Avodah Mailing List
Volume 04 : Number 017
Monday, September 27 1999
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 08:53:47 -0400
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject: Study Text vs. Psak Text
R. Moshe Feldmana:
>>That's not the issue--I'm not talking about R. Gershom paskening
against Bavli or the Bavli paskening against psukim. The point is
that while Rabbeinu Gershom knew the Bavli, he didn't consider it
binding (I like Rich Wolpoe's formulation--it was a study text, not a
psak text). Therefore, he would often not cite the Bavli in a
situation where someone who would consider the Bavli as binding would
have quoted the Bavli.<<
FWIW, this was essentially Dr. Agus's shito re: Bavli in the early Ahskenaz
period.
And as I mentioned this deserves aa thread of its own!
Dr E. Kanarfogel and I both recently lamented the blurring of this time-honored
distinction.
A few quick points of information...
The piyyut for Shabbos Hagadol (Keil Elohei horuchos lechol Bossor) has a
halachic review of the dinim in preparation for Pesach. This was done by an
authoritative source (paraphrasing ArtScroll) but we often pasken otehrwise. EG
the payyat paskens to say BPHG only twice (this is from memory). so in effect
we have a study text, i.e. the entire tzibbur recites it in unison before Pseach
as a nmemonic device to recall all the hilchos Pesach BUT we also realize that
we do not folow this piyyut to the letter (although perhaps in some communiteis
many eyars ago it was THE PSAK).
I was learning KSA before Mincho in our office minyon. One of the mispallelim
mentioned to me that the KSA was widely learned by Chassidim. I asked "do you
mean they PASKEN like the Kitzur?" He responded know they LEARN it, but do not
necesasrily pasken by it. IOW another case of a learning text that is not
necesarily a psak text. And this was true in day school when we learned either
KSA or Chayei Odom, it was a text to learn Halocho, but the maggid shiur would
frequently point out porally where we deviate lemasse.
This is in the spirito of the "miemtic" tradition; iow in the good old days,
people KNEW when to take the SA or the KSA literally and when we "winked" at it
and learned it in theory only. Certainly the "textbook" apporach to Sukka
favors sleeping in it, and using it throughout shmini Atzeres, nevertheless many
communities have a mimetic tradition to not sleep in the Sukka, at least in the
more temperate climes, and many memerly recite Kiddush in the sukkah on shmini
Atzeres and then eat in the house- largely w/o textual support. IOW the
miemetics was not fresttanding, it was an unwritten gloss upon the text...
Moadim Lesimcho
Richard Wolpoe
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 09:24:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject: Re: Tosafot and Ashkenaz
Yet another example (and I think the list so far is sufficient to show it's
more common than I originally thought): Megillah 31a on the haftorah for
Zos haB'rachah. (Gemara: Chunukas Bayis Rishon, Melachim I 8:22; Ashkenaz:
continuing the naarative with Yehoshua 1:1; Sepharad: ?)
Interesting note (credit to OhrNet): The Rosh cites the Yerushalmi as the
source for using Yehoshua. The Korban Nesanel notes that he can't find it
anywhere in the Yerushalmi.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 27-Sep-99: Levi
micha@aishdas.org A"H
http://www.aishdas.org Pisachim 44b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light. Nefesh Hachaim II 9
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 08:46:38 -0400
From: rjhendel@juno.com
Subject: RE: Rav and Piyutim
I am not disputing the posting below
But...the Rav frequently made comments
in Shiur e.g. that he doesn't say
things like AYN CALOKAYNU,
MIZMORE LDAVID (on return of torah etc)
Russell
>>Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 13:13:31 +0200
From: "Dr. Jeffrey R. Woolf" <woolfj@mail.biu.ac.il>
Subject: Authority of the Bavli
This is my first posting here, so I'll suffice with bibliographical
references:
1) Early Ashkenazic poskim viewed the Bavli as a Primus inter Pares and
not the only litmus test for Halakhic truth. This is pointed out (at
length) in I. Ta-shema, Minhag Ashkenaz Haqadmon, ch. I and in A.
Grossman, Hakhme ashkenaz HaRishonim. Both agree with my teacher, Prof
Soloveitchik on this point.
2) The Rav did not oppose piyyut. Indeed he was very opposed to the
deletion of piyyutim in the Birnbaum Mahzor when it was issued.
Hag Sameah.
Jeffrey Woolf
Dept of Talmud
>>Bar Ilan University
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 09:49:58 -0400
From: rjhendel@juno.com
Subject: Gematriahs
HM gave a good defense of why I call gematriahs
word games.
I would just add the technical point already pointed
out by HM that
>>Gematriahs are not reproducable (the way midrash
halacha is)
>>Gematriahs are NOT one of the 13 middoth by which
the Torah is learned
Russell
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 09:51:20 -0400
From: rjhendel@juno.com
Subject: Bird and Bees...questions of covering
We also had bees in a succah I was eating in
When they left the hostess commented how you could
finally hear the birds chirping
BEEing in a good mood I asked her husband
>>What is your opinion on using Birds nest for Scahah
He said What is the problem
And I said "It is a CLI (but not a human cli)"
Any thoughts?
Russell
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 09:55:04 -0400
From: rjhendel@juno.com
Subject: Recap of 3 meal controversy
On Thu, 23 Sep 1999 bilk1@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Russel J. Hendel says that the reason for Seudah Shlisit can not
> be Exodus 25:21 where the pasuk uses the word "hayom" (today) three
> times. The Gemara in Shabbas 117(b) says it is.
>
> bert l kahn
My point to Bert (already stated by HM and agreed with by Carl) is
that 3 meals is rabbinic and HENCE the derivation must be a clever
memory device not something real.
To refresh memories, the controversy is whether shabbath requires
>>minimal meals (2 per day + 1 /2 2 from Friday = 3)
>>Above minimum meals (pleasure) (2+ per day + 1 from Friday = 4)
Russell
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 09:06:03 -0400
From: rjhendel@juno.com
Subject: NISUCH HAMAYIM--Rav Hirsch's Grammatical Explanation
This one is due to Rav Hirsch.
Recall that in the 7th aliyah of Pinchas we have listed the
korbanoth for each day. These Korbanoth are all identical
except for about 7 letters. For example in most of the
korbanoth it says that we
>do the offerings with their usual LIBATION
while in one of the days it says
>do the offerings with their usual LIBATIONS
So we have an EXTRA S. If you count you will find that
3 of the extra letters are M Y M which spell MYM. Hence
we have a HINT for water (MYM) libation.
Now of course it is absurd to say that legal rules are
derived from word/letter games with letters (For there
are no such rules in Midrash halachah and furthermore
if you allowed laws to be derived from letters you could
do everything from freeing mamzerim and agunoth to
what not).
Rather the TRUE (Grammatical) explanation comes from
Rav Hirsch....Rav Hirsch points out that
>>>LIBATIONS is plural while
>>>LIBATION is singular
Similarly the Biblical phrases
>>>the libations according to their LAW vs
>>>the libations according to their LAWS
is a plural-vs singular issue.
Thus the Bible EXPLICITLY refers (by using the plural) to a
PLURAL (many) set of LIBATIONS and LAWS. We immediately
infer that there are not just OIL libations but OTHER libations
also. Hence we have the Chazalian statement
>We have here a hint to the water libation
Notice the extreme elegance of the grammatical approach..it is
clear, explicit, deep, without tension, illuminating and uses
principles that can be used in other areas. The WORD GAME
approach is flimsy, whimsical and leaves us unsatisfied. We
cannot generalize to other situations
Russell Hendel Phd ASA
RJHendel@Juno.Com
Moderator Rashi Is SImple
http://www.shamash.org/rashi/
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 08:55:41 -0400
From: rjhendel@juno.com
Subject: RE: WORD GAMES (they are grammar in disguise)
Rabbi Bechoffer's postings always make me chuckle.
On the one hand he states
>I was not planning on commenting on RRJH's derogation of "word games" in
>Chazal, but changed my mind. Look, Chazal, in one of the perspectives,
>derive the 39 melachos from a gematria, in one of the prespectives
derive
>Nisuch Hamayim from extra variant letters, and, I am sure, there are far
So it seems that Rabbi B disagrees with me. But then in the very next
sentence Rabbi B agrees with me
>>These are not word games.
>>It would behoove us, rather than to dismiss them as such and work
around
>>them, to alter our preconceived notions and genuinely try to understand
>>them (deductively vs. inductively).
In other words I do not OPPOSE the Limud. I rather oppose
the assertion that the limud is a Gematria or word game. I support
the thesis that the Limud is pure grammar.
In fact way back when on BaisTefilah I tried to get a thread going
explaining all these items.
Anyway we have on the floor Rabbi Bs Nisuch Hamayim and
Carl's SUCCAH SUCCAH which I shall explain.
I will be happy to explain all of them (if only you ask).
Again...the issue to me is that
>>>Chazal NEVER learned real halachah from Gematria
>>>Chazal ALWAYS learned from Grammar
When I say I oppose word games I am not opposing the limud
but rather the assertion that the limud is on a gematria...it is
based on grammar
Hope this clarifies my position
Russell
>>I was not planning on commenting on RRJH's derogation of "word games"
in
>>Nisuch Hamayim from extra variant letters, and, I am sure, there are
far
more examples that do not come to mind offhand. These are not word games.
It would behoove us, rather than to dismiss them as such and work around
them, to alter our preconceived notions and genuinely try to understand
them (deductively vs. inductively).
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 09:46:19 -0400
From: rjhendel@juno.com
Subject: RE: SCTH, SCTH SCTH
This is in response to Carl.
The Gmarrah in at least 3 places (Sanhedrin 3, Succah 6:9,
Zevachim 52) speaks about the controversy about
whether succahs need 3 or 4 walls (we paskin 3). The gmarrah
SEEMS to derive this from word games with full and deficient letters
After I made the comment that ALL midrash halacha is based on
SOLID grammar (or else is rabbinical and they are using an
asmachtha) Carl asked me about the above derivation.
Well I looked over the Gmarrah and it turns out that there
are at least 3 derivations. So let me present all of them.
DERIVATION #1: CONTROVERSY ON
**FUNCTION** OF SUCCAH
====================================================
Carl should be aware that ALL 4 cases of derivation from FULL
vs DEFICIENT spellings listed in Gmarrah Sanhedrin 3 and
Zevachim are rejected and replaced by other types of
derivations. (Ah...but I will still explain the FULL-DEFICIENT
derivation as based on Grammar anayway)
In the case of SUCCAH we have a verse in Isiah that speaks about
the purpose of a Succah
>>it will be for a
>>>>>>shade
>>>>>>covering hiding
>>>>>>from Rain
>>>>>>from wind
Thus one shittah counts 3 words (Shade, covering, rain-wind) while
the other counts 4 words (shade, covering, rain, wind).
But again this is not a controversy on Word games but rather on
CONCEPTS. Each collection of walls represents a different
potential for succah protection as follows
---One wall----with scach slanting downward to ground--provides
shade from SUN
---2 walls (shaped liked L)---provides privacy (say for husband wife
living---in other words a collection of L's in a field would allow each
couple privacy relative to other views)
---3 walls --- depth protection from rain (eg if the 3 walls are shaped
like a U then a person sitting in the bottom part of the U has protection
from sprinkles from the rain
---4 walls---protection from wind-rains.
In summary
1 wall--shade
2 walls-privacy
3 walls--depth protection from rain
4 walls--from wind storms
The view that only 3 walls are needed suffices with 3 walls for both
wind-storms and rain storms since they are not that different.
Note how the controversy is on the FUNCTION of the Succah vs a
word game
DERIVATION #2: FULL DEFICIENT
===========================
This one is due to Rav Hirsch. Rav Hirsch posits that
>Collective nouns spelled FULLY means with all components
>When spelled DEFICIENTLY means with some components
The simplest example is LEGS (of a table). If you spell it FULL (LEHGS)
then ALL 4 legs must be there while if you spell it DEFICIENTLY
(LEGS) then the table might have 3 legs.
Returning to SUCCAH we have that SCCTH spelled full would mean
that the SUCCAH would have to have all 4 walls.
But in fact succah is spelled DEFICIENTLY showing it has to have
3 walls.
There is no need for any word games...the other opinion holds that
we go by how the word is read (it is read full) and therefore we have
4 walls.
(There are many more subparts to this controversy but the above
is the simplest grammatical way of taking it).
The gmarrah further points out that SCTH is spelled full in the next
verse. The simplest way out of this is to observe as Rav Hirsch
observes that the following verse deals not with our obligations
but with what God gave us in the wilderness (he gave us cloud
succahs). Thus the reference would be that the succahs God gave
us were FULL and complete (But this has no legal bearing).
Finally I point out that there is an extra DEFICIENTLY SPELLED
SUCCAH in this verse which is used in Succah 9 to derive that
NESTED SUCCAHS are Passul (Because a succah within a
succah is full while a plain ordinary succah is deficient--just 1)
I should explain what I mean by no word games....my point after
reading this Hirsch is that we have a new grammatical rule...
EVERY full/deficient spelling is interpreted this way. In fact there
are many Rashis throughout Chumash which use this idea. One
such Rashi may be found at my Rashi website
>>>>>http://www.shamash.org/rashi/v4a17-25.htm
on the verse "I will remember my convenant with Jacob"
Jacob is spelled FULL. Assuming the well know equation that
>Jacob = Exilic Patriarch
we have that
> Jacob deficient = the exile
> Jacob Full= the exile with ALL its components (including
redemption---since redemption is the final phase of Gluth)
For more details on this rashi (including its form see my website)
DERIVATION #3: BASIC PRINCIPLES OF PRONOUNS
===========================================
Although I have not seen this anyplace it follows lucidly
from the basic principles that are used throughout the sifray
Any noun that is repeated (and not used as a pronoun) creates
a problem. Usually the repeated noun is taken to refer to an object
that doesn't meet all requirements--so for example if the verse says
BLOOD BLOOD the first BLOOD means the sacrifice blood has to
be proper while the 2nd blood means that ANY BLOOD (eg even
spilled blood is OK).
So too here. The word succath is repeated in the verse (a pronoun
should have been used eg
>>All citizens should sit in the succoth 7 days
or
>>In succoth sit seven 7 days all citizens should sit in THEM
But it says
>>In succoth sit 7 days all citizens should sit in succoth
Hence the 2nd succoth denotes according to the principle just
enunciated that EVEN if the succah is not complete (eg it only
has 3 walls) it is OK.
As the Succoth in the next verse, I follow Rav Hirsch who points out
that this SUCCOTH refers to the dwelling in the wilderness. hence
it could be used to infer the derivation on succah 9 (with which
tosafoth has so much difficulty). I would suggest
>Just as the succoth in the wildnerness were succoth
>but not nested succoth so too, since the succoth you
>make are for remembrance, they should not be nested
Again I note that the above is my idea and not found any place..but
it is consistent with midrashic ideas.
Sorry to be so long...my goal here was not to explain everything but
to make clear that Chazal never played word games but grammar
games
Russell Hendel; Phd ASA
RJHendel@Juno.Com
Moderator Rashi is SImple
http://www.shamash.org/rashi/
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 10:24:08 EDT
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Subject: Re: Recap of 3 meal controversy
Do you include halacha moshe misinai as rabbinic?
Gmar tov
Joel Rich
In a message dated 9/27/99 9:59:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
rjhendel@juno.com writes:
<<
> Russel J. Hendel says that the reason for Seudah Shlisit can not
> be Exodus 25:21 where the pasuk uses the word "hayom" (today) three
> times. The Gemara in Shabbas 117(b) says it is.
>
> bert l kahn
My point to Bert (already stated by HM and agreed with by Carl) is
that 3 meals is rabbinic and HENCE the derivation must be a clever
memory device not something real.
>>
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 09:26:11 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: RE: WORD GAMES (they are grammar in disguise)
On Mon, 27 Sep 1999 rjhendel@juno.com wrote:
> Rabbi Bechoffer's postings always make me chuckle.
I am happy to afford you mirth.
> On the one hand he states
>
> >I was not planning on commenting on RRJH's derogation of "word games" in
> >Chazal, but changed my mind. Look, Chazal, in one of the perspectives,
> >derive the 39 melachos from a gematria, in one of the prespectives
> derive
> >Nisuch Hamayim from extra variant letters, and, I am sure, there are far
>
> So it seems that Rabbi B disagrees with me. But then in the very next
> sentence Rabbi B agrees with me
>
> >>These are not word games.
> >>It would behoove us, rather than to dismiss them as such and work
> around
> >>them, to alter our preconceived notions and genuinely try to understand
> >>them (deductively vs. inductively).
>
> In other words I do not OPPOSE the Limud. I rather oppose the assertion
> that the limud is a Gematria or word game. I support the thesis that the
> Limud is pure grammar.
>
No, no, no. Chas v'shalom that I should agree with you on this (I'm sorry
if that detracts from the humorous aspect).
Your explanation of the source that RCS brought from Sukkah sidesteps the
issue by claiming the Gemara reneges on the limud. I am hardpressed to
accept this, as: 1. The Yerushalmi, if I recall correctly, does not
backpedal; 2. The machlokes of "eim la'mesora - eim la'mikra" is a
prevalent one, not readily marginalized.
I simply do not understand your derivation of Nisuch ha'Mayim based on
RSRH.
Of course, narrowly speaking, the moment I say "they are not word
games" and you say "they are not word games" you may glibly say we agree,
but you know very well that we do not.
> In fact way back when on BaisTefilah I tried to get a thread going
> explaining all these items.
>
> Anyway we have on the floor Rabbi Bs Nisuch Hamayim and Carl's SUCCAH
> SUCCAH which I shall explain.
>
We had another one, Shabbos 70a "Devarim, Ha'Devarim Eleh Ha'Devarim".
Ayain sham.
> Again...the issue to me is that
> >>>Chazal NEVER learned real halachah from Gematria
Shabbos 70a, take a look. There are other examples, but I am not at home
right now to check it out. Look in the Encyclopedia Talmudis under
Gematria, you might find some.
> >>>Chazal ALWAYS learned from Grammar When I say I oppose word games I
> am not opposing the limud but rather the assertion that the limud is on
> a gematria...it is based on grammar
>
> Hope this clarifies my position
>
It certainly does, and I certainly disagree.
In a later post you argue that Gematria is not one of the middos she'bahem
ha'torah nidreshes. A nice argument, but not necessarily correct: Those
are the 13 Middos of R' Yishmael - they do not commit any other Tanna to
the exclusivity of that system.
Mo'adim l'Simcha!
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 10:48:16 -0400
From: saul guberman <saulguberman@juno.com>
Subject: Re: Women's wear WHERE?
Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com> wrote-
>What are differences between men's and women's shrouds?
The main difference is the head covering. Men have a hood. Women have a
cap (bonnet) and a separate veil. All have pants,shirt, kittel and a
belt.
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 09:08:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Ashkenaz and Israel
--- TROMBAEDU@aol.com wrote:
> Same here. Are there any good texts on these matters you guys could
> recommend
> to those of us who didn't get to take Dr. Soloveitchick in BRGS?
Dr. S had high regard for Grossman, "Chachmei Ashkenaz harishonim".
(In contrast, he had very unkind words for Artscroll's history of Rishonim.)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 12:21:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject: Re: Women's wear WHERE?
I would think that there'd be an issur di'Oraisa in a woman wearing a kittel in
an environment where only men do. Which would be a much bigger motivation for
creating a different white garment for Yom Kippur womens' wear than paralleling
our custom of having different headgear for the tachrichim for each gender.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 27-Sep-99: Levi
micha@aishdas.org A"H
http://www.aishdas.org Pisachim 44b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light. Nefesh Hachaim II 9
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 12:38:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject: Re: DUI
Ohel notes that the "drinking is okay" attitude WRT Simchas Torah has been
the cause of more than one teenager becoming an alcoholic. The alcohol and
the general hollelus atmosphere also contributes to the use of marijuana
and "ecstasy" r"l.
In the words of a recent mailing: If this Simchas Torah is anything like the
past several, there are going to be some more drug addicts before it is over.
And there's no Simchah or Torah in that.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 27-Sep-99: Levi
micha@aishdas.org A"H
http://www.aishdas.org Pisachim 44b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light. Nefesh Hachaim II 9
Go to top.
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 12:41:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sammy Ominsky <sambo@charm.net>
Subject: Re: Baltimore / Washington Simhat Beit HaSho'eva
On Friday I announced that Wednesday evening, the fourth day of Hol HaMoed,
we would be having our annual Simhat Beit HaShoeva. Unfortunately, the
weather report calls for rain through the rest of the week here in Baltimore.
BUT...
It's also planned to be our Hannukat HaBayit (we just moved in 3 weeks ago),
and so will be held regardless of the weather, just perhaps moved inside.
Also, sadly, Shlomo's (the only butcher in town who carries halak Beit Yosef
meat) had a fire over Yom Tov (from the chinese restaurant next door), so it'll
be chicken or lamb instead of beef.
Again... that's 7.30 on Wednesday. All are welcome. Please try to be on time,
reading the Brit Yizhak takes a little while, and goes much faster with more
people.
6206 Cross Country Blvd.
Baltimore
call 410-345-3076 or mailto:sambo@charm.net
for directions.
Looking forward to meeting whoever can make it.
Moadim L'Simha!
---sam
Go to top.
********************
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version. ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/ ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]