Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 292

Wed, 13 Aug 2008

• 1. Re: A QUESTION FOR THE NINE DAYS (AND BEYOND)? (Richard Wolpoe)
• 2. Re: value of food (Richard Wolpoe)
• 3. Re: KSA (Richard Wolpoe)
• 4. Re: KSA, MB, AhS, Chayei Adam and other codes (Richard Wolpoe)
• 5. ecology (Eli Turkel)
• 6. [Areivim] Hanheg Bahen Minhag Derech Eretz (Doron Beckerman)
• 7. Re: Tisha B'Av on Sunday (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Hating a Meisis to Kefirah, Should be - Hating any Jew (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: KSA, MB, AhS, Chayei Adam and other codes (Micha Berger)

On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 6:50 PM, Michael ORR <michaelorr@rogers.com> wrote:

>
> Notes on the question:
>
> -My observation has been that there is an emphasis on learning mitzvos bein
> adam lamakom, e.g. all Orach Chaim topics.  Although in an important
> sense, the bein adam lamakom orientation is foundational, and so cannot be
> neglected, the paramount importance of addressing sinas chinam based on the
> above sources suggests to me that we are missing something fundamental.
>

I commented on this in a post reL a dispute between R. Hirsch and the Mishna
Brurah.
It seems the MB advocated learni orach Chaim as "the ikkar"
Rabbiner Hirsch lamented that people do NOT learn all 4 parts of the SA and
they are therfore out-of-balance.

Several comments and caveats
Aisi TIDE [not quite like YU/TuM but similar] is opposed to the yeshivisher
hashkafa of all academic Gmara learning w/o being a more balanced
Mensch-Yisreol

The Kitsur SA DOES have many halachos fro mChM and Even Ho'zevr and a LOT of
bein Adam lachveiro

To be VERY fair to the MB himself, his sefarim [viz. Chofetz Chaim and
Shemiras Halashon, not to mention Ahavas Hessed] cover a LOT of bein adam
lachavieroa.  I will even posit that the Sefer Chofetz Chaim is an even
better composed Halachic text than is  the Sefer MB.

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/





>
> -The potential for overemphasis on bein adam lamakom mitzvos seems
> especially problematic when there is an emphasis on chumros, which tend to
> divide.  The topic of chumros is complex though, since chumros can also be
> a way of achieving unity.  For example, if one observes all the chumros of
> kashrus, anyone can eat at that person's house ? though the down side is
> that they won't be able to eat at other's houses much unless they maintain
> different standards for eating out.
>
> -It seems to me that chumros bein adam lachavero are much less divisive,
> and in fact have a unifying force that chumros in conduct bein adam lamakom
> lack.   In fact the kashrus example seems more an indication that there is
> a bein adam lechavero aspect to kashrus rather than an illustration that
> chumros in mitzvos bein adam lamokom have a unifying force.  The essence
> of accepting a chumra on oneself regarding bein adam lechavero conduct is to
> restrict oneself and in doing so to give more latitude to others.  By
> contrast, accepting a chumra in conduct bein adam lemakom is either neutral
> with respect to one's expectation of others, or more demanding as one would
> implicitly tend to expect the same conduct of others.
>
> -Of course it is important to approach this issue in a constructive and
> positive way that does not use it as a stick for beating other parts of the
> community that may be seen as more blameworthy on this analysis.  (See
> reference to Netziv in R. Willig's article.)
>
> Michael Orr
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080813/e9e33997/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Eli Turkel <eliturkel@gmail.com> wrote:

> The value of food is exactly what it costs.  Ascribing it a higher
> value than that is pure mysticism,>>
>
> That is the heart of our disagreement. The value of food is
> not determined but its monetary value. Bread has a higher
> beracha than steak because man has out more work into it (RYBS)
> or for whatever reason.
> --
> Eli Turkel
>


Re: Muktzeh again.
Bread on Shabbos might trump something of higher monetary value re: Bassis
ledavar assur - because could be needed for se'udas Shabbos. Thus the
pressing NEED for the BREAD may give it a temporary but immediate higher
value - [akin to achshevai]
Source:Zichru Toras Msohe - Kehillas YomTov

Now if a fellow Jew had a need for lechem Mishna it is ASSUR to over-charge
him to take advanatage of his situation. {recent KSA yomi]  But one might
COSIDER the mitzva need.

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080813/0c8e492e/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 11:54 AM, <JoshHoff@aol.com> wrote:

>  In a message dated 8/7/2008 5:48:19 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org writes:
>
> , Aug 6, 2008 at 12:21am EDT, R Moshe Y. Gluck wrote to Areivim:
> :           the Kitzur considered all the opinions that came before him,
> and
> : he paskened accordingly.
>
>  Actually,there is a letter by R. Ganzfried in which he writes that his
> system for deciding the halacha in KSA was to look at the Chayei Adam,
> Derech HaChaim,and Shulchan Aruch HoRav,  and follow the majority
> opinion.Btw, R. Ganzfried was a great lamdan, as witness, for example, his
> Lechem VeSimlah, in which,as Rav Aharon Soloveichik often pointed out, he
> says sevaros in Hilchos Mikvaos that were later said by R. Chaim Brisker.
>

Q: And so why did such a Lamdan defer to Chayei Adam et. al.
A: IMHO he strived for an objective view of Halachah - as opposed to be
using a subjective view.

Or to put this in a more politcally incorrect way:
Does the Poseik subject HIMSELF to the Halchah or perhaps vice versa.



-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080813/8073a02f/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 11:28 AM, kennethgmiller@juno.com <
kennethgmiller@juno.com> wrote:

>
>
> Alternatively, what if you want to follow a particular shita which is
> contrary to "your received chain of precedent", not because of your general
> respect for this author, but because his logic and argument is stronger than
> the opposition?
>
> Akiva Miller


I have some friends who would like to see the Halacha ALWAYS follow the most
logical read.  The problem is: What do you mean by most logical?  Logical by
conclusion? Or Logically what the original author intended? etc.

Also such an eclectic system would create a hodge podge which I would bet
would inevitably lead to contradictions.  Then again, I subscribe to a
consensus model which often does the same thing anyway.

The problem with minhag avos - minhag hamakom is the large-scale disruption
of the communities since 1930's. It is hard to put the pieces back together.

BY and KSA engineered a virtual BD
You could also engineer a set of poskim  to create a gestalt - as I spoosed
earlier viz.
Tur/SA/Levush, etc.  IOW yo udon't pasken like any combination but you form
an informed opinion by surveying a set set of sources.  IOW you always look
at A, B, & C and then reflect.

If you look at e.g. Ba'eir Hetev, he wil mention one of many poskim and it
would be hard-pressed to see a system evolving out of another eclectic
basis.

Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080813/4a15e94c/attachment-0001.htm>

from today's daily halacha

530. Prior to washing Mayim Achronim, if one has the custom to wash at
the table,
one should remove any crumbs from the table to be sure that the crumbs
do not get wet
and become messy on the table.

Thus one has to be careful even with bread crumbs even though they
have minimal value
This may (?) have connections with covering bread so it is shamed by
making the beracha
over wine. So we worry about the "feelings" of challah.

-- 
Eli Turkel

The Gemara in Berachos 35 says that Harbeh Asu K'Rabbi Yishmael V'Alsah
B'yadam. To put Rabbi Yishmael in perspective, the Nefesh Hachaim (Shaar I,
perek 8) says that unquestionably Rabbi Yishmael also held that people
should not have their minds off of Torah for even a moment. The entire
debate between Rashbi and RY was whether there was room for ANY time spent
on Parnassah at all, or should there be a  minimal time spent on Parnassah
with accompanying Torah thoughts at all times.

Some additional sources:

Ruach Chaim to Avos 2:2 (on Talmud Torah Im Derech Eretz) - when Rava tells
his students not to come to him in Nissan and Tishrei, G-d forbid that
during those two months they should spend all their time on Parnassah and
actually not learn, rather during their time involved in Parnassah their
thoughts were "Lan B'Omkah Shel Halachah".

Maalos HaTorah (pg. 195 in the Menukad edition) - while his mind is occupied
with his business affairs, he should learn whatever his mind can handle at
the time.

Chochmas Adam, preface - When he travelled for business his thoughts were on
Torah, when he sat in his store his thoughts were on Torah, and even when
involved in the actual transactions many times he had his mind on some
Peirush or a question, and especially on the six constant Mitzvos.

Haflaah (preface to Kesuvos, Pischa Zeira 35) - A person should not say that
if he doesn't completely remove the Torah from his thoughts that he may make
an error in his business transactions - for about this is the promise -"V'hu
Yeyasher Orchosecha" that you will not err. And this is what it states
UVesoraso Yehgeh Yomam Valaylah, that even at the time that he is busy his
mind should be on his learning, and even so he will not make a mistake in
his learning, and on the contrary he will be more successful, as if he was
accomplishing alot.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080813/f359d262/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 11:06:40PM -0400, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: Every time you go one hour without food -- especially when your stomach  is 
: already full -- do you call that fasting?!  But even if you were  actually 
: hungry, it would not be called "fasting" if you had eaten earlier that  day.

My problem with the practice isn't with fasting, but with the idea that
it's not explicit aveilus berabbim beShabbos. Okay, if it were just about
not eating for an hour, that's one thing. But given that most men visibly
broke from their norm of when to daven minchah and eat "shaleshudis",
how is this not a public display?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The purely righteous do not complain about evil,
micha@aishdas.org        but add justice, don't complain about heresy,
http://www.aishdas.org   but add faith, don't complain about ignorance,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but add wisdom.     - R AY Kook, Arpilei Tohar

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:19:30PM -0400, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: Too lazy to look it up right now but I seem to  remember that "hocheiach 
: tocheiach" is right after "lo tisna" and is explained to mean that
: you must tell somebody what he has done wrong. That is not nekama or netira...

Exactly what I wrote. Lo sisna is understood (by those rishonim) as don't
keep it in your heart, talk it out with them and not let the sin'ah build.

Lo siqom would be hitting them where you had no chance or intent of
correcting them or reaching reconcilliation. And that's sin'ah but not
"lo sisna es achikha *bilvavekha*". So, one needn't say, as the Kesef
Mishnah does, that lo sisna includes even not beleiv -- any actions
based on sin'ah are otherwise banned.

Keeping this off list, because I'm repeating myself. I think you fired
off a bunch of letters last night without reading as closely as usual.

And you don't have to search for the sources. They're spelled out at
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2008/08/hatred.shtml>.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The purely righteous do not complain about evil,
micha@aishdas.org        but add justice, don't complain about heresy,
http://www.aishdas.org   but add faith, don't complain about ignorance,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but add wisdom.     - R AY Kook, Arpilei Tohar

On Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 10:29:26AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
: Micha Berger wrote:
:>But according to RALichtenstein, the iqar of RYBS's objection is that if
:>one could simply invoke hafka'as qiddushin in this way, we could throw
:>out much of Yevamos, Gittin, Even haEzer, etc...

: I don't understand this.  Didn't Rabbi Soloveitchik rule that we need an 
: explicit tradition about makom hamizbeah, rather than our best 
: deduction.  Why didn't he reject that opinion as well, since it requires 
: us to throw out much of sidrei kodshim and tohoros?

Apples and oranges.

RYBS doesn't believe in two kinds of innovation (at least).

1- The general Brisker belief that only halakhah can create halakhah,
and science without mesorah can't establish din. So, it would take
Eliyahu haNavi to restore techeiles, identify maqom hamiqdash, etc...
(It's not throwing out qodeshim, it's postponing it.)

2- There is a concept of halachic engineering; finding a means to change
the situation to one where an issur doesn't apply. E.g. heter iska. RER
is proposing another example of engineering. However, RYBS doesn't
believe one can accept engineering that oviously must have crossed R'
Aqiva Eiger's mind and that he didn't recommend. That alone is proof
that the engineering doesn't work.

An objection that's only an issue to prove the engineering is no good,
and not about other kinds of innovation.

Anyone can think of annullment. Not a major chiddush. Yet the gemara
has peraqim of how to deal with the problem in more painful ways. This
is proof, in RYBS's eyes, that annullement can't be a real option.

But speaking a little more broadly... Hafka'as qidushin was never invoked
the way RER did, with (1) no maaseh on the part of the husband, and (2)
in a case by case fashion. He's taking an idea that historically was a
declaration saying "from now on, all marriages of tyupe X don't work"
or "from now on, all divorces of type Y are binding", and saying that it
give him right to annull a marriage because the husband is a vindictive
menuval who won't give a get? How are the two similar? One needn't buy
into RYBS's reasonining to say RER has no source for placing this within
the traditional concept of hafkaas qiddushin.


On Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 06:16:56PM -0400, R Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 3:10 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
:> If we cared about how people could construe things, then eilu va'eilu is
:> altogether out.

: How so? Specifics please!

I do, in the following text:
:> Once you allow plurality, anyone will argue that their position is simply
:> another "eilu".

: Inded you havearuges just so  many times to me. Please explain how this is
: different?!

Because there are two issues:

how one defines the halachic options, and

if those options embody conflicting desiderata, how do you weigh the pros
and cons. (And I suggested three basic kinds of factors to consider:
the weight of the formal argument, the presence of the mimetic norm,
and what will satisfy the sho'eil's need to find religious meaning iin
his practice.)

Eilu va'eilu says that there are different ways to decide between possible
shitos. Not that one can simply invent any shitah.


And again, just wait for the next line:
: > 1- Considering a later personality change, career failure, or other
: > issue to be "mekach ta'us" rather than "nistapkha sadeihu".

: Imagine personality can mamash CHANGE within  JUST ONE liftime, but human
: nature cannto change in 1,500+ years of history! I am indeed perplexed by
: this paradox!

Where do I say anything about human nature? I'm writing about his claim
of makach ta'us applying to something that wasn't part of the deal when
they got married, and you are replying about "tav lemeisiv". Even if tav
lemeisiv changed, to say that she later found him to be a jerk qualifies
for makach ta'us is a chiddush without prior basis. 

It is not a case where we can make conflicting arguments to weight pros
and cons. It's a case where his detractors claim ein raglayim ledavar
altogether.



:> 2- Hafka'as qiddushin where (1) the husband did no ma'aseh attempting
:> qiddushin or geirushin, and (2) on a casewise basis rather than a general
:> policy set in advance that whenever X, the marriage is annulled.

: Se Hoshen Mishpat [2-5] where BD has great powers to make a hora'as sho'oh
: EVEN w/o precedent when things are considered to be out-of-hand. Such powers
: are always within the purview of a BD when there are abuses withi nthe Torah
: [naval birshus hatorah]. If hte Halachah has a loopwhole that is explitable
: a BD can at least temporarily enforce a closure, EVEN if it is not based
: upon Halachic norms.

In ChM, where they have hefqeir BD hefqeir, or to go beyond halachic
norms (taqanos). Here it's lehatir, it's not ChM, I don't see relevence.

:> Both of us should agree that places his position objectively outside the
:> fold.

: I fail to understand how your heuristic read of Halachic Judaism how ANYONE
: is completely objectively IN or OUT of anything normative.

I don't see how your algorithmic read includes the majority of baalei
mesorah as engaging in halachic process.

:> There is no maqor. It's his own invention.

: Yes I saw that the Kitzur Misgeres hashulchan accused the Kitzur SA of the
: same a few days ago. He says [in the R. Mordechai Eliyahu edition]  Taht
: there is NO MAQOR in poskim fro this decision.  And what does that prove?  A
: snif here and a snif there and presto it's Halachah!

No maqor means no senifim. Not by implication, by identity. If there
were senifim, they would each be pieces of a maqor. Here, there is just
reasoning that was never used before that would provide a more derekh-noam
solution that thousands of pages of gemara, rishonim and acharonim.
Saying that reasoning must be wrong, not a factor to be added, is quite
strongly supportable.

This is what I'm talking about, that your algorithm doesn't include the
majority of baalei mesorah. Look through Otzar haPoseqim in YD. "A snif
here and a snif there" is lemaaseh the normal way to do things. Either
you accept the concept, or you have to exclude the majority of shu"t
from your notion of the halachic process. I would faster conclude your
model is wrong.

: There are a lot of "Da'ss Yachid" types out there. Does being a Da'as yachid
: preclude eilu v'eilu?  WAs the B'al Hama'ors biur hametz erev Pesach via
: eating outside Eilu v'eilu?

: Does consensus count in p'sak And ven if it DOES count, who says there can
: be ZERO dissent?

It counts for a lot. Not for everything, eg hefseid merubah allows
looking for an al mi lismokh and other senifim lehaqeil, but a lot.

But here it's not Beis Shammai saying Beis Hillel is wrong. It's saying
RER is wrong the way the Issiim were wrong. Not employing the heuristic.

:> But according to RALichtenstein, the iqar of RYBS's objection is that if
:> one could simply invoke hafka'as qiddushin in this way, we could throw
:> out much of Yevamos, Gittin, Even haEzer, etc...

: ein hachi nami, in a hora'as sho'oh you MAY throw them all out.  But I do
: belive R. Rackman never meant to throw it all out

He did! He may have not meant to, but the agunos who came to him didn't
need eid echad, eid mipi eid, or any of the other super qulos in birur
Chazal allowed to permit remarriage.

:> RYBS described it as cutting off the branches of the very
:> tree one is sitting in. IOW, there is a basic problem of precedent and
:> halachic process here.

: since when have you yourself subscribec to ANY prescirption or dexcription
: of Halchic process. AISI, it is all the eyres of the beholder or poseik to
: quote the paytan

No, I spelled one out repeatedly. It's not an algorithmic process, but
a heuristic is a process too. My original posts (written in Oct '07)
were honred by your objections and others' he'aros in the blog entries at:

http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/11/halachic-process-part-i.shtml
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/11/halachic-change.shtml
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/11/halachic-process-interlude-
what-it-isnt.shtml
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/12/halachic-process-part-ii.shtml
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/12/halachic-process-addenda.shtml

In particular, in the interlude about what the halachic process isn't, see
#4.

: Hinei Hadin beyad haposeik
: Birtzoso mechazeik uvirtzoso memacheik

: In a heuristic system one may WEIGH Heter agunost to trump other principles
: wbecasue even in the Talmud itself heter Agunos trumps the requiremetn for 2
: iedim mamash and allow an isha etc...

Heter agunos, though, is why do choose one tzad, why to find senifim
lehaqeil. It's not a senif in and of itself. It tells you how to weigh
your option, it doesn't create options.

E.g. hand clapping on Shabbos. Looking at it from the meta-level we're
on, there is actually a three way machloqes:
1- Mutar
2- Assur, but leheter is within eilu va'eilu
3- The folk who clap are simply wrong.

That third group have an opinion that parallels RYBS's description of
RER's BD. The only difference is that RER's stakes are mamzeirus, not
a shevus derabbanan.

On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 12:47:20AM -0400, R Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: If Tanu Achnai was a physical reality that R. Elizer was correct within the
: confines of the Divine Creation, then the rest of Hazal who argued with him
: can be seen as wrong as scientisists.

: Or to put this in plain English: assuming that R. Eliezer had the objective
: truth than the Hazal who disagreed  were wrong by THAT standard.

Halakhah isn't science, it's law. That's the whole point of the story
-- Hashem gave us a legal system, and we are to use the system, not
experiment.

It's still unclear the story says we do use process over bas qol,
no matter how often contemporary writers take that side of things.
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/01/legislative-authority-of-bas-qol.s
html>
It could be the BQ was saying the halakhah is usually like RE, as a
kelal (R' Nssin Gaon). And in fact RNG continues that had the BQ said
that in this case it was like RE -- we would indeed hold like the da'as
yachid! just as we follow the bas qol that said "... vehalakhah keBeis
Hillel". Or that it was just for RE's kavod (Tosafos).

The Ohr Samei'ach (YhT 9:4) says the BQ was saying that the halakhah is
like RE but not to the exclusion of the halakhah being like RY and the
rov. It was asserting that his da'as yachid is still eilu va'eilu. On
a "science" level, both were right.

On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 03:28:16PM +0000, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: Alternatively, what if you want to follow a particular shita which
: is contrary to "your received chain of precedent", not because of your
: general respect for this author, but because his logic and argument is
: stronger than the opposition?

As I described it, the decision between eilu va'eilu comes down to
weighing the options according to three general areas of criteria:

1- The weight of the process for each -- does one shitah have more
supporters (assuming it's not nimnu vegamru, which would altogether close
off the mi'ut from further use), is one a more accepted baal mesorah (I
guess that's is he seen as a "gadol mimenu bechokhmah" to the previous
"uveminyan"), the soundness of the formal argument (how muchrachim are
his ra'ayos), etc, etc, etc...

This is where Brisk tends to place its emphasis. Or, in a different way,
the MB.

2- Aggadic concerns -- what aids the sho'el in connecting what he's
doing to his ultimate life-goal?

Now we're in the terratory of the Isms -- chassidus launched an
explosion of new pesaqim (and a set of new nusachos) on this ground.
The Gra was both into these kinds of things but more so the formal
process textualist.

3- Mimetic traditional practice

Maharil's primary factor. Yekkes tend to reside here too. Where RRW
leans.


So, if I take the liberty of recasting your question into my model,
you're asking how much one can veer toward the first two corners of the
triangle, and still be doing halakhah?

Adding one more keneitch:
: This is another phrasing of my long-held question: What constitutes
: a minhag, such that one follows his father's practice? And what is not
: a minhag, such that one follows his posek's direction?

Recasting again:
Given today's shift from minhag hamaqom (in the sense of local pesaq)
with its supporting concept of avoiding agudos agudos to a minhag avos
(based on one's patrilineal ancestor's pre-migration locale's pesaq), does
one have more leeway away from the common practice corner of the triangle?

My own inclination is that given this weakness of mimeticism today,
combined with the drastic need to de-ritualize our view of halakhah, we
should push as far to the 2nd corner -- pasqening based on taam hamitzvah
(between procedurally viable eilu va'eilu, not talking antinomianism!) -
as we can within the system.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
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: (270) 514-1507         - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 292
***************************************

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..."