Powered by WebAds

Friday, October 21, 2005

Women's "Impure" Motivations?

An article in this week's Forward discusses the halachic issues of women celebrating with the torah, as relevant to the upcoming Chag of Simchat Torah. The piece has quotes from two differing Orthodox viewpoints. One, from an authority who obviously has a more progressive opinion on the subject:
With the increased demand in recent years for greater ritual opportunity for Orthodox women, rabbinic authorities have been pressed to examine the tradition barring women from dancing with the Torah. Their findings showed that "from a purely halachic point of view, there is no prohibition at all preventing a woman from touching a Sefer Torah or even from reading from it — even while she is menstruating," according to Shlomo Riskin, founding rabbi of New York's Modern Orthodox Lincoln Square Synagogue and chief rabbi of the West Bank settlement of Efrat. This position opened the way for women's hakafot in many synagogues.
It came as no surprise that the Forward was able to find an Orthodox Halachic authority willing to disagree with that viewpoint. Rabbi Herschel Schachter, Rosh Yeshiva at Yeshiva University, has a storied career of limiting womens' involvement in Orthodox Jewish ritual and mitzvot - and usually in a particulary insensitive manner. On this topic, he does not disappoint:
Those opposed to women's hakafot — like Rabbi Herschel Schachter, professor at the Yeshiva University-affiliated Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary — argue that the movement to allow women to dance with the Torah springs from the "impure motivations" of rebelliousness and self-aggrandizement rather than a pure desire to connect with God. Another issue of contention is the fact that according to rabbinic tradition, a long-held Jewish custom attains the status of a halachic ruling.
Rabbi Schachter, some of you might recall, came under fire a while back for his answer to a question regarding the new Modern Orthodox "trend" of allowing women to read the ketubah under the chuppah at a wedding. His answer, as follows, enraged many women across the Jewish denominational spectrum (emphasis mine):
A new trend is emerging among certain "modern Orthodox" circles. A scholarly woman is called upon at a wedding ceremony to read the kesuba. They say that "halachically there is nothing wrong with this!" In a certain sense this statement is correct. If one only judges the issue from the perspective of the laws of "siddur kiddushin" there's nothing wrong. Yes, even if a parrot or a monkey would read the kesuba, the marriage would be one hundred percent valid.
Now, is it just me, or does Rabbi Schachter seem to suffer from the plague of particularly poor choices of phrase? In that case, as in his comments on the question of women dancing with the Torah, Rabbi Schachter does not display much sensitivity toward the women who wish to have a higher level of involvement. I was willing to accept that he did not intend to compare women to parrots and monkeys in his unfortunate comparison last year. I did find that his comments displayed a shocking lack of sensitivity, but was willing to accept that it was unintentional. I am not even taking issue with his halachic opinion, it is his right to have a more restricitive view on the subject of women's involvement than others across the Orthodox spectrum.

However, his most recent comments are not as easily explained away as based simply on a poor choice of words. His assertion that women, as a group, only wish to have a closeness to the Torah out of "impure motivations", is not just mean spirited, but in my opinion, violates the commandment to "judge each man favorably". Unless, of course, Rabbi Schachter doesn't feel that that commandment applies to "judging each woman favorably".

Update: Lkwdguy points out in comments that "Judging people favorably would, in my humble opinion, include not concluding that a very learned man is insensitive to women based on a (very possibly out of context) quote in the Forward." Absolutely fair. So I would like to point out that I am not judging as huge a Talmid Chacham as Rav Schachter as insensitive in his attitude. I know of a few cases where Rav Schachter has shown tremendous sensitivity to women in his rulings. And simply ruling on this topic that women are not allowed to participate in certain activities, regardless of the fact that it may make certain groups unhappy does not necessarily make him insensitive - just principled in his beliefs.However, I maintain that Rav Schachter's choice of phraseology leaves something to be desired. When he uses words that risk so offending the very groups that would be most disappointed by his rulings, he risks (and succeeds) in muddying the debate. It created a situation where his rulings are no longer the discussion, but the way in which he presents them is.

Update II: Also, the last paragraph of my original post, especially since commenters have pointed out that the Forward deviously used a quote that Rav Schachter used in an article dated 1985, was truly unecessarily harsh, and more than a little mean-spirited. I am leaving it there, but attributing the anger displayed within it to exhaustion from my indentured servitude in the kitchen this holiday season. I, myself, am apparently not a liberated woman in the least.

62 Comments:

Blogger Gil Student said...

It's not like the Forward has an actual QUOTE from Rabbi Schachter. They must have pulled the idea from an old article of his, in which the context justifies his claim.

And the monkey line was not written by him either.

11:13 AM  
Blogger Gil Student said...

A 1985 article, by the way.

11:13 AM  
Blogger Krum as a bagel said...

Gil,

1. where is the article and what was the ocntext?

2. isn't the monkey line in the torahweb post that OM linked to? It certainly looks like he wrote it.

11:17 AM  
Blogger Gil Student said...

It was published in the YU Torah Journal and the greater context was the call for separate women's services that was led by Conservative and ultra-left Orthodox women. It was reprinted unchanged in R. Schachter's book around '96 or '97.

11:20 AM  
Blogger orthomom said...

Rabbi Schachter wrote about women's moptivations being impure in the 1985 article regarding women's prayer groups. And please understand that I am not even necessarily taking issue with Rabbi Schachter's point - he is a true Talmid Chochom, and I have not half a leg to stand on in a halachic argument with him. I just wish that a learned man such as himself, with so much knowledge to impart, could choose his words in a way that would not inflame the very women he is ruling against. Using words that don't risk demeaning women would be an advised way to go, IMHO.

11:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous ben Kalonymous said...

Um, OM, you really need better news sourcing, or you need to learn to read this drivel better. The Forward quoted TWO WORDS from Rav Schachter. They have a pretty storied history of taking things out of context and molding them to fit the article & the slant. Without some original sourcing, those two words could have applied to a completely different subject, or even (*gasp*) something about men!

Given the choice between Rabbi Schachter and the Forward, RHS gets the benefit of the doubt much quicker than the Forward.

11:25 AM  
Blogger Mirty said...

"ultra-left Orthodox women"? Gil, that's an interesting phrase. When an Orthodox woman goes waaaaay to the left, can wave to the Conservative women, maybe glimpse the Reform women...? "Hey gal!"

Alas, my personal fear is that they will ask me to dance with the Torah. Still not comfortable with that! (Hide me!)

11:31 AM  
Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

Pot ... kettle ... black.

>His assertion that women, as a
>group, only wish to have a
>closeness to the Torah out
>of "impure motivations", is not
>just mean spirited, but in my
>opinion, violates the
>commandment to "judge each man
>favorably".

And yet that is the same methodology you, "Orthomom", continue to use against anyone who writes anything you don't like. You've impugned my motivations many times as have you others.

11:31 AM  
Blogger orthomom said...

"Without some original sourcing, those two words could have applied to a completely different subject, or even (*gasp*) something about men!"

It was about women's prayer groups. But your point is a valid one. I would trust R' Schachter over the Forward. It happens tobe, that in this case the words were his.

11:36 AM  
Anonymous lkwdguy said...

OM,
Judging people favorably would, in my humble opinion, include not concluding that a very learned man is insensitive to women based on a (very possibly out of context) quote in the Forward.

11:38 AM  
Blogger orthomom said...

Lkwdguy, I hear you and agree. Please understand am taking issue with Rav Schachter's comments, and not his attitude towars women. I don't actually think that R' Schachter is insensitive to women personally. I know of cases where he has shown a tremendous amount of sensitivity toward women. I wish, however, that such a Talmid Chochom (learned man) as Rav Schachter, would choose his words in a way that would not risk inflaming the very people who would be most disappointed by his ruling. It truly muddies the debate.

11:41 AM  
Blogger Krum as a bagel said...

I think the real issue is with the Forward. Basically, they were looking for an someone to play the role of the anti-womens' position, and pulled out a stock quote of RHS about a different issue, rather than getting a fresh, nuanced articulation of his position.

11:47 AM  
Blogger Gil Student said...

He wrote a scholarly Hebrew article. I actually translated it into English but was told that it is not appropriate for English. Different terminology is appropriate for different contexts.

And, again, remember that the community was different twenty years ago.

11:51 AM  
Blogger orthomom said...

That is a fair point, but I am still comfortable with the point that as great a Talmid Chacham as R' Schachter might consider choosing his words carefully when making a ruling that could offend so many with its substance, by taking care with its delivery.

11:53 AM  
Blogger Krum as a bagel said...

Let's change the topic. Do you realize that the prior comment is comment spam -- ABOUT COMMENT SPAM!! O the irony!

11:58 AM  
Blogger orthomom said...

I know. I thought about keeping it in just for amusement's sake, but I just get so annoyed about spam.

12:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So many attempts to avoid impugning the Rabbi's motives. But isn't it fair to say that there are plenty of halachic rulings to be found which are "insenstive" to women? Why all the apologetics here? The Forward's article is still reflecting a side of reality, even if it messed up the quote (which I am sure it did.)

12:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

nice updates. as i have said in comments here before, i admore your wilingness to correct yourself. very few bloggers show that honesty. and jewishwhistleblower: not every discussion is about you. your commenst are like egostitical spam on every jewish blog out there. you are the last person to preach about judging people favorably. your life is about judging people unfavorably. get a life.

12:17 PM  
Blogger orthomom said...

But isn't it fair to say that there are plenty of halachic rulings to be found which are "insenstive" to women? Why all the apologetics here?

It depends what you consider to mean insensitive to women. I don't think that judging that women are not allowed to perform certain mitzvot is inherently insensitive to women. Not every aspect of the Orthodox lifestyle treats men and women the same way. I, personally, am comfortable with that to a certain extent - certainly to the extent with which R' Schachter's ruling are reflective of halacha as he interprets it. I just think chooing words wisely goes a long way to keeping the debate about the issues. But that's just my opinion.

12:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

great. OM is an apologist for the misogynists too. et tu?

12:32 PM  
Anonymous Mike Koplow said...

How does he know what other people's motivations are unless he's told? I'd say it's pretty chutzpahdik, but since he's a goodle that would be chutzpahdik of me.

12:34 PM  
Blogger Y.Y. said...

i agree with shachter

12:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Headlines: Woman Ignorant of Issues Argues With Great Rabbi Because it Males Her "FEEL" Bad.

Sounds pretty stupid.

12:51 PM  
Blogger orthomom said...

Not sure where you get the headline from. I am very aware of the issues. Tell me exactly where I'm not. Inquiring minds want to know.

12:55 PM  
Blogger orthomom said...

Sounds pretty stupid.

yeah, you do sound pretty stupid.

12:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hey, where are all my fellow feminists on this? schechter is against women being anywhere but in the kitchen. I'm sorry OM doesn't see that. This isnt about one comment - its about many that schachter has made. He is anti-women. That much is clear.

1:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>I, myself, am apparently not a liberated woman in the least.

I could not have said it better myself, OM. You aren't.

1:01 PM  
Blogger orthomom said...

LOL. Cute that I have made no one happy with this post. I'm getting it from all sides. I am somehow anti-Torah and anti-feminism at the same time. Wow, I'm a mutitasker.

1:03 PM  
Blogger Krum as a bagel said...

M4, you should have known by know that nuance is assur in the bloosphere. If your position on anything cannot be summed up in one or two words than you are lcerly wrong.

1:08 PM  
Blogger Shifra said...

I definately hear your side of things OM. I'm so tired from cooking and cleaning (and working!) I hardly have a mind left with which to response but I'll try:

Simchas Torah depresses me.
Why?
Because after weeks of cooking and cleaning over endless yamim toving finally we arrive at the last day -Simchas Torah- and I go to shul and then I remember why I should have stayed home... there is no place for me.

The men boys and small children dancing, celebrating, having aliyos, taking over the womens section 1/2 the time and what is there for me to do... nothing! Absolutely nothing. Now that my girls are getting older there will be nothing for them either and I go to a modern orthodox shul where women are "permitted" to dance behind the mechitzah if they want to no one really does, too many men around, not enough space etc... It's pointless. It's as though, for all their labors, women have been robbed of this chag.

I do love any post with the word monkey in it though- the parrot part was bonus!

1:58 PM  
Blogger dilbert said...

A question for those who are opining that R. Schachter was not quoted properly: Are you saying that he ALLOWS women to dance with the Torah? or just that he would phrase it more delicately?

From the small amount that I know, the MINHAG of not touching the Torah when menstruating is brought down by the Shulchan Aruch precisely as that, a minhag, not as a rule, and as one practiced by the women of Poland(no Polish joke intended). And, it was only when they were in niddah. In addition, we hold that a Sefer Torah cannot become ritually impure(is not 'mekabel tuma'). Therefore, not allowing women to hold/dance with a Torah can only be justified on either a hashkafic point of view or pritzut or something else like that. The plain reading of the Shulchan Aruch on this topic(unless, as R. Schachter does in his article on women reading the ketuba- find other areas of the S-A like tzniut) supports women dancing/touching the Torah.

2:15 PM  
Blogger Rebecca said...

Dilbert, I believe you're correct - and it is a minhag, based on the very halakhically dubious work Baraita de-Masekhet Niddah (quoted by Nahmanides among others).

And Shifra, come on over to my Conservative shul! We'd be glad to welcome your dancing with the Torah on Simchat Torah! (And I'll be reading about the fifth, sixth, and seventh days of creation, too, from the Torah).

2:25 PM  
Blogger Mirty said...

Sorry the comments took a bad turn OM. I sympathize with your concerns.

It is odd to question a woman's motive to hold the Torah; no one questions a man's motive. Maybe some men have impure motives too? Perhaps one man, somewhere, thinks carrying the Torah makes him look important. Who knows? That's no reason to not let men hold the Torah.

I thought Judaism has always been about what you do, anyway; not about your "deep, dark motives"?

3:39 PM  
Blogger orthomom said...

Mirty, you are absolutely the best. Every part of your comment was just what the doctor ordered.

3:43 PM  
Anonymous Mycroft said...

Missing in comments-is the reason why women don't do certain things is that is the way Yahadut has developed. We don't start in a vacuum-if women haven't done something for 500 years in schul-it is not really relevant that one could read Rishonim differently and permit it.
Re: motivations-it is probably impolite to write about motivations-a Rav once told me re sheilot of women putting on tefillin-he was asked occasionally by women could they-he would ask those women a question-do you do everything that women must do-eg say brachot regularly etc. He always got an answer that they didn't-thus escaped answering the question for his wholetime in the Rabbanus. It is a factual question-

3:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you for correcting and explaining yourself. Very honest of you. However, I think your trying too hard to be respectful of all your readers. Sometimes that gets in the way of making a point.

3:57 PM  
Blogger dilbert said...

mycroft- now you get into the question: if we didn't do it before, and there isn't a specific reason not to do it, is it ok? or is the fact that it wasn't done a reason to make it assur? A question addressed at great length by R.'s Dov and Aryeh Frimer in their (still only part one extant) article in Tradition regarding women's t'filla groups. They come to the conclusion that stuff that wasn't historically done is not neccessarilly assur just because there is no precedent. especially, if it isn't something that people back then would have thought a lot about. remember, women usually didn't go to shul way back when.....

4:09 PM  
Blogger MDmom said...

i completely agree with shifra. i have felt this way about the chag for years -- ever since i became too old to sit with my father in the men's section.

it's ironic too, because if you think about what the majority of women are studying as the bulk of their judaic studies curricula (is that right?) in elementary schools thru seminary and in some colleges, it's tanach, torah she-b'chtav -- the written word -- and it's that very written word that is forbidden to our touch.

and yet it has been so ingrained in us, in me, to not dance with the torah, that even when women can, in some congregations, so many women don't. personally, i would not feel comfortable, not because i believe it's wrong, but i just feel it's strange. and that's sad. but hopefully it won't be so strange for my daughters.

7:11 PM  
Blogger orthomom said...

and yet it has been so ingrained in us, in me, to not dance with the torah, that even when women can, in some congregations, so many women don't.

We see that very clearly from Mirty's comment above.

7:40 PM  
Anonymous SephardiLady said...

Shifra, I agree with your assessment that Simchat Torah can be rather depressing for the ladies. I used to attend an Orthodox shul in a small community where the woman danced (on their side of the mechitza) and it was so much fun!

When I moved out of this small community I was really in for a surprise. Every shul I went to had nothing to do for the women, except sit around and watch the men (which can be positively boring). One year, my adopted shul decided to move the seating in the women's area so the women could dance. The Rebbitzen there tried to get the ladies excited, but it was to no avail.

Anyways, it is a really sad state when women can't dance with their daughters and have simchat Torah, just like their husbands and sons do. Women dance at weddings, right? So why not dance to celebrate having the Torah?

9:03 PM  
Blogger Krum as a bagel said...

Mirty and M4, I hear your problem with the "impure motives" rationale, but for better or worse, that IS the basis for the psak. As Dilbert points out, there is no real halakhic issue with a woman touching the torah. If you find the "impure motives" rationale problematic, than you ARE taking issue with the psak rather than the choice of words.

9:32 PM  
Blogger orthomom said...

If you find the "impure motives" rationale problematic, than you ARE taking issue with the psak rather than the choice of words.

Or the rationale behind the psak. That happens to not be the only rationale behind the psak, for what it's worth. I can handle the others, whether I agree with them or not. But the reasoning that all women want a chance to be involved in certain mitzvot out of "impure motivations" is just unfair, and wrong.

10:46 PM  
Blogger Shifra said...

"One year, my adopted shul decided to move the seating in the women's area so the women could dance. The Rebbitzen there tried to get the ladies excited, but it was to no avail."

Yep- that's me, every year- trying to get girls and women into things..
I don't even care about the women getting a torah to hold, I just want to see a little simcha in action. Look alive ladies! It's your torah too!

11:04 PM  
Anonymous onionsoupmix said...

Mirty, thanks for the post. More so, even from the position of impure motives being a reason to disallow something, what the hell happened to "milo l'shma, ba lishmah" ? Isn't that a hashkafik concept that needs to be addressed if we follow Rav Schachter's reasoning ?

10:00 AM  
Anonymous Mycroft said...

Dilbert wrote:
mycroft- now you get into the question: if we didn't do it before, and there isn't a specific reason not to do it, is it ok? or is the fact that it wasn't done a reason to make it assur?

Those who may know me-may know my general respect for Jewish tradition and minhaggim-which frankly is under assault not just from the "left" but also the "right". One can frankly and should take the position that our mesorah requires certain things and we don't revisit issues-we revisit issues as facts change. But facts change does not include changes in the surrounding political /philosophy conditions of the world.


A question addressed at great length by R.'s Dov and Aryeh Frimer in their (still only part one extant) article in Tradition regarding women's t'filla groups. They come to the conclusion that stuff that wasn't historically done is not neccessarilly assur just because there is no precedent.

Obviously-I disagree with the Frimers-I'm probably in between the Frimers and R. Meir Twersky-and certainly I'm closer to the approach of the Frimers than R. M. Meiselman.

especially, if it isn't something that people back then would have thought a lot about. remember, women usually didn't go to shul way back when.....

12:43 PM  
Blogger Shifra said...

"especially, if it isn't something that people back then would have thought a lot about. remember, women usually didn't go to shul way back when....."

Well SOME of them must have, there was an esraz nashim in the bais ha'mikdash...

5:51 PM  
Anonymous Mycroft said...

"SOME of them must have, there was an esraz nashim in the bais ha'mikdash"
but note for example women did not do korim from the ezrax nashum in the beis hamikdash.

9:15 PM  
Blogger orthomom said...

but note for example women did not do korim from the ezrax nashum in the beis hamikdash.

In my shul, the women still do not do korim.

8:34 AM  
Blogger Shifra said...

Really?
I'd never heard of that before, even in BY we did that.

10:40 AM  
Blogger orthomom said...

Lots of places around here. It's a house custom thing. Some congregations just arent noheg for the women to fall to the floor. I've been in places that do, and places that don't. I never know in advance - I just peek around to see if my neighbors are bowing or falling to the floor, and do in kind.

11:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

what the hell happened to "milo l'shma, ba lishmah" ?

There's a contradiction in the Gemara regarding this. How you resolve this contradiction determines the answer to your question. Wouldn't it be great if you read Rav Schachter's article so you would know what you are talking about?

12:04 PM  
Anonymous charliehall said...

My wife and I attended a local MO shul that did have women dancing with sifrei torah. My own motives were that I wanted to be in a place where everyone experienced the joy of being a Jew; in the past when I've attended Simchat Torah services where the women were spectators to men dancing I did not feel simchah. I don't feel that my motives were impure; while I have tremendous respect for Rabbi Schacter I am glad that on this one issue not everyone follows his psak.

This shul violated another minhag: No alcohol. Perhaps because there was no alcohol, hence no fear that the kohanim might be intoxicated, bircat kohanim was done at musaf on Simchat Torah day, rather than at Shacharit. I've never seen this done before. (I *HAVE* been to other shuls where women danced with sifrei torah.) Another shul in the neighborhood was also alcohol free but bircat kohanim was at Shacharit.

8:01 PM  
Blogger rebba shlita said...

the reading of the kesubah is just to seperate the two parts of the chupah so to speak. in fact most rabonim that understand this are actually upset when given this kibud. therefore r' shachter was simply saying anyone can read its nothing to read and he was not calling women any names. but i am suprised at ortho for the way you portray the rav he is a gadol hes not some shmo in polotics.
and lastly i heard a rav say when asked if someone can record a show on his vcr on shabbos. his answer was i can tell you why its mutar and i can tell you why its assur, but the fact that you ask that means you are missing the point of shabbos. yes things might be mutar to do but it does not mean they are right. we are the jewish people and jewish frum women should not be doing certain things

4:49 PM  
Blogger orthomom said...

but i am suprised at ortho for the way you portray the rav he is a gadol hes not some shmo in polotics.

I realize that, Rab Shlita, and if you read my update, I tried to stress how huge a talmid chochom Rav Schachter is, and that I am only taking issue with the way he phrases some of his psak halacha.

5:06 PM  
Blogger Doctor Majolica said...

There is some circularity in the halakhic reasoning. Women should not be permitted to hold the Sefer Torah because their motive is impure. Why is it impure? Because it arises from rebelliousness. Why is it rebellious? Because the halakhic authorities do not permit it.

In my Conservative shul there is a similar discussion about the extent to which women should be permitted to participate in the service, in leyning and in leading the service. Our rabbi has said that the basis of the ruling against women reading from the Torah in a shul is the prohibition of anything that will bring shame on a community. Unravelling a similar circularity he has pointed out that this prohibition originates in communities in which un-learned men would be shamed by the superior knowledge of women. In communities where women reading form the Torah is welcomed, there will be no shame, and therefore it may be permitted.

1:27 PM  
Blogger Adi said...

Oes Tsetnoc Seo Contest one of the ways in which we can learn seo besides Upaya Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa. By participating in the Oes Tsetnoc or Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa we can improve our seo skills. To find more information about Oest Tsetnoc please visit my Oes Tsetnoc pages. And to find more information about Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa please visit my Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa page and other update like as Beratnya Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa, Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa di perpanjang and Jangan Berhenti Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa. Thank you So much.

Oes Tsetnoc | Lanjutkan Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa

7:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hello. And Bye.

9:33 PM  
Blogger 贝贝 said...

Microsoft Office is so great!
Office 2010 –save your time and save your money.
The invention of Microsoft Office 2010 is a big change of the world.
Office 2007 is so powerful.
Microsoft Office 2007 is my love!
Office 2010 key is for you now!
Office 2010 download is available now!
Microsoft outlook 2010 is convenient!
Outlook 2010 is powerfull.

12:33 AM  
Blogger oakleyses said...

tiffany and co, polo ralph lauren outlet, louboutin shoes, louis vuitton outlet, louboutin outlet, kate spade handbags, air max, michael kors outlet, polo ralph lauren outlet, louis vuitton outlet stores, nike shoes, louboutin, michael kors outlet, oakley sunglasses cheap, longchamp handbags, chanel handbags, kate spade outlet, michael kors outlet, true religion jeans, oakley sunglasses, louis vuitton, coach factory outlet, michael kors outlet, nike free, christian louboutin shoes, prada outlet, michael kors outlet, burberry outlet, tiffany and co, coach purses, burberry outlet, true religion jeans, ray ban sunglasses, prada handbags, michael kors outlet, coach outlet store online, louis vuitton handbags, tory burch outlet, air max, gucci outlet, jordan shoes, longchamp outlet, louis vuitton outlet, coach outlet, ray ban sunglasses, oakley sunglasses, longchamp handbags

2:04 AM  
Blogger oakleyses said...

hollister clothing store, north face outlet, valentino shoes, air max, soccer jerseys, lululemon outlet, abercrombie and fitch, uggs outlet, moncler, moncler, nfl jerseys, jimmy choo outlet, new balance shoes, celine handbags, giuseppe zanotti, rolex watches, chi flat iron, ugg pas cher, mont blanc, herve leger, canada goose jackets, wedding dresses, canada goose, canada goose, moncler, bottega veneta, canada goose uk, babyliss pro, mcm handbags, baseball bats, ghd, ferragamo shoes, ugg australia, soccer shoes, canada goose, p90x, birkin bag, canada goose outlet, ugg boots, instyler, ugg, beats by dre, ugg boots, asics running shoes, north face jackets, iphone 6 cases, moncler outlet, reebok outlet, marc jacobs, insanity workout

2:07 AM  
Blogger oakleyses said...

michael kors, nike roshe, michael kors pas cher, nike free pas cher, polo ralph lauren, nike blazer, sac burberry, air jordan, hollister, longchamp, nike trainers, nike roshe run, vanessa bruno, vans pas cher, north face, timberland, louis vuitton, longchamp, sac longchamp, oakley pas cher, ray ban sunglasses, hollister, michael kors, ray ban pas cher, polo lacoste, nike huarache, barbour, new balance pas cher, sac louis vuitton, sac hermes, nike roshe run, vans shoes, sac guess, mulberry, nike free, mac cosmetics, abercrombie and fitch, lululemon, louboutin, air max, air force, louis vuitton uk, hogan outlet, converse pas cher, north face, nike tn, ralph lauren, hollister, sac louis vuitton, nike air max

2:09 AM  
Blogger 林磊 said...

2015-10-16leilei
Louis Vuitton Handbags New
Louis Vuitton Handbags Discount
louis vuitton outlet online
Coach Factory Outlet Coach Outlet Online
michael kors uk
Hollister Cheap Hollister Clothing Outlet Store
michael kors outlet online
Abercrombie Store
canada goose sale
ugg boots sale
louis vuitton handbags
Ralph Lauren UK
nike trainers
true religion jeans
canada goose outlet,canada goose jackets,canada goose online,canada goose sale
Louis Vuitton Handbags Outlet
michael kors bags
coach outlet
Christian Louboutin Sale For Men And Women
Cheap Louis Vuitton Handbags Outlet
Coach Outlet Discount Sale
Louis Vuitton Handbags & Bags Outlet Online
abercrombie store
Michael Kors Handbags Clearance
michael kors outlet

3:36 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home