Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 74

Thu, 01 May 2014

• 1. Re: Selling Chometz Gomer Before Pesach (Prof. Levine)
• 2. Re: Selling Chometz Gomer Before Pesach (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Selling Chometz Gomer Before Pesach (Kenneth Miller)
• 4. Re: Selling Chometz Gomer Before Pesach (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: obsession with kitniyot (T6...@aol.com)
• 6. Re: Israelis should keep two days of Yom Tov in Chutz L'Aretz (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
• 7. Re: Kzayit (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Women wearing Tefillin (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: help with 2 sugyot (Kenneth Miller)
• 10. halachic hierarchy in psak (Rich, Joel)
• 11. Re: halachic hierarchy in psak (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: help with 2 sugyot (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: obsession with kitniyot (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: help with 2 sugyot (Zev Sero)

At 06:45 AM 4/29/2014, Marty Bluke wrote:
>> And the Star-K says that it is not real chometz.

>However, you have always stated on this forum 
>that in your estimation the OU is the 
>pre-eminent Kashrus organization in the world.

True.

I wonder if the Star-K's classification of flour as not real chometz
and the OU saying it is safek chometz actually mean the same thing.

I do sell our flour with our other chometz.  YL

On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 08:41:03AM +0300, Akiva Blum wrote:
: The article lists 7 stages:
...
: Drying, Packaging.
...
: "The roll of dough moves through a steamer, which heats the dough to 220deg F
: (104deg C) in order to kill any existing bacteria."

: Would this not prevent chimutz from this stage on?

To stop the clock for chumutz the dough has to be baked to the point
that, when torn, no strings of dough form between the two halves being
pulled apart. It's just baked enough by pateurizationl.

Pasturization would not prevent air-borne yeast later landing on the dough
from turning the dough into chameitz. But drying itself would.

But by technical criteria unrelated to physical leavening, it's likely
chameitz even in a clean room for 18 min without the yeast necessary to
rise. In the past http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol27/v27n089.shtml#19
I argued that the identification of chimutz with the biochemistry of
leavening is R' Yochanan ben Nuri's rejected shitah.

A motivation to disconnect chameitz from the biology of leavening
(Pesachim 35a): when rice and water leaven, it's sirchon, not
chimutz. Similarly, if the wheat was mixed with undiluted mei peiros
(Ashkenazi issues aside). RYBN is machmir, but yachid verabbim.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 14th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        2 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Gevurah: How does judgment reveal
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            G-d?

R' Marty Bluke wrote:
> Additionally, the second opinion on that page quoting R' Yitzchok
> Gutterman from the OU (who you hold to be the gold standard of
> Kashrus supervision) holds that flour is safek chametz.

and R' Yitzchok Levine countered:
> And the Star-K says that it is not real chometz.

And in a previous post, RYL wrote:
> As I pointed out just a few minutes ago,  modern commercial flour
> is not processed today as it was in the time of MB.  Again see 
> http://kosherpoint.com/pesach/480

R' Yitzchok, could you please clarify your position? It sounds like you are
insisting that modern commercial flour is NOT chometz, but the very website
that you quoted brings a three-way difference of opinion. Would you be
willing to concede that the experts disagree about it?

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
#1 Trick to FIGHT carbs
Easy trick ???tweaks??? hormones to control blood sugar & boost fat loss
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/535fd8107ba775810534est04vuc

On 29/04/2014 1:41 AM, Akiva Blum wrote:
> Note the description for pasteurization, which takes place before the
> drying:
>
> "The roll of dough moves through a steamer, which heats the dough to 220deg F
> (104deg C) in order to kill any existing bacteria."
>
> Would this not prevent chimutz from this stage on?

Why would it?  It still picks up yeast from the air.   The bacteria they're
trying to kill are from the eggs.

-- 
Zev Sero             Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable
z...@sero.name        from malice.
                                                          - Eric Raymond

 

From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
: Pesach is not about  deprivation, but about eating /different/ food than 
you 
: eat the whole  year...[--TK]

I think this perception is uniquely modern.

Before  crispy matzvos, before matzah bakeries, before qitniyos, how did
Pesach diet  differ from the rest of the year? 
 
-- 
Micha  Berger             

 
>>>>
Shebechol halailos anu ochlin chometz umatza, halayla hazeh kulo  matza.  
Shebechol halailos anu ochlin she'or yerokos, halayla hazeh,  maror.  
Shebechol halailos ein anu matbilin afilu pa'am echas, halayla  hazeh shetei 
phe'amim.
 
It looks like three out of four questions have to do with food.  Is  the 
Mah Nishtaneh uniquely modern?
 

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


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




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140429/db32eabe/attachment-0001.htm>

Both the Israeli in Chu"l and the American in E"Y should not do melacha 
on YT Sheni. There is no mandate (as we yeshiva bochurim well know ;-) ) 
to work.

Davening is a different story.

KT,
YGB
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 01:30:56PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
> : However the reverse situation of chutz L'aRetz people in Israel is already
> : discussed by Rav Yosef Karo....
> : Any reason that the 2 situations should be different?

On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 01:07:28PM -0400, I wrote:
: So I would assume an ammah is about 43.3 - 43.7 cm.

That was based on markings on the presumed Even Shesiyah, and assuming
marks even lengths apart on Har haBayis that appear to be from the right
era are multiples of an ammah apart.

The AhS (OC 16:4) says that a tallis qatan needs to be at least 3/4 of
an ammah sq in front and behind the person, and he tells us that this
is 9 vershoks in then Russian units. Meaning an ammah = 12 vershok =
53.34 cm (wikipedia provided conversion for vershok).

For comparison, other commonly cited shitos on the bottom of the range:
    Rambam: 45.6 cm
    RCNaeh: 48.0 cm

So, thanks to the AhS, my historical guess is within the range of accepted
shitos. At least until the AhS's pesaq fades into history under the
weight of people who call the MB "poseiq acharon". But for those of us
whose rebbe told us to follow the AhS...

(R' Dovid Lifshitz, in his role as mesader qiddushin, asked if I had
one for that purpose for my new home.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 15th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Tifferes: What is the Chesed in
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            harmony?

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 05:36:28PM -0500, I wrote:
: H/T RGS, who pointed me to the Rama OC 38:3 and AhS 38:5.
...
: The AhS also says mochin beyadan, and distinguishes it from sukah and
: lulav where they can not only do the mitzvos we (of the AhS's communty)
: have her make a berakhah. Again, "dekivan tetifilin tzarikh zehirus
: yeseirah guf naqi". Also Shabbos 39a, "tefilin tzerichin guf naqi..."

(Post at <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol32/v32n013.shtml#01>.)

The AhS (OC 17:3) gives two other different distinctions between tzitzis
on the one hand and shofar, sukkah and lulav on the other. This is after
se'if 2 quotes the Rambam that they may, and Rabbeinu Tam's shitah that they would make a berakhah too -- "likh'orah  yekholos lehis'ateif velevareikh".
But we never heard of such a thing because tzitzis is different than
the mitzvos women tend to try to do:

1- Those mitzvos are annual, and the mitzvah itself doesn't take very
   long, whereas tzitzis is year-round and lo na'eh lenashim.
2- Tzitzis aren't a chiyuv for men either.

This is why (the AhS continues) the Rama says there is more concern for
meichzei keyhara for a woman to wear them. The AhS associates the yuhara
to both distinctions -- because it is a lifestyle difference rather than
a once-a-year even that isn't even a chiyuv for anyone. "And therefore
we are not menichim linhog this mitzvah. And this is the minhag, ve'ein
leshanos."


Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 15th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Tifferes: What is the Chesed in
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            harmony?

These sugyos are not new to me. I have come across them here and there in
my learning, but I'm "fortunate" that my knowledge of the subject is so
superficial that for years I've been able to tell myself, "No, it can't
mean that. If you understood it better, it would make more sense." And now
the time has come to get it out in the open, and I hope that the chevra can
help explain it.

I am only slightly bothered by the case of the squatter who gets to live in
my home rent-free, but I suppose it's an example of the Torah's ruthless
indifference to the two sides of a dispute. Halacha is tilted neither to
the rich nor the poor, neither to the baal habayis nor the visitor. The
Torah seeks only what is right and just. I *did* have the option of renting
out my home; having left it vacant I really don't have any claim to
compensation.

The American in me, of course, is totally offended by these limitations on
my right to keep people off my property. And that's why I'm grateful to
halachos like these, which remind me that "my" property isn't really mine
at all.

But the first case has me totally bewildered. Even from a Torah perspective, I just don't get it.

If I try to prevent a gardener from working on my field, then one might
blame my American predilection for "rights" for my desire to prevent that
gardener from entering. But the sugya goes further than that. This is not
about whether he has a right to work on my field, or whether I have a right
to prevent him. No, this goes *much* further than that. This is about AFTER
he has already done the work, and he claims the right to CHARGE me for it.

Rav Teitz often mentions that if I sue a fellow Jew in secular court (in a
manner that violates halacha), and I win the case and get his money, then I
have stolen it, just as much as if I reached into his pocket and removed
the cash with my hand. I don't see this case as any different, except that
I'm using the Beis Din to accomplish it. As RET wrote:

> any gardener who doesnt have enough jobs should just go into
> yards and cut mow the lawn or remove the snow without permission
> and then demand full compensation.

I anticipate the answer may be something along the lines of the fact that
the work he did has increased the value of my field. That may be true, but
where does the Torah entitle him to make that decision for me?

The Torah does require me to give tzedaka, but it also gives me the ability
to choose which tzedaka I will give to. No tzedaka can come to me and take
money out of my pocket. What the tzedaka *can* do is appeal to the beis
din, and ask for some sort of takana requiring everyone to donate. That is
the legal system, and if the town's gardeners would make a similar claim,
that would work too. (A practical example would include certain expenses
required of all the merchants in the business district.) But for an
*individual* to take it upon himself to plow my field or shovel my
driveway? I don't get it.

Akiva miller
____________________________________________________________
LifeLock&#174 Services
24/7 Credit Fraud Monitoring Plan. Proactive Credit Fraud Protection.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/536160aa6fb7560aa5839st01vuc

I was in correspondence with someone discussing hierarchy of halachic meta rules.  He said " Second order rule lists are very common and have yet to be
 well worked through in English -- they include things like safek deoryata
 lechumra and sefaek derabanan lekula and safek brachot lehakel and even
 helcheta kebartai.  Some of them are in tension, also.  The world is still
waiting for a good work on this analytically"

My thought was that the interaction of second order decision making rules had  always
interested me.  I've thought for a while that rather than a pure Boolean
algorithmic approach which yields one and only one answer, perhaps the oral
 law was truly meant to be a fuzzy logic system?

Anyone know of any analysis of this issue.  It might also imply that tzvei denim is a simplified version of a deeper rule.

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20140501/26d5da5b/attachment.htm>

On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 05:26:44AM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: My thought was that the interaction of second order decision making
: rules had always
: interested me.  I've thought for a while that rather than a pure Boolean
: algorithmic approach which yields one and only one answer, perhaps the oral
: law was truly meant to be a fuzzy logic system?

Repeatedly in discussions on this topic with RRW, I called it a heuristic.
(Search for that word in the archive.) Really I meant to say any
algorithm would really be a heuristic approximation of something that
really requires intelligence. (But I used common short-hand in Artifical
Intelligence research.)

Pesak is fuzier than fuzzy logic, it's an art. R/Dr Moshe Koppel (CC-ed,
as I did every other time this topic comes up) describes the difference
as that between someone who learns the rules of grammar and a native
speaker of the language. The latter just knows what "sounds right",and
is therefore equipped to judge how far poetic license can go far more
than the person who knows English only through studying the rules.

See his book "Metahalakhah", where RMK uses information theory (in
a chapter the author tells you can be largely skipped, if you're
not of that bent) to prove there is such a thing as something that
isn't random and yet also can't be captured by an algorithm, how this
rleates to both intelligence and halakhah, with an explanation of a
Rupture-and-Reconstructionesque idea about the roles of Osniel ben Kenaz,
Ezra, R' Yehudah haNasi etc... in compensating for loss of art with the
formalization of rules.

Metahalakhah: http://amzn.to/1ky1RGc (from Amazon)

An Azure article along the same lines:
    http://azure.org.il/include/print.php?id=588

Way way in the past, vol 1, I suggested that divrei E-lokim Chaim is
subject to a logic system which has no Law of Contradiction (which is
also true of Quantum Logic, BTW). However, to map it to actual behavior,
to a world in which a logical contradiction is a paradox, the poseiq
has to reduce a question to a single yes-or-no. Halakhah keBeis Hillel
is indeed boolean.

Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem is the (proven) idea that any formal
system that attempts to describe all of mathematics -- or is rich enough
to have a subset that can be mapped to describing mathematics -- would
have to be incomplete. Math won't fit in an algorithm either. Although his
proof really says it would either be incomplete, or inconsistent (would
be usable to prove both the truth of some theorem and its falsehood).

It's okay for Divrei E-lokim Chaim to be inconsistent -- eilu va'eilu.

And the reduction to a single pesaq is something that occurs over the
course of history. It is never finished. It is okay for halakhah pesuqah
to be incomplete.

But that was before I read Metahalakhah, back when it never crossed my
mind to ask whether halakhah would be algorithmic or not. I am sharing
in case you are unconvinced by the first part of this post.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 16th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Tifferes: What type of discipline
Fax: (270) 514-1507                             does harmony promote?

On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 08:43:02PM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote:
: I am only slightly bothered by the case of the squatter who gets to
: live in my home rent-free, but I suppose it's an example of the Torah's
: ruthless indifference to the two sides of a dispute...

: The American in me, of course, is totally offended by these limitations
: on my right to keep people off my property. And that's why I'm grateful
: to halachos like these, which remind me that "my" property isn't really
: mine at all.

: But the first case has me totally bewildered....
: If I try to prevent a gardener from working on my field, then one
: might blame my American predilection for "rights" for my desire to
: prevent that gardener from entering. But the sugya goes further than
: that. ...  This is about AFTER he has already done the work, and he
: claims the right to CHARGE me for it.

I think Zev gave the lion's share of the answer -- it is only after
I decide I like the work and thus (whether I want to admit it or not)
it has value for me.

But I think the key here is the word "property". I suggested in the past
that there is no such thing in halakhah. (With a probable exception of bal
yeira'eh bal yeimatzei.) There is baalus, but that's a different concept.

Returning to bal yeira'eh as an example... A son does not inherit chameitz
from his father who dies while owning it on Pesach. The issuer hanaah
means a lack of baalus. Even though it's the father's in the sense of
being chameitz she'avar alav haPesach (for the part of Pesach the father
was alive to own it).

As is implied in what RAM writes, baalus is more like custodianship than
what we think of when we hear "property". Which is born out in the word
"baalus" as well. Baalus revolves around control and responsibility,
not an abstract principle of how the world is divided up among people.

My previous thoughts on baalus and qinyan, as shaped by prior conversations
here, are at <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/qinyan-and-baalus>.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 16th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Tifferes: What type of discipline
Fax: (270) 514-1507                             does harmony promote?

On 28/04/2014 8:36 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> (For that matter, shemirah mishe'as qetzirah wasn't a common shitah until
> the acharonim. Rashi's matzah shemurah was mishe'as techinah, and even then,
> the MA argues (OC 453:4)

I think you mean 453:7

> that this was because in his area most mills
> were water mills, and the threat of the flour getting wet was real.)

No, he doesn't.  He notes that it's mashma from the Rosh that shmira is only
needed at a water mill, and then in his own voice he disagrees with that,
because they wash the grain at all mills.

And in 453:8 he says that in practise kemach min hashuk is assur.


[Email #2]

On 28/04/2014 10:24 PM, T6...@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 4/28/2014, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
> writes:

>     went through this last year, I thought it was on Avodah but maybe I'm
>     misremembering the forum.  But I remember going through lots of sources and
>     finding that many of them were misquoted; the question RSBA often repeats
>     "hastu nachgeschaut" really is appropriate.

> "hastu nachgeschaut"
> please remind me what that means

"Did you look it up yourself?"   When someone quotes a sefer, did you trust
them to have quoted it correctly, or did you look it up yourself?

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

On 30/04/2014 4:43 PM, Kenneth Miller wrote:

> I am only slightly bothered by the case of the squatter who gets to
> live in my home rent-free, but I suppose it's an example of the
> Torah's ruthless indifference to the two sides of a dispute. Halacha
> is tilted neither to the rich nor the poor, neither to the baal
> habayis nor the visitor. The Torah seeks only what is right and just.
> I*did*  have the option of renting out my home; having left it vacant
> I really don't have any claim to compensation.

> The American in me, of course, is totally offended by these
> limitations on my right to keep people off my property. And that's
> why I'm grateful to halachos like these, which remind me that "my"
> property isn't really mine at all.

It's not about your right as a property owner, it's about whether you have
the right to *assert* that right, and deny someone a favour when you have
no reason at all not to grant it.  In English it's called being a dog in
the manger.  In Hebrew it's called midat sedom, i.e. sodomy.  If you have
a reason why you can't do someone a favour, that's one thing; you're not
obligated to go out of your way, or to put yourself to any inconvenience,
let alone a loss, in order to help someone else.  To do so would be a mitzvah,
but you can't be compelled to.  But where it costs you absolutely nothing,
in money, effort, or anything else, and you still say "no", just because
you're the proverbial Yankee codger and can't bear to think of someone else
benefiting from what's yours, well, that Yankee would have fit in well in
Sedom, and a beis din can order you not to be like that.

The key here, once again, is that you have *no reason at all* not to give
permission for what the other person wants to do.  If you can come up with
a reason then it doesn't apply.  So your property really is yours, and you
do have a "right" to keep everyone off it with no explanation, but only a
sodomite would do so, and you are commanded to be a mentch.

> If I try to prevent a gardener from working on my field, then one
> might blame my American predilection for "rights" for my desire to
> prevent that gardener from entering. But the sugya goes further than
> that. This is not about whether he has a right to work on my field,
> or whether I have a right to prevent him. No, this goes *much*
> further than that. This is about AFTER he has already done the work,
> and he claims the right to CHARGE me for it.

> I anticipate the answer may be something along the lines of the fact
> that the work he did has increased the value of my field. That may be
> true, but where does the Torah entitle him to make that decision for me?

What decision was there to be made?  He has done you a favour.  You are
objectively better off now than you were before, and even after paying
him you will be objectively better off, so what rational reason could you
possibly have for not wanting him to have done the work?  In what way did
he harm you?  Is it only your feelings that are hurt because he didn't ask
permission?!  Get over it.  Zachin le'adam shelo befanav, and he did you a
favour; if someone were to deposit money into your bank account would you
complain that they didn't ask first?!    Or compare it to hashavas aveida;
if someone finds your wallet, and comes to your home to return it, you have
to offer to pay his reasonable transport expenses, so long as it doesn't
come to more than the value of what he returned.  Not to do so would be
churlish.

>> any gardener who doesnt have enough jobs should just go into yards
>> and cut mow the lawn or remove the snow without permission and then
>> demand full compensation.

No, becuase the home owner might have intended to let it go unmown or
unshovelled.  Perhaps he just doesn't care, and if so you haven't done
him any favour by mowing or shovelling.  If, however, you saved him from
a ticket, then ein hachi nami, you are entitled to either your costs or
the amount you saved him, whichever is less.   The only taanah he could
make which might save him from paying you is if he says he was saving the
work for someone else, and now that person has lost out.  Normally an
ani hamehapech bacharara can't sue, but here perhaps he is entitled to the
money, since the homeowner intended for him to have it.

> The Torah does require me to give tzedaka, but it also gives me the
> ability to choose which tzedaka I will give to.   [rest of discussion
> about tzedaka deleted]

This whole discussion about tzedaka is irrelevant, because this isn't
about tzedaka.   It's only about being a mentch and acknowledging the
favours people do for you, and making sure they are not out of pocket
for doing so.


[Email #2]

On 28/04/2014 6:49 AM, Eli Turkel wrote:
> 1 "Yored Le-toch Sadeh Chavero She-lo Be-reshut"
> There are 2 situations
> (a) someone plants something in my garden that I dont want or dyes my
> white shirt blue while I wear white shirts - the gardener or dyer is
> entitled to his expenses which according to some including his labor
> at some minimum level
>
> Why should he be entitled to anything? He comes into my property illegall;y, does an activity that
> increases the value in a way that I dont want and then has the cutzpah to ask for expenses.
> Throw the guy in jail.

The question is whether you have a reason not to be happy.  If you wear white
shirts and he dyed your shirt blue, then he *harmed* you, regardless of the
increase in the shirt's resale value, and I don't believe you have to pay him
anything.  If, however, he then sold the shirt and used the money to buy you
a white shirt that was identical in every way to the old one, so you're now no
worse off, then he would be entitled to be paid his expenses out of the profit
he made for you, because you now have no reason to object to what he did.

The key point here is that if you can't explain rationally why you object to
what he did, then the only explanation that remains is that you're a mean person,
a churl who has his feelings hurt when people trespass on what's *his*, even
when they leave him better off than before.  And that is a bad midah to have,
so beis din can make you act as if you didn't have that midah.



> I am away from home for the summer and obviously just leave it empty
> while I am gone (ie I dont rent it). Someone picks the lock and moves
> in for those months without causing any damage and makes sure all
> bills are paid. I am not entitled to any rent and it seems not
> ethical to throw him out. The commentaries on SA even ask why the
> owner cant be forced to let in someone - kofim al midat sdom - and
> answer that since a person has a right to demand rent then even when
> he doesnt rent it out he cant be forced to rent it.

There is actually a rational reason why he can't be forced lechatchila to
allow the squatter in.   How can he know in advance that there will be no
damage?  Le'achar ma'aseh, when the guy leaves the property spic and span,
you can't charge him rent, since you never expected any income from the
property.  And if you could know in advance that this would happen, then
you could be forced to give him the key and let him move in.  But you can't
know that in advance, and no beis din can guarantee it, so you can't be
expected to take the risk.

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


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 32, Issue 74
**************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)