Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 177

Monday, March 1 1999

• Computer Virus and nezikin
• Re: Avodah V2 #176
• roman letter
• Intellectual honesty
• Sedar Olam Rabbah and missing 165 years
• trusting chazal
• Shittas HaGro
• Albert Einstein
• Binding
• 420 years: Marei Mekomos
• Re: Computer Virus and nezikin
• Re: lifneihem, zeicher, etc.
• Taanis Esther, 4 Pesukkim
• Re: Avodah V2 #175
• Onen on Purim
• Re: Onen on Purim
• Re: 420 years and Yechezkel 30
• Re: Late start for s'uda
• Re: chazal and historical accuracy
• Re: 420 years and Yechezkel 30
• Re: Historicity of Zohar/R. Kasher's Critique of Scholem
• Re: P Zachor/ Purim
• Re: chazal and historical accuracy

Reuven sends Shimon a file which contains a virus. The virus destroys
Shimon's computer and costs much time and money. What financial
liability does Reuven bear for the file he sent?  Can Reuven argue that
Shimon should have had an updated anti-virus program?

Subject: 420 years

> 
> I would, like, however, to note my deep disappointment in Mitchell First's
> work, and in R' Eli's citation of it, in that it ignores the substance of
> the dialogue that Mr. First engaged in with - if memory serves me
> correctly - Brad Aaronson, and, by extension, Prof. Chefetz of Israel, who
> did a masterful job justifying the traditional chronology based on work by
> Immanuel Velikovsky - no friend of Torah or Chazal, but a creative
> thinker, whose work, once largely ignored, has been given more and more
> credence by the scientific community over time. I give R' Michael the
> credit of at least mentioning the arguments, while blithely dismissing
> them.
> 
I would appreciate it if someone would present the arguments of
Brad Aaronson and Prof. Chefetz instead of just quoting them.

BTW First's work was a thesis under Shnayer Leiman and to the best of my
knowledge Shnayer agrees with the conclusions.

Just to review the key points: Herodotus lived way before the perisan
empire according to Chazal and so it is hard to see how he discusses them.
Also he is not the only contemporary Greek historian to list the Persian
kings. However, the most impressive evidence is the archaelogy lists written
in ancient Persian that detail the chronology - is that also a forgery?

As to Chazal's interpretation of Ezra they claim that the various names
refer to the same kings. I personally find it hard to believe that a
straightforward reading of Ezra agrees with the secular history but that
in reality the various names are for some reason used for the same people.
There are also statements that all sorts of people in Tanach, Ezra,
Malachi, Daniel were really the same people. These seems to be a general
derech in Chazal.

Purin sameach,
Eli Turkel

While on the topic of forgeries, I once read (in a book on the Griz!)
that the letter that Yavetz quotes in his siddur from a Roman visitor
to Jerusalem is a also a forgery.
Does anyone have any information pro or con?

Purim Sameach,
Eli Turkel

I wish to respond to an incorrect and disparging remark made by
Elie Ginsparg in Avodah V2 # 172 in the course of his attack on
G. Scholem and others, viz. 

> I'm glad I always believe aristotle and einstien who maintained
> the universe always existed. I get such nachas when I read about
> Einstein's intellectual honesty when he introduced a fudge factor to  > help maintain that the world always existed. Thanks to the pursuit of > truth it was finally proven that the world had a begining.

From the context and the writer's mocking tone, it is apparent that the
paragraph is to be taken sarcastically. However, there is no evidence
supporting this attack on Einstein's intellectual honesty. Let us
examine why Einstein introduced the so-called "cosomological constant",
apparently what Mr. Ginsparg refers to as a "fudge factor". In his 1917
paper "Kosmologische Betrachtungen zur allgemeinen Relativitatstheorie"
(Cosmological Considerations on the General Theory of Relativity"
Einstein writes:

 "That term is necessary only for the purpose of making possible a
quasi-static distribution of matter, AS REQUIRED BY THE FACT OF THE
SMALL VELOCITIES OF THE STARS." (my emphasis)

That is, when Einstein formulated the General Theory of Relativity, the
universe was generally believed to be static. To account for this,
he was forced to introduce the so-called "cosmological term". Some
thirteen years later, Hubble discovered the expansion of the universe.
Einstein, calling the cosmological constant "the biggest blunder of my
life" abandoned it and returned to his original equations.


Whether the universe is static, expanding or contracting has little or
nothing to do with the question of whether or not the world was created
by G-d. Unfortunately, many misinformed individuals seem to think that
the so-called "Big Bang" model confirms that Biblical creation story.
I refer all such people to Steven Hawking's "The First Threee Minutes"
to show that there is no connection between Big-Bang cosmology and
creationism. Hawking leaves as little room for G-d as Aristotle while
Newton, who believed in a static universe, believed in the creation
story of the Bible.

In any case, there is no basis for accusing Einstein of a lack of
intellectual honesty. At the time he wrote his paper, there
was no reason to believe the universe is not static (which has NOTHING
to do with the entirely non-scientific question of whether the entire
static universe was created, ex-nihilo, at some point in the past!).
When he became aware of contrary experimental evidence (the connection
between redshift and distance), Einstein modified his equations to
conform with this experimental fact. Instead of showing that Einstein
was intellectually dishonest, this whole story highlights his
intellectual honesty !
 

Dr. Saul Stokar

Just a quick note in terms of lower criticism. The main issue in the
discussions concerning the missing 165 years is based on the gemarah
having a girsah of the sedar olam that gave 52 years for the persain
period. There are actually two extant girsos of the sedar olam, the other
girsah has 250 (if I remember it correctly) which would be much closer to
general chronologies. You are still left with the problem that Chazal in
the gemarah either chose the version with 52 years or only had that
girsah. 


Avi Feldblum
mail-jewish Moderator
mljewish@shamash.org

A new book "Har Shalaem" by Hagaon R. Shlomo Min-Hahar Shlita was
just published.  The book is split into two sections.  The first deals with
issues in Tanakh and the second with the Bait Hamikdash.

The first article is specifically about the relationship between the 
modern biblical analysis and the words of Chazal.  The article touches on
the 420 year issue without going into much depth.  A section also deals
with the identification of Nechemya as Zerubavel.

R. Min-Hahar's Hebrew is very clear and readable.  Highly recommended.

>> Shlomo Yaffe <syaffe@juno.com> Subject: Re: Shkiah in Avodah 173

Please note that the Shitas HaGra UBa'al HaTanya about Shkiah is also the Shitas
HaGeonim and the Minchas Cohen (predating the Gra etc.) brings down their 
shitos.
If the Group is interested I  will expand on this.<<

Vanahapoch Hu.  please DO expand upon this. I am most interested.

re: the first point, I don't question the Gro's lomdus.  It makes a lot of 
sense. Let me give you a reductio ad absurdum.  If we could show beyond a doubt 
that Beis Shamma's reasoning was superiro to Beis Hillel, would we change the 
pask?  No.  Because we have decided to Follow Beis Hillel (with some noted 
excpetions).

The facts are that the shitos brought down by the Gro were ignored in Europe for
centuries.  I am not aware of one kehillo pre-Gro or Baal haTanyo that used 
those zmanin in Germany, Hungary, Lita, etc. etc.

My conclusions:
1) The minhog ispo facto ratified the shitos that argued with the Geonim,
2) We have no right to change our minhoggim wholesale simply based upon lomdus.
3) The existence of the Geonim's shito is as applicable as say the Behag's shito
re: mitzvos as compare to the Rabmam'.s IOW why not include mitzvo derabbanon in
the 613?  If someone di that NOW, it would be radical.  But the Behag did!
4)  What about future implications? If I can show  that the geoninm ate kitniyos
on Pesach, can we ashkenazim just suspect our minhog based upon this?  Or if I 
can show Nusach Ari to be superior?  Or what if I now bring arachaeological 
evicence to back up Rabbeinu Tam's tefillin? 
5) Once a halocho has been rooted, it cannot be seimply uprooted even if you 
bring down:
Tannonim,
Amoraim 
Geonim
Rishonim.

Nevertheless, on a lmdus level, I have no problem agreeing and saying that the 
Gro makes more sense than does his baalei plugto.

Now let's cross over a thread.  The Gemoro says that Bayis Sheini was 420 years.
How many of you would find physical and logical evidence sufficent to overrule 
this Gemoro?  If we do not overturn the Gemoro re: history, kal vocheom legabei 
halocho!  Hhalocho has other criteria than simply making sense, remember R. 
Eliezer and lo bashomayim he?

In fact, one could argue that since generations of Jews were aware of the 
Geonim's shito and ignored it, that they essentially argued with it.  I.e., if 
the Gro were mehadesh something you MIGHT argue that had the Maharal or the Rmo 
know it, they would have agreed with it.  Aderrabo, they knew it and still chose
not to do it.

Rich Wolpoe  

>>Yet Albert Einstein, A genious yet a kofer,  is defended
because of his genious in his subject area from criticism which is historically 
true (my source is the book Fingerprint on the universe--I think page 32). This
is just plain SHEKER. By the way, since I believe that Reishish Chachma
Yiras Elokim----It does give a right to comment, Al wasn't even a chacham.
With all those brains, he couldn't see HAshem. It must be Purim
(venahafochu) when people who make up psaht against the mesorah which
degrade chazal are praised , and people who cite historically acurate
criticism against a known Kofer are condemned, It was nice Purim Torah.
Elie Ginsparg <<    

No doubt AE was no a mmain by our standars but he clearly saw the universe as 
the handiwork of the Creatore and is often quote as saying  "G-d does not play 
dice with the universe" implying a rational, engineered universe and NOT a radom
one.

One of the very few times I heard R. Yaakov Kaminetzky speak was at a Torah 
uMesorah dinner.  Apparently a popular debate in the E. European Yeshivos was 
who was the bigger genius, R. Chayim brisker or AE?  The sense of the drosho was
had AE been expose to the Day schools via torah u'Mesorah, he could have been a 
gaon equal to or greater than R. Chayim and chaval that it did not happen.  And 
that is why Torah uMesorah is so ipmoartan because it could prevent another 
future R. Chayim from becoming an AE. etc.

Rich Wolpoe

>>Or Ketizad naaseh binding v'keitzd lo naaseh binding?<<

We discussed this topic of what is beinding legabeie Hilchos Pesach and here 
what we've concluded so far:

Matzo is very very binding!

Kitniyos is binding for Ashkeanzim but not neccesarily binding for Sephardim.

Similarly, Matzo Ashiro is not so binding but it depends if the person is a 
choleh or zoken, etc.

Happy Purim,
 Rich Wolpoe

On Mon, 1 Mar 1999, Eli Turkel wrote:

> I would appreciate it if someone would present the arguments of Brad
> Aaronson and Prof. Chefetz instead of just quoting them. 
>

This is not my responsibility, as I did not claim to present a balanced
detailed view of both sides of the issue. Those who claim to do so, are
required to muster all sources and resources on both sides. You are all
welcome to order tapes EH 36-37 from the Brandman Tape Library that
address the topic :-). Mr. First, without any significant elaboration,
notes Prof. Heifetz's essay in Megadim 1991 pp. 78-147, and then notes (in
a tone I find somewhat dismissive) Brad Aaronson's dialogue with him in
the summer and fall issues of JA 1991 (Jewish History in Conflict, pp.
41-44). Ayain sham (v'sham, v'sham, v'sham)! 
 
> BTW First's work was a thesis under Shnayer Leiman and to the best of my
> knowledge Shnayer agrees with the conclusions. 
> 

Name dropping is always helpful! The other points I already addressed. I
see you did not deal with Yechezkel 30. Hatzlocho!

Purim Samei'ach!
YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

I believe this is a classic case of "garmi" not "grama", and there would
therefor be commensurate liability. I believe the parallel case in the
Gemoro is "soreif shetarosov shel chaveiro". It is not recorded that the
chaver need have taken special precautions.

On the other hand, oness might apply if Reuven was completely unaware of
the potential damage, v'tzorich iyun!

On Mon, 1 Mar 1999, Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer wrote:

> Reuven sends Shimon a file which contains a virus. The virus destroys
> Shimon's computer and costs much time and money. What financial
> liability does Reuven bear for the file he sent?  Can Reuven argue that
> Shimon should have had an updated anti-virus program? 
> 

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

>>>Having said all that it is never-the-less absolutely clear what the most
correct girsoh actually is, indeed we know that much better today than they
did
in the 19th century when this new minhog got off the ground.<<<

Just to note that the points M. Frenkel makes are developed at length by R'
Mordechai Breuer in an article on this topic where he proves conclusively
(IMHO) what the girsa is.  Unfortunately, I do not have the article tachas
yadi, but for those interested in doing some library work on the topic, its
out there.

-Chaim

1) Taanis Esther, KSA and others point out that 13 Adar was the day of the 
Milchomo and therefore we fast.  Ok, even if given that 13 Adar commemorates the
fast of the day of the battle, what about the name Taanis Esther?  Wouldn't this
shito concede that at least the name is a reference tohe 3 day fast ordained by 
Esther - even though that fast was in Nisson?

BTW,  I once heard that we could not commemorate that fast in Nisson because we 
do not fast in chodesh Nisson, so it was moved to 13 Adar.  If anyone know of 
sources, I'd be much obliged.

2)  The 4 pesukkim we say out loud.  
Why do we say them at all? 
Why these 4 and not others?

Rich Wolpoe

>>Marijuana!
This leads to all sorts of transcendent meditations...
Good Shabbos and Freilichen Purim!
YGB<<

and some Native-American Indians burn Peyote in their rituals.  I wonder if they
are indeed from one of the 10 lost tribes <smile>

Rich Wolpoe

Chaim Brown asks:

"(2) Saw psak quoted in the name of Chayei Adam (couldn't find it inside)
that
an onen can eat basar v'yayin at seudas purim (see P.T Y.D. 341 who is
choleik) and must say berachos/bentch as it is a chiyuv.   Don't see why the
chiyuv seudah should change the din - it might create a heter for
basar/yayin,
but not a chiyuv tefilah."

Where did Chaim brown see the psak? In Chochmas Adam, in the section on
minhagei tahara entitled Matzeves Moshe for Rabbi Danzig's son, the author
states that his son, Moshe, fell ill and on Purim morning was near death.
Not wanting to miss the mitzvas seudah which would have been *prohibited*
when, as he anticipated, he would become an onen, the soon-to-be bereaved
father ate a seudas Purim with basar ve-ya-yin. He states about himself that
he was a "zariz ve-niscar." He also mentions that he was certain that had he
lived, Moshe would have been a considerable talmid chochom.

Blessings for a Purim with all its joyous salvations.

Noach Witty

> Chaim Brown asks:
>
> "(2) Saw psak quoted in the name of Chayei Adam (couldn't find it inside)
> that
> an onen can eat basar v'yayin at seudas purim (see P.T Y.D. 341 who is
> choleik) and must say berachos/bentch as it is a chiyuv.   Don't see why the
> chiyuv seudah should change the din - it might create a heter for
> basar/yayin,
> but not a chiyuv tefilah."
>

Excuse me if I repeat what has been said since I haven't paid much attention to
this thread. Shulchan Aruch 696:7 states that an onen is permitted to have meat
and wine. The Remah adds the onen is even more so obligated in reading the
megila and prayer and krias Shma. but it appears to me that is only at night
even if the mais is mutal lefanav but during the day.... The Baer Hagolah says
this is the opinion of the Orchos Chaim.  The Mishna Berura (24) notes that even
though the Mechaber holds that there is aveilus on Purim but not anenus....

                           Daniel Eidensohn

Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:

> Now, both R' Michael and R' Daniel scored me for quoting a quack. The
> question is not whether he was a quack or not - let us stipulate that he
> was - but rather whether occasionally he may have quacked corrctly. He did
> so, to the mind of the scientific community, in stating that the dinosaurs
> were annihilated by a comet striking Earth, and we now "know" that the
> comet struck the Yucatan Penisula.

I'd like to publicly distance myself from Rabbi Bechhoffer's approach. My
defense of the Zohar was based on the observation that the basis of validity
differs between the primarily text based scholarship of the secular historian
and the primarily oral traditions of the kabbalists. I find it particularly
problematic to mix evidence from the religious and secular worlds in the way
Rabbi Bechhoffer is. Bringing support from questionable non religious analysis
- which happens to coincide with the religious position. Chazal don't need
Velikovsky's support. If you want to show agreement between the two approaches
- widely accepted material needs to be brought. This is assuming of course you
are interested in convincing someone of the validity of your position. A frum
yid should not need the evidence from secular sources. A secular person would
expect to see respected evidence. What is happening is that the proofs brought
from disreputable sources serve primarily to reinforce the position of the
committed (by disparaging secular scholarship) while creating disrespect (in
the eyes of the non traditional) for the standard of evidence that religious
people use to support their arguments. In addition the attitude is created or
encouraged that secular scholars are inherently intellectually dishonest and
that science is a transient phenomenon which can be sneered at when it
apparently  conflicts with religion. If Velikovsky occasionally quacks in tune
with chazal - why aren't there other more respectable sources that say the
same thing? If he is a das yachid - it does nothing to increase the
credibility of your position by citing him.

                                         Purim Sameach

                                          Daniel Eidensohn

<<
"How did the minhog come about of eating the Purim Se'udo towards the
end of the  day?  When researching Purim b'erev Shabbos, it seemed clear
that any time after Chatzos was good, and zrizim makdimim would imply
the sooner the better.  yet In yeshivos we always began the Se'udo
within about an hour before sunset.
>>

I was always led to understand that we do this so that we can say al hanissim
on Shushan Purim as well, as the meal extends into Shulshan Purim.  Of course
this would not answer for walled cities.  But is the custom the same there as
well?

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

<<
I am simply bewildered why Chazal's dating on this - meisi'ach lefi tumam -
many times in Yerushalmi Bavli and other sources - should not be accepted
as weightier than Greek accounts.
>>

I really did not want to get involved in this whole issue, but I want to make
one simple point.  Chazal, if they had a reason to gloss over 160-odd years of
history, would have been consistent in their dating.  If there was a reason,
then any date they give can not be defined as "meysiach l'fi tumam".  Their
dating was premeditated, not give nin an offhand manner.  I am not weighing in
on either side of this issue, just bringing up a point.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

On Mon, 1 Mar 1999, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:

> I'd like to publicly distance myself from Rabbi Bechhoffer's approach.

In this spirit, I would liek to publicly distancne myself from Rabbi
Eidensohn's approach (Happy Purim everybody! :-) ).

Seriously, thereare several issues here worth noting.

1. R' Avrohom Elya Kaplan, my hero, notes that his grandfather leant
Tanach with the infamous "Biur" - if it was good it was good, regardless
of the source. In this vein, I believe, R' Yisroel Salanter republished
the Cheshbon HaNefesh regardless of its questionable origins.

Similarly, the point is not whether Velikovsky said something or R' Chaim
Brisker said it. Chazal actually, as well, need neither V's support or
that of RCB. But it enhances my understanding of an Halachic sugya to see
RCB, of an Aggadic sugya to see the Maharal, and an historical sugya to
see Velikovsky - or any other historical source. I may not choose to use
this or any other tool - but it may enhance my understanding, and be
meyashev setiros, to do so. I am not of the school that religious and
secular worlds are distinct. I do not believe the GRO held that way -
although I think RYB Soloveitchik possibly did. If you want we can discuss
this another time. And, again, Velikovsky is not the source - Chazal are.
Velikovsky is a tool to use to reconcile Chazal, for those who might be
interested (myself included) with historical data. I am not out to
convince (on Avodah, we know, that is next to impossible! :-) ). Torah he
v'lilmod *ani* tzorich.

One more point. To iterate or reiterate which authorities secular sources
find valid smacks of high school textbookism at its worst. Except for a
casual swipe by RMF, I do not see, as of yet, someone openly discussing
the Velikovsky model objectively and la'inyan. It boils down to merely a
question of his authority in the secular world. Who cares?! It is pshat in
Chazal we want to understand, and their authority (while not infallible!
:-) ) is pretty good...

Purim Samei'ach!

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

I would like to publicly thank and acknowledge REC's masterful summation
of both viewpoints on this topic, which composition can serve as a model
for discussion on Avodah. Yeyasher kochacha!

On Thu, 25 Feb 1999, Clark, Eli wrote:

> As promised, I summarize below R. Kasher's response to Scholem's
> arguments regarding the authorship of the Zohar (from Sinai Sefer Yovel
> [Jerusalem, 1958], 40-56).  As I mentioned in my previous post, everyone
> who is interested should study the original, if possible.  R. Kasher
> also addresses the arguments of I. Tishby in Mishnat ha-Zohar
> (Jerusalem, 1949).
> 

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

In a message dated 2/28/99 11:26:13 AM EST, C1A1Brown@aol.com writes:

> 1) Shmuel HaNavi tells Shaul he has "done evil in the eyes of Hashem".  Asks
>  the Chafetz Chaim, the sin of Shaul was b'shev v'al ta'aseh, Shaul failed
to
>  completely fufill the words of the navi, so how can he be described as
>  "*doing* evil".  Answers the C"C, by failing to adhere to Shmuel's words,
>  Shaul demonstrated his motivation was based on his own reasoning, not based
> on
>  the dvar Hashem, which means he had no matir to wage war and was guilty of
>  murder.  L'chorah this means anyone who fights a milchemes mitzva she'lo
>  lishma is guilty of retzicha - I see no difference bwteen a heter milchama
>  based on nevuah and one based on mitzva.  Is there a makor for such a
>  chiddush?

This reasoning is also used to explain why ben kuziva was chayov missoh, as he
had din of rodef since he was not moshiach.

likewise this argument was used by Shimshon that if his burning of the fields
was a personal issue then he had din of rodef.

>  (3) "lamah nimnu shnosav shel Yishmael" (Meg. 17) - Rashi: why do we care
to
>  know about the lifespan of a *rasha*.  Didn't Yishmael do tshuvah at the
end
>  of his life? 

Ulhagdil the question Rashi Al Hatorah (Breishis 25:7) after bringing Mamar
Chazal 
Lamah Nimnu... goes on to say that Gvioh refers to Tzadikim, the answer that
came to mind I saw after wards in the MaHaRShA Al Asar, so Ayin Shom, I would
just add that by Sarah (23:1) and Avrohom (25:7) we Darshan the years to
compare Blo Cheit which by Yishmoel we don't (even though that is says 3
seperate times Shana, and even though that Nasu Loi Kizochiyos, there is
discussion whether by BN there is geder of Tshuvoh not just Mniaas Ho'onesh
Vcheteich Bztdokoh Frook).
 
Happy Purim!

Yitzchok Zirkind  

On Mon, 1 Mar 1999 EDTeitz@aol.com wrote:
> 
> I really did not want to get involved in this whole issue, but I want to make
> one simple point.  Chazal, if they had a reason to gloss over 160-odd years of
> history, would have been consistent in their dating.  If there was a reason,
> then any date they give can not be defined as "meysiach l'fi tumam".  Their
> dating was premeditated, not give nin an offhand manner.  I am not weighing in
> on either side of this issue, just bringing up a point.
> 
> Eliyahu Teitz
> Jewish Educational Center
> Elizabeth, NJ
> 
If it's true that Chazal did gloss over 160 years of history (although
it's hard to believe that no one figured it out right away--since the
glossed over period is relatively close to the period of the glossing :))
then should we be trying to ungloss it. What I'm saying is that if Chazal
had a reason to falsefy history, then shouldn't we buy into it, wouldn't
this be part of emunas Chachamim. It seems to be possible that we have a
chiuv to be decieved since Chazal wanted us to be decieved. Just a
thought---
p.s. I am aware That A.E. was modeh al haemes in the end. I felt (as it
was presented to me) that his
initial attempt was a lack of intellectual honesty, I can understand if
someone interpreted it otherwise.
Elie Ginsparg

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]