Avodah Mailing List

Volume 29: Number 20

Wed, 15 Feb 2012

• 1. Re: Being an Eved to an Eved (Danny Schoemann)
• 2. Re: strange names in Hebrew (Lisa Liel)
• 3. Re: [Areivim] Hammurabi (Micha Berger)
• 4. The Power of Speech (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: LH about myself (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 6. Re: Halacha is about sources. Lo BaShamayim hi. (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 7. Re: Being an Eved to an Eved (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 8. Re: Being an Eved to an Eved (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: Gezeira's Tach V'Tat (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Gezeira's Tach V'Tat (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
• 11. Re: Gezeira's Tach V'Tat (Micha Berger)
• 12. destroying idols (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 13. Re: Halacha is about sources. Lo BaShamayim hi. (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 14. Re: Halacha is about sources. Lo BaShamayim hi. (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: why stop learning? (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 16. Re: destroying idols (Zev Sero)
• 17. Re: why stop learning? (Rich, Joel)

> Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai said: he went and stole, 
> so the ear which heard 'Don't steal' should be pierced. 
> And if he [was poor and] sold himself, acquiring another 
> master for himself, then the ear which heard 'bnei yisrael 
> are *My* avadim' should be pierced."

> My question is this: In the case where he voluntarily chose
> to sell himself, why is the ear-piercing prescribed only at the
> end of the six years, and even then only when he prefers to 
> stay on longer? Shouldn't Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai's logic 
> apply at the very beginning as well?

For the first six years he was paid - which was the reason he was sold. So
at some level he's simply a 24/7 employee, albeit with special privileges.

When he decided to stay on, it's as an unpaid 24/7 worker - that's already
100% slavery.

- Danny

On 2/14/2012 10:37 PM, Simon Montagu wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:54 AM, Lisa Liel<l...@starways.net>  wrote:
>    
>> But there are three other DNs used in Jewish names.  Or maybe not DNs, but
>> they serve the same purpose in the construction of names.  These are Av, Ach
>> and Am, or father, brother and nation.  We have Ammihud and Rechavam,
>> Achiezer and Avichayil.  And I can understand how Av serves as a DN, since
>> Hashem is Avinu she'ba-shamayim.  But the other two puzzle me.  And I
>> wondered whether anyone here has ever come across any discussion of names
>> like that.
>>      
> Ach is also no problem, since KBH refers to us as "achoti kalla". IIRC
> from university, Am as a name element is believed to mean "uncle"
> rather than "nation", so it may be equivalent to Dod as a DN.
>    
Those are interesting.  Thanks.  Do you know on what basis Am is 
considered to mean uncle?

> Or more loosely, any word for a close relation can act as a DN. Bear
> in mind that names are often archaic, both linguistically and
> theologically, and not representative of contemporary usage and
> belief.
True.  Considering how many Jews today, even frum Jews, have names like 
Yisraela or Gavriella, feminizing the masculine name, but in practice, 
kind of making the name a little problematic, I suppose such things 
could have been possible in the past as well.

Lisa

On 2/14/2012 5:42 PM, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote to Areivim:
> http://finkorswim.com/2012/02/14/pa
> rshas-misphatim-and-the-code-of-hammurabi-problem-or-solution/

or  <http://bit.ly/wThPjx>

To quote a piece:

    In R' Hertz's view, showing the humanity added to the law by the
    Torah when compared to The Code of Hammurabi, we can better appreciate
    the morality of our law.

    Most significantly, The Code of Hammurabi actually punctures a hole
    in a common theory of BibCrit. That is, the Torah was written by Ezra
    or some contemporary of Ezra before the Second Temple period. It is
    highly unlikely that a human author would use such an old code if
    he were writing for his Second Temple period audience. Rather, it
    suggests that the Torah is indeed of an older vintage and closer in
    time to Abraham and Hammurabi. This fits in well with the Revelation
    at Sinai and the idea proposed by some Rishonim that the Torah,
    by word of God, included old scrolls of law that went back to the
    time of our forefathers.

    Further, and R' Hertz does not say this, if the Jewish people
    present at the revelation were familiar with The Code of Hammurabi
    it would make sense to use language and structure with which they
    were familiar.

    One final point. The Code of Hammurabi is perhaps most useful for
    understanding many passages in the Torah, specifically in Genesis. R'
    Hertz mentions Abraham taking Hagar as a concubine as one example....


On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 06:21:25PM -0600, Lisa Liel replied:
> It's interesting, but I don't think Hammurabi pre-dated Matan Torah.  So
> rather than the Torah being an improvement on Hammurabi, Hammurabi was
> more of a "dis-improvement" on the Torah.  Or what happens when Torah
> concepts get distorted by non-Jews.

On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 07:56:37PM -0800, R Martin Brody also wrote to
Areivim:
: Then can you give us an idea when the Hammurabi codes were written?
: Even R.Shafran, the Agudah spokesperson, recently admitted the antiquity of
: the codes predating Matan Torah, but then spoiled it all by suggesting that
: Abraham taught Hammurabi.

Now to bring the conversation here...

Lisa's theory is kind of involved. By which I mean it has enough detail
to explain a broad swath of data, if in a way different than accepted
chronologies. I would start with Lisa's web page
<http://www.starways.net/lisa/essays/care.html>. The section you want
is "iii Mesopotamia", but you should really read the essay in full to
make sense of it. The most relevent excerpt:

    The Amorite kingdom of Hammurabi dates to the mid-Judges period,
    and the Ibni-Hadad king of Hazor who was a contemporary of Hammurabi
    was the Jabin king of Hazor at the time of Deborah. The chronology
    of this period seems on the face of it to be somewhat short for all
    the long reigning kings of Babylon, but it has been noted that the
    New Year, or Akitu festival, later celebrated only on the 1st of
    Nisan, was in earlier times celebrated both on the 1st of Nisan and
    the 1st of Tishrei. This might mean that the "long reigning kings
    of Babylon" were not really, and that their "years" were actually
    half-years. This needs to be checked, and a project to do so is in
    the planning stages. The famous Code of Hammurabi was compiled about
    two centuries after the Exodus.

Whereas most place Hammurabi about the same time as Avraham. Speculation
usually revolves around Nimrod, or one of the kings in the war when Lot
was captured. 100 years ago (when the Jewish Encyc came out), the "in"
theory was to identify him with Ampraphel.
<http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1440-amraphel>
Despite some similarity in sound (Amraphel vs Hammurabi), it turns out
the transliteration is a stretch. See the article.

But if we assume for the moment the mainstream theory is correct,
it would make more sense to me to assume that Hammurabi's code was a
corruption of Noach's, Sheim's and Ever's teachings.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries
mi...@aishdas.org        are justified except: "Why am I so worried?"
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

From today's "Hakhel Email Community Awareness Bulletin":
    22 Shevat 5772

    IMPORTANT NOTE: We recall that today is the Yahrzeit of the Manchester
    Rosh HaYeshiva, HaRav Yehuda Zev B'R Moshe Yitzchak HaLevi Segel,
    Z'tl. HaRav Segel put the Koach HaPeh at the forefront of his Avodas
    Hashem and assured others that they would experience personal Yeshuos
    through the proper study and application of Shemiras Halashon. His
    special dedication to the Koach HaPeh teaches us all that one can
    continuously edify and refine his speech and his manner of speech. "
    'I am going to cheat on my diet with this piece of cake.'; 'Can I
    steal a moment of your time?'; 'What a disgusting bug!'; 'That food
    is nasty.'; 'I have no patience for this!'; 'I can't talk to you bye
    [click].'; are all examples of short statements which ultimately
    impact a person's mindset and overall personality. Replacing the
    snaps, remarks and quips, and the gruff, negative and unseemly words
    with wise words of compliment, praise, optimism and encouragement
    may appear to have a limited effect upon a small part of the overall
    day--but actually will impact surely and steadily on a large part of
    one's personality. The time to begin to improve with better, more
    chosen words is not tomorrow or next week--if for no other reason
    than there is simply more to accomplish tomorrow and more to grow in
    next week. May our election to become better today, on the Manchester
    Rosh HaYeshiva's Yahrzeit, bring us the individual Yeshuos that the
    Manchester Rosh HaYeshiva so seriously attributed to a worthy Ruach
    Memalela--the expression of our spirit from within--as expressed to
    the outside world by our power of speech!


(For those who want to subscribe, they advise at the bottom of the email:
    You can instruct others to automatically subscribe to the list by
    sending an email to majord...@hakhel.info (leave the subject line
    blank) with the following command in the body of your email message:

    subscribe list
)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
mi...@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

I believe that a critical point has been omitted from this discussion.

In the story quoted, the CC did not merely say LH about himself.

Rather, he allegedly did something MUCH worse: He pretended to be saying LH about someone else.

This is something that I cannot believe the Chofetz Chayim would actually have done.

Forget about whether or not it is a violation of LH. It is certainly a violation of michshol, is it not?

To bad-mouth the tzadik hador?
Or to allow a fellow Jew to hear the tzadik hador getting bad-mouthed?

Those who want to get into the details of halacha, and point out that if a
person doesn't mind a certain thing being said about him, which not only
permits the LH, but renders such speech not-LH at all --- such people are
missing the forest for the trees. And the specific tree I'm talking about
is that the Chofetz Chayim would never have allowed such words to enter his
brain, let alone to leave his lips, regardless of who the subject of those
words might be.

This story has all the marks of an urban legend, and I'm content to ignore it.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4f3bd68f9b287f38a55st03vuc

Regarding the construction of the Masoretic Text, I wrote:

> The story (assuming I remember it correctly) is not only
> illogical, but with all due respect, it borders on absurd. But
> because it was the valid result of a legal process, it has more
> authority, and is followed even today.

R' Zev Sero asked:

> What's absurd about it?  They were trying to reconstruct the
> original text, from three independent sources, *each* of which
> was subject to the usual problem of ...

First of all, I tried to be respectful, and wrote merely that it *borders* on absurd, not that it actually *is* absurd.

But that doesn't really answer your question. I hope this will:

What you described was an explanation of how the legal process works, and
why it does make sense to agree. And I support it, and I hope that my first
post didn't suggest that I have a better idea. My only point was that it
strikes me as odd and a contradiction-in-terms, because the authority and
kashrus of the newly-reconstructed Sefer Torah is based totally upon three
other seforim which have now been declared to be passul.

The system works, and it works well. I'm just pointing out an odd little quirk with the system, that's all.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4f3bd92ed5982f3a10fst03vuc

R' Zev Sero answered my question:

> However, note that lechatchila one may not sign even an employment
> contract for more than 3 years, because it's most of the term of a
> 6-year avdus and transgresses "ki li benei yisrael avadim".

THIS goes directly to the heart of what I was asking. Thanks you very much, R' Zev. (Do you know offhand where you heard or saw this?)

Akiva Miller

PS:

Prior to my posting the question, I asked around, and the general response
I got was along the line of, "Even with a very benevolent master and
excellent working conditions, an Eved Ivri's time is not his own, and that
is what makes him an eved, rather than a mere employee." That got me to
thinking about other sorts of employment where one's time is not his own.
For example, we have mentioned here that although in general halacha
recognizes "at-will" employment, where either the employer or employee can
terminate at any time, there are certain situations where the employee
cannot leave in the middle of a project, for safety or other reasons.

But I think an even better example would be volunteering for military
service. (For the sake of argument, let's says that it is the army of a
benevolent, non-Jewish, malchus shel chesed.) Am I correct that even one
who enters such a military, even with the privileges of an officer -- a
chaplain for example? -- must still accept that there will be periods or
training during which his time is not his own? I was trying to distinguish
this from the Eved Ivri, and R' Zev Sero's response fits the bill very
well.

____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4f3bd3b3b8047125f1fest01vuc

On 15/02/2012 10:46 AM, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
> THIS goes directly to the heart of what I was asking. Thanks you very much, R' Zev. (Do you know offhand where you heard or saw this?)

Rama CM 333:3


> But I think an even better example would be volunteering for military
> service. (For the sake of argument, let's says that it is the army of
> a benevolent, non-Jewish, malchus shel chesed.)

Or for that matter compulsory service in the IDF.  Why complicate
matters by bringing in external factors?


> Am I correct that even one who enters such a military, even with the
> privileges of an officer -- a chaplain for example? -- must still
> accept that there will be periods or training during which his time
> is not his own? I was trying to distinguish this from the Eved Ivri,
> and R' Zev Sero's response fits the bill very well.

I believe this very shayla has been discussed in the shu"t of DL poskim.

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

On 15/02/2012 1:33 AM, cantorwolb...@cox.net wrote:
> 3006. The Tosfos YomTov writes that the 'Gezeira's Tach V'Tat' - when Jews were massacred en masse,
> was as a direct result of people speaking during davening and Krias Hatorah. /Piskei Tshuvos 151:3/
>
> I would be interested to know if I'm the only one on Avodah who is
> greatly bothered by the above statement.  To say that one is worthy
> of being massacred because of speaking during davening and k'rias
> haTorah is a bit harsh; don't you think?

On the contrary, the fact that the TYT wrote it proves that it is
appropriate, and that our modern standards need recalibrating.


> This is the same mentality as saying the holocaust was a result of
> irreligious Jews. I believe it is Rav Soloveitchik who had
> said anyone who gives a reason for the Holocaust is a fool.
> Thoughts?

If it comes down to a contest between RYDS and the TYT, that clearly
is no contest.  Ela mai?  RYDS was certainly aware of the TYT, and
therefore what he said cannot have been inconsistent, at least in his
own mind, with what the TYT wrote.

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

On 2/15/2012 1:02 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 15/02/2012 1:33 AM, cantorwolb...@cox.net wrote:
>> 3006. The Tosfos YomTov writes that the 'Gezeira's Tach V'Tat' - when 
>> Jews were massacred en masse,
>> was as a direct result of people speaking during davening and Krias 
>> Hatorah. /Piskei Tshuvos 151:3/

>> I would be interested to know if I'm the only one on Avodah who is
>> greatly bothered by the above statement...

> On the contrary, the fact that the TYT wrote it proves that it is
> appropriate, and that our modern standards need recalibrating.

I too have always been bothered by the TYT. My personal "rationalization"
is that the TYT was looking for an easy zechus for Am Yisroel to adopt to
bring the massacres to an end. Talking in shul is, of course, a perennial
problem, and maybe tackling it would constitute a "tipping point" l'tova.

KT,
YGB

We don't have the statement in the TYT's original words. So it's quite
possible he said something similar to R' Matisyahu Solomon's take. (Which
is also conssitent with RYBS's take on theodicy in Qol Dodi Dofeiq.) And
then it got simplified in the repetition.

The question would be WRT the Pischei Teshuvah, who repeated the version
we have, not the TYT. But by then, the gezeiros were history, the victims
anonymous, judgment of the Jewish People as a corporate entity, not
individuals.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
mi...@aishdas.org        excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org   'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (270) 514-1507      trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

interesting that on Prager show they are talking about whether there is a 
chiyuv to destroy idols in a jewish state,  and the caller  claims that 
it's secularity of the State  that prevents  it; Prager saying that  if 
the messiah wants to destroy the native history , that's fine , but not in 

the meantime--and no haredi jews are going around destroying  museum 
pieces   [ this is about  moslem Talibanic  destruction of  other 
religions' icons, even in museums ]


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120215/e70efc02/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> So our current mesoretic text doesn't match any of the sefarim
> they found in the azarah upon the return from Bavel.

R' Joel Rich responded:
> I vaguely remember a shiur quoting someone as saying it was the
> hashgacha that this result matched the original version at Sinai.

Alternatively, it did NOT match the original, but rather hashgacha made it
reflect another of the valid Shivim Panim which was appropriate for the
latter generations. This is similar to our Sifrei Torah, which are not
identical to Rashi's, or of other rishonim.

I recall hearing this logic invoked in the Torah Codes discussions, when it
was pointed out that the codes found today would not have been found in the
ancient seforim. The retort was that these code were not relevant to them,
and perhaps they'd have found other codes which *were* relevant.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4f3c09a6eb7f0127dde2st02vuc

On 15/02/2012 11:09 AM, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
> Regarding the construction of the Masoretic Text, I wrote:
>
>> The story (assuming I remember it correctly) is not only
>> illogical, but with all due respect, it borders on absurd. But
>> because it was the valid result of a legal process, it has more
>> authority, and is followed even today.
>
> R' Zev Sero asked:
>
>> What's absurd about it?  They were trying to reconstruct the
>> original text, from three independent sources, *each* of which
>> was subject to the usual problem of ...
>
> First of all, I tried to be respectful, and wrote merely that it *borders* on absurd, not that it actually *is* absurd.

Yes, but I don't see anything even slightly absurd about it; on the
contrary, it seems to me perfectly logical and muchrach.


> But that doesn't really answer your question. I hope this will:
>
> What you described was an explanation of how the legal process works,
> and why it does make sense to agree. And I support it, and I hope that
> my first post didn't suggest that I have a better idea. My only point
> was that it strikes me as odd and a contradiction-in-terms, because
> the authority and kashrus of the newly-reconstructed Sefer Torah is
> based totally upon three other seforim which have now been declared
> to be passul.

I don't see the contradiction.  My point is that this is not merely a
formal system that produces results that are correct only because we
define anything that the system produces as correct.  Rather it is a
perfectly logical way to reconstruct the Truth.  I'm saying that there
is One Correct Text, and any sefer that doesn't match it is passul,
even if that means that there are no kosher sefarim in the entire world.
The problem is knowing what that One Correct Text is, and this system
is a logical attempt to arrive at it.  Either it succeeded or it failed.
If it failed, then we have have had no kosher sifrei torah for millennia.
And without nevuah we have no 100% guarantee that it did succeed.  But
the reconstructed text is more likely than any alternative text to be
the correct one, so it's the best we can do.  Lo nitna torah lemal'achei
hasharet, so if it's incorrect then we rely on Rachamei Shamayim.

The oddity that you seem to see in the result comes from assuming that
we're relying on the three original sefarim as our source.  That isn't
so.  Rather, we're using them as *witnesses* to the original text, and
like all witnesses they're not 100% reliable.  It's no different from
a beis din interviewing three witnesses to an event, in order to
reconstruct what actually happened.  If all three remember a detail
differently, then we have no idea which is correct, and the truth might
even be a fourth way.  If all three remember something the same way,
they might all have independently made the same mistake, but it's unlikely.
And if two remember it one way and the third remembers it a different way,
it's still more likely that the two are remembering correctly, than that
they each independently made the same mistake.

On a different level, of course, we can have confidence that Hashem would
not have allowed such a fundamental mistake to have been made; surely He
guided the reconstructers to hit upon the correct text.  But that's not
a halachic way of looking at things.  No matter how much we believe that
Hashem runs the world, we have to *act* as if it's all in our fallible
hands, and that we might not get things right no matter how hard we try,
but we play the odds.


  

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

R' Micha Berger cited, on how a Mi Sheberach works:

> Rav Soloveitchik answers that the tefillah turns the personal
> tragedy into a communal one. Across the community, someone does
> not deserve to hear of the tragedy. ...

This brings up one of my pet peeves. It is all too common to hear in shul,
"We're going to say Tehillim now, for a member of the shul who will be
having surgery later today" -- without ever mentioning the name of this
person. Following Rav Soloveitchik's logic, wouldn't our tefilos be more
meaningful if we knew who we were davening for? Heck, following ANYONE's
logic, wouldn't our tefilos be more meaningful if we knew who we were
davening for?

And the reverse is true as well. If there is a chasan or baal bris in shul,
and I don't know who it is, do I really get enough simcha to justify
skipping tachanun?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Date Smarter, Not Harder
eHarmony - Join Now. Free to Review Matches
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4f3bff09a08cd127765fst01vuc

On 15/02/2012 1:39 PM, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
>
> interesting that on Prager show they are talking about whether there is a
> chiyuv to destroy idols in a jewish state, and the caller claims that
> it's secularity of the State that prevents it; Prager saying that if
> the messiah wants to destroy the native history , that's fine , but not in
> the meantime--and no haredi jews are going around destroying museum
> pieces [ this is about moslem Talibanic destruction of other
> religions' icons, even in museums ]

Dr Yehuda Landes AH, a pioneer of Orthodoxy in Palo Alto CA, used to tell
about the idol collection he used to have; when he became frum and learned
about the issur of possessing them and the mitzvah of smashing them he
bought some hammers and invited people over for an idol-smashing party.

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

This brings up one of my pet peeves. It is all too common to hear in shul,
"We're going to say Tehillim now, for a member of the shul who will be
having surgery later today" -- without ever mentioning the name of this
person. Following Rav Soloveitchik's logic, wouldn't our tefilos be more
meaningful if we knew who we were davening for? Heck, following ANYONE's
logic, wouldn't our tefilos be more meaningful if we knew who we were
davening for?

Akiva Miller
========================================
Agree 100% - when I spoke to a pulpit rabbi about it , he said it was a
sociological thing, some people are very private,  My response was I
consider myself in that category but in this case do they understand that
the privacy concerns are "misplaced" if the goal is a refuah shlaimah and
you believe prayer "works"
KT
Joel Rich


THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 29, Issue 20
**************************************

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..."