Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 040

Tuesday, November 3 1998

• Doing mitzvot as a zekher
• Each shevet has a shaar
• Re[2]: Maakeh
• misasek
• Re: Whose domain is the kitchen?
• RE: Women's Tefillah Groups (& tv & mo, too!)
• Re: Avodah V2 #39 Pluralism
• Apology (was Re: Women's Tefillah Groups)
• Re: Avodah V2 #39
• Re: Whose domain is the kitchen?
• Re: Each shevet has a shaar
• Re: Kadima of Av in Mitzvas milah, mitzvat yishuv ha'aretz
• Re: misasek
• Re: Avodah V2 #39 Pluralism
• Re: Women's Tefillah Groups (& tv & mo, too!) (fwd)
• Re: Each shevet has a shaar
• Re: Avodah V2 #39
• Re: A simple question
• Chok vs. Mishpat

Elie Ginsparg writes:
>1-I was teaching the parshas tzizis this week and came across a Ramban who
>(unlike Rashi) says the main zechira of tzizis is the Techeles (rashi says
>its gwematria +strings+knots) I also went through a Michtav meliyahu which
>indicated that techeles was essential for tzizis to serve its
>purpose--this made me ask the question to myself, if techeles is so
>essential why does the Torah allow for tzizis with only white strings
>are there any other mitzvos where we are still required to do the mitzvos
>even though the main idea of the mitzva isn't there.

Interestingly, the Ramban applies a similar analysis to all mitzvot
performed outside Eretz Yisrael.  He writes that the mitzvot wre given
to be performed in Eretz Yisrael, and the reason we perform them in Hutz
la-Aretz is so as not to forget them.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

R. YGB writes:

>Without defending those minhogim per se, although of course Yekkeshe
>Minhogim are very ancient and accurate, if anything EY should be,
>historically, the place where minhogim can davka co-exist, for the basis
>of multiple sets of minhogim in Am Yisroel is the concept of each Shevet
>having its own Sha'ar in Shomayim for its Avodas Hashem.

I was under the impression that the notion of a separate shaar for each
shevet was an explanation for different nushaot in tefillah (including
pronunciation).  I have never heard this idea applied to minhagim
generally.  The idea, of course, is a kabbalistic one, and I think it
originates with the Hida.  If you have an authoritative source applying
it to all minhagim, could you share it with me?

Also, if there are different shaarim in shamayim for people of different
shevatim, shouldn't that indicate that a member of Yehudah should follow
his nusah even while visiting friends in Naftali?  In other words, the
sha'ar would seem to be a personal one and should follow one wherever
one goes, not just within the enclave of one's own nahalah.  If so, it
should apply even when that ben Yehudah leaves Eretz Yisrael altogether.
 Note too that Gad, Reuven and half of Menashe did not live in Eretz
Yisrael, so the original tribal pluralism would seem to have applied
outside of Eretz Yisrael even before the first Hurban.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

     Indeed it MIGHT.  however, when the possuk says befeirush Ki Yipol 
     hanofeil, it would seem NOT to be a chok.
     
     When the possuk ways lo siblash shaatnez there is no elaboration on 
     it.
     
     Plus I think that "rationalists" likethe Rambam would see any rational 
     mitzvo as not being a chok, EG lo sitzoch which hs no real explanation 
     but is udnderstood as basic "natural law".
     
     Now, being a mishpot and not a chok does not preculde cahzal from 
     setting the parameters - as oppose to using plain sevoro.  I don't 
     deny that Chazal might draw lines that would not be intuitveily 
     obvious.  Nevertheless, I think the thrust of this is a mishpot and 
     not a chok.  
     
     Look at kan Tsippor. The Torah says shaleich teshalach, but it does 
     not say WHY.  our interpretiation of it being rachmonus is a bit 
     presumptive
     
     By maakeh, however, the statement, Ki yipol hanofeil, while not 
     singlin out pikuach nefesh, seems to indicate a reason - as well as a 
     set of criteria.
     
     that's why I previusly mentioned a flat roogf.  A steeply sloped roof 
     is simply not used by "average" people, and would not provide a 
     situation taht would cause people to use it.  however, a flat roof, 
     even if in theory is off-limits, is in practical terms very easily 
     acceptable - even to people who might suffer from vertigo.  It seems 
     to me a dovor poshut that a Maakeh is required.  It wouldn't occur to 
     me to ask a sheilo in the first place.  (that's only my hashkofo 
     obviously)
     
     Regards,
     Rich Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Maakeh  
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at Tcpgate
Date:    10/30/98 12:37 PM


Might maakeh not be a chok (and I think mishpatim must be accepted as 
chukim) for which we don not know and may not question HKB'H's 
motivation?
shabbat shalom ye all
steve katz
     
PS. see Moreh Nevuchim re gezerah milfanei
     
     

Hi.
This past shabbos the wire to our urn was apparently loosened, and the
power was disconnected.  I moved the urn slightly, after knowing this
fact, to see if it was plugged in at all (I probably should not have
been doing that anyway but I am just providing the facts.), and the wire
reconnected, causing the water to boil.

It seemed to my guest that, as I was a misasek and not a mevashel
b'shogeg, the water would not be assur to drink (until after shabbos).
I haven't the time right now to check, so I am posing the question to
anyone interested in responding:  was I indeed a misasek, and even if
so, is the water permissable.

Thanks,
elly bachrach

--
Elly Bachrach
Heide Corporation
7434 Skokie Blvd.
Skokie, IL 60077
Phone: (847) 676-2880
Fax: (847) 676-2880
E-Mail:  ebachrach@heidecorp.com
--
Headquarters
5 West Mill Street
Medfield MA 02052
Phone: 508 359 5885
Fax:  508 359 2737
http://www.heidecorp.com

> Nowadays, those who assign 'traditional' roles to a husband and wife
generally give the job of running the kitchen to the wife. Last night,
some friends of mine (Yossi & Helene Wenger) suggested that during the
days of the Avos, the kitchen was the *husband's* domain. <
Why insist on "the kitchen" being the domain of either one or the other?
All three examples display the principle of accomplishing a positive
activity yourself rather than through a sho'li'ach (re example #1, see
RaShY on "yukach nah"), a principle that applies to both men and women.
(By the way, RaShY's "el ha'na'ar" comment indicates that men were normally
involved in food preparation, at least li'd'var mitzvo, and "el ha'bo'kor
rotz" displays explicitely the minimum level of Avraham's personal
involvement -- thus...
> But the
story is much longer and more detailed. What are we to learn from the
Torah going out of its way to point out how involved Avraham was with
these preparations? <
...the specific nature of Avraham's commands requires, IMHO, a more
detailed explanation than that Avraham was in charge of the kitchen, which
you seem to imply is the answer to your "What are we to learn...?"
question.)

                                         Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan J. Baker [mailto:jjbaker@panix.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 30, 1998 8:42 AM
> To: avodah@aishdas.org
> Subject: Women's Tefillah Groups (& tv & mo, too!)
> 
> 
> Abraham Pechman wrote:
> >The concern isn't that women (as individuals) might deviate. 
> The problem is
> >a movement, with leaders and conferences and publications, 
> etc. which may be
> >pushing for deviations. 
> 
> Rick Turkel wrote:
> >	There _are_ respected halakhic authorities who permit and advise
> >such groups as to what they are permitted to do and what is 
> forbidden to
> >them _within the halakha_ - R. Avi Weiss of Riverdale is the 
> first one
> >who comes to mind.  The rabbi of my shul in Columbus, Ohio has also
> 
> Most WTGs were formed with Rabbinic help, and continue to practice
> under rabbinic guidance.  There are WTGs, such as Flatbush, which
> have been unable to get a local rabbi to advise them, or a local
> shul with which to affiliate.  Thus, a) they meet in private homes,
> and b) they feel free to deviate, saying Kaddish in at least 
> one case. 
> 
> The traditionalists in the WTGs don't like this because a) it *is* a
> deviation from halacha, and b) it tends to discredit all the WTGs
> because people like R. Pechman can point and shake their fingers and
> say "look what women's tefillah groups do, what women's prayer leads
> to."

Actually, I never said, or implied, any such thing. I simply responded to
Rich Wolpoe:

<open quote>

	While I'm not a proponent of bending Halocho let me say this,
     few if any of us are 100% shomer mitzvos.  One person it might be 
     loshon horo, another might be some other flaw.
     
     If a women's ONLY weakness/flaw were fenisits deviations, she might be 
     doing an aveiro but still be considered frum.  one aveiro is 1 aveiro; 
     it's not right but I don't think it's fair to heneceforth lable them 
     as non_orthodox or non-shomer Mitzvos.  It probably wouls be valid to 
     label them as chot'os...
     
     Then again chizkiyohu - tsaddik - was chotei (albiet beeshei v'al 
     taaseh) by not doing piryo v'rivyoh
     
     And Shaul failed to execute Agog.  
     
	People can be wrong without and still be loyal to Torah and Mitzvos

<close quote>

that there's a difference between an individual who deviates and an
organization which deviates. No reference was made to any particular
organization or any deviation, real or imagined.

To construe that into pointing and waving fingers is quite a stretch, but I
suppose that if you try hard enough, you can read whatever you want into
anything.

To include a line like "people like Pechman" is a gross insult, either to me
or these people, depending on who they are. Either I, or they, take great
offense to it. Apologies are warranted.


Avi Pechman

     With regard to YGB's pint on pluralism:
     1)I agree that EY should support Minhog Pluralism
     2) IMHO this principle extends in EY to tefillin on chol Hamoed, that 
     is to say there is no one standard EY minhog forcing a tsibbur to 
     conform to the prevalent practice of not donning them during CHhM
     3) When a person who is meiniach during ChhM moves to Israel do they 
     become subservient to the prvailing Minhog?
     4) If so does moving to Holland allow one to wait only 1 hour after 
     meat to eat dairy?
     4) This principle of pluralims IMHO this could extend to NYC where we 
     most do not follow ther original Spanish Portueguese Minhog  
     
     Regards,
     Richard Wolpoe

In my recent post on Women's Tefillah Groups, I inadvertently
misconstrued a post by Abraham Pechman.

He was talking about deviation in general, and the danger of 
institutional ratification of same.  I took that to mean the one
area in which the organizers of the conference are considered by
some to deviate: in public women's prayer.  The conference was
organized, after all, by the Women's Tefillah Network.

We have been discussing this offline, and I would like to apologize
for any offense I might have caused by my confusion.

> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 20:31:38 EST
> From: C1A1Brown@aol.com
> Subject: Kadima of Av in Mitzvas milah, mitzvat yishuv ha'aretz
> 
> (1)  Ramban at end of parsha writes that Avraham was mal his familay/avadim
> before himself.  I would have thought he should mal himself first bec. if the
> chiyuv milah of an av and ben occur simultaneously the av (l'chorah) should
> come first at least for the reason of removing the issur kareis (which does
> not apply to the ben).  Ramban writes that had Avraham been mal himself first
> he would have been a choleh and physically unable to be mal the rest of the
> family.  Still don't unserstand -  if we assume that the av has kadima (which
> Ramban agress to if not for the choleh consideration) if he then can't be mal
> everyone else because of external circumastances like choli, ones rachmana
> patrei?!

===> I have come across meforshim that state the exact opposite -- that
Avraham first "did himself" and then went on to everyone else....  See the
sifsei Chachamim (at the beginning of VaYerah, I think)...


> 
> (2) Ramban holds Avraham was choteh b'shogeg by going down to Mitzrayim and
> destined his children to galus there.  Chazal say galus was decreed bec of the
> question "b'mah eida ki irashena".  L'chorah no contradiction - both sins show
> an underlying lack of confidence in yerushat ha'aretz.  In any event, acc. to
> Ramban the mitzva of yishuv ha'aretz as given to Avraham manifested itself as
> an issur aseh of leaving eretz Yisreal as well as a mitzva kiyumit.  

===> As a comment: Note that the Netziv strongly disagrees with the Ramban
in terms of whether Avraham did anything wrong in leaving Eretz Yisrael.

--Zvi

In a message dated 11/1/98 10:23:00 PM EST, kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:

>  Nowadays, those who assign 'traditional' roles to a husband and wife
>  generally give the job of running the kitchen to the wife. Last night,
>  some friends of mine (Yossi & Helene Wenger) suggested that during the
>  days of the Avos, the kitchen was the *husband's* domain. 

See Yevomos 63a that the meaning of Eizer Kinegdoy means that she perpers his
meal, that is also what some Mforshim explain that when Odom told HKB"H that
the women you gave me gave it to me, he meant to say that since this was an
item of food he relied on her.

WRT to  Vayera (Bereshis 18), Avrohom being the Machnis Orchim was the one who
took entire command of the Mitzvah all others he allowed to share, it is
therefore that he got involved in all the details, furthermore he feared if he
would just say that there are 3 guests , they may perpare a lesser meal so
that Avrohom not have to entertain so long on the 3rd day from his Bris.

However for the family Sarah would cook, that is why the Brocho Mtuyoh B'issoh
(rashi 24:67) was a hallmark of Sarah.

That would also explain Breishis 19:3 why Lot himself prepared the food as he
was educated to be Machnis Orchim in the house of Avrohom see Rashi 19:1,
(however he also had his wife help along to bring the salt Rashi 19:26).

Wheras by Lavan 24:23 it dosen't say who prepared the food.
>  

WRT Toldos (Bereshis 25), there are Mforshim who say that Esov actually asked
Yaakov why he was cooking something that is not his thing to do, then he
answered that Avrohom died. (and as you say later "Yaakov (unlike Esav) was
*not* an experienced cook".

>  keep in mind
>  that Yaakov was still living with his parents, so I doubt there'd be any
>  difference between wife and son in this regard.)

Al Pi Halacha every thing a women owns belongs to her husband how ever WRT
Yaakov there is no proof that he wasen't self supporting (and from Rashi 29:11
seems that he had quite a fortune of his own), so even he lived by his parents
he was not Somuch Al Shulchan Oviv.  While one can argue that Rivkah got 2
goats daily she would have to exchange them for lentils, in the meantime
Yaakov got his own and was Mkayim also the Mitzvah of Kibbud Av which includes
Ma'achiloy.

WRT Toldos (Bereshis 27), 
>  But the story would not make sense unless Esav was already
>  experienced in cooking these foods on previous occassions.

Yes Esov was an experianced hunter and Mforshim say an expert cook.

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok

In a message dated 11/2/98 11:59:49 AM EST, clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM writes:

> The idea, of course, is a kabbalistic one, and I think it
>  originates with the Hida.  

It's source is in Sefer HaKavonos (Arizal) brought in Mogein Avrohom O"C 68,
(also see quoted Yerushalmi).

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok

In a message dated 10/31/98 8:32:03 PM EST, C1A1Brown@aol.com writes:

>  (1)  Ramban at end of parsha writes that Avraham was mal his familay/
> avadim
>  before himself.  I would have thought he should mal himself first bec. if 
> the
>  chiyuv milah of an av and ben occur simultaneously the av (l'chorah) should
>  come first at least for the reason of removing the issur kareis (which does
>  not apply to the ben).  Ramban writes that had Avraham been mal himself 
> first
>  he would have been a choleh and physically unable to be mal the rest of the
>  family.  Still don't unserstand -  if we assume that the av has kadima (
> which
>  Ramban agress to if not for the choleh consideration) if he then can't be 
> mal
>  everyone else because of external circumastances like choli, ones rachmana
>  patrei?!
> 
According to Shitas HoRambam that the Koreis is only when one dies an Orel
there Bichlal is no question, even according to the Ramoh that one is Oveir
every day till that first day was over he wasn't over Bkoreis, so why not be
Mkayaim everything that day (even if he could have gotten other ones to do it
for Yishmoeil and the Avodim there is still the Kllal Mitzvah Boi Yoser
M'bishluchoi).

However an interesting point of discussion is according to R' Yochonon in
Gemoroh that holds Hamol Yemol how could Avrohom be Mal before he himself was
Nimol, (B'nogeia himself Les Breiroh). forthermore according to the 2nd idea
of the Ramban that others did it for the Avodim the question is even according
to Reish Lokish who holds that just a Goy is precluded, unless we come up with
the novel sevoroh that he gave it to his Shfochos to do, and we can say that
they are included in Kman D'mehils Damyo, but that would get involved in
tznius unless every eved had a shifcho for a wife, which sill would leave the
question according to R' Yochonon.

Was the water already hot? If not, I believe we pasken that the problem of
Ma'aseh Shabbos applies even to a Shogeg in the form of Mis'asek. R' Chaim
B., my brother in law, and I had this discussion here on line (or was it
off line?) earlier this year, and he can cite you chapter and verse.

On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Elly Bachrach wrote:

> It seemed to my guest that, as I was a misasek and not a mevashel
> b'shogeg, the water would not be assur to drink (until after shabbos).
> I haven't the time right now to check, so I am posing the question to
> anyone interested in responding:  was I indeed a misasek, and even if
> so, is the water permissable.
> 
> Thanks,
> elly bachrach
> 
> --
> Elly Bachrach
> Heide Corporation
> 7434 Skokie Blvd.
> Skokie, IL 60077
> Phone: (847) 676-2880
> Fax: (847) 676-2880
> E-Mail:  ebachrach@heidecorp.com
> --
> Headquarters
> 5 West Mill Street
> Medfield MA 02052
> Phone: 508 359 5885
> Fax:  508 359 2737
> http://www.heidecorp.com
> 
> 
> 

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

On Mon, 2 Nov 1998 richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

>      With regard to YGB's pint on pluralism:
>      1)I agree that EY should support Minhog Pluralism
>      2) IMHO this principle extends in EY to tefillin on chol Hamoed, that 
>      is to say there is no one standard EY minhog forcing a tsibbur to 
>      conform to the prevalent practice of not donning them during CHhM

In a vacum that may indeed be true, but since there is a problem of
"Mevazeh es Ha'Mo'ados" if the majority of people do not put on tefillin
because it is a dimunition of the status of Chol Ha'Mo'ed, you would be
forced to put on Tefillin b'tzin'a.

>      3) When a person who is meiniach during ChhM moves to Israel do they 
>      become subservient to the prvailing Minhog?

As above, I believe many people do put on tefillin b'tzin'a even in EY.
(Although I do not.)

>      4) If so does moving to Holland allow one to wait only 1 hour after 
>      meat to eat dairy?

Yes.


YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 00:29:24 -0600 (CST)
From: Cheryl Maryles <cmaryles@neiu.edu>
To: avodah@aishdas.org
Subject: Re: Women's Tefillah Groups (& tv & mo, too!)

After reading this well written defense of the WTG, I'd like to say what
my problem is with this whole concept. But in keeping in line with the
nature of the list I would like to present this as a general Torah point
which
can then relate to WTG. I believe that what makes avodas Hashem so special
is that Hashem told us how to worship him. We don't decide what makes us
spiritual, that has been told to us through the Torah and chazal. The
short coming of all other religions is that they don't know how to worship
their gods and therefore rely on the human brain and emotions to come up
with forms of service. In Christianity--this includes celabacy in Hindu it
includes worshiping cows or something but Jews have the unique advantage
that our service is described for us by Hashem. Each shevet has a purpose,
each gender has a purpose and each person has a purpose, and we need to
look at the Torah to find what brings true spirituality, after all that is
our uniqueness. I recently heard a a story where a new mother asked a
sheila if she should hire a baby sitter and go to shul for the yomin
noraim or stay at home with the child and daven there. She prefaced her
question by telling the rov that she really felt spiritually uplifted by
Rosh Hashana and yom kippur davening and she didn't think she'd feel good
about davening at home while babysitting. The rov asked her if she thought
that Hashem wanted her to come to shul so SHE'D feel spiritual while
fulfilling at best a reshus (davening in a minyan) while passing up a
whole day of mitzvos min hatorah of chesed to a child -while still
davening at home. the gist of his answer was many times we think we know
how to serve Hashem better then he does. We think that what make us feel
good is right ,but if we're not careful we end up serving Hashem based on
our own logic-like the other religions, and not based on the specific
purpose that Hashem commanded us. I won't draw the parallel to WTG because
I wanted to express a haskofa not my personal opinion on WTG. I'm sure
that someone will be able to reconcile WTG with what I said, and I'm sure
that others won't care to---If there is a future debate on this list I'd
like to keep it to the haskofa ,becuase I believe that a lot more Torah can
be understood if we look at the underlining causes not the specific
issues.
In one other note, I'd like to know if anyone has  heard the theory (or
has proof or disproof) that Hamurabbi was NImrod

ELiE GiNSPARG

On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Clark, Eli wrote:

> R. YGB writes:
> 
> I was under the impression that the notion of a separate shaar for each
> shevet was an explanation for different nushaot in tefillah (including
> pronunciation).  I have never heard this idea applied to minhagim
> generally.  The idea, of course, is a kabbalistic one, and I think it
> originates with the Hida.  If you have an authoritative source applying
> it to all minhagim, could you share it with me? 
> 

I don't have such a source, but I do not think it necessary.

> Also, if there are different shaarim in shamayim for people of different
> shevatim, shouldn't that indicate that a member of Yehudah should follow
> his nusah even while visiting friends in Naftali?  In other words, the
> sha'ar would seem to be a personal one and should follow one wherever
> one goes, not just within the enclave of one's own nahalah.  If so, it
> should apply even when that ben Yehudah leaves Eretz Yisrael altogether.

It certainly should. One only changes minhogim when moving permanently.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

An interesting tidbit regarding Chana's desire to daven mincha with a minyan.
Where I work, there is a mincha minyan that meets everyday. Before, I would
find an empty room to daven, and invariably, someone would come in, see me
mumbling with a book in my hand, and we'd both feel awkward. Plus, I feel that
if a minyan meets literally a few floors from my office, it's silly for me not
to try to attend.
The interesting story is this: when I first went, an acquaintance saw me and
his first reaction was: "Is everything OK in your family?" He thought I was
there to say kaddish, h"v, which, of course, is its own telling comment. 
Also, while they also sometimes meet in a small room, they've been great about
setting up the mechitza each day.

>	I think you're making things unnecessarily complicated for Mr. 
>Nelson. Most people that I know just celebrate their Bar Mitzvah on a 
>Saturday soon after their 13th birthday, rather than on their actual
birthday. 
	This does not change the day he is required to perform all mitzvos.  I
think the importance of a bar mitzvah transcends the party part, as I
would hope you would agree.

Gershon

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Rav YB Soloveitchik taught (more than once) that every mitzvah has elements of
chok.

Take for example: Lo sirtach. What could be more obvious? But does it include
euthanasia? What about abortion? Or, can you turn over one hostage to be
killed to save the rest? When is killing justified? What about war? Does it
make a difference what the war is for?  What about capital punishment? By
civil courts? And so on....

The limits of a mitzvah as obvious as the prohibition against murder are
details that can't be understood by man. To make a line, to say that a fetus
is or isn't a human being, or a brain-dead person with a pulse is or isn't
alive, in some objective way, is well into chok territory.

Similarly, the ma'akeh. If we were to treat it as pure mishpat, it would be a
chovas cheftzah, not gavrah. I wanted to salvage the mishpat-ness by arguing
that the purpose is to teach caution for human life, and not an actual
expression of that caution. Which, I would argue, would already be a chiyuv
for other reasons.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5968 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 3-Nov-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]