Podcasts (audio)

“Only, no fear of God in this place” (Gen. 20:11; Podcast-audio)

What happens to a society, governed by democratically-elected representatives, subject to humanly-created law?

Is this guarantee that atrocities not be committed?

Here are three stories from Scripture, involving three biblical heroes:

King Abimelech, King David, Abraham.

The stories are seemingly non-related. In fact, they convey a single common message. What is this message?


Forecasting and Monitoring of Surgery Times General Statistical Applications

Predictive Methods for Surgery Duration (new entry in Wikipedia)

Below you may find a link to a new entry in Wikipedia, written by me sometime ago (now accepted to be published):


Free-Will? — Flowchart Answer

The question of whether we are endowed with free-will is as old as human civilization. In this post, we offer a new perspective to this question — addressing it via a series of consecutive questions, located at decision-points of a flowchart.

Each answer directs us to a different path on the flowchart. Some answers land us at a dead-end. This requires regressing back to the recent decision-point, re-thinking our earlier decision (answers that landed us at a final-point on a path in the flowchart). Once we reach a final decision-point, which answers accurately the question (do we have free-will?), we are assured that the answer is well-founded, adopted only after all other options have been carefully explored, examined and rejected (or not, dependent on circumstance).

The flowchart includes Ovals (marking beginning or end of a path in the flowchart), Diamonds (decision-points) and Rectangles (steps in the flowchart). Other symbols commonly used in drawing process flowcharts are not needed. For each decision-point (diamond) — a question is asked. Each rectangular — provides an answer, addressed in detail below.

The questions forming the decision-points in the flowchart indeed form three filters, that only after we have “succeeded” passing them, can we be assured of the validity of our final conclusion, confidently asserting whether we entertain free will or otherwise.

The flowchart is now displayed, followed by comments relating to each of the decision-points (represented in the flowchart by ovals).

Enjoy the journey!

Professor Haim Shore Blog_Free Will Flowchart_June 14 2020

As we may now realize, the general structure of the flowchart comprises three fundamental questions/filters. They are:

  • Scientific?
  • Faith?
  • Optimization?

We now address each filter, what it means and what are its implications, regarding the basic question:

Do we exercise free will?

  • Scientific?

A scientific theory, or scientific claim, requires that a criterion be provided how this claim can be rejected, falsified. For example, an acceptable criterion is that if a scientific theory predicts a certain outcome (obtained from experiment, or from sheer observation of nature, where “experiments” are hard to manipulate, as in cosmology), and if this predicted outcome fails to realize — that alone  may collapse a scientific theory, invalidate it.

Is the claim “Humankind has free will” scientific? Since this claim relates not to humankind as a collective, this question reduces to the following:

Can we predict human response to any given Free-Will situation?

The answer is a resounding — No.

Human conduct can be predicted, to a certain degree, only regarding the collective, not individuals. Furthermore, given that randomness is part of nature, observed all around us, we never know whether the unpredictability of human response to given free-will situations is the result of nature randomness, observed everywhere in nature, or due to existence of individual free-will.

In short: The claim that human beings have free-will is not scientific, not falsifiable. We need to regress back to the decision-point and select a different path on the flowchart, which lands us at the next filter;

  • Faith?

This question relates to a single issue (for members of the monotheistic faiths):

Do you believe in God?

If positive, do you believe in the Divine source of the Bible, and consequently, in the truth of the Bible?

If the answer is again yes, then we have to decide that human beings do have free-will, as individuals, because this is a theme asserted endlessly in the Bible (refer to two quotes, from Torah and the prophets, in a most recent post, here). This ends our journey — Yes, there is free-will because that is what the Bible preaches, in all forms and shapes, and we believe in the Divine source of the Bible.

If we are non-believers, or agnostic — we need again to regress to the most recent decision-point, choose another path that leads us to the last filter;

  • Optimization?

Many free-will situations are not really what they look like. Often, these are just optimization situations, ego-centered decision scenarios, where the ego attempts to optimize the outcome of its decision. For example, what would I gain and lose from pursuing this path and not another? We then choose the optimal path for which the net gain is maximal. This scenario is typical to most decision scenarios we encounter in everyday life. Therefore, one cannot say that the situations, where the ego optimizes its response, are indeed free-will situations. They are merely optimization scenarios, the simplest of which can be answered by a computer (refer to an earlier post, discussing these points more extensively, here).

What then characterizes free-will situations?

These are decision-points in life, where we can act, on ethical grounds, against our ego and our best interest, to achieve ethical goals that do not necessarily benefit us. Examples:

  • Risking one’s life in battle to rescue fellow soldier;
  • Persisting in resuscitating a patient, undergoing heart failure, even though an acceptable standard for exercising such effort has long-ago been surpassed;
  • Sharing food with fellow human beings in conditions of extreme food scarcity;
  • Ego-free donation.

All these scenarios, few drops in an ocean of possible scenarios that one may conceive of, demonstrate exercising ego-free free-will decisions, based on ethical principles, even when these may go against self-interest and self-preservation. An old Jewish idiom comes to mind (in the original language of Chazal, tractate Avot 4:1):

“Who is a hero? — Him, who overcomes his desire”.

(Tractate Avot, or Pirkei Avot“Ethics of the Fathers”, is a tractate of the Mishna, part of Talmud, which details Torah’s views on ethics and interpersonal relationships; A modern day PC translation would probably read: “Who is a hero? — Him/her, who overcomes her/his desire”.)

This end-point in our journey teaches us a powerful lesson:

We are not born natural free-will individuals.

We have to work on it, nourish it, grow it throughout our lives, in order to free ourselves of the suffocating grip of the ego, to subdue it to ethical moral principles.

Only then — may we exercise ethical principles and ethical judgement in our conduct, in our negotiations with fellow human beings, capable of converting optimization decisions (ego-centered decisions) into free-will decisions.

Then, and only then, do we become liberated free individuals, capable of exercising free-will out of free-will-decision.

General My Research on the Bible and Biblical Hebrew

“Thou shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk” (Exod. 23:19) — Why??

(Related podcast:  “Thou shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk” (Exod. 23:19). Why? (Podcast-audio))

This verse appears thrice in the Bible (additionally in Exod. 34:26; Deut. 14:21). It serves cornerstone for a large portion of Jewish dietary Kosher laws (regarding cooking and eating), forbidding mixing together meat with dairy products.

What is the logic behind this seemingly non-sensical fundamental tenet of Jewish way-of-life, setting the latter apart from all other peoples of the world (including followers of Islam, which comes closest to the Jewish Kashrut rules)?

The succinct answer is this:

Judaism is extremely strict about total separation of Life from Death.

And whenever an eventuality may occur, that the two may even remotely overlap or intermingle — a tall separating wall is constructed in Jewish law to ensure that this never happens. In that sense, Jewish Kashrut laws are just one instance in a sea of like-wise laws, ensuring that a Jew, strictly pursuing Moses Law (as specified succinctly in the written Torah and explicated in Oral Torah, later expounded in the Talmud), will never be exposed to scenarios, where Life and Death accidentally intermingle.

The origin for this total and strict separation is probably best articulated in the Divine commandment:

“I call this day to witness against you the heaven and the earth — I have set before thee life and death, the blessing and the curse; therefore, choose life that both you and your seed may live” (Deut. 30:19).

And the choice of Life over Death requires strict separation between the two, as reflected in numerous Jewish laws (we will elaborate on some soon).

Why eating meat with dairy products, with no time separation between the two, implies intermingling of life and death?

The answer is straightforward:

  • Eating meat is the result of killing an animal; This means Death;
  • Dairy products are derived from milk, originally created to assist life, namely, the growth of the just born; This means… well, Life.

Therfore, meat and dairy, associated with death and life, respectively, cannot be mixed and concurrently consumed.

Finally, we note that killing animals, in order to eat meat, had been permitted by the Divine only after realizing that “the impulse of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Gen. 8:21). Following Noah’s own initiative to sacrifice some of the animals that kept him company just now, for the last hundred and fifty flood-days (Gen. 8:20), God concludes that “the impulse of man’s heart is evil”; Consequently, a permit is now granted: “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; As green herb have I given you all” (Gen. 9:3).

Where else do we see the same underlying principle of Jewish life, total separation of Life from Death, so that one may more easily be led to “choose life that both you and your seed may live “?

Here are some examples:

  • “But flesh with its life, which is its blood, you shall not eat” (Gen. 9:4); This requires, by Kashrut laws, washing away all traces of blood from the meat prior to cooking; An egg with stains of blood inside likewise is not edible;
  • A Jewish cemetery is surrounded all around by a tall wall, strictly and explicitly separating the living from the dead; and when a Jew leaves the cemetery, he washes his hands, demonstrating symbolically and stating in no unclear terms that spiritually no “traces” of the dead remain on his body when he departs the cemetery;
  • There is a set time for a mourning period (“Shivah”); This ensures that subsequently the deceased would not psychologically and spiritually intervene with the living;
  • Judaism strictly forbids contacts with the dead via spiritualistic conferences; The living are not supposed to talk to the dead: “A man or a woman that is a medium or a spiritist shall surely be put to death; they shall be stoned with stone, their blood-guiltiness is upon them” (Leviticus 20:27);
  • A woman at the end of her menstrual cycle is forbidden sexual contact with her spouse; The former (menstrual period) marks life-potential not realized, the departure process of a potential life-generating egg, not consumed, now dead; The latter (sexual contact) is associated with live sperm, marking potential for generating life; The two are strictly forbidden from unholy mixture via time-concurrency: “Also thou shalt not approach to a woman in the impurity of her menstrual flow to uncover her nakedness” (Leviticus 18:19).

All these examples, regarding Jewish living in accord with Moses law, point to a deeper principle, prevalent throughout the Jewish faith:

Everything that one thinks and speaks (orally or by other means), everything that one does, our behavior in its totality – these are all spiritually meaningful. They have a spiritual effect on our soul, and they ultimately return like a boomerang to affect our lives (favorably or otherwise). In Hebrew, the arbitrary, seemingly meaningless, “Thing”, is Davar, deriving from same root as “speak” (Daber). All that we encounter in life “speak” to us— no “Thing” is insignificant.

Jewish laws, at first looking arbitrary, devoid of any rational justification, like “Thou shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk”, now acquire new very deep meaning:

We realize that violation of these laws, implying intermingling of Life and Death in our own every-day life, may affect our spiritual well-being; Ultimately, this will also be affecting our well-being physically.

General Shorties

Shorty*: The True Significance of the New Mass-Media Model

In the good olden days, the cost for bringing “Reality” into our living room via mass-media news outlets fell mostly on government and partially on the consumer. Not anymore. The model for delivering news to the customer has fundamentally changed; And a new mass-media model has emerged that has devastating effect on individuals and society, such that most of us most probably are not aware of.

News communication has technologically progressed through time — from radio (and newspapers) to television, to cable and satellite and finally to Internet. As news communication changed its face technologically, another fundamental change has taken place — the consumer ceased to be the main source of revenue for the operation of mass-media news providers. A new model was born — news channels provide content free-of-charge, and advertisement fills the void created by the removal of the traditional major sources supporting operation of mass-media news outlets.

This change, conveying “Reality” to the consumer mixed with ads, has since its inception been exercising devastating effect on how we perceive reality. Suddenly Reality, as reflected to us from the screen (or from the newspaper), is no longer “pure reality”. Instead, it is delivered to us in a mixed form — Reality combined with Temptation, facts of life colored by constant seduction to consume products and services.

What does this unholy marriage of reality and temptation do to our psyche?

Reality and Temptation are addressed by two different parts of our psyche: I and Ego (respectively). Once the formers are mixed on the screen, blurred beyond distinction (where reality becomes temptation and temptation reality), the latter become confused — “I” and “Ego” are inter-mixed, subconsciously no longer able to discern clearly which is which. This causes I to lose its grip on reality, and its control over Ego to be weakened, resulting in devastating consequences to us both as individuals and as members of a civilized society.

I discuss “Ego” and “I”, their inter-relationship and how that affects our ability to exercise free-will, elsewhere on this blog. Let me summarize here succinctly: The “I” mediate between us and reality. It is the ultimate decision-maker within us that allows free-will choices, some of moral and ethical nature, at times going even against our own self-interest, as embodied by the “Ego”. Conversely, the latter is that part of our psyche striving for self-preservation. It does so via various egocentric feelings (like hate, pride, anger, aggression, envy and desire), leading to egocentric actions (like chasing money), ultimately resulting in egocentric outcomes that satisfy ego’s needs (physical needs, like hunger or sex, psychological needs, like the need for security via accumulating property, or social needs, like needs of social benefits or positions of power and control).

What happens to us when reality and temptation, as reflected from the screen, are mixed together so that psychologically distinguishing between them, as we “consume” content delivered by news outlets, becomes ever harder and harder?

A major outcome is that no longer are we able to observe reality clearly and objectively, discerning where reality ends and temptation begins. We start to experience a distorted reality — “Reality” becomes a gigantic seduction. The ultimate decision-maker, “I”, loses its ability to make decisions out of free-will, based on humanistic principles that may be at odds with the “Ego”. “I” no longer control “Ego”, to the contrary, it becomes subjugated to “Ego”. A distorted artificial reality forms — “Taking” and “Consuming” become the dominant motivating forces in how we conduct our life and in how we perceive reality and our life within it. Free-will is extinguished and becomes irrelevant. “Optimization” becomes our sole modus operandi.

But mistaking Reality for Seduction and Temptation has a greater, more devastating outcome. Weakening of control of “I” over “Ego” increases rates of crime and severity of crime (like mass shooting). When reality is no longer perceived as ruled by ethical principles and humanistic or religious believes (when “I” dominates) and only experienced as temptation and seduction — egocentric sentiments become sole players in our psyche. Thus, when we are angry all else vanish from the conscious mind. Anger then becomes a dominant presence in our conscious world, unchallenged by other emotions or considerations. Mass-shooting then becomes a highly likely occurrence.

To avoid this confusion, caused by ads bombarding our psyche as-nauseum, certain “arrangements” are sometimes being installed and practiced. In my home country (Israel), advertisement is barred on certain days of the year, either by state law or by free choice. On Memorial Day, dedicated to remembering the Fallen of Israel (in wars or in terrorist actions), mass-media channels do not deliver ads. The people of Israel then gain the opportunity to solely focus on the reality in which Israel exists, remembering the painful price we had to pay for its survival and for our liberty. On Shabbat (the Jewish holy day of the week), at least one channel in Israel has minimized ads, letting non-religious listeners enjoy Shabbat free of seduction and consumerism.

In Western democracies, current state law and regulation do not acknowledge the correlation between excessive advertisement and increased crime. Therefore, no restrictions are placed on advertisement agencies and on mass-media news outlets to limit the damage they cause to the conscious world of individuals and to society at large.

Perhaps it is high time this had changed.


* This post may now be read also on The Times of Israel.

* Shorty is a short post


General Shorties

Shorty*: Free will?? — Only when the “Ego” is subjugated to “I”

“Free will” is an essential component of our lives as humans. It refers to common decision scenarios, when we confront multiple choices and one has to be selected. A philosophical question then often arises:

Are we, human beings, free to make our own choices, out of free will? Or are we always just “optimizing”, selecting that which is, or seems to be, best for us?

What is the difference between free-will choice and “optimization”?? And how are these related to two major components of our psyche — “Ego” and “I”?

Observing and studying the centuries-old debate for and against “free will”, one realizes that participants to this debate often do not grasp the true nature of free-will. Once this is cleared and clarified (by answering the above questions), the debate of whether free will exists largely becomes irrelevant and redundant.

What is “optimizing”?

An “Optimization decision” scenario occurs when all factors that may affect our decision are external to our free will and independent of it (or optimization, which always aims to benefit the ego and its needs, could not have taken place). Our behavior in such decision scenarios is therefore purely deterministic, devoid of free will; In fact, a robot, fed with the correct data, could have made the decision for us, possibly even better than we do (since a robot expectedly does not commit errors).

What, then, is the essential ingredient that renders a choice situation from one of optimizing to an exercise of free-will?

The answer is simple:

A “free-will” scenario is one where our ego is made irrelevant to the choice we make.

In other words, in a “free will” scenario, created out of our own free will, all factors affecting our decision are within us, under our control, subject to the ultimate decision-maker within our psyche, the “I” (not to the ego).

What differentiate the “I” from the “Ego”?

The “I”, exercising free will, may decide on giving; The ego, by its very nature, decides only on “taking” (NEVER on giving).

This is perhaps why Jewish prophets so often refer to the Divine as the ultimate embodiment of “I”. Here is prophet Isaiah:

I am I am Jehovah and besides me there is no deliverer” (Isaiah 43:11); “..I am the first, and I am the last, and besides me there is no God” (Isaiah 44:6); “..I am He, I am the first, I am also the last…  (Isaiah 48:12);  “I I have spoken, Indeed I have called him, I have brought him, and he shall succeed in his way” (Isaiah 48:15).

And this is the ingredient by which to judge whether a choice scenario is a “free will” one:

A free-will scenario always contains a moral and ethical element — Will we act against our own interest, against our own ego, to benefit others? Will we decide to give instead of take? Will we decide to love (give) instead of hate?

Or, in the original language of Chazal (tractate Avot 4:1):

“Who is a hero? — Him, who overcomes his desire”.

(Tractate Avot, or Pirkei Avot, “Ethics of the Fathers”, is a tractate of the Mishna that details Torah’s views on ethics and interpersonal relationships; A modern day PC translation would probably read: “Who is a hero? — Him/her, who overcomes her/his desire”.)

Given these perspectives regarding “free will” and its relationship to the two main ingredients of our soul, the “Ego” and the “I”, a powerful lesson may be learned:

Qualifying a decision scenario as free-will (“I”-related), and acquiring the necessary sensitivity to distinguish it from an “optimization” decision (ego-centered one) — these are first essential steps towards genuine personal growth, moral development and personal maturing.


* Shorty is a short post

General Shorties

Shorty*: “Desert” as Epitome for a Potential Culture of Hatred

The culture of the desert is perhaps the best allegory for the conditions that may ultimately lead to the development of a culture of hatred in human society. The ego operates in two modes:

* Expressing free will (with all its variants);

* Realizing (implementing) free will.

Among others, emotions are an expression of free will. Having the potential to control our emotions by struggling with them and possibly modify them, emotions are part and parcel of the repository of modes by which free will expresses itself. Two potentially devastating expressions of free will are hatred and anger.

Where do they originate?

Anger has been the subject of much discourse in Jewish and non-Jewish scholarship (within science or otherwise), and it seems to be generally accepted that anger is the ego’s major response to blocking/ignoring free will in its two modes of operandi:

  • When the ego is obstructed in expressing its free will, either by threat of severe penalty or by rejection by fellow human beings. Typical examples are when the ego believes certain knowledge about reality to be true and significant others reject it as false; or when one’s ego, with all varieties of its expressions, is ignored (by display of indifference);
  • When the ego is obstructed in accomplishing its free will, for example, when a certain repair is required (within ourselves or outwardly) and the ego is incapable of accomplishing this repair (Tikun in Hebrew).

Controlling pride is conducive to controlling anger.

Where does hatred originate?

While hatred obviously may be associated with anger, or follow anger, it is a distinct and separate emotion that may express itself detached from any feeling of anger. To understand hatred, I believe that one needs go no farther than understanding the fundamental meaning of “Desert” as epitome for separation (lack of communication) and the resultant hatred.

Why is “Desert” the epitome for a potential culture of hatred?

Living in “Desert” implies living in separate communities, extremely isolated from one another due to harsh nature conditions. In such circumstances, daily communication between communities is rare and hard to come by. This generates a separation between “Us” and “Them”, between “Us” and “Not us” fellow human beings affiliated to “Not us” communities. In an environment of extreme isolation between communities, a sense of suspicion towards the “others”, the “Not us”, is rampant. Lack of daily communication between isolated communities tends to form a natural sense of suspicion and distrust between “Us” and “Them”, a remnant of which we may still see nowadays in the common gesture of hugging each other upon meeting. This gesture, already referred to in Genesis (29:13), originally expressed a fundamental sense of distrust where the hug aimed at finding out whether the seemingly amiable person, who has just arrived to the “Us community”, carried a hidden sword at his back. The hug thus became a sort of ancient extreme vetting, to borrow a modern-day term.

In such an environment of isolation and hostile nature conditions, where lack of daily communication between isolated communities tends to create a culture of suspicion and distrust towards the “Not us”, the path is short to a potential culture of hatred. The ego’s path to acknowledging, being aware of, respecting and accommodating free-wills of “Not us”, this path is blocked. Lack of daily communication may ultimately lead to unrestrained hatred towards the “Other”, embedded in a potential culture of hatred.

The Hebrew language fully support this interpretation for the source of hatred:

  • Mount Sinai, where Torah was given to the ancient Israelites, has in Hebrew a connotation of hatred (Sinah in Hebrew). This triggered the following assertion by a Jewish rabbi: “Why Mount Sinai? that this is where hatred descended (unto the world)” (Babylonian Talmud, Masechet Shabbat, Ch. 9).
  • Probably not coincidentally, Hebrew for “Other” (Acher) and “Back” (Achor), share the same root in Hebrew. Since Achor is that part of the body that one can see only when the face cannot be seen, the Hebrew language links “back” to “other” and denotes the latter— Acher, namely, the one whose “face” (Panim, written like Pnim, “inside”) cannot be accessed (probably due to lack of communication).

In recent years, communication between human beings, unhindered by “Desert” conditions, has become a major platform for reducing hatred worldwide. One can now more fully appreciate the major shift taking place in human history with the advent of modern day easily accessible personal communication. This development has served to attain a major objective in the evolution of the human species on Earth: Reducing hatred originating in “Desert” due to lack of communication, and allowing fellow human beings accessing each other and consequently acknowledging each other’s own free wills.

Does living in “Desert”, in separation between “we” and “them”, necessarily lead to cultures of hatred, such as currently witnessed in various parts of the world where communities do actually dwell in desert?

Not necessarily. Observe what Rabbi Akiva (50-132) considered as the departure point for studying the whole of Torah: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself”, this is the essence of Torah; all else is interpretation”. This culture of love combined with justice and righteousness had originally formed, contrary to human nature, in “Desert” conditions, literally in the desert, in the Sinai desert.

A major and important lesson may be learned:

Communities separated by “Desert” are not doomed to live in a culture of hatred. With today’s available communication, overcoming a culture of hatred and modifying it in a fundamental way is a relatively easily accessible option. Carriers of cultures of hatred, leaders of cultures of hatred, only need to summon up their free will to apply the much-needed transformation so that “Desert”, as a way of living, may once and for all be eradicated from the face of the earth.

*Shorty is a short post


“Opening Hours” — In Israel and Abroad

A comparison of “Opening Hours” in Israel and abroad would leave you virtually breathless!!

“Opening hours”, when we, Israelis, are getting service, is a phenomenon unique to the Start-up Nation, not to be seen or heard-of anywhere else in the world.

To realize the existence of this unique phenomenon, we have assembled in this post examples of opening-hours in the USA and in England and then display, for comparison purposes, some examples from Israel. All data appearing in this post are net-based.

Accordingly, the post is divided into three parts: Examples from outside Israel (“The World”), examples from Israel and conclusions.

We emphasize that this post does not intend to slander Israel but rather shed light on an issue that needs drawing attention to and correcting (as I describe at the concluding paragraphs).


[1] “The World” (Mon-Fri always uniform):

USA (Generally): Monday through Friday— 9.00-17.00


* Bank of America (

Mon-Fri: 9:00am-6:00pm; Saturday: 10:00am-2:00pm; Sunday: Closed.

* Florida Government (Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles;; Mon-Fri: 8:00am-5:00pm

* US Post Office ( Mon-Fri: 9:00am-5:00pm.

ENGLAND (Generally): Monday through Friday— 9.00-17.00


* U.K. Post Office ( Mon-Fri: 9am-5.30pm; Sat: 9am-1pm;

* HSBC (Bank Mon-Fri: 9:00am-5:00pm; Sat: 9.00am-2.00pm; Sun: Closed. (Tues, starts at 9.30 am).

* National Insurance ( Mon-Fri: 8.00am-6.00pm.


Post Office:

* Beer-Sheva (branch 271): Sun, Mon, Wed, Thu: 8.30-14.00, 16.00-18.00; Tue: 8.30-14.00; Fri: 8.30-12.30

* Haifa (713): Sun, Thu: 8.00-12.30, 15.30-18.00; Mon, Wed: 8.00-12.30, 15.30-20.00; Tue, Fri: 8.00-12.00

* Raanana (695): Sun, Tue, Thu: 8.00-20.00; Mon, Wed: 8.00-13.30; Fri: 8.00-12.00.  

Israel Electric Corporation: Sun-Thu: 7.30-14.30; Fri-Sat: Closed.

National Insurance (Bituach Leumi; “All” relates to service dealing with all subjects; “Some” relates to a partial list of some subjects):

* Ashdod: Sun, Tue, Thu: 8.00-12.30 (All); Mon, Wed: 15.00-17.00 (some)

* Jerusalem: Sun, Tue, Thu: 8.00-12.30 (Some1); Mon: 15.00-17.00 (Some2)

* Karmiel: Sun: 8.00-12.30 (Some1); Sun, Tue, Thu: 8.00-12.30 (Some2); Mon, Wed: 15.00-17.00 (Some3)

Discount (Bank):

* Netanya (branch 156): Mon, Thu: 8.30-13.00, 16.00-18.30; Tue, Wed: 8.30-14.00; Fri: 8.30-12.30, Sun: Closed

* Jerusalem (321): Sun: 8.30-13.00; Mon, Thu: 8.30-13.00, 16.00-18.30; Tue, Wed: 8.30-14.00; Fri: Closed

Leumi (Bank):

* Eilat (999): Sun: 8.30-13.45; Mon, Thu: 8.30-13.00, 16.00-18.15; Tue, Wed: 8.30-13.45; Fri: Closed

* Tiberias (970): Sun: 8.30-14.00; Mon, Thu: 8.30-13.00, 16.00-18.15; Tue, Wed: 8.30-14.00; Fri: Closed

 The list of this insane mish-mash of public-serving opening hours across institutes, but unbelievably also within, can go on and on..

Hello Israeli parliamentarians, hello senior managers:

Are you listening?

To the pain and irritation, waste of time and energy that this mish-mash is causing the Israeli public, in general, but, more importantly, to numerous individuals not savvy in surfing the net, who reach public-serving offices, hoping to get service only to find closed doors;

Are you at all listening??


Comment: This post may also be read on The Times of Israel:

“Opening Hours” – In Israel and Abroad