Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 073

Friday, August 9 2002

• Re: Basar SheNisalem Min HaAyin
• Re: Basar SheNisalem Min HaAyin
• Re: 100 Berachos
• Re: Basar SheNisalem Min HaAyin
• Re: Avodah V9 #72
• Re: Mochin
• Re: Forward article about ritually observant boxer
• Re: The/A mesorah
• Re: Houses in Chu"l
• Re: Can Halacha Dictate reality
• Re: rings- beged isha. ?
• Website: halachic articles written by Rabbi Howard Jachter
• Can Halacha Dictate reality
• Re: Can Halacha Dictate reality
• elu v-elu
• Application of kol isha to goyim
• Re: elu v-elu
• Re: Ikkarim
• kriyas hatorah
• Birchas Hashem
• Chukas hagoy

On 6 Aug 2002 at 15:47, Gil Student wrote:
> Lav davka that C Jews make cholent.  I've know quite a few C Jews in my
> life, none of whom make cholent on any regular basis.  Besides, how easy it
> is to treif up cholent?  Assuming that these people are buying kosher meat,
> which is a safe assumption for even C Jews (who observe Shabbos enough to
> make cholent), there isn't much else that can treif it up.

I would say that you're making two awfully big assumptions there with
respect to both kashrus of the meat and Shabbos observance. To raise two
obvious issues: the meat is a "Kosher" brand whose hashgacha is totally
unreliable (I am reminded of a US brand about which it was said some
years ago that they sold more meat in a year than there was Kosher meat
shechted in the entire US) and our hypothetical Jew doesn't know better,
and/or our hypothetical Jew manages to cook the cholent just enough to
be ma'achal ben drusai before Shabbos, but definitely not m'vushal kol
tzorcho (and it's soupy to boot).

It seems to me that there are more than enough potential issurim in
cholent to make it not reliable if you find it in the street.

-- 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.

In a message dated 8/6/02 4:02:00pm EDT, gil_student@hotmail.com writes:
>>So if one finds a pot of Cholant in the street (on Shabbos) he may eat it?

> I don't know that one would any more than one would eat meat found on the
> ground in front of a kosher butcher.  But lichora it should be mutar like
> the case of teisha chanuyos.

In the case of Teisha Chanuyos the Sofeik is on the meat and we say Kol 
Dporish Meiruba Porish, in the case of the Cholent if we would apply Kol 
Dporish on the meat it would be Ossur, so the use of the way it is cooked 
could be viewed as only a Simon which may not be a good one.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 8/6/02 3:32:50pm EDT, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> From: Yzkd@aol.com
>: In addition to the Brochos: Sheloi Osani Isha, Tzitzis, Tfilin, Birchos 
>: Krias Shma, Birchas Hamozozn (sofeik).  
> 
>: 24 Brochos including Yiru Eininu.

> Why would you include Yiru einenu (that they don't say) and not she'asani 
> kirtzono (that they do)?

As I explained Yiru Einenu is mentioned in the Poskim to be Mashlim the
100, while Sheosani Kirtzono is mentioned in Halacha in place of Shelo
Osani Isha, many don't say it, (because it is not mentioned in Shas),
in addition to many it should be said w/o Shem Umalchus (in that case
it may not count towards the 100).

I saw brought from the Shu't Shevet Halevi Vol. 5 Simon 23, as mentioned
that since Beracha on Talis and Tfilin and other Berochos are not Shaychus
to women and yet the B"Y says nothing that shows they are not obligated.

I want to further correct what I wrote that women are not Yotzei Tzava and
hence not in the Takana, I could not remember where I saw that it had to
do with 100 *Chayolim*, but in any case in many of the Mkoros it says 100
"Anoshim" or "Ish" or "Bachurim", further see Lechem Mishna Hil. Taaniyos
2:5 who understands the Kesef Mishna that women are not counted in the
number of deaths. This of course is only on this reason for the 100
Berochos, however there are many reasons including the opinion that it
is Midoireisa, Vein Kan Mkoimoi.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 11:23:14PM -0400, Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
: In the case of Teisha Chanuyos the Sofeik is on the meat and we say Kol 
: Dporish Meiruba Porish, in the case of the Cholent if we would apply Kol 
: Dporish on the meat it would be Ossur, so the use of the way it is cooked 
: could be viewed as only a Simon which may not be a good one.

This raises one of R' Moshe Koppel's favorite subjects: how does one
determine what size set to use for a ruba de'isa lekaman. He is being
CC-ed on this email as an invitation for comment.

Li nir'eh that since it became chulent before the safeiq arose, it was
already niqar in comparison to meat in general, and only other chulent
meat should be included. Aval im kein, ein ladavar sof. Are we to
look at red paprika-ridden chulent as a different class than brown
chulent? Perhaps the butcher and prepared food shop that no one frum
shops by makes one and not the other. How do I limit the set to know
what percentages I'm comparing?

-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: Yzkd@aol.com
> In a message dated 8/5/02 12:22:14pm EDT, gil_student@hotmail.com writes:

> > However, benidon didan where a reliable caterer brings cholent to a shul
> > and then it is served the next morning to the daveners, is not cholent in
> > itself a siman that the meat is kosher? How often is non-kosher cholent
> > made? ...
> 
> So if one finds a pot of Cholant in the street (on Shabbos) he may eat it?

If it doesn't have a siman.  Isn't makom a siman, particularly for 
a heavy item like a full cholent pot (it's not siman he'asui lidareis)?

: please ask the group to help me in the translation of the word mochin. The
: usual terms do not do it justice. Brains is meaningless, and marrow is
: too phsycial....

Is it actually used by chazal to mean "marrow"?

The uses I came up with were Chullin's mention of "qerum shel mo'ach"
(the meningus), and "rov mocho" in Menachos 80a, which refers to rov of
the spinal cord.

So, I think the translation is "central nervous system". Probably via
"that soft stuff in your hard skull" using the connection to "moch"
that RCS suggested.

The fact that we knew that it had something to do with thought puts us
miles ahead of Aristo, who thought it was a blood cooling mechanism.
But then, we know that chazal described trepanning (opening the skull
to relieve pressure on the brain, a procedure even practiced in Yosef's
Mitzrayim, according to archeology).

However, it's clear that RYGB's correspondant was looking for connotation,
not translation. And we know from "bochein kelayos valeiv" that "mo'ach"
is neither meant as the core of one's being (that would be leiv) nor
one's power to make pragrmatic decisions (the filtering of the kelayos).

I'd like to suggest a different shoresh; although I doubt it's peshat it
may have shaped mo'ach's meaning as a symbol. In Shabbos 148a, we are told
that a woman who is "mechaya" (interlacing) is overes. Weaving is a common
metaphor for thought. Li nir'eh it's complex thought, and actually quite
like our English "cerebral". As opposed to the leiv which has less to do
with the interplay of ideas as much as their personality shaping aspects.

-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, Jul 25, 2002 at 05:51:58PM -0400, Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
: See S"A Horav Hil. Nizkei Guf vNefesh S'if 4 that a person cannot give 
: permission and it remains, however for money see Kunters Achron # 2.

Of course. Only the Ba'al can be mocheil.

-mi

On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 10:15:17PM -0400, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: If you have a community that NEVER had the Talmud how would they KNOW
: to reject Josephus? Micha's hypthetical case was a community with a
: Masorah but w/o the entire Bayyis Sheini Halachic process - including
: final Tanach canonization, Tefillah as we know and a set of normative
: or at least common structures about Halacah and Hashkafah. Lacking THAT
: what would you have?

Another thing that hit me about this comment... It shows the centrality
of belief in the integrity of the mesorah to yahadus. Even WRT parshanus.
(Despite RRW's holding looser beliefs than I WRT that subject.)

-mi

On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 04:41:34PM +1000, SBA wrote:
: There is a famous vort from [IIRC] the Kedushas Levi z'l saying that if
: "...Asidin botei midroshos...lehikova b'EY..." - al achas kamoh vekamoh -
: the houses of Yidden - where innumerable mitzvas are performed - will
: definitely be transferred to EY - bevias hagoel - bba.

We often /know/ the centrality of the home over the shul in yahadus, but
sometimes it takes a kal vachomer like this one to help feel it.

Thanks,
-mi

On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 01:17:49PM -0400, Akiva Atwood wrote:
: I can think of two -- Birchat HaChodesh, and the case of a piece of
: treif meat that is mixed with 9 pieces of kosher meat -- we remove one
: piece and the other nine are kosher.

Those are changes in chalos, not metzi'us.

If you use my "ta'am and taste" (to name the thread) sevara, this
is because the chalos is on our doubt, and not the physical state
of the meat. But even without that, the RAEiger I quote there makes
a difference between a safeiq arising in metzi'us vs one in din.

I thought the gemara explicitly says that pesuchah mibas shalaosh is
an example.

-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 Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 09:01:37AM -0400, Gil Student wrote:
: See the Rama in OC 651:7 that midina there is no need to remove rings but
: the minhag is to do so. The Mishnah Berurah 36 quotes some acharonim who say
: that even midina one needs to remove rings. No, I've never seen anyone do
: it.

But why? I didn't think we held that "ulkachtem lachem -- sheyihei
leqicha tama" ruled out chatzitzos to the same degree as say mikvah.

Rava (Succah 37a) allows chatzitah lesheim noi mitzvah, Rabba allows
chatzitzah altogether as long as the 4 minim is being held entirely by
your own ko'ach. Tosafos contemplate allowing using a kerchief to hold
them because it's battul to the hand.

The Ritva, OTOH (pun intended, sad to say), rules out that the
disacussion of "leqicha tama" involves chatzitzah at all!

So why would something that covers a mi'ut of one's LEFT hand (okay,
for your righties) be such a big problem with leqichah?

-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"

http://www.koltorah.org/ravj/ravj.htm

Highly recommended.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

>>>the CI is purported to have explained that in hearing the description
of the ailment he was reminded of a siman in SA dealing with treifos. The
SA paskened that a beheima with this kind of ailment is not a treifa and
the Rema disagreed holding that the animal was osur as a treifa. Based
on this, the CI is alleged to have opined that since the "moreh deasrah"
of Europe is the Rema, there this individual would be b'geder treifa
and not have long to live. <<<

Chazon Ish himself writes (if I remember correctly) that the geder
treifa is nikba based on the status at the time of Chazal. That does
not determine in present-day terms whether through modern medicine we
can save animals or humans that have a shem treifa.

-Chaim

R' Shimon Isaacson asked <<< are there any clear sources, kabbalistic
or otherwise, that indicate that halacha and/or psak can influence
physical reality?>>>

This is one of the rare cases in emunoth v'deoth that one can imagine
constructing a well designed experiment, or, more easily, a retrospective
study of prognosis for various possible treifoth (animal or human).
Why not just do it?

David Riceman

Elu v_elu has been discussed in many articles (including one of mine).
RYGB brings some interesting ideas. Neverthless, I have some questions:

He says

< Once a Posek is recognized to have attained the above criteria, a
layman is not obliged to ascertain the validity of thatPosek's Halachic
methodology. Hashem helps Poskim to reach legitimate conclusions that are
divrei Elokim chaim, and suitable for the Avodas Hashem of the relevant
people, places and times.

The greatest Poskim became one with the Torah itself, and their capacity
to pasken transcended even the Halachic process itself. Once the Chasam
Sofer zt"l's son, the Ksav Sofer zt"l, felt that his father's proofs in
a certain teshuva were questionable. He asked his father, therefore,
about the validity of the resultant psak. The Chasam Sofer responded
that in hispiskei halacha, the primary determining factor was his sense
of what the psak should be. Specific proofs were secondary in importance
(Nefesh HaRav p. 42. See Eitz Chaim p. 430 for a similar statement by
HaGaon HaRav Chaim of Volozhin zt"l). >

I find this approach hard to understand. First R. Moshe writes in his
introduction that he hopes people will try and understand his psak and
not simply use it without understanding. Second this idea seems to be
possible only if there is only one opinion. If there is a machloket is
RYGB claiming that one can follow (eg) Chatam Sofer based simply on his
gadlus against other opinions without being a follwer of CS.

To go back to his example of the mezuzah does a layman flip a coin to
decide whether to follow RMF or CI since both are recognized poskim. A
more practical question to our practicing rabbis - how does a rabbi
decide when he is a talmid of neither RMF nor CI?

Further R
< Implicit in the discussion of eilu va'eilu is, obviously, a plug for
Ahavas Yisroel. When HaGaon HaRav Isser Zalman Meltzer zt"l first became
Rov in Slutzk, an argument broke out in shul whether to say Av HaRachamim
on Shabbos Mevarchim Av. The arguing parties asked Reb Isser Zalman to
clarify the proper minhag. He said: "This is the minhag: some say Av
HaRachamim, some do not, and both sides quarrel about it!"

On a more serious plane, eilu va'eilu teaches us to tolerate others'
minhagim and derachim, and to realize that those derachim may also be
legitimate avenues of Avodas Hashem. In areas that are the subject of
legitimate Halachic debate, there is no one emes, and no justification
for personal machlokes, much less, chas ve'shalom, sinas chinam.>

While I agree 100% with this sentiment it does seem to be used much
in practice. Instead of considering mezuzot let us consider some more
controversial areas

1. sheitels vs hats/teichels
    eruvin

Again there are difference of opinions between poskim and communties.
Does someone who does not belong to a community get to choose? More to
the point rabbis have been quoted to say that women who wear sheitels
will burn in hell!! Doesn't sound like elu v-elu to me -)

A similar example applies to eruvin. Every once in a while one hears
claims that people who rely on an eruv in neighborhood X are halachically
considered mechallel shabbat and posul for testimony even though the
eruv was put up by a talmid chacham.

2. Mosiach

without getting into the debate about Chabad could we say that since
many/most people would consider the late LR a gadol therefore all his
opinions are within elu v-elu?

3. MO

reading letters of many gedolim don't give the impression that they
accept secular learning or religious zionism as a possible elu v-elu in
spite of the fact that there have been gedolim that have justified them.
I would venture that even today this applies to hasidim vs mitnagdim
not to speak of 300 years ago.

From: Daniel M Wells [mailto:wells@mail.biu.ac.il] on Areivim:
> One of the 7 mitzvos bnei Noah is that of arayos and since the issur of
> kol isha is that of (ie it leads to) arayos - therefore I would suggest
> that the issur kol isha also applies to gentiles.

I would argue against your conclusion, based on Igros Moshe EH 1:56.
Rav Moshe says that the issur of histaklus at arayos stems from
"v'nishmarta mikol davar ra"--that one should not be meharer during
the day so that one will not come to tuma (which R Moshe interprets as
hotzo'as zera l'vatala) at night. Consequently, Rav Moshe says that
histaklus is not a din in arayos and there is no halacha of yehareg v'al
yaavor, even though yehareg v'al yaavor applies to abizrayoo d'arayos.
He suggests even that HZ"L itself would not require yehareg v'al yaavor.

Remember also that while for Jews, a niddah is an erva, this does not
apply to goyim. So the only arayos for goyim are aishes ish and krovim.
Even though the 7 mitzvos imply that goyish batei din should make
additional gzeiros to avoid arayos, I wouldn't think that a ban on
all histaklus would be necessary (maybe just histaklus at aishes ish
and krovim).

Kol tuv,
Moshe

At 04:33 PM 8/8/02 -0400, Turkel Eli wrote:
...
>I find this approach hard to understand. First R. Moshe writes in his
>introduction that he hopes people will try and understand his psak and
>not simply use it without understanding. Second this idea seems to be
>possible only if there is only one opinion. If there is a machloket is
>RYGB claiming that one can follow (eg) Chatam Sofer based simply on his
>gadlus against other opinions without being a follower of CS.

The IgM was written for scholars. I was attempting to explain EvE for the 
layperson.

Laypeople need rabbonim, who they may then follow without question.

>To go back to his example of the mezuzah does a layman flip a coin to
>decide whether to follow RMF or CI since both are recognized poskim. A
>more practical question to our practicing rabbis - how does a rabbi
>decide when he is a talmid of neither RMF nor CI?

THat is a very good question - but not the focus of my essay! A rav must 
attempt to be yored l'umko shel inyan and determine accordingly. If he 
cannot, well, then he may ascertain minhag ha'olam, who is more of the mara 
d'asra, etc.

...
>While I agree 100% with this sentiment it does seem to be used much in
>practice. Instead of considering mezuzot let us consider some more
>controversial areas

>1. sheitels vs hats/teichels
>     eruvin
>
>Again there are difference of opinions between poskim and communities.
>Does someone who does not belong to a community get to choose? More to
>the point rabbis have been quoted to say that women who wear sheitels
>will burn in hell!! Doesn't sound like elu v-elu to me -)

I davka chose a less controversial area! Again, a rav can consign anyone he 
wants to eternal damnation since he holds he is right and the others are 
wrong. But that is from his perspective. The layperson is faced by various 
strident rabbonim taking different stances. The question is what is *his* 
(or her) perspective.

>A similar example applies to eruvin. Every once in a while one hears
>claims that people who rely on an eruv in neighborhood X are
>halachically considered mechallel shabbat and posul for testimony even
>though the eruv was put up by a talmid chacham.

Eruv is different, as many of them are pasul. Period. Otherwise it would 
indeed be like sheitels etc.

>2. Mosiach
>
>without getting into the debate about Chabad could we say that since
>many/most people would consider the late LR a gadol therefore all his
>opinions are within elu v-elu?

Perhaps. For better or for worse, the opposition to the LR generally 
explains that he was not a gadol.

The question there, however, is not one so much of halacha, so it really is 
not necessarily and EvE issue.

>3. MO
>
>reading letters of many gedolim don't give the impression that they
>accept secular learning or religious zionism as a possible elu v-elu in
>spite of the fact that there have been gedolim that have justified them.
>I would venture that even today this applies to hasidim vs mitnagdim not
>to speak of 300 years ago.

It's still too early. The C vs. M thing has not yet completely sorted 
itself out!

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

Some observations about Gil's article.

>                 It has become conventional wisdom in certain
> circles that the area of Jewish thought is a field in which there
> are no binding conclusions.  One scholar's theology can never be
> required belief...

>                 However, it is our contention that this theory has
> limitations.  One would be overly liberal to allow complete
> theological heterodoxy in Judaism.  Rather, there are certain areas
> where halakhah and aggadah intersect and in those cases, where
> there is a need for practical aggadic conclusions, the halakhic
> process applies to aggadah as well.

> Lest one think that the idea of mandatory beliefs is solely a
> Maimonidean concept, it should be pointed out that other important
> scholars agreed with him.  While the commandment to believe in (or
> know) G-d is somewhat controversial, both the Hinukh and the Semag
> count the belief in the unity of G-d as a positive
> commandment.  Furthermore, one of the earliest complete
> philosophical works in the Jewish tradition is R. Bahya Ibn
> Pakuda's Hovot ha-Levavot whose very name means "Obligations of the
> Intellect".  Among these obligations he includes knowing that
> the world has a Creator and that He created the world ex nihilo,
> affirming the unity of G-d "with all our heart," and accepting His
> service in our hearts.  The idea of mandatory beliefs neither
> began with the Rambam nor was it limited to strict Maimonideans.
> Indeed, it should come as no surprise that kabbalists also accept
> that there are certain beliefs that are commanded.  These
> beliefs whose acceptance is a commandment are part of the
> intersection of halakhah and aggadah and, as such, are subject to
> the halakhic process of decision-making.

> Fundamental Beliefs

>                 The crossroads of aggadah and halakhah is the
> definition of a heretic.  The Talmud contains many discussions of
> different types of heretics whose precise definition is unclear.
...

Maybe I'm missing something, but the existance of the concepts of min,
kofeir, apiqoreis and the like presumes inherent limits.

That the precise definition is unclear implies a halachic debate about
where the aggadic limits are.

But asking about what the limits are presumes the existance of limits. No?

.... [skipping alot]

> Let us now look at a case in which Rambam's ruling is not
> normative.  Rambam's fifth principle is that only G-d is worthy of
> worship; we may only pray to him and not to anyone or anything
> else.  In this case, Rambam is clearly taking sides in a talmudic
> debate and ruling in an halakhic manner.  However, Rambam's
> strict pesak halakhah in this theological matter was never fully
> accepted.  Despite its approval in many theological and
> halakhic works, there were always those who, while agreeing
> to the main principle, objected to the breadth of its application.
> There are Geonim, Rishonim, and Aharonim
> who permit requesting angels to intercede with G-d on one's
> behalf.  Because there was never a consensus on this issue Rambam's
> word was not final.  However, the remainder of this principle, that
> belief in the inefficacy of prayer to a being other than G-d so
> that this being will assist (rather than petition G-d on one's
> behalf) remains intact.  Such a belief has universal agreement and
> is therefore codified into a binding doctrine.

Again, I would have been more clear on the distinction between being
unsure of something's existance, and being unsure of the limits of it.

One extreme is praying to an intermediary for help.

The other is asking a friend for help.

Or asking one's friend to daven for you.

Now, what if the friend was niftar? Why would asking a favor from
a neshamah to daven for you any worse than if he were still
alive?

And if a neshamah is okay, why not a mal'ach?

In which case, if I can ask a mal'ach to daven for me, why not to
help in another ways?

But isn't that the intermediary we started with?

I would say that the problem we've had was in defining the limits of
the issur, not in accepting its existance.


But what if the friend is deceased? Can one ask 

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org            And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

"However there may be a difference between not fasting because of Oines
(like in the case in that Shaala) to a case of not fasting when there is no
Oines."

>2) The reasoning of the Tshuva does not IMHO support that Chiluk, also the
>way the L. Rebbe quotes it in the Sefer Haminhogim, is Mashma that there is
>no Chiluk.

>3) Otu Brsishi Askinan.

There seems to be a contradiction here on one side you say there is no
Chiluk between Oines and Peshia -(when there is no Oines = Peshia),
and on the other hand you say Otu Brsishi Askinan which implies that
they/we are not discussing Peshia -(Poshim = Reshie).

BTW the L. Rebbe did not make the Sefer Haminhagim tough there are
parts in there taken directly from the Rebbes writings and this doesn't
seem to be one of them and even if it does Dayo Lovo min Hadin Lehiyos
Kenodun. Because the Sefer Haminhagim could be talking about where there
is a Minyan made up of 10 people and most of them are old and weak and
cant fast medically (which equals to Oines).

kol tuv
yosef stern

>> Mecharef umegadef, maybe?

>Doesn't that require the use of a sheim sheeino nimchak?

Mecharef umegadef has nothing to do with a sheim sheeino nimchak. sheim
sheeino nimchak has to do with Birchas Hashem to Chayov Meesa.

sheim sheeino nimchak can be in any form of speech etc.

kol tuv
yosef stern

[About canonicals. -mi]
>So I am still puzzled about those rabonim who wore them.

See the Achronim on SA YD 178 where you will find that the Issur of Chukos
Hagoyim depends on the time and place at hand.

kol tuv
yosef stern

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


[ 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         ]