Avodah Mailing List

Volume 11 : Number 005

Sunday, April 27 2003

• shiurim
• Re: mitzva chiyuvis of chinuch habanim
• Rabbi Meir Chayish l'Miuta
• Re: Pants or Skirts
• Eggs and milk "made" on Pesach
• Re: oats
• Yam Suf and Erev Rav
• Re: Yam Suf and Erev Rav
• Rabbi Slifkin, are you there?
• Re: Rambam: Hakdama
• Re: Kavod Tzibbur
• Re: Kavod Tzibbur
• Re: Rabbi Slifkin, are you there?
• Re: Kavod Tzibbur
• Re: Kavod Tzibbur
• Re: source question
• Re: Ahavah in Mussaf
• RE: Rabbi Slifkin, are you there?
• RE: Yam Suf and Erev Rav
• fish breeding
• Re: Keriah on seeing the Kosel
• tzibbur defined
• Mechiras Chometz: Liquor vs Bread
• Defining Chamur and Kal

I attended the Torah Umada lecture in BIU before Pesach. I hope to report
seperately on several interesting talks.
However, in addition there were two "scientific" talks on eggs and olives.

Eggs are large (compared with olives) and are fairly symmetric (in terms
are larger and smaller sizes) and the differences (variance) is fairly
small. Based on various gemaras and archaelogy one can estimate the size
of eggs from the time of matan torah through chazal , rishonim and until
our days. Given these various data there is no indication whatsover of
any major changes in the size of eggs and certainly not that the eggs
of our day is smaller.

In fact all the Nodah Yehuda "proved" is that either the eggs or the
etzbah changed (accepting his shiur). He assumed that our etzbah can't be
bigger because "niktanu hadorot". What connection between the size of the
human being and his intellect or masorah is difficult to imagine. RMF
or RYBS etc were not physical giants (though Nodah beYehudah himself
was reputed to be exceptionally tall). In fact there is much evidence
that people today are taller than in Roman days.

For olives there is a greater variance in size
70% are 5cc
20% are 3cc
10% are 2cc

in archaelology we have olive pits (obviously not full olives) and they
fall in the same range as today's olives. So unless the ratio of the pit
to the whole fruit changed the olives of ancient times were similar to
today's olives.

eggs are typically 45-50cc over many generations with a most a 10%
change in size. Today's eggs with modern feeding methods average 60cc !!

The measurement of Hezekiah's tunnel also confirms R. Chaim Naeh's
measurement (though there was some debate about exactly what the sign in
the middle said). The sign seems to say that the tunnel was 1300 amot
long. Converted to meters gives a close approximation to RCN. Dr. Low
pointed out that because of the long length of the tunnel small errors
on exactly where the measurements strat and end would have a negligible
effect on the final number.

so in terms of size olives are a small fraction of eggs and not 1/3 or 1/2

see kelim 17:6 for various conversion factors.
Rambam himself never discusses the size of the kezayit.
Seems he simply understood it as a physical size. Only ashkenzim who
didn't have olives turned into a fixed mesaurement.

The conclusion of both lectures on eggs and olives is that there is no
physical or historical basis to the assumption that the size of olives
and eggs changed dramatically over the years. Furthermore, the eggs make
for a better set of basics than the olives which have more variability
and this change is not symmetric about the mean

--
 Prof. Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 04/24/2003
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

R' Akiva Atwood asked:
> `Does the mitzvah of chinuch banim only apply to Limudei Kodesh?

I'm wondering where you're getting a "mitzva chiyuvis of chinuch habanim" 
from?

Veshinantom Levonecha? The gemoro (mishna) in Kidushin?

Can you elaborate?

- Danny

Please daven for a Refua Shelemah for "Chaya bas Naomi Zehava" (recovering 
from ITP) amongst all other cholim. Thanks.

As I was learning this morning, I came across for the umpteenth time
the notion that Rabbi Meir is "chayish l'miuta" (the main sugya is in
Yevamos 61 IIRC with respect to yibum or chalitza involving a katan or
a ketana). It suddenly dawned on me that Rabbi Meir's shita would make
it difficult to function in the world.

For example, when we eat a peanut butter sandwich, we don't open it up
first to check if there are ants crawling inside unless for some reason
- R"L - we take a bite and see three ants. The reason is that we rely
on the fact that rov peanut butter sandwiches in the world don't have
ants crawling around in them. But AIUI, in Rabbi Meir's world, we would
always have to open that peanut butter sandwich and check it for ants!

Now I suppose you could argue that's not a rov - it's a chazaka. But that
chazaka certainly seems to be based on a ruba d'leisa kaman, and certainly
that ruba d'leisa kaman is still a rov. And it's clearly the type of rov
for which Rabbi Meir is chayish l'miuta because it's the same kind of
rov as the yavam katan/ktana (i.e. there's a miut who will be found to be
incapable of having children after they have ostensibly reached maturity).

And my peanut butter sandwich is a minor tircha compared to relations.
Even if we were to hold the most machmir conventional shita - and require
a woman to perform a bdika each time before having relations - it would
seem that Rabbi Meir could not be somech on that bedika because there
is (or might be) a miut of women who will become nidos as a result of
beginning the act of having relations (there's a term for this that the
Gemara uses, but unfortunately I don't recall it right now).

AIUI, Rabbi Meir's world is essentially devoid of rov and therefore of
chazaka. So how does Rabbi Meir's world function?

-- 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: David Riceman <dr@insight.att.com>
> JosephMosseri wrote:
>> Why aren't there such equal restrictions on men?

> The prohibition against men wearing pants is for a different reason.  See
> Even HaEzer 23:6.

I assume you meant prohibition against women wearing pants?

Toby Katz

What is the reason for the practice of not using these? Is it that
that the animal probably ate chametz and "processed it"(ie it's not
that there's chametz bein in the product) or that there may be little
pieces of chametz that are actually in the product(somehow "contaminated"
outside the digestive system)?(see shaarei tshuva O"C 448:17)

KT
Joel Rich

About those who doubt the traditional translation.

I'm not sure the science is right. See
<http://www.can-oat.com/what/what.html> -- oat use in Egypt dates back
to around 2,000 BCE. (12th dynasty. The date BCE and the relation to
yetzi'as mitzrayim are really "just" theory.)

There is also a decent possibility that even if oats were not explicitly
named, they could still be included. Terms in lashon haqodesh are often
broader than a single species. It's possible the halachic mesorah is
valid which lead to a mistaken translation in parshanut.

:-)BB!!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 8th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            1 week and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Chesed sheb'Gevurah: When is holding back a
Fax: (413) 403-9905                               Chesed for another?

The "standard" midrash is that the Yam Suf split into 12 and each shevet
used a different lane. Does anyone know a source that says which pathway
the Erev Rav who accompanied the Jews used?

Chaim

On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 11:32:59AM -0400, H G Schild wrote:
: The "standard" midrash is that the Yam Suf split into 12 and each shevet
: used a different lane. Does anyone know a source that says which pathway
: the Erev Rav who accompanied the Jews used?

The Ari haQadosh writes that geirim went with shevet Levi. That's the
nearest I could think of.

L believes that their Nusach ha'Ari corresponds to shevet Levi's channel,
and is therefore suitable for all Jewry regardless of our shevet of origin.

:-)BB!!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 8th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            1 week and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Chesed sheb'Gevurah: When is holding back a
Fax: (413) 403-9905                               Chesed for another?

Rabbi Slifkin, are you there?
In a recent daf yomi shiur (avodah Zarah, end of 2nd chapter, dafim
39-40), participants were flabbergasted about some of the statements
about the biology of fish and other marine animals. Especially the part
about kosher fish all laying eggs and non kosher marine animals all
giving birth to live creatures. Also interesting was the claim that the
presence of a spinal chord indicated that a marine animal was kosher.

Can you please elaborate on the above, giving special consideration
to the fact that my training in biology stopped somewhere at the pre
college level.

Other Ovedim are invited to chime in as well.

Arie Folger
-- 
If an important person, out of humility, does not want to rely on [the Law, as 
applicable to his case], let him behave as an ascetic. However, permission 
was not granted to record this in a book, to rule this way for the future 
generations, and to be stringent out of one's own accord, unless he shall 
bring clear proofs from the Talmud [to support his argument].
	paraphrase of Rabbi Asher ben Ye'hiel, as quoted by Rabby Yoel
	Sirkis, Ba'h, Yoreh De'ah 187:9, s.v. Umah shekatav.

I wrote:
>: This is a correct understanding of the word minhag. We are faced with
>: a disagreement, and have little in a formal way to choose one over the
>: other, except that we know one to be the common pattern of observance,
>: hence we traditionally accept that view to be correct.

RMB replied:
> Your explanation is elegent, in that it explains what the Rambam means
> in Mamrim 2:2-3 when he speaks of "beis din ... hinhagu minhag". That
> B"D chooses based on a puq chazi. I'm not sure that's your intent,
> tough.

Could be, but need not.

> Also, are you saying this is the only meaning it has? Would that mean
> that calling the ban on qitniyos a "minhag" is using the term loosely,
> in a non-technical sense, only?

No, I am only saying that sometimes, minhag need not be a badly chosen
word in stead of a more appropriate pasqinan, but is rather well chosen,
since we didn't pasqen one way or the other, but rather chose to rely
on the common pattern of observance.

IOW, the common pattern is not qove'a, but instead informs us as to what
the street has been assuming since times immemorial.

Git zimmer,
Arie

RMB wrote, regarding the possibility that kavod hatzibbur re women&'aliyot: 
was once differently defined
> I find this hard to picture, as it would assume that bayis rishon society
> found less of a kavod issue than bayis sheini.

Why do you equate earlier stage in development of the braita with
bayit rishon?

Arie

On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 09:49:51PM +0200, Arie Folger wrote:
:> I find this hard to picture, as it would assume that bayis rishon society
:> found less of a kavod issue than bayis sheini.

: Why do you equate earlier stage in development of the braita with bayit 
: rishon?

I'm not looking at the development of the beraisa, but the development
of the din.

If you assume the sequence given is historical rather than the logical
sequence, the din of banning qeri'ah by women because of kevod hatzibur
would have during or soon after bayis sheini. Impling that the batei
din before then didn't see as much of a kavod issue. Before then would
include the bayis rishon period.

So, implied in all this was that contemporaries of bayis 1 were not
as bothered.

:-)BB!!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 8th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            1 week and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Chesed sheb'Gevurah: When is holding back a
Fax: (413) 403-9905                               Chesed for another?

In a message dated 4/25/2003 8:51:06 AM EST, afolger@aishdas.org writes:
> In a recent daf yomi shiur (avodah Zarah, end of 2nd chapter, dafim
> 39-40), participants were flabbergasted about some of the statements
> about the biology of fish and other marine animals. Especially the part
> about kosher fish all laying eggs and non kosher marine animals all
> giving birth to live creatures. Also interesting was the claim that the
> presence of a spinal chord indicated that a marine animal was kosher.

While you're at it, why the type of riverbed might cause the absence of
nonKosher fish.

KT
Joel Rich

In a message dated 4/25/2003 7:34:05 AM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> If you assume the sequence given is historical rather than the logical
> sequence, the din of banning qeri'ah by women because of kevod hatzibur
> would have during or soon after bayis sheini. Impling that the batei
> din before then didn't see as much of a kavod issue. Before then would
> include the bayis rishon period.

Interesting thought that ktanim apparently were allowed but by the 1800's
"the minhag" was only to allow them for maftir. Does this imply also
a wvolving kavod hatzibbur definition?

KT
Joel Rich

On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 02:08:22PM -0400, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
:> If you assume the sequence given is historical rather than the logical
:> sequence, the din of banning qeri'ah by women because of kevod hatzibur
:> would have during or soon after bayis sheini. Impling that the batei
:> din before then didn't see as much of a kavod issue. Before then would
:> include the bayis rishon period.

: Interesting thought that ktanim apparently were allowed but by the 1800's
: "the minhag" was only to allow them for maftir. Does this imply also
: a wvolving kavod hatzibbur definition?

I see circularity here.

I write that /if/ one assumes the sequence is historical...

and from that you conclude that there is an evolving definition.

Your conclusion is inherent in a hypothetical that I raised.

But in any case, if one believes that the din significantly post-dates
the fundamental gezeirah of leining than either: 1- the definition
of kevod hatzibbur changed; or 2- the protection of that kavod did.

In any case, it shows that societally, people weren't bothered by it
as much. It was the implausibility of the social implication that
lead me to reject the assumption.

I think the beraisa was showing layers of reasoning, not historical
sequence.

:-)BB!!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 8th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            1 week and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Chesed sheb'Gevurah: When is holding back a
Fax: (413) 403-9905                               Chesed for another?

On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 09:55:21PM -0400, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: "When Moshiach Comes", by Yehudah Chayoun, pg 97, says:

: Among the "positive" commandments to be abolished:
: All holidays except Purim (and possibly Yom Kippur): In the future, we
: will realize the good in everything,[(Pesachim 50a)] even our servitude
: in Egypt. Therefore, we will cease to celebrate our redemption therefrom,
: as we do today on each festival. In contrast, Purim commemorates how
: Haman and Achashveirosh's seemingly evil decree was actually a blessing,
: so this holiday will remain even in the Messianic era....

Li nir'eh, this argues not for the abolition of Pesach, but for a
change of Pesach's meaning.

Once someone could see the Yad H' in all of history, even in avdus
mitzrayim, Pesach turns into Purim!

And so, in a way, fulfilling the ma'amar chazal without raising questions
about whether or not mitzvos in the Torah are subject to change.

:-)BB!!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 8th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            1 week and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Chesed sheb'Gevurah: When is holding back a
Fax: (413) 403-9905                               Chesed for another?

On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 10:35:36PM +0200, Akiva Blum wrote:
: Why do we say in muusaf on Yom Tov 'Vatiten lonu .. ba'ahava ..chag
: hamatzos..[be'ahava] mikro kodesh..
: Why the second 'ahava' only on shabbos?

There is also the addition of "ahavah" in Kiddush and in "Vehasi'einu".

The association is because Shabbos is IdE (is'arusa dile'eila'ah), an
awakening from Above. Hashem gifts us with qedushas Shabbos.

OTOH, yom tov is initiated from below, IDT (is'arusa dilesata, for which
we accidentally standardized an acronym implying a taf rather than a
more grammatical saf). We are meqadeish the chodesh, which in
turns sets the yamim tovim in motion. "Meqadeish Yisra'el vehazmanim",
qedushas Yisra'el is a prerequeisite.

: Why the first also the rest of the week?

"Vatitein" is unique. It's not about the encounter inherent in the YT,
but the gift of having the power to make yamim tovim. Which is how HQBH
can give something we then create. He gave us the tools and the ability.
The "be'ahavah" there describes the giving, not the gift.

:-)BB!!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 8th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            1 week and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Chesed sheb'Gevurah: When is holding back a
Fax: (413) 403-9905                               Chesed for another?

> Rabbi Slifkin, are you there?

He's in the US right now, giving ZooTorah presentations across the country
(see his web site for details...)

> Can you please elaborate on the above, giving special consideration
> to the fact that my training in biology stopped somewhere at the pre
> college level.

Obviously not meant to be take literally -- I suspect very deep and
esoteric secrets are being conveyed here.

or

We're back to the question of just how much natural science did Chazal
know -- and is the science of the gemara accurate.

Akiva

> The "standard" midrash is that the Yam Suf split into 12 and each shevet

IIRC, 13 (which is also what my kids said at the seder)

Akiva

=================================
"We took risks, we knew we took them; things have come out against us, and
therefore we have no cause for complaint, but bow to the will of Providence,
determined still to do our best to the last."
Robert Falcon Scott

From: Arie Folger <afolger@aishdas.org>
> Rabbi Slifkin, are you there?
> In a recent daf yomi shiur (avodah Zarah, end of 2nd chapter, dafim
> 39-40), participants were flabbergasted about some of the statements
> about the biology of fish and other marine animals. Especially the part
> about kosher fish all laying eggs and non kosher marine animals all
> giving birth to live creatures. Also interesting was the claim that the
> presence of a spinal chord indicated that a marine animal was kosher.

My friend Reb Natan is traveling, but there are others who have studied
such matters as well.

below is a page from an article I am working on that addresses your
question (although maybe does not give the answers you were hoping for).

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The Talmud also discusses how fish reproduction can be used to determine
Kashrut status. It states that unclean fish produce live young, while
kosher fish lay eggs (Bechorot 7b [1] ). On the spot, Tosfot (Bechorot 7b,
s.v. dag) makes sure to point out that this is not a complete statement. A
parallel passage (Avodah Zara 40a) clarifies that while all kosher fish
lay eggs, there are also non-kosher fish that lay eggs. The difference
lies in the fact that in unclean fishes the fetus is fully developed
in the egg, while in the eggs of clean fish the embryo is developed in
the water[2]. In point of fact, the predominant method of reproduction
for bony fish is external fertilization and egg hatch, but live birth
and internal fertilization also occur. Here too there is a debate how
much the sign may be relied upon to permit a fish.

[1]Found also in Tosefta Bechorot 1:11; Yalkut Shimoni, Breishit:31.

[2]For some reason Rabbi Bernard Illowy, Ph.D. (1812-1871; See EJ
8:1257) chose to treat these statements as contradictory and then give
an elaborate explanation in defense of the Talmud. He explained that fish
are divided into two classes regarding mode of reproduction: Rays, sharks,
and others produce large eggs protected by a strong shell - these species
are called oviparous, but their eggs are internally fertilized before
they are laid. Others have live young and are called viviparous. The
first class can be subdivided. Some fish require fecundation before they
lay eggs (Ovoviviparous), while a great many lay their roe in the water,
agglutinated by a kind of mucilage, which envelops and attaches them
to stones or aquatic plants and they are then fecundated by the fluid
or milt of the male which passes over them (Oviparous). In the first
statement the Talmud merely wishes to teach that all viviparous fish are
unclean, whereas all kosher fish are oviparous. In order that one should
not mistakenly think that all oviparous fish are kosher, the Talmud then
clarified that the non-kosher fish are those that require fecundation,
whereby the eggs are developed within before they are laid, while the
kosher ones lay their eggs in the water where they are fecundated by
the male passing over them.

Based on current knowledge there are several problems with Rabbi Illowy's
explanation, or any simple explanation of the gemara. For example,
there are many sharks and rays that are viviparous. Additionally,
there are examples of viviparous fish, such as the tiny guppies and
the important food fish the scorpionfishes (Family Scorpaenidae),
that are unquestionably kosher. (Guppies are used as food. Some such as
Filippinos ferment them and then eat the mush of the whole fish.) Pacific
Rock Fishes are commercially important fishes that are viviparous and
kosher. (Note that unlike most live bearers, their offspring are born from
eggs that hatch in the female and they emerge live but very immature.
Hence, similar to egg layers they produce large numbers of offspring to
increase the chances of surviving.) Feliks (EJ 6:38) notes that Gambusia
are kosher yet bear live young. He argues that the talmudic principle
is accurate for all bony fish native to Israel.

The fish world cannot simply be divided into two neat classes; there
will always be exceptions, and God's world often includes a continuum
of any particular phenomenon such as methods of reproduction. However,
Illowy's was a noble attempt to use then-contemporary science to elucidate
what to him was a difficult talmudic passage.

Rabbi Illowy rejects a Rashi in Bechorot that explains the second
statement as having to do with the fish warming the eggs as birds do,
as based on a mistake and possibly being an addition by some other
person. No such Rashi exists in Bechorot. It would more likely have been
in Avodah Zara, where he may have had a different text of Rashi.

Rabbi Illowy's letter originally appeared in the Occident, vol. XIV, was
reprinted in the American Jewish Advocate and also in The Controversial
Letters and the Casuistic Decisions of the Late Rabbi Bernard Illowy
Ph.D., [A572 ILL C] edited by his son, Henry Illowy, M.D., Berlin, 1914,
page 46-51.

On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote:
> I generally do not tear keriah either, using the makneh my shirt hetter.
> I believe Rav Zevin, very soon after the Six Day War, suggested that
> the simcha of possessing the Kosel outweighs the feeling of Churban and
> that the loophole is not unreasonable. I, too, when seeing Yerushalayim
> every several years, experience great joy and al achas kamma v'kamma
> when coming to the Kosel. Perhaps this is a weakness in me, but I do
> not feel in the keriah mode.

so you need to put yourself in the kriyah mode.
tearing does that.

I have torn many times.

Is anyone aware of any sources that define what makes up a tzibbur(eg
is a shul membership a tzibbur, a minyan kavua etc>)?

KT
Joel

It is my understanding that many people have the practice of selling
their chometz liquor, but not their bread, pasta, and similar products.
I'd like to understand the reasoning behind this practice, and I have
phrased my question in two different ways, which probably overlap to
some extent.

1) I am accustomed to thinking of grain alcohol as Chometz Gamur, and have
seen it referred to as such in many places. But I've always been curious
why this is so. Is it possible that some shitos consider alcohol to be
not Chometz Gamur, but merely water with Taam Chometz? Could this be the
reason why some people treat bread more restrictively than alcohol? (I
admit that my profound ignorance of the alcohol-making process may
be hampering my understanding of this inyan.) Why else would a person
proudly say, "I don't sell any real chometz", when in fact he does sell
his liquor?

2) Suppose that the amount of bread, pasta, etc, which a person has is
small enough that he'd be willing to get rid of it. But since he has
decided to sell his liquor, he now asks himself, "What the point is
of destroying the bread and pasta?" He is fully willing to rely on the
Mechira for the liquor, so why not rely on it for the bread too? If the
point is to minimize the quantity sold, then perhaps the lesser-quality
stuff should be what is destroyed, and the better-quality should be what
is sold and saved. Why would someone draw the line at liquor vs bread?

Akiva Miller

Mom & I were having a discussion, and I thought the topic was something
to bring up here.

As many of you know, she runs the Lincoln Square Synagogue Food Funnel,
which reclaims food & clothing for the poor and hungry. They recycle
several tons of bread each year, on a twice-weekly basis, from a bakery
to one or two food pantries and soup kitchens. They gather several
truckloads of used clothing twice a year. They gather several carloads
or small truckloads of food two or three times a year. This involves
several dozen volunteers on a regular basis to operate these programs.

She described herself as "machmir" on chesed/tzedakah in an email,
which led me to speculate on exactly how to define "chumra" vs. "kula",
because her efforts, massive and good as they are, don't seem to fit
what I think of as "chumra".

What I came up with is that chumra vs. kula means, given some situation
in which there are more than one legally correct options, the chamur
position is the one which involves more effort or a greater act of will,
while the kal position involves less effort or less act of will.

For example, on the subject of waiting between meat & milk, there are
many different positions: kinuach/hadacha/benching, 1 hour, 3 hours,
5 and a bit, 6 hours, 24 hours. Clearly, the longer times are the more
chamur, and what makes them more chamur is the greater act of will in
waiting longer.

For another example, on the subject of shiurim, the more chamur positions
involve eating more stuff more quickly - greater effort.

How does this fit with brachot? Safek derabanan lekula - and the kula
position is *not* to make the bracha, that is, not to exert the will to
say the bracha.

Thus, chumra in tzedakah might mean giving 20%, or always giving to
everyone who asks, or giving to Jews first, or taking extra care to
investigate that the money isn't going to drugs.

I don't, however, see Mom's efforts as an example of chumra in tzedakah.
Perhaps in getting lots of people to do mitzvot, it would be chamur, but
not directly in tzedakah. If I had to come up with a categorization,
I'd use "lifnim mishurat hadin", which is more or less an exception to
the chumra-kula spectrum.

What do you think about this attempt to define chamur vs. kal?

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

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


[ 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         ]