Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 110

Tue, 04 Aug 2015

• 1. trivia questions (saul newman)
• 2. Re: trivia questions ()
• 3. trivia questions (Michael Poppers)
• 4. Re: avelut after 12 months (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) (Kenneth Miller)
• 6. Re: sources for not covering hair (Noam Stadlan)
• 7. trivia questions (Eli Turkel)
• 8. Re: De-Chokifying Arayos (Marty Bluke)
• 9. bracha on tefillin (Eli Turkel)
• 10. Re: De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: bracha on tefillin (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) (Kenneth Miller)

'oh hanisa elokim' is one;  the other is in parshat haman , i forget which
one.

will leave the dvar tora connecting the two ,  to others , other than to
say the import of 'zeh gilui shechina'  and lechem mishamayim  as
 fundaments of  faith,,,,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150730/8d86184e/attachment-0001.htm>

 
From: Eli Turkel via Avodah  <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>
"


2) name at least 2 halachot  that we learn from wicked people in Tanach

-- 
Eli  Turkel

 
 
>>>>>
 
 
 
 
Don't  know if this is what you had in mind but I can think of  these:
[1] A woman cannot be married without her consent -- learn from Lavan --  
"Nish'alah es pi hana'arah" before sending Rivka off with Eliezer to marry  
Yitzchak.
 
[2] A younger sister cannot marry before the older sister (unless she gets  
permission from her) -- from Lavan again, excusing himself for giving Leah 
to  Yakov instead of Rachel.
 
[3] Celebrating seven days of sheva brachos -- from two places.  One  is 
Lavan again -- give Leah a week to celebrate and then Yakov can marry  Rachel. 
 And from the Pelishti "friends" of Shimshon who celebrated his  wedding 
for a week.
 
[4] We also learn from Izevel (Jezebel) that it's a big mitzva to dance at  
a wedding, to be mesameach chassan vekallah, but strictly speaking this is 
not  in Tanach, it's a midrash.
 

--Toby Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============


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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150730/94cb3152/attachment-0001.htm>

In Avodah V33n109, RET posted
> Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters
of the alph-bet (I only know one) <
In the Torah, a *pasuq* in P'Va'eschanan (4
<http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/t/t0504.htm>:34) is usually noted, but it
(containing letter *sin* but no *shin*) works only when the *shin* and the
*sin* are considered the same letter (they are, so long as we're
considering the written form).  The other *pasuq* in the Torah of which I'm
aware is Shmos 16 <http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/t/t0216.htm>:16 (in it,
the *shin* is extant but there's no *sin*).

All the best from
*Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150730/0d3ae81b/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:37:27PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
: I have written on several occasions, about my belief that Chazal often
: exaggerate, and this misleads those who are not used to their style of
: speaking. I think we have here another example of the same thing. There's
: a tendency to take Chazal at literal face value. We need to be more
: careful when reading the poetry.

Tanakh sometimes does something else with a similar effect, and it may
be what Chazal are doing here.

Lei'ah, rather than being described as "less loved" is "senu'ah". It's
not necessarily exageration as much as a language norm to express a
relative statement uing the same terms as absolutes.

Here too chazal are making a comparison. Was the reader expected to know
it's guzma, or was the norm in mishnaic Hebrew as well to use the term
for the end of the spectrum to mean "less mourned than"?

My problem with this is the parent of the MIA who can't let go for years
or decades, and then it's found out that the chayal r"l was killed upon
capture (or their body was taken after petirah for a bargaining chip).

We have no experimental evidence of parents having that mystical knowledge
of their children's state, and quite a bit of evidence otherwise. Perhaps
Yaaqov avinu, or even someone with "just" ruach haqodesh is that aware
of what's going on on the plane of souls without learning about them
through normal olam hazeh means. But I do not see it being true of the
majority of humanity.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The trick is learning to be passionate in one's
mi...@aishdas.org        ideals, but compassionate to one's peers.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

I tried to make the point that although many try to show similarites
between food and sex, if we look at the Torah's view, there are far more
differences. I suggested a rule of thumb:

> Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it.
> Sex is proper as long as you minimize it.

Chazal see food as an entirely proper way of enjoying olam hazeh,
to the point that it is actively encouraged as a form of all sorts
of celebrations. (And not only happy celebrations, but eating is also
involved in various mourning practices.) Under normal circumstances,
one can and should eat as much as he needs, subject to the limitations
of kashrus and brachos. One is never allowed to eat in a quantity or
manner that he becomes a menuval, but that is not a major concern.

Sex is also an enjoyment of olam hazeh, but I've seen this expressed
in only two areas: Oneg Shabbos and Chiyuv Onah. And even there, the
restrictions are many. Food has tremendous room for creativity even within
the restrictions of hilchos kashrus and brachos. Sex could be similar,
even within the bounds of hilchos nidda and arayos, but the restrictions
set out in OC 240 go much farther than merely to insure that one does
not become a menuval.

R' Micha Berger responded:

> I think the difference is just about that, but because of the
> biological differences. Sex differs in two ways:

> 1- It involves a second party. There is no threat of
> objectifying [food].

> 2- You can survive without it. A few days without food though...

> Therefore, the attitude toward perishus for each comes from
> opposite directions. For food, which is necessary for survival,
> we talk about how much is too much. For sex, we talk about the
> right balance between keeping the other happy (chiyuv onah)
> and turning them into a tool for your own happiness.

I think that he is agreeing with me that food and sex are very different,
but I disagree with his explanation of *why* they are so different.

In his first point, intended to be "food"), he seems to feel that the
restrictions on sex are to prevent people from taking advantage of
each other: If I have even a small desire for a snack, the Torah has no
problem at all if I go to the kitchen and take an apple (provided that I
say the bracha to acknowledge Hashem's involvement) because the apple is
nothing more than an apple. But while casual eating is fine, casual sex is
not. Casual sex involves people, and they must not be taken advantage of.

My problem with this is on several levels. First, Chazal are pretty
explicit that the purpose of Hilchos Nida is to restore a honeymoon-style
atmosphere on a regular basis, and that alone might suffice to insure
that spouses aren't objectified. Also, we have the many parts of OC 240
which insure that husband and wife are in the same "place" emotionally:
no one is drunk, words of "ritzui", and so on. But isn't that sufficient
protection against objectifying? What is gained from the additional
restrictions (such as various positions, or finishing quickly) which
have no parallel in food?

In RMB's second point, he contrasts survival without sex and survival
without food. While it is true that sex is not required for physical life,
psychologically it's a whole different story, and that's the approach
the Torah uses for Onah.

While men and women are pretty much identical in the halachos of food,
Onah places the husband and wife in opposite situations. Any discussion of
Onah that uses the word "spouse" will be flawed, because Onah treats the
husband and wife so differently. For example, whenever the wife desires
relations, then the husband has a clear and present chiyuv d'Oraisa. But
if the husband desires, she has no corresponding obligation; in fact
(if I'm not mistaken) she's not even labeled as a "moredet" until after
prolonged and repeated refusals.

It seems to me that Onah may have the effect of objectifying males. Those
parts of Orach Chaim 240 which forbid unwilling relations ought to
suffice to insure that the women are not objectified. But Onah seems to
push the pendulum too far.

In response to RTK, RMB wrote:

> I'm not sure it's "hashkafah" as much as Hilkhos Dei'os / Chovos
> haLvavos. After all "Qedoshim tihyu" is a chiyuv, not a nicety,
> and that's a source for "perushim tihyu".

> What a mitzvah to be or to become something (such as "qadosh")
> is in practice, though, is inherently situational and subjective.
> If we were talking about something reducible to black-letter
> halakhah and objective rules, it would have been.

And yet, Orach Chayim 240 *IS* "black-letter halakhah and objective
rules", is it not?

Akiva Miller

I initially replied on Areivim to a post reminding women during the summer
to cover their hair.  Mrs. Katz added that there was no support for those
who hold that hair covering in public is not necessary.  Others have
disputed what RYBS's position on hair covering was, in view of the fact
that his wife did NOT cover her hair in public at all times(someone seems
to have the impression that she wore a hat).

Here are the sources I have collected, in addition to the fact that a
significant percentage of Modern Orthodox women to not cover their hair in
public except in shul/davening situations.
In response to those who have stated that the younger more educated women
are covering their hair, I would point out that they have been educated to
believe that it is an obligation, and the permissive sources have not been
shared with them- case in point Mrs. Katz who either is not aware or
chooses to dismiss them out of hand.

In the words of R. Yehoshua Babad: "The principle whether or not an act of
uncovering constitutes immodesty (*ervah*) is: if it is the practice of
women to cover [their hair] and she uncovered it, then this is immodesty (
*ervah*). But if it was not the regular practice [of women] to cover [their
hair] then [going uncovered] is not in the category of immodesty at all. If
they uncover one hand?s-breadth in a place where they are habituated to
cover then it is [a case of] uncovering immodesty and it is prohibited to
read the Shema prayer in their presence... But if their (ladies?) custom is
to uncover their hair (or a hand?s-breadth of the body) ? as single women
do who by custom walk around with head [hair] uncovered - then this
[action] does not constitute immodesty (*ervah*)."

If the women in the general society do not cover their hair, then uncovered
hair is not immodest, and therefore routine hair covering is not mandated.

Here is a list of easily accessable sources:

Rabbi Marc Angel(former president of the Rabbinical Council of
America) discusses why hair covering is not mandated:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbrQwEerLsY

Massive article by Rabbi Michael Broyde:
http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/0095-0180.pdf
<http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Ft
raditionarchive.org%2Fnews%2F_pdfs%2F0095-0180.pdf&;h=kAQHfI6AC&
s=1>
I emphaisize that R. Broyde states that his article is a limmud zechut, and
not taking the position that women do not have to cover their hair.
However, the sources and thread of learning speak for themselves and
everyone can come to their own conclusion.

Rav Yosef Haim(author of Ben Ish Chai) writing that hair covering is not
necessary(and how his opinion was altered by others):
http://text.rcar
abbis.org/the-ben-ish-hai-and-women%E2%80%99s-hair-covering-an-interesting-
case-of-censorship-by-jacob-sasson/

See Rabbi Broyde's article(pages 155-158) for citations of those who state
that hair covering is not mandated in the current society:

R. Yitzchak Hurwitz in Yad HaLevi

R. Moshe Malka(late Chief Rabbi of Petach Tikvah)

R. Josef Messas(late chief rabbi of Morocco and later Haifa)

R. Yaakov Haim Sofer


Regarding the position of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, here is the testimony
of Rabbi Yitz Greenberg.


R. Yitz Greenberg reports his question to Rav Soloteitchik and the reply:
"How was it that Rebbetzin Tonya Soloveitchik, *zichronah livracha*, did
not cover her hair? Was this permitted by the *halachah*, or was it not
prohibited on the grounds of modesty? He took out a *Gemara Berachot*,
opened it to page 24A and showed me the Talmudic statement. "Said Rav
Sheshet: [showing] hair by a woman is *ervah *(an act of immodesty)."
Smiling, the Rav said that immodesty (*ervah*) is contextual and that in
this society and time, showing hair was not immodest (*ervah*)."

I have not seen it personally, but R. Gil Student reports that the
artscroll biography of R. Dessler contains photos of rebbitzins with
uncovered hair.

Obviously, not covering hair in public for women was at least somewhat
common.  Some will say that- 'they couldn't control their wives' or other
such statements.  I would point out that RYBS also went to the opera-
perhaps in keeping with an approach that hair wasn't erva, a lenient view
of kol isha, all of which seems consistent.  Furthermore, it seems quite
far fetched that a rav who knew that he had great communal status would
abide by gross violation of halacha in public by his own family, and at the
very least would make it clear that he did not hold by it.  Obviously, the
fact that he did not make a deal of it(certainly not a big deal),
illustrates something.  Do you think he would countenance his wife eating
treif? furthermore, the chiyyuv is also for men not to see hair(if that is
the position that is being taken), and by not protesting his wife's
uncovered hair, RYBS would have been allowing all those men who saw his
wife to sin.  The position seems quite untenable.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150802/c8260cd9/attachment-0001.htm>

<<> 2) name at least 2 halachot that we learn from wicked people in Tanach

1. The definition of an "edah" from "this wicked edah".
2. Hezek re'iyah from Bil'am.
3. Standing for a davar shebikdusha, from Eglon.  >>


Some others are:

4. Lavan: Sheva Brachot; also the Bracha we give the Kalla at the bedeken
5. also "chaye shaah" is less important that "chaye olam" from the 4
lepers, gechazi and his sons

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150802/4f2eab04/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Akiva Miller wrote:
""It's a big machlokes - there's gotta be someone who paskens the way I
want, so that's what I'm gonna do." I shudder when I hear
otherwise-observant people saying such things. There are indeed some cases
where there is such a *lack* of consensus among the poskim that one can do
as he wants (one of my teachers paskened this way and for this reason
regarding brachos on dessert), but I do not see Siman 240 in this category.
We seem to be abandoning the consensus of the Shulchan Aruch and Nosei
Keilim, and running to minority rishonim."

R' Lichtenstein was bothered by this point and answered that we need to
rely on our teachers and Gedolim.

"Probably most significant, however, is our reliance upon our own mentors.
Sensing that modern gedolim, ?the judge of your era??for our purposes, most
notably, the Rav, but not he alone?have examined the issue and the evidence
and adopted a positive stance, we, ordinary students of Torah, follow in
their footsteps as we identify with their position. Whether they felt
justified in accepting, out of the depths of their own conviction, a
minority view; whether they held that our topic was essen- tially a matter
of hashkafic proclivity, not necessarily amenable to the nor- mal
procedures of pesak; or whether some other unknown but imagined
element?might, for instance, the hospitable climate of Kabbalistic sources,
have had some impact?is a matter for conjecture. That the authority of our
mentors can inform and sustain our sensibility is not."

I understand that for many of us that is not a very satisfying answer and
leads to many questions about why specifically here we follow minority
opinions as opposed to other places (e.g. wombs issues, etc.) but I don't
think there is a better answer. This is the way the halachic system works.

Even after all of this, R' Lichtenstein himself was bothered by this very
point:

"I am left, nonetheless, with a lacuna. Even while adhering to the Rav?s
position, one may freely concede wishing that he had done for us what we
have been challenged and constrained to do here: examine the various tiers
of tradition and elucidate the basis for his own judgment and commitment."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150802/e73a5e05/attachment-0001.htm>

There is a disagreement between Rashi/Rambam and R Tam whether one says one
or two brachot on tefillin of the arm and head. While sefardim follow SA
and say one bracha ashkenazim follow R Tam and say 2 brachot bur add
"baruch shem kvod ..." to avoid a bracha le-vatala

I have 2 things I don't understand about the ashkenazi minhag

1) The usual rule is "safek bracha le-kula" and so when in doubt don't say
a bracha

2) How does saying "barch shem" help ? We have many disagreements about
brachot.
For example ashkenazim (again following R Tam) say brachot on customs, eg
half hallel.
We don't add "baruch shem ..." in these cases. Why only in tefillin?

Furthermore whenever there is a doubt about a bracha (classical case is if
one forgot to count the omer at night and remembered during the day) why do
the act without a bracha - why not say the bracha and add "baruch shem"

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150803/c6801987/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 03:39:12AM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
: Sex is also an enjoyment of olam hazeh, but I've seen this expressed
: in only two areas: Oneg Shabbos and Chiyuv Onah...

... and priya verivya, no?

:                        Food has tremendous room for creativity even within
: the restrictions of hilchos kashrus and brachos. Sex could be similar,
: even within the bounds of hilchos nidda and arayos, but the restrictions
: set out in OC 240 go much farther than merely to insure that one does
: not become a menuval.

...
: I think that he is agreeing with me that food and sex are very different,
: but I disagree with his explanation of *why* they are so different.

I have the same assessment. I am saying that the same principle of when
perishus is appropriate is very different for food vs sex because food
and sex are different in nature.

Summarizing my point #1:
:                             But while casual eating is fine, casual sex is
: not. Casual sex involves people, and they must not be taken advantage of.
: 
: My problem with this is on several levels. First, Chazal are pretty
: explicit that the purpose of Hilchos Nida is to restore a honeymoon-style
: atmosphere on a regular basis, and that alone might suffice to insure
: that spouses aren't objectified....

If your objection is based on the "might suffice", all one needs to
assert is or might not.

:                                  What is gained from the additional
: restrictions (such as various positions, or finishing quickly) which
: have no parallel in food?

I am not sure that prohibitions based on mood are sufficient, as it's
too easy to fool oneself about what the other person really wants.

In any case, you return to OC 240 again at the end of the post and ask:
: And yet, Orach Chayim 240 *IS* "black-letter halakhah and objective
: rules", is it not?

Perhaps not. Is OC 1 black-letter halakhah? Is hitting the snooze button,
or even lying around for a few seconds before getting up, actually assur?
For that matter, there is a mitzvah to remember right vs left when putting
on and tying shoes, but do you really think someone was oveir an issur if
they don't?

As the AhS OC often notes, the style of the SA is just to discuss do
vs don't, and it blurs the distinctions between levels of issur -- a
deOraisa can be next to an accepted minhag, and both may even be
written in parallel language.

: In RMB's second point, he contrasts survival without sex and survival
: without food. While it is true that sex is not required for physical life,
: psychologically it's a whole different story, and that's the approach
: the Torah uses for Onah.
: 
: While men and women are pretty much identical in the halachos of food,
: Onah places the husband and wife in opposite situations...

Whereas moredes has no parallel because she cannot initiate a gett. And
for that matter, it has no parallel because he is obligated to support here.
For that matter, the assymetry in who supports who is quite possibly
why HQBH set up an assymetric process for gittin. The man who obligates
himself in support can get of it.

Onah is a protection against that objectification. Against turning that
whole support thing into near prostitution.

And with onah, the outcome is more symmetric -- he can end a marriage if
dissatisfied, and is obligated to keep her satisfied. Without which BD
can force him to willingly end the marriage. <grin> (Just paraphrasing
the din...)

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 Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 11:21:03AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
: I have 2 things I don't understand about the ashkenazi minhag
: 
: 1) The usual rule is "safek bracha le-kula" and so when in doubt don't say
: a bracha

: 2) How does saying "bar[u]ch shem" help ? ...

The AhS (OC 25:11 <http://j.mp/1P0kFw0>) agrees with you on both points,
and therefore posits (se'ifim 12-13) a totally different meaning to the
2nd berakhah.

And even though shel yad and shel rosh are two different of the 613,
we make one berakhah on maaser rishon and maaser sheini.

He also quotes that the BY rejects a possibility that if someone talks
between the two tefillin, he would have to make both berakhos on the shel
rosh -- repeting "lehaniach" and yet still saying "al mitzvah".

But even though he uses this as proof, he requires (se'if 16, following
the Ran via the MA s"q 15) loosening the shel yad so that you are still
saying "lehaniach" the 2nd time on both.

This is a pretty big chiddush, a birkhas hoda'ah that says "asher
qidshanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu al mitzvas..." However, similar arguments
are made about Birkhas haTorah, if one says the berakhah is deOraisa
(Ramban) and therefore "aqb"v la'asoq bedivrei Torah" can't be a birkhas
hamitzvah. The IM says as much (OC 2:3).

: We don't add "baruch shem ..." in these cases. Why only in tefillin?

Leshitas AhS, it follows enacting the qesher gadol between us and HQBH
for the same reason the pasuq is said after the first pasuq of Shema.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value,
mi...@aishdas.org        but by rubbing one stone against another,
http://www.aishdas.org   sparks of fire emerge. 
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz

I wrote:

: Sex is also an enjoyment of olam hazeh, but I've seen this expressed
: in only two areas: Oneg Shabbos and Chiyuv Onah...

R' Micha Berger asked:

> ... and priya verivya, no?

I was trying to show differences between sex and food. I would say that, in
the eyes of Halacha, there is no connection between pirya v'rivya and the
olam-hazeh enjoyment of sex, in exactly the same manner that there is no
connection between achilas matzah and the olam-hazeh enjoyment of food. The
latter is a means of internalizing a historical connection, and the former
is a biological imperative, but neither has any connection to olam-hazeh
enjoyment.

However, that it not to say that halacha is blind to the fact that sex *IS*
enjoyable. This is recognized by the mitzvah of Oneg Shabbos, where if the
act is to be done once a week, then Shabbos is receommended. Chiyuv Onah
also recognizes that if the wife has a taavah for this particular hanaah,
then it is the husband's obligation to satisfy her taavah.

But pirya v'rivya? No, I don't see evidence of that.

I asked:

: And yet, Orach Chayim 240 *IS* "black-letter halakhah and objective
: rules", is it not?

RMB suggested:

> Perhaps not. Is OC 1 black-letter halakhah? Is hitting the snooze
> button, or even lying around for a few seconds before getting up,
> actually assur? For that matter, there is a mitzvah to remember
> right vs left when putting on and tying shoes, but do you really
> think someone was oveir an issur if they don't?

I agree that there are degrees of obligation. A simple verb like "yaaseh"
clearly implies a smaller obligation than "chayav laasos". "Must" is much
stronger than "should". But if a subject makes it into Shulchan Aruch - as
these did - that also shows a stronger obligation than something that
appears only in Mesilas Yesharim, or even Gemara for that matter.

Yes, I do think that when the alarm clock rings, one has an obligation to
seriously consider whether he really *needs* to stay in bed a little
longer, or whether he merely *wants* to. And I will admit that - b'shaas
maaseh - I rarely consider that as seriously as I should. And that's one of
the things I'm trying to improve on. Same thing for tying my shoes - I
think that by now I do it correctly by habit, but I'm not really sure, and
I'll try to remember to watch myself tomorrow morning.

RMB wrote:

> Whereas moredes has no parallel because she cannot initiate a gett. And
> for that matter, it has no parallel because he is obligated to support
> here. For that matter, the assymetry in who supports who is quite
> possibly why HQBH set up an assymetric process for gittin. The man who
> obligates himself in support can get of it.

Yes, I agree that this could be part of why Hashem set it up that way. But
I find it curious that Chazal set up safeguards to prevent the husband from
abusing his powers in these areas, and no corresponding safeguards prevent
the wife from abusing hers.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Old School Yearbook Pics
View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55c0f0f9c892870f9653ast02vuc


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



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


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


***************************************

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.)