Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 35

Thu, 24 Jan 2008

• 1. Re: Bending Knees (Michael Makovi)
• 2. Re: Bending Knees (Michael Makovi)
• 3. Re: Cave or Desert Island? (Michael Makovi)
• 4. Re: Diberah Torah (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 5. Re: Diberah Torah (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: FW: chemotherapy (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Kol B'Ishah and Halachic methodology (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Court System Models (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Tishri or Tishrei? (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Tishri or Tishrei? (Shmuel Weidberg)
• 11. Re: eilu v'eilu (Daniel Eidensohn)

> I'd be curious how many of you have bent your knees at the following?
>
> The generally accepted minhag is to bow the body and head by Mo'dim, without
> bending the knees. Shulchan Aruch w/Mishnah Brurah 113:7, Piskei Tshuvos
> 113:4
>
> When saying "Va'anachnu Kor'im U'mishtachavim" in Aleinu one should bow as
> he does by Mo'dim. Shulchan Aruch w/Mishnah Brurah 113:3, 132:MB9 This would
> clearly mean that you DON'T bow your knees at kor'im.

News to me. I bow my knees in Modim; in Aleinu, I bow my knees but
keep my body straight upward at va'anachnu, and I bow my body forward
(keeping the knees bent) at kor'im.

Mikha'el Makovi

> News to me. I bow my knees in Modim; in Aleinu, I bow my knees but
> keep my body straight upward at va'anachnu, and I bow my body forward
> (keeping the knees bent) at kor'im.
>
> Mikha'el Makovi
>

Correction: At korim, I un-bend my knees as I bow my body (one
motion). Were I to keep my knees bent as I bowed, it would look
awfully funny (I just tried it; it works, but it looks like a standing
fetal position).

Mikha'el Makovi

> it seems to me taht the best result for self-perfction is to be a hermit >in a cave of Sedert Island. No issue of LH ribbis ,etc. No hemda, et.c >no issue of bein adam lahaveira to worry about at all.
> Plus one can spend Gazillions of hours in studying Mussar and >achieve monumental levels of self-perfection?
> [And they say sarcasm does NOT work in cyberspace. Let's see!]
>RabbiRichWolpoe

I realize that you don't mean what you said. But since you posted it,
I assume you are trying to start some sort of discussion; I don't
imagine that you posted rhetorical shtiut for the mere reason of
"stam". So I'll answer anyway:

But the purpose of the Torah is to perfect the society! As Rabbi Aryeh
Carmel puts it in Masterplan, the aim of the Torah is not the
perfected individual, but rather the perfected society.

Any individual by himself can be righteous. And it's not because it's
easy. Rather, there's nothing to do! True, I haven't stolen or lied or
injured, but I couldn't if I wanted to! There's a saying, something
like "When there's nothing to steal, the thief regards his virtue as
real". So it isn't merely that the achievement was easily won. Rather,
there's no achievement at all whatsoever!

Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits touches on this, in several places - see for
example the chapter in G-d Man and History on the national aspect of
Judaism, and also somewhere in Essential Essays (I forget where). He
says that the Torah is not aimed at the individual, but rather at the
concretization of the deed in the larger world. This necessitates at
least a communal existence. (Furthermore, the Torah seeks to encompass
ALL aspects of life, including government and army and economy and the
like, so even a community is insufficient; an entire nation-state is
needed for the Torah's fulfillment). Christianity focuses on the
individual's salvation, and therefore Christianity is merely a
religion and not a people. But Judaism is a people, because it focuses
NOT on the individual, but davka on the people as an organic whole.
Thus Christianity said give G-d what is G-d's and Caesar what is
Caesar's, for what does Caesar have to do with a religion of the
individual? But Judaism says, everything is part of the religion, and
everything belongs to G-d.

Mikha'el Makovi

Micha Berger wrote:
> Getting back to the point... "Diberah Torah belashon benei adam" doesn't
> have to do with use of allegorization, idioms, how naaratives are told
> in the Chumash, or even derashah in the aggadic sense.
>
>
>   
This assertion is only true regarding the usage by Chazal. In the time 
of the rishonim the expression was used to describe allegorization and 
idioms.

*Rav S. R. Hirsch**[1]* <#_ftn1>*(Ethical Training in the Classroom 
Collected Writings #7 pp 57-58):* ? Jewish scholarship has never 
regarded the Bible as a textbook of physical or even abstract doctrines. 
In its view, the main emphasis of the Bible is always on the ethical and 
social structure and develop?ment of life on earth; that is, on the 
observance of laws through which the momentous events in our nation's 
history are converted from abstract truths into concrete convic?tions. 
That is why Jewish scholarship regards the Bible as speaking 
consistently in "human language"; the Bible does not describe things in 
terms of objective truths known only to G?d, but in terms of human 
understanding, which is, after all, the basis for human language and 
expression ?

*Rav Hai Gaon[1] <#_ftn1>**(Teshuvas HaGaonim #98): *R? Hai was asked 
the meaning of Berachos (54a) concerning earthquakes where Berachos 
(59a) states in the name of Rav Kattina that is results from G?d?s tears 
falling into the ocean? He responded that it is necessary to know a 
general principle concerning understanding this type of agada. The 
Rabbis say that one should not rely on the words of agada. It is a 
critical principle in all literature that there is absolutely no doubt 
that G?d has no physical form and is not like any living being. 
Therefore one can not take literally the description found in this 
agada. G?d  does not laugh or cry. He doesn?t moan or cry. He does not 
clap His hands. To summarize that all the words of our Sages that have 
anthropomorphic descriptions similar to this agada ? are not to be 
understood literally but are metaphors or allegory. They utilize things 
which are familiar to us and thus the Torah speaks in the language of 
man. Thus we find that the prophets mention the eye of G?d or the hand 
of G?d or G?d?s anger? These words are not meant literally but are 
simply metaphor and ideas expressed in the language of man. This is the 
way to understand this agada. Therefore it is reasonable to understand 
Rav Kattina as expressing the idea that Israel is very precious and 
important to G?d and thus everything that happens in the world has a 
connection to Israel?


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


??? ???? ???????? ?? ???? (????? ??.) ??? ??????? ??????? ??? (????? 
??.) ??? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ???' ??????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? 
??? ????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ??? ??? ???? 
???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? 
?????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ??? ??? ????"? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ???? 
????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ?? ???? 
????? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?? ????? ????? ??? ????? ??? 
?????? ?????? ??????? ???????? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? 
??? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ?'. ??? ?? ?'. ???? ?? ?'. ??? ??? 
???? ??? ????. ???? ?? ????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ??? ???. ??? ??? ???? 
???? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ???? ???"? ??? 
????? ????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ????? 
???' ????? ???? (????? ??.) ??? ???? ??? ????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ??? 
??? ????? ??? ????? ?????...

*Rashi**[1]* <#_ftn1>*(Melachim 1 1:40): The earth split ? *the prophets 
are speaking in an exaggerated manner as people do,**


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


????, ????? ??? ???.

*Ramban**[1]* <#_ftn1>*(Bereishis 6:6): And G?d regretted and grieved in 
His heart. *The Torah speaks in the language of men. The issue is that 
they rebelleded and upset His holy spirit by their sins. The 
significance of saying ?in His heart? is to indicate that He did not to 
a prophet who would be a messenger to them. This expression also means 
to think as one would say ?to speak to my heart (Bereishis 24:45) and 
other such expressions. In Bereishis Rabbah (27:4) this important issue 
is expressed by a parable in which the Rabbis talked of an agent and an 
architect. This is a great secret which is not allowed to be written 
down. The one who knows it will understand why the four letter name of 
G?d is used here while in the rest of the chapter and the description of 
the Flood the name Elokim is used. 


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


????? ??? ??? ??????, ?? ??? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??????? ????? "?? ???", 
?? ?? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?????, ??? ????? ??????, ???? ???? ?? ??? 
(?????? ??:??), ??????: ???????? ??? (??:?) ???? ??? ???? ???? ???? 
?????? ?? ?????? ????????, ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?????, ??????? ?????? 
??? ??? ???? ?? ??????, ???? ????? ????? ????? ?? ?????:

*Rambam**[1]* <#_ftn1>*(Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 1:12): *Since this is so 
[that G?d has no corporality] all the anthropomorphic expressions found 
in the Torah and Prophets - that we have mentioned and others like them 
? are metaphors or poetic descriptions. For example, ?He that sits in 
the heavens shall laught? (Tehilim 2:4), ?They have provoked Me to anger 
with their vanities? (Devarim 32:21], ?As G?d rejoiced? (Devarim 28:63) 
and others like them. Concerning these our Sages have said that the 
Torah speaks in the language of men?**


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


?? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ?? 
??? ????? [?????? ?:?] ???? ????? ????. ?????? ???????[????? ??:??] 
 ???? ?? ?' [????? ??:??] ?????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ????? 
??? ??? ...

*Ibn Ezra[1] <#_ftn1>**(Shemos 32:14): And G?d repented of the evil 
which He thought to do to His people. *Heaven forfend that this be 
understood literally as G?d repenting. It is simply that the Torah 
speaks in the language of man?**


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


???? ???? ????? ??? ???...

On Thu, January 24, 2008 12:36 pm, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: This assertion is only true regarding the usage by Chazal. In the time
: of the rishonim the expression was used to describe allegorization and
: idioms.

And "chadash assur min haTorah". Yes, quotes are often taken out of
context and reused.

(The quote from R' Hai Gaon is off topic, and Rashi splits the words
and is arguably not using the idiom.)

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

On Sun, January 20, 2008 3:36 pm, R Michael Makovi wrote:
: Regarding other laws, I think the difference is whether
:
: a) Chazal said, because of such-and-such a situation, we are laying
: down a law, period. Even if the situation passes, the law remains.
:
: b) Chazal said, such-and-such a law is being made with the assumption
: of a certain situation prevailing. If the situation ceases to prevail,
: so does the law.
:
: Obviously, to distinguish these is a task for the posek.

The question is actually one of rivadim... Is the reason included in
the original statement of the taqanah, or provided by the gemarah
after a  "close quote" marking the end of the citation of the taqanah.

The question of basar kafui depends on whether the requirement to wash
the meat down regularly (within 3 days) is a pesaq or a gezeirah, and
if a gezeirah, whether the words of the original gezeirah included the
bit about otherwise melichah will never get out all the blood.

When dealing with pesaqim, it becomes more a question of whether the
given reason is the only relevant one. (And whether the change in
scientific knowledge is relavent. The discovery of microscopic mites
in drinking water was not.)

I have a blog entry on ways halakhah can change (or seem to) at
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/11/halachic-change.shtml>.

I already replied to RAM's post on this thread, but I see I missed a
point I had planned on making. On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 17:27:15 GMT, he
wrote:
> May I suggest the following: There are stories of certain individuals
> in the concentration camps who fasted throughout all of Pesach, for
> lack of chometz-free food. One could argue that this was a violation
> of Pikuach Nefesh, but they could answer that it was a temporary
> Horaas Shaah, to help inspire the others and uplift them.

Beshe'as hashemad, one is permitted to endanger one's life over
shoelace color, if that's part of Jewish norm. Chameitz, lo kol
shekein. I don't think we need to invoke hora'as sha'ah or eis la'asos
for it.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

I read avodah twice: I skim emails when they come in, for moderation.
And I print them up to read on the bus more carefully, mark up things
to look up, to reply to, etc... I replied last night without my notes,
and therefore I missed a couple of points I intended to make. I just
tacked one onto my previous post, here's the second.

On Motzah"sh, 19 Jan 2008 18:39:11 +0200, RMMakovi wrote:

: Something else occurs to me: in Pirkei Avot we learn not to have too
: much sicha with women. Many commentators comment on the wife part of
: the Mishna and say it only means don't have trivial conversation with
: her, but meaningful conversation is perfectly allowed (Rav Hirsch on
: Avot for example says the word "sicha" means davka inane
: conversation)....

I have a footnote in Ashirah Lashem on Lekha Dodi on this topic that
is relevant. To quote:

    Yitzchak's name has romantic connotations; when he has a quiet
    moment alone with his wife, he was "mitzacheik es Rivka ishto".
    (Gen 26:8)

[The root of mitzacheik is that of Yitzchak (Isaak), /tz-ch-q/. I
hesitate to translate the word because it has been rendered everywhere
from entertaining her to marital intimacy.]

    His encounter with G-d on Moriah was when he went out "lasu'ach
    basadeh" (ibid. 24:63) {to speak in the fields}. The word "lasu'ach"
    brings to mind the admonition in Avos (1:5) "do not overly engage
    in sichah with a woman". There, Rav Hirsch defines sichah as a
    light, perhaps flirtatious, conversation.

    Yitzchak prayed to "the Beloved of his soul". Flirting with G-d.

    Following in his footsteps, members of the Chassidic movement of
    the Second Temple era would go out in the fields, calling each other
    to come greet the Shabbos Queen together. Based on this custom, the
    Kabbalists of Tzefas instituted Kabbalas Shabbos. They saw Shabbos
    as a bride, and would go out "lasu'ach basedeh" [to flirt [with G-d]
    in the field], to "metzacheik" her with the love song of Shir
    haShirim, with Tehillim, and with [the poem of "Licha Dodi"].
    Earlier generations of the current Chassidic movement too would go
    out to the woods to sing their greeting.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

I could see three ways one speaks of a big case. The first, just to
dismiss it, is that the case is high profile. Assuming your judges do
not show favoritism to the rich or famous, this should be irrelevant.

More to the point are two significant measures:
* difficulty, and
* size of impact. This is a somewhat blurry term that covers a number of
  things:
      - setting precedent, and thus impact to future din
      - the number of people involved
      - the severity of the chiyuv / issur

Mamzeirus, for example, is a broader impact (ledorei doros) and more
severe issur than how one observes YT sheini shel goliyos. (To borrow
RARakeffet's favorite comparison cases.)

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

RallisW@aol.com wrote:
> I have seen the seventh month written both ways. Which way is correct?
>  
> It seems that Tishri is more correct?
>  
> In the Selichos of Tzom Gedalyoh, the second selicho "Ovlo nafshi 
> v'choshach to-ori..." The phrase in which the word occurs is "*... 
> doachu k'hayom bishlosho b'Tishri*:"

Kav Naki says that Tishri with a chirik is correct.  Also Shevot is
with a komatz, not a patach.  Ador, of course, is in Tanach, so there
can be no doubt about it.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

On Jan 24, 2008 11:23 AM,  <RallisW@aol.com> wrote:
>
> It seems that Tishri is more correct?
>
> In the Selichos of Tzom Gedalyoh, the second selicho "Ovlo nafshi v'choshach
> to-ori..." The phrase in which the word occurs is "... doachu k'hayom
> bishlosho b'Tishri:"
>
I don't think that is a solid proof, as the pronunciation might have
been changed there due to poetic license.

Regards,
Shmuel

M Cohen wrote:
>
> I know that Avodah/Areivim already has had many eilu v'eilu discussions.
>
>  
>
> Yesterday someone told me a pshat that I had never heard before, that 
> he heard directly from r Chaim kanievsksy shlita
>
> r Chaim told him that eilu v'eilu only applies to the daas of chazal, 
> but eilu v'eilu does not apply to anyone after chasimas hashas.
>
> ie rishonim etc
>
>  
>
> Any comments/sources for this opinion?
>
>  
>
The following are from Daas Torah pages 111-117

*Maharal*[i] <#_edn1>[ii] <#_edn2>*(Baer HaGolah):* It is important for 
you to know that is only in the dispute between Beis Shammai and Beis 
Hillel that we say /eilu v?eilu/. That is because they were the 
beginning of the Torah disputes. Prior to Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel 
there were no disputes concerning the Torah at all. There disputes were 
in fact considered /eilu v?eilu/. It is not proper that the Jewish 
people should go from the highest spiritual level where there was no 
dispute to one in which one side is right and the other is wrong. 
Therefore the first dispute was /eilu v?eilu/ where both sides are ?the 
word of the living G?d.? Afterwards began period of disputes [where one 
side is right and the other is wrong. It is very important to understand 
this fully. I have explained elsewhere the nature of /eilu v?eilu/ and 
this is not the place to discuss it fully.


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



[ii] <#_ednref2> *???"? (??? ????? ??? ?' ?? ?"? ):* ??? ?? ????, ?? 
???? ??????? ?"? ??"? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????? ????, ?? ?? ??? ???? 
??????? ?????, ????? ???? ?????? ?"? ??"? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ???, ????? 
??? ?"? ??"? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ????? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?????? 
?????. ???? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ?????, 
?? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ?????, ???? ??? ??????? 
??? ???? ???? ????? ????, ???? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ????. ?????? 
??? ????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??????.


*Ritva**[i]* <#_edn1>*(Eruvin 13b): /Eilu v?Eilu/ (both) are the words 
of the living G?d. *The Rabbis of France asked: How is it possible that 
the opposing sides of a dispute can both be the words of the living G?d 
when one says the object is permitted and the other says it is 
prohibited? They answered that when Moshe received the Torah on Sinai he 
was shown 49 aspect of prohibition and 49 aspects of permission for each 
and every issue. G?d explained to him the final decision amongst these 
different alternatives was given to the sages of each generation. Thus, 
both permitting and prohibiting were both given on Sinai for each 
possible case and therefore both sides of the dispute are true. This 
explanation is correct according to the drash however according to 
kabbala there is a profound secret in this matter.


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


????. ???? ???? ???? ?"?: ???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ????? ????, ??? ???? 
??? ????? ?????: ?? ????? ??? ????? ???? ????, ???? ?? ?? ?? ??? ???? 
?"? ???? ?????? ??"? ???? ?????, ???? ????"? ?? ??, ???? ???? ?? ???? 
????? ????? ???? ??? ????, ????? ????? ?????, ????? ??? ??? ????, ????? 
???? ?? ??? ??? ????.

*Rav Moshe Feinstein**[i]* <#_edn1>*.**(Igros Moshe Y.D. 3:92)*: Our 
Sages describe the opposing views of halachic debate as both being ?the 
words of the living G?d.? This means that Torah study of the diverse 
views of Sages inherently does not contain something which is not true. 
Thus the opposing views of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel are both true. 
This rule applies also to the disputes of R? Eliezer and all the Tannaim 
and Amoraim. All of them were given from One Shepherd. Thus it was not 
untrue when the Heavenly Bas Kol announced that the Halacha was in 
accord with R? Eliezer. His words were inherently true?even though in 
this world we decide practical Halacha on the basis of majority 
decision. Because of the inherent truth of all views of our sages, we 
say the blessing ?Who gave to us the Torah of truth? even if we are only 
learning the views that have been rejected from practical Halacha such 
as Beis Shammai or minority opinions.


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


????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ????? ??"? ??? 
????? ?"? ??? ????? ?"? ??? ??? ????? ?"? ?????? ??? ?????? ???????? 
????? ????? ????? ??? ????? ????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ????? ??"? 
???? ??? ????? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ????"? ???? ?????? ??????. ????? ?? 
??? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ?"? ????? ?????. 
??? ?? ????? ?"? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ?"? ?????? ??? ?? 
????? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ???????? ?????? ????? ???? ???????? ???? 
???? ??"? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?"? ?"? ???' ????"? ???? ???? 
?? ???? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ????? 
????? ???? ????...



*Rav Moshe **Feinstein*[i] <#_edn1>*(Igros Moshe O.H. 1 Introduction): 
*It is correct and obligatory for the sages of the latter generations to 
decide halacha?even if they are not qualified according to the standards 
of the sages of the gemora. Therefore there is definitely a concern that 
their halachic determinations are not in accord with the view of Heaven. 
However in truth we are guided by the principle that Torah is not in 
Heaven. Rather it is determined according to what appears correct to the 
rabbi after proper study of the issue to clarify the halacha according 
to the Talmud, and the writings of poskim. He is to use his full 
abilities to seriously deliberate with fear of Heaven?in order to 
determine what appears to be the correct halacha. Such a psak is viewed 
as true and he is obligated to issue his conclusion. This obligation 
exists even if in fact his ruling is contrary to the halacha in Heaven. 
His ruling is also considered the ?word of the living G?d as long as he 
is convinced he is correct and it is internally consistent. He will 
receive reward for his rulings even if the truth is not in accord with 
his position. Proof for this is found in Shabbos (130a): A certain city 
in Israel that followed the halacha according to R? Eliezer?even though 
this was not the accepted halacha?got great reward in terms of long 
life? Thus ruling which a rabbi is obligated to teach and receive reward 
for is that which he decides after studying the issue with his full 
ability. This obligation and receiving of reward exists even if the 
ruling is not in accord with the truth. This is the nature of all 
disputes of the rishonim and achronim concerning what is permitted and 
what if prohibited. As long as a universal ruling has not been 
determined?each rabbi can make decisions for his followers according to 
that which he thinks is correct?even though the objective halacha is 
only in accord with one of them. Both will also receive reward for their 
rulings. Because of this we find much dispute also in the most severe 
prohibitions?with variations between places that rule like the Rambam 
and Beis Yosef and those that rule like Tosfos and the Rema. Both of the 
opposing views are ?the words of the living G?d even though the actual 
truth as understood by Heaven is only like one of them.


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


????????? ???? ????? ???????? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? 
?????? ???? ???' ??? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ???? 
???? ???? *_??? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ????? 
???? ????? ????? ???? ????? ??"? ???????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ?????? 
????"? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?? ?? 
?? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??????_*, *_??? ??? ???? ??? ????? ???? 
????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ????? ??????. ????? ??? 
?? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ???????._* ?????? ????? ??? ??? ???? (??.) '?"? 
???? ??? ??? ???? ??"? ???? ????? ??"? ???? ??? ???"? ??? ???? ???? 
????? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?? ????? 
???? ????? ???? ??? ??"? ???? ???? ????? ????? ????? ?????, *_???? ????? 
?????? ??????? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??? 
?? ????? ??? ???? ??._* *_???? ???? ?? ??????? ??????? ???????? 
????????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?????? 
?????? ??? ????? ?? ????? ????? ??? ?? ??? ???_* ???? ?????? ?????? ??? 
?? ??????. ????? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ???????? ?????? ??? ?????? 
??????? ?????? ?????"? ???"? ???? ??????? ??????? ?????? ????? ????' 
?????"? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ?? ????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?? 
???? ???.




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


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 35
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."