Avodah Mailing List

Volume 11 : Number 033

Wednesday, June 25 2003

• Re: giving chalah to your wife before eating your own piece
• Re: giving chalah to your wife before eating your own piece
• Re: Women, talis & tefillin
• Re: Women, talis & tefillin
• Re: Fw: Women, talis & tefillin
• Re: existential angst
• Re: giving chalah to your wife before eating your own piece
• Fw: Rabbi Shimon Schwab zt"l and Persian chronology
• Tzora'as Miryam; ketores
• Re: Adv: Shiur on Eiruvin in Flatbush
• Parasha, Daf
• Hamishah Humshei Torah
• Does an objective halacha exist?
• Re: Does an objective halacha exist?
• Staying Focused on Hashem
• Re: existential angst
• 'nun hafucho'
• Nun hafucha
• Re: Nun hafucha
• This past week's and next week's parsha re Aharon Hacohen and m'kosheis eitzim -- Shabbos 96-97
• Re: existential angst
• RE: existential angst
• Re: Existential angst

On 19 Jun 2003 at 22:18, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
> I gave my translation of the Shaar HaTziun, and explained <<< The way
> I read that Shaar HaTziun, his main concern (and possibly his *only*
> concern) is that all actions should have an immediate usefulness. >>>

> RCS disagrees: <<< His concern is with there not being a hefsek. What
> he is saying is that I cannot avoid everyone else's hefsek, so at
> least I have to avoid my own. >>>

> I don't see where he ever compared the botzea's hefsek to the others'
> hefsek. And he never said "You can't do this, so at least do that."

"Aval acharei she'hem ainam rashaim lit'om, mah lo l'hafsik?" 

> The difference between us is that you take the seifa to mean since
> they're not allowed to eat before him, then even the extra slicing is
> a hefsek. Or in your own words, <<< I see NO place for distinguishing
> between cutting and passing out. >>>

> I will now explain why I do see a place to make that distinction...

> I wrote <<< It sounds very clear to me that *if* they'd be allowed to
> eat their challa immediately upon receipt, then the time he spends
> slicing and distributing to them would *not* be a hefsek, because it
> *is* purposeful, and is l'tzorech the seudah. >>>

> RCS responded <<< He's not talking about tzorech seuda - he's talking
> l'tzorech the m'varech eating. >>>

> If the critical factor is the m'varech eating, then why - in the
> reisha, where they are allowed to eat before him - would it be okay to
> pass out their portions before he eats? It must be that it's okay for
> him to have a long hefsek, if the profit is that theirs will be
> shorter. Have you a different explanation?

We don't pasken like the reisha (the Rama). That's what the Mishna Brura
is telling you by bringing the Taz and then adding "v'chen kasvu she'arei
achronim" and by what he writes in Sha'ar ha'Tziyun 69.

> I wrote <<< And that's the *only* distinction between the reisha and
> the seifa of the ShHaTz. In the real world, if he passes out the
> portions before taking his own, what good would it do anyone? >>>

The entire reisha of the Sha'ar Ha'Tziyun is to explain a hava amina
why you might think you would be able to pass out challah before you eat.

> RCS, who sees no difference between slicing and distributing,
> responded appropriately: <<< In the real world, if he cuts everyone
> else's portions before he takes his own, what good would it do anyone?

> I believe (don't ask me where I got this, because I have no idea, and
> may have simply invented it myself) that part of the concept of Arevus
> (as in "Kol Yisrael Arevim Zeh Lazeh") is that it doesn't really
> matter whether you get ahead or whether I get ahead. As long as
> *someone* is getting ahead, then we're *all* getting ahead. In this
> case, I honestly don't see why it is more important for my hefsek to
> be minimized than for yours.

I think you invented this yourself.... Do you also hold that two people
with one container of water in the desert should share it because someone
would be getting ahead by them sharing it? Would you hold that way too
mi'tzad arvus?

> The advantage to cutting all the portions before he takes his own is
> that it is more efficient. Doing it all at once will minimize the net
> average time that each person has to wait between hamotzi and eating.

I don't think we measure hefsek in average time. It's kind of like
being half pregnant - no such thing. You are or you aren't. In the
case of your guests, there is no way they are going to avoid a hefsek
altogether unless they have lechem mishna in front of them (although
that does not mean they can make their hefsek halachically significant -
i.e. requiring a new netillas yadayim - by talking).

[Email #2. -mi]

On 19 Jun 2003 at 23:36, Micha Berger wrote:
> The shitah quoted in the Rama comes in two flavors. The first assumes
> this is only if the ba'al habayis is not mocheil his right. The second
> is that of the Derishah, that he can.

Actually the Drisha is the one who says it's "lo m'hanei." 

> :                                   and I see the 
> : Taz, the Graz and the Magen Giborim (the latter two being brought as
> : "she'ar achronim" or the consensus) saying that since they cannot
> eat : anyway, he should eat before distributing to them. I don't see
> any of : those shitos being cholek on each other.  

> This is a third shitah. The two versions of Tos' shitah is that it's
> only tasting that is at issue.

But the bottom line is that the MB is paskening not like Tosfos or the
Mordechai, but like the Mechaber, the Taz, the Graz and the Magen Giborim.

-- Carl

On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 09:04:25AM +0300, Carl and Adina Sherer  wrote:
: On 19 Jun 2003 at 23:36, Micha Berger wrote:
: >:                                   and I see the 
: >: Taz, the Graz and the Magen Giborim (the latter two being brought as
: >: "she'ar achronim" or the consensus) saying that since they cannot eat
: >: anyway, he should eat before distributing to them. I don't see any of
: >: those shitos being cholek on each other.  
: 
: > This is a third shitah. The two versions of Tos' shitah is that it's
: > only tasting that is at issue.
: 
: But the bottom line is that the MB is paskening not like Tosfos or the
: Mordechai, but like the Mechaber, the Taz, the Graz and the Magen Giborim.

Assuming I bought into your assumption that the "sha'ar acharonim" of
the ShT means rov as per the intro to the MB. Lema'aseh, the MB itself
(sans ShT) only takes credit for the first shitah -- stam MB keRama.
: 
: -- Carl

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@fandz.com>
>> Since the simple fact is that women do not put on tefillin, then even if
>> she wanted to we would recommend against it, because she is inexperienced
>> at self-control.

> If that were the case, we would be encouraging women to put them on
> at age 12 so that they would have practice too....

The reason why women are not encouraged is because we really wouldn't
encourage anyone, except that men have a chiyuv, so minimum we require
during Davening. That being the case, the practice has become that women
do not put on Tefillin. Therefore, even if she wants too, it's too late.

Akiva

On 22 Jun 2003 at 11:57, Akiva Blum wrote:
> The reason why women are not encouraged is because we really wouldn't
> encourage anyone, except that men have a chiyuv, so minimum we require
> during Davening. That being the case, the practice has become that women
> do not put on Tefillin. Therefore, even if she wants too, it's too late.

So if your 12-year old daughter came and told you she wanted to put
on Tefillin, you would tell her "we don't encourage it" and hope that
she doesn't decide to do so over the next year so that she will 'never'
have 'as much experience' as a boy? I don't think so... but if you have
a source for that I would love to hear it.

I think RDJB already did a pretty good job of showing that Chazal's
concern was real and not just a matter of experience....

-- 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.

I was asked in private email what would be the Din of a man with
a colostomy or with a urinary collection bag via a catheter re:
tefillin. The Nishmat Avraham ORACH CHAYIM 76 #9 quotes the Minchat
Yitzchak VI 11,12 and the Tzitz Eliezer IX 6 who permit use of a
colostomy bag as long as it is completely covered and there is no
odor. Ditto for the urine collection bag.

Josh

Jonathan Baker wrote:
> "He who has no son, has no share in the world to come" (Zohar Pinhas 215)

> How am I supposed to deal with a line like that?  Even aside from the
> personal pain,

The personal pain is irrelevant. That, for the Zohar, is how the world
works and you might as well get used to it.

> what does this kind of thing do to the concept of free
> will vs. determinism?

For the Zohar free will is somewhat modified by the doctrine of gilgul.
There are certain things you must do to get to Olam HaBa (or variants
thereof), and you had opportunities to accomplish them in your first
life, and may have opportunities again later on, but you may not have
opportunities to accomplish each thing in each life.

>  I try to live my life according to Torah, but
> something which is *completely*

You need to consider cases. There are cases where having children is
completely outside your control (as discussed, for example, by Isaiah
in the haftarah for fast days) and others where it's not.

Continuing our long discussion about Orach Chaim 167:15, R' Carl Sherer
wrote:

<<< We don't pasken like the reisha (the Rama). That's what the Mishna
Brura is telling you by bringing the Taz and then adding "v'chen kasvu
she'arei achronim" and by what he writes in Sha'ar ha'Tziyun 69. >>>

I think I finally got it. I had been reading the Taz *not* as disagreeing
with the Rama, but merely going into more detail. I see now that he does
disagree with the Rama.

The Rama (as explained by MB 78) and Magen Avraham (according to Sh.HaTz.
67) hold that passing out the portions is not a hefsek, because it is
l'tzorech haseudah.

The Taz (according to MB 79) and Graz and Magen Giborim (according to
Sh.HaTz. 70) hold that it is "not kedai" to pass out the portions, because
(since there's no point in passing out the portions at that particular
time) it would be the sort of hefsek which is "assur lechatchila". [I'm
a little bothered by the use of "not kedai" vs. "assur lechatchila",
be either way he clearly disapproves.]

I do not see the MB as taking sides in this Machlokes. RCS takes Sh.HaTz.
69 to show that the MB prefers the Taz, but I see it (1) as a deeper
explanation of the two sides, and (2) as an admission that the Taz would
agree with the Rama if there would be a situation where the guests *were*
allowed to eat before the botzea.

If the MB were paskening like the Taz, he would say so clearly, such as
by pointing out that "There is nothing gained by passing out the portions
first, so why not be machmir?" as he so often does.

So, I think we may be nearing the end of this discussion. I now understand
the machlokes between the Rama/MA vs. the Taz/Graz/MG. RCS sees the MB
as paskening like the Taz/Graz/MG, but I see the MB as not taking sides.

In sharp contrast, I note that the Aruch Hashulchan 167:30 cites the view
of the Rama/MA as halacha, and does not seem to mention the Taz/Graz/MG
at all.

Akiva Miller

I received the following reply when I forwarded the comments made about R'
Schwab to R' Schwab's son. He gave me permission to post it.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Mlssure@aol.com>
To: <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 7:40 PM
Subject: Re: Rabbi Shimon Schwab zt"l and Persian chronology

It is an absolute insult to my father's memory to say that the thoughts
expressed in his "epilogue," or any of his writings, were promulgated
as a result of any "pressure." His investigation of this entire matter
was motivated simply by his deep-seated Emunas Chachomim coupled with a
quest for "Emes." His final word on the matter was to leave the question
open, not because of any "pressure" - he never bowed to pressure in his
writings or opinions, to him this would have been patently dishonest and
anethma. Rather, like any honest scholar seeking the truth, he recognized
the validity of certain questions which were raised about his theory -
and it is only a theory- and opted therefore to leave the question open ,
analogous to the Tzarich Iyun Gadol of a Rabbi Akiva Eiger, or others,
who accepted a fact of Torah - notwithstanding unaswered questions
about it.

With regard to the corresondent's remarks about the Anshe Knesses
Hagedola (among whom were many Neviim) , see "Rav Schwab on Prayer",
Intro. by Author, page xxviii, for some enlightenment on this subject. By
the way, RSS's theory was not an " elaborate coverup," this language is
demeaning to the AKH.

Regards,
Moshe Schwab

I have some trouble understanding the parasha of tzora'as Miryam.

We know that tzora'as depends on the pronouncement of the kohen. If a
talmid chacham sees a negah, he's supposed to say "kenega nir'ah li".
A choson does not become tamei during sheva berachos, nor anyone during
Yom Tov. IOW, it's not a metzius of tzora'as that's metamei, it's the
kohen's assessment and pronouncement.

Aharon asked Moshe Rabbenu to heal Miryam, because otherwise he, Aharon,
as a karov, could not be metaher her. But how did she become tamei in
the first place? And if she could become tamei because bemetzius she
had tzora'as, then kol umas shebah ken yelech? I'm confused.

Unrelated parasha/daf yomi question:

I saw a peshat relating Aharon's nechama of lighting the menorah to the
fact that the nesiim were able to be makriv ketores nedava ( I believe
it was from RYBS on the ravtorah list). The Gemara in a recent daf in
Zevachim mentions the hekesh between neiros and ketores. Does anyone
have an explanation for the juxtaposition al pi machashava?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Despite the torrential rains, the shiur took place this past Shabbos
and was well attended. In a nutshell, R' Yisroel Hirsch explained many
of the arguments of R' Aharon Kotler and R' Moshe Feinstein to an eiruv
in Flatbush. He fully concurred with their analyses and passed around a
short teshuvah from himself regarding the issue of "mefulash". He claims
that the suggestion that Rashi (Eiruvin 6b sv r"h) requires a street to
be perfectly straight in order to be mefulash is a misreading (I find
an analysis similar to his implicit in the Piryo BeIto on that Rashi).

In response to the question of how to treat those who hold of an eiruv,
he said "with great respect".

As an aside, I was in Ahiezer yesterday for a simcha and saw two
signs about the Sephardic Erub in Flatbush. One was a letter by R'
Jacob Kassin, former Chief Rabbi of the Syrian Community in Brooklyn,
dated 1978 in which he says that there is not and cannot be an eiruv
in Flatbush. The other was from R' Baruch Ben-Haim, the current Chief
Rabbi of the Syrian Community in Brooklyn, dated April 2003 in which he
reiterates the sentiment.

Gil Student

1. In Bamidbar 14:41 there is a double tvir - does that happen
elsewhere? I have an explanation al pi drush.

2. Speaking about al pi drush, in Daf Yomi we just had "Lyla l'kedusha;
yom l'hartzo'oh" - makom gadol la'darshanim lidrosh!

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org  or  ygb@yerushalmionline.org
essays, tapes and seforim at: www.aishdas.org;
on-line Yerushalmi shiurim at www.yerushalmionline.org

Why are there 5 sefarim rather than one undifferentiated sefer Torah?
Admittedly, there are some halachic distinctions, for example,
l'divrei hakol dorshin smuchoth b'Mishneh Torah, whereas elsewhere
it's a machloketh. Nontheless the division into 5 books seems to serve
little purpose.

I ask because lately I've been impressed by several observations about
what's missing in individual sefarim, and we all know that they do
supplement each other. I also know, based on the Ramban's introductions
to each sefer, that he considers them to have distinct themes.

David Riceman

It is said that there are shivim ponim laTorah - seventy faces or ways
to explain the Torah. When applied to practical halacha though, this
raises a question.

Let's say Rashi and Tosafos disagree about a certain thing and the halacha
l'maase differs depending on whether you follow one or the other. We may
then ask - must one be right? The usual answer is that both are valid
interpretations of Torah and both are right, but since you can only do
one thing in practice, you follow the psak of whoever your posek is (e.g.
Sefardim - Beis Yosef, Ashkenazim - Ramo).

 From this it seems that there's no such thing as "true" or objective
halacha, but rather if posek A decides one way and posek B another, both
are 'right'/'true' and you're justified in following your posek. But
how does this square off with the following :

1) Only one set of _practical_ halachos was given to Moshe at Sinai.
Shouldn't this really be the 'true' set? Also, the variations in opinions
later on occured because people started forgetting Torah SheBalPe. This
was one of the reasons it was written down. But if so, we can't say
that these different opinions were a result of a new way of learning
[another face of] the Torah. It seems they were simply a product of
forgetfulness and losses in transmission?

2) The Sanhedrin was required to bring a sacrifice when it caused the
majority of people to sin by issuing a wrong ruling. This clearly implies
that there _is_ such thing as a true, objective, halacha. For otherwise,
whatever ruling the Sanhedrin would make would _become_ the true halacha,
and no offering would ever be required.

        Eliezer

On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 12:02:19AM -0400, Leonid Portnoy wrote:
: It is said that there are shivim ponim laTorah - seventy faces or ways
: to explain the Torah. When applied to practical halacha though, this
: raises a question.

I suggest seeing <http://www.aishdas.org/rygb/eilu.html>, RYGB's article
from Jewish Observer on Eilu va'Eilu, and our earlier discussions about
the machloqes R Tzadoq and RMFeinstein about what that ma'amar means. As
well as my summary of Encyclopedia Talmudit's list rishonim's answers
to the question of why we listen to the bas qol on eilu va'eilu, but not
that about the tanur shel achna'i.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

THE SALANT FOUNDATION
Mussar - The Wisdom of Personal Growth
L'zecher nishmas Rav Yochanon Motel ben Rav Ephraim and Moras Esther
Leah bas Rav Yehudah Yoseph B"H

When Hashem created Adam he placed him in Gan Eden and sated him with
sublime delights. Adam was served by angels like a guest at a royal
banquet. However, after Adam sinned, Hashem required Adam to make an
effort to sustain himself in order make a rectification for his sin,
in which he expressed ingratitude to Hashem.

The rectification worked in the following way: Adam now had to employ
natural means to conduct his affairs. At the same time he had to maintain
clarity of mind to see that everything that he attains is not the result
of his efforts. Hashem is the only cause. This rectification also applies
to us - i.e., we must employ a natural means, while realizing all blessing
comes from Hashem.

Hence, only in our imagination does our existence differ from the pre-sin
existence of Adam. Hashem and only Hashem provides for our livelihood
and grants us our successes. Our test is to not be lured into assuming
that the natural efforts we make contribute to our success in any way,
whatsoever. Working 'by the sweat of our brow' forces us to make a
constant and conscious effort to stay focused on Hashem as the source
of all good that comes to us - lest we slip into taking credit for our
'accomplishments'.

This understanding sheds light on the magnitude mistake committed by the
spies. Although, spying of the land led to the downfall of the spies,
the procedure of spying is legitimate, in fact obligatory. In point
of fact, subsequently, to this tragedy, Moshe sent spies to Yoezer,
and Yehoshuah sent spies to Jericho - and miracles followed in their wake.

The flaw of the spies laid in their calling for a spy delegation to
be dispatched even before they were commanded by Hashem to send out
spies. Their anxiousness to spy revealed their inner intentions: they
felt that victory was dependent on their strength and savvy. They lost
the focus: use natural means of warfare - while relying totally and
absolutely on Hashem.

In a sense, we are only going through the motions. If only we maintain
awareness that the efforts that we make are not the cause of our
success. - Hashem will provide and care for us with royal bounty, as he
did in Gan Eden.

[Based on Ohr Rashaz, the Alter of Kelm]

On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 10:32:53PM +0200, Mishpachat Freedenberg wrote:
:> Since HQBH is not dan onesim, it obviously only includes 
:> those who CHOOSE not to have a child.

: I don't understand your answer. If the statement were that "he who has
: no *Child* has no share..." then I could understand what you are saying.

It does. We are dealing with a translation from a language where "son"
and "child" are the same word, no? It says "ben", not "ben zachar" or some
such, IIRC. (I don't own a Zohar to check.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

You live and learn!

Kol yomay, when seeing the 'nun hafucho' mentioned in my chumash -
before and after Vayhi Binsoya, I 'knew' it was an upside-down 'nun'...

Yesterday I happened to be oleh letorah for that kriyeh and - lo and
behold - I noticed that it wasn't upside-down at all - but rather back
to front!.

So I made a quick survey - and found that most people thought of the
'nun hafucho' as I did and also that generally those chumoshim printed
pre-war in fact have an upside down nun printed in the chumash whilst
those chumoshim that have been typeset and printed post-war have a
back-to-front nun...

Anyone else have this misconception...?

SBA

<<Anyone else have this misconception...?>>

I'll bet none of the ba'alei keriah on the list have it.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: Gershon Dubin 
> <<Anyone else have this misconception...?>>

> I'll bet none of the ba'alei keriah on the list have it.

But this they ever notice how the chumoshim had the nun upside-down?

SBA

I am looking for an explanation/discussion of the machlokes between R.
Akiva and R. Yehuda ben Besaira regarding whether it was proper for R.
Akiva to have revealed the facts that 1)the m'kosheis eitzim was Tzlopchad
and 2) that Aharon HaCohen was afflicted with tzaraas (as was Miriam
albeit only momentarily as opposed to 7 days).

The Torah Temima (and others) explain that R. Akiva felt it fine to reveal
Tzlopchad's name since, according to some, the m'kosheis eitzim did so
"lishma" (and therefore, presumably there was no laaz in that revelation).
See the Torah Temima in Parshas Shlach. However, that p'shat, it would
appear, does not fit perfectly well with regard to the revelation about
Aharon. In any case, that p'shat does not satisfy R. Yehudah's objection
that, even if true, the Torah after all had concealed these facts.

Finally whose mehalach is followed -- if one would say R. Akiva because
after all the gemara "revealed" his p'shatim, yet the gemara continues
with the warning not to be Choshed b'kshairim which seems to support
R. Yehuda's objections; if R. Yehuda, then the gemara should not have
brought down the machlokes at all.

If anyone is aware of m'farshim that discuss these questions and analyze
the machlokes in depth I would appreciate those sources.

Thanks in advance.

R' Jonathan Baker quoted Goldin's HaMadrich <<< "He who has no son,
has no share in the world to come" (Zohar Pinhas 215) >>> and asked <<<
something which is *completely* outside my control will determine my
fate in the World to Come? That's predestination. >>>

R' Micha Berger answered <<< Since HQBH is not dan onesim, it obviously
only includes those who CHOOSE not to have a child. >>>

And R"n Rena Freedenberg questioned that answer <<< It sounds as if the
statement has something to do specifically with a man fathering a son. >>>

I agree with R"n Rena's assessment. Fortunately, even though I do not
own a Zohar with which to check the quote, I do have a copy of HaMadrich,
and found this quote on page 229, where the text of the original is "mahn
d'lays lay *ben*..." and not "ben *zachar*" or its Aramaic equivalent. A
more accurate translation would have been "He who has no *child*...",
as R' Micha understood.

Again, we've been the victims of a less-than-perfect translation. OTOH,
HaMadrich was written in 1939, and I suspect that to the English-speakers
of that era, the word "son" was not as gender-specific as we take
it today.

Akiva Miller

>  It does. We are dealing with a translation from a language 
>  where "son" and "child" are the same word, no? It says 
>  "ben", not "ben zachar" or some such, IIRC. (I don't own a 
>  Zohar to check.)

Neither do I, that's why I was confused. I did think of that [ben can
mean child and not just son] after I sent the post, but I don't have a
Zohar to look up what it really said.

I do feel sympathy for the person who wrote the original post, though,
and thought that the person who told him "that's just the way it is;
accept it" was being a bit heartless.

However, wouldn't one possible answer to the problem be that one could
adopt a child and this would be as if he fathered him/her? As we see
in chumach by Moshe and the sons of Aaron if you teach a child Torah it
is as if you fathered him. Giving birth to a child may be beyond one's
control but deciding to adopt is not.

---Rena

RJB wrote:
> So I was flipping through the Goldin Madrich, prepping for my uncle's
> unveiling this Sunday, and came across the following line:

> "He who has no son, has no share in the world to come" (Zohar Pinhas 215)

> How am I supposed to deal with a line like that?

Ki kho amar ha<Shem> lasarisim ... (open your favourite siddur on the
haftarah of public fasts).

Yeshayahu as G'd's mouthpiece trumps Zohar, whether by RMIShTdL or by
RSBY, any day.

Zohar probably refers to one who refuses to have one. I can't imagine
the wise author of that work to have been unaware of a verse recited so
often in the liturgy.

Arie Folger

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


[ 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         ]