Avodah Mailing List

Volume 11 : Number 035

Saturday, June 28 2003

• Re: giving chalah to your wife before eating your own piece
• Re: Rabbi Shimon Schwab zt"l and Persian chronology
• Re: Tzora'as Miryam; ktores
• Re: Tzora'as Miryam; ktores
• Re: Tzora'as Miryam; ktores
• Re: Tzora'as Miryam; ktores
• Re: Tzora'as Miryam
• Re: Tzora'as Miryam; ketores
• Re: existential angst
• Re: Existential angst
• Re: Does an objective halacha exist?
• Re: Does an objective halacha exist?
• Re: Does an objective halacha exist?
• Re: double tvir
• Re: Revadim Project
• Re: Work
• Re: Work
• Work
• Re: Work
• Re: Work
• Re: Work
• Re: Work
• Re: Work

On Thursday 26 June 2003 11:52, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
> I would understand RSZA as taking the attitude of "k'dai hoo ploni
> lismoch alav b'shas ha'dchak." He certainly wasn't going to make him
> re-do the bracha! But even from your story, it's clear that RSZA (who
> was certainly no slouch on bein adam l'chaveiro) held that
> l'chatchila one should eat the first slice himself.

Well, it wasn't about that time, but about the future. RSZA didn't insist my 
RY (his HIL) change his habit, merely suggested so. It sounded like this 
wasn't the biggest problem imaginable, simply that RSZA felt it was better to 
worry about the position of the posqim who consider handing a piece of bread 
to one's wife a hefseq. From the eulogy, this sounded that RSZA considered it 
more a stringency than a din. Call it a lechatchilah kind of guy's 
preference, but without negating the support that the dissenting party has.

It is also interesting to investigate (and I won't do it, too much to prepare 
for the next couple of days of daf yomi. I want our shiur to be a daf ahead 
rather than 2 behind, by the time I leave next week for vacation) whether 
this is a case where a poseq would take social habits into account. Don't 
know, didn't look into the issue, just want to suggest a spinoff thread.

Arie Folger

RDE wrote besheim RSS's son:
> 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.

Now you quote RSS's son guessing his father's intentions, and I have
an 'eid neeman who quotes RSS himself. Plus, you didn't respond to my
questions abuot the structure of the epilogue, which strongly suggests
that it has a peirush Rashi different from what seems at first.

You also, unjustly IMO, seem to reject the possibility that people
write in enigmatic ways so that only somebody paying lots of attention
will understand the real position of the author while others will be
fooled. If you still maintain this, please take the matter up with
Rambam and a number of kabbalists, first. The Rambam wrote explicitly
that such is the way of the wise, to write enigmatically. The kabbalists
may not have stated that explicitly (frankly, I don't remember), but it
is obvious they practiced this.

Never did I intend to insult either RSS or 'Hazal or AKhG. I simply
think that just like there are a nuber of other aggadetaot where we
interpret them poetically/on a deeper level or what have you, so too
may this aggadeta be a candidate for such treatment, since the simple
meaning is very difficult.

Also, I suggested that your interpretation of the epilogue (retreats from
the theory but not from stating the problem is there) is not totally
borne out by the text, but yet fully agrees with what I heard from the
Basler Dayan and fully agrees with what I also believe to be RSS's true
intention when writing the epilogue. Yet, the epilogue is a bit ambiguous
and was apparently written so intentionally, in order to get his critics
off his back. I don't see harm in that.

My reaction when reading the epilogue for the first time was that
whenever posqim and other Jewish greats come up with an innovation,
they are fearful that it will be misinterpreted and yield negative
consequences, and so add a disclaimer. This is the way of Israel, partly
out of respect for those that disagree, partly out of concern that those
who lack in emunat 'hakhamim and kavod for lomdei haTorah should not
find reinforcement in an essay as RSS's.

Still, I find the difference between your interpretation of RSS and mine
to be so small as to be almost negligible.

Arie Folger

On Thursday 26 June 2003 03:36, Avodah wrote:
> 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.

The Talmud (could be a midrash) states that God acted as Kohen.

Arie

Arie Folger <afolger@aishdas.org> wrote:

<<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.

The Talmud (could be a midrash) states that God acted as Kohen.>>

Source, please.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On Thursday 26 June 2003 15:23, Gershon Dubin wrote:
> <<The Talmud (could be a midrash) states that God acted as Kohen.>>

> Source please

TB Zvachim 102a
<http://www.snunit.k12.il/kodesh/bavli/zbji102a.html>
(really starts 101b)

Arie

Arie Folger <afolger@aishdas.org> wrote:
<<TB Zvachim 102a>>

R' Yitzchok Zirkind pointed me to the Tosfos there. Ayen sham.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
> We know that tzora'as depends on the pronouncement of the kohen. 

> 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.

According to the way Rashi learns the Parsha, you have a valid question..BUT 
my son Joel pointed me to the Seporno in posuk yud 
and it is also mashmeh from the Oir Hachayim Hakodoish posuk yud dahled in 
the middle of the piece starting with the words 'tisogeir shivahs yomim' where
he writes befeirush that according to the 'sifri' the whole punishment was just 
to embarass her, but not that she actually became tomei with tumahs tzorahs,
for THAT reason...her brother couldn't make her tomei due to his being a koruv.

The Oir Hachayim Hakodoish goes on to say that it is also possible that Both the 
tumeh AND taharah where done by HKB"H who is a Koihein. (this could also answer
your question according Rashi's pshat) 

Simcha G 

> Gershon
> gershon.dubin@juno.com

On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:38:45PM -0400, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: 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?

The Ramban writes that each nasi's qorban is listed separately because
each was different in kind. Even though the actual items were identical,
because the intents are different, each qorban was substansively
different. The Ramban actually goes through each and shows how those
items had a meaning distinct for that sheivet.

Each shevet had its own neti'os, which they bring to the klal and our
avodas Hashem as a unit.

What then about sheivet Levi, who didn't participate? Do they have
something distinctly theirs to contribute to the whole?

That was the shoresh of Aharon's disappointment.

The first thing KQBH tells Aharon after the nesi'im is "When you raise
the lights, el mul penei hamenorah ya'iru neiroseha".

The lamps of the menorah represent the various chochmos. They all must
be lit facing the middle because the chochmos must be used to serve the
central chochmah -- Torah. (Just as they all branch off from Torah.)

The machshavos of the other shevatim need direction, they must always
be turned toward the central tachlis. That, HBQH responded to Aharon,
is Levi's role.

It is also often cited that Beha'alosekha is a remez to Chanukah, when
Aharon's descendents performed a chanukas habayis without the other
shevatim playing a role.

I would argue that there is a tzad hashaveh. The Misyavnim persued
chochmas Yavan, and strayed away from the penei hamenorah.

-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.

Gil Student <gil@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Should it matter? Is the reason to do mitzvos so that we can get into
> olam ha-ba?

No. But if one is destined to be precluded, no matter how many Mitzvos,
no matter how deserving, why not just go to Macdonald's and have a
cheeseburger (amongst other things)? What's the worst that can happen
to you? Ay least you will be able to enjoy Olam HaZeh.

HM

See Tos. D"H v'ha'amar Rabi Yochanon, Brochos 5b.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

See also R' Aharon Lichtenstein's essay on Toras Emes and Toras
Chesed.

Gil Student

R' Leonid Portnoy wrote <<< 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.>>>

An excellent book on this topic is "The Dynamics of Dispute" by Rabbi
Tzvi Lampel, published by Judaica Press.

My favorite response to this question (though it does not answer every
permutation of the question) is that when HaShem gave those halachos to
Moshe Rabeinu at Sinai, He *deliberately* left some of them unclear, or
sufficiently vague enough that different people would understand the
Torah in different ways. If HaShem deliberately designed the Torah in
this manner, it is a simple matter to say that "For Rabbi A, who
understands the Torah to be saying Halacha A, then that is how he should
and must act. And for Rabbi B, who understands the Torah to be saying
Halacha B in that situation, then THAT is how HE should and must act."

RLP continued <<< 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.

Yes, there are objective halachos where it can be undeniable that the
Sanhedrin erred. But not every case is like that. Some are, and others
are not.

Akiva Miller

On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 12:02:19AM -0400, Leonid Portnoy wrote:
: 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...

Just because two answers are correct doesn't mean that all claims are
equally valid.

: 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

Why do you insist either of these points?

: 2) The Sanhedrin was required to bring a sacrifice when it caused the
: majority of people to sin by issuing a wrong ruling....

As I said, multiple shitos can both be right, ie. both derivations from
the miqra and earlier din are valid, and presumably either allows the
mechuyav to satisfy the cause of the chiyuv.

Some alleged shitos do not derive from the halachic process. Those are
errors.

-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: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" 
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
> Subject: Parasha, Daf

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

in my Humish i only see 1 under the word 'zeh'.

As a former baal keriyeh, i can think of 2 other places off-hand.

1: in Parshas Shmois - 'umoishe hoyo roieh es tzoin'
2: in Parshas eikev - 'asher hoilichecho Hashem eloikecho zeh arboim shono 
bamidbor' 

i know of at least one more but i don't have a Humish with all 5 seforim with 
me to look it up.

Simcha G

> Kol Tuv,
> YGB

On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 12:52:39PM -0400, Feldman, Mark wrote:
: I noticed last night that Prof. S.Z. Havlin quotes R Elchanan Wasserman
: (Kovetz Shiurim) who says that R. Chaim Soloveitchik said that Amoraim
: actually can argue with Tannaim but generally did not as a matter of
: respect; once in a while, they actually explicitly argue with Tannaim.

: Consequently, the position that when Amoraim make an ukimtah they
: are actually respectfully arguing with Tannaim has nothing to do with
: undermining precedent. It merely means that in the Talmudic culture,
: this was the way to respectfully argue with prior authorities.

What R' Chaim holds is merely that the amora'im had the authority to
debate the tannaim, however they chose not to. He disagrees with the
opinions we more often discuss because they leave no room for the few
exceptions that can be found.

RCB does not say they disagreed with tannaim all the time, however
mipenei hakavod hid this fact.

There is still a yeridas hadoros implied; why else did their predecessors
get this voluntary compliance?

-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 an Areivim thread about non-O Jews and their perception of
mechalelei Shabbos who think they're O. -mi]

On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 01:52:51PM -0400, MIKE38CT@aol.com wrote:
:>> It is commonly known even among non-halachic Jews that the Sabbath is
:>> considered a "day of rest" by Orthodox Jews....

:> Which isn't true. One can do a lot of work while not being oveir a
:> melakhah, while one could be oveir by simply pushing a faucet one way
:> rather than the other.
...

: Absolutely correct, Micha. Which is why you'll notice I put "day of
: rest" in quotation marks.  

I wasn't clear. I think the typical non-halachic Jew thinks that it is
considered a day of rest by O Jews. However, their thoughts are false.

Which is why so many of them ridicule the notion of halachah, since it
doesn't implement the notion of rest that they think we are striving
for.

-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"

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at
> I wasn't clear. I think the typical non-halachic Jew thinks that it is
> considered a day of rest by O Jews. However, their thoughts are false.

> Which is why so many of them ridicule the notion of halachah, since it
> doesn't implement the notion of rest that they think we are striving for.

VaYishbos BaYom Ha Shviyi MiKol Melachto. I think the over emphasis on
the 39 Melachos is leading people astray. While it is true that Melacha
is determined by a defined set t of Melachos, it is also true that it is a
"day of rest moddled on the "day of rest" taken by God after he completed
creation. There is a Yireim (IIRC)that claims that the 39 Melachos were
basically made up by Moshe Rabbenu himself... that God put in MR's hands
the task of defining what Melacha is and that it was indeed "man" that
chose to link Meleches Shabbos to the Melachos of the Mishkan.

So when anyone states that it is a day of rest... it is.

HM

[From mi:]
> I wasn't clear. I think the typical non-halachic Jew thinks that it is
> considered a day of rest by O Jews. However, their thoughts are
> false.

> Which is why so many of them ridicule the notion of halachah, since it
> doesn't implement the notion of rest that they think we are striving
> for.

Right. Which is why, when I talk to the ignorant about it, I don't use
"day of rest", but rather, I try to explain it as, "day of cessation from
interfering with nature", or "day of cessation from doing physically
creative or destructive acts." Then it becomes clear why walking 2000
amos on a hot day is permissible, but plucking a blade of grass is not.

[From RHM:]
> VaYishbos BaYom Ha Shviyi MiKol Melachto. I think the over emphasis on
> the 39 Melachos is leading people astray. While it is true that Melacha
> is determined by a defined set t of Melachos, it is also true that it is
> a "day of rest moddled on the "day of rest" taken by God after he
> completed creation. There is a Yireim (IIRC)that claims that the 39
> Melachos were basically made up by Moshe Rabbenu himself... that God put
> in MR's hands the task of defining what Melacha is and that it was
> indeed "man" that chose to link Meleches Shabbos to the Melachos of the
> Mishkan.

Whoa!  That Yireim has a lot of questions to answer!

For example: the torah text itself makes that link! I'm not talking
about proximity -- but the loshon itself. For the most part, the Torah
only uses "melacha" in three contexts: (a) Creation; (b) telling us what
not to do on Shabbos; and (c) building the Mishkan.

My argument is that *even if* shabbos was not mentioned in the text next
to the building of the Mishkan -- any linguist would make the connection
anyway, simply by being assigned the task: "what is a melacha."

The fact that the term "melacha" is used for Creation, Shabbos, and
Mishkan, and that HaShem refrained from melachos after the sixth day,
makes it pretty obvious. I.e., you don't need a Moshe Rabbeinu to figure
that out!

I.e., if you accept that the lashon comes from HaShem, then one must,
perforce, say that HaShem made that connection -- don't you think?

-- Sholom

RSS:
> For example: the torah text itself makes that link!  I'm not talking about
> proximity -- but the loshon itself.  For the most part, the Torah only
> uses "melacha" in three contexts: (a) Creation; (b) telling us what not to
> do on Shabbos; and (c) building the Mishkan. 

> My argument is that *even if* shabbos was not mentioned in the text next
> to the building of the Mishkan -- any linguist would make the connection
> anyway, simply by being assigned the task: "what is a melacha."

> The fact that the term "melacha" is used for Creation, Shabbos, and
> Mishkan, and that HaShem refrained from melachos after the sixth day,
> makes it pretty obvious.  I.e., you don't need a Moshe Rabbeinu to figure
> that out!

> I.e., if you accept that the lashon comes from HaShem, then one must,
> perforce, say that HaShem made that connection -- don't you think?

I beleive that the view of the Yereim is a Daas Yachid. But your own
deduction in this regard as you express it here is not conclusive. No
matter how obvious a derivation might be it may or may not be the
source of a Halacha. Only Chazal made those kinds of Drashos. If they
don't mention them, then we can't make them. IIRC the Gemmarah does not
mention whether God told MR that the 39 Melachos are to be based on the
Meleches HaMishkan, or whether He told MR to use his own Daas and that
MR chose the Mileches HaMishkan on hiw own.

I did not see the Yireim in question, but I remeber RYGB mentioning it
to us during one of his Daf Yomi Shiurim, probably in Messeches Shabbos.

HM

> I beleive that the view of the Yereim is a Daas Yachid. But your own
> deduction in this regard as you express it here is not conclusive. No
> matter how obvious a derivation might be it may or may not be  the
> source of a Halacha. Only Chazal made those kinds of Drashos. If they
> don't mention them, then we can't make them.

I'm not convinced is a drash. At all.

It's a simple matter of figuring out: "what is a melacha", and that only
one conclusion _can_ be drawn.

Look, if someone told you: "under pain of death, you shall not do
biggle-wiggle" -- the first thing you would do is trying to figure out
what biggle-wiggle meant. And you would figure it out by seeing how
else the word is used. Lo and behold, the word is used when HaShem is
creating the Universe, and when we are building the Mishkan.

> IIRC the Gemmarah does not
> mention whether God told MR that the 39 Melachos are to be based on the
> Meleches HaMishkan, or whether He told MR to use his own Daas and that
> MR chose the Mileches HaMishkan on hiw own.

What I'm saying is this: if HaShem allowed Moshe Rabbeinu to use his
own Daas, then why did HaShem, in the Torah, use the word "melacha"
when describing Creation/Shabbat/Mishkan?

Do you see my point? It's the *same* word! On one hand I say: "don't
do a melacha", on the other hand, when I describe building the mishkan,
I say, "we're doing malachas." And when I talk about slavery, I use
the word "avodah".

So, I guess, what I'm really saying is this: melacha _already_ had a
meaning -- it was already used in Bereshis 1. How can HaShem let Moshe
Rabbeinu decide what a word means, when HaShem has already used the word?

-- Sholom

R' sholom@aishdas.org wrote <<< Look, if someone told you: "under pain of
death, you shall not do biggle-wiggle" -- the first thing you would do is
trying to figure out what biggle-wiggle meant. 

Yes, but ONLY if "biggle-wiggle" was an unfamiliar term.

"Melacha" is not an unfamiliar term. Hebrew-speakers use it for generic
"work" in many contexts, and I'm not convinced that there is a Divine
imperative to analyze every single word of the Torah for shades of
meaning. Perhaps that is done only for unfamiliar or vague terms, and
"melacha" is not *necessarily* such a term.

I could make this a long post, but I'll cut to the chase:

I'll admit that the question of "Why did the Torah use the word 'melacha'
instead of 'avodah'?" is interesting and important. But we must also
acknowledge that on Rosh Chodesh and Chanuka, the women are told to avoid
*melacha* -- and with a definition which has very little to do with
creative activity.

Akiva Miller

Harry Maryles said:
> VaYishbos BaYom Ha Shviyi MiKol Melachto. I think the over emphasis on
> the 39 Melachos is leading people astray. While it is true that Melacha
> is determined by a defined set t of Melachos, it is also true that it is
> a "day of rest moddled on the "day of rest" taken by God after he
> completed creation.

You presume a meaning for shevisah. It's shevisah from melachah, so that
one can acheive menuchas hanefesh. Not simply "rest".

FWIW, yes, the obligation of actual shabbaton is probably de'oraisa, even
if the definition of what is a shevus was left to us. But that's in
addition to the melachos, not their defining feature.

> There is a Yireim (IIRC)that claims that the 39
> Melachos were basically made up by Moshe Rabbenu himself... that God put
> in MR's hands the task of defining what Melacha is and that it was
> indeed "man" that chose to link Meleches Shabbos to the Melachos of the
> Mishkan.

And wouldn't Mosheh Rabbeinu's definition reflect the point of shevisah
far better than a straightforward translation of the word would?

-mi
-- 
Using <http://www.aishdas.org/webmail>

sholom@aishdas.org wrote:
> What I'm saying is this: if HaShem allowed Moshe Rabbeinu to use his
> own Daas, then why did HaShem, in the Torah, use the word "melacha"
> when describing Creation/Shabbat/Mishkan?

> Do you see my point? It's the *same* word! On one hand I say: "don't
> do a melacha", on the other hand, when I describe building the mishkan,
> I say, "we're doing malachas." And when I talk about slavery, I use
> the word "avodah".

> So, I guess, what I'm really saying is this: melacha _already_ had a
> meaning -- it was already used in Bereshis 1. How can HaShem let Moshe
> Rabbeinu decide what a word means, when HaShem has already used the
> word?

Avodah has more than one meaning. It depends on the context. During
our period of slavery in Egypt, Avodah was used in the context of "hard
labor", as in Avodah Kasha or Avodah B'Forech. But when used in context
of Kohanim it has to do with what the Kohen does with a Korban, or his
service in the Kodhsei Kodoshim on on Yom HaKippurim.

Same thing with Melacha. In the context of Shabbos, it is defined by
the 39 categories. In the context of Chol HaMoed, it is defined more in
the common usage of the word and has absolutely no connection to the 39
Melachos of Shabbos. It is therefore not possible to rely on context to
define what Melacha is. To simply say that Melacha is a creative act is
too broad a definition. God rested from all of His "work" on the seventh
day. Does this mean the work of creation? What did that entail? Is
His creation... our creation? Why the Meleches HaMishkan? Maybe God's
Shvisah included "rest" from other forms of creativity not contained
in the Melaches HaMishkan. We can't really know what God's "rest" is or
what that means.

HM

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


[ 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         ]