Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 027

Friday, May 10 2002

• re:New Israeli Stamps
• re:New Israeli Stamps
• Eisav soneh leYa'akov
• Re: Learning and Yir'as Shamayim
• re: Brooklyn eruvim
• reshut harabim
• Re: Wearing tzitzis outside one's clothes
• Re: Wearing tzitzis outside one's clothes
• Shayla: Goy employing Jew on Shabbat
• kaddish
• Re: Wearing tzitzis outside one's clothes
• Re: Wearing tzitzis outside one's clothes
• Re: Wearing tzitzis outside one's clothes
• Re: Night before day, or after day?
• night before day, or after day?
• Re: Night before day, or after day?
• Re: Wearing tzitzis outside one's clothes
• Re: Wearing tzitzis outside one's clothes
• Re:Eisav sonei le'Yaaqov
• Re: Parasha question
• Hashgacha Protis
• Re: Belief
• Re: Belief
• Re: Wearing tzitzis outside one's clothes
• Re: Wearing tzitzis outside one's clothes
• Re: New Israeli Stamps

At 03:28 PM 5/6/02 -0400, David Hojda wrote:
>What, then, would be the status of the parshios from the tefillin that
>were found with the Dead Sea Scrolls, their writing being so tiny that
>they can only be read with a magnifying glass?

>See figure 7 in http://iwhome.com/handwriting/deadsea.htm and note the
>actual size of the fragment.

>Is this "text" or is it not? If not, then they are also not "tefillin".

1. Perhaps they are not tefillin!

2. Perhaps handwriting, no matter how small, is different.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

R' David Hojda <<< See figure 7 in
http://iwhome.com/handwriting/deadsea.htm and note the actual size of
the fragment. Is this "text" or is it not? >>>

First of all, I must acknowledge the technical abilities of those who
could master such tiny writing. Credit where credit is due.

But, like so many other things about the Dead Sea Scrolls, this mezuza
proves nothing about halacha. AISI, it is entirely possible that the
scribe who wrote it never intended or claimed it to be a kosher mezuza.
It may have been mere good-luck charm.

On the other hand, maybe it *is* kosher? Read the verbatim testimony of
Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, on page 132 of "The Handbook of Jewish Thought":

<<< Some authorities question how a Torah scroll could be made small
enough to be worn as an amulet, but I personally have seen a perfectly
written Torah scroll only two inches high. >>>

sigh.... I wish he had included a photo of it!!!

Akiva Miller

Why is it assumed that the "proof text" for the understanding that the
nations hate the Jews is from the statement of R' Shimon bar Yochai
in the Sifri, "halacha hie beyadua she'Esav soneh le'Ya'akov..."?
After all that text continues, "ella she'kan nichmiru rachamav ve'nashko
bechol lebo". Clearly the subject of R' Shimon 's observation is
Ya'akov's brother, not the nation (Edom) descended from him. (see
Rashi on Gen. 34: 4). Even if you should insist that the use of the
term "halacha" when referring to Esav's enmity implies something more
permanent than the attitude of the person, Esav. Indeed, R' Shimon
was a well-known opponent of the Roman rule of the Holy Land, and would
likely have identified that rule with Edom (it was commonly felt that the
Romans were somehow descended from Edom). What is the basis, however,
for generalizing Rome to all nations? It is true that the Jewish
experience in Europe is associated with the feeling of being hated,
persecuted, and killed by the "native" peoples who were incited by
their "religious" and secular leaders. That does not make all the other
nations equally guilty. Especially when the original reference to such
a presumed hatred referred primarily to the attitude of Arabs who have
little connection with either Esav or Rome. The basis for the enmity
that exists towards Jews can be more attributed to ethnicity, religion,
or conflicting territorial claims than a result of some presumed ancestry.

Yitzchok

At 11:04 PM 5/7/02 +0000, Micha Berger wrote:
>I don't understand how RCV can say that yir'as Shamayim is "chometin"
>for one's relationship with HQBH. Isn't yir'ah a *component* of that
>relationship?

I believe he holds it to be chometin in terms of the quest for shleymus. 
Dveykus is a handservant of shleymus, and a minor one at that (in the 
Misnagdic model).

>However, if it is a component, then the fact that one must pause in
>learning in order to develop yir'ah proves the Besht's side of the
>machlokes. So not understanding this nequdah means I'm missing R'
>Chaim's entire mehalech! Help!!!

10 minutes *a day* not *every* 10 minutes.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

I'm not really up-to-date on all the pros and cons of the halachic side
of the Brooklyn eruvim, but some things lie more in the practical realm.

R' Jonathan Baker wrote <<< IIRC, the main reason Flatbush Avenue
cannot be crossed with an eruv is that it is "mefulash", that is,
it runs straight through the borough, in one side (Manhattan Bridge)
and out the other (Gil Hodges Bridge). >>>

How straight does the road need to be to count as "mefulash"? Mishna
Brurah 345:20 says "she-ha-sh'arim m'chuvanim zeh k'neged zeh", and that
sounds pretty straight to me.

But as I look as a few different maps, I see a couple of problems with
calling Flatbush Avenue "mefulash from one end to the other".

The southern half does seem to go quite straight, from Flatbush to the
Gil Hodges Bridge, which goes over Rockaway Inlet to end outside of the
populated area of Brooklyn, on a Queens peninsula. But the northern half
is not nearly so straight.

As I see the map, Flatbush Ave makes a very distinct turn (of about 25-30
degrees) at Clarendon Road. Further up, by Grand Army Plaza (at Eastern
Parkway) some maps show Flatbush Avenue to be not really a road at all,
but a couple of ramps which seem to veer off of a straight "mefulash"
route. Perhaps some locals could describe it better.

But an even bigger question could be, does halacha care about street
names, or only about the streets themselves? I ask this because if the
street names are *not* relevant to halacha, then we must look to see
what happens to Flatbush Avenue at Lincoln Road, near Prospect Park.

Going northward, one reaches a fork in the road at that point. One can
stay on Flatbush Avenue, so that the Manhattan Bridge is pretty much
straight ahead, but that involves *turning* onto the left side of the
fork. The alternative is to continue straight, such that the street name
changes to Washington Avenue, which continues straight for quite some
distance, but stops at a "T" intersection when it meets Flushing Avenue.
On the opposite site of Flushing Avenue is the Brooklyn Navy Yard,
which appears (at least on MapBlast) to be quite sufficient to prevent
Washington Avenue from counting as "mefulash". At least according to
the little I've learned about it.

Akiva Miller

<In fact, he admits that his understanding of 60 ribu is his own
chidush. Apparently, SA OH 435:7 says that one needs a) an area 12
mil x 12 mil, in which b) 60 ribu are in the street. Everyone else
understands 60 ribu in the street *at one time*, where RMF's chidush
is that 60 ribu is *over the course of a day*. Which is clearly true:
with 3,000,000 residents, including 1,000,000 commuters in Brooklyn, in
an area a bit more than 12x12 mil, it would be assur. But under EVERYONE
ELSE's opinion, apparently, it's not assur.>

Jerusalem was a reshut harabim. Did ever have 600,000 people at one time
in this small place?

-- 
Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 05/08/2002

Reb Seth

Kol Hakavod for writing this up. 2 quick comments:

You asked:
> 2) the MB makes a distinction between putting the tzitzis in the pants
> versus putting them in the corners. I do not understand how the latter
> is done, nor have I ever heard anyone explain it. The clothing that the
> MB wore is basically the same as is worn today (except for the outer
> jacket and the tie).

I always understood this to mean that the tzitzis are tucked into the
corner of the talis koton. When I grew up the cloth reinforcing each
corner was sown on 3 sides, and the top of each corner was open for
tucking the tzitzis in.

Another comment:
I read a recent ArtScroll biography of Reb Elyah Lopian zt"l (Reb Elyah,
The life and accomplishments of Rabbi Elyah Lopian. By Rabbi David
J. Schlossberg.) that claimed that Reb Elyah was the originator of
getting bochrim to put actually their tzitzis out. (BTW: Rabbi David
J. Schlossberg currently lives in Bet Shemesh.)

- Danny

From: "Seth Mandel" <sethm37@hotmail.com>
> Had the MB not weighed in on the issue, the spread of this new custom
> would doubtless have been slower...                But tzitzis was one
> of the issue that the Chofetz Chayyim felt very strongly about. After
> quoting the MA, he quotes the M'habber who says the tallis koton should
> be worn outside "so that he can always see it and remember the mitzvos"
> and comments "as it says ur'item oto uzkhartem... And those people
> who put their tzitzis in their pants, they ignore the commandment of
> God and will pay the price for that...

According to the testimony of Rav Gustman - the Chofetz Chaim wore his
tztitzis inside.
The husband of one of Reb Moshe's grandchildren told me the Mishna Berura is
misunderstood and that in fact he is not advocating what we call wearing
tzitzis outside

            Daniel Eidensohn

I teach Bnei Noah.
An observant Ben Noah wrote to me yesterday with the following question.
Although I will be asking poskim on his behalf, I am sharing the question
with the list because it is interesting. Also, sometimes the questions
they ask me and the responses get published in the Bnei Noah Quarterly,
and some of the discussion that arises on the list might be useful to
include as well.

The questioner's wife is a pharmacist and owns her own pharmacy.

-- Shlomo Zalman

My wife placed an add to hire a pharmacist for Fridays and Saturdays. A
friend of hers applied and she was going to hire him but found out that
he was Jewish. She did not know before because he always told her that
he was of the B'hai faith. Seems his grandparents converted to B'hai
many years ago and he was born in. However, he told my wife that his
grandparents and parents were Jewish.

So my wife told him she did not think she could hire him and even
explained why. To which he stated what difference does it make, he can
find a job anywhere and they all require you to work weekends so if it
is not for her it will be for someone else, (there is a shortage of 500
pharmacists in Toronto so he is probably correct).

So my question is, can we hire him on the basis of our original request
(weekends), as we are not forcing him but rather he is volunteering. We
have managed to find other pharmacists for every other Saturday and most
Fridays but want a steady person.

[From a 2nd email. -mi]

Here's some information that came from Rav Daniel Goldshmidt.

There is a big dispute amongst the poskim wether a non-Jew is obliged in
the issur of lifne iver, see Minchas Chinuch mitzwa 232 and see Sde Chemed
volume 2 pages 135-136. The Pri Megodim holds that it is Ossur.
Concerning the second sofek wether when he can get the issur in a
different place wether the issur of lifne iver applies see minchas
chinuch over there page 272 of the new edition of minchas chinuch in
the name of Mishna Lemelech, it seems that nobody disagrees with the
minchas chinuch and he if would get a job from an other non-Jew the
first non-Jew is allowed to give him a job even on Shabbat.

Shlomo Zalman Jessel

<Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC the Lubavitcher Rebbe was makpid on
saying a *Rabbanan* Kaddish after davening, and in chutz la'aretz in
places where Ktores is not said every day, he instructed his Chassidim
to say "Rabbi Chananya ben Akashya omer..." at the end of davening,
followed by a Rabbanan Kaddish (by yesomim I should add).>

RYBS (miPeninei haRav) also held that the main kaddish was kaddish
derabban

-- 
Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 05/08/2002

On 8 May 2002 at 11:09, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> According to the testimony of Rav Gustman - the Chofetz Chaim wore his
> tztitzis inside.

Because the CC felt that was the way to do it, or because he was 
going among the goyim? 

> The husband of one of Reb Moshe's grandchildren told me the Mishna Berura is
> misunderstood and that in fact he is not advocating what we call wearing
> tzitzis outside

How does he understand the MB? 

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

>> According to the testimony of Rav Gustman - the Chofetz Chaim wore his
>> tztitzis inside.

> Because the CC felt that was the way to do it, or because he was
> going among the goyim?

It was not because of the goyim. I was told that Rav Gustman also wore his
inside.

>> The husband of one of Reb Moshe's grandchildren told me the Mishna Berura is
>> misunderstood and that in fact he is not advocating what we call wearing
>> tzitzis outside

> How does he understand the MB?

He explained that the MB was simply against stuffing the tzitzis in the
reinforcement patch and was not advocating wearing them outside.

                                Daniel Eidensohn

My father, who roamed war-time Europe, just recently told me that indeed
he never saw anyone (including Chassidim) wearing tsitsis out (just
like the norm by chassidim was not to wear streimlach - only Rebbes -
til after the war). That said . . .

RSM, are you familiar with the S'mak (#28) who holds there IS a mitzva
to look at the tsitsis?

Also, I seem to remember a picture of R. Aharon Kotler ztl in his younger
days in Europe out in the summertime forest together with some others
(I believe at the feet of R> Boruch Ber) and he was wearing a talis koton
over his shirt but under a vest (I don't particularly remember if I saw
the actual tsitsis dangling).

Shlomoh

R' Gil Student wrote <<< Even from the time of Creation the day followed
the night. See Berachos 26a that learns this from "Vayehi erev vayehi
boker yom echad". >>>

I never understood that to be the simple pshat of that pasuk. I always
understood the pasuk to be saying that the morning is what demarcates
one day from the next. "HaShem did some stuff. It became evening. It
became morning. One day." But that's just my personal feeling.

Note the use of "erev" and "boker" rather than "laila" and "yom". Had
the pasuk said "Vay'hi laila, vay'hi yom, yom echad", that would have
much less ambiguously defined as day as having the night first.

But when you talk about "erev" and "boker", place "erev" first proves
nothing. Inevitably one of them will be at both the beginning and end of
the 24-hour period, so "Vayehi erev vayehi voker" can EITHER be talking
about the beginning and middle of the day, or the middle and end of
the day.

I know that I read someplace (but where, I can't remember!) that the
same pasuk has BOTH drashos, one for Jews and one for non-Jews. Does
this sound familiar to anyone?

Akiva Miller

I believe that the most evident way to understand the Torah's definition
of a 24 hour day is that of the Rashbam. Unfortunately, the peirush
of the Rashbam that is printed in the usual Mikraot Gedolot editions
is incomplete (There is virtually nothing before Vayera. The Hama'or
edition has more, but it is still incomplete.) I became aware of the
peirush of the Rashbam on the definition of a 24 hour day many years ago
when I chanced to see the handsome 6 volume edition of the "Chumash"
by Shulzinger Press (The 6th volume contains the peirush of the Rosh,
other ba'aley Tosfot and the Chizkuni on the Torah.). The Rashbam's
commentary there on "va'yehi erev, va'yehi boker, yom echad" contains his
thesis. That thesis suggests that there is one unchanging definition of
a complete day in the Torah. In it, the night follows day and completes
the 24 hour period.

The first illustration of this idea is from Ex. 12: 18, " In the first
(month) in the 14th day of the month, in the night, shall you eat matzot,
until the 21st day of the month at night." Here we see that the Torah
considers the day followed by night as one unit. Lest you consider that
this state of affairs did not continue after the giving of the Torah,
he brings his second illustration from Lev. 23: 32 (after matan Torah).
" ...you shall afflict yourselves (by fasting on Yom Kippur) on the 9th
day of the month, at night, from evening until evening shall you desist
your sabbaths (tishbetu shabbatchem)." Here the start of the fast is
called the 9th day at night [R' Akiva has a drash on this phrase which
gives credit for eating on the 9th in preparation for the fast. However,
the Rashbam is interested only in the evident meaning of the verse.]
At this point, you may wonder what how the Rashbam could justify his
peirush in view of the fact that shabbotot and yamim tovim always start
at night and are completed at night (as explicitly mentioned in the above
verses with regard to chag hamatzot and yom kippur). He replies that
this is precisely the meaning of the phrase "mei'erev ad erev tishbetu
shabbatchem". Not only Yom Kippur, but all celebrations that are called
shabbat (Shabbat and yom tov) require starting the previous night and
ending at night. He, presumably, has other ways of deriving the din that
a complete week must pass before a brit milah can be done on the 8th day.
[I don't know what he has to say about counting the Omer]. He also has a
totally different insight into the meaning of "va'yehi erev va'yehi boker
in Gen. 1: 5. In his view, this verse and the corresponding ones for the
remaining days of creation inform us that after the daytime activity it
became dark and then light once more with the arrival of the morning.
Only then is the previous day completed.

Yitzchok 

kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
> I never understood that to be the simple pshat of that pasuk. I always
> understood the pasuk to be saying that the morning is what demarcates
> one day from the next. "HaShem did some stuff. It became evening. It
> became morning. One day." But that's just my personal feeling.

This is a machloketh between Ibn Ezra and the Rashbam. In fact Ibn Ezra
wrote a nasty essay (called Sefer HaShabat IIRC) attacking the Rashbam
(not by name) for taking this position.

David Riceman

On 8 May 2002 at 20:40, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>>> The husband of one of Reb Moshe's grandchildren told me the Mishna
>>> Berura is misunderstood and that in fact he is not advocating what
>>> we call wearing tzitzis outside

>> How does he understand the MB?

> He explained that the MB was simply against stuffing the tzitzis in
> the reinforcement patch and was not advocating wearing them outside.

Maybe the CC spoke Hebrew differently than we do, but the words
he uses are "v'osom anashim ha'msimim ha'tzitzis b'ha'MICHNASAYIM
shelahem... u'ma she'omrin she'holchin bein ha'nochrim la'zeh haya dai
she'yasimu ha'tzitzis b'SOCH HA'KANAF."

It sounds to me like he regards stuffing your tzitzis into your pants
as a bizayon, and if you can't wear them out because you go among the
goyim, you should put them in the kanaf (what RDS described yesterday,
which is what I imagined, but have never actually seen in any tzitzis
in my days), but not stuff them in your pants.

-- Carl

On 7 May 2002 at 21:01, Seth Mandel wrote:
> It was worn under the clothing, with no tzitzis out: that we know from
> pictures depicting Jews throughout the medieval period that show all
> sorts of distinctive Jewish clothing -- but NO tztzis showing. NEVER.

Of course if the pictures showed people with a frock of some sort, 
you wouldn't see the tzitzis even if they were out.... 

> To quote a few: the Morekhai says "hanei talesos q'tannim shelanu
> einam min hamuvhar" because you cannot cover yourself in them. The
> Orhos Hayyim says that someone who makes a b'rokho of l'his'attef on
> them "over b'lo tissa." The R'Mo in Darkhe Moshe says that the b'rokho
> is 'al mitzvas tzitzis "v'hata'am nir'eh li ki 'hash'shu l'divrei
> hposqim she'ein yotz'in b'tales qoton kozeh v'lakhen lo m'var'khin
> l'hit'attef d'az havei mashma' d'akhshav m'aqayy'min hamitzva." IOW,
> you are not yotze the mitzva with a tales qoton. 

According to these Rishonim, how would someone who is not yet married 
be yotzei mitzvas tzitzis? Did everyone wear taleisim then?  

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

From: Arie Folger <afolger@ymail.yu.edu>
>The whole idea of identifying Europe with Eisav is questionable. Europeans
>are to be regarded as descendants of Yefet (=yavan, etc.)...

                                                                 Bs"d

IIRC, Vendy Jones expounds on this topic at length in the latest
issue of "The Researcher" that he has posted on his website
(www.vendyljones.org.il). I'd be very interested to hear your (and all
the chevre's) comments on it.

Eli

> Two questions:
> 1. If the Leviyim did not do the chet ha'egel, why would the age at which
> they are counted make a difference in their punishment or lack thereof?
> 2. Why all the reasons?

All of the above (and much more <g>) is covered in the L. Rebbe's Biurim on 
Rashi, to see copy please point your browser to:
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/levi1month.pdf>.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

Those who are interested in seeing the L. Rebbe's response(s)
on the issue of Hashgacha Protis can point their browser to:
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/protis.pdf>.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

Harry Maryles wrote on Areivim:
>If one does not beleive in something, can he mandated or forced to do so? 
>Saying that it is Halachicly mandated to believe a cetain way about 
>something which one does not believe is an impossiblity!

He can certainly be mandated to do so. The first two mitzvos aseh
in Rambam's Sefer HaMitzvos are belief in (or, rather, knowledge of)
Hashem's existence an unity.

The question that rishonim entertained is whether someone can be held
culpable for failing to believe. According to the Rambam, it seems that
one can. According to others, not necessarily.

R. Chasdai Crescas says that one is not held culpable for lack of belief,
but one is held culpable for lack of an enthusiastic attempt to believe
(or something like that).

Gil Student

From: "Gil Student" <gil_student@hotmail.com>
> Harry Maryles wrote on Areivim:
>>If one does not beleive in something, can he mandated or forced to do so?
>>Saying that it is Halachicly mandated to believe a cetain way about
>>something which one does not believe is an impossiblity!

R'Elchonon Wasserman says in his maamar on emunah: "The Rambam writes in
Sefer Hamitzvos that first mitzva is to know and to believe in G-d. It
is necessary to understand how it is relevant to command belief?..If
one believes it is not necessary to command and if he doesn't believe
he doesn't have control to believe? It would appear that he has no free
will since his heart forces him..." He answers his question by stating
that emuna is something totally obvious and rational - except if one's
lusts interfere. Thus the mitzva of emuna is to work on controlling one's
lusts and purifying oneself to the degree that the normal intellect can
express itself.

    Daniel Eidensohn

Those that are interested in seeing a Sicha from the L. Rebbe on this
topic, please point your browser to:
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/tzitzis.pdf>

(an aside note as was discussed at the time the Sicha was said, the
Rebbe was also alluding to his father ZTZ"L, who did not (Mpi Hashmuah)
wear the Chutim out).

Gut Shabbos, v'Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 09:01:58PM +0000, Seth Mandel translated the
Nimuqei Yosef saying, in part:
:                   The words "asher t'khasseh bah" do not come to require
: kissuy hagguf or 'atifat harosh, but to include the clothing of a blind
: person or a garment with 5 corners [or more]. After all, the g'moro says
: a tallit that a koton could cover his head with and a gadol would go
: temporarily outside in is hayyav, and in all likelihood a gadol could
: not do 'atifrat harosh or cover up most of his body [with a garment
: of such size]. And the custom has spread to all Yisroel in accordance
: with this, since most Jews do not have a tallit g'dolah that they can do
: 'atifa in [!!!], but [instead] they make tallitot q'tannim that they wear,
: since the Torah excludes by saying "ur'item 'oto" only k'sut layla...

Li nir'eh the Nimoqei Yosef's lashon conforms to the idea that "talis
qatan" means the tallis of a qatan. (Thus explaining why it's not
"qetanah".) I tried to do an archive search to provide sheim amro,
but failed.

Now that you've desconstructed wearing tzitzis out, how about addressing
yarmulka? Is there a qualitatively better reason to wear a yarmulka?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 43rd day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in
Fax: (413) 403-9905                               good for all mankind?

On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 03:28:52PM -0400, David Hojda wrote:
: Is this "text" or is it not? If not, then they are also not "tefillin".

Regardless of the size of the text, do we know enough about their beliefs
to assess if sheimos they wrote would have qedushah?

We have little idea who these people were, but we know that they weren't
perushim. So, don't look to them for halachic precedent. Also, we don't
even know if the items in their genizah were their party line, or just
some guy's writing shoved in among the rest. A question RYBS raises.
Just because the writer lived long ago doesn't mean he knew what he was
talking about!

On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 09:49:10PM -0400, Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
: 2) with the silk screening the point AIUI is, that he holds that it is not a 
: Maseh D'fus rather Maseh Ksiva.

Yes, it requires koach yad.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 43rd day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in
Fax: (413) 403-9905                               good for all mankind?

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


[ 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         ]