Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 067

Tuesday, October 26 1999

• Re: Equal Pay for Equal Work
• Re: Re[2]: Equal Pay for Equal Work
• Re: Zemiros
• Fw: Mashiach must be coming...
• Re: Equal Pay for Equal Work/ Ona'ah
• Yoseid, ivris, who me?
• Re: Yoseid vs. Yated
• Re: Zemiros
• Re: Equal Pay for Equal Work/ Ona'ah
• Equal Pay for Equal Work
• Re: Equal Pay for Equal Work
• Re[2]: Zemiros -Tzur
• Mikvah Ladies (finis)
• Re: Elizabeth Dole and the Gender Gap
• Re: Re[2]: Zemiros -Tzur
• Re: Elizabeth Dole and the Gender Gap
• Re: Avodah V4 #60
• Chacham She'asar

I think it is Ono'oh. Yes. If the work is worth XYZ, v'ho'ra'aya, that is
what men get paid, then paying another substantially less may well be
Ono'oh.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: <Joelirich@aol.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 1999 12:25 PM

> It could be argued that they are not being shortchanged due to gender but
due
> to supply and demand factors - is that Ono'o?
>
> Kol Tuv,
> Joel Rich
>

In a message dated 10/26/99 2:34:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

<< 
 and on pure economic theory the decision to have this type of pay 
arrangement 
 would be justified if the expected economic benefit of having a gadol's son 
 on staff makes the additional investment worthwhile(as in " xyz must be a 
 great yeshiva, after all , abc's son is a rosh yeshiva there!") 
 
 Kol Tuv,
 Joel Rich<<
 
 Question:  What would Madison Avenue do with: "al tistakel bakankan, elo 
bema 
 sheyeish bo?
 
 Rich Wolpoe 
 
  >>
If my premise were correct, I think the real question is what would "amcha" 
do with it. For example, the fact that we would not think as highly of a 
yeshiva Ketana (or gedola) that had capable women (assume equally capable to 
men) teaching the boys gemara might not "make sense" but it's an economic 
fact.

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

PS I'm not defending the status quo, just explaining it. You can't legislate 
supply and demand very well in our orthodox communities.  If you could, why 
wouldn't the Rabbinic and/or lay leadership do so (especially in those 
segments where their authority is "unquestioned")

In v4n54, Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com> writes:
: with Hashem's correct Name, and even in the unlikely event that one did
: so with full kavana to be yotzay Birkas Hamzon doing so...

Does bentching require kavana? I would think that as long as there is no
kavanah not to be yotzei, one would fulfill the chiyuv.

RYBSoloveitchik expressed more than one a personal reluctance to have intent
not to fulfill a mitzvah. Not on halachic grounds, on emotional ones. Which is
why he said birchas Hallel together with the chazan, instead of repeating it
after the chazan. (The need is compounded by the fact that RYBS held like the
Gr"a that "baruch Hu ubaruch Shimo" is inappropriate. Otherwise, he could have
said it after the sheim, thereby introducing a hefsek.)

I would therefore think that RYBS would similarly be unhappy having to have
in mind not to be yotzei bentching while singing Tzur miShelo. But then,
he wasn't known for having Shabbos Zemiros at his table.

Tangential tidbit: Most people translate "Tzur" to mean "Rock", implying
permanence and dependability. The Gr"a understood it to be a masculine
conjugation of "tzurah", and refers to HKBH in the sense that we are made
in His Image.

The difference here would be whether the chorus of the song praises G-d for
reliably providing food, or is an acceptance of the responsibility to feed
others so as to live in the image of the One who just fed us.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 26-Oct-99: Shelishi, Vayera
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 59a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

Mashiach must be coming...From an anonymous correspondent...

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

----- Original Message ----- 
To: sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu 
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 1999 2:02 PM
Subject: Mashiach must be coming...


Dear Rabbi Bechhofer, 
I'm a lurker to Avodah. 
Feel free to bring up this Gemara on "specialization": 
I believe Sotah 49b, on the 15 signs of Mashiach's coming, 
under the item: "Truth will Fail", has an opinion (or concludes) 
that this means that there will be specialization in Halacha. 
I don't believe anyone else brought it up, but I might be mistaken. 
(I apologize that if I'm sending this email to the wrong address.) 
Keep up the interesting discussions! 
Shavua tov, 

--- "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer"
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
> I think it is Ono'oh. Yes. If the work is worth XYZ, v'ho'ra'aya,
> that is
> what men get paid, then paying another substantially less may well
> be
> Ono'oh.

1.  But if 50% of people--i.e., women--get paid less, can you really
say that XYZ is the only price?

2.  How do the halachot of Ona'ah work in concert with the laws of
supply & demand?  Generally we assume that supply & demand sets the
price, and the buyer and seller must vary it less than a sixth.  But
what if the laws of supply & demand base themselves on people's
irrational decision that men are worth more than women?  Clearly the
market is inefficient/wrong/etc.  But who says that Ona'ah should not
be applied to this market price?  (And aren't many markets
inefficient anyway?)

Kol tuv,
Moshe

=====

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

RGDubin commenting on my puzzlement re yated's preferred name writes:
<former.  Thus I would think that they would call their publication 
> Yoseid or some such rather than the very modern israeli-sepharadi style
> transliteration adopted.
	Do you also feel that all non-"zionist/hascoloh/modernizing" type
people
should speak Ivrisss?  I agree with you on the Jewish Press,  disagree on
the Jewish Observer,  and suggest that keeping a sefer in one's pocket
will obviate the need to peruse the checkout counter tabloids.  Your
suggestion of "Yoseid" however,  I consider a little silly.  Sorry.
Gershon>

sigh. just for the record, i neither "suggested" the alternative yoseid nor
do i think people should speak ivris (or not speak ivris, whatever - i'm
rather agnostic there, though conversational ivris would actually sound
kinda peculiar, probably because so rare). i was merely noting, not
caviling, that yated had made a transliterational choice that puzzled me,
and still puzzles me, considering their ideological predelictions and those
matters with which it tend to correlate.  no need to be sorry since i have
indeed made many silly suggestions in my time, and iyh will doubtless make
more.  but this wasn't one of them. your suggestion to carry around a pocket
sefer to whip out on supermarket lines is very well taken, halivai i should
have the strength to implement it, but those headlines are just so good.. as
for your unaccountable to me preferences for the JO, hey its a free country
and doubtless there is a readership eagerly anticipating their fix from the
next lamm slam or whatever. (however i did receive an off line communication
from a list member laying out a thoughtful case for working with the JO and
hopes for initiatives to upgrade its quality. I can't tell for certain
whether he was also holding his nose.) 

Mechy Frankel					W: (703) 325-1277
michael.frankel@dtra.mil			H: (301) 593-3949
mechyfrankel@zdnetonebox.com

Mechy Frankel wrote: <<
Thus I would think that they would call their publication Yoseid or
some such rather than the very modern israeli-sepharadi style
transliteration adopted.  >>

Actually I have heard Yeshivaleit in Israel call the paper Yoseid.  But
the more pronounced tendency to call it Yated probably is indicative 
of the fact that the Litvishe community in Israel has pretty much 
accepted modern Israeli Hebrew as a vehicle for communication
in all realms, including the Beis Medrash.  Shuirim in
Yiddish are rarely to be found in the Litvishe yeshivas these days
 - almost all are in modern Hebrew with occasional expressions 
in loshon ha-kodesh thrown in.   (The texts themselves are of course
quoted in loshon ha-kodesh, but I would not exactly call Yated a
"holy text".)   I think also that the need to accommodate baalei tshuva
(and their second-generation children) who know no Yiddish is 
another source of pressure on the Litvishe
Yeshivas to speak modern Hebrew.  On the other hand, Yiddish 
(and loshon ha-kodesh) reign very much supreme in the Chassidishe 
yeshivas and homes.

Why the *English* Yated is transliterated "yated" is an interesting 
question ....  probably because most of its editors and writers
live in EY, and therefore are subject to the observation above.

Kol tuv,
Shlomo Godick

In a message dated 10/26/99 2:17:47 PM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:

> Tangential tidbit: Most people translate "Tzur" to mean "Rock", implying
>  permanence and dependability. The Gr"a understood it to be a masculine
>  conjugation of "tzurah", and refers to HKBH in the sense that we are made
>  in His Image.
As the Gemarah Teitches Ein Tzur Ke-lokeinu, Ein Tzayor.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 10/26/99 3:28:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
moshe_feldman@yahoo.com writes:

<< 
 2.  How do the halachot of Ona'ah work in concert with the laws of
 supply & demand?  Generally we assume that supply & demand sets the
 price, and the buyer and seller must vary it less than a sixth.  But
 what if the laws of supply & demand base themselves on people's
 irrational decision that men are worth more than women? 
=========
they do

========

 Clearly the
 market is inefficient/wrong/etc. 

==============
nope - the market is efficient and correct, it's the people who are making 
inefficient use of equivalent resources (perhaps you meant this and I'm being 
overly medakdek in your lashon - it's just I often see the impersonal 
"market" being blamed for our foibles)
===============


 But who says that Ona'ah should not
 be applied to this market price?  (And aren't many markets
 inefficient anyway?)
 
 Kol tuv,
 Moshe >>

=====
Kol Tuv

Joel Rich
======

  >>
If my premise were correct, I think the real question is what would "amcha" 
do with it. For example, the fact that we would not think as highly of a 
yeshiva Ketana (or gedola) that had capable women (assume equally capable to 
men) teaching the boys gemara might not "make sense" but it's an economic 
fact.

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich<<

Ok, let's grant you this, If  rabbi X is defacto fund-raising in addtion to 
being an educator, then one could quantify his role as follows:

    Rabbi X and Mrs. Y are both good teachers.  Since Rabbi X ALSO attracts 
    money as a defacto fund-raiser, therfore we feel he is entitled to 5% of the 
    additional funds he raises.  Then one COULD argue equal pay for equal work.  
    Rabbi X, by virtue of his standing in the community, is an incentive for 
    parents to patronize the school. 

Lemoshol: I think George Steinbrenner traded David Wells for Roger Clemens - 
NOT because he thought Clemens was far superior on the field - but because he 
was a bigger drawing card at the gate...Clemens creates more excitement for the 
fans, thereby generation more revenue.

In fact, one local day school hired a highly qualified social worker to teach, 
because in the back of their minds, they knew he could do guiance counseling, 
too.  Certinaly that was a valid consideration of value added.

Practically speaking, however, this is usually NOT the case in schools.  In 
fact, I'll bet the loyalty and devotion of many of the female educators out 
there outweigh most of the publicity value of having Rabbi X on the staff.  And 
as we know from both baseball and Yeshivos, super stars are less likely to hang 
around as long.



Rich Wolpoe

In a message dated 10/26/99 2:47:55 PM EST, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

> In fact, one local day school hired a highly qualified social worker to 
teach,  
>  because in the back of their minds, they knew he could do guiance 
counseling,
>  too.  Certinaly that was a valid consideration of value added.

I hope it was clearly stipulated as such in his job description (IOW hours 
expected in that field).  OTOH a qualified social worker does bring extra 
benefit in the classroom as well (depending on the students).

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind  

Indeed, I understood it as a sort of double entendre; meaning Tzur AND implying 
Tzayor...

Rich Wolpoe 


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

As the Gemarah Teitches Ein Tzur Ke-lokeinu, Ein Tzayor.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

Personally (speaking as micha@aishdas.org, not owner-avodah@aishdas.org),
I'm tired of the yoetzet conversation, not having seen anything of substance
added to the conversation for quite a while. Instead, we've branched out into
criticizing periodicals, bringing MO vs RW issues into unrelated conversations,
and other less-than-achdus-promoting topics. The volume is just wearisome,
and makes it harder to follow other threads.

That said, I'd like to close the mikvah lady discussion by pointing out that
the system is in use in Fairlawn, NJ. A small town, but not my own. Give
Carl half a cigar. Chana, if you have any questions about how to make it
workable, please ask Rabbi Yudan. (WRT physical evidence, they have a cubby
system, so that they are referred to by cubby number, not by name.)

Also, we're belaboring the point, as I also recommended the local T"H
course instructor, the Rabbi's wife, women trained in a "T"H para-"
system... My point was that you could introduce a liason between the shy
wife and the rav instead of trying to replace the rav. The idea that
poskot are required to solve the problem is untrue. And, Chana Henkin
is clear she does not intend for yoatzot to be poskot. She writes in
<http://www.virtual.co.il/channels/torah/feature2.htm>:
: women to address questions of hilkhot nidda in practice-we should stop using
: the term poskot. I turn to the rabbis and to the women who are using the term
: and I beg them to stop. IT IS NOT ACCURATE, not constructive and it will not
: result in poskot. ... (emphasis added)

So, all the verbiage here defending the idea that it is necessary for a woman
to pasken these shi'eilos in order to get better observance of T"H appears to
be defending a situation other than the recent development that started this
conversation. It would appear that Chana Henkin's position is similar to mine
-- we don't need a poskah, "merely" a mechaneches of d'var mitzvah.

To be honest, though, she sees it as a step along the path to poskot, and
later called the application of the label "premature". Which just means
that her justification for uprooting "kevodah bas melech p'nimah" and
the traditional ban against giving women sh'rirus appears to be elsewhere.
Defending the agenda of producing poskot requires divorcing it from tangential
issues such as a crisis in T"H observance.

Speaking of defending... This is iy"h the last I'll say on the subject on
Avodah. I make this public statement in order to be mevayeish myself into
actually shutting up. If you have any questions about what I wrote here,
email me privately.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 26-Oct-99: Shelishi, Vayera
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 59a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com> writes:
: So we have a connundrum.  We need to spend more money
: then we can ever possibly receive inorder to provide
: quality education.

I think we're going to be facing a real crisis sometime between now and
the 5780 school year. Population growth is exponential -- for that matter,
family size is still growing. The economic boom years are a thing of the
past -- I may be earning far more money than my father did at my age, but
less earning power. We also have an increasing percentage of our population
heading for fiscally low income jobs; be it in k'lei kodesh, or in whatever
they can get on a trade-school (e.g. COPE) degree.

Malthus ended up predicting a disaster that centuries later has still yet
to happen. The Malthusian effect in chinuch, though, is already being felt.
Unless the US approves school vouchers, we may eventually be forced to return
to post-school limudei kodesh. (Although far more hours than the greenhorns
sent their kids for.)

I'd love to hear a cause for believing in a more optimistic future. OTOH, if
it pushes more Jews to move to Israel, perhaps it's not so bad... <half-grin>

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 26-Oct-99: Shelishi, Vayera
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 59a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

In a message dated 10/26/99 2:58:20 PM EST, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

> Indeed, I understood it as a sort of double entendre; meaning Tzur AND 
> implying 
>  Tzayor...
>  
See the MaHaRShA on the Gemara (Brochos 10a).

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 10/26/99 3:11:59 PM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:

> I think we're going to be facing a real crisis sometime between now and
>  the 5780 school year. 

By that time I hope we will see the fulfillment of the Possuk "Lo Yelamdu Oid 
Ish Es Rei'eihu..."

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

P.S. there is the 5% endowment that is being circulated.

>Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 18:06:29 -0700 (PDT)
>From: harry maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
>Subject: RE: Yoatzos Neeman or Female Rabbis
>
>- --- Akiva Atwood <atwood@netvision.net.il> wrote:
>
><snip snip snip>
>
>It would be helpful if there would be a comparison of
>the Nishmat program to the Charedi Programs in all
>their details and what the specific objections RW has
>of the Nishmat program.
>

The essense of the RW objection appears to be that it **IS** the Nishmat
program, and is therefore unkosher by definition.


hg



.............................................................................
                             Hershel Ginsburg, Ph.D.
              Licensed Patent Attorney and Biotechnology Consultant
                          P.O. Box 1058 / Rimon St. 27
                                  Efrat, 90435
                                    Israel
              Phone: 972-2-993-8134        FAX: 972-2-993-8122
                         e-mail: ginzy@netvision.net.il
.............................................................................

In V4#52 Shaul Weinreb wrote:

>I have always thought that the reason why the rule of Chacham she'assar
>... doesn't apply to the Chicago eruv dispute is because the primary
>objection of Rav Ahron is based on the Shita of the Rishonim that any road
>that is 15 amos wide was a reshus harabbim de'oraysoh.  This is an old
>well known machlokes rishonim, and the poskim who are in support of the
>Eruv are relying on the Mattirim, upon whom much of klal Yisrael has
>relied for centuries.

Boruch shekivanta. I believe your rationale is in accord with the Oruch
Hashulchan's explanation
[YD 242:63] of why Rambam and Tur do not mention the halacha of chacham
she'asar. He
believes that they hold chacham sheasar is no longer generally applicable
because it only
applies where the oser and the matir differ in svara on a matter as to which
they are not relying
on earlier authorities, but not where they differ in their view on which of two
previously
established competeing shitos should be followed. Because of the proliferation
of sifray halacha
and shu"t, Oruch Hashulchan believes (and ascribes to Rambam and Tur the view)
that no one
ever paskens from svara anymore, but always relies on some prior opinion, so
chacham
she'asar does not apply. 

I don't know the precise basis for R' Aharon's opposition to the Chicago eiruv
and I prefer not to
discuss that particular case, but if his rationale is only as you say, chacham
she'asar may not
apply according to Oruch Hashulchan (and perhaps other authorities).

But please consider the following hypothetical (which is really made up and not
meant to reflect
on any particlar people or place) and see if you come to the same conclusion:

A local g'vir, askan and Federation bigshot of the town of Yenemsvelt, and his
wife, feel strongly
that shabbos without an eiruv is unreasonably burdensome and confining to
mothers of young
children and unpleasant for everyone else. The g'vir declares that "the lack of
an eiruv in
Yenemsvelt is ruining the oneg shabos of the town," and announces that
Yenemsvelt will get an
eiruv. He and his wife garner grass roots support among local ba'alay batim and
secure the
endorsement of his brother-in-law, the m'nahel/administrator of the local
yeshiva (grades K-12 +
bays medrash). A number of local shul rabbis "get with the program," some
believing that the
eiruv is a good, halachically sound idea, some dubious, but fearing for their
parnasa if they
cross the g'vir and the m'nahel, and some privately opposed, but determined to
work within "the
system" to insure that the inevitable Yenemsvelt eiruv is properly constructed,
maintained and
utilized. None of the dayanim or roshay yeshiva in Yenemsvelt support the eiruv
and some
actively oppose it.

A godol baTorah who resides in the community is asked by several  ba'alay batim
whether the
proposed Yenemsvelt eiruv is permissible. Well aware of the shitos permitting
such eiruvin over
the centuries, the gadol paskens that it is forbidden in Yenemsvelt based in
part on the
following considerations:


[1] Many of the heterim of prior generations were based on the assumption that
almost all
rishonim accept Rashi's requirement of shishim ribo for r'shus harabim d'oraisa.
In fact,
however, with the disclosure of previously unavailable manuscripts, etc., the
Be'ur Halacha and
others have established [a] that a substantial number of important rishonim
disagree with Rashi,
holding that it is only the width of the roads that is relevant, and [b] that
some interpret Rashi's
requirement to apply over a period of time (i.e., it is sufficient if 600,000
traverse some part of the length of a given road over a week's time; it need not occur daily) such
that even according
to Rashi there is r'shus harabim d'oraisa in Yenemsvelt. These discoveries call
into question the
precedential value of historical rulings and require evaluation of the issue de
novo.

[2] Many matirim of previous generations were motivatied in part, either
explicitly or implicitly,
by the extreme hardships that the laws of hotza'a impose on people who generally
did not have
in-house ovens, water sources or toilet facilities, but had to go outside the
house to pick up the
chulent, get a drink of water and relieve themselves. Had these hardships not
been a factor (as
they are not in our day) and had the only issues been those of convenience and
sociability,
they probably would not have been as quick to matir. Again, the changed
circumstances require
evaluation of the issue de novo.

[3] Based on his knowledge of the Jewish community, he believes there is a
substantial
likelyhood that the availability of an eiruv will result in [a] a significant
decline in the
ruach shabas in Yenemsvelt and [b] violation of shabos laws, such as use of
umbrellas, playing
soccer in the grass, etc.

[4] He believes that the populist drive for the eiruv, i.e., the imposition of
the eiruv on the local
rabbinate by ba'alay batim that are not guided by Torah considerations, must be
stopped in
order to restore the proper lines of halachic authority and kavod haTorah.

The godol thus holds, based on his de novo review of the halachic issues on
their merits and
considering the related matters identified above, that Yenemsvelt constitutes
r'shus harabim
d'oraisa and that the eiruv is not permitted. Does chacham she'asar apply? I.e.,
does another
chacham, consulted by the g'vir and his supporters who don't like the gadol's
p'sak, have the
authority to permit the eiruv? (Does it make a difference if the other chacham
is not from
Yenemsvelt and can't evaluate the local considerations referred to in points 3
and 4?)

One could argue that in a situation such as this the rationale of the Oruch
Hashulchan doesn't
apply with the same force because [i]  developements in our knowledge and
understanding of
the rishonim, as well as changes in the way we live, over the last 75-100 years
put us back at
square one and makes the historical rulings on eiruv of tenuous relevance, and
[2] unique local
factors have to be factored into deciding what is halachically permissible for
this particular
community at this particular time. This leaves the posek with only the abstract
views of the
rishonim, but without relevant guidance from the decisions of the poskim in
analogous concrete
situations, and the situation begins to call for a p'sak based on shikul hadas
and s'vara. Is it
clear that chacham she'asar doesn't apply?

In light of some of my prior posts on this subject, I want to say that I respect
and have no
quarrel with those who use modern urban eiruvin or the rabbonim involved in
their erection and
maintenance (including in Chicago).   I have been very troubled by the politics
and machinations
surrounding the initial decision to install eruvin in certain situations with
which I am familiar, but
my main ongoing grievance is with people who are insensitive to those who don't
use the eiruv
(e.g., the shul candyman who gives out non-edible trinkets to the kids on the
assumption that
they can all carry them home), and rabbanim who close their eyes to the need for
eiruv
education so that people know what they still can't do on shabos even if there
is an eiruv.

Finally, I want to correct some mistakes that I made in a prior post on chacham
shea'asar that
were called to my attention in an off-list communication. First S'day Chemed is
not machria
between the shita of the Netziv (that chacham she'asar applies even if the
chacham offerred his
opinion without being asked) and the opposing view (that a sh'ayla is required).
He
simply mentions both views. Second, the S'day Chemed does not identify Urim
V'tumim as
holding that opposing view, but mentions another authority. Third, according to
the shita that
chacham she'asar is based on kovod chachamim, it may not necessarily follow that
the
doctrine applies even if the chacham wasn't asked for his opinion.

Kol tuv,
David

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


[ 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         ]