Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 106

Fri, 05 Jun 2009

• 1. Re: Hilchos BINGO (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Hilchos BINGO (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: further on Temimos (Prof. Levine)
• 4. ?????: further on Temimos (Shlomo Pick)
• 5. Re: (Neviim & Possible Mistakes); Akeidah & Yizchak (Yitzchok Zirkind)
• 6. Writing God's name (Motti Yarchinai)
• 7. Re: ?????: further on Temimos (David Riceman)
• 8. Re: (Neviim & Possible Mistakes); Akeidah & Yizchak (hankman)
• 9. Re: (Neviim & Possible Mistakes); Akeidah & Yizchak (hankman)
• 10. Re: (Neviim & Possible Mistakes); Akeidah & Yizchak (hankman)
• 11. Re: (Neviim & Possible Mistakes); Akeidah & Yizchak (hankman)
• 12. Re: (Neviim & Possible Mistakes); Akeidah & Yizchak (Yitzchok Zirkind)
• 13. Re: further on Temimos (Daniel Israel)
• 14. Re: goy vs chiloni (Arie Folger)

Rich, Joel wrote:

>> That we're human and respond to incentives.   We prefer to bring
>> korbanot shlamim rather than olot.

> But is that our aspirational goal, realizing that aiui one "reduces"
> their schar in this manner.(e.g.Hanina's wife [...]

R Chanina ben Dosa's wife specifically asked for a withdrawal from
their "retirement account", so that's what she got, and thought better
of it.   But gemilut chasadim is one of the mitzvot "she'adam ochel
perotehen ba'olam hazeh, vehakeren kayemet la'olam haba".


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 10:27:17AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: R Chanina ben Dosa's wife specifically asked for a withdrawal from
: their "retirement account", so that's what she got, and thought better
: of it.   But gemilut chasadim is one of the mitzvot "she'adam ochel
: perotehen ba'olam hazeh, vehakeren kayemet la'olam haba".

Actually, she asked for wealth not knowing it would be taken from their
olam haba. See Taanis 24b. Recall she was married to the man who lived
off carob, and who couldn't afford to tell his daughter to spill the
vinegar out of the Shabbos licht and fill it with oil.

R' Chaim Volozhiner associates the three legs of the table in this
story with the mishnah (Avos 1:2) of the 3 amudei olam. After all, the
aggadita about his living off carob includes a bas qol saying that R'
Chanina ben Dosa supported the world.

The golden leg they received was the amud of gemillus chassadim. Until
now, they had reason not to give more charity -- they had nothing more to
give. The story as R' Chaim understands it (I wouldn't say this about R'
Chanina ben Dosa on my own), suggests that R' Chanina would have been
unable to practice charity as he was worthy to had he had the opportunity.
That's why he lost the qeren.

Iyov was a rich man who was able to learn how to be a tzadiq and an ani.
RCV describes RCbD as someone who was poor because he (or perhaps his
wife) wasn't able to learn how to handle the challenges of ashirus.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy,
mi...@aishdas.org        if only because it offers us the opportunity of
http://www.aishdas.org   self-fulfilling prophecy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              - Arthur C. Clarke

At 03:52 PM 6/4/2009, Shlomo Pick wrote:

>I see that being in nyc you are unfamiliar with the concept of tnai 
>and hadlakat neriot. Anyone having a half an hour to an hour walk to 
>shul, will light candles on yom kippur eve at home, make a 
>stipulation not to be accept yom tov, and drive to shul to save an hour trip.

I am very familiar with this, because, even though I live only a 10 
minute walk from where I daven on Yom Kippur, I usually drive to shul 
Erev YK so that I can drive home after YK  when I am usually tired.

(I have to add here that my wife refuses to do this. She insists that 
once she lights candles Erev YK it is YK for her. All of my attempts 
to convince her that she can do what you suggest have fallen on deaf 
ears for years!  If I drive, she walks.)

But I think that you have missed the point I tried to make. Surely 
you will agree that if someone were to light candles before plag Ha 
Mincha with a tenai and then drive for 2 hours to get to shul, that 
this is nothing. One cannot light candles before plag for Shabbos or Yom Tov.

It seems to me that according to the Netziv who holds that there is 
no Tosefos Yom Tov for Shavuous, lighting candles before Tzeis is the 
same as lighting them before plag. This was my point.

>The reasoning is simple, the bracha over the ner is a birchat 
>mitzvah, there is an issue whether the person who lights is mekabel 
>shabbos with the bracha or not.

But it seems to me that there is no mitzvah to fulfill Erev Shavuous 
before Tzais according to the Netziv, since Shavuous does not begin 
until Tzeis.

Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090604/6a921198/attachment-0001.htm>

Prof Levine had made the following point: 


>But I think that you have missed the point I tried to make. Surely you will
agree that if someone were to light candles before plag Ha Mincha with a
tenai and then drive for 2 hours to get to shul, that this is nothing. One
cannot light candles before plag for Shabbos or Yom Tov.

>It seems to me that according to the Netziv who holds that there is no
Tosefos Yom Tov for Shavuous, lighting candles before Tzeis is the same as
lighting them >before plag. This was my point. 




>>The reasoning is simple, the bracha over the ner is a birchat mitzvah,
there is an issue whether the person who lights is mekabel shabbos with the
bracha or not. 


>But it seems to me that there is no mitzvah to fulfill Erev Shavuous before
Tzais according to the Netziv, since Shavuous does not begin until Tzeis.



Indeed missed your point. And yet, even the natziv who says there is no
tosefet yom tov on Shavuot, may well admit that one could still be mekayim
kavod yom tov from plag hamincha.  It has to do with the relationship
between night and a calendar date and is dealt with by with some acharonim
on the issue of tosefet yom tov on pesach (tosphot pesahim 99b).  Some of
them a mechalek between a calendar date and nite.  As far as nite is
concerned, I could see that from plag hamincha although the calendar date
hasn?t arrived yet.  Again I don?t have the sources on hand and would only
be able to give further details next week after looking up my notes. In any
case, the article I just sent you deals with the natziv?s views about
lighting candles earlier on yom tov and how that fits in with shavu?ot.
Even the natziv would admit that melacha is prohibited from shkiyah, because
safek Leila, and yet can?t say Kiddush. From that point I certainly light
candles lechvod yom tov. And I contend even earlier, for although it?s not
Shavuot, it still can be nite from plag hamincha.  That may be the reasoning
for those who say I can daven arvit earlier, but can?t say Kiddush until
zeit. Arvit is a din in Leila, which may start with plag. Kiddush is a din
in yom tov and for that I need etzem hayom hazeh. Lechvod yom tov I can
light from when it could halakhicly be nite, i.e. plag.

Shabbat shalom

Shlomo

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090605/08a4122d/attachment-0001.htm>

**Note an earlier incomplete version was accidently submitted please ignore.

On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 8:38 AM, David Riceman <drice...@att.net> wrote:

>

This is true, but it doesn't invalidate the problem, since there is a whole
> class of prophecies meant not to be understood, which contradicts RCM's
> claim.  I cited two examples, and you (basically agreed) as follows:


I may have missed part of this thread, but IIUC RCM was saying (in response
to RHB who asks wether a Novie can make mistakes) that it is impossible. To
which I agreed based on the Rambam (Hil. Yesodei Hatorah 7:1-3) and I
beleive it is Muchrach due to the fact that Nvuah is a Yesod Hadas and from
the 13 Ikkorim, as well as from the fact that there is punishment to a Novi
Sheker, and there are ways to test a Novi (if he can make mistakes, there is
no way of testing and no punishment can be given)

Now certain Nvuos were brought up in question where it seems that the
message was not known not revealed etc. I will try to take them apart one by
one.

*Avraham Ovinu* in the Parsha of the Akeida we find that HKBH did not reveal
to him the entire prophesy in one shot "es bincah" (12:2) then "ychidcha"
then "asher ohavta" then "es yitzchok", and Rashi gives the reason why. but
ultimately in the same Nvuoh he got the entire picture he needed to know.
 The same is true in (12:12) "al tishlach" then "al ta'as lo m'uomoh"  while
Rashi doesn't give there the reason it is self understood from the previous
Rashi to give reward for every word.

Another Nvuoh by the Akeidah is (12:12) Ki Atoh Yodati where Rashi explains
at lentgh how HKBH answered the seeming contradictions that AAO"H found in
the Nvuohs, but in that case it wasen;t a lack of clarity in what to do in
actually rather how to reconcile them, and even that Rashi explains why HKBH
want to leave AAO"H with a question to show AAO"H's devotion (see also Rash
Shmos 6:1 D"H Atoh Sireh).

*Bilom* Bamidbar (22:12) we find where HKBH tells him first "lo Selech
Imohem" then "lo So'or" then "ki Voruch Hu", byt this is the same as before
that at the end of the Nvuoh (or after each Nvuoh (as per comment of RCM))
he knew exactly what yes to do and what not to do, while Rashi does not
explain why the stages, I suggested to show his evilness (more in another
posting bl"n).

*Daniel* 12:8, here we find a Nvuoh in which Daniel did not understand the
time that was given, but in that Nvuoh he asked and was told it was not
meant to be understood, but rather people will make mistakes (12:10) . IOW
that was the message of the Nvuoh, (note also that Yaakov who wanted to
reveal the Ketz "nistalkoh mimenu shchina" (Rashi Breishis 49:1) here it was
trickier a Ketz and yet unknown, compare to Nvuas Yirmiya about the 70 years
See Daniel 9:2).

*Zecharya* 4:4-5, here we find that the Novie did not understand but at the
end he asked in the same Nvuoh and got the answer, why the stages is not
important here.

Now you added Nvuas *Moshe* RO"H Adon Kol Hanvi'im
**

> Incidentally, there's another example in Rashi Shmini 10:3 s.v. "hu asher
> diber".


But obviously there was no need to know at that time who it would be, and
probably also a Kavana why moshe should think difdferently, Just as HKBH did
not reveal to Moshe yet the difference of Kodshei Doros vs. Kodoshei Sha
(Rashi 10:19-20), or like why "nisalma mimenu halacha" from Moshe RO"H in
order that Pinchus get his reward (Rashi Bamidbar 25:5) .  The bottom line
however is that the Nvuoh was totally true .  I would further point to the
Gemara Minochos 29b when Moshe saw Rabi Akiva and see Maharsha there.  There
is much more to elaborate vEin Kan Hamokom.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090604/306b481c/attachment-0001.htm>

I am designing something which is intended to be hung in a shul, 
school or beit-midrash. It is an item of practical use, but it also 
has an educational function as well as being an ornamental object 
with artistic and aesthetic feutures.

It will have certain passages from Tehilim inscribed on it in Hebrew, 
one of which includes the word E-l (meaning, contextually, God).

I don't understand why, but that word, when meant as as a noun 
(rather then the preposition "to"), is considered one of the sheva 
sheimot she-einan nimchakin (the seven names of God that may
not be erased) and which, therefore, should not be written on a davar 
ha-holech le-ibud (anything that is disposable in nature and not 
durable), and therefore likely to be discarded, which would result in 
God's name being treated with disrespect.

(The reason I don't understand the inclusion of this word in the 
seven, is that, linguistically, it is the equivalent of "God" in 
English, i.e. it is not a proper name of God, except when used in 
conjunction with a following qualifier such as "E-l Elyon",
or "E-l E-lohei Hashamayim".)

Anyway, accepting that it is included in the seven, my question is 
this: The item I am making is far more durable and less disposable in 
nature than the average siddur or chumash used in a shule -- the 
operable word being "used". i.e. with the kind of regular use that 
such seforim are subjected to, they will eventually become torn and 
tattered far sooner than the object I am designing, which will 
probably outlast the average siddur or chumash by many years.

With that in mind, I would like, for reasons of readability and 
artistic integrity, to spell the word E-l correctly, in full, but I 
am aware that many people might consider that objectionable.
If that is the case, then I am prepared to separate the Alef and 
Lamed by a full letter space (e.g. the width of a "shin"), which 
artistically, I consider preferrable to inserting a hyphen between 
them. I also believe that, contrary to popular opinion, it is also 
halachically preferrable, because a letter space is both 
grammatically and legally (in the laws of safrut), a separator, 
making the surrounding text two separate words, whereas a hyphen is 
the exact opposite, i.e. it is a joiner character -- notwithstanding 
the occasional ungrammatical (peculiarly American) use of hyphens one 
sometimes sees.

Sorry to all you people living across the Pacific, but every English 
speaker outside your country knows that Americans know nothing
about English grammar, just as everyone knows that the average 
Israeli knows far less about Hebrew grammar than a Ba-al Koreh in 
chutz la-aretz who may not be able to speak conversational Ivrit, but 
has learned Hebrew in a religious context. (Just my little rant.)

Then (to return to the topic), another solution occurred to me: There 
is a very old printers' device, that has had something of a revival 
in modern fonts. A ligature consisting of the right half of an alef 
combined with a slightly deformed lamed on the left and merged into a 
single character. It used to be seen occasionally in very old printed 
siddurim. The thing is, that it is actually now an official character 
in the Unicode definition (Unicode character U+FB4F Hebrew Ligature 
Alef Lamed), which means that it is available in some Hebrew fonts.

I don't really know for sure, but I am guessing that, halachically 
(in the laws of safrut), if that character is used on its own (to 
represent either the Hebrew word for "to" or the noun "God"), it is 
not a legal word because it does not contain either a properly formed 
aleph or a proper;y formed lamed of the required form.

I am wondering if this would be an acceptable (perhaps even 
preferrable) solution, halachically, to get around my problem. 
(Comments invited.)

Motti

Shlomo Pick wrote:
>
> I remember hearing while studying at yu (I think in the name of the 
> Rav, and I hope someone can confirm this), that while there was a 
> minhag for women to bench licht just before Kiddush to demonstrate 
> that ha?avarat eish is permitted on Yom Tov, it was better to light 
> before yom tov, in accordance with rambam, hil. Yom tov, 6:16 that 
> just like on shabbos there is a din of kavod, so too on yom tov there 
> is a din of kavod. In hil. Shabbos 30:5 rambam says that part of kavod 
> shabbos is to have a ner daluk before shabbos, and thus one should 
> light candles before the onset of yom tov, lechvod yom tov, just like 
> his table set, he is washed and decked out.
>
What did he say about yom tov sheini shel galuyot? Wouldn't there be a 
problem of hachana miyom tov l'yom tov?

David Riceman
>

RYZ wrote:
Since the Rambam's statement of "Viyeida Ma Hu" would contradict this.

IMHO the whole Kashe has no place since this Possuk was a Chelek of the
Nvuoh itself, IOW HKB"H wanted that Daniel should not understand and ask and
be answered, which is vital in the Nkudah that it is Sosum.

CM responds:
I think we agree, so I am not sure why you claim that "the Rambam's
statement of "Viyeida Ma Hu" would contradict this."? You give the likely
reason as to why Daniel got all of the intended message. I guess I am
adding the nekuda that possibly the mechanism for "Viyeida Ma Hu" - that
the novi get not more and not less than the intended message - could well
be the "aspaklaria sh'eina meira." I think we basically agree, but I see no
stira from the Rambam, in fact I previously quoted exactly this line to
prove my point!

RYZ further wrote:
"as such it must be completely true"

CM comments:
This again is no problem. The Novi repeats what he saw in the vision, to
the extent it was revealed to him. This is the "complete truth" as far as
this nevuah is concerned.

Finally, RYZ wrote:
see Hakdomas HaRambam to Perek Chelek where he explains the 4 differences
between the Nvuoh of Moshe RO"H and other nvi'im, without mentioning such an
obvious difference

CM comments:
I am not sure what additional difference you mean? The clarity of the vision is part of the difference of "aspaklaria hameira."

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090604/5f817308/attachment-0001.htm>

Sorry clicked on send to soon, missed your last comment.

RYZ also wrote:
[quoting me]
>  But each part of the mareh is not necessarily part of the message and
> thus not necessarily completely comprehended, thus,
>

I don't Know that I agree with this definition, since only Nvuah
Shehutzricha Ldoros was recorded, it would follow that every part is part of
the message, why it was not related we don't know.

CM responds:
You are right in this point. I did not mean to contradict this in the above. 
I should  have been more  precise and written "But each part of the mareh
is not necessarily part of the [revealed] message." i.e. the nevuoh
consists of two parts, both the clearly understood (interpreted) vision as
well as those mosholim or metaphors not understood (not part of the
intended message and hidden by the aspaklaria sh'eina meira) which are also
to be transmitted ledoros as part of the nevuoh.

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090604/5dad9b46/attachment-0001.htm>

RYG wrote:
Ramban himself rejects his exegesis, on various
technical grounds but also because "halilah shelo yavin Moshe nevuaso
ve'yiteh bah".

CM adds:
I think the Ramban does not mean only Moshe. The phrase "halilah shelo yavin Moshe nevuaso
ve'yiteh bah" could read "halilah shelo yavin hanovi nevuaso ve'yiteh bah"
just as well. He just happened to be talking about Moshe. (because Hashem's
intended message ALWAYS gets through to EVERY novi)

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090604/54b10077/attachment-0001.htm>

RDR wrote:
since there is a 
whole class of prophecies meant not to be understood, which contradicts 
RCM's claim.

CM responds:

If the intent of the mareh is not intended to be understood then the nevuoh
is the metaphor without the pisron. I do not see why this contradicts what
I said. If the intent was not to transmit a pisron, then what is left (the
entire nevuoh in such a case) is the metaphor alone.

I think the idea is fairly straight forward: What Hashem wants transmitted
gets through infallibly to the novi, with the pisron if that is the intent,
or without a pisron if that should be Hashem's desire, or a mixture of both
some part of the nevuoh with a pisron and another part without a pisron if
that is what Hashen wants.

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090604/27eb1278/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 8:23 PM, hankman <sal...@videotron.ca> wrote:

>  Finally, RYZ wrote:
>  see Hakdomas HaRambam to Perek Chelek where he explains the 4 differences
> between the Nvuoh of Moshe RO"H and other nvi'im, without mentioning such
> an
> obvious difference
>
> CM comments:
> I am not sure what additional difference you mean? The clarity of the
> vision is part of the difference of "aspaklaria hameira."
>

My point was that if there would be a Metzius that a Novi can misinterpert a
Nvuoh due to lack of clarity, the Rambam would have to say that, since he
does not it is poshut that it can't be, (this is a Rayo not a Stira to what
you said).

WRT Vyeda Ma Hu IMHO it includes everything in that Nvuoh unless specified
in the Nvuoh otherwise, why he didn't give over it's meaning is Bdugma to
what the Rambam says at the end of Halacha 3, that times he reveals moshol
and Pisron times just one of the two, perhaps times he only gives the Pisron
to part of the Moshol (although one can argue why the Rambam doesn't write
it).

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090604/d57b3cb2/attachment-0001.htm>

Prof. Levine wrote:
> If we are concerned about Temimos, then should we not insist that women 
> wait until Tzeis (when the first day of Shavuous is not on Shabbos) to 
> bentch licht?  Yet I have never heard of anyone saying such a thing. 

I must admit to being confused by this whole discussion.  The mitzva of 
hadlakos neiros is so that there will be light on Shabbos (or Yom Tov). 
  Which is why it is important that the neiros last long enough.  This 
raises a question why we can say the bracha at the time of lighting even 
though the kiyum hamitzvah seems to be not until later.  Perhaps the 
chachana which the lighting is, is betzem the mitzvah.  I'd be surprised 
if this isn't discussed somewhere, in any case, it seems irrelevant to 
the point at hand, which is that we see from Shabbos that the lighting 
is done davka before Shabbos, and it counts and the bracha is not a 
bracha l'vatalah, even if the woman is not m'kabel Shabbos at that 
point.  So being m'kayim the mitzvah is independent of being m'kabel 
Shabbos.  So why should Yom Tov be any different?

In a later e-mail, RYL wrote:
 > But I think that you have missed the point I tried to make. Surely you
 > will agree that if someone were to light candles before plag Ha Mincha
 > with a tenai and then drive for 2 hours to get to shul, that this is
 > nothing. One cannot light candles before plag for Shabbos or Yom Tov.

Actually, I think this is not so simple.  The SA 263:4 does say this, 
but even though the discussion there (and in 261) involve the earliest 
time for being m'kabel Shabbos, it is not clear that these are inyanim 
are connected.  IMHO, it appears that although one can't be m'kabel 
Shabbos before plag (according to most opinions) the issue with hadlakos 
neiros is that it must be clear that it is being done l'kavod Shabbos. 
Near to shkia, this is not an issue.  When lighting earlier, it seems 
one needs to be m'kabel immediately after lighting otherwise it is not 
clear one is lighting l'kavod Shabbos.  As I read it, therefore, the 
issue with lighting before plag is that one can't be m'kabel Shabbos 
with the lighting, and therefore it is not recognizable that it is 
l'kavod Shabbos.  If this is correct, that it is only this technical 
difficulty, then it would seem that the fact that one is lighting at a 
time when it is possible to be m'kabel Shabbos is not an intrinsic 
problem.  So on Shavuos, when we are lighting later, when there is no 
issue of it not being recognizable as kavod Yom Tov, there is no reason 
to assume we can't light before it is possible to be m'kabel Yom Tov.

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
d...@cornell.edu

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 6:14 AM,  <avodah-requ...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:
> The tricky thing to explain is not really that, but why is it assur when
> done by a goy, for whom the act is mutar, and that is why, inter alia, the
> Taz and the Magen Avraham both feel the need to explain, that this is a
> specific gezera of chazal because of concern that a person is likely to
> consider amira l'akum as something rather trivial and be tempted to do it
> either next time or in order to get even the slight benefit of having the
> item available immediately after shabbas.

The difference between asking a NJ and asking another Jew is that when
asking another Jew, we are not commanded (except through lifnei iver
and arvus) regarding the other Jew's shemiras Shabbos; every Jew has
his own mitzvah. However, one source for the prohibition of amira
le'aku"m is in the verse, kol melacha lo ye'aseh (see, for example,
the Kitzur Shulchan 'Arukh 73:1,
http://www.shofar.net/Content/Kitzur_Shulchan.htm ), which prohibits
causing creative work through others not commanded in keeping Shabbat.

By the way, (a) I disagree that by operating an electric door, the
building becomes changed, according to Chazon Ish. Only the circuit
changed, and even the circuit, was broken before and after the door's
opening; it was only open (changed) while the door was in the process
of opening. Hence, I find it very unconvincing to claim that the
building should become assur on account of the door's opening.

(b) The real thing to compare the question of a Chul Jew asking an EY
Jew in EY to do a melakha on YT sheni is whether one Jew who began
Shabbat early may ask another Jew who begins Shabbat with the zman, to
do a melakha for the former.

-- 
Arie Folger
http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 106
***************************************

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..."