Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 297

Sunday, January 16 2000

• Re: Matbayah Tefilah (Ans. to JRosenbaum)
• Re: Intrinsic value: kashrus vs. orlah
• Re: Talking in Shul - another issue
• Re: Conservatives
• Re: Avodah V4 #288
• Re: Who was Rabbi Kahati?
• MO and the Rav
• Re: Modern Orthodox narrow mindness
• RE: Modern Orthodox narrow mindness
• Re: MO vs Chareidi
• Re: Charedi vs. MO
• Re: hebrew pronunciation
• Re: Mixed Seating
• Re: trefilas haderech - internet
• Re: Motzoei Shabbos
• Milah vs. Pregnancy
• re: Hebrew Calendar
• Re: Charedi vs. MO (was Re: How is Rav Soleveitchik ztzl consideredmodern Or...
• Re: Modern Orthodox narrow mindness
• Mixed seating

In a message dated 1/16/00 10:19:30 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
rjhendel@juno.com writes:

> So it should be made clear that women need 3 five minute
>  periods a day to say Tefilah--and that is it (five 
>  minute periods are not hard to find)
>  
According to the Shulchan Oruch Orach Chayim 106, women are "obligated" in 
Shacharis and Mincha and not Maariv.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

On Sun, Jan 16, 2000 at 11:18:45AM -0500, jjbaker@panix.com wrote:
: So, until there was a tzivui to override intentional wounding, the
: Torah principle against self-infliction of wounds prevented Avraham
: from doing milah.

You are weakening the imperative for milah because it wasn't commanded yet,
but not weakening the issur. I think that just begs the question. Again
you're saying milah is less inherently an issue than the rest of Torah.

The subject of eino metzuveh vi'oseh is a side-issue, it doesn't just evaporate
because we've resolved the subject of Avraham and b'ris milah. The question is:
If an both a metzuveh and an eino metzuveh get sechar by doing the mitzvah,
and therefore we can assume they gain from it, then why is only one metzuveh?
Or to put it another way, given that one is metzuveh and one isn't, how do
their relationship to the mitzvah vary -- and the solution must account for
both getting sechar.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 16-Jan-00: Cohen, Beshalach
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 100a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 13

It would be our pleasure to have you visit with us for a Shabbos if you really
want to hear some serious talking in shul.
steve
Pawshas@aol.com wrote:

> Regarding the issue of talking in shul - I wonder whether there isn't a
> contributing factor which has little to do with the shul, and more to do with
> the people involved.
>
> As someone who spent 24 years in various shuls on Long Island (and New Jersey
> for a year) I have seen plenty of talking in Shul. For the last 2 1/2 years
> in Rhode Island, though, I have seen comparatively little.
>
> At the same time, I have also noticed that people outside of the New York
> area have less of a tendency to interrupt others in mid-sentence, and even
> less of a tendency toward slanderous gossip. As a matter of fact, people
> speak less, in general.
>
> I don't mean, Chas veShalom, to say that all New Yorkers are rude or mean.
> That's a tired, and fairly incorrect, cliche. All I mean is that there seems
> to be less of an emphasis on reining in one's speech in "the city that never
> sleeps," as a general rule. This also seems to fit the testimony of other
> posters regarding some "beyond New York" shuls, such as Beth Jacob in Atlanta.
>
> If this is correct, then it might pay to focus more on the self-control
> issues than on the shul-specific issues. Less of a focus on "This is HaShem's
> House, how could I talk" and more on "Do I pause to think before I speak, in
> general."
>
> I hope I am not insulting anyone; it is an observation I have been building
> over time, and it seems correct lan"d.
>
> Mordechai Torczyner
> Cong. Ohave Shalom, YI of Pawtucket, RI http://members.tripod.com/~ohave
> HaMakor! http://www.aishdas.org/hamakor Mareh Mekomos Reference Library
> WEBSHAS! http://www.aishdas.org/webshas Indexing the Talmud, Daf by Daf

--- Chana/Heather Luntz
<Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >However, Janet herself explained that she was
> thinking of R. Eliezer
> >Berkovits.
> >
> >>He was one of the ones I was thinking about;  I
> was told that he joined
> >>Masorti in the last years of his life.  (The
> person who told me was
> >>very disappointed in R Berkovits's move, and so I
> definitely trust he
> >>verified the issue.  I would love to hear
> otherwise, though.)

I have posted on this subject in the past but I feel
it bears repeating in the above context in order to
try and understand a very complex individual.

I had Dr. Berkovitz for four philosophy classes back
in the 1960's.  I was a big fan of his and to this day
I have mixed feelings about him. He was considered by
academia to be one of only two major Orthodox Jewish
philosophers, the other being the Rav. But, he was
considered to be an Apikores by R. Mordechai Gifter,
RY of Telshe. (I saw this in a Ksav Yad by R. Gifter,
written in a letter to a talmid who "defected" to
HTC.) As I recall Dr. Berkovitz was misquoted on a
Hashkafic concept.  He was supposed to have said, "The
Torah has to be ADAPTED to the times." When I asked
him about it he angrily corrected it. What he HAD said
is, "The Torah has to be APPLIED to the times." It's
easy to see how easy it is to discredit someone with a
misquote. I remember being upset at the Shem Rah being
spread against this Talmid Chacham and Musmach of R.
Lazer Yudel Finkel. I hadn't even known then his by
now well publicized relationship with the Sride Esh.
BUT I did know about his attempt to solve the Agunah
problem. I remember specificly the day when he said
there are no Gedolim today.  When one of his students
asked him "well, what about R. Moshe Finestien", his
answer was, "He's not a Gadol... If he's a Gadol than
I'm a Gadol!" then he proceeded to tell us about his
approach to R. Moshe with his "solution" for Agunos
and the rejection by R. Moshe.  R. Moshe had said
something to the effect that even though he brought a
viable Halachic solution to the problem, we have no
precedent to use an obvious soluition like this one
and since it hadn't been used to date by earlier
greater generations, we can't use it today.  Dr.
Berkovitz said it was at that point that he rejected
R. Moshe's status as a Gadol.  He said a real Gadol
would have had the courage to implement a Halachicly
sound solution to a terrible problem.

In later years, just before his death, I saw Dr.
Berkovitz's name on the Marquis of a solidly
Conservative Synogogue touting him as a weekend
Scholar-in-residence. This does not mean he defected.
It probably means he was following his own Shitah that
you are allowed to interact with Conservatives in any
and all venues as long as you did not violate Halacha
and preached Torah. Although he is the founding father
of the largest Orthodox Shul in Skokie, he used to
advocate students taking Non-mechitza shuls, which put
him on opposite sides of the fence with R. Aaron
Soloveichik and was R. Aaron's biggest enemy in the
closing days of his tenure as RY of HTC.

HM


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

> >
> > The problem is that a majority (possibly a large
> > majority) of the
> > conversions done by the Rabbanut are either
> > conversions for marriage (with
> > no real intention of Kabalat Ohl Malchut Shamayim),
> > conversions for work
> > (foreign workers who want to remain here), or
> > conversions for convenience
> > (Russian Olim -- lets just dunk them in the mikvah
> > and the problems go
> > away).


Could you please present your evidence for this slander on the Orthodox 
Rabbinut.  I assume you have done extensive studies of conversions in 
Israel, and can present your sources and research methodology to this group.

If you can't then you should apologize for making this claim.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

--- David Herskovic <crucible@talk21.com> wrote:
> Can someone please give me a short biography of
> Rabbi Kahati the author
> of the commentary on the mishne.

I think he was a postal worker in the Israeli postal
system.  (I don't think he ever shot anyone, though)
:)

HM
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

	I thank those who pointed out that while the Rav believed there is
religious significance to the State of Israel (which I listed as one of
Rabbi Riskin's three defining characteristics of MO), the Rav never embraced
the idea that Medinat Yisrael is reishit tzmichat geulateinu.  My posting
erroneously implied that the Rav had embraced that formulation of the
religious significance of Medinat Yisrael, for which I apologize.  Rabbi
Riskin embraced that formulation (and I presume that he still does), but
there are certainly other ways or expressions by which people in the MO
world acknowledge that the State of Israel has religious significance.  (I
also think that this point as a defining line between MO and RW is becoming
blurred, because the RW world has largely moved away from what I would call
the pure anti-Zionism of the Satmar Rebbe, to a more nuanced notion of anti-
or non-Zionism.  The latter probably would have been deemed Zionist in
Europe between the wars, or in Israel until the 1970's, and is probably
deemed Zionist by Satmar/Sigheter chassidim and other followers of Rav Yoel
Teitelbaum, ZT"L.)

	On the other hand, I am not persuaded by those who wrote that
<<while RYBS taught that the Medinah had religious significance, he did NOT
define that significance in terms of any messianic notions.>>  In an address
to a Mizrachi Convention, the Rav said (according to an English translation
of a Hebrew translation of the Yiddish original):  <<If I now identify with
the Mizrachi, against my family tradition, it is only because, as previously
clarified I feel that Divine Providence ruled like <Joseph> and against his
brothers; that He employs secular Jews as instruments to bring to fruition
His great plans regarding the land of Israel.>>  (The Rav Speaks, p.36.)  To
me, this last clause sounds like it is based upon messianic notions.  I
presume, however, that it sounds different to others.  

	I am also not persuaded by the statement that <<the Rav was unique
and cannot be fit conveniently into a label, MO or otherwise.  He
transcended many of the communal divisions within Orthodoxy and did so by
choice.>>  Many (if not most, if not all) people are unique, but that does
not necessarily preclude labeling them, as long as one defines the label.
Based upon Rabbi Riskin's three-pronged definition of MO, I think the Rav
can accurately be labeled MO -- but this does not, of course, mean that
those three points define the full range of the Rav's beliefs or teachings,
or that the Rav would agree with everything said by everyone else who
satisfies Rabbi Riskin's definition of MO.  On the other hand, if one
defined MO as rejecting halacha and mesora, the Rav could not legitimately
be labeled MO -- but I do not think this is a legitimate definition of MO.
I also note that institutionally, the Rav clearly associated himself with
the MO world, not the RW world:  of the four principal
institutions/organizations with which the Rav was engaged -- (in
alphabetical order) Chinuch Atzmai, Maimonides, Mizrachi and YU -- the three
to which he dedicated the most time and effort were unquestionably part of
the MO world, not the RW world.

	Finally, I think it is inappropriate to refer to Rabbi Lamm, in
postings to Avodah, as Dr. Lamm.  Particularly considering how generously
some on this list award <<R>>'s, some might infer (mistakenly, I presume)
that referring to Rabbi Lamm without using the title <<Rabbi>> is intended
to deligitimize him or his views.

Jeff Zuckerman


_______________________________________________________________________
This e-mail, including any attachments, may contain information that is
protected by law as privileged and confidential, and is transmitted for
the sole use of the intended recipient.  If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying
or retention of this e-mail or the information contained herein is
strictly prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please
immediately notify the sender by telephone or reply e-mail, and
permanently delete this e-mail from your computer system.  Thank you.

--- Tobrr111@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 1/14/00 4:06:05 PM Eastern
> Standard Time, Harry Maryles 

> maybe, just maybe, there
> is legitimacy in the 
> haredi position as well.    Furthermore, they find
> the need to portray 
> Haredim as primitive and backward ("let them lock
> themselves in the closet 
> and use a seeing eye dog when they go out") instead
> of trying to understand 
> them. If anyone would take out a few minutes to
> study the relevant halachos 
> and hanhogos they should have a very easy time
> understanding why for certain 
> communities an Internet ban makes perfect sense.

Maybe. 

As I indicated earlier everyone has a right to be
Noheg any Chumra they want, as long as they don't try
and IMPOSE their Chumra on everyone else.  As fior my
"Portrayl" I was simply using the "ad absurtum" method
of arguing the incorrectness of their position, all
the while agreeing to their right to hold it.  

Look, if I believe that my position is the correct one
I am entitled to argue in favor of it's acceptence by
all, with everythying that is availabe at my disposal
to TRY and prove my point. If I am seen to be wrong by
others, they should try and convince me otherwise,
including using the "ad absurdum" argument against me.
It's called debate.

HM
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

> Look, if I believe that my position is the correct one
> I am entitled to argue in favor of it's acceptence by
> all, with everythying that is availabe at my disposal
> to TRY and prove my point. If I am seen to be wrong by
> others, they should try and convince me otherwise,
> including using the "ad absurdum" argument against me.
> It's called debate.

I would disagree that "ad absurdum" has any place in an intellectual
discussion.

Debate is about trying to prove one's position, not about reaching a greater
understanding of Emes.

Akiva


A reality check a day keeps
the delusions at bay (Gila Atwood)

===========================
Akiva Atwood, POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274

In vol 295 we were inforned that it is MO who are intolerant, in vol. 296 we 
learned that the Chareidi world shelters drug smuggelers and wife beaters, 
and we have once again gotten involved in the all important taxonomic 
distinctions among the various branches of Orthodoxy - am I the only one who 
is wondering what is the point of these conversations?  

Please forgive me but I think I need to puncture some
balloons.  I am quite sick of all this Chareidi/MO  RW/LW.
As though Rav Daneil Shiloh Shalit"a or Rav Ya'akov Ariel
Shalit"a or Rav Yitzchak Barde'a Shalit"a or any other rabbi
associated with MO or Bnei Akivah or Dati Leumi is less
Shomer Mitzvot than Rav Wosner Shalit"a or Rav Elyashiva
Shalit"a.

Rav Aharon Yitzchak HaCohen Kook was actually far more RW in
his psika than many present day so-called RW poskim.  But he
was a Zionist so this "allowed" people to say all kinds of
things.

So RW have their Shabab (chareidi boys who don't really keep
mitzvot and are general layabouts, as they can't even work)
and DL have Kippot Grush (dati leumi kids who have a kippa
that's barely there, though they do go to the army and
work).

And RW have problem kids and DL have problem kids.

And we are one Am Yisrael and it's time we realized this.

Yes, there are differences of Hashkafah but since when has
that made any rabbi "better" than another?  Eilu Ve'eilu
Divrei Elokim Chayim -- and we should remember that!!!

Reading letters by Rav Kook ZT"L and some of the posts in
the latest issues of Avodah, and seeing the ban on Internet
has brought fwd, IMHO one of the basic true differences
between so-called Chareidi and Dati Leumi:  Yirah vs. Ahava.

The term Chareidi is used by RW to denote "Chareid Lidvar
Hashem" -- fear, or Avodah MiYir'ah -- and the emphasise on
Gedeirot and Harchakot "b/c who knows where our Yetzer could
lead us?"

The Dati Leumi model is the Avodah Me'Ahavah, as Rambam
notes, a very difficult path.  That is why Rabbi Akiva is
the model for Bnei Akiva, he who taught us the ultimate
limits of Ahavat Hashem "Afillu Hu Notel Et Nafshecha".
This brings about a joy in Avodah that many outside looking
in cannot comprehend.  In all my years, hearing lectures
from some of the greatest rabbis of RW and MO, one of the
most impressive was the lecture of a rabbi in one of the
high-school Yeshivot who was teaching the teenage girls to
run after mitzvot out of a joy of Kiyum Mitzvot that was
truly unique.  As he put it:  Hashem has given us an
opportunity to embrace a Mitzva -- let us rejoice!  Ivdu Et
Hashem BeSimha.

There is much more to say, but this is long enough for now.

Shoshana L. Boublil

R' Ari Z. Zivotofsky writes:

I am interested in both the historical development of  the various
pronunciations of Hebrew as well as the halachik ramifications. I find
it perplexing that despite the fact that most of the early settlers of
modern Israel were Ashkenazim, the Sephardik pronunciation became the
dominant one. Does anyone know how this came about (historically?
motivations?)? Is anyone familiar with scholarly and halachik research that discusses 
how and when the various pronunciations of Hebrew developed and which are more 
"authentic"?

Remember that the early Zionist aliya of Ashkenazim was mostly Jews rebelling 
against the galut and against the Yiddishkeit they knew in Europe.  So they rebelled 
against Yiddish and even against the East-European golus pronunciations of Hebrew. 
By the way, the Sefaradim were the majority and were here first, which one might call 
a justification for accepting their pronunciation, although I don't think the rebels had 
that in mind. 

As to history and authenticity, I recommended once before a book by Harav BenZion 
Hakohen,  Sefat Emet, Siftei Kohen,  (Yerushalayim, TShM"Z) and recommend it 
again.  The author, a Rav from Djerba, uses only Jewish sources, Haza"l, rishonim, 
aharonim. While it does not have the official stamp of University scholarship and 
might not complete with Prof. Morag (z"l), it does have the information and is written 
from a "religious" rather than a "scientific" viewpoint (not that they necessarily 
contradict). 

D.

R' Steve Katz wrote:
Friends who are parents of Chaim Berliners have told me that they had to
make their kid's chasanah separate seating because if not the Rosh
HaYeshiva would not come. Period.


I too heard of this happening to a friend.  But, in my story, the boy's father knew the 
Rosh Yeshiva from when they were in yeshiva together.

He told his son to tell the Rosh Yeshiva that he agreed to have separate seating if at 
the Rosh Yeshiva's wedding there was separate seating. 

He  had mixed seating and the Rosh Yeshiva came.

Who says that times haven't changed?

D.

I note that the posted tefilat haderekh for the internet consistently uses be-shalom 
rather than le-shalom.  Is this significant?

 R' Gershon Dubin questions on the use of the term Motzaei Shabbat. 
Gershon obviously doesn't live in Israel or at least doesn't hear Israeli radio or TV.  

In modern, post-Zionist, hiloni, Israel, Motzaei Shabbat no longer exist.
The radio and TV announce programs to take place on leil shishi at 10 PM. The term 
Leil Shabbat doesn't exist and their leil shishi ends at midnight on Friday night. ( I'll 
ignore that, in Hebrew, leil shishi means Thursday evening)  They also inform of 
programs that will take place on Shabbat at 11 PM.  The Shabbat they are talking 
about ends at midnight on Saturday night.  I often put on the radio or TV a few hours 
after havdala to hear the news and sometimes hear the announcer say Shabbat 
Shalom. But, ladun le-khaf zekhut, maybe they're just more machmir than Rabbenu 
Tam.

A recent post from R' Jonathan Baker pointed out that Milah is an
inflicted wound, and that after that wound is inflicted, the person is in
the category of a Choleh Sheyesh Bo Sakana - a patient who is in mortal
danger, and for whom any issur (except the Big Three) may be violated in
order to protect his health.

Now, let's contrast that with a woman who voluntarily becomes pregnant.
Upon becoming pregnant, it is guaranteed that at some future point she
will go into labor, placing her into this same category of Cholah Sheyesh
Bah Sakana. As I recall, it is because of this Mortal Danger factor that
the Torah exempts women from Piryah V'Rivyah -- no one should be forced
to place herself in mortal danger.

Is there a contradiction here? Why are males obligated in Milah despite
the danger, while females are exempted because of this danger? Why are
women exempt (despite the fact that any given act of sexual relations
will probably *not* cause a pregnancy) while men are obligated (despite
the 100% chance that the baby will be a Choleh Sheyesh Bo Sakana)?

Some may attempt to resolve this contradiction by pointing out that boys
from families with a history of hemophilia are in fact exempt from Milah.
But I think that to be an unusual case and hence irrelevant. Others may
suggest that the death rate for women in childbirth has historically been
higher than for boys at their bris, but (a) I am not sure if that is so,
and (b) the halachically revelant point should be that both cases are
mortal danger and I doubt whether the death rate is 1% or 20% would
matter much in the halachic discussion.

A related question which has bothered me for some time: Whatever the
logic is for women being exempt from Piryah V'Rivyah, why doesn't that
logic also apply to Sheves Haaretz? Why should they be p'turos from one
but not the other?

Akiva Miller

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

R' Eli Turkel wrote: <<< It was pointed out in our shul (concerning
hachodesh lachem ...) that if a Sanhedrin existed today it would be very
difficult to use the Hebrew calendar in many cases. >>>

His reasoning was: <<< For example if one were to write a postdated check
for 3 Nissan it would be unclear when it could be cashed as it would
depend on when the Sanhedrin declared rosh chodesh. It would be even
worse if an extra adar were intercalculated (as happens this year). This
would make life miserable for many businesses and individuals who make
future commitments but don't know when their loans are due etc. >>>

This is a good point, but I think that we would find a way of dealing
with that difficulty somehow. My evidence is that when the Sanhedrin did
exist, they found ways of dealing with even greater difficulties.

Take, for example, someone who lived ten days away from Yerushalayim. He
packs up all his things, and leaves home with his whole family on Nisan
3, to arrive in Yerushalayim on Nisan 13 with a day to spare. Four days
later he is only six days away from Yerushalayim, and he meets up with
the messengers who left six days earlier. They inform him that today is
NOT Nisan 7 as he had thought, but it is only the seventh of ADAR SHENI
!!!

What is he going to do? Will he continue on to Yerushalayim and hang out
there for a month? Or will he return home, only to repeat the trip three
weeks later?

This is not a theoretical question. As I recall, one of the reasons to
warrant an Adar Sheni, were reports of a group of olim who would not
arrive in time for Pesach otherwise. Let's do the math: That group is not
going to arrive by the Full Moon, but we are making this decision by the
light of the New Moon. That means that this group is already on the road,
with over two weeks travel ahead of them. Clearly, it is not unreasonable
to conclude that people were Oleh L'Regel (at least for Pesach) who lived
three or four weeks away, or perhaps even further!

So imagine now, someone who lived 3 weeks away, and left home around Adar
21 or so. They'll get to Yerushalayim on time, but another group is late,
and so two weeks into their trip, they find out that what they thought
was Nisan 7 is really Adar Sheni 7. If they return home, they won't even
get the three-week break that I wrote of a few paragraphs above. These
people have not much choice but to spend a month somewhere, waiting for
the calendar to catch up to them.

To return to R' Turkel's original question, I don't know how they dealt
with such questions. They *could* have dealt with it by keeping Nisan in
spring by inserting the extra month somewhere else on the calendar, but
no, the extra month had to be the one right before Nisan. So they dealt
with it in some other manner. Exactly how, I don't know. But somehow,
they must have.

I recently saw Mark Twain quoted as saying "Of *course* truth is stranger
than fiction. Fiction has to make sense!"

Akiva Miller

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

--- DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:
> How else do
> you think R'Harry Maryles 
> learned to speak Black Ghettoese?

S'cuse me?

PLEASE!

Ahem... Dat's E-bonics!!!(a little politcal
correctness here!!!)

HM 
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

In a message dated 1/16/00 12:59:09 PM US Central Standard Time, 
atwood@netvision.net.il writes:

<< Debate is about trying to prove one's position, not about reaching a 
greater
 understanding of Emes. >>

I have a book by Rabbi Zvi Lampel called "The Dynamics of Dispute: The Making 
of Machlokess in Talmudic Times." Rabbi Lampel makes the opposite point, that 
debate is all about reaching a greater understanding of Emes, not about 
"proof," which is a rhetorical concept in the first place when applied to 
halachic learning.

Who's right here?

David Finch

	R Zirkind wrote that men watching women dance is assur.  Source?
 Mehitzot at nonhasidic weddings are very recent.
Meir Shinnar

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


[ 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         ]