Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 25

Sat, 23 Jan 2010

• 1. Re: When did Judaism begin? (hankman)
• 2. Re: Two kinds of humros (Zev Sero)
• 3. Psak about Muscovy Duck from the Rabbinical Institute for Kosher Supervision and Research (Prof. Levine)
• 4. Re: Psak about Muscovy Duck from the Rabbinical Institute for Kosher Supervision and Research (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: Netilas Yadayim - Brachah on 2nd N'tillah (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 6. Free Will (Richard Wolberg)
• 7. Re: Coca Cola's ingredient list (martin brody)
• 8. pesach rishon (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 9. The Positive Objective of the Geulah from Egypt (Yitzchok Levine)
• 10. Re: Coca Cola's ingredient list (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Psak about Muscovy Duck from the Rabbinical Institute for Kosher Supervision and Research (Ben Waxman)
• 12. Re: New Brachos (Arie Folger)
• 13. Re: pesach rishon (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: Free Will (Ben Waxman)
• 15. Rambam on free will (Eli Turkel)
• 16. Re: New Brachos (Chana)
• 17. Re: Psak about Muscovy Duck from the Rabbinical Institute for Kosher Supervision and Research (Zev Sero)

RKGM wrote:

I was going to respond to this thread with several paragraphs and examples,
pointing out that until one defines "Jewish", the question is meaningless
and unanswerable.

CM responds:

I agree. Definitions are always the key. But you can define anything away
by an appropriate definition of your making. But what should matter is the
accepted usage and the definition implied by that common usage.


RKGM further wrote:

But R' Zev Sero did a much better job than I. He wrote:

> In the same sense, a Ben Noach today who accepts the truth of
> the Torah and keeps the 7 mitzvos because Hashem told Moshe
> that he has to, and also keeps additional mitzvos of his
> choosing, is clearly a follower of the Jewish religion, and
> thus in English he is a "Jew" in the same sense that a Xian
> is a Xian or a Moslem is a Moslem.  What he isn't is a Ben
> Yisrael, which is what *we* mean by a "Jew".  (This is the
> issue that lies at the heart of the recent UK court case.)

CM:

I  beg to differ. See the ongoing thread on Areivim:   [Areivim] Erasing Ezekiel's Jewish identity.

 
RKGM further wrote:

As bizarre as this sounds, he has hit the nail squarely on the head. None
of us is obligated in all Taryag mitzvos. If one wanted to, he could easily
argue that a Kohen Gadol and a Yisroel Mamzer are following different
religions. 

CM responds:

Again, I  beg to differ. See the ongoing thread on Areivim:   [Areivim] Erasing Ezekiel's Jewish identity.

But we are obligated in our particular subset of mitzvos unlike an aino metzuva veoseh who only has the 7 mitzvos. 


RKGM further wrote:

But one could also say that we are Jewish because we are trying to do
whatever it is that the Torah is telling us to do -- and that applies to a
Ben Noach as well!

CM responds:

Then why bother with a bais din to be megeyer when you have already become
a "Jew" on your own by merely practicing Judaism? Besides, how could you be
practicing Judaism if you can not learn torah (gezel), you can not keep
Shabbos (chayev misa), can not do pru urevu (can not marry a Jewess), your
kids can choose not to	be "Jews", etc. etc.  You can be sympathetic to
Judaism, you can be desirous of becoming a Jew, you can believe in the
authenticity of Torah, but that still does not make you a Jew or a
"practitioner of Judaism" until you are megeyer. Of course if by "practice"
is meant "pretend" that's another story. Eg. Little girls having a pretend
tea party, they are only going through the actions but not the real thing.
(This example may be a bit strong as the ben noach is an aino metsuva
veoseh).

Again see the thread on Areivim which I do not wish to rehash here.

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100122/e64c975f/attachment-0001.htm>

David Riceman wrote:
> I'm studying Be'er HaGolah

Side note: in the preface to the new 3-volume edition, the writer makes
a good case that the vav after the gimel is a shuruk, not a cholam,
and the sefer's name is Be'er Hagulah (as in "vegulah al roshah").


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

I have posted a psak about the kashrus of Muscovy duck from the
Rabbinical Institute for Kosher Supervision and Research Mishmeres
L'Mishmeres that appeared recently in an ad in Der Yid
http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/kashrus/moscovy.pdf

I know nothing about this organization save that it is located in Williamsburg.

The bottom line - they have paskened that Muscovy ducks are not kosher.

YL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100122/5017ead4/attachment-0001.htm>

Prof. Levine wrote:
> I have posted a psak about the kashrus of Muscovy duck from the
> Rabbinical Institute for Kosher Supervision and Research Mishmeres
> L'Mishmeres that appeared recently in an ad in Der Yid
> http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/kashrus/moscovy.pdf
> 
> I know nothing about this organization save that it is located in 
> Williamsburg.
> 
> The bottom line - they have paskened that Muscovy ducks are not kosher.

So they're willing to say that R Shmuel Salant ate treif?

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

R' Rich Wolpoe wrote:

> Re: Washing for peiros shetibullo b'mashkin - and then
> subsequently eating bread later ...
> Q: How do we make a brachah on 2nd N'tilah @ the seder?

MB 475:1 answers that "chaisheenan shema" we are concerned that perhaps he got distracted during the Hagada and Hallel, and touched covered parts of the body.

In the Beur Halacha there (475: "yitol yadav"), he references 158:7 as
saying the same thing, and says this is especially true where he was not
careful to keep his hands tahor.

Going back to siman 158, the MB only seems to talk about someone who *did*
get distracted, or *didn't* get distracted, and nothing about someone who
*may* have gotten distracted. However, the Beur Halacha here (158: "v'im"),
he does specifically write that it was a long while ("kama shaos") from the
first netilah until he is ready to eat bread, then he *does* have to wash
again *with* a bracha, and even if he *knows* that he was not distracted -
unless he explicitly stipulated that the first washing should also count
for the bread.

Based on this, it seems to me that according to the Beur Halacha, even a
person who conducts his Seder in such a way that he knows for sure that he
will not get distracted and not touch anything tamay, he can still say the
bracha on the second washing, as long as he doesn't make such a tenai.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Water Heater
Some like it hot. Click now for a reliable new water heater!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=dWS3oPUDSNIo9sEjT6I64wAAJ
z3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGIAAAAAA=

R' Eli Turkel wrote:   "...However, it is harder to say that the all the servants of Pharoh were on
such a low level with no exceptions"

That's the whole point of a tyrant.  The servants or subjects of a dictator
are mere puppets, since he rules absolutely. So whatever applies to the
dictator also 
applies to the servants.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."
Quotation from Lord Acton, in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, 1887


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100122/00100e27/attachment-0001.htm>

"On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 11:51:29AM -0800, martin brody wrote:
: This is untrue. It would violate the FDA laws.

The FDA doesn't require disclosing trade secrets to anyone but them.
(See 21 C.F.R 20.) Natural and artificial flavorings can be listed just
as that, without naming.

This issue came up in the beginning of the "why are lists good enough in
EU but not US?" discussion.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha"

With all due respect, I think you are misunderstanding the exemption. It
certainly applies to formulae, but not ingredients, unless insignificant.
First, artificial flavours, are simply that, chemicals (artificial colours
can be real food. Using beet to enhance strawberries is an example that must
be listed, and as artificial, but it is very much a natural product). But
natural flavours must be listed if one of them is significant.Flavours by
definition means there are several ingredients used, often hungreds. I'm not
sure what significant is to the FDA, but I'm certain it's way less than
shishim, probably hundreds of a part. You will sometimes see on a label
artificial flavours then in brackets something like (beef).
But I do agree that those that reject the concept of nullification by
shishim, should only buy products with a hecksher of their choice.Nothing to
do with Judaism of course, but that's a different thread.
Bon appetit,

Martin Brody
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100122/85d8ff69/attachment-0001.htm>

how would you interpret the mesorah that  the RBSO  carried bnei yisrael 
to the  site  of  bait hamikdash to be mekarev  the  korban pesach , then 
brought them back?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100122/17e99f9c/attachment-0001.htm>

The following is from RSRH's commentary on Parsha Bo. YL

In declaring v'lakachti  eschem li  l'am (above, [Shemos] 6:7), God 
announced the
positive objective of the geulah from Egypt. Stated in the idiom of our
own times, what God wanted to create was not an "ecclesiastical congregation"
to worship Him, but a people, a nation, a society. From this
redemption must emerge a state whose whole social existence is to be
rooted in God, built by Him, founded upon Him, fashioned by Him,
and dedicated to Him. And it was with the korban Pesach that God laid the
foundation stone of this edifice. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100122/bc3f4de3/attachment-0001.htm>

martin brody wrote:

> I'm not sure what significant is to the FDA, but I'm certain it's way
> less than shishim, probably hundreds of a part. 

This is pure speculation on your part.  There is no limit given on how
big an insignificant ingredient can be.  I see no reason why it might not
be as much as 3% or 5%.


> But I do agree that those that reject the concept of nullification by 
> shishim

[ZS: of deliberately added ingredients that are part of the recipe]
You mean like the Rashba?

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

Why is that such a big deal? There are plenty of people, including rabbanim, 
who have eaten or eat products which are heter michira , non-halav yisrael, 
non-glatt, which use gelatin, etc etc. and other rabbis who declare that 
these products are treif.

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Zev Sero" <z...@sero.name>

So they're willing to say that R Shmuel Salant ate treif?

R'nCL wrote:
> Whoa here. This is a huge generalisation for a large group.
> I know I quote ROY a lot, and he is almost certainly the pre-
> eminent Sephardi posek today, but that is not to say he is the
> only one people follow. I have previously mentioned that there
> are alternative opinions out there (some of them perhaps
> based on dreams and others) but they exist.

I wonder, does anyone know how R' Mazuz rules?
-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Videovortrag: Tehillim als Gebet
* CNN: Only Israel Has A Fully Functioning Field Hospital In Haiti
* Das innige Gebet einer Frau
* Internet Halakha: Should we Expect Privacy?
* Newsflash: King David had Literate Servants

Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
> 
> how would you interpret the mesorah that  the RBSO  carried bnei yisrael 
> to the  site  of  bait hamikdash to be mekarev  the  korban pesach , 
> then brought them back?

Where is this to be found?

Im kabalah hi nekabel.  If it's a genuine mesorah, then why should we
not understand it literally?  Is such a thing too difficult for Him?!
But I've never heard of it, so I wonder how genuine it is.

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

When the plague of locust was announced, they begged Pharoh to let the slaves go. So some of them opened their eyes to reality.

Ben
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100123/e1f8e6bd/attachment-0001.htm>

I gave a shiur on Rambam Moreh Nevuchim 3:17 on free will this shabbat
and a number of questions were raised

He says (Friedlander translation)
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp153.htm#page_285

"According to this principle man does what is in his power to do, by
his nature, his choice,
and his will; and his action is not due to any faculty created for the
purpose. All species of irrational
animals likewise move by their own free will. This is the Will of God;
that is to say, it is due to the
 eternal divine will that all living beings should move freely, and
that man should have power to
act according to his will or choice within the limits"

"The relation of Divine Providence is therefore not the same to all
men; the greater the human
perfection a person has attained, the greater the benefit he derives
from Divine Providence.
This benefit is very great in the case of prophets, and varies
according to the degree of their
prophetic faculty: as it varies in the case of pious and good men
according to their piety and uprightness."

1. He speaks of animals having free choice - what does that mean
2. Contrary to what I thought he does not say that only tzaddikim have
providence
but rather it is graduated with a continuum
3. In discussing the ampount of providence he adds
"and good men according to their piety and uprightness"
Thus, it seems that Rambam also accepts mitzvot alomg with intellect
as giving more providence.

4. On an aside I read from R Zadok where he attacks Rambam for
excluding animals from providence
except for species. However, in the same maamar he quotes several
times the Ari who says that
every that that Ramban says is true. The problem is that Ramban also
says that providence
does not go to indivisual anaimals but only to the species as Rambam says

-- 
Eli Turkel

>RRW writes:

> Ein hachi nami - this mamash proves my point beyond any 
> doubt. Aside from the Yomtov strawman which is a red herring 
> the key is following Hazal NOT in having or lacking a 
> m'turg'man contrary to Hazal!
> SO When hazal legilsate no meturgeman, then we DO say the 
> brachah - davka because this follows Hazal

> But when on Shabbos WE - contrary to Hazal - omit the Targum, 
> we no longer conform to Hazal's taqqnanah and brachah is 
> problematic Just like hallell bedilug!

See I think this is one of the problems you get into when you confuse of
legislation (ie takanos, gezeros etc) with other things such as minhag.  As
the  strict constructionists, base themselves fundamentally on the Rambam,
it is perhaps most instructive to quote his language.

He states, in Hilchos Tephila perek 12 halacha 1:

Moshe rabbanu *taken* le'chem l'yisrael she hu korin b'torah berabbbim
b'shabbat, b'sheni u'bchamishi ... v'Ezra *taken* shehau korin ken b'mincha
b'chol Shabbat ... v'gam hu *taken* shehau korin b'sheni ub'chamishi shlosha
b'nei adam ...

Language of *takana*.

He then goes on to discuss, in halacha 5 the brachot which are said on these
takanot - something you would expect according to his rules, because a
takana of Moshe Rabbanu or Ezra would be expected to take a bracha.

Then in halacha 10 he writes:

Meyamot Ezra *nahgu* sheyihe sham targeman mturgem l'am ma she hakoreh koreh
b'torah kedei shehevinu inyan hadevarim ...

Language of *minhag*.

Ie targum is something quite different from kriat hatorah, it is a minhag.
It is a very old minhag, going all the way back to Ezra, according to the
Rambam, but a minhag does not, again according to the Rambam, take a bracha
(hilchot brachot perek 11 halacha 16).  However if you do hold that a minhag
can take a bracha, and you were going to put a bracha on this minhag, then
it would never be a question of affecting the bracha on the kriat hatorah,
but rather a question of  whether to put an *additional* bracha on the
targum - ie as well the person doing the krias hatorah making the bracha on
the kriah, maybe the metargamen would need to make a bracha on the targum as
well when he did it.  If we had continued targum in Ashkenaz, maybe that is
what would have happened.

 Of course when Hazal 
> omit a targum on a controversial passuq, that IS strict 
> construction. Aderabbah adding Targum AGAINST Hazal [such as 
> on a restricted passuq or on YT] would jeopardize the 
> brachah! That's the point of strict construction, not playing 
> any games with Hazal's dictates!

But only if you confuse Hazal's dictates (takanot, gezerot), with Hazal's
minhagim.  Note that the discussion regarding Yom Tov is particularly
interesting, because while the Mesechet Sofrim indicates that there was no
targum on Yom Tov because they were concerned about schirut, The Beit Yosef
understands the Tur as indicating that while they generally did not do
targum in his place ("ain anu regilin l'targem"), their custom was davka to
do targum on the haftarot of Atzeret and Pesach! (see Orech Chaim siman 145
d"h "b'yamei chachmai hatalmud").  Note also that the Tur (Orech Chaim siman
145) derives that Tosphot holds that even at the time of Chazal there were
places where they did targum and places that they didn't.

That is why this is not a real question, because the sources all understand
targum as being a totally separate minhag that happened along with kriat
hatorah (sometimes at least).
 
> So The key for a strict constructionist is NOT to morph Hazal 
> to make a brachah on Ner Hanukkah in shul either. It simply 
> lacks Talmudic approval. 

Well that is precisely why Ner Channukah in shul is, unlike the discussion
about targum, a real question, and why the likes of the Chacham Zvi deal
with it.  It is also possible to note that the strictest constructionist is
the Rambam, and he does not seem to hold of Ner Channukah in shul either.
In that sense he is arguably the most consistent.  The Mechaber appears
almost as strict as the Rambam, but not quite, with Ner Channuka in shul
being one of the most obvious cases where he seems to go against his own
rules, and against the Rambam whom he generally poskens like.  That is the
reason that all the commentaries do ask on the Mechaber.

But you can't say that the key for a strict constructionist is necessarily -
not to morph Hazal to make a bracha on Ner Channukah. The Rambam doesn't but
the Mechaber clearly does something of the kind. So you can take two
approaches, you can say that the author of the Shulchan Aruch is an idiot
who does not understand his own rules and we are so much cleverer than he
is, or you can say that *maybe* he had a different understanding of what
strict constructionism means than you do, and his understanding involves
allowing a bracha on Ner Channukah in shul, and you can try and work out
what his understanding is.  The Chacham Zvi, Rav Ovadiah etc of course take
the second approach.  You may not like their resolutions, you may say that
it is tzarich iyun, but there is enough written by the Rambam and by the
Mechaber for it to be very difficult to say that they did not take what you
call a strict constructionist view.

> Morphed circumstances is not a 
> legitimate triggerYou might as well go along with Ran on 
> nashim somchot r'shut and allow women to bench lulav etc. 
> Which is the flexible position favored by ashk'naz.

Well you could do that in any event.  You could take a strict
constructionist view, as you call it, and still hold that women should make
a bracha on lulav etc, by understanding r'shut as making it into a form of
mitzvah kayemet - the Rambam agrees that one makes a bracha on a mitzvah
whether it is a mitzva shechova alav or not  (Hilchot Brachot perek 11
halacha 11).  And the Ran argues that the fact that it says that one gets
schar for performing a mitzvah that one is not obligated in, but not as much
as if one were obligated, demonstrates by the fact that they do get schar
that it is actually a form of mitzvah.  

Now the Beit Yosef rejects the Ran (and we assume the Rambam would have to,
given the way he poskens).  But you could based on the Ran, and even more so
on the Ra'avid, have a strict constructionist view that still allowed for
women to make such brochot.  

> Similarly it is against strict construction to make a brachah 
> on Hallel in shul at night. But since this IS minhag 
> has'phardim, [be'er hagolah] there is room to be lenient for 
> S'phardim as per BIC and Kaf HaHayyim.

Agreed, which is why ROY brings this in to support the Chacham Zvi's
understanding of the Mechaber, ie that the Mechaber holds that there is an
exception for pirsumei nisa, into which category this also falls.  Ie the
two exceptions that there seem to be fall within a specifically defined
category of pirsumei nisa.  

> While there is no such leniency for an ashkknazi Jew - and 
> s'feiq brachos l'haqeil.

The Chacham Zvi, I might remind you, was Ashkenazi.  While he was answering
a kasha on the Mechaber, not the Rema (who no doubt he followed both
generally and with regard to this question in particular) I would be
surprised if, if somebody had asked him, he would not have been prepared to
use his understanding of the Mechaber to look at the question (if, for
example, somebody had asked him about saying Hallel with a bracha in a shul
eg of Sephardim on pesach night).  The fact that he held that pirsumei nisa
was a legitimate exception to the strict constructionism of the Mechaber
makes the question different to most safeq brachos l'haqueil questions.

> > then it would seem you do not see the halacha on any level as being 
> > about truth.
> 
> Tannur achnai

Now to my mind, that is a question of whether heaven should mix in and tell
us what to do, or whether it is up to us to try and determine what is the
truth.  Not dissimilar to the difference between a parent letting a child
try and work things out for themselves, or stepping in every time to correct
them and tell them what is right.  But you seem to be suggesting that one
should learn from tannur shel achnai that we should not be striving for what
we consider to be truth.  That Rabban Gamliel and those on their side didn't
hold that their position was the correct one, meaning the correct one for
earthly beings and for understanding the Torah.  Ie that they were quite
happy to be wrong so long as they "won" with their majority.  I don't
understand it that way at all.  I understand them as saying that indeed
their understanding of the Torah was correct, even against HKBH - it is part
and parcel of Avraham arguing with HaShem about doing righteousness, that
they were arguing, it turned out with Hashem and their understanding of what
the Torah meant prevailed and was indeed the deeper emes, because it was the
one that was right for human beings and not just for melachim.

Otherwise you get into the whole question that we have discussed not
infrequently on here about how you could ever have a Sanhedrin who brings a
korban for poskening incorrectly under the rules in Horiyos.  If whatever
the majority said was by definition right, which seems to be the way you are
learning tannu shel achnai, then there is no situation where a Sanhedrin
could ever be wrong or lead the people astray.

> > Sheasani k'rotzono is surely a bracha of shevach, but ROY says you 
> > should say it without shem or malchus.
> 
> Abudarham p.69
>     V'hanashim nohagos l'vareich bimqom "shelo asani isha" "she'asani
>     kirtzono" k'mee shmatzdiq es haddin hara'ah habbah alav"
> 
> IOW it's like "dayyan ho'emes" I'm not sure if that is 
> "shevach" or not, you can be the judge If "dayan ho'emes" is shevach.

Well Rambam categories all brochos into three categories, brachot haniya,
brachot mitzvah and brachot hoda'ah "shen derech shvach v'hoda'ah ubakasha
kdei l'zkor et haboreh tamid ul'ira mimenu" (Hilchot Brachot perek 1 halacha
4).  And then his perek on brochot of shevach v'hoda'ah (perek 10) includes
in halacha 3 baruch dayan emet and goes on to say "chayav adam l'varech al
hara'ah b'tov nefesh ..." and derives it from the pasuk vahavta Hashem
Elokecha.

So while I am not convinced that "I can be the judge" as to whether dayan
ha'emes is shevach, I think that the greats have already spoken on this one,
and characterised it as such (perhaps hoda'ah rather than shevach, but as
you can see from the Rambam, the idea is to instil love and fear and this is
part and parcel of the same category).
 
> KT
> RRW

Shavuah Tov

Chana

Ben Waxman wrote:
>> So they're willing to say that R Shmuel Salant ate treif?

> Why is that such a big deal? There are plenty of people, including 
> rabbanim, who have eaten or eat products which are heter michira , 
> non-halav yisrael, non-glatt, which use gelatin, etc etc. and other 
> rabbis who declare that these products are treif.

Lo ye'uneh letzadik kol aven.   If you know someone ate something, and
you maintain that it's treif, then you're saying that he has no such
protection.  This is even stronger if, as in this case, he deliberately
ate it in order to demonstrate its kashrut.

I'm reminded of a story about a machlokes between the Ksav Sofer and
the Divrei Chaim over a mikveh that the KS supported and the DC proclaimed
to be pasul.  It ended when the KS wrote to the DC that "I was born from
such a mikveh".

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


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 25
**************************************

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..."