Kohen of Jerba, and others, kabbalat mitzvot means not that the convert will be observant, but rather, that the convert accepts the beit din’s authority and jurisdiction for any violations of halakhah. The convert may very well plan to violate Shabbat, but he or she accepts that the beit din can punish for such Shabbat violation. See http www dot jewishideas dot org/responsa/halakhic-conversion-of-non-religious-candidates

    This is apparently also the position of Rabbi D. Z. Hoffman, who permitted the conversion of an apparently non-observant woman, and this in 19th century Germany, at the height of the Reform movement! Rabbi Hoffman surely could not take for granted that the woman would be observant, and yet he never he mentions the requirement that she be observant! Rabbi Hoffman even says that the fact that she is coming to the beit din for an Orthodox conversion is sufficient kabbalat mitzvot! See also the countless authorities listed by Professor Marc Shapiro as well (http seforim dot traditiononline dot org/index.cfm/2008/8/29/Responses-to-Comments-and-Elaborations-of-Previous-Posts-III).

    And according to Rambam in Issurei Biah, King Shlomo’s wives maintained their belief in idolatry, and the Biur ha-Gra confirms this. Now, whether or not King Shlomo knew at the outset that his wives would be idolatrous, he certainly knew by the time he built idolatrous shrines for them, and yet nevertheless, their conversions were valid! So we have less than the Rambam to rely on here. See http www dot jewishideas dot org/articles/retroactive-annulment-giyyur-conversion and see Rabbi Henkin’s article (op. cit.) confirming this understanding of the Rambam.

    Also, Rabbi Shlomo Kluger, according to Rabbi Henkin, says observance is merely a makhshir, but not actually required. This is apparently Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits’s position when he says that observance is required l’hatkhila but not bedieved.

    Now, Rabbi Broyde argues that the shita of Rabbis Uziel et. al. is halakhically invalid. Now, I will not argue against Rabbi Broyde on grounds of Talmudic exegesis, and Rabbi Broyde did point out some real flaws with Professor Zvi Zohar’s thesis (for example, Zohar wanted to derive that if children don’t need to be observant to have conversions, then neither do parents; Broyde notes that by this logic, a man doesn’t need milah since a woman doesn’t need one).

    The problem with Rabbi Broyde is that he fails to grapple with the documented positions of countless poseqim who disagree with him. Rabbi Uziel is far from the only poseq who held that conversion does not require observance. Rabbi Broyde may believe, based on his reading of the Talmud and Shulhan Arukh, that conversion requires observance, but is he so great to argue with so many poseqim before him, especially when many of his coreligionists are perhaps descendants of these conversions?! Who knows – maybe Rabbi Sherman himself is descended from someone who converted without accepting halakhic observance! Let’s face it: hundreds, perhaps thousands of converts in Jewish history have converted without being observant; if we follow Rabbi Broyde’s position, then who knows how many Jews today are not really Jews! Yes, there is a principle that once someone marries into the Jewish people, we don’t investigate lineage. But still, one ought to pause and question his halakhic conclusions if they would logically result in a large segment of the Jewish people no longer being Jewish.

    Rabbi Broyde, in rejecting tradition and basing himself solely on Talmudic exegesis, is exhibiting the textuality studied in Professor Haym Soloveitchik’s “Rupture and Reconstruction”. If we reject Rabbi Uziel’s shita, we should next double the size of our kiddush cups and be sure to eat two entire sheets of matzah in 2 minutes on Pesah. One may personally believe that the Noda bi-Yehuda is correct on shiurim, but when this causes on to reject every single historical kiddush cup used in Jewish history, then one should be asking himself some questions!

    • Asher Lopatin says:

      I am sympathetic to the approach to giyyur of Rav Berkowitz and Rav Angel and Rav Uziel. However, I would advocate for separation of Church (Synagogue) and State, and therefore, the government of Israel should not be involved in standards for conversion – that should be left up to private communities and synagogues.

      RAL

      • Rabbi Lopatin,

        I’m principally opposed to a separation of church and state in Israel – I refer to myself as a liberal fundamentalist – but that’s a different debate. Suffice it to say for now…

        I’d be willing to drink a l’haim to your, if it means that people like Rabbis Marc Angel and Benny Lau will be able to conduct Rabbi Uziel-ian conversions that will be respected as much as anyone else’s conversions.

      • I meant “on principle”, not “principally”.

      • Okay, I’ll summarize my views on church and state very quickly:

        Israel is a Jewish state – ergo, Jewish law should be the law of the land.

        But, in keeping with a traditional Jewish attitude, that a Jewish community is geographic and not a question of voluntary membership, I believe that a Jewish community is accountable to everyone under its jurisdiction, and that the community must be solicitous for the welfare of everyone, observant and not.

        Therefore, halakhah must be the law of the land, but it must be the most lenient, inclusive form of halakhah available.

      • Asher Lopatin says:

        Oy! No way! Yes, Israel is Jewish cause Jews live there and can by law always emmigrate there. That’s it.

        Shalom and best wishes,

        Rabbi Asher Lopatin

  10. Skeptic says:

    Interestingly, it was Rav Ahron Soloveichik who argued that even matrilineal descent was necessary but not sufficient — i.e. if only the mother was Jewish but not the father, then the child would require geyrus l’chumra in order to marry a Jew.

  11. Shachar haamim says:

    1) I have no issue with the establsihed rabbanut questioning ad-hoc batei din. ad hoc batei din ARE problematic – be it for mamonot, geirut, divorce or any other issue.

    2) I think it is hypocritical to call for a bi-national One-State “solution” and at the same time call for expanding the provisions of the Law of Return. in a bi-national state the law of return will be abolished (even though you – naively – seem to think – in the fact of 100 years of Arab recalcitrance regarding Jewish immigration to the Land of Israel – that the Arabs will somehow come to accept it) and as such it is irrelevant. you should be intellectually honest enough to make Aliyah based on whatever eligibility you may find under the Citizenship Law and NOT the Law of Return.

  12. David S says:

    The clearest position is to define “accepting all the mitzvot” as between an individual and God. Who can know or check up on whether someone is actually obvservant these days? It is quite possible that black hatted charedim who appear completely observant in a public setting are idolaters in a private one. No one really knows and know one can know except God. It is ultimately up to God to enforce his laws. A gentile need only do the 7 Noahide laws and need not take on the yoke of heaven…someone who does take on the yoke and becomes a Jew needs only to be informed that in doing so, he is answerable to God for a failure to live up to the standard.

  13. Shachar haamim says:

    Your definition of “Israel as Jewish” also makes Illinois Jewish, New York State Jewish and the USA Jewish, b/c Jews live there and by law can alswys immigrate there (or at least are no prevented from immigrating there by virtue of the fact that they are Jewish).
    An intellectually honest approach to the Israeli-Arab conflict shows that unlimited immigration of Jews was ALWAYS a major source of agitation to the Arabs. Even if your One-State will keep the Law of Return in some form or another it will disappear frm the law books within a few years of the transformation of the State of Israel into the “One-State”.

  14. Lisa says:

    Your argument that the Nazis would have killed these faux Jews amazes me. Now we’re letting Hitler dictate our internal affairs? We get to increase intermarriage by a huge amount for the sake of “unity”?

    • Asher Lopatin says:

      Yes, the Law of Return is a reaction to a history of anti-Semitism, demonstrated by Naziism and other vicious and inclusive perpetrators. When Judaism is the dominent culture, as it is and will be in Israel even with a million more immigrants, intermariage is a different problem and conversion plays a signiicant role.

      Shalom and best wishes,

      Rabbi Asher Lopatin

  15. Joe Schmoe says:

    I do support a much more inclusive interpretation of who is a Jews. However, there is the problem of “opportunistic” Jews turning up. The third would try to enter Israel, because, relative to many other countries, it is a land of opportunity!

    How about anybody claiming to be a Jew, but having a basis for that claim! For conversions, this is a toughie, but it would work in most other areas.

    • Asher Lopatin says:

      I hope we do get hard working “opportunistic” Jews who come to Israel in the hundreds of thousands or millions. That’s what made America a powerhouse. Immigrants are the best thing for a country to keep it vibrant and dynamic. And these opportunistic Jews will be drawn into the majority Jewish culture and hopefully accepted – or converted – by a welcoming, confident, Jewish community that is appropriate for them.

      Shalom and best wishes,

      Rabbi Asher Lopatin

  16. Yaakov-Meir says:

    I am someone who might be accepted to make Aliyah under the Law of Return, but I will not be recognized as a Jew by Orthodoxy. I have converted under a Masorti Beth Din in Europe composed by 3 (male) rabbis, I have accepted on myself kabbalat mitzvot, I believe in Torah min-haShamayim, I have decided to join my destiny with the Jewish people, and it is refreshing to have found this blog and the people writing in it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: