Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 054

Monday, July 1 2002

• Re: Black Jews
• Re: 100 brachos
• Do we still need to stop working at hatzos on eruv shabbos?
• Tefila al haniftar
• Re: OU and Israeli produce
• Re: OU and Israeli produce
• Re: Metzius vs. Mere Scientific Categorization
• Re: Birur
• Re: The/A mesorah
• Re: Halacha and Midrash
• Re: ketuba
• Re: mistakes of amoraim
• kavana in shma
• Re: Josephus
• Slichos, Avinu Malkeinu
• Selichot on a fast day (was: Question for the group)
• Re: Do we still need to stop working at hatzos on eruv shabbos?
• Re: Question for the group
• Re: Tefila al haniftar
• Resolving Igun Through DNA (was Re: Black Jews)
• Re: Tefila al haniftar
• Re: Tefila al haniftar
• Re: Tefila al haniftar
• Re: masorah
• mesorah

In a message dated 6/28/02 12:29:46pm EDT, afolger@ymail.yu.edu writes:
> Just FYI, RYSE will definitely disagree with you (but plenty of poskim are 
> very upset at his "gezeirah"), as he explicitly prohibits using DNA to 
> determine halakhik whatevers, out of fear that it will prove many people to 
> be mazeirim. Instead he promulgated a ban on use of DNA in psak.

Was this the specific and only reason RYSE gave in his tshuva?
 
> Some poskim were hoping that RYSE would change his mind after the WTC attack, 
> but I think that all (all but one?) 'igun cases have been resolved through 
> traditional evidence, so that the discussion didn't get too far.

 From what I heard locally, 1 case did require DNA(but I can't vouch for 
sure).  Would RYSE require that this young lady be treated as an aguna and 
that she broadcast the DNA basis or may she rely on the others who were matir 
and not broadcast the DNA basis

KT
Joel Rich

In a message dated 6/24/02 4:16:43pm EDT, fyawitz@actcom.co.il writes:
>     Does anyone out there know of a source for an opinion who counts
> the 100 brachos a day starting from the morning and ending at night?
> The Beis Yosef and other poskim on O.H. 46 seem to all go from the night
> first, but I remember hearing years ago that there is another opinion.

I have seen once an article on this topic, however IMHO it wasen't
convincing.

AStein@wtplaw.com replied:
> See Halichos Shlomo, page 271, n. 93, where a shita is brought down that
> is mesupak whether the day goes after the previous night for purposes
> of 100 brachos.

I didn't see the Halichos Shlomo, but Pashtus Hagemara (Minochos 43b)
seems to imply otherwsie, for if the night follows the day then the
problem is not only Shabbos and Yom Tov, but also Erev Shabbos and
Yom tov.

> (See also D'var Halacha 42 which is mesupak whether the brachos recited
> during bein hash'mashos are included in the previous day or the following
> day.)

Which is based on the opinion that it begins at night, otherwise there is no 
Nafka Mina.

dr@insight.att.com replied:
> Doesn't the Arukh HaShulhan start counting in the morning?

However it is obvious that this is only for technical reasons (just
as the Tur and Mechabeir start with Hashkamas Haboker, see also Rambam
Hil. Tfilah 7:14 and 7:1), as is evident that on Shabbos he discusses
how many Brochos are included in the 4 Tfilos as 28 (4X7), if it night
follows day, the Maariv of Motzoei Shabbos has 19 Brochos.

Gut Shabbos, v'Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

Hello,

The halacha states that one should stop working at chatzos on eruv shabbos.  
Is that halacha still germane today?

In the past, it took a lot longer to prepare for shabbos.  Now, one can 
shave, shower, iron, etc., in under 30 minutes.

With that, should one still lechatchilo stop working at hatzos on eruv 
shabbos?

Thank you,
Avroham

From: "SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au>
: My first question; are the words about requesting that the
: neshomo be welcomed to Gan Eden - '...usekabel oso b'ahavo ubechibo.." -
: relevant to a niftar of 50-60 years ago?
: One would hope that all the requests made there have been fulfilled in
: the passing decades.

While I'm not familiar with this tefila, what relevance does 50-60 years
have for people who are no longer in the world and presumably not subject
to time constraints?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

[This letter was originally written for private email to myself.
(Thus the "you" it opens with. Shared with the chevrah with
reshus.) The post after was my reply, also written to be
private email. -mi]

You wrote, "This is heqdeish, not issur. And what if they have a non-Jew
do it?" First of all, t'rumah t'meiah ia an issur, in addition to
its k'dushah. (Even assuming that ein m'vatlin doesn't apply to issur
t'rumah l'zar. That's not so obvious. After all, we do not permit
adding chulin to a mixture containing more than 1% t'rumah.) Secondly,
it is prohibited to tell a goy to be m'vateil an issur.

As for your comment that "if shemittah is derabbanan, and especially
if yoveil isn't in the shemittah cycle so that the years of shemittah
today can't even possibly be the de'oraisa one, then how can ma'aseir
ani and ma'aseir sheini be de'oraisa," the first point is well-taken:
if sh'mittah is not min haTorah today, it is because lo kidshah le'asid
lavo, in which case the same lack of k'dushas ha'aretz would apply
to t'rumos and ma'asros. However, the non-existence of yoveil should
be irrelevant. The requirement for yoveil is more than just k'dushas
ha'aretz; those who hold that sh'mittah bizman hazeh is min haTorah do
so even though there certainly is no yoveil. So long as the sh'mittah
cycle exists, why shouldn't the ma'aser sheni - ma'aser ani obligation
apply, since that obligation is sh'mittah-dependent, not yovel dependent?
(Additionally, according to R. Yehudah, that the yoveil year is the first
year of the eighth sh'mittah cycle, it certainly makes no difference,
as far as the ma'asros are concerned, whether or not we have a yoveil.)

EMT

On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 11:39:50PM -0400, Elazar M Teitz wrote:
: You wrote, "This is heqdeish, not issur. And what if they have a non-Jew
: do it?"  First of all, t'rumah t'meiah ia an issur, in addition to its
: k'dushah...

The issur is derived from the fact that it's qadosh. It's the qedushah
that one is trying to be mevateil.

I was asking for a maqor that the kelal applies to other kinds of
bitul. I would assume it does, but would be happier with proof.

:                                                 Secondly, it is
: prohibited to tell a goy to be m'vateil an issur.

Even in cases where we allow amira le'akum on Shabbos? Like if we
could prove this is dreabbanan.
: 
: As for your comment that "if shemittah is derabbanan, and especially if
: yoveil isn't in the
: shemittah cycle so that the years of shemittah today can't even possibly
: be the de'oraisa one, then how can ma'aseir ani and ma'aseir sheini be
: de'oraisa," ...
: However, the non-existence of yoveil should be irrelevant. The
: requirement for yoveil is more than just k'dushas ha'aretz; those who
: hold that sh'mittah bizman hazeh is min haTorah do so even though there
: certainly is no yoveil.  So long as the sh'mittah cycle exists, why
: shouldn't the ma'aser sheni - ma'aser ani obligation apply, since that
: obligation is sh'mittah-dependent, not yovel dependent?...

I'm suggesting that if you hold that the yoveil year was /not/ the
first year of the next cycle, then our current cycle MUST be a
derabbanan because it doesn't even match the same pattern of years
as the de'Oraisa. It's even further removed. (The my "especially.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha@aishdas.org            It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org       and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 03:51:57PM -0400, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:
: It is difficult to say that Kashrut depends on "grossly observable
: phenomena, not upon current scientific categorization." Some of the
: finer points of determining kosher fleishig pivot on minute inspection of
: internal animal tissue following shechita...

But by eye, not by microscope. I think the you misunderstood the point
of R' Eliyahu's unnamed source.

It's like my "Taam and Taste" diatribe. Halachah is about reality as
people can and do experience it. Not scientific principles that can't
be directly experienced.

Glatt is a feature that can be directly tested by humans. Tiny bugs and
beitzei kinim can not.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha@aishdas.org            It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org       and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 05:52:45PM -0400, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:
: Psak is psak. But we're still free -- even obligated -- to think about the
: issues implicated by psak through whatever intellectual tools that promote
: emes...

I'm arguing that part of the Jewish belief system is that one has
emunah in the first principles provided by mesorah. (I'm not discussing
everything else we use tradition to transmit.) This is a cornerstone
of the Kuzari ch. 1.

You gotta get those unproven factoids somewhere before you can start
applying your intellectual tools on them. Sensory input is one source.
Mesorah is another.

On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 05:20:03PM -0400, Feldman, Mark wrote:
:> We have a mesorah. Same way we know about ma'amad Har Sinai.

: But then the argument goes the other way: the Ethiopians have a mesorah,
: recognized by RaDBaz, that they are Jews. Why not simply rely on that
: mesorah?

First, they don't. They have a tradition, but not a mesorah. The system
of kessim means that there are a few who claim to hold the truth about
the history of the man. The Rihhal's definition of mesorah doesn't hold.

Second and more important, it's our decision we're discussing and
therefore our mesorah we must have emunah in. Any mesorah that they have
is their dilemma to resolve, not ours. Do you question your senses when
someone insists they see differently? Or do you first assume they're
wrong or they must be seeing things? Then why question your mesorah any
more readily?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha@aishdas.org            It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org       and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

RMB started this thread with: <<< Suppose we encounter a community that
can prove they (as a community) date back to bayis rishon.... Presumably
such people would have a vastly different halachah than we do.... >>>

Rabbi Rich Wolpoe wrote <<< It is clear to me that Ezra made various
Takkanos to distinguish Jews from Samaritans, etc. It would be hard to see
a non-Ezra version of Judaism as being Judaism as we know it. {Probably
would not be even termed "Judaism" >>>

So the question you really need to ask is: Would the traditions of this
community have been acceptable to Ezra, or would he have put them beyond
the pale?

I recall a few threads we've had recently on whether certain rishonim
(who believed that HaShem has a body, for example) should be considered
within or beyond acceptability. If we couldn't agree on that, it's gonna
be mighty tough to pass judgement on a pre-Bayis Rishon community. As
they say, Tayku.

RRW continued <<< Furthermore, it would not be deemed "Rabbinical Judaism"
without Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai's Takkanos. >>>

Ayn hachi nami. So it's not "The Religion and Traditions that the Bnei
Yehuda and Binyamin have Accepted and Ought to be Doing". It can still be
"The Religion and Traditions that Shevet Dan (or whoever) have Accepted
and Ought to be Doing". Let's not get hung up on labels.

Akiva Miller

In a message dated 6/28/02 2:35:35 PM, R'Rich Wolpoe writes:
> Remember many rules are formulations of categories that can be grouped
> together differenly. So Albo's 3 ikkarim in many ways can be seen to
> imply all of Rambam's 13. IOW they hsare the same bottom line pretty
> much but use a different way of categorizing.

> All of the above begs the more fundamental question, which came first
> the Halachah or the Midrash?

R'Wolpoe's fundamental question -- which came first, the halacha or
the midrash -- begs an even more fundamental question, that is, what
*travelled* first and became ingrained in mesorah, the halacha or the
midrash. Put differently, how and when did midrash and halacha function
differently during the first ten or twelve centuries of galus?

On one level this is a historical question. But it also is peculiarly
spiritual one. A profound discussion of the question, at least by
implication, is in the Ramban's famous Disputation at Barcelona against
Pablo Christiani before King Jaime I of Aragonia in 1263. Pablo,
a Christian convert, relied heavily upon midrash to point to the
importance of the Messiah in Jewish faith and to the various alleged
signs, signals, predictions, and prophecies within midrash that supposedly
verified Jesus's status. As the Ramban's responses to Pablo's arguments
make clear, Pablo wasn't engaging in mere sophistry or deliberate
misinterpretation. the Ramban, however, persuaded the king that Pablo
was wrong (at least in the sense that the king formally declared the
Ramban the victor of the debate) by carefully analyzing the relevant
midrash in terms of its very malleable historical meaning and context,
its resort to questionable myth and parable, and its inconsistency with
careful peshat. (For those who haven't read it recently, the Disputation
at Barcelona, which is published in transcript-like dialogue form,
makes really fascinating reading.)

What makes the Disputation at Barcelona relevant to the discussion
at hand, I think, is the way the Ramban treated midrash. One infers
from the Disputation (and other historical materials) that midrashic
storytelling was a major -- perhaps the major -- means by which Jews
of that time and place understood Torah, including halacha. In an era
where books were few or, in some communities, virtually nonexistent,
midrashic stories travelled and created liveable myths. In many senses
midrash *was* halacha, practically speaking. It took a true scholar of
genius like the Ramban to parse them meaningfully.

David Finch

R' Eli Turkel wrote: <<< At my son's wedding the mesader kiddushin
insisted that the eidim read the entire ketuba. When I asked him he said
they have to know what they are signing. >>>

Can I safely presume that this mesader kiddushin also insisted that the
*chasan* must read it and know what he is getting obligated in?

Akiva Miller

On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 09:50:33PM +0000, Eli Turkel wrote:
: I don't know their arrangements but if it turnes out to be like one
: of the shitot in the gemara why couldn't we say that the other shitot
: were wrong based on historical evidence instead of mathematical one.
: This is especially true since this is no longer halacha lamaseh today

I agree with everything but your "especially true". Either you believe
the system is reliable or you don't. If it's reliable when you need it
to be, IOW when it impacts halachah lema'aseh, why isn't it reliable
when you don't?

I guess one could argue that there is siy'ata diShmaya in lema'aseh
cases. And therefore they aren't the same system. Based on patterns I've
picked up from your posts over the years, I doubt that's your point.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha@aishdas.org            It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org       and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> RCB noted another instance of special kavanah: yibum according to Abba
> Sha'ul. 

> I then repeated this conversation on the train to another friend (not
> a subscriber, yet) and he mentioned the following list of mitzvos for
> which kavanah is me'akeves. 

> 1- Tzitzis - O"Ch 8:8 (Although I asked why not the pasuq.)
> 2- Tefillin - O"Ch 25:5
> 3- Succah - MB (early in the discussion of succah)
> 4- Tefillah - the only R' Chaim on Hil' Tefillah

Tefillan, tzitzis, sukkah - There's no gemara that says these need
special kavanah; since the reason is brought l'halacha (the S.A. usually
does not bring ta'amei hamitzvos) it indicates that having the reason
in mind is part of the mitzva. It is not me'akev (except acc. to bach
I think).

To make things a bit more confusing - Gem. in Chulin 31 debates whether
tevila of a nidah requires kavanah; also discusses kavanah for shechita.
What type of kavanah is this? Doesn't sound like the debate in pesachim
114 whether mitzvos need kavana - sounds like a simple awareness of what
you are doing, yet the same word kavana is used.

So the word kavana is a bit of an enigma with a range of meaning depending
on context.

Lishma is a different ballgame. Many more examples: writing gittin,
mila, korbanos (Tos. Zevachim 2b "stam"), writing/making tzizis
& ST"M. Rashi on chumash brings "li"=lishma, e.g. v'asu li mikdash,
v'yikchu li terumah. Talmud torah- mitoch she'lo lishma ba lishma, but
the goal is limud lishma. Tevilas kelim for kodshim requires lishma;
e.g. tevila l'shem teruma does not mean you can use the kli for kodshim.
I've lumped different types of lishma together, and I'm sure this list
is not exhaustive....

A guess at the chiluk: kavanah focusses on the what, lishma on the why.
Example: You write a document. The kavana is to write a get. The purpose
of writing the get may be to serve as a bill of divorce (lishma), or is
may be to practice your safrus skills.

Of course, that means yibum is not a din in kavanah. The what is
awareness of the act of yibum. Why - because the girl is beautiful or
because it's a mitzva should be a halacha of lishma. (Aside from getting
the terminology straight, is there a nafka mina to what you call it?)

Excuse my ignorance in asking this - Is there a makor (other than sevara)
for mitzvos tzerichos kavana of the type in pesachim 114?

Good Shabbos,
-Chaim

In a message dated 6/28/02 2:35:35 PM, R'Rich Wolpoe writes:
<< Think about this: Let's say a community followed some combination of
Tanach and Josephus, how would you view them? >>

And yet ANOTHER big can of worms is opened on Avodah!

With Josephus, one is reminded of the old American radio show which
had a Jewish character with a heavy Yiddish accent (whose name I've
forgotten, if I ever knew it) who, when challenged with a doubtful
hearsay, responded, "Vas you dere, Sharlie?" There are many reasons to
doubt the completeness of Josephus's veracity, especially in the Greek
translation of the lost Latin originals of his texts, which may or
may not have contained the same narratives. But Josephus was, in fact,
"dere," at least during much of the period covered by his "The Jewish
War." He wasn't "dere" for the period covered by his "Antiquities,"
but was there when the stories that compose the "Antiquities" were being
told by Jews to other Jews in the Second Temple era.

Indeed, we have no alternative account to what Josephus wrote, or
allegedly wrote. He is the sole suriving narrative source for much of
what he recounts. So in large part we are stuck with him.

Let's face it. Our understanding of our history of the period from the
destruction of the First Temple until around the year 70 C.E. -- probably
the most important period in our history, the history of our halacha --
remains wedded to Josephus. We can reject him as a traitor (or, at the
very least, a sell-out to the Romans) but we still use him when we want
to, especially when what he says is consistent with our reading of Tanach.

David Finch

From: syaffe@juno.com
> Has anyone ever heard of a "Minhag" in an Orthodox Synagogue of not
> saying Selichot on a fast day...

The minhog of the Alter Rebbe of Chabad and his minyon was to say
neither. Today in Chabad, both are said.

Chaim G. Steinmetz
cgsteinmetz@juno.com

syaffe@juno.com writes:
>Has anyone ever heard of a "Minhag" in an Orthodox Synagogue of not
>saying Selichot on a fast day...

Until the previous Lubavitcher Rebbe it was the Minhag in Chabad not to say
any Selichot in general and to say Ovinu Malkeinu in the long version only
in Aseres Yimei Teshuvah

kol tuv
yosef stern

> The halacha states that one should stop working at chatzos on eruv shabbos.
> Is that halacha still germane today?

It would seem from the Mishna Berura 249:1 that the main thing is to have
enough time

Daniel Eidensohn

In a message dated 06/28/2002 12:29:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
syaffe@juno.com writes:
> Has anyone ever heard of a "Minhag" in an Orthodox Synagogue of not
> saying Selichot on a fast day...

My childhood O shul in Montreal didn't say Selichos on Fast days.  I once 
asked the rabbi there about it.  He told me that there was no justification 
he knew of, except that the kehilla never said it and that he didn't feel he 
had the koach to institute it.

On 28 Jun 2002 at 16:52, Gershon Dubin wrote:
> From: "SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au>
>: My first question; are the words about requesting that the
>: neshomo be welcomed to Gan Eden - '...usekabel oso
>: b'ahavo ubechibo.." - relevant to a niftar of 50-60 years ago?
>: One would hope that all the requests made there have been fulfilled
>: in the passing decades.
> 
> While I'm not familiar with this tefila, what relevance does 50-60
> years have for people who are no longer in the world and presumably
> not subject to time constraints? 

I think that RSBA's point was that presumably someone who died 50-60 
years ago would already have made it to Gan Eden. Similarly any 
chibut ha'kever R"L would already be complete. 

-- Carl

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

On 28 Jun 2002 at 12:57, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
>> Some poskim were hoping that RYSE would change his mind after the WTC attack,
>> but I think that all (all but one?) 'igun cases have been resolved through 
>> traditional evidence, so that the discussion didn't get too far.

> From what I heard locally, 1 case did require DNA(but I can't vouch for 
> sure).  Would RYSE require that this young lady be treated as an aguna and 
> that she broadcast the DNA basis or may she rely on the others who were matir 
> and not broadcast the DNA basis

AIUI, DNA was only used to resolve questions of which body was which and
none of the igun cases was resolved based on DNA. AIUI the igun cases
were all resolved based on the NbY's tshuva involving the man who fell
into the furnace, once proof was available that someone was in the WTC
(which I understood existed because of the register kept at the entrance).

-- Carl

I wrote: what relevance does 50-60 years have for people who are no
longer in the world and presumably not subject to time constraints?

R' Carl replied:
> I think that RSBA's point was that presumably someone who died 50-60
> years ago would already have made it to Gan Eden. Similarly any chibut
> ha'kever R"L would already be complete.

I still ask: What place does time whether 50 or 500 years, play le'achar
me'ah ve'esrim?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On 30 Jun 2002 at 1:00, Gershon Dubin wrote:
> R' Carl replied:
>> I think that RSBA's point was that presumably someone who died 50-60 
>> years ago would already have made it to Gan Eden. Similarly any 
>> chibut ha'kever R"L would already be complete. 

> I still ask:  What place does time whether 50 or 500 years, play le'achar
> me'ah ve'esrim?

Isn't the whole theory behind saying Kaddish for twelve months that 
during those twelve months the niftar/eres will have their din, will 
serve whatever time they need to serve in that other place and then 
(if they are ever going to) make it to Gan Eden? 

-- Carl

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

On Sun, 30 Jun 2002 11:50:46 +0300 "Carl and Adina Sherer"
<sherer@actcom.co.il> writes:
<<Isn't the whole theory behind saying Kaddish for twelve months that
 during those twelve months the niftar/eres will have their din, will
 serve whatever time they need to serve in that other place and then
 (if they are ever going to) make it to Gan Eden?>>

Agreed. If so, what's a year and what's 50 years? (IOW al harishonim
anu mitzta'arim <g>. You've added to the problem. However, the 12
months has a makor in the Gemara, at least.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: "Arie Folger" <afolger@ymail.yu.edu>
> Reb Shlomo Goldstein wrote:
>> RMB asked what would be if someone showed up with a claim that they had
>> a parallel mesorah having been broken off from the rest of Jewry prior
>> to the time of churban bayis sheni.

>> Such an event happened, sort of. Sefer Eretz Yisroel of Eldad haDani
>> appeared during the time of the rishonim purporting to be from the
>> lost Tribes...


RAF> In conclusion, reb Eldad's story has little to do with parallel messorot,
> unless you consider only the reactions of then contemporary authorities.
> However, you'd first have to separate all those authorities in sceptics and
> believers in Eldad.

If no one rejects Eldad HaDani because his masorah is not the exact same
lineage as ours, lichora there is a rayah about considering the validity
of an alternative masorah.

Shlomo Goldstein

RDF> Ashkenazim simply don't have the evidence -- the metzius, if you
>: will -- to say we're any more Jewish than the Ethiopians...

I don't agree that mesorah itself is enough to answer questions such
as these, especially as mesorah (at least as I understand the term)
encompasses minhag and other forms of communitarian tradition, even
folklore, that fall below the level of binding psak.

Psak is psak. But we're still free -- even obligated -- to think about
the issues implicated by psak through whatever intellectual tools that
promote emes. Emes is broader and more elusive.

I think the Ramban, for one, would agree with me.>end of RDF

Where does the Ramban explain halacha as not being definitive emes?
It seems to me very non-Brisk to have a hashkafa against halacha.

Shlomo Goldstein

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


[ 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         ]