Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 129

Thursday, March 25 2004

• Re: chametz in the kinneret
• chametz in the kinneret
• RE: chametz in the kinneret
• Re: Hametz in the kinneret
• Chametz in the Kinneret
• RE: chametz in the kinneret
• chametz b'mashehu
• RE: chametz in the kinneret
• RE: chametz in the kinneret
• RE: chametz in the kinneret
• Re: chametz in the kinneret
• Re: chametz in the kinneret
• cooking in chametz pots and kitchen for Pesach
• eating matzah
• Time for afikoman
• Re: Chazal and Superstition
• washing hands
• Rambam and the last eight p'sukim
• Orhot Zaddikim - new text
• Re: identity of MaHaRam Paprish
• Re: identity of MaHaRam Paprish
• Re: identity of MaHaRam Paprish
• The adoption of new practices
• RE: Chazal and Superstition
• Walking down the aisle

RAA:
: Measurable? None. But maybe "Taam" is a "homeopathic" principle?

I recommend seeing the thread titled "Ta'am and taste"
the first thread (at the time of this writing) in
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=T>.

I started that thread with a theory about ta'am relating the word more
to its usage in "ta'am hamitzvah" than taste.

Some excerpts:
> Well, I'm trying to say that even without a metzi'us of ta'am, one can
> still "experientially associate" (EA) the item with basar or chalav. One
> doesn't have an EA of ta'am; EA is my proposed definition of ta'am. Think
> ta'am in the sense of "ta'am hamitzvah".

#2:
> This touches on something that has become a pet topic of mine in the
> past few months: rampant empiricism.

> In this case, the assumption is that the correctness of a behavior toward
> an object should be entirely determined by the empirical state of the
> object. Ad absurdum, a swatztika drawn by a teenager in '00 should be
> treated no differently than any of his other doodles.

> What my exagerated case ought to demonstrate is that things have emotional
> and ethical content beyond their physics...

> IOW, if this dish is mentally, emotionally or existentially associated
> with dairy, one can relate to using it with meat as though one were mixing
> meat and milk. The physical presence of milk isn't necessary. Similarly,
> if a surface physically has milk, but in a way that we no longer associate
> it with dairy, perhaps we should allow using it with meat. Therefore,
> kashuring should be okay because it's a disasociating ritual, regadless
> of whether molecules of dairy proteins are entirely removed.

See also R' Mark Raman's take.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org        excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org   'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (413) 403-9905      trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

From: Akiva Atwood <akiva@atwood.co.il>
>>> 1) I specified over pesach
>>> 2) the particles were visible when first entering the Yam

>> Then we'd have to asser the whole NYC water supply - kids fish in the
>> reservoirs, using bread as bait.

> Which is why some people are against using the kinneret water during pesach.

> Granted, the metzius is we don't asser the NYC water supply (or the
> kinneret's). The *theoretical* question is, "why not".

Because there's no taam?

>> What taam is there from a ton of chametz in the Kinneret?

> Measurable? None. But maybe "Taam" is a "homeopathic" principle?

But taam has to be tangible, if less than 1:60. See the Shulchan Aruch
at the beginning of Hil. Taaruvos. Sephardim depend on t'imas hagoy,
Ashkenazim go for 1:60, and only if the taam isn't gone after 1:60,
is it still a problem. IOW, it's not a homeopathic principle. Even in
Nat bar Nat, it's still 3660:1, which is a lot bigger proportion than
a loaf in the Kinneret.

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

The Aruch haShulchan OC 467 # 33 re: chametz that fell into a "bor" [which
I would translate as a cistern dug into the ground] and specifically
indicates that a Be'er (well) fed by a spring can't affect the chametz
"kemo SHELO NE'ESOR NAHAR V'AF D'HAMAYIM OMDIM". Incidentally he states
that "v'zeh she'nimtza b'eizo makom lashon BE'ER lo dikdiku bazeh".

Now the Kinneret is not just a "nahar", it's a large lake that is
spring fed (as the Aruch haShulchan writes: "nov'im tamid") and contains
hundreds of millions of gallons of water. At a ratio of 1:1000 for bitul,
one would have to throw in tons of chametz in order to passul the water
(which can't happen in any case since the water is spring fed and moving).

Josh

WRT to the kinneret, one practical issue:

The claim is made by RAA that as taam doesn't require much (even
homeopathic quantities), the mere presence of any hametz in the water
supply makes it hametz - the volume doesn't mevatel it. I thought that
ta'am required to be nikkar, but that is a different issue. The position,
however, is difficult to maintain on a practical level.

On almost all water supplies in the past, people fished (and used hametz
for bait). If there were boats, one could essentially guarantee that
there would be crumbs from food falling off the boat. There would be
hametz (at least garbage) on the shores of the lakes/rivers which would
fall in. Small amounts, but by this shitta, a crumb is enough.

However, no one ever worried about such issues, even though they were
clearly a mashehu.

The sole exception seems to be the case of a well (limited volume of
water), where we know that someone threw chametz in close to pesach.
Even this seems to be a daat yachid, and based on a humra.

However, if the position is taken that any hametz falling into water makes
the whole water supply hametz, it is hard to believe that there is any
water on earth (perhaps melt a glacier..(now that's a good business idea
)that is not hametz (or safek hametz) - one can almost guarantee that
water within reach of human settlement will be exposed to some (perhaps
minute, but that seems irrelevant). No one seems to have worried about
it before. The bottled water presumably comes from lakes or springs,
but how do you know that there is no bread anywhere on the beaches of
that lake?? (I don't think the hashgacha is that extensive)

Meir Shinnar

Assuming for the sake of argument that chametz thrown in the kinneret
on Pesach is prohibited even in the infinitesimal amount of "mashe-hu,"
there remains the additional issue of whether the water derived from the
kinnert is indeed an admixture ("ta'aruvot"). Let up posit, for example,
the ton of chametz was deposited as a solid. Who is to say that some
of this chametz dissolved and diffused into every glassful that is
drawn from the sea? Similarly, assume that the chametz was poured into
the Kinerret in the form of liquid (perhaps a waste of good scotch).
My recollection is that there is an issue in the gemara (in the case of
tevilah, for example, where the gemara countenances the possibility that
someone who immersed himself into a lake where a barrel of wine fell
did not have a valid tevilah because the wine may not have diffused),
and there is a machloket at least as to whether we are to assume that
diffusion occurred. Unfortunately, I do not have access to sources here,
but before we condemn the entire Kinneret as a ta'aruvot of a mashe-hu
of chametz, we should consider whether it is deemed a ta'aruvot at all.

Further, again without access to sources, let me suggest that if the
lake is indeed not diffused, we may get to a case where "kol di-porish
me-rubo porish" (anything which leaves a mass (as opposed to kavua)
is deemed to have been part of the majority of the items in the mass)
and one needs to check to what extent this rule would apply where the
mass includes an issur that is prohibited b'mashe-hu.

Finally, and without going out too much on the limb, I would want to
research whether the mashe-hu prohibition because of davar she-yesh lo
matirim (i.e., wait until after Pesach and have the item permissibly) can
be moderated because of issues on need (like obtaining drinking water).

SLK

> I recommend seeing the thread titled "Ta'am and taste"
> the first thread (at the time of this writing) in
> <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=T>.

I went, I read -- excellent thread.

It certainly would explain the KSA's psak about bread in wells (and
filtering not helping).

Akiva

RJB
> Darchei Moshe on 447 references a
> case of bread in the well, but I can't figure out if the Mordechai was
> matir or oseir, and my eyes gave out at trying to read the whole perek
> Col Shaah in the Mordechai looking for the case.

In the standard Vilna edition the Mordechai is page lamed amud bais
column 2, 10 lines before siman 569.

Shlomo Goldstein

I have a comment and a question about the current topic, namely "chametz
in the kinneret".

1) Far too many of these posts have invoked the concepts of taam and bitul
b'shishim. These concepts are (AFAIK) utterly irrelevant to this topic,
and serve only to distract us and muddy up the waters. When chometz falls
into food *on* Pesach, the issur is not based on taam, but is based on
other reasons. The mixture is assur "b'mashehu", and it is not batel,
"afilu b'elef". The focus of this thread should concentrate (IMHO)
on the definitions of "mashehu" and "afilu b'elef".

2) What's the metzius here? I'd imagine a well to be a rather small and
confined area, and one can debate the odds that someone might put chometz
in there on Pesach. In contrast, the Yam Kinneret is a very large area,
and is not only accessible to the public, but is also frequented by large
numbers of people, and even moreso during Chol Hamoed vacation times. If
so, is the situation merely a safek? Perhaps there is a reasonable
presumption that people *do* put chometz in the water? (It's been far
too long since the one time I was there, so I'm very out of touch with
what sort of people are at the Kinneret. Even if the weather were warm
enough for swimming, I don't think there's much fear that they'd bring
a sandwich into the water with them, but it could be quite likely that
fishermen would use bits of bread as bait. Are there any areas where
ducks might gather, so that children would be likely to feed them?) If
such a presumption exists, then any leniences based on discussions of
well-water would have to be thoroughly re-examined.

Akiva Miller

On 25 Mar 2004 at 0:53, Akiva Atwood wrote:
> Granted, the metzius is we don't asser the NYC water supply (or the
> kinneret's). The *theoretical* question is, "why not".

Actually, IIRC, the last time water was pumped from the Kinneret during
Pesach was 1992 (the biggest rain year ever - at least until last year)
and many of the Ashkenazi Charedi poskim DID asser the Kinneret water
(during Chol HaMoed! - which was when they discovered it). That's why
there's been a rule ever since not to pump during Pesach....

-- 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.

On 24 Mar 2004 at 13:26, Harry Maryles wrote:
>>> The KSA is talking about a well. Not a sea. Who paskins that the
>>> Kinneret is a well?

>> What's the difference between the kinneret and a well?

I'm not sure the Kinneret would qualify as a Sea (even if that is 
what it is called). Does it qualify as Mayim She'Ain Lahem Sof? 

-- Carl

RAA:
> Measurable? None. But maybe "Taam" is a "homeopathic" principle?

I am not sure where we are going here. Surely ta'am means ta'am, not
homeopathic ta'am. The issur of afilu b'elef, OTOH, is a chumrah which
ignores the general principles of ta'am. But it is a chumrah in Bittul
b'Rov. The Kinneret water issue is more aptly a Kol d'Parish issue. And
there is no evidence that the principle of afilu b'elef applies to KdP
- aderaba, from the sugya of "V'nichbeshinehu n'naydei" it seems that
there is no such kepeidah.

In any event, the Yabia Omer and Tzitz Eliezer, IIRC, have dealt with
the Bittul issue and have been mattir b'shufi. I do not think it is
incumbent upon the government of the State of Israel to accommodate the
chumros of individuals who decide to strive towards a higher level of
observance than the psak of competent Gedolei ha'Poskim.

YGB

First, the issue of whether ta'am is 1:60 or a mah shehu isn't
particularly relevent. Ta''am only prevents bittul where there is
otherwise an opporunity for bitul. But on Pesach itself there is none.
This whole ta'am thing is a tangent deserving a different thread.

IMHO, the question is therefore entirely in defining a mah shehu, and
whether it's in the absolute quantity or relative quentity.

BTW, a get from Teveryah would clear up what halakhah considers the
Kineret. From the usability of the Yardein as a mikvah, it would appear
that the Kineret is a widening of the Yardein, not a bor, be'eir or yam.


On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 06:36:22PM -0500, Jonathan Baker wrote:
:> Measurable? None. But maybe "Taam" is a "homeopathic" principle?

: But taam has to be tangible, if less than 1:60. See the Shulchan Aruch
: at the beginning of Hil. Taaruvos. Sephardim depend on t'imas hagoy,
: Ashkenazim go for 1:60, and only if the taam isn't gone after 1:60,
: is it still a problem. IOW, it's not a homeopathic principle...

As I've already posted, we've discussed this before.

To my mind there are two distinct uses of the word ta'am.

1- Taste. As in hilchos bitul. You can't be mevateil something you
literally taste. (Whether checked by te'imas hagoy or one relies on 1:60.)

2- But by keilim, the word is used to mean something more like RAA's
homeopathic-like principle or my notion of experiential association
(how we relate to the item, rather than the item's physics and chemistry).

The amount balua in a pot after it's been used for vegetables a few
hundred times since the contact with /tarfus/basar/chalav/chameitz is
far less than one in 60, not does it physically give any taste.

And yet we call it a nosein ta'am. It would seem that "ta'am" WRT
ta'am shebikeli is a different concept.

I therefore don't agree with RJJB's statement:
: Nat bar Nat, it's still 3660:1, which is a lot bigger proportion than
: a loaf in the Kinneret.

... because the amount exuded by my hypothetical pot into the dishwasher
is far, far smaller. The ratio is an issue involving literal ta'am,
nat bar nat involves ta'am shebekeli.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and 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.

It appears from M"B 447 S"K 14, that one may cook and bake in unkashered
chometz kitchen before Pesach, the food one will eat on Pesach. Is this
true?

Our LOR quoted RSZA that one should preferably not swallow a large amount
of matzah at one time because it is not derech achila. In our seder we
try and eat matzah at a "normal" pace and not stuff it into one's mouth
and then swallow.

Is there any "older" source for forcing oneself to eat a huge amount of
matzah in one swallow?

-- 
Prof. Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 3/25/2004
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

On Areivim, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
> Are people on the list generally makpid on getting  to Afikoman
> before Chatzos? Or are you somech on the Avnei Nezer
> (have in mind that the first matza should be afikoman if you don't  make it
> because mi'mo'nafshach, if you have to eat it before chatzos,  there's no
> issur to eat anything after it after chatzos)?

I would think that if you have young children, you have a much earlier
deadline than chatzos! After all, for the seider to be a qiyum of vehigadta
levinkha you really have to finish the mitzvos of the night before they're too
tired to learn.

Now that I have teens as well, I'm less tied to this early deadline. But a few
years back I was noheig kein.

-mi

On 24 Mar 2004 at 8:59, Harry Maryles wrote:
>> Interesting. Rav Asher Weiss's shiur last week was on Netillas Yadayim
>> and he said that the kos is only m'akeiv for washing for bread. He
>> said that if it's available, you should use the kos, but it's only
>> m'akeiv for washing for bread.

> That is true. All you need is Koach Gavrah. In fact, I'm not even sure
> that it wouldn't apply to washing over bread. 

See SA OC 159:1 et seq

-- Carl

<Interesting. Rav Asher Weiss's shiur last week was on Netillas Yadayim
and he said that the kos is only m'akeiv for washing for bread. He said
that if it's available, you should use the kos, but it's only m'akeiv
for washing for bread.>

I heard that even for bread if a cup is unavailable one can turn the 
faucet on and off to get the two pouring on each hand

-- 
Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 3/25/2004
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

Meir Shinnar wrote: 
> The issue was not (and could not be) about who 
> was the mechanical writer of the last eight psukim - a very minor 
> issue -

Agreed, a very minor issue indeed -- and thus not an ikkar -- which
is why the Rambam carefully never stated in either the Yad or in the
pairush that Moshe "wrote" the Torah, but rather that it was "given"
to him from HKBH precisely as R. Meir Shinnar quotes.

Meir Shinnar also wrote: 
> the problem the gmara has is the past tense of vayamot

And then Zev Sero wrote: 
> It seems to me that the problem the gemara 
> has is with Moshe having actually written, in the past tense, something 
> that hadn't yet happened.

In accordance with what R. Zev writes, I think (additionally) the
"problem" was that it would be "insensitive" or cause Moshe pain (cf
Rashi d'h "mikan v'ailach" on the version of the gemorah in Menachos
30a regarding the second shitah) for Moshe to have to write about his
death while he was still alive (see the girsah in the gemorah there --
"efshar Moshe chai" -- as compared to that in Bava Basra - "efshar Moshe
meis"). Thus, the first shitah holds that indeed Moshe did not write
about his death -- merely that it was given to him and then he gave
it to Yehoshua to write therafter. The second shitah holds that Moshe
did write ("kosav") the last eight p'sukim albeit he did not repeat it
out loud while writing ("kosav v'omer") much as he had the rest of the
Torah because talking aloud about his death would have been even more
painful, and that Moshe wrote it "bedemah" (one translation being "in
tears"; the GRA, of course, has his own very different explanation of
the word). The bottom line, however, is that according to both shittos,
HKBH gave the entire Torah to Moshe.

I might add that Rav Mordechai Gifter Ztl -- as brought down by Rabbi
Sender in footnote 32 of his article -- also learned the gemorah that
according to the first shitah Moshe was given the last eight p'sukim
and that Yehoshua wrote them down after Moshe died.

This post is for those who love sifrei musar of the rishonim.

In Orhot Zaddikim at the end of Sha`ar ha-Zekhirah, the anonymous
author wrote:

"Ve-simmanei kelalot ha-middot ha-ketuvim be-sof ha-sefer -- yahazor
be-khol yom pa`amayim, ve-yivdok azmo tamid im kizer le-kayyem ha-middot,
`ad she-yehe ragil likah mi-kol middah ha-tov she-bah." (Text cited
according to manuscripts; the printed version of this passage differs
substantially.)

"As for the summaries of the main principles of the character traits
which are written at the end of the book - let [the reader] review
them twice a day, always checking himself as to whether he is lacking
in fulfilling the character traits, until he accustoms himself to take
what is good from each character trait."

These simanim (summaries) are missing in all printed editions of Orhot
Zaddikim, and even in most of the manuscripts from before the book was
printed. However, they survive in the earliest manuscript of all, a 5190
(1430) transcription kept in the library of the University of Warsaw,
which has only been available since the late 1990s.

I recently finished editing an electronic text of the simanim from that
manuscript, which I want to make it available to those who would like
to read it. It will soon become available online IYH along with some
supplementary material (possibly including parts of the manuscript
itself). When that happens I will post another note. In the meantime,
anyone who would like a copy in the meantime can write me.

Seth (Avi) Kadish

From: MPoppers@kayescholer.com
> Anyone know who MaHaRaM Poppers (assuming that is his surname) is?
> This Poppers would love to know :-). Thanks!

From: simchag@att.net (SimchaG)
> it's probably Rabbi Meir (son of Rabbi Yehuda L.) Katz Poprish, Zt"l. 
> author of "Ohr Tzadikim". 
> He passed away on 2nd day Adar in the year 5502 and is buried on Har
> HaZeitim) He is refered to as MaHaRam Poprish...

the sefer is sort of a 'halacha and minhag' sefer similar to the Shulchan
Oruch H'ari. i have this sefer in my library...(and if i'm not mistaken,
it was recently reprinted)

The Melitzei Eish writes about him 
"Ish Elokim Noyro, Kodosh veTohor, migedolei hamekubolim".
It also lists a whole lot of seforim - but not Or Tzadikim.

SBA

[RSBA:]
> The Melitzei Eish writes about him 
> "Ish Elokim Noyro, Kodosh veTohor, migedolei hamekubolim".
> It also lists a whole lot of seforim - but not Or Tzadikim.

the volume that i have, has in the beginning the 'shaar blat' of all the
published editions since the very first one. From what i can see, there
is an odity with this sefer in that the NAME of the sefer went through
many gilgulim since it's inception and has NOT been consistent. in some
editions it was called 'ohr yoshor'....in some editions it did not have
the added 'derech seudah' part of the name..and so on and so on..

my edition says 'ohr yoshur' on the front cover BUT on the shaar blat
it says 'ohr tzadikim'

between my father o"h 's seforim there is an older edition that says
nothing about 'ohr yoshor'

Don't ask me why this is so...i have NO IDEA......
does anybody know of any other sefer that is SO INCONSISTENT with
the name?

BTW the MaHaRam Paprish was a talmud of R' Yakov Tzemach. 

RSG wrote:
> does anybody know of any other sefer that is SO INCONSISTENT with the 
> name?

I don't know, but (based on our subsequent private dialogue) we can add
another name for the same saifer: "Orchot Tzaddiqim."

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

On areivim and off we've been discussing the adoption of new practices -- when
is it okay, when not. I think it belongs here.

Where is the line between something that is lesheim Shamayim, and something
that is an eigel-like invention of our own modes of worship?

To me there seem to be three factors: (1) origin, (2) motivation for import
(if any, it could have been unpremeditated), (3) current kavanah associated
with it.

Here are some cases:

1- Adding a "Miriam's Cup" at the seider to commemorate be'eir Miryam and the
nashim tzidqaniyos of dor hamidbar. (Questions about whether we should add
more people to the seider rather than "Ani velo mal'ach" aside.)

2- The adoption making a zeved habat by some MO Ashkenazim.

3- The Shabbos morning derashah -- lifted from R who took it from the Notzrim.
I cite this case because it draws a line between the kosher purpose of the
hanhagah and its treif origins.

4- Brisker Chumros, including both those of the yeshivish velt and those of
RYBS and YU.

5- The innovations of Chassidus. Or of the Gra. Or RSRH's modifications of
minhag Frankfurt. (Philosophically motivated changes in pesaq.

7- Rabbeinu Tam's zemanim.

8- Using particular sequences of pourings for neigl vasr and hamotzi. (A
historical example, but at one time there was a switch from not caring.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and 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.

>> It is therefore incorrect to say that Negel Vassar is based on a
>> superstition. An explanation of this particual Mitzvah was 
>> explained by my Rebbe, R. Aaron Soloveichik. He stated that 
>> Chazal mandated that we wash our hands in the morning via 
>> the Negel Vassar route in order to remove the Ruach Ra 
>> which he (RAS) defines as bacteria (IIRC).

> If for some reasons your hands were actually dirty, I 
> believe you would have to wash them BEFORE washing negel 
> vasser. I do not believe that the "ruach ra" has anything 
> to do with bacteria, although removal of bacteria is 
> certainly a side benefit of washing hands....
> sages--that we know that. The "something real" is something 
> from the unseen spiritual world in which we--albeit 
> unconsciously--swim, the world from which we come and to 
> which we will some day return. Or at least, our neshamos will.

Why is it difficult to believe that there are things that are a real
and actual part of Hashem's creation that we just can't sense?

Before Van Leuwonhook [how did he spell that??] invented his microscope
people didn't believe that there were living things too small to see. We
as Jews certainly should not find it hard to believe that there are
spiritual entities that are too spiritual for us to see with our finite,
physical bodies such as ruach ra.

However, I could also see the bacteria explanation, sort of. Everything
in this world has its counterpart in the higher worlds as a spiritual
entity. Thus, I could hear someone saying that Hashem created bacteria
as the physical "outcome" of something in the spiritual world that will
damage us if we don't wash it off with water [also a physical creation
that certainly has a very spiritual component] so I guess it is sort of
the "derech hateva" type of point of view that Rambam would have espoused
if he were here on Avodah.

Either way, I can't see any way any thinking person could call this a
"superstition".

 --Rena

On Areivim, there's currently a discussion about various minhagim at
weddings, and someone wrote <<< I can't believe that people here have
some hava amina that walking down the aisle has even the slightest
connection to Minhag Yisroel! >>>

Maybe I misunderstood what he meant about "walking down the aisle",
but try this:

"The reason why two shoshvinim lead him [the choson], one from the right
and one from the left, is as we find in Bereishis Rabbah perek 7: Rabbi
Yehuda bar Simon says that Michael and Gavriel were Adam HaRishon's
shoshvinin." -- Taamei Haminhagim #959.

Is there a way to understand that as something other than a formal
procession?

Akiva Miller

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


[ 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         ]