Join Our 'Many Paths, One Mountain' Broadcast Every Sunday at 10am PT Sign Up

What is Original in our Book on Lilith?

Setting the Record Straight on the Authorship of the Book Lilith and Other Intellectual Property and Egoic Issues

The first part of this post addresses the content and ideas in the Lilith book.
The second part of this post addresses the sadly false claims made by Ohad in a public posting on this website and in at least one other forum, regarding the authorship of the book Lilith.

English Overview of the Intention and Original Contribution of Gafni and Ezrahi in their work on Lilith.

Part One:

Written by Marc Gafni {Reviewed by Ohad}, 2003

This brief overview is intended to explain to the reader the underlying intent of this presentation. The motivation for its writing, however, is not merely academic, it is driven by existential, spiritual, and sociological agendas. It is important that the reader be made aware of them at the outset.

Until modernity, the status of women in Jewish life has been virtually unique. In marked contrast to the host cultures where the Jews found themselves, in ancient, medieval, and renaissance societies, the status, dignity, and rights of women have always been upheld.

In modernity, however, a new voice, emerging from the nineteenth century women’s suffrage movement, has made itself heard.

Feminism may well have excesses in its more radical forms, with which this author would take exception. Particularly those forms which blur the distinction between equality and identify and argue for an existential androgyny, or those forms which undermine the core valuation of the family unit, or even those rooted in overt hostility to the male world, would all fall under the aforementioned exception. Having said that, the core spiritual intuitions of feminism are held by this author to be sound.

Specifically, the notion that the female voice is sorely missing in all spheres of life and that it is a voice long repressed by society, and of course the radical equality of men and women are all propositions which this author holds to be sound and a part of the ongoing revelation of the spirit which R. Kuk viewed as such an essential category of revelation.

Any person who holds similar views to the author, and I believe that covers a not insignificant portion of the community, is immediately placed in a near impossible intellectual/spiritual quandary.

On the one hand there is the spiritual voice of feminism. On the other there are the liturgical expressions, like the blessing thanking God for not having been created a woman, along with not a few Rabbinic statements which view woman in a less than positive light, the seeming passivity of women in the halachic marriage ceremony, and of course a host of inequalities in all spheres of Jewish life ranging from the ritual and communal to the judicial and the economic.

The attempt to ameliorate the dissonance engendered leads one of three directions.

The first is to dismiss feminism.

The second is to dismiss Judaism.

The third is to engage in some form of apologetics which explains why the sources and feminism are indeed saying the same thing.

The purpose of this study is to suggest a fourth approach- namely that there is a genre of source namely Lurianic and post Lurianic sources which suggest categories that allow us to interpret our reality authentically without resorting to apologetics.

This tradition- rooted partially in Luria’s understanding of Lilith and his remarkable identification of Lilith with the biblical matriarch Leah, forms the matrix of our study.

Luria understands Lilith – the demonic feminine – to be a function of man’s inability to fully receive her. This inability, according to Luria, resulted in her demonization. The unfolding process of spiritual growth, which according to Luria is the purpose of history, demands the reintegration of Lilith into the realm of the holy. This is a radically original Lurianic interpretation, although, as we have tried to show, hints of it are already present in earlier sources.


What is interesting in our presentation is not the history of sources about Lilith. These have been collected by others both within scholarship and without. It is not our noticing of Luria’s re-integration of the femininie which was pointed out to us by Yitzchak Ginzberg in oral and written teachings as well as by others. Nor is our reading of the Talmudic passage on Cheruta, which while expanded by us, was already noticed by earlier scholars of Aggadah.

It is furthermore not our noticing of the identification of Luria and Lilith and Leah by Isaac Luria which was already noticed and commented upon by Tishbi as the “wonderful metamorphis of Lillity to Leah” in Luria’s teaching.

What is original and exciting in this teaching is our intrepetation of this Lurianic reading of Leah and Lilith in light of our close reading of both Leah, Rachel, Jacob, Israel, and other key biblical figures and archetypes in the book of Genesis. By bringing together the Lurianic material and the biblical material with a feminist sensibility we believe we have made a significant hermenutic contribution both to feminism, biblical studies and kabbalistic studies.

This paper is a part of a larger work which develops these themes in full.

We will deal in three separate chapters with the following:

– the development of the Lilith story in the primary sources

– a literary analysis of the Genesis story which serves to unpack the Lurianic reading of Leah which allowed her identification with Lilith and thus ipso facto created the mechanism for her redemption by Luria. This involves a close pivotal re-reading of the Jacob, Rachel, Leah dynamic in the book of Genesis

* and we will examine the Partzuf of Leah in some of its Lurianic expressions
* a close reading of the Jacob Israel story in a way that explains the Lurianic reading of these texts and Luria’s deployment of Jacob and Israel in his kabbalah
* a close reading of biblical texts as they unpack the unique literary genre of transmigration -Giglgul, within Luria

The core move that Luria makes is to suggest that not only is Leah Lilith, but also that Jacob is an expression of Adam. Jacob’s fear of Leah is thus held to be similar to Adam’s inability to accept Lilith. According to Luria, however, this inability to integrate Lilith is based not on any essential flaw in Lilith but on a lack of spiritual maturity on the Part of Jacob. Indeed only after Jacob undergoes his transformation to Israel is he able to relate to Lilith in a spiritually appropriate manner.

Lilith for Luria represents those parts of the feminine — i.e. intellectual prowess, sexual forwardness and a desire for autonomous control of their own destinies – that the male finds essentially threatening. What Luria suggests is that the ability of Jacob to embrace his Israel side is an expression of Jacob attaining spiritual maturity which in turn enables him to allow Lilith full expression.

One of the major foci of the work will be to show that Luria’s move, although at first blush rooted only in the unique mythology of Lurianic Kabbalah, is in fact based on a close and penetrating analysis of the biblical narrative of Jacob, Israel, Leah and Rachel.

Finally, it is important to note that Luria’s ability to rehabilitate Lilith is based on a broader reading of his writings, particularly what he refers to as Sod Hanesira. Basing himself on an existential reading of the famous Talmudic passage and Zoharic passages on the Lessening of the Moon, Luria suggests that the diminishment of woman symbolized by the moon is a function of exile, particularly the exile of the Shechinah.

The redemption of the shechina from her exile is an acknowledged goal of all mystical thought —Luria’s unique contribution is in the identification of Shechina with the concrete status of woman in history. This position is explicated in great detail in Luria’s ‘Shaar Miut HaYareach’.

To get a sense of the full import of Luria’s move and how it allows for non apologetic treatment of contemporary reality I will now briefly cite two examples of such treatment which are not cited in the body of this paper.

The first is by Reb Schneur Zalman of Liadi pp. 138,9.1 It concerns the role of woman in the wedding ceremony as a reflection of the place of woman in society in general. He suggests that the silence of woman in the ceremony is an expression of the exile of the Shechinah and that redemption needs to allow is to hear, “The voice of the Chatan AND the voice of the Kallah.” In this vein he explains the future tense of the last blessing – in the future, we will hear the voice of the Bride, for now her voice has been silenced.” He explicitly alludes to Luria’s treatment of the lessening of the moon as his theological matrix.

Clearly such a non-apologetic treatment is a far cry from explanations which seek to spiritually justify the silence of the bride under the canopy and her apparent passivity during the ceremony3.

The second example is from Israel of Koshnitz, a contemporary of Shneur Zalman’s in the third generation of the Hassidic movement. In his glosses on TB Ketubot he suggests a radically novel understanding for why a virgin should be married on Wednesday, the fourth day of the week. The first Mishnah in Ketubot explains the preference of the fourth day in terms of the court sitting on Thursday, thus allowing the husband to immediately level a claim against his wife if he suspects her virginity after the marriage night.

As we demonstrate in this work this strange and apparently humiliating process is clearly related to the male relationship to the Archetype of Lilith. Israel of Koshnitz, on the other hand, fully turns the source on its head in claiming that marriage on the fourth day is because this is the day in which the moon was diminished. In effect we are saying to the moon — we recognize the tragedy of your diminishment — redemption is at hand – the status of woman will be ameliorated.

Again the radically non-apologetic nature which underlies his re-reading of the Mishnah is abundantly clear.

Finally, and perhaps most critically, the image of Lilith herself. Her redeemed and non demonic essence suggests a role model of holy eros, intellectual competence and audacity – which is surely vital for contemporary women – fully within the parameters of the tradition.



Ohad has written a highly inflmamatory web posting in my regard on this website. The comments below all address blatantly false assertions in that post.

When I wrote to him and told him that his core claim was not true and asked him to take down the post he refused. This is true even though he acknowledged in a written email to me, which I retain, that he was aware that this core claim in his post – that I had taken the core idea which i contributed to the Lilith book, from a colleague of mine named Peter Pitzele, might well not be true. Indeed it is, to put bluntly, a blatant lie.

It leaves me with no choice but to repsond to his wrong and libelous post.

Before I respond to the post to the issues in the Lilith book, let me first address things that Ohad has s to quite a few people in written and oral communication, which are blatantly false, specifically making the false claim that I have taken his work as my own.


Ohad has made the claim that the core ideas in my work on Uncertainty are his. This is false.
Ohad and i both wrote books on Safek -Uncertainty. I gave my first public lecture on uncertainty, a lecture which contains the core material in my book long before I met Ohad. It was given when i was 36 years old at the Zionist Federation house in Jerusalem. i had never met or heard Ohad’s name.

When i had written about 170 pages of my book on uncertainty I came accross a small booklet of forty pages that Ohad had written on the same topic, at the home of a close friend at the time, Mimi Feigelson.

I contacted Ohad and told him I was writing on the same subject and that is how our relationship began. To claim i decided to write on uncertainty because of him or that my book on uncertainty – which is 350 pages with footnotes, compared to Ohad’s forty page pamphlet, is simply a blatant lie.


Second- Ohad wrote a book called Shnei Keruvim in Hebrew, which I reveiwed for him and made suggestions on emendations which he accepted and thanked me for in the introduction. The core connnection between the temple and sexuality, hebrew mysticism and Eros, which ohad discussed in the book, was made by a number of serious writers in widely published and known work in intellectual circles, well before ohad. These include important essays by Lieberman – which contains virtually all the core intutions and many of the sources, in Ohad’s work on the same subject, as well as Raphael Pattai, Yehuda Liebes, Moshe Idel etc. etc.

My work Mystery of Love focuses on very different aspect of the issue – none of which are addressed in ohad’s work. I adress in chapter two – the four faces of eros. In chapter three the relationship between the sexual and the erotic in very precise terms. Chapter four till the end outline ten paths in which the sexual models but does not exhaust the erotic. NONE of this material- to the best of my knowledge, is addressed by any of the previous authors in any substantive way. This work of mine has nothing whatsover to do with Ohad.


The idea that my core teachings are in any sense from ohad -is absurd. What is naturally true is that we were both attracted to similar sets of ideas related to uncertainty, eros, sexuality and kabbalah etc.


The time has come to purify the book that I published with Ohad Ezrahi about Lilith, Leah, Jacob and Israel, and the relationship between the masculine and the femine- from the tarnish which comes from Ohad’s post on his website, and his comments in several public forums.

It is very sad that Ohad has seen to post material which, he either has not checked in any way, or he knows himself to be not true. He has posted this material on his website and in at least one other public forum of dispreputable nature.

I have asked him to remove this material in a written communication. Mutual rabbinic colleagues of our who have checked the issues carefully have also asked him to remove the material. To do so for Ohad would however require him to look squarely at this shadow, particularly his more then raging ego, cleverly disguised in his pious disguises as a loving religious radical…Such a look at his raging egoic drive and shadow is something which Ohad has never been able to do.

His response to my letter -also in writing – indicated that he knew that the major claim of his post, to which I will refer below, was very possibly not true- yet he has kept it on line for a years since this communication for to remove it would require his admitting that his ego had gotten the better of him and that his desire to be a great thinker occluded his natural decency.

I am saddened to be required to post a reply but after consultation with several close friends, some of them shared friends of myself and Ohad’s, whom Ohad holds in high regard, as well as my teacher and legal counsel, I am left with little choice.

So a clarification is in order in regard to the joint book by Ohad and myself on Lilith.

Lest there be a shadow of a doubt this is a joint book; it is owned jointly by both of us and as a co-author of the book I made a significant and substantive spiritual, intellectual and energetic contribution to the book.

This is why we published the book together as co-authors. Noone held a gun to my head or Ohad’s head in this regard.

There was never even one conversation between us – before the book was published that suggested that Lilith was anything other then a joint book.

Within the book itself – the footnotes clearly refer to future work we still intended to do at the time of the books publication!!

Other articles published by Ohad, refer to our joint work on the book etc. etc. etc.

For Ohad, to use my two years of silence between May 2006 and Julyn 2008; a period of deep mourning and blackness in my life- {and also a period of great evolution, meaning and joy} to put forth false claims in regard to our work our intent to collaborate, and to falsely link it in some implicit way to the false complaints {as reported by the press} in Spring 2006, as he does on his website is not an expression of holiness, or any other stage of love, integrity or enlightenment.

I say this gently merely to set the reccord straight. Everything I say here is substantiated by seven years of email and written notes between Ohad and myself and by a contract between us on which we are both signed, which, as result of Ohad’s false claim, my legal representatives have taken the time to collect and reveiw and hold at this time.

There are several points of different natures that need to be made. I will as gently as I can, at this point only comment in response to Ohad’s post on this matter.

First it needs to be said that all of Ohad’s refereneces to the events in my life in May 2006 assume that the complaints as reported in the press are true. They are not. Ohad made all of these comments without checking with me about any of the things he said.

Ohad knows well that many factors might go into creating such a situation. But he never checked because perhaps he wanted in his heart, for the worst Newspaper reports at the time to be true. Even though we had talked many times about how these kind of stories might develop; and he had said to me many times; “you always must fully listen to both sides in a situation before having any idea what happened” and his clear knowing that this is a core requirement of integrity and dececy; being the only honest approach to a situation of the kind that happened two years ago, Ohad did not do anything like this. He never called, never enquired, never checked in any way before making numerous defamatory statements in public and private forums all of which were categorically false.

Rather in what appears to be a terribly abusive manner he used my most shatterred and vulnerable time in my life to attack me and pour out, what appear to be a mass of stored egoic rage, sadly stored up for many many years.

Instead of acting in integrity -without every contacting me to see if I was alive or dead- he chose to use my two years of silence to attack me.

It seems like, If he could say the worst of me, and believe it; it would free him from having to look at the very deep and real shadow issues which I had tried to confront him with time and again, which he absolutely refused to see at all. In what appears to be, his great and grasping desire to prove-as he insisted to me time and again- “Mordechai. You are not the rebbe, I am”, in so many different words, he was willing to act in what seems to be the most cruel and irresponsible manner in his public statements.

When I went into silence, Ohad, who had been a friend for many years – with all of the complexity and difficulty between us which was real – appears to have used my silence and the difficulty which it created as a cover to attack me at a time when I could not repsond.

Readers thought this was his honest reaction to the situation while in fact this was more likely a semi conscious cyncial manipuation of the situation and was actually but one more chapter of a long conflict we had over many years of a very sigificant and serious nature.

Ohad has not engaged in genuine conversation for he seems to need to demonize me in order to avoid facing the demonic in himself. He will not apologize for he sadly seems to lacks the ability to own his mistakes.

As I state clearly on this website. I did not sexually harrass anyone. I did not make any false promises to marry anyone. I did not use my authority as an employer to gain sexual engagment any more then Ohad did. And I assume he did not.

And I assume that Ohad did not.

The complaints as reported in the press and in other forums, were not true. I do not say this in order to attack the women. God forbid. Peraps the press distorted what was actually said. There are many factors that underly what happened and I do not intend to discuss them here, if at all. Ohad is wise enough to know this must be true. However he chose to ignore his wisdom in order to demonize me. He was and is willing to spill my blood without even a drop of decency or compassion in order to further his own egoic agenda.

Part Two:

First I will respond to the specific untruths which are easily shown to be such, untruth which relate to that which Ohad writes about the nature of our partnership on the Lilith book. These specific untruths are written by Ohad in an Internet posting.

Second I will show clearly that in an internet post that Ohad wrote on line – about a week before he wrote the post on Lilith { which remains posted on his site until today – even though ohad himself knows it to not be true} – in this internet posting cited below, Ohad again chooses again, to not tell the truth and distort the nature of our past relationship.

Third, I will in several short sentences briefly repsond to Ohad’s mis- characterization of our conflict.

First, Ohad makes the claim in his internet post that a major part of my contribution to Lilith- was taken from Peter Pitzele, a biblio drama teacher in the United States. That is absurd. I met Peter Pitzele in the United States when he attended a seminar I gave on biblical figures and tears, at the Elat Hayyim retreat center where we were both teaching at the same time.
The material upon which that particular key contribution of mine to the Lilith book was based -was delivered in reccorded lectures of mine, which I retain, which were given BEFORE I EVER MET PETER.

A major section of this same material- that was later to appear as part of my contribution to the Lilith book, was also published in a book in hebrew – in short form – YEARS BEFORE before Peter and I ever did any joint work on Bibliodrama

Several years after this time when Peter and I were again at Elat Hayyim we did a biblio drama together on shabbot morning where I deployed some of the material on Rachel and Leah and Judah which I had developed, which is so central in the Lilith book particularly in Section Two.
At a later time I did a Soul Print weekend, based on my Soul Print work, my reading of Jacob and Israel archetypes from the biblical story, and Peter’s Biblio Drama work, with Peter, where I deployed some of the material that appeared in my earlier work and would appear again in different form in Lilith.

All of this material I had also published previously – years before, in my Hebrew book on Uncertainty, This material is also central to the Lilith book particularly in Section Five. This material refers the unfolding of the Jacob, Israel and Esav story. All of this material was either reccorded or published before I ever used it – years later – teaching with Peter. None of the material comes from Peter.

There are of course many other significant contributions that I made to the book but this is not the place to detail them. I am at this point merely responding to Ohad false portrayal.
I called Peter in the summer or fall of 2007 to ask him if he had told this untruth to Ohad. He told me that he had not.

I emailed Ohad and asked him to remove the libel from his site, which he refused to do even though he acknowledged in the email that what I was saying may well be true.

He hid behind the implicit claim that “since you have not been transparent to me, about one thing, I can dehumanize you, ignore truth and lie about you when it supports the inflation of my ego.”

To say that this is terrible shadow behavior is clear. To the best of my knowledge I have only falied to be transparent with Ohad about one thing in all of our time knowing each other.

The truth is that Ohad and I published Lilith together in 2005. From 1998 until 2005 when it was published there was never once a suggestion that we do not publish it jointly.

There are tens of emails which take as a given that is our joint book and explicit emails and a contract with affirms that. There was never the hint of a suggestion that Lilith was not our shared book for all the years. Certainly I did not put a gun to Ohad’s head and force him to do anything that violated his integrity.

Ohad, against my wishes and explicit protest to the contrary, was the person who did the actual writing of the book. In many co-authored books, including his book with Micha Ankori, on of the two authors does the actual writing.

The first I every heard of Ohad’s false claim of this nature was in his web posting.

The truth is, as all the documentation – deposited apporpriately with my legal counsel indicates, the book Lilith is legally and ethically co-authored and legally co-owned by Ohad and myself, both in it’s Hebrew and English version.

SECOND ISSUE: Before I enter very very briefly, the issue between Ohad and myself, let me point out that Ohad sadly is simply not telling the truth of our relationship. I do not say that to demonize Ohad. I do not mean to attack Ohad personally in this post in terms of what I know of him. I only want to respond to clear untruth that he has posted.

In the terrible post below {which he send to a website run by a person who calls Reb Shlomo Carlebach a “Rasha Gamur”, run by a person who has referred to Ohad’s teacher Zalman, in the most terrible of ways and much more.} Ohad says that he had cut off all working with me in 1999.

The truth is that we remained in close contact on many levels for many years aftewards, both studying together, talking, exchanging many many emails, and of course published a book together in 2005. In that book many footnotes, all reviewed by Ohad, refer to much future work that we up till 2005 when the book was published, still intended to do together.

We were in some form of association up until 2006 in april when i invited Ohad to come and teach at a festival that we ran through my organization at the time, Bayit Chadash.

At that festival – i made a point of NOT TEACHING workshops other then one or two teachings to the whole group, so that Ohad would have a good experience and draw crowds to his workshops.

I was advised by my staff not to invite ohad, but after a talk with Gabi Meir and based on a deep desire to have peace between us, I did invite him. He taught, was given honor and space and many people came to study with him. This was in April of 2006.

Moreover way beyond 1999 which is when in is post he says he cut all ties with me, we were working on a second book together- which as is indicated clearly in the footnotes to Lilith see for example p. 145 in Lilith) we fully intended to publish – this despite deep conflict that existed for both of us at the same time. To suggest that we stopped working together in 1999 is simply a lie.

Moreover in 2005 when the Lilith book was published, Ohad and myself refer {chapter one footnote 12} too yet a third book which we still, at that point, as is indicated in the footnote, l intended to publish together. The footnote clearly refers to our intention {in 2004 and 2005} to continue publishing books together.

This is clearly different from having cut off all work contact in 1999 as he claims in his post below. So to say that we decided to stop working together in 1999 is an obvious and sad untruth- a re-telling of what actually happened.

The book we published together, Lilith required an enormous amount of time and conversation and energy and we met about it in several significant meetings in this regard between the years 2000- 2004.

There were many other conversations about how to work together, about what was possible and what was not which lasted until 2005 and beyond.

BUT HERE IS THE SADDEST PART. When Ohad’s community fell apart, partially because as Ohad related it to me at the time, some people felt hurt and abused both by Ohad’s sexual practice and by his use of power, Ohad was in a very sad and low state internally.

{Caveat: I have not checked this carefully; I have not spoken in depth to all sides; I do not understand the full complexity of the relationships and interactions of Ohad’s community, so I have no idea what is true and what is not true.}

At the time I had heard that HaMakom, Ohad’s community was closing, but had not talked to any of the people. Ohad told me that this is what people had said. Although I later heard this from other people at the time I had only heard it from Ohad.

Ohad was more broken and sad then I had ever seen him. We met in Jaffa at the fish restaraunt next to my home. It was a deep and beautiful meeting. Ohad said to me then. “In the whole world I have only maybe two or three people who are true friends. Our friendship and love is real and deep and even if we bump elbows in the world we are chevruta at the deepest level.” Ohad was, at the time not sure his relationship with Dawn would work out. He did not know where his life was going.

I offerred Ohad any kind of support I could including financial, emotional, public or private support. We hugged each other and there was a tremendous amount of love between us. We had a couple more deep conversations around this time. This was about 14 or 15 months before the issues of May 2006.

We had a second meeting of this nature on Sukkot of 2005 at the same fish restaruant near my house in Jaffa. This took place after a very tough excahnge of emails in which Ohad and I each saw into each others shadow in a deep and real way.

I tried to show Ohad that he was not seeing himself clearly; that he was acting- in part – from a place of raging ego, deep narcissism, and smallness which he could not see.

Unless I am left with no choice I will not get into here, the whole unfolding of how Ohad and I worked together, why we parted, who all the different parties were, what the complexity of motives were and how it all happened. I know that Ohad and I see this very differently. Suffice it to say that I saw in Ohad very early on a hidden narcissitic and egoic drive which was very different then his public face.

I tried to talk to him about this; to suggest that when he said to me that “he saw himself as Jesus” as he told me in his house in Bat Ayin or as a Jacob Frank like figure, there was something deeply not aligned and deeply troubling about that. But about this I do not want to write anymore.

I have only written enough to respond to Ohad’s direct attack on his website in regard to Lilith and the history of our relationship. Ohad constantly felt that i was overshadowing or taking his space. I tried to show him that underneath his sweet exterior he had a raging ego and deep narcissism about his stature as a spiritual teacher. He refused to listen.

The email below was posted by Ohad on the web in May 2007. As indicated above it is not true on so many levels. When I saw it I cried for several days, my heart breaking in thousands of pieces.

 Anonymous said…
dear Mr.
this is Rabbi Ohad Ezrahi hear.
you can think what ever you want about the teachings i give of Love in Kabala, yet – i would request that you will take me off your site, as for two facts:
1. i am NOT and NEVER WAS a student of Gafni! i was his Hevruta and working partner between 97-99 but then i had cut off from working with him, refused even to lead services with him or cooperate in any way.

The fact that unresponsible people – like Yair Sheleg – connect me with him is horrible. i AM one of his victoms! not sexualy, thanks G-D, but in many other ways. Would you blame the women that were abused too?

Second – as you wrote yourself – there is no connection between my school of KabaLove and any kind of abuse!!! Not every person who dares to speak about Love and God is corrupted my dear sir!

we are SO sensitive to those issues in our school, and Respect is a key word for our work in the world.
so – i am expecting your appology for making the mistake of conecting me, who clearly cut off all relationships with Gafni years BEFORE his crims were known, with those horrible deeds, even by a hint.
MAY 15, 2007 3:06 PM


Meet Dr. Marc Gafni, Visionary Philosopher,
Author, and Social Innovator

as featured in