Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 010

Thursday, October 9 2003

• Fasting before bar-mitzvah
• RE: Fasting before bar-mitzvah
• fasting before bar mitzvah
• RE: Fasting before bar-mitzvah
• Fwd: Tekias Shofar on Shabbos RH
• Re: Suffering: Individual vs Community
• Kitzur Sefer Hareidim
• Re: Women and kadish
• forcing oneself to cry on Yom Kippur
• Yona's fish
• Al Chets
• Re: davening in place where your friends are or in a 'friendly' place - desirable ?
• Re: Do Animals have a Right to Life?
• Fw: women going to hear Parshas Zochor
• Re: duchenening during Ne'ila
• Re: duchenening during Ne'ila
• Re: duchenening during Ne'ila
• Re: duchenening during Ne'ila
• Re: duchenening during Ne'ila
• Re: duchenening during Ne'ila
• Re: duchenening during Ne'ila
• Not Blowing the Shofar
• FW: Uneven Breaks in Vidui, Al Cheits and Singing Ashamnu
• Fasting before Bar Mitzvah

In a message dated 10/7/03  "Stein, Aryeh" <AStein@wtplaw.com> writes:
> RSZA used to instruct that children should not fast
> before their bar-mitzvah, even if the family "minhag" was to do so.

> Question: Are there others who argue? Can anyone direct me to other
> sources that discuss this?

Don't know any sources, but in my family children did fast before bar or
bas mitzva. However I remember that the Yom Kippur when I was eleven I
had a cold, and my father told me not to fast, even though I would have
been mechuyov to fast despite a cold had I been twelve.

 --Toby Katz

One of my friends told me what he thinks the reason behind the custom that
some have to fast three times before their bar/bas mitzvah. Most kids,
from the ages of 10 or 11, begin begging their parents for permission to
fast. While we tell them that, at their age, their mitzvah is to eat,
this does not stop their desire to fast. So, as a compromise, someone
came up with the idea to let them fast three times before their bar/bas
mitzvah, as a way of letting them "practice."

(Or, perhaps, by telling them that they should fast these three fasts,
their yetzer hara kicks in and they won't want to fast anymore....)

KT
Aryeh

> According to RSZA (Halichos Shlomo II), the "minhag" that a child fasts
> on the three fast days prior to his/her bar/bas mitzvah has no makor
> whatsoever. Rather, a child should fast for part of the day but he should
> not complete the fast - even if Yom Kippur is the last fast day before
> the child's bar mitzvah. The inyan of chinuch is fulfilled by fasting
> for part of the day. RSZA used to instruct that children should not fast
> before their bar-mitzvah, even if the family "minhag" was to do so.

Rambam hilchot shvitat assur (don't remember siman) says (IIRC)one should
fast from age 11 complete fast, and from age 9 partial - nothing before
age 9 the raavad is massig on the rambam's statement to fast from age 11 -
and says all according to the child.

Meir Shinnar

> Rambam hilchot shvitat assur (don't remember siman) says (IIRC)one
> should fast from age 11 complete fast, and from age 9 partial - nothing
> before age 9 the raavad is massig on the rambam's statement to fast from
> age 11 - and says all according to the child.

RSZA was aware of the Rambam. In Halichos Shlomo, it starts by saying
"B'zmainenu, a child under bar-mitzvah does not fast."

KT,
Aryeh

Update from  Myronw2@aol.com:

The discussion regarding R. Schlesinger can be found at
<http://www.seforimonline.org/seforim/ir_hakodesh_vehamikdash_3.pdf>.

It begins in Volume 3, Chapter 20, Section 4 (page 283 in the sefer,
page 287 in the pdf file.)

I have not had time to read it, but I hope to do so over Sukkoth. After
all the mitzvah of 4-minim has a similar din, I imagine.

I was wondering if one may put the 4-minim in a place where one could move
it on Shabbes (e.g. L'Zorech its place) and thus accidentally-on-purpose
fulfill the mitzvah.

With a tefilla that we all fulfill the mitzva of 4-minim d'Oraysa
this year,

- Danny

R Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> Rav Soleveitchik said that normally when a clamity happens to an
> individual - he needs to accept as we see with Aaron and get on with
> his life. In contrast when it happens to a community - it is
> appropriate to ask questions. Iyov apparently is an exception to
> rule. I have the Akeidas Yitzchok on CD - but have no idea what word
> to look for. Any help would be appreciated

: As usual, I'm no help with meqoros. However, I was wondering about
: your comment about Iyov. Iyov concludes with HQBH chiding him for
: seeking an answer. Why would you consider his case an exception to the
: AY's rule?

The Meshech Hochma writes that Moshe Rabbeinu wrote Iyov as part of a
life long quest to understanding suffering. Iyov does not indicate that
a person shouldn't seek an answer but that the answer is different than
Iyov had anticipated. [Defining answer as that which stops the urge to
ask another question.]

BTW Rav Soleveitchik's comments were made on Tisha B'Av if that helps
jog memories for the Akeidas Yitzchok.

                                    Daniel Eidensohn

A couple of things in R. Danziger's summary of Sefer Hareidim related
to previous posts of mine:

1. He clearly says that non-m'lacha preparation from Yom Tov to Chol/YT
Sheini is d'rabbanan. This reinforces my question of why it's not muttar
bein hashmashos l'sheim mitzva (e.g. starting the seder sooner).

2. He lists hassaras michshol as a d'orayytha, and avoiding EATING
dangerous things as a d'rabbanan. No mention of other dangerous
activities.

David Riceman

Just to add to the list of poskim in vol. 11 no. 56, R' Eliezer Silver
prohibited women from saying kaddish and personally voiced his opposition
to RYE Henkin (who permitted). This was recorded by his student R'
Shlomo Wahrman in She'eiris Yosef, vol. 2 no. 60.

As an aside, the above article by RS Wahrman was entirely mischaracterized
by R' Joel Wolowelsky in his Women, Jewish Law and Modernity p. 92.

Gil Student

From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
> From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
>> While you still see some crying today at least in the Yeshivish
>> minyanim in which I daven, it doesn't seem as much as I remember from
>> my childhood.

> I believe it was Rav Hutner who said that a machzor without tear stains
> is like a hagada without wine stains.

>> In one place I davened, probably about eight years ago, the Rav
>> got up before N'eila and reminded everyone that the Malbim (IIRC) says
>> that someone who cries during davening over Yom Kippur is guaranteed
>> mechilla.

> So they force themselves to cry?   Does that  "count"?

I would like to see any such Malbi"m, if it exists, inside......sounds
a bit funny to me......

I am reminded of (the Kotzker, IIRC) vort re shaarei dimah (gates of
tears in shomayim).

Chaza"l say, IIRC, that 'af all pi shekol hasheorim ninalu (even though
all the doors are closed) (chutz mishaarei onaah?), shaarei dimah lo
ninalu (the gates of tears are not closed.

The question is then asked, if they are never closed, why is there then
a door at all (same could be asked about a certain Yeshiva whose door
is always open [I think}, in EY, e.g., perhaps) ?

Answer - to keep *false tears* out.

I assume that false tears are rejected by HKB"H on Yom Kippur
as well....in fact may be even more reprehensible on such a holy
day....(although perhaps not all 'forced tears' are totally false - that
is another discussion - but assuming if they are.....). Of course those
that believe they can fool HKB"H with other things (on YK and bichlal),
probably feel they can do so with tears that are not the genuine object
as well......

Mordechai

Posted by: sba@iprimus.com.au
> A thought that occurred to me yesterday after saying Maftir Yonah and
> perusing the Rashi thereon.

> Dag and dagah.
> Rashi is obviously trying to explain why the 'whale' is first called a
> 'dag' and in the next posuk a 'dagah' ?

The inner meaning of this Chazal seems to be the process of re-birth
that happened to Yonah within the belly of first male and then female
fish. As Radak points out, the reason Yonah would have been pressed for
space is due to the roe of the fish.

Three days is the number for change, transformation and rebirth.
There may also be a connection to the kabbalistic idea discussed here
in the past of the neshomos of tsadikim reincarnated inside specifically
fish.

M. Levin

Did anyone ever notice that there are no al chet's corresponding
to Samech? Instead of samechs, the nusach presents two aveiros with
'sins' - (siach sifsoseinu and sikur ayin). When we go to Shin/Sin
(which historians will declare were originally two different laters)
we have one shin (shvuas shav) and a sin (sinas chinam).

Thanks
Elly Krimsky

R Akiva ("Kenneth"? Which tanna was ever named "Kenneth"?) Miller wrote:
> R"n Rena Freedenberg praised her shul because <<< I can hear very
> well and I can have tremendous kavana there and there aren't usually
> any noisy kids that are allowed to disturb... >>>

> and R' Micha Berger responded <<< Then you wouldn't have liked
> Hak-heil... >>>

> I'm not convinced that the things we normally associate with shul
> are relevant to Hakhel. It is easy to say "I have to hear the Melech
> laining!" but it is simply not possible for so many people - or even
> a great majority of them - to hear him. The melech has a chiyuv to
> lain, but I think that *our* chiyuv is merely to attend. We will be
> inspired not from hearing the words of the laining, but from being
> among the crowd.

Actually, this was my point. Haqheil was about the experience of being
there.

What is the point of being in a minyan over davening beyechidus away
from all distractions?

Can you say that none of it is simply the experience of the crowd,
"taf venashim"? Why do we call it a "beis *keneses*" anyway, if the
inspirational effect of being in the group were not a factor.

-mi

R' Nosson Slifkin wrote:
> Hashem tells Yonah that He is having mercy upon Ninveh which is a
> great city "with many animals" (Yonah 4:11).... As Radak says, they
> are not deserving of retribution, and therefore Hashem would not wipe
> out the city since it would cause the animals to die.

> BUT in the generation of Noach... another explanation is as the Gemara
> quotes Hashem, "I only created the animals and beasts for man; now
> that man has sinned, why do I need the animals and beasts?"
> (Sanhedrin 108a).

Perhaps the difference is that Noach's generation was a global problem,
humanity as a whole failed.

Did Ninveh's animals exist to serve Ninveh alone? Or, were they worth
saving because of their potential usability to other people?

-mi

 From an offlist discussion - hopefully it makes sense to all

>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>> From: <simchag@att.net>
>>> Subject: Re: women in shul Re: going to hear Parshas Zochor
>>>>> SM:> R.n Freedenberg may not be aware of the fact that women going to
>> shul on> shabbos or Yom Tov is a "modern" custom; in previous generations
>> women> did> not go to shul at all, unless there was a simcha (an afruf or a
>> bris) or> to> hear t'qi'as Shofar.  Women did not go for Parshas Zokhor, either.
>>> These> "modern" customs, which depart so greatly from women's "traditional
>>> role," started in the 20th century.

>> TK:  I don't think it's true that women going to hear Parshas Zochor is
>> a 20th century innovation.  What makes you think that women didn't used
>> to?
>>> Are they not obligated?  Any of you other fellows here know anything about
>> that?

>>>> R' Katz

>>>> R' Seth is right..it IS a new innovation..my father o"h and my mother
>> ZGZ both come from different cities from Hungary, My Garndmother from my
father o"h side
>> came from Romania.from what i heard from my father o"h and from his
friends his age
>> group.. women DID NOT GO to shul to hear Parshas Zochor...my father o"h
told
>> me that the first time he saw this minhag of women going to Parsha
Zochor was
>> here in the states...
>>>> what i will add to this is that when i lived in MOnsey, i lived
>> around the corner from Rabbi Friedler ZT"L, he grew up in
Frankfurt BUT his family originaly came from Galicia and where Tshotkover
Chasidim.
He once told me that the first time he saw women going to Parshas Zovor was
when
he ended up inFrankfurt, and the very frum yekkishe women, who where v
ery mdakdek bmitvous..THEY went to hear Parsha Zochor.

>>>> Simcha G

>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au>
>> Subject: Re: women in shul Re: going to hear Parshas Zochor
>>> Further on this...
>>> The Chinuch says that women are potur because Mechiyas Amolek
>>> has to do with milchomo to  for which women are potur.

>>> The Minchas Chinuch counters that milchemes mitzvah -
>>> IS a chov for them as well.
>>> Re Reb Simcha's Frankfurt story..
>>> The sforim bring that Rav Nosson Adler [who lived in Frankfurt]
>>> even sent his 'meshorses' to listen to Zochor. So maybe there - it was
>> an ancient minhag.

>>> Then, of course, Zochoyr-zochor,
>>> it's obviously only a chiyuv for a 'Zochor'..

>>> And to those who haven't heard this ancient story -
>>> of a shul where only Ameratzim were allowed.

>>> When it came to Parshas Zochor, they didn't know what to lein.

>>> Then one chap piped up:
>>> "Of course! We lain "Isho ki sazria veyoldoh zochor..."

>>> The gaboim thanked him for his help -
>>> but promptly expelled him from shul -
>>> seeing that he was not an am ho'oretz after all..

>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: Seth Mandel
>>> Subject: Re: women in shul Re: going to hear Parshas Zochor

>> As I have written before, the Chinuch has nothing to do with it.  The
>> Chinnuch is referring to the mitzvas mechiyas Amolek and the z'khiro.
He
>> makes no connection between the mitzva of z'khiras Amolek and reading
>> parshas Zokhor.  Despite what people are taught nowadays, that is the
>> modern chiddush, and why women for over a thousand years never thought
>> that there was any inyon in hearing Parshas Zokhor.  The linkage between
>> the two is an attractive s'voro, but has no basis in any rishon, and is
>> contradicted by many rishonim.  It all stems from a chidush about what
>> the Mhabber means when he says that Parshas Zokhor and Parshas Poro are
>> d'orayso.  Not finding any source, some acharonim erased Poro and
claimed
>> that the d'orayso of Zokhor is the mitzva of Z'khiras Amolek.

>> Maybe put this on Avodah?

>> Gershon
>> gershon.dubin@juno.com

>> On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 13:22:10 +1000 "SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au> writes:

>> Reb Seth, U are probably [as usual] 100% right. I didn't check the
Chinuch itself -
>> rather some of the Likut seforim - who obviously can write as they
will -
>> [and safely assuming that no one will check up their sources...

>> [So what about RN Adler? [he sent he meshorses to listen to PPZ in
shul?]

>> I understand that the Minchas Elozor also has a tshuva on this.]

>> And talking of such seforim.

>> We had a quite a storm here re a few chassidishe chevra who made a
minyan
>> in a side room on 2nd day RH - just for Mussaf  tefilah belachash -
>> so they can blow tekias belachash - which is not done in the only minyan
>> our shul has on RH - which davvens nussach Ashkenaz.

>> In the toing and froing about this action, someone showed me a
>> Nitei Gavriel - who - unlike  his usual style
 [ eg ''Nohagim lehisanos beYK'' - and bring as a source a
>> posuk in the Torah,   and in the next sentence
''Veyesh sheinom misanim'' - and will bring a
>> source like 'Minhogei Sharoshpotok".. ].(A bit extreme - but hopefully u
get my drift...)

> Here  - although the NG mentions fleetingly in an  earlier paragraph that
> where tekios belachash is not done - one should cover the shofer.
In the main bit -  the next paragraph, he writes about  tekias
>> belachash  - as if that was the standard - and quotes sources -
 MA, Mateh Efrayim and another [can't remember].

>> He continues "ochein...'' and brings more sources... [which is the only
>> limud zchus I have on him]

>> But, the average Yankel reading this,
>>  gets the impression that the above sources are pro TB - when in fact
>> they are against. The MA writes not to blow them - 'lekatchila'....

>> BTW it is interesting to note that while Mateh Efrayim there says no -
 a few chapters earlier -  which obviously Mr Nitei missed - he says that
me'ikar
hadin there should be TB!

>> Lema'aseh, our [very chassidish] rov was asked by the shul committee
>> to put a stop to this and he issued a letter [attached].
[I told him last night, that if he lets the chassidim make an extra minyan
for TB, maybe next year the 'moderneh' in our shul will demand a separate
minyan
on Yom Atzumos for hallel.
That may be a bit farfetched - but lemaaseh when changes are allowed -
one never knows where they end.]

>> Regarding not saying Aderes veHoemunoh all year - W E L L!!
>>  - not a single person I mentioned it to had heard of it!

>> [I even mentioned it to a TC friend in NY this morning who was also
>> surprised.]

>> But that may not be such a great chiddush- as it seems that even the
Betchoocher Rov the  Eshel Avrohom didn't know.
>> In Eshel Avrohom he writes that 'since he heard of this' he began saying
>> ho'Aderes quietly..

>> The Likutei Maharich BTW brings sources that saying it before
Boruch She'omar  is not considered beztibuur...

From: "Gershon Dubin" <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
> <<Another thing that is done only in EY by his talmidim is to say morid
> hatol in the summer;
> R. Hutner did not institute that>>

> Sure did.

Really?  In YRCB they say morid hatal? Mit a pasach oder a qomatz?

From: "Seth Mandel" <sm@aishdas.org>
>> <<Another thing that is done only in EY by his talmidim is to say morid
>> hatol in the summer;
>> R. Hutner did not institute that>>

>> Sure did.

I think it is hakol modim that re Tal it is with a kometz

R' Carl Sherer wrote <<< The MB actually paskens that you should NOT
duchen in N'eila.>>>

Exactly where did he write that? I'm wondering if he distinguished
between EY and Chul.

R' Gershon Dubin said: <<< My son complained about the hurry up for
duchenen followed by the very slow AM.>>>

I don't understand why Chazaraz Hashatz should feel rushed, unless they
had a new/inexperienced chazan. Don't most chazanim know how to time
themselves and pace themselves? At my shul they know exactly how long
Mincha and Neilah each take, and they subtract that from tzeis to know
exactly when mincha must start.

R' Gershon Dubin said: <<< Neither he nor I understood why the "chiyuv"
of birchas kohanim; if it's too late, it's too late>>>

If they duchened at Musaf, then it's only a mitzvah kiyumis, and not a
chiyuv. But either way, still d'Oraisa, no?

R' Carl Sherer wrote <<< I don't know anyone here who duchens at Mincha.

My understanding (perhaps from R' Tukachinsky's Sefer Eretz Yisrael, or
maybe elsewhere) is that we don't duchan at mincha unless two conditions
are both met: (1) That it be a taanis. (2) That the mincha is "domeh
l'neilah", i.e., that the time is later than Plag Hamincha.

Akiva Miller

From: "Gershon Dubin" <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
> <<i DID see duchenen in chu"l in Ne'ilah when i davened for years on YK
> by the Spinka Rebbe ZT"L in williamsburg>>

> Interesting that it is not done in YRCB, at least on YK (if not during
> the year as per the Gra's
> ma'aseh) since Rav Hutner adopted many minhagei Yerushalayim for the
> yeshiva.

1) Dukening in Ne'ila was never done by any Eastern Ashkenazim for
hundreds of years; I am shocked to hear that the Spinka have introduced
such a practice. See the Remo in SA 623, based on the practice,
as recorded in Mahari Tirna, that in Ashkenaz we only dukhen at musaf.
Yes, in the Darkhei Moshe he brings the Maharil, by whom kohanim dukhened
at ne'ila. But the Maharil, nebbekh, was from Germany. There, from the
earliest times, they dukhened only on yom tov, but on all the t'fillos
on yom tov -- i.e. shacharis as well (as was done by the Yekkes up until
recent times). It is the Remo, again quoting Mahari Tirna, who says
in SA 128:44 that we only dukhen by musaf -- and again, over there,
the minhog of the Maharil was to dukhen by shacharis. So wherever the
Spinka got this idea from, if they were to be consistent they would
dukhen by shacharis as well.

2) R. Carl is in error when he states that the MB advises not to
dukhen by Ne'ila in EY. As many people have mentioned before, the MB
is a summary and explanation of the acharonim on the SA. However, only
Ashkenaz acharonim. The CC did not use for the MB any S'faradi acharonim,
unless they were mentioned by Ashkenaz ones. Nor did he use chasidish
s'forim, except for the Alter Rebbe's SA. (the latter is probably due
to the fact that he used only nos'ei kelim to the SA or books of Shu'T,
neither of which genres were common among chasidishe rebbes.) The MB did
not intend to pasken halokho even for Ashkenazim, qal vahomer ben b'no
shel qal vahomer that his work is a book of p'saq for EY or S'faradim,
and is not accepted as binding by chasidim.

After all, R. Carl, the MB accepts what the R'mo says in 128 that "we"
only dukhen on musaf on yom tov, and you will admit that that "psak" is
not followed in EY. The reason, as above, is that the MB never intended
to bring acharonim from S'faradi countries or from EY.

Yes, the MB's logic about not dukhening during ne'ila might imply that
places that daven ne'ila late on Yom Kippur should not dukhen. But that
is extending the MB to situations he never addressed. The facts are that
the talmidim of the Gra who moved to EY adopted dukhening every day,
because that coincided with the minhog of the s'faradim, and their customs
were the basis for most of the customs of the Perushim. (The talmidim of
the Besh't, led by the Mezricher Maggid, who moved to EY, never adopted
this custom. They, however, had to leave Yerushalayim and they settled
in the Galil, where many places until today do not dukhen every day.)
They also adopted dukhening on shacharis on yom tov, and on ne'ila as
well. See the published t'shuva from R. SZA, who says that in all the
places he davens on Yom Kippur, they are careful to start and finish
ne'ila (at least through dukhening) before sunset, and he was not talking
about rushing through ne'ila, but planning the schedule that way. R. SZA
is reflecting the minhag of the Perushim, who were never bound by the MB.

> R Seth Mandel:
> 1) Dukening in Ne'ila was never done by any Eastern Ashkenazim for hundreds
> of years; I am shocked to hear that the Spinka have introduced such a
> practice........

i wrote offlist to R' SBA that the first time i saw this in Spinka
about 20 years ago i asked from where this comes from and i was told
that the Spinka Rebbeh's zeideh, the mechaber of the chasidishe sefer
Chkal Yitchok, did it in Europe....since roiv minhogim of the Chkal
Yitchok derived from Ziditchoiv, my suspicion is that the minhug came
from there..this would put this minhug back to when the Ziditchoiver
Rebbeh lived, about 160 years ago, (this is only a suspicion)

as far as why they don't duchen by shachris as well...i don't have
an answer..

Simcha G

On 9 Oct 2003 at 23:47, SBA wrote:
>> Really?  In YRCB they say morid hatal? Mit a pasach oder a qomatz?

Not that I heard. 

 - Carl

"Seth Mandel" <sm@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Really?  In YRCB they say morid hatal? Mit a pasach oder a qomatz?

Komatz.  Nobody there would pronounce ANYTHING with a qomatz <g>

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

> Danny Schoemann wrote:
> My host on 2nd night RH showed me a tshuva of Rav PZ Frank
> zt"l. Apparently there was a certain Rav Shlezinger who held it
> was muttar to blow shofar on shabbes in Yerusholayim, and he did.

a somewhat concise describtion of exactly what happened and what
Rav Shlesinger's argument was, and the tzad knegdoi, can be found in
'Hamoiadim bHalacha' by R' Yosef Zevin..

BTW at that time when this whole parsha took place, 2 Rosh Hashanas in a
row fell out on Shabbos..exactly like we just had the past 2 Rosh Hashanas

Simcha G

> Each and every Yom Kippur I wonder why the divisions in Al_Chait do 
> not occur at equal intervals. Similarly, the recital of Oshamnu, 
> Bogadnu... is spaced irregularly.

I don't have an answer for you, but I have always wondered why, in the Al
Chaits, we substitute the letter "shin" for the letter "samech."  Are there
no sins that begin with the letter "samech"?

> i assume in haredi shuls the shatz vidui is not sung together; but every
> place i have ever davened has sung ashamnu to a popular major-key tune.
> i wonder the origin of that tune, it is almost like 'we are happy to
> announce that we committed the following'. unless we say that it is
> the simcha of doing the mitzva of vidui....

One answer that I heard (as to why we sing Ashamnu) is because we are
happy that we have a relationship to HKBH to the extent that He actually
cares about us and our sins, and listens to our vidui. Unlike a melech
basar 'vdam.

KT
Aryeh

See, Cohen, Children in Halacha for various opinions. The bottom line is
the MB who says that our children are all considered cholim bse chulsha
yordah leolam and do not have to fast a full day.

M. Levin

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


[ 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         ]