Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 171

Wed, 12 Dec 2012

• 1. Re: Mesora (Meir Shinnar)
• 2. Re: Mesora (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Mesora (Micha Berger)
• 4. Masculine endings for feminine nouns (was: Grammar question in Mikeitz) (Allan Engel)
• 5. Haneiros Halalu (was: Masculine endings for feminine nouns) (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Haneiros Halalu (was: Masculine endings for feminine nouns) (Lisa Liel)
• 7. ISHA RA'A (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 8. Re: ISHA RA'A (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: G'neivas Daas? (Arie Folger)
• 10. Re: ISHA RA'A (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: G'neivas Daas? (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: ISHA RA'A (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: ISHA RA'A (Lisa Liel)

One last go round, on a topic that keeps being rehashed
1) RZL is unhappy with my citation of ma'amar techiyat hametim - arguing
that the rambam's actual use of allegory is limited by previous use by
hazal.  He argues that in the issue discussed in ma'amar techiyat hametim,
there is ample rabbinic precedent for the rambam's position.  That may well
be, but the issue is that the rambam explicitly states that such precedent
is not necessary...
to cite

(p 360 in the Shelat edition), he is talking
about yemot hamashiach (clearly relating to things more related to
ikkare emuna rather than past meshalim), and the nature of olam haba -
he says explicitly

know that these prophecies and similar matters that
we say that they are allegorical - our word in them is not a decree,
that we did not receive a prophecy from hashem that will tell us that
it is an allegory, nor did we have a tradition for one of the sages from
the prophets who will explain that these details are allegorical.

Rather, what brought us to that is the our effort and the the effort
of every man of wisdom (of the few) - the reverse of the effort of
the multitude. That the multitude of the the followers of torah, what
is beloved of them and tasty to their folly, that they will put torah
and sechel as two opposite poles, and will derive everything separate
from the reasonable, and will say that it is a miracle, and will flee
from thngs being natural, not in what is told about what happened in
the past, nor what he will see now, nor what is said that will happen.
And our efforts our to gather between the torah and the reasonable,
and will manage all things accroding to a possible natural order,
except what is specifically explained that it is a miracle (mofet)
and it is impossible to explain it otherwise, then we will need to say
that it is a miracle (note that the rambam is not limiting himself to
the past, nor is he saying that he is basing himself on maamre hazal -
even though he earlier did bring shmuel's statement on yemot hamashiach -
that is not the reason for his statements - it is rather whether it is
possible to explain it otherwise)




2) RMB keeps citing the rambam's citation of rav hiyya as proof that he
needed authority from hazal.  The rambam does frequently cite sources for
hazal from some ideas - but not for all.  Clearly he wants to show an
audience versed in rabbinic texts how his ideas fit it - moreh nevuchim is
not a pure philosphcial work -  but there is no evidence that he actually
requires such proof, and in ma'amar techiyat hametim he says

and it is not fit that a man should dispute these pearls, that have
rational proofs backing them, with the pshat of drashot that it is fit
to say them in the ears of women and the house of mourning.

rational proofs over derashot...

3) RMB thinks there is no significant difference between prophetic vision
and vision.  At the end of the akedah, as avraham reaches for the knife, an
angel calls out to him - which implies the whole akedah did not happen in
reality, but was a vision of avraham.  There is no difference?? (the one
commentary of moreh nevuchim who makes this point had it censored out after
the first edition, as this was so radical )

4) WRT law versus truth. Again, I think RMB's position is quite radical -
and would have been unintelligible to most rishonim and pre Reform
acharonim (perhaps he can cite some such  sources that agree) - although it
has become quite common.  Yes, the law has a life of its own - but in a
religious context it is related to truth.  Yes, we mostly accept the larger
shulchan aruch (how large is larger?...)- but it DOES NOT have the same
final authority as the talmud - as poskim do go against it (it isn't the
norm for every rav, but almost every major posek will on do it occasionally)

5)WRT olives - the reason for the current large shiurim is precisely
because the Noda biyehuda did a scientific experiment comparing two
descriptions of the size of an olive - one based on current samples, the
other based on human dimensions - finding a discrepancy, and deciding
between whether that meant current olives and eggs are smaller than the
past, or we are bigger - and deciding nitkatnu hadorot in a physical sense,
and overruling mesora and law based on science....using that for arguing
that science and empiricism have no role in legal determinations seems
strange..

Meir Shinnar
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121211/d889ab16/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 08:32:02AM -0500, Meir Shinnar wrote:
: One last go round, on a topic that keeps being rehashed
: 1) RZL is unhappy with my citation of ma'amar techiyat hametim - arguing
: that the rambam's actual use of allegory is limited by previous use by
: hazal.  He argues that in the issue discussed in ma'amar techiyat hametim...

: (p 360 in the Shelat edition)...
:> know that these prophecies and similar matters that
:> we say that they are allegorical - our word in them is not a decree,
:> that we did not receive a prophecy from hashem that will tell us that
:> it is an allegory, nor did we have a tradition for one of the sages from
:> the prophets who will explain that these details are allegorical.

... Who explain the allegory in all its details.

...
: 2) RMB keeps citing the rambam's citation of rav hiyya as proof that he
: needed authority from hazal...

Not quite. I keep citing a dozen other placed in Moreh cheileq 2 as
proof. I mention his citing R' Chiya to disspell the notion that parashas
Vayeira is an example of the Rambam finding a new peshat because the
existing ones defy his philosophy. I wasn't the one who raised the example
either time, I just pointed out the mention of R' Chiya.

...
: 3) RMB thinks there is no significant difference between prophetic vision
: and vision...

1- You are still attributing to me the position the Abarbanel takes in
his commentary.

2- Of course there is a difference. Things that happen in a prophetic
vision are interactions between metaphysical entities, in the Rambam's
worldview that means intellects and forms without substance (hainu hakh),
not physical entities. But they both occured.

IOW, Lot seeing the angels prophetically doesn't change their being there,
or even their role in destroying the cities of the plane. It does change
whether or not he sat down and had a chat with them in the usual, physical,
sense.

: 4) WRT law versus truth. Again, I think RMB's position is quite radical -
: and would have been unintelligible to most rishonim...

The whole notion that pesaq is constitutive is how eilu va'eilu is
possible. Therefore, you should see "Controversy in Halacha" by R Moshe
Halbertal (the link to it that I posted in the past no longer works). It
would seem to me you're effectively backing the Rambam's position against
that of Rashi (Kesuvos 57a, "QM"L"), the Ramban, the Ritva (Eiruvin 13b
"eilu va'eilu) and the Ran. And among acharonim, the Maharshal and the
Arukh haShulchan.

But given the number of rishonim who see the sides of a machloqes as valid
because pesaq is constitutive of the law, I find it far from radical to
apply the same notion to not repealing evolutions of that law.

...
: 5)WRT olives - the reason for the current large shiurim is precisely
: because the Noda biyehuda did a scientific experiment comparing two
: descriptions of the size of an olive - one based on current samples, the
: other based on human dimensions - finding a discrepancy, and deciding
: between whether that meant current olives and eggs are smaller than the
: past, or we are bigger - and deciding nitkatnu hadorot in a physical sense,
: and overruling mesora and law based on science....using that for arguing
: that science and empiricism have no role in legal determinations seems
: strange..

I didn't say no role. See what I wrote about the chilazon.

I saide that since halakhah is a legal process, a law can have authority
even if it turns out that it diverged from the empirical. But if there is
no law, why would be choose to be arbitrarily non-empirical?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is our choices...that show what we truly are,
mi...@aishdas.org        far more than our abilities.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - J. K. Rowling
Fax: (270) 514-1507

This morning, 9:55am EDT,I sent:
: On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 08:32:02AM -0500, Meir Shinnar wrote:
:: 1) RZL is unhappy with my citation of ma'amar techiyat hametim - arguing
:: that the rambam's actual use of allegory is limited by previous use by
:: hazal.  He argues that in the issue discussed in ma'amar techiyat hametim...

:: (p 360 in the Shelat edition)...
::> know that these prophecies and similar matters that
::> we say that they are allegorical - our word in them is not a decree,
::> that we did not receive a prophecy from hashem that will tell us that
::> it is an allegory, nor did we have a tradition for one of the sages from
::> the prophets who will explain that these details are allegorical.

: ... Who explain the allegory in all its details.

I wanted to return to this after giving an exact citation, but then got
caught up in the rest of the post and hit send without getting back here.

But in any case, in MTHM the Rambam isn't creating new intepretations
so that the Torah doesn't claim anything out of line with his philsophy.
He is suggesting a solution to what would otherwise be an internal
contradiction.

We still have the several invocations of "the words of our prophets and
sages" in Moreh cheileq 2 for how to understand pesuqim when they appear
at odds with philosophy. Here, even if the Rambam were definitely saying
what RYShelat translates him as saying, we could argue that the TSBP on
techiyas hameisim is sufficient "words of our sages" to justify saying
that pesuqim that appear to deny it are allegorical.


But to rewrite what I said already in more full... When we go to
translations other than Shelat's English, it appears that the Rambam
is saying that we didn't get a prophecy telling us it's a mashal, and
no qabalah from the chakhamim as to how to explain the nevu'ah.
Eg, in Ibn Tibon's translation (pg 14 in hebrewbook.org's pdf
<http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=33084&;pgnum=14> he writes,
starting from line 2:
    ... sheharei lo baseinu meiHashem nevu'a
    shehodi'einu shehu mashal
    velo matzanu qabalah lachakhamim mehanevi'im sheyiv'aru
    bah bechelqei eilu hadevarim sheheim mashal.

As RYS puts it as well, why would the Rambam tell us that we have no
mesorah that the *details* (chelqei eilu hadevarim) are allegorical? Why
discuss the details if the Rambam says the whole thing is allegory? I
therefore think he's talking about the lack of specifics in the content
of the nimshal, not the lack of nimshal existing altogether.

But again, R/D MS's issue here is really more with RZL's position. I'm
happy saying that the mesorah on THM is enough justification. It's not
Torah vs Philosphy, but shenei kesuvim hamakhchishim zeh es zeh. Such
innovation is what we call chiddush.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet
mi...@aishdas.org        about things most people don't watch even on
http://www.aishdas.org   Yom Kippur.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter

A related topical question.

All girsaos I have seen say Haneiros Halalu Qodesh Heim, should it not be
Hein?

Maseches Soferim, which I believe is the earliest version, says Haneiros
HaEilu Qodesh - (see
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=22498&;st=&pgnum=341 as per
RMB's instructions), but it does go on to say LeHishtameish Bahein.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121211/54673f15/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 07:14:52PM +0000, Allan Engel wrote:
: Maseches Soferim, which I believe is the earliest version, says Haneiros
: HaEilu Qodesh - (see
: http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=22498&;st=&pgnum=341 as per
: RMB's instructions), but it does go on to say LeHishtameish Bahein.

The Tur (OC 676) quotes Mes' Soferim, Maharam miRotenburg and the Rosh
as having a somewhat text than ours, but it does include "haneiros halalu
qodesh hein" and "lehishtameish bahen". The Levush's nusach as well.

The MB (676 s"q 4) says there is a point to having 36 words, perhaps 36
plus "haneiros halalu" for a total of 38. (36 = 1 + 2 + 3... + 8 = the
total number of holy, ie non-shamash neiros lit.) He therefore advises
not to say the "heim".

OTOH, I /think/ the Sedei Chemed says that "hein" (notice he has the nun)
implies that the qedushah is inherent to the neiros, that they have a
shadow of the qedushah of THE menorah, and using them is me'ilah. Whereas
the shitah in Mes Soferim is based on the assumotion that they have the
qedushah of a devar mitzvah. See vol 8, asifas dinim - chanukah pg 45
and 60, ie <http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14156&;pgnum=43>
and the <http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14156&;pgnum=58>.

If this is what the SC is saying, I'm wondering then if our own pesaq
would be internally consistent. We hold you can dispose of leftover
candle and wicks, if done without bizayon -- implying they're like
torn tzitzis strings, and no longer qadosh. OTOH, we do same "heim".


While discussing the diqduq, why isn't it "qedoshim heim"?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Life is a stage and we are the actors,
mi...@aishdas.org        but only some of us have the script.
http://www.aishdas.org               - Rav Menachem Nissel
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 12/11/2012 3:12 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> While discussing the diqduq, why isn't it "qedoshim heim"?
>
>
Because it isn't an adjective.  It's another noun.  Qadosh/qedoshim, as 
an adjective, would take gender and number from the noun it's modifying, 
but qodesh is a noun that doesn't get modified by another noun.

Here's how it works.  In English, we'd say "these candles are a holy 
thing".  In Hebrew, "ha-neirot hallalu heim qodesh", where "qodesh" is 
"a holy thing", or "something holy".  Perhaps the archaic (and 
Christiany) "sacrament" is the closest single-word translation.  "These 
candles are a sacrament".

It's like if you were to say "This doll is a toy".  "Habuba hazot hee 
tza'atzu'a".  Or a toy soldier, "Hachayal hazeh hu tza'atzu'a".  See? 
The word tza'atzu'a (toy) doesn't change its gender.  Or if you want an 
example that also doesn't change number, you could say "These 
instructions are some kind of joke."  "Ha-hora'ot ha-eileh heim eizeh 
tz'chok."

Lisa

Brochos 17a has the famous prayer of Mar ben Ravina:  "...P'sach libi
b'sorasecho uv'mitzvosecho tirdof nafshi v'satzileinee mipega ra, miyetzer
hara, u'mei-isha ra-a..."	 
I am curious how you would explain the isha ra'a as not being a gender bias.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121212/234baad0/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:07:44AM -0500, cantorwolb...@cox.net wrote:
: Brochos 17a has the famous prayer of Mar ben Ravina: "...P'sach
: libi b'sorasecho uv'mitzvosecho tirdof nafshi v'satzileinee mipega ra,
: miyetzer hara, u'mei-isha ra-a..."

: I am curious how you would explain the isha ra'a as not being a
: gender bias.

I'm failing to see the question. "Save me from ... an evil woman"
doesn't imply that women are more likely to be evil than men.

In fact, we say every morning in Birkhos haShachar "umishakhein ra".

In terms of what we mean, look at at the list. It begins with requestion
that Hashem give us a desire for Torah and that we chase mitzvos. Here
we get to the flipside, the yeitzer hara and now sexual attraction to
the wrong woman. (The "shakhein ra" does not imply an inappropriate
taavah issue.)

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

On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 12:49 PM, R' MYG wrote

> I read an article recently about photography (my hobby, hence my interest)
> in which a photographer was described as setting up a dozen lights for his
> studio shots. The client would be very impressed and would leave feeling
> that he was getting his money's worth - with that many lights the
> photographer must really know what he's doing. The trick was, that the
> photographer would set one or two lights to illuminate the subject while
> the picture was taken, and the other ten lights to flash a fraction of a
> moment later. The eye can't tell the difference, so it looked like he used
> all the lights for the same shot, but in actuality most of the lights were
> there just for show.
>
> So, here's the question - is this G'neivas Daas? On the one hand, he's
> making himself look really good through this artifice - on the other, his
> pictures are the ultimate judge of his skill. If they came out in such a
> way that his client is happy, is it a problem that he made himself look
> good like this?
>

This could be geneivat da'at, but I am not sure. The reason that the Gemara
in 'Hullin says selling bessar neveila to a NJ claiming it is she'huta is
geneivat da'at is that there is a real difference between them, even though
it is an intanglible. The product has a hidden defect. However, in your
case, there is no such hidden defect, the picture is a good one.

However, one should still consider whether the practice is permissible, or
prohibited because of umidvar sheqer tira'haq. This is not so simple, since
Rishonim diagree as to the precise contours of that assei prohibition.
According to R' Prof Aaron Levine z"l, the way to definitely assess its
permissibility (feasible for large companies, but not harder for a
photography studio) is to have a focus group see the installation at work
and judge the package in comparison with that of another competitor. If the
practice is seen by enough people as mere advertisement, then it is
definitely not sheqer.

Even if most people fall for it, it may be permissible, since it is a lie
by omission (the stuff stands there already, and he is not saying
anything). That seems to be the halacha as can be deduced from the story of
Rava, Rav Safra and Mar Zutra (TB 'Hullin 94a).

A similar situation: A computer tech I know used to do tune-ups for
> computers. He was an honest fellow, and did what he said he would. But he
> would write on the invoice - as one of the line items - "checked for 35,000
> viruses." (This was back in the day when there were only 35,000 viruses.)
> That meant that he ran a virus check on the computer. So, yes, he did check
> for 35,000 viruses, but the way he wrote it made it sound a lot more
> impressive than it was.
>

By the above standard, this is the way people speak and would more
definitely be OK than the studio case.

Last for this post: A frum cosmetologist used to advertise her services in
> the town I used to live in. She had a typical Jewish last name, starting
> with "le". So, after being in business for years, she started advertising
> her name like this: LeVovitz. (It wasn't Levovitz - I don't want to post
> her name in public. It was a different name and it was a lot less
> cringe-inducing than LeVovitz. :-)  ) She was obviously going for the
> French look, making herself look exotic and so on. What do you think?
> G'neivas Daas?
>

Definitely not. Business names are not necessarily revealing anything about
their owners, just about their output.


Bottom line: The first case may be prohibited, either as geneivat da'at or
sheqer (and whether those two are separate is itself subject to a
ma'hloqet), while the two following ones are IMHO permissible.


Kol tuv,
-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Schnellkurs im j?dischen Grundwissen: I. Der Schabbat (Audio)
* Warum beschneiden Juden ihre Knaben ? Multimedia-Vortrag
* Beschneidung, die aktuelle Rechtslage ? Multimedia Schiur
* Was mir in Holocaust Museen fehlt
* Beschneidungslerntag ? Schlu?worte (Multimedia)
* Paneldiskussion zur Beschneidung ? Audio-Datei
* Welche B?nde gibt es zwischen Mensch und G?tt? (Multimedia)
* R?ckblick Gedenkfeier F?rstenfeldbruck

-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Schnellkurs im j?dischen Grundwissen: I. Der Schabbat (Audio)
* Warum beschneiden Juden ihre Knaben ? Multimedia-Vortrag
* Beschneidung, die aktuelle Rechtslage ? Multimedia Schiur
* Was mir in Holocaust Museen fehlt
* Beschneidungslerntag ? Schlu?worte (Multimedia)
* Paneldiskussion zur Beschneidung ? Audio-Datei
* Welche B?nde gibt es zwischen Mensch und G?tt? (Multimedia)
* R?ckblick Gedenkfeier F?rstenfeldbruck
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121212/6aa7e2d0/attachment-0001.htm>

On 12/12/2012 1:15 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> I'm failing to see the question. "Save me from ... an evil woman"

Doesn't it mean "a bad wife"?

-- 
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 Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 02:00:05PM +0100, Arie Folger wrote:
: According to R' Prof Aaron Levine z"l, the way to definitely assess its
: permissibility (feasible for large companies, but not harder for a
: photography studio) is to have a focus group see the installation at work
: and judge the package in comparison with that of another competitor. If the
: practice is seen by enough people as mere advertisement, then it is
: definitely not sheqer.

I'm not sure what this means. "Mere advertisement"? It's not something
that announces "ich bin du", it's something that creates the impression
that more is being done to guarantee the perfect picture when in fact
nothing more is being done.

I would think the criterion would be if it's reasonable for someone
(ie "enough people" in the focus group) to assume the quality is
different. And I will for the moment assume that's what you're trying to
describe here. (Rather than wait for RAF to reply, given our time-zone
difference.)

But then the question becomes moot. If he thought it's not common for
people to assume that his doing better work because it looks like he's
using more lighting equipment, he wouldn't be doing it. In terms of
intent, he is /trying/ to do something my above guess at R/P AL's intent
would deem a sin. And now the question is whether he is succeeding at
actually sinning. He should stop either way.

I wonder if we can deduce something relevent from SA CM 228:16.
The SA discusses two cases of mixing crops into a single bin for sale.
In general it is mutar. But if you make a point of creating a reputation
that you buy everything from the good field, it's assur. Now for the
deducing part: This is even though they can see the actual quality of
the final product that they are buying, so the reputation of the source
field shouldn't be relevant to the actual value or to any attributes
someone might want to shop for.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When faced with a decision ask yourself,
mi...@aishdas.org        "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now,
http://www.aishdas.org   at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 01:18:46PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 12/12/2012 1:15 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> I'm failing to see the question. "Save me from ... an evil woman"

> Doesn't it mean "a bad wife"?

Do we have any indication Mar Berei deRavina stopped saying this techinah
after he got married? To be saved from an evil 2nd wife was an unlikely
risk, given that we don't know of any of Chazal who were polygynous. Or
it could require believing that he had problems with his wife.

(Who I would guess from Berakhos 31a was R' Hamuna Zutei's daughter. The
gemara tells us what MBDR did to keep the holelus in check at his son'e
wedding, and R' Ashi did at his son's wedding. From which we get our
minhag of breaking the glass. So, I figure -- admittedly just guessing
-- that R' Hamnuna's lament at RBDR's wedding was at at his daughter's
wedding. It can't be his son's wedding as Rav berei deRavina's father was
named Ravina [this is before the one who editted shas], Ravna [according
to another girsa] or Rav Avina.)

So, I think "ishah" in the "woman" sense is more likely.

(None of which touches on my answer to Cantor Wolberg's original
question.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Strength does not come from winning. Your
mi...@aishdas.org        struggles develop your strength When you go
http://www.aishdas.org   through hardship and decide not to surrender,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      that is strength.        - Arnold Schwarzenegger

On 12/12/2012 12:18 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 12/12/2012 1:15 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> I'm failing to see the question. "Save me from ... an evil woman"
>
> Doesn't it mean "a bad wife"?

That's what I always assumed.

Lisa


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 171
***************************************

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..."