Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 216

Mon, 31 Oct 2011

• 1. Questions on Parshat Noach (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 2. Re: Is there any issur here al pi halacha? (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 3. Re: Birds & Fish in the Mabul (T6...@aol.com)
• 4. Re: Questions on Parshat Noach (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: Birds & Fish in the Mabul (harchinam)
• 6. Re: Questions on Parshat Noach (Liron Kopinsky)
• 7. Well, we are back to the achbor shechetsyo basar vechetsyo adama in the daf yomi (hankman)
• 8. Re: Birds & Fish in the Mabul (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: Birds & Fish in the Mabul (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Questions on Parshat Noach (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Well, we are back to the achbor shechetsyo basar vechetsyo adama in the daf yomi (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Well, we are back to the achbor shechetsyo basar vechetsyo adama in the daf yomi (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: Birds & Fish in the Mabul (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: Birds & Fish in the Mabul (Lisa Liel)
• 15. Re: Well, we are back to the achbor shechetsyo basarvechetsyo adama in the daf yomi (hankman)

If this is true, then why was the sin of the meraglim - where all of Bnei
Yisrael were united in their sin - punished worse than the sin of the egel
hazahav - where there was opposition and most people were not involved?

First of all, "all" of B'nai Yisroel was not united in their sin. If you recall, Joshua and Caleb opposed the majority.
Secondly, the sin of the egel had to do with a fear that Moshe died and though the ends certainly did not justify
the means, the motivation of B'nai Yisroel was not based on being evil. The sin of the meraglim, on the other hand,
showed a lack of faith in HaShem.

R' Chaim Manaster asked:
> I would ask whether there is any issur here al pi halacha?

and R' Zev Sero answered:
> On the contrary, this is a huge mitzvah, ...

It is really?

Let's take a closer look.

We're talking about getting people to donate a kidney to someone who needs
one. These donors are putting themselves at a certain amount of risk by
doing this, both from the surgery itself, and from living out the remainder
of their life with only one kidney.

The question of whether a healthy person is required, allowed, or forbidden
to put himself at such risk is heavily debated among the poskim. (See any
sefer on halacha and refuah for references.) But that's NOT what is
happening here.

What IS happening here is that someone going to a person who would not have
volunteered for this, and inducing him to "volunteer" by offering him a sum
of money which R' Chaim Manaster described as "significant funds to a poor
person who desperately needs it".

I will concede that there is a real question of pikuach nefesh here, but I
ask others to consider that there is also a real question of Lifnei Iver --
which includes giving someone bad advice.

> Is Congress now higher than Hashem?!

Of course not. But let's make absolutely sure that Hashem does support this
venture! People must be protected against unfair pressure. Do I really need
to cite chapter and verse on that?

If someone truly volunteers to donate a kidney, and his posek okays it,
then yasher koach and kol hakavod. But to offer "significant funds to a
poor person who desperately needs it" -- that is a shailah for bigger
brains than mine. It's NOT as simple as RZS might think it to be. But if he
can cite someone who paskened that way, then please share it.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
60-Year-Old Mom Looks 27
Mom Reveals Free Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4eadfb0eef71311d1438st01vuc

From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
>>> And, why did  the birds have to be on the teva?  Couldn't they
>>> just fly above  the flood? [--RSY]

>> For a year?!  Not even a vulture or a condor can do  that! [--RZS]

> OTOH, how did the olive tree survive?
> Clearly teva wasn't  involved.
> (Which would also explain the lack of erosion or other  evidence.)

How do you explain the apparent evidence of continuous human habitation,  
going back thousands of years before the mabul, in the Americas, Australia 
and  Asia -- and the lack of evidence of any interruption and world-wide 
wipeout of  human life ca. 4000 years ago?


From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
>> OTOH, how did the olive  tree survive? [--RMB]

> IIRC from yesterday, the Ramban says that a  floating branch could have
> taken root as soon as there was a dry spot to do  so.

How did all the other plants and trees in the world survive the flood?
The Chumash seems to imply that Noach took vine cuttings with him into
the ark but what about everything else?

--Toby Katz
================

On 30/10/2011 12:54 PM, Yisroel wrote:
> 1a. The first pusuk refers to Hashem's act of punishing - "vayimach"
> - in this man was wholly responsible and is therefore listed first. The
> second pasuk refers to the actual death - "vayigvah" - and the death of
> man is deemed here to be of least significance.

You've got that backwards.


> 2. Why do you say most were not involved in the egel? The pasuk says
> the entire nation was involved.

On the contrary, when those involved were sought out and punished, look
at how small the numbers are.

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

>
> How do you explain the apparent evidence of continuous human habitation,
> going back thousands of years before the mabul, in the Americas, Australia
> and  Asia -- and the lack of evidence of any interruption and world-wide
> wipeout of  human life ca. 4000 years ago?
>

What evidence? There is none, really. Just taking Gaza in EY for an
example, it was a total desert wasteland for many decades when there were
no Jews there and after the Jews came back it looked like no one ever left.
There were people living in many areas before the mabul, people were wiped
out, and then people came back there. There are artifacts and leavings from
various times in history, but there is absolutely no way to find proof of
artifacts from the specific one-year period of the mabul or the few years
afterwards. And floods don't dissolve artifacts, they bury them and/or wash
them away. We see that after terrible flooding and natural disasters in
various parts of the world they are rebuilt and look basically "good as
new" afterwards. It doesn't take that long for humans to reproduce and to
repopulate areas that were once barren -- EY is proof of that.

*** Harchinam
     out in harei yehuda
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111031/22649771/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 3:51 AM, <cantorwolb...@cox.net> wrote

>
> First of all, "all" of B'nai Yisroel was not united in their sin. If you
> recall, Joshua and Caleb opposed the majority.
> Secondly, the sin of the egel had to do with a fear that Moshe died and
> though the ends certainly did not justify
> the means, the motivation of B'nai Yisroel was not based on being evil.
> The sin of the meraglim, on the other hand,
> showed a lack of faith in HaShem.
>

I think it is safe to assume that Shem and Aver, at the very least, were
not involved in the building of the Tower of Bavel either. Whether they
actually opposed it, or not, I do not know - and maybe that is an important
difference.
Additionally, the LR (I think) says that the sin of the meraglim was that
they misunderstood the purpose of life. They thought, incorrectly, that the
ideal was for us to be dwelling in the shechina in the midbar with all of
our material needs taken care of, and didn't want to leave the idyllic
environment and have to spend their time getting food/conquering the land
etc.

Kol Tuv,
Liron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111031/6e9c49ab/attachment-0001.htm>

Well, we are back to the achbor shechetsyo basar vechetsyo adama in the daf
yomi. I know this has been discussed in the past, but I guess it is time
for a repeat. Does anybody have a peshat in this Mishna and gemara Chulin
126b (as well as the gemara in Sanhedrin 91a) that does not run afoul of
modern scientific understanding? I think the previous discussions were pre
Slifkin ban. Any new ideas post Slifkin ban? I do believe that we are
MECHUYAV to look for a peshat that does not incorporate what is currently
believed to be untrue scientifically into Toras Emes.

I have come across one alternate peshat which that author (see Or Toras
Moshe, mamar 5-7. p. 108 by R. Yehuda Moshe Bok with a hascama from R. Dov
Aryeh Levin) writes as a lulai divrai rashi hayisi omer. If I understand
him correctly, he brings rayos and Pesukim (Beraishis) against Rashi that
all shekatsim and remashim are born from procreation (not spontaneously).
(Even kinim at least according to R. Eliezer and Abaiye). He also debates
the Tiferes Yisroel reliance on Prof. Link etc. He would want to explain
our gemara (Chulin) that it is talking about an achbor that died and half
the body rotted (returned to adama) and the other half was still
recognizably basar. Then if you touch the basar you are tamai but if you
touch the rotten side (the adama) you are tahor. I am not sure how he
explains the gemara in Sanhedrin. In mamar 7 he discusses the Gr?a and his
shita in shekatsim and remashim etc but he goes into the zohar where I
began to lose him , but in conclusion he seems 
 to stick with his assertion that even all shekatsim and remashim do procreate ? vayivoreich osom Elokim laimor pru urevu ... (day 5).

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111031/a867ac9e/attachment-0001.htm>

On 30/10/2011 10:49 PM, T6...@aol.com wrote:
> How did all the other plants and trees in the world survive the flood?
> The Chumash seems to imply that Noach took vine cuttings with him into
> the ark but what about everything else?

He obviously took seeds and cuttings of everything; but that wouldn't
explain the olive tree.

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 12:30:53PM +0200, harchinam wrote:
: > How do you explain the apparent evidence of continuous human habitation,
: > going back thousands of years before the mabul, in the Americas, Australia
: > and  Asia -- and the lack of evidence of any interruption and world-wide
: > wipeout of  human life ca. 4000 years ago?

: What evidence? There is none, really...

A recent example http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/334517.stm --
written material found at Harappa, which was a city in what's now Pakistan
in the years 3500 - 2600 BCE. So, evidence of non-Hebrew and civilization
before both the mabul and the migdal. (And, in fact, dating not too long
after the Seder Olam's dating of the eviction from Gan Eden.)

Proto-Elami text dating 3100-2600 BCE. Even Elmaite cuneiform predates
these events.

The Kish Tablet has Sumerian text in proto-cuneiform, also dating to
3500 BCE, and several HUNDRED such documents were found at Uruk. Also,
texts from 2800 BCE or so at Tel Harmal.

Two nations even had a peace treaty signed in Elami in 2600 BCE.

There is A LOT of evidence from before 2102 BCE (the mabul according to
Sefer Olam) and 1765 (the SO's date for the migdal).


That said, I personally believe in a literal global flood and that all
the "languages" were really cross-comprehensible dialects (at most)
until the migdal.

The question RnTK asked was "How do you explain the apparent evidence
of continuous human habitation..." The closest I have to an answer is
based on a view of reality that is very far from the common sensical one.
See
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2006/02/rav-dessler-on-reality-and-pe
rception.shtml>
for my understanding of the Maharal's, Kant's, Mach's, REED's, and
Einstein's notion on the relationship between science, evidence and
objective reality. Teaser:
    Perhaps the inability to find archeological evidence of the flood
    or the tower of Bavel is akin to Rav Dessler's description of the
    time of creation: "[I]t seems like this to one with a materialistic
    perspective, the entire cause and effect experience is simply a
    superficial shell which encompasses these fundamental and essential
    aspects of creation." And perhaps if we had more meritorious
    archeologists, ones who glimpse into olam hayetzirah, they would find
    such evidence. (But would be unable to share it with the rest of us.)

    This would mean the problem understanding the mabul is not a
    contradiction between the Torah and the empirical data, but
    an inconsistency inherent in different peoples' version of the
    empirical world.

I frankly admit I don't have an answer most people would find satisfying
-- including myself on many days. However, I have a system for deciding
what's without the bounds of mesorah and what isn't, and it works quite
well for me in general. Questions of history are an odd corner of what
the Torah discusses, and not having all the answers for the fringes of
a theory isn't sufficient reason to reject it.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Weeds are flowers too
mi...@aishdas.org        once you get to know them.
http://www.aishdas.org          - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne)
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 11:50:04AM +0200, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
: I think it is safe to assume that Shem and Aver, at the very least, were
: not involved in the building of the Tower of Bavel either...

The medrash at the beginning of Yonah Rabba (quoted by the Chizquni
on Bereishis 10:12) says there are two people who didn't participate:
Avram and Ashur. Ashur kept busy building Nineveih and the other cities
in 10:11-12. Avram thereby was zokheh to retain Lashon haQodesh. Ashur
merited two things: Kesav Ashuris, and H' sending Yonah to give Nineveih
a second chance.

Maybe you can save Sheim and Eiver's reputations by saying the medrash
meant that Avraham and Ashur were the only two people *of that generation*.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When a king dies, his power ends,
mi...@aishdas.org        but when a prophet dies, his influence is just
http://www.aishdas.org   beginning.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                    - Soren Kierkegaard

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 10:36:21AM -0400, hankman wrote:
: Well, we are back to the achbor shechetsyo basar vechetsyo adama in the
: daf yomi. I know this has been discussed in the past, but I guess it is
: time for a repeat. Does anybody have a peshat in this Mishna and gemara
: Chulin 126b (as well as the gemara in Sanhedrin 91a) that does not run
: afoul of modern scientific understanding? I think the previous discussions
: were pre Slifkin ban. Any new ideas post Slifkin ban? I do believe that
: we are MECHUYAV to look for a peshat that does not incorporate what is
: currently believed to be untrue scientifically into Toras Emes.

I fail to see the big question.

The natural philosophy of the day taught that sch an animal existed.
Chazal applied halakhah to that case. But they don't assert the case is
real, they take that for granted.

There is a parallel case within more recent history. The Chicago Zoo found
that the babirusa, a type of wild boar, has the same kind of stomach as
a cow or a sheep. So, there was a lot of discussion among rabbis of the
1970s and 1980s of the babirusa as a kosher pig. The Zohar's comment
that the pig is a "chazir" because it is asid lachazor to being kosher
adds to the power behind that train of thought.

By 1989, it was clear that it is not a ruminant. See
http://books.googl
e.com/books?id=gcvvoN9T9mMC&;lpg=PA76&ots=TlPVnkF-hG&dq=babi
rusa%20chew%20cud&pg=PA75#v=onepage&q=babirusa%20chew%20cud&f=f
alse
or <http://bit.ly/vGvl6a> R' J David Bleich's 1989 sefer "Contemporary
Halachic Problems" (pp 75-77, all three pages available in that Google
Book copy I linked to).

Does this mean our gedolei haposeqim were wrong? Certainly not! They were
discussing the halakhah of a case that turned out to be hypothetical.
But what they were doing was the halachic analysis, not staking zoological
claims.

So, as I opened, I fail to see why there is any motivation to assert
differently when the gemara discusses an animal that people then
mistakenly thought existed. Why was the question even asked?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Time flies...
mi...@aishdas.org                    ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 31/10/2011 10:36 AM, hankman wrote:
> Does anybody have a peshat in this Mishna and gemara Chulin 126b (as
> well as the gemara in Sanhedrin 91a) that does not run afoul of modern
> scientific understanding?

The simplest explanation is that it's a hypothetical question.  Perhaps
some or all of the amoraim *thought* it was practical, or perhaps they
didn't; but just as we can discuss the case of the wives of Yechezkel's
dry bones without worrying about the machlokes whether it's a true story
or a vision, we can discuss the case of such a creature without worrying
about whether it exists.

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

On 31/10/2011 11:37 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> A recent examplehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/334517.stm  --
> written material found at Harappa, which was a city in what's now Pakistan
> in the years 3500 - 2600 BCE. So, evidence of non-Hebrew and civilization
> before both the mabul and the migdal. (And, in fact, dating not too long
> after the Seder Olam's dating of the eviction from Gan Eden.)
>
> Proto-Elami text dating 3100-2600 BCE. Even Elmaite cuneiform predates
> these events.
>
> The Kish Tablet has Sumerian text in proto-cuneiform, also dating to
> 3500 BCE, and several HUNDRED such documents were found at Uruk. Also,
> texts from 2800 BCE or so at Tel Harmal.
>
> Two nations even had a peace treaty signed in Elami in 2600 BCE.

Why can't all this be pre-mabul?  I've never seen it written anywhere
that the pre-mabul people all spoke Hebrew.  1650 years is certainly
long enough for new languages to emerge.  Noach and his family spoke
Hebrew, and the migdal only happened 100-300 years later, so all their
descendants were still speaking Hebrew until then.

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

On 10/31/2011 10:37 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 12:30:53PM +0200, harchinam wrote:
> :>  How do you explain the apparent evidence of continuous human habitation,
> :>  going back thousands of years before the mabul, in the Americas, Australia
> :>  and  Asia -- and the lack of evidence of any interruption and world-wide
> :>  wipeout of  human life ca. 4000 years ago?
>
> : What evidence? There is none, really...
>
> A recent example http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/334517.stm --
> written material found at Harappa, which was a city in what's now Pakistan
> in the years 3500 - 2600 BCE. So, evidence of non-Hebrew and civilization
> before both the mabul and the migdal. (And, in fact, dating not too long
> after the Seder Olam's dating of the eviction from Gan Eden.)
>    
That begs the question, though.  Since I doubt they found coins that had 
"3500 BCE" stamped on them, those dates are conjectural.
> Proto-Elami text dating 3100-2600 BCE. Even Elmaite cuneiform predates
> these events.
>    
Ditto.  This isn't accurate.  Elamite cuneiform predates the Early 
Bronze Age.  How the EBA is dated would determine whether or not Elamite 
cuneiform predates the Mabul.  I'd maintain it doesn't.
> The Kish Tablet has Sumerian text in proto-cuneiform, also dating to
> 3500 BCE, and several HUNDRED such documents were found at Uruk. Also,
> texts from 2800 BCE or so at Tel Harmal.
>    
Are you seeing a pattern here?  Everything seems to end (or rather, 
begin) around 3500 BCE according to conventional dating.  If that dating 
is incorrect, it still leaves us with a fairly general cut-off across 
the board, even if it's at another date.  That seems likely to be coeval 
with the Dor HaPalga.
> Two nations even had a peace treaty signed in Elami in 2600 BCE.
>
> There is A LOT of evidence from before 2102 BCE (the mabul according to
> Sefer Olam) and 1765 (the SO's date for the migdal).
>    
But that's the problem.  Sometimes assumptions are hidden.  When 
archaeologists or paleontologists find remains, they date those remains 
to a stratigraphic or geologic age.  Or a subset of that age.  That part 
is science, though even there, there's a lot of interpretation of data 
involved.  And that would be fine if such results were reported that 
way.  If an inscription of Hammurabi is reported as dating to the the 
First Dynasty of Babylon, which is known through mutual ties to have 
been coeval with part of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom, which in turn left 
remains at Middle Bronze Age sites in Israel, all of that is true.  But 
when someone reports that Hammurabi died in 1798 BCE (according to 
what's called the "long chronology") or 1750 BCE (according to what's 
called the "middle chronology") or 1686 BCE (according to what's called 
the "short chronology"), they're giving you actual information filtered 
through a conjecture.  And doing so without either telling you that 
they're filtering it, or sharing what conjectures they're using to do so.

Lisa

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 10:36:21AM -0400, hankman wrote:
: Well, we are back to the achbor shechetsyo basar vechetsyo adama in the
: daf yomi. I know this has been discussed in the past, but I guess it is
: time for a repeat. Does anybody have a peshat in this Mishna and gemara
: Chulin 126b (as well as the gemara in Sanhedrin 91a) that does not run
: afoul of modern scientific understanding? I think the previous discussions
: were pre Slifkin ban. Any new ideas post Slifkin ban? I do believe that
: we are MECHUYAV to look for a peshat that does not incorporate what is
: currently believed to be untrue scientifically into Toras Emes.

RMB wrote:

I fail to see the big question.

The natural philosophy of the day taught that sch an animal existed.
Chazal applied halakhah to that case. But they don't assert the case is
real, they take that for granted.

....
Does this mean our gedolei haposeqim were wrong? Certainly not! They were
discussing the halakhah of a case that turned out to be hypothetical.
But what they were doing was the halachic analysis, not staking zoological
claims.



CM responds:

Frankly, I find your approach less than satisfying, leaving much to be
desired. However, when you have no other valid approach even an
unsatisfying one may have to do in a pinch. I am pretty sure that if I were
to ask a godol a shaila as to whether a Yeti or a Saskwatch is metame
be?ohel I would be thrown out of the beis hamidrash. Dito if I were to ask
a shaila whether a Unicorn is mafris parsa or is a ruminant or not and
therefore kosher I would again not last long in the beis hamidrash! Or if I
asked whether Nessie has fins and scales etc, etc, etc. I am not sure why
even in those days a mouse made half of basar and half of adama was not at
least in the same class as these I mention above. Besides when you ponder
creatures you have never seen, but only heard about in legend or tales from
travellers (who want to write a book), there is very little info and fact
of the sort you need to base halacha on. Who gives the course in the
anatomy of these creatures so you could deter
 mine appropriate halacha on what kind of animal it really is and how it is metamei? How does it become a treifa? etc, etc.

Personally, I prefer the derech of the OTM, but I still have no hesber for
the gemara in Sanhedrin. But it takes ?groisse pleitsis? to say something
that Rashi differs with even if you think he is scientifically in the
wrong. You see this sort of timidity (humility) fairly often and of course
it is mostly a positive thing but there may be times (if you have big
enough pleitsis) where it would  be appropriate (as the Gr?a, CI, RMF and
others have shown). Another example of this is R. Schwab?s proposal for the
missing Persian Kings and missing 168 years in Chazal?s timeline of that
period. He again just put it forward as a maybe out of humility.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I also think that the further down we go in
the mesorah, the easier it is to do this. Not because the gedolim of our
time are to be given less kavod than those of previous doros, Yiftach
bedoro keShemuel bedoro, but because I think the further down you go in
time the more the mesorah is passed through a larger number of people with
less emphasis on any one or several particular individuals. So for example
if you differ with Shemuel Hanovi or Dovid Hamelech you are not just
differing from a great individual, you essentially differing with the main
bal mesora of the time ? so in the time of the Shoftim and then the Neviim,
a litlle less so in the time of the Tannaim and still less so in the time
of the Amoraim, dito Rishonim and much less so in the time of the Acharonim
where the bits and parts of the mesora lay on the shoulders of many
individual talmidei chachamim. I would say that the number principle
individuals upon whom the mesora rested over
  the generations is somewhat in the shape of a pyramid very broad at its
  base in recent times and with Moshe at the pinnacle. If this is accurate,
  then a  challenge to the understanding of a particular godol in very
  early times was tantamount to a challenge of the mesorah itself, whereas
  a challenge to the understanding of a particular godol in more recent
  times (while not to be undertaken lightly) is at least not also a
  necessarily a challenge to the mesorah at the same time. I would also add
  that I think that this broad base of the pyramid began to broaden more
  rapidly with the permission to write Torah shBal Peh after the period of
  the Mishna and even much more so with invention of the Gutenberg Press
  since even more of the mesorah was now in writing and not just on the
  shoulders of the living gedolim of that generation. For the most part, I
  was just thinking out loud when I wrote this post as it came to mind. I
  hope I am not too far off base.

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20111031/33a05c1d/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 216
***************************************

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..."