Anda di halaman 1dari 13

Printed from chabad.

Are quantum mechanics and Torah complementary?
By Tzvi Freeman
Note: This was originally written for a symposium on the works of the Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M.
Schneerson, held at Brandeis University in the summer of 2000. Ive now (April, 2013) made some revisions,
added some material and deleted much more, and added footnotes. Comments and critique of those in the
scientific community are invited. I reserve the right to correct or change my mind about anything written herein.
Losing Grip on Reality
Anyone who ventures more than ankle deep into the weirdness of quantum mechanics quickly realizes that
reality is not what we once thought it was. From the time it was introduced, its most respected scientists have
groped for new understandings of the nature of reality, often turning to mysticism and religion for answers.
Max Planck, who planted the first seed of the quantum model, was convinced by his studies that There is no
matter as suchthe mind is the matrix of all matter.
Erwin Schrodinger, who established the basis of the
wave mechanics behind QM, theorized that individual consciousness is only a manifestation of a unitary
consciousness pervading the universe.
Wolfang Pauli, another of QMs most significant pioneers, turned to Carl Jung for clues of the mysteries with
which he was dealing, writing essays about the mystic experience of one-ness.
In case you were hoping for a consensus, Nick Herbert
counts no less than eight diverse versions of reality generated by quantum physicists, several of
them quite mystical, all of themincluding the most pragmatic and most realistexceptionally weird.
The real problem is that all of them seem to work. Furthermore, its hard to see how any of them could be falsifiedat least, with foreseeable technology.
Which means that, as it stands now, QM, while touted as the most pragmatically successful theory in scientific history, can provide no definitive answer
concerning the question that burns most intensely in the human mind: What exactly is really going on out there? As Bryce DeWitt and Neil Graham note,
Quantum Reality & Ancient Wisdom
To what extent does human knowledge and expression
shape the reality which it observes and defines?
Physicists have lost their
hold on reality. Which
could be welcome news.
Basically, physicists have suffered a severe loss: their hold on reality.
For the Jew with traditional leanings, this could be welcome news. The old determinist view of reality accepted
by Newtonian mechanics was certainly at odds with the classic Jewish worldview. Could QM allow once again for
a world of divine providence, miracles and free choice, a world in which the creatures interact with their creator?
Could it perhaps even provide us a better understanding of that legacy perspective?
As the underpinnings of the classic Newtonian/Euclidean world model were being rewritten by a small group of brilliant quantum physicists, the Rebbe,
Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson was studying at the eye of the stormin the University of Berlin, from 1928-1932. Its hard to imagine that he did not
hear first hand the theories, concerns and reservations of the faculty there, which included Albert Einstein and Erwin Schrodinger. Its likely as well that he
sat in on the debates when Werner Heisenberg and his friends from the Copenhagen School came to lecture.
Just how much those years and those ideas are reflected in the Rebbes thought is a subject for research and debate. What interests me here is the
approach he took. Rather than rewriting the traditional Torah worldview, the Rebbe treats the revolutionary discoveries of that era as empirical support
for that which previously had been couched only in terms of faith.
I'll touch here upon a few examples of the Rebbes treatment of empirical science, with an aim to understanding the Rebbes own concept of reality, our
place in it, and what science can and cannot tell us about it.
There are a number of letters in which the Rebbe refers to the Uncertainty Principle. In 1971, in a letter to the editor of the Journal of the Association of
Orthodox Jewish Scientists, the Rebbe attacks the apologetic stance of some of that associations members on the grounds that they simply are not up to
date with what is science. The Rebbe refers specifically to those who
seem to be ashamed to declare openly their adherence to such basic tenets of the Torah as, e.g. that G-d created Adam and Chava, or
the possibility of a miracle (Ness) in the present day and age, as a miracle is defined in Torah, namely, an occurrence in defiance of the (so-
called) laws of nature.
Need one remind our orthodox Jewish scientists, who still feel embarrassed about some old-fashioned Torah truths, in the face of scientific
The concept that there
are laws of nature which
will not allow certain
events to occur is no
longer an acceptable
hypotheses, that Heisenbergs principle of indeterminacy has finally done away with the traditional scientific notion that cause and effect are
mechanically linked, so that it is quite unscientific to hold that one event is an inevitable consequence of another, but only most probable?
Most scientists have accepted this principle of uncertainty (enunciated by Werner Heisenberg
in 1927) as being intrinsic to the whole
universe. The 19th century dogmatic, mechanistic, and deterministic attitude of science is gone. The modern scientist no longer expects to
find Truth in science. The current and universally accepted view of science itself is that science must reconcile itself to the idea that whatever
progress it makes, it will always deal with probabilities; not with certainties or absolutes.
These words are a clear echo of Heisenbergs own classic statement:
It seems to me that In the sharp formulation of the law of causalityif we know the present exactly, we can calculate the futureit is not the
conclusion that is wrong but the premise.
In other words, since there is no way to know a precise present, we cannot calculate the future. Heisenberg took this one step further: He challenged the
notion of simple causality in nature, that every determinate cause in nature is followed by the resulting effect.
Rather, each state allows infinite
possibilities and all we can predict is which are more probable than others. Why one occurs and not another is simply not within the realm of science.
If so, the Rebbe declares, science is in no position to declare any event impossible. Improbable, perhaps. But
the concept that there are Laws of Nature which, in their absolute omnipotence will not allow certain events to
occurthis is no longer an acceptable position. And so falls by the wayside the ancient assertion that has
survived since the Hellenists versus the Maccabeesperhaps even since Moses versus Pharaohs research
scientiststhat miracles cannot happen. Today, everybody agrees that anything could happen. As the Rebbe
goes on to state:
This is all the more regrettable precisely in this day and age, after science has finally come out of its
Medieval wrappings and accepted the Heisenberg principle of uncertainty, etc., etc., which makes its so easy for an orthodox Jewish scientist
to espouse the Torah-hashkofo boldly and forcefully, without fear of contradiction.
So far, it seems that the Rebbe upholds Heisenbergs principle. But then, in the same letter, the Rebbe continues:
Needless to say, it is not my intention to belittle science, applied or speculative, and especially for quite another reason. For, as a matter of
fact, the Torah bestows upon sciencein certain areas at leasta validity much greater than contemporary science itself claims. The
Halacha accepts scientific findings, in many instances, not as possible or probable, but as certain and true. There is surely no need to
elaborate to you on this.
And in another letter,
the Rebbe goes so far as to undermine the anything is possible proposition of Uncertainty:
Parenthetically, this view is at variance with the concept of Nature and our knowledge of it (=science) as espoused by the Torah, since the
idea of nissim [miracles] implies a change in a fixed order and not the occurrence of a least probable extent.
The Rebbe is saying, in other words, that there are facts that are not just probabilities and they are knowable through human observation. This is basic to
Torah in two ways: First, because Halachah (Torah law) relies on the testimony of human observationwhich includes science. Secondly, because
nissimmiraclesare defined in Halachah as something outside the regular order of nature, implying that there is a regular order of nature, only that
there are events that do not fit into that order.
To understand all this we must first state something which should be obvious: It is in fact absurd to imagine that the Rebbe should adopt the concept of
reality held by Heisenberg et al. The very basis of their world views are so opposed, it is difficult to imagine they could converge at all.
The foundation religion of Heisenberg is what we call positivist pragmatism: All that exists is that which can be verified in a laboratory experiment.
Heisenberg even used this basis to reject the theorems of the older Ernst Schrodinger, claiming they assumed the existence of entities that could not be
verified, and were therefore metaphysical. Heisenberg reasoned that just as Einstein had rejected the notion of absolute time and absolute space since
these were no more than metaphysical concepts as far as the laboratory is concerned, so he and his colleagues can reject Schrodingers wave
mechanics on the same grounds.
This was an important step for science. Without it, its hard to imagine any advance into the territories that have proven so fruitful. Science is enabled and
empowered, when it limits itself to that which it can measure. We must deal with time and space only in relative terms until we find a way to measure these
things in absolute termsif that is possible. Similarly, we must reject a concept of causality in the quantum realm until we can find a way to observe what
is really going on down thereand discover whether there truly is causality or not.
But the pragmatist view of reality takes this a step further: If we cannot observe it and we can not use it in science, it is not real.
Most intelligent lay people dont really get this Neo-Humean Pragmatismin other words, they cant really believe that these scientists are really saying
what they are saying: That all that exists is that which the current set of laboratory data says exists. But that is certainly the basis of Heisenbergs
rejection of causality. He realized that there are certain things inherently beyond the realm of precise measurement, due to the very nature of human
observation: When we measure the position of an electron, we cannot know its velocity. When we measure its velocity, we cannot know its position.
Therefore, it does not have a precise velocity and position because we cannot know itand all that exists is that which we can know.
On the other hand, his logic continued, something we can know and can describe with current mathematics is probabilities. And we can verify probabilities
in the laboratory. Therefore, probabilities exist. But discrete events do not.
(Admittedly, Heisenberg did not go to the extremes of his mentor, Niels Bohr. Bohr refused to acknowledge that there was any deep reality whatsoever. All
that exists is that which we can measure, period. Heisenberg, on the other hand, believed that there must be a deeper reality that exists prior to our
observation of it, but not one at all like the post-observed reality. Rather, it is a reality purely of potentials, one in which opposites could coincideuntil
our act of observation intrudes.)
The Rebbe, on the other hand, begins with the assumption, In the beginning G-d created the heavens and the earth. There is a world. It was here for
five and something days before we arrived on the sceneso it doesnt depend upon us to exist. And so it is possiblealthough not necessaryfor the
electron to have a precise position and velocity even if we cannot measure it. G-d can measure itsince He put it there.
Similarly concerning Einstein: The Rebbe writes that paradoxes arise from Einsteins relativity due to a failure to regard the existence of Absolute Time.
How does the Rebbe know that Absolute Time exists? Because, In the beginning G-d created the heavens and the earth. Which implies the creation of
Therefore, the Rebbe can accept that there is an established order of naturewhether we are able to know precisely what that order is or not.
Could we say then that the Rebbe doesnt at all agree with Heisenberg? That he is only countering the argument of the scientists on their own ground,
saying, You want to rely on science? Science itself says dont rely on me! But perhaps the Rebbe himself believes that we can rely on science, that there
is a chain of cause and effect throughout natureonly that miracles can occur to break that chain.
It is difficult to read the words of the Rebbes letter that way: Heisenbergs principle of indeterminacy has finally done away with the traditional scientific
notion that cause and effect are mechanically linked. But, most compelling, this would put G-d, His providence, miracles and Torah in a very exogenous
position to the cosmos. All these things would have to be considered aliens breaking into our orderly world. This doesnt at all fit with the description
Chassidic teaching gives of the Creation, and certainly not consistent with the Rebbes version, as we will soon see.
Rather, it appears that the Rebbe has his own modified version of the reality behind uncertainty and the rest of QM. He asserts that there is an
established order to which miracles present an exception, yet concurs that this established order is not a product of cause and effect and neither is it
strictly determinate. The Rebbe does not agree that reality begins with human observation, but he does believe that discrete events only exist within the
realm of human observation. And, most interesting, the Rebbe views the ultimate world as that world of human experience.
Resolving the Cosmos
I found this position most starkly articulated in a few lines of a talk printed in Likutei Sichot, volume 35 (pages 16). There, the Rebbe discusses the
following lines from the second chapter of Genesis:
G-d had formed every beast of the field and every bird of heaven out of the ground. He now brought them to the Adam to see what he would
name each one. Whatever the Adam called each living thing, that is its name.
In his talk, the Rebbe points out that the story appears not only as a narrative concerning the history of the human being, but as a continuation of the
creation narrative. Something about creation has been left incomplete, and its left up to Adam to finish the job.
Adam is here more than an individual. He is Adam HaRishonthe primal human being, all of humanity in a single body. The events of his creation and
his life are a description of our position in the universe. So when the Rebbe asks, What exactly was Adam accomplishing by naming each creature that
no other being, not even the angels, could accomplish? he is in effect asking, What does the human being achieve by observing, categorizing and
applying the tools of his language to the world about him?
To which the Rebbe provides an astonishing answer:
As Gds creation alone, the created beings are not separated into particular species. There is only a general division into general
categories. We find in the ten utterances by which the world was created that only general categories are stated. For example, on the third
day, The earth should sprout herbagefruit trees On the fifth day, The water should swarm with a swarming of living creaturesand
flying creatures flying over the earth On the sixth day, Cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth. There were no particular
species, such as oxen, donkeys, etc.
This then was the meaning of Adam calling the creatures namesthrough this, each species became distinguished and distinct as its own
Accordingly, the effect Adam had by calling names to the creatures was to complete the creation itself. Only then was each species
complete with its characteristics that distinguish it from the other creatures of the same category.
In other words, G-d says to Adam, I have just formed all my creatures, big and small, but I have left the finishing touches up to you. I have a specific idea
of what each thing is and how it should be, but I have nevertheless created no more than generalities. I said, Let there be treesand the power invested
in those words brought trees into being. But I didnt specify in those words the particular characteristics I desired for each tree. And similarly with animals,
and with everything else I created: I have brought them to a state of general existence, but their individuality is left unresolved. Your job is to resolve each
thing into its unique, discrete stateas I originally had in mind.
In short, Adam, with his power of cognizance and speech, is completing Creation. That is the unique position of a human being who observes a physical
world: He is the place in the cosmos where all things are resolved, defined and crystallized as discrete entities.
(This is also reflected in a later stage in this same story: When Adam and Chava ate from the Tree of Knowledge and acquired a mundane experience of
the world, the entire world was redefined and descended with them. When youve got that kind of power, youve got to watch out what you do with it.)
This role as partner in the final stage of Creation is what G-d meant Adam to be when He placed him in the Garden, to work it and to protect it (Genesis
2:15). As it turns out, Adams compulsion to name things is as much for his sake as for the sake of that which he is naming. By naming the creatures,
Adam brings them from a latent state to their fulfillment. Until Adam builds his own understanding of a creature through observation, and then articulates
that understanding in his own speech, the creature doesnt yet fully exist.
The similarity to many of the reality conceptions suggested by QM philosophers is undeniablebut with caveats: In the Rebbes concept, there is already
a loosely defined world before Adam gets there. Adam is not creating a reality out of a limitless range of probabilities, he is only bringing it to a higher
level of definition. And secondly, Adams determination of reality has the imprimatur of the Creator Himself. This world of human experience is that which
the Creator of All Things originally desired (yet left unarticulated), and is therefore a true reality.
If this interpretation is correct, one would expect to find the same concept pervading Jewish thought. In fact, anyone familiar with the Talmud recognizes
that its sages have a quite different understanding of reality than is generally accepted. Applying the insight we have just described renders that
conception much more congruous.
As an example, there is a Talmudic dictum, A blessing cannot rest on something that has been counted, weighed or measured, but only on something
which is concealed from the eye. Meaning that until a thing is measured, its amount is still indeterminate and subject to more than one outcome. Only
once measured is it of a fixed, specific amount.
This is not just a nice aphorism. It is a practical Halachah:
Our rabbis taught: One who enters his granary to measure his grain should say, May it be Your will, Gd, our Gd, that you send a blessing
in the work of our hands.
Once he begins to measure the grain, he should say, Blessed be He who sends His blessing to this mound.
If he measures and then says the blessing, this is a vain blessing. For a blessing will not be found in something that has been weighed, or
measured or counted, but only in that over which the eye has no domain.
Of course, a miracle could happen and magical wheat could appear out of nowhere. But, as the Talmud discusses in this regard, we are not discussing
miracles here. We are discussing the nature of things. Before something is measured by a human being, it is indeterminate by nature. Once counted,
measured or weighed, its amount is fixed in a way that only a supernatural occurrence can change.
A more pervasive example is the Torah concept of testimony of witnesses. In Torah law, the only conclusive evidence is the testimony of two corroborated
witnesses testifying to precisely the same event from the same perspective. As Maimonides writes, even if we see two enter a room, one runs out and the
other is found inside dead with a knife in his back, we do not have conclusive evidence that A murdered B. If two witnesses did not see it, we have only a
probability. Once it has been witnessed, it is a fact.
Perhapsand this is my own thinking here, I havent found support for this yet from any classic authorityperhaps this could give some rationale to why
the Torah demands two witnesses. A single witness in a capital or corporal case, even if he be the most impeccable of witnesses, is no more than an idle
gossiper. A hundred witnesses, on the other hand, are no better than two. Perhaps this is because to absolutely determine an event we need not just an
individuals perception and testimony, but a perception of the collective consciousness. Once we have two concurring seats of consciousness, we have
left the realm of the individual and entered into the realm of the collective group, and so the matter is sufficiently established as a discrete event. A fact.
This notion of subjective concurrence is also vital to the modern scientific method.
Eidut the testimony of witnessesis such a pervasive concept throughout Torah, that the entire veracity of the Torah itself rests upon it. How do we
know the Torah is true? Because we have testimony not of one individual, but of a mass of people who all witnessed the same event and agreed with a
common and precise description of that event. Even the testimony of later prophets is only accepted on the basis of this mass testimony, as is explained
at length by Maimonides.
This is also reflected in the Rebbes response concerning scientific speculation. Facts are those things that can be observed and reproduced under the
same conditions. Conjectures about the future or the past cannot be considered sciencesince there has been no human observation. Once a
phenomena has been observed under the same conditions repeatedly, it may be considered that we have discovered a pattern in the established order
of thingsbut we have not established that this phenomena must continue occurring, and certainly not that it always has occurred in the past.
But the most pervasive and persuasive evidence that the Torah considers whats out there to be inherently indeterminate is from one of the foundation
stones of Torah itself: the concept of free choice. If the universe were a set of discrete objects on precisely determined paths, obviously there would be
no room for our free choice. The fact that there is a Torah containing commandments, with reward and punishment attached, is a direct implication that
the world is essentially indeterminate. This is quite succinctly the classic Torah world view: Reality provides a range of possibilities, even probabilities
but (mostly) malleable ones. Nature does not determine all the outcomes. That is left up to us.
What does this order of things look like before we get there?
Before we attempt to answer this, consider an analogy: Lets say you were a cold blade of grass inside a morning mist. The mist condenses onto your
stalk as droplets of water.
What would you know of that mist? You cannot see it. You cannot hear, smell or in any other way perceive the mist until it reaches your stalk. So you
know the wetness of the droplets. But would you ever know what is mist? Obviously not. Because you only know the mist as it touches you. But a mist is
not the wetness of droplets of water. It is a mist. Perhaps, before it touches you, the mist is dry.
Our perception is limited in a similar fashion. Although, unlike the blade of grass, we are capable of seeing beyond ourselves, our physical senses are
only capable of handling discrete sensations. As the Talmud rules concerning listening to the reading of the megillah or the sound of the shofar, we are
not capable of paying attention to two voices at a time. Not that we cannot hear themthe sound certainly enters our ears and is processed by our brain.
But it is processed in a serial fashion, so that the more involved we are in defining that sensation in order to articulate it in words, the more linear it
This is how we describe the difference between a physical object and a non-physical one. Ideas can coexist and freely blend into each other. So can
emotionsa mature person can sense many different, even conflicting emotions at the same moment. The prophet is capable of blurring the limitations of
time, so that he speaks of an event yet to come as though it has already occurred.
The more refined the level of spirituality, the more this is so. Until, within the realm of the divine, all things and all of time coexist within a single point.
Physicality, on the other hand, is by definition precisely the opposite. A physical object is that which cannot share its space with another physical object.
When your put your physical finger to it, it either resists or gets out of the way. At best it may fill the open crevices that allow it in. But there is no physical
object that does not demand its discrete, private space.
This, then, is the limitation of our physical perception: Being physical, we cannot perceive without defining everything into tight physical packagesjust as
the grass cannot touch the mist without condensing it into water. And the deeper our perception, the more defined the object becomes.
This is why the Rebbe tells us science needs Torahespecially the mystical aspects of Torahand Torah needs science. Science discusses the outer
layer of existencethe droplets of water that reach our perception. Torah discusses the inner soulthe mist thats out there, and further still. Since the
droplets are of the mist, they can best be understood by one who knows the mist as well. And, on the other hand, understanding the droplets is a vital
part of understanding the mist.
We now have a unifying picture of the human being his scientific ventures, his technology, his culture and acts of human expression in art, music and
especially in wordsnot as an outside observer of the creation, but as an integral part of the ongoing creative process.
Indeed, together with the harnessing of power, all our technological progress can be traced along the precedent Adam set in the Garden of sharpening
definition. The revolution of written language particularly the highly linear form of the phonetic language; the development of mathematics and
especially calculus; and in our time the ultimate reduction of all media to digital terms allowing the development of a vast communications network and
multimedia, all follow this pattern that Adam began by naming subcategories of every beast of the field and bird of the heaven. Each time we fine-tune
the tools of language and mathematics to describe our world in more precise and linear terms, we find ourselves leaping ahead in our dominion over our
As we reduce all phenomena to their most fundamental elements, we uncover a deep, inherent oneness in the universe. As we reduce all information and
media to a common language made of only two wordsyes and nowe discover the paths by which we can integrate them to form a single whole, with all
of humanity swept along into a single consciousness reminiscent of the consciousness of Adam and Eve in the Garden.
Divorced from the inner reality that lies beyond our physical perception, we have nothing other than more and more fragmentsa very bewildering,
endless collection of fragments. Once we reintroduce to our journey the element of the transcendental, a knowledge of the mist from whence those
droplets come, the fragments race to arrange themselves in purposeful resolution.
May that final resolution be sooner than we imagine.
1. Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech at Florence, Italy (1944) (from Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, Nr. 1797)
2. What is life? the physical aspect of the living cell & Mind and matter. Chapter IV: My View of the World
3. Science and Western Thought 1955, as translated and reprinted by Pauli (1994), 137148, on 148. See also the other essays from the early 1950s reprinted in Pauli (1994).
4. Quantum Reality, Random House, 1985, Chapter One
5. Cited in Herbert, ibid.
6. The Rebbes passion for precision is apparent here. Although the scientific community general attributes this breakthrough to Heisenberg, he himself attributed it to his teacher, Neils Bohr.
7. Incidentally, the Rebbe carries this logic further in discussing the Charles Lyells dictum of the evolutionist, The present is the key to the past. The Rebbe points out that if we cannot precisely
predict the future, and reject the concept of a strictly linear chain of cause and effect, how much more helpless are we in determining the past.
8. Dated 17th Cheshvan, 5723 (November 14, 1962). Ibid, page 38.
9. Einstein himself was critical of this extreme pragmatism, much to Heisenbergs astonishment. See
10. For the halachically inclined: The Rebbe provides a parallel from the acquisition of an animal by calling it by name. See footnote 36, ibid.
11. Talmud Taanit 8b.
12. See Rashi ibid.
13. I personally heard from Professor Paul Rosenbloom that he had discussed the concept of collective consciousness with the Rebbe. He noted that Erwin Schrodinger used this concept to explain
how the same discovery often occurred to more than one individual in distant geographical locations at the same point in history and asked if the Rebbe concurred. He told that the Rebbe first
referred fondly to Schrodinger as one of his professors, and that he had much enjoyed his lectures. The Rebbe then went on to concur with Schrodinger, with the qualification that according to
the Talmud there is also collective consciousness for each of the nations of the world, the Jewish people, of course, being one of those.
14. I later found this well expressed by Nick Herbert in Quantum Realities, where he writes, Legendary King Midas never knew the feel of silk or a human hand after everything he touched turned
to gold. Humans are stuck in a similar Midas-like predicament: we can't directly experience the true texture of reality because everything we touch turns to matter. (Chapter 10: Four More, page
15. There are exceptions to this ruleas the Talmud and the Halachists themselves note. In fact, Rabbi Nissim Mindel wrote that he frequently witnessed the Rebbe reading one letter while dictating
another to him in an utterly efficacious manner. And then the Rebbe would go on to dictate a detailed response to the letter he had just read. But that is certainly not within the realm of common
human experience.
16. See Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Lubavitch, Derech Mitzvotechah, Mitzvat Haamanet Elokut 59a (near the end), concerning Rabbi Yisrael Baal Shem Tov.
Rabbi Tzvi Freeman, a senior editor at, also heads our Ask
The Rabbi team. He is the author of Bringing Heaven Down to Earth. To
subscribe to regular updates of Rabbi Freeman's writing, visit Freeman
Files subscription.
About the artist: Sarah Kranz has been illustrating magazines, webzines
and books (including f ive childrens books) since graduating f rom the
Istituto Europeo di Design, Milan, in 1996. Her clients have included The
New York Times and Money Marketing Magazine of London.
The content on this page is copy righted by the author, publisher and/or, and is produced by If y ou enjoy ed this article, we encourage y ou to distribute it f urther, prov ided that y ou comply with
the copy right policy . is a division of the Chabad-Lubavitch Media Center
In everlasting memory of our f ounder, Rabbi Yosef Y. Kazen
1993-2013 Chabad-Lubavitch Media Center