Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 044

Tuesday, May 22 2001

• Heter Iska vs interest
• Re: hishtadlus and shmitta
• trading tzedaka
• Re: yiras Hashem/bringing Moshiach
• Re: Lubavitch Tefillin campaign - potential problems
• Re: VIDC #10: MC vol. 1p. 116
• Re: yiras Hashem/bringing Moshiach
• Re: trading tzedaka
• Siege on Yerushalyim and Sefirah (connection)
• Re: Lubavitch Tefillin campaign - potential problems and a VIDC
• Re: Siege on Yerushalyim and Sefirah (connection)
• halocha like beis Shammai in future?
• Future Halacha K'Beis Shammai
• Zman Yetziat Mitzrayim
• history
• SL
• yiras Hashem/bringing Moshiach
• Maaser (was: Working Women and Kollel Husbands)
• RE: Maaser (was: Working Women and Kollel Husbands)
• RE: trading tzedaka
• RE: Maaser (was: Working Women and Kollel Husbands)
• Re: Zman Yetziat Mitzrayim
• RE: Maaser (was: Working Women and Kollel Husbands)

I found a nafka minah lima'aseh between heter iska (HI) and a loan, one that
actually points out a major moral superiority of HI.

It is impossible to drown in cumulative debt under the HI.

If someone misses a mortgage payment they not only owe the money they should
have paid, but the capital they held out for an additional month also accrued
(hope I'm using the terms right) more interest.

As anyone who racked up credit-card debt can attest, not having money to
fully pay off the debt compounds the problem until there is little they
can do to get out from under.

Someone who can't afford to "share the profit" in a HI still owes the
back-payment, but that's it. The problem doesn't get worse and worse over
time.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 44th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice
(973) 916-0287                                     does unity demand?

gil.student@citicorp.com wrote:
> I have never looked into this, but the Commentator once quoted R. Hershel
> Schachter regarding one particular beggar, who was capable of working but
> refused, that there is no mitzvah to give him tzedakah.  The Commentator has
> been known to make mistakes before and I never confirmed this.  Actually, I
> later asked another rav who could not understand the statement.

Could this have been due to k'dima (contradicting someone's previous
post)? That is, R. Schachter knew that his questioner's budget did not
include all the beggars who flock round him, and he told him that this
particular beggar should be low man on the totem pole because his need
was less since he had other options?

David Riceman

Related to an earlier discussion,I saw quoted in a secondary source that the 
Steipler held (y"d 251:12 - orchos rabeinu vol 1 p302) that 2 poor people 
can(should?) give their maaser to each other but can't have a legal agreement 
to do this - it should be voluntary/spontaneous.

If anyone has the original source, could they look it up and see if this is 
an accurate summary(esp what does voluntary/spontaneous mean in this context?)

KT
Joel

On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 10:57:01AM -0400, Feldman, Mark wrote:
: You give two options: (1) do something because Hashem *requires* it, or (2)
: do something in order to bring Moshiach.  You then reason that if option #1
: does not apply (i.e., something is not an absolute mitzvah), then it is
: reasonable to be doing something for reason #2.

: I believe that there is a third reason to be doing positive things: even if
: not required, certain actions may be considered meritorious by Hashem.

You're invoking Euthyphro's dilemma. Plato has Socrates ask Euthyphro,
"Is what is righteous righteous because the gods love it, or do the gods
love it because it is righteous?"

The Jewish spin would be to ask whether an act is good because HKBH
commanded it, or is it a mitzvah because it is good?

What is the Source of morality?

The problem is that if you say the former, then HKBH arbitrarily told us
to do one set of things and not another. Can mitzvos be the product of
Divine whim?

OTOH, if there is an overarching definition of good and evil that Hashem
conformed to, then we placed something "over" Him, something that He is
subject to.

I would argue that HKBH created the world with a tachlis, He placed each
of us in it with a tachlis, and what is righteous is righteous because it
is in accordance with furthering that tachlis. This fits RSRH's etymology
for "ra", being related to /reish-ayin-ayin/, to shatter.

So yes, HKBH did choose good vs evil without being subject to external
contstraint, but the choice was still not arbitrary.

HKBH created us because He could only be a Meitiv if there is someone
to recieve that tov. That is our individual tachlis, to make ourselves
into keilim, with a beis kibul for recieving shefa. (I once suggested
to Avodah that "Kabbalah" isn't to be translated as "that which was
recieved", but rather "the art of reception".)

Given that personal tachlis, the definition of "tov" feeds directly into
the "spiritual health" model of sechar va'onesh. Oneshim are the product
of not being proper keilim for shefa, and therefore one is incapable of
recieving the sechar. It's not that the sechar is being withheld -- the
problem is with the reception.

This makes following the tzivui of the Melech a derivative -- learning
to be a good subject is part of what it takes to be a good keli.

Looking at the global tachlis... on Fri, May 18, 2001 at 11:56:40AM -0400,
RMF wrote:
: To add to this point: instead of viewing moshiach as a schar for
: the mitzvos (as I had done in a previous post), one may take the
: perspective that we are doing mitzvos to be mesaken olam b'malchus
: Shakai...

RYGB's "Forks" outlines two goals for doing mitzvos: deveikus and temimus,
both are intrinsic to the self. Perhaps this suggests a third, extrinsic,
mehaleich?

BTW, this means that of the Rambam's ikkarei emunah, perhaps the last three
are the most critical. Without an eschotology, without a final state, we
have no way of defining which acts advance us to that goal, and which
are ra, shattering that which was already built.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 44th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice
(973) 916-0287                                     does unity demand?

Mordechai wrote:
> 1) Tefillin have special kedusha - they require a) a guf noki and
> also b) machshova nikia (forgive me if the expression is incorrect
> grammatically). If someone doesn't have these, they are not supposed to
> (perhaps not allowed is more accurate) wear them. Therefore, there could
> be problems when there is a push to put them on anyone who says they
> are Jewish off the street.....

There were those during the time of the rishonim who argued that guf naki
was a reason to patur people *entirely* from tefillin because one had to
be a tzaddik before putting on tefillin. The rishonim strongly disputed
this and said that anyone, whether tzaddik or rasha, is obligated to
wear tefillin. Guf naki is a very limited concept and, in the few moments
someone wears tefillin in these campaigns, is hardly an issue.

> 2) I thought of another concern - It is possible that some people who
> are actually not Yehudim lihalocho might answer affirmatively when asked
> 'Are you Jewish?'... If tefillin would be put on them, would that not be a
> significant problem?

See the Rambam in Hilchos Melachim 10:10 that a Ben Noach who wants to do a 
mitzvah in order to receive sechar is allowed to do so.

> Being that tefillin is / are an 'os' , it may not be a light matter - just 
> like the gemara says that aku"m sheshovas is chayav misa WRT Shabbos
> which is also an 'os' (based on the posuk 'beini uvein bnei yisroel os 
> hi liolom I believe) - so might tefillin be somewhat similar (at least) in
> that way, being that it is also called 'os' even though, AFAIK, the posuk
> doesn't say 'beini unvein bnei yisroel.....' when calling tefillin 'os', very
> explicitly making it an exclusive relationship.....?

No. The gemara in Sanhedrin 58b bases this rule on the pasuk (Bereishit
8:22) "Yom valailah lo yishbosu" and has nothing to do with "os".
Indeed, the gemara concludes that even if the Non-Jew rests on a day
during the week he is chayav misah. This entire parashah, by the way,
is not as ominous as it sounds, ve'ein kan mekomo.

Gil Student

On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 11:41:04AM -0400, Micha Berger wrote:
: If there is interest, I think I found a tzad litareitz why HH isn't
: a sibah. But it requires getting philosophical so I won't bore people
: unless I get a request for it.

It turns out that I don't have to present any MORE philosophy to explain
it -- the sevarah is based on a Kuzari that we discussed already.
(See <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n142.shtml#10>.) The Kuzari
classifies an event as being E-lokis, tiv'is, mikreh or the product of
bechirah. 

Events that are classfied as E-lokis and tiv'is are produced by a process,
a chain of activity, that is set in motion directly by HKBH. However,
if the process has more immediate, proximate, causes that shape the
action into the given event and are explainable within seder ha'olam,
then it's tiv'is.

Note that the Kuzari too looks at two kinds of of causes -- that which
sets the process in motion vs that which shapes that process into the
final result.

I would suggest that R' Ami'el would only consider the former to be a
"sibah". Hasaras hamonei'ah guides the course of an already existing
causal chain, but doesn't initiate a new force in the world.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 44th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice
(973) 916-0287                                     does unity demand?

Micha wrote:
> The Jewish spin would be to ask whether an act is good because HKBH commanded 
> it, or is it a mitzvah because it is good?
     
> The problem is that if you say the former, then HKBH arbitrarily told us to do
> one set of things and not another. Can mitzvos be the product of Divine whim?

Also, the concepts of lifnim mishuras hadin, doing something optional because of
kiddush Hashem (e.g. returning aveidas akum), and mitzvah kiyumis imply that 
there is good that is not commanded.
     
> I would argue that HKBH created the world with a tachlis, He placed each of us
> in it with a tachlis, and what is righteous is righteous because it is in 
> accordance with furthering that tachlis. 

This would also explain the concept of aveirah lishmah.

Gil Student

Joel Rich wrote:
> Related to an earlier discussion,I saw quoted in a secondary source that the 
> Steipler held (y"d 251:12 - orchos rabeinu vol 1 p302) that 2 poor people 
> can(should?) give their maaser to each other but can't have a legal agreement 
> to do this - it should be voluntary/spontaneous.
     
This is reminiscent of the gemara in Megillah 7b that two poor people can be 
fulfill matanos la'evyonim by trading the food they prepared for the seudah.

Gil Student

I heard an interesting idea this past week from Rav Issir (?) Wolfson the
rosh kollel of the Choshen Mishpat kollel in Passaic.

The siege around Yerushalayim during the first beis hamikdash lasted 430
days. 
There is a machlokes Bavli and Yerushalmi if the walls were breached on 17
Tamuz or 9 Tamuz. If you count backwards 430 days the seige either started
Rosh Chodesh Iyar or Isru Chag Pesach. This basically corresponds to the two
minhagei sefirah.
Granted one minhag begins 2nd day Pesach but the "issurim" aren't really
nikar till Isru Chag. (we still listen to music on Chol Hamoed and haircuts
are assur anyway). 

At 10:59 PM 5/21/01 +0300, Carl M. Sherer wrote:

>AIUI, guf naki referes to bodily functions. I think it's unlikely that
>someone having difficulty controlling their bodily functions would be
>wandering the streets. As to machshava n'kiya, from what I recall,
>the drive was to put tfillin on for about long enough to say Shma,
>which is what they did with them. Given that saying Shma was not
>easy for these people, I think it unlikely that they had time to really
>have a machshava that was not n'kiya either.

Nope. Several Rishonim link it to machashava as well - based on a 
Yerushalmi, IIRC.

BTW, in shiur yesterday, came up with a beautiful chilluk between 
machashava and hirhur.

Since lomdishe VIDC's don't take so well - anyone wanna try this type of VIDC?

On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 11:20:07AM -0400, Markowitz, Chaim wrote:
: There is a machlokes Bavli and Yerushalmi if the walls were breached on 17
: Tamuz or 9 Tamuz. If you count backwards 430 days the seige either started
: Rosh Chodesh Iyar or Isru Chag Pesach. This basically corresponds to the two
: minhagei sefirah.

First, "the two"? The two more popular, perhaps. What about the rest of
the shitos listed in the Igros Moshe and elsewhere?

Second, it's a cute chiddush, but R' Wolfson would then have to explain why
the reasons given for the aveilus are consistantly talmidei R' Akiva and
the Crusades. He would also have to either show that aveilus was practiced
during galus Bavel (when there was no korban and therefore no chiyuv simchah,
unlike Bayis Sheini) or explain why it wasn't.

Alternatively, perhaps we can say that these two dates became ra'ui likach
in the calendar, and therefore have a historic pattern of being yemei
tzarah. So, we do mourn the later events, but it's no coincidence that they
coincide with this earlier one.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 44th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice
(973) 916-0287                                     does unity demand?

From: Phyllostac@aol.com
> I don't believe there is such a gemara. Anyone who knows of one, please 
> provide mareh mokom. I think it is an idea that comes from some Kabablistic 
> sources that has also been spread by hassidim. I believe that gedolim / 
> authorities from other camps / drachim do not accept it....

> I find it quite interesting to see how such ideas become so widespread among
> the masses to go unquestioned by many and become thought of a standard / 
> mainstream Torah as if cited in the gemoro...

There is an important Mussar Heskel to this.  
Since eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chayim
therefore it is imperative to put effort into learning Beis Shammai's
opinion EVEN if it is NOT lemaase in this world
Because in the next world the LIMUD is what counts NOT the lemaase

as ANY valid Torah!!

So le'ossid lavo - when there is no practical Halachah but only the world of
learning - Beis Shammai's' opinion is as much correct as Beis Hillel's.

In THIS world, we follow Beis Hillel for the simple reason that we cannot
follow both opinions and we choose Beis Hillel virtually - but not quite
literally - 100%

So when we are learning TORAH LISHAM Beis Shammai counts as much as Beis
Hillel, the ONLY advantage of Beis Hillel is in the  realm of Halacha
lemaase

This Hassidic ideal is imho a warning NOT to denigrate LEARNING Beis Shammai
in the context of lamdus, because on a spiritual level it is just as
important as learning Beis Hillel

Shalom and Best Regards,
Richard Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com
qcsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com 

Jon Baker wrote:
>...IIRC, is there not a Gemara that says in Yimei HaMoshiach, the psak will 
>be like Beis Shammai?......

Mordechai wrote:
>I don't believe there is such a gemara. Anyone who knows of one, please 
>provide mareh mokom.

Gil Student wrote:
>There is definitely no gemara like that.  I asked my rav, R. Yisrael 
>Hirsch, about this and he says that it is definitely in the Shelah and, he 
>believes, originates from the Tanna deVei Eliyahu.

The Mesilas Yesharim (Perek 20 - B'Mishkal HaChasidus) near the end writes 
that the growing Machlokes between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel was a great 
burden on Klal Yisroel. He continues that the Halacha was established as 
Beis Hillel "L'Olam" and that the Kiyum of the Torah is dependent on this 
remaining the "Gmar Din ...B'Chal Tokef LoAd UL'Olmei Olamim", never to 
weaken, so that the Torah should not Chas V'Shalom [his words] become 2 
Torahs.

Stuart Goldstein

I have written a seminar paper about the 2 main approaches about the time of
YM. It is in hebrew, and you can find it at the now famous Aishdas website:
http://www.aishdas.org/articles

[Let me take a moment to remind people that the space is available for
any of the chevrah, given that it passes moderation. Please don't wait
for me to offer. -mi]

Here is a short summary:

There are 2 main approaches to the time of YM, one goes strictly by the
Tanach, and makes sure there are 480 years between YM and the building of
BHM (according to the pasuk in Melachim I), and therefore places YM at circa
1450 BCE.

The second approach, that is the main one among most researchers, is that YM
was circa 1250 BCE. That is because they believe that the Pharaoh of Shi'bud
Mitzrayim was Ramsees II, as the word Raamses is mentioned in the begining
of sefer Shmot. Looking at the psukim, one must come to the cinclusion, that
the Pharaoh of the shi'bud had to rule for a very long time, over 60 years,
because Moshe ran away from Mitzrayim when he was a young man, probably
around 20 years old, and returned, when Hashem told him that "Ki metu kol
ha'anashim ha'mevakshim et nafshecha", that the people who want to kill you
have died, and as rashi notes, it has to be that pharaoh. When moshe returns
he is 80 years old, so We have to look at the list of pharaohs and find one
who ruled for a very long time. They found Ramsees II, because they didn't
think that the numbers in the tanach are exact. But, if you look around 1450
BCE, you find one more king who ruled for such a long time, and that is
Thuthmose III (his name sounds better in Egyptian :)) who was very avtive in
wars.

There are many other subjects, like the possible mention of Bnei Israel
entering EY, in letter from the Canaanite kings to Pharaoh, in the letters
found at Tel El Amarnah.

This method was presented to me by Dr. Yoel  Elitzur, in the name of his
father, the late Prof. Yehudah Elitzur.

There's lots more in the article - read it!

Enjoy,
Amihai.

mi>there was no history of pesak[concerning shmitta], between the time the
mi>Me'iri was lost and the time it was found again.

:   Jews have been
: living in Israel pretty much continuously from the Middle Ages [not to
: exclude previously].

mi> But they weren't a bunch of farmers.

The famous "heter mechirah" of Jewish farmers started in the 1800s with
Rav Yitzchok Elchanan Spektor. The Biur Halacha refers to the "recent"
publishing of the Meiri in the 1900s. HaRav Schach shlita would note
that he personally was older than the (reapppearance of) the Meiri.

I would assume that just as today most simple (Arab) dwellers of the
Land are involved at least somewhat in farming, so too even the Jews of
the Byzantine Empire.

Shlomo Goldstein

For the record, the TE writes quite strongly against SL.

Shlomo Goldstein

From: "Gil Student" <gil_student@hotmail.com>
> See the Rambam in Hilchos Teshuvah 9:2 that the only reason to hope for
> the time of moshiach is because then we will have no external barriers
> to learning Torah and keeping mitzvos. It seems a bit circular to me to
> do mitzvos so that the moshiach will come and we can do mitzvos.

hevai ratz achar mitzva kallah..
shemitzva gorreres mitzva...
sheshcar mitzva mitzva..

Doesn't it seem pashut that building momentum to do Mitzvos is a mitzvah?
Doesn't the Rambam state that re: v'haya im shamoa the whole point of
vnasati metar arctzechem is to further enable MORE Mitzvos?  isn't' that
equally circular?

Doesn't the RambaN mention the opportunity to do Mitzvos is greater in EY?
Doesn't bringing moshiach provide an expansion of Mitzvah opportunity by
kibbutz Galiyos?  So wouldn't doing Mitzvos be logical extension in that by
demonstrating our WILL to do MORE Mitzvos, Hashem will provide us with
greater opportunity by Kibbutz Galiyos?  

Shalom and Best Regards,
Richard Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com
qcsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com 

From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
>> Furthermore, a strategy that a lot of the yungerleit in my kollel promoted
>> was taking maiser and giving it to your chevrusa, who would, in turn, give
>> his to you...

> If we analogize to US tax law, such an arrangement would not qualify as
> charitable deduction because there is a quid pro quo...

iirc poor people do exchange mishloach manos or matonos lo'evyonim ...

Not because they net any real gain, but while they are too poor to REALLY
give they should not forget the inyan of giving so they exchange instead.
AIUI this is a sha'as hadechak type of issue.  IOW, while one is too poor to
give with NO strings, he should still should go through the motions now, so
that later when he grows wealthier he will have paved the way with the good
habit of giving...

Shalom and Best Regards,
Richard Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

From: Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com [mailto:Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com]
> iirc poor people do exchange mishloach manos or matonos lo'evyonim ...

The gemara of course talks about exchanging mishloach manos.  But that's a
different issue--whether the point of MM is to help the other prepare for
the seudah, or the point is to create friendship (see the VIDC around Purim
time), the goal is accomplished when one exchanges food with one's friend.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: gil.student@citicorp.com [mailto:gil.student@citicorp.com]
> This is reminiscent of the gemara in Megillah 7b that two poor people can be 
> fulfill matanos la'evyonim by trading the food they prepared for the seudah.

The gemara says merely that two Amoraim used to exchange their seudos one
with the other.  The gemara does not say whether the purpose of the exchange
was for mishloach manos or matanos l'evyonim.  However, Rambam Megillah 2:15
and S"A OC 695:4 seem to have understood that the gemara is referring to the
case of mishloach manos.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: Feldman, Mark [mailto:MFeldman@CM-P.COM]
> The gemara of course talks about exchanging mishloach manos.  
> But that's a different issue--whether the point of MM is to help the other 
> prepare for the seudah, or the point is to create friendship (see the 
> VIDC around Purim time), the goal is accomplished when one exchanges food
> with one's friend.

So does a MM qui pro quo create a friendhip?
Does it add to the bottom line of one's se'uda?
Or
is it a device to provide a frame of fulfilling the obligation under dire
circumstances?

Bepashtus if you cannot afford to give maaser are you better off
A) Not giving at all
or 
B) Giving in a quid pro quo arrangement?

Shalom and Best Regards,
Richard Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

At 10:33 PM 5/22/2001 +0300, Amihai & Tamara Bannett wrote:
>The second approach, that is the main one among most researchers, is that YM
>was circa 1250 BCE. That is because they believe that the Pharaoh of Shi'bud
>Mitzrayim was Ramsees II...     They found Ramsees II, because they didn't
>think that the numbers in the tanach are exact. But, if you look around 1450
>BCE, you find one more king who ruled for such a long time, and that is
>Thuthmose III (his name sounds better in Egyptian :)) who was very avtive in
>wars.

One problem with identifying Thutmose III as the Pharaoh of the Exodus is
that the Egyptian empire reached its peak under Thutmose III, and continued
to rule over a huge empire for decades after his death.  There is not a
trace of destruction or ruin in Egypt during his reign or shortly
thereafter.  Nothing even remotely suggestive of the Makkot and Yetziyat
Mitzrayim.

Certainly, if you insist that the conventional dating of ancient Egypt is
inviolate, we'd seem to be stuck with either Thutmose III or his
aunt/half-sister Hatshepsut.  But there is yet another Pharaoh who ruled
for the lengthy period required, and that is Pepi (Phiops) II of the Sixth
Dynasty.  Pepi was the second to last king of his dynasty, the last
reigning a very short time.  The Sixth Dynasty was the last dynasty of the
Old Kingdom in Egypt, after which Egypt fell apart.  Utterly.  It was
decades before they were even able to place a king over themselves who
could unite the north and south of the country.

Pepi II is said in Egyptian sources to have reigned from the age of 6 to
the age of 100.  Jewish sources (Sefer HaYashar, for example) say the same
thing about the Pharaoh of the Shi'abud.

Archaeologically speaking, this fits as well.  Because the end of the Old
Kingdom in Egypt happened roughly around the time that the Early Bronze Age
ended in Canaan.  We know from archaeology that the cities destroyed by
Bnei Yisrael (such as Ai) were in fact destroyed at the end of the Early
Bronze Age, and were not rebuilt until the Iron Age.  No one suggests that
Bnei Yisrael came into Canaan later than the beginning of the Iron Age, so
the only time they could have destroyed these cities would have been at the
end of the Early Bronze Age.

Thutmose III and Ramesses II both lived in the Late Bronze Age, at a time
when these cities had lain in ruins for centuries.  Neither of them can
possibly be the Pharaoh of the Shi'abud.

>There are many other subjects, like the possible mention of Bnei Israel
>entering EY, in letter from the Canaanite kings to Pharaoh, in the letters
>found at Tel El Amarnah.

The Mari letters, as well.  These letters, dating from the Middle Bronze
Age, speak of a tribe called the Banu-Yamina, who lived in the south of
Eretz Yisrael.  A Syrian governor complains that he can't take a census of
these people, because if he does, their related tribe the Rabbayanu, who
live on the other side of the river, will attack them.  There are other
such documents, most of which don't receive the attention they should.

>This method was presented to me by Dr. Yoel  Elitzur, in the name of his
>father, the late Prof. Yehudah Elitzur.

It's interesting, what I've seen so far (it's taking me a while to get
through it).  For those of you who don't have any problem reading about
this in Hebrew, I cannot recommend Yehoshua Etzion's book "HaTanakh HaAvud"
strongly enough.  I disagree with a relatively small part of the book, but
Etzion's placement of the Bronze Ages and his solution of many problems in
the field of ancient history are simply brilliant.  The book is published
by Schocken, and as far as I know, it's not been translated into English.
Yet.

Lisa

From: Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com [mailto:Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com]
> So does a MM qui pro quo create a friendhip?

Yes it does, especially when the meals are different (rather than
prepackaged meal mart), because it shows a personal touch.  The common
practice on Purim is to give MM to someone who has given you.  By giving,
you're showing that you count the person as one of your friends (or
friends-to-be).

Kol tuv,
Moshe

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


[ 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         ]